"Let those undertake it who are able to convince the gainsayers from the word of God, that such preaching was commanded by the Lord; and that the preaching of his servants as long as we have a Scriptural history of it furnishes a practical example of this mode of preaching the gospel."
From my studies of the history of the Hardshells since Watson uttered those words, in 1866, I can testify that none among them were "able" to do so. Rather, the slanders increased among the "ultraists" against those, like Watson, Thompson and others, who preached evangelistically. The charge of "Arminianism" by the "ultaists," by those who felt no duty to preach to "every creature," against those who preached after the apostolic example, as did Watson, Grigg Thompson, John Clark, was indeed a slander and what Watson called, an "attempt to find Arminianism where there is none."
There are three things worth noting from the above words of Dr. Watson as this chapter is introduced.
1. "Such preaching was commanded by the Lord."
2. "We have a scriptural history of it."
3. "Scriptural example of this mode of preaching."
This chapter will begin to prove these things and ironically, from one who has been and is yet a true "Old Baptist," yours truly. I feel confident that Dr. Watson, Thompson, and Clark, were they alive today, would countenance this work I am doing.
Watson also said, in the previous chapter's citations:
"A gospel without exhortation; and without a call on the sinner to repent and believe; a gospel which does not in word address itself to all; is not the gospel which Christ ordained subordinately for the bringing in of his “other sheep.”" (Pages 84-86)
No Hardshell, in this day and time, can read these words and not feel indicted! And it was uttered by one of the founding fathers of Hardshellism, a founding father who is everywhere claimed as "one of their own"!
They do not preach the gospel! That is Dr. Watson's indictment. Yea, today's Hardshells are even suppressors and hinderers of this kind of gospel preaching! What does this say about their own state of salvation?
Said Watson further:
"...a gospel which does not in word address itself to all; is not the gospel which Christ ordained."
Again, this is an indictment of Hardshellism as it has evolved today. It is a clear case of "leaven being introduced into the meal till the whole was leaven." He could hope for "reform," for a back tracing of their steps, but it was too late, and Dr. Watson held on to a vain hope in believing that the leaven could be expelled.
Elder John Clark
As I have researched more in depth the history of the Hardshells I have discovered several additional surprises. I say "surprises" because I was (and continue to be), amazed at the false information I was fed from the Hardshells about their history. During those years, when I was a young minister among them, when I "sat at the feet of the elders," the Hardshell kind of "seminary," I was often told of the old preachers, who stood opposed to the "missionaries," men like Elder Wilson Thompson and his son Grigg, of Elder John Clark and Elder John Watson, were "one of their own," and that they believed and practiced things just like the Hardshells do today. I have since discovered how many falsehoods the Hardshells have put forth relative to their own history, how they believe things without the least shred of evidence, and even continue to believe those falsehoods no matter what historical records and facts are brought to their attention. It is just more proof that they indeed are a "cult," as I have already shown and demonstrated.
I have already called forth two "anti-mission" Hardshell Baptist, men who are recognized as being "Primitive." Many Hardshells who will read this work will be amazed at the information contained in it, information which has been conveniently withheld from the general assembly of Hardshells. They will learn things about their founding fathers and revered leaders that they will not want to readily acknowledge is true. I have already seen this with regard to my own father. I regularly talk to him about these things and he is very, very reluctant to acknowledge facts which he has extreme bias against believing.
So, before I go further in this look at "Addresses to the Lost," in the Scriptures, let me call forth some more witnesses on this matter, from more of the Hardshell "founding fathers."
Elder John Clark was a widely recognized leader among the Hardshells in the mid 1800's, being editor of one of their leading periodicals, in Virginia, the "Zion's Landmark." This paper was, many years later, taken over by Elder John R. Daily (whom I have already mentioned more than once, and will have more to say). Here is what Elder Daily said about Elder Clark.
"Zion's Advocate is a magazine dear to the hearts of many of the Lord's children. To hundreds of them it has long been a precious, welcome visitor. The name of its founder, Eld. John Clark, is still a household word in many homes. We hope to continue to make it what its name imports and what its respected and beloved founder intended it to be an advocate of the cause of Zion."
In a book recently published again by the Hardshells, "Biographical History of Primitive or Old School Baptist Ministers of the United States," we find Elder Clark mentioned in these favorable words.
He was born in 1804 in Orange county, Virginia. He was "baptized by Elder Daniel Davis in 1829. He was ordained in 1831 by Elders R. B. Semple, L. W. Battle and A. H. Bennett and commenced the work of the ministry..."
It is also said, in this biography, that he "commenced the publication of Zion's Advocate in 1852 and was editor over twenty eight years, and has left behind him a vast amount of solid information."
And, it is said that Elder Clark "was looked upon by some as the leading minister of the Old School Baptists in Virginia." (Pages 64,65)
Now, today's Hardshells will not want to give up Elder Clark, as they are willing to do with Elder Watson (although Hassell and Grigg Thompson had high regard and fellowship with Elder Watson), nor will they be at all willing to hear the things that will be presented by Elder Wilson Thompson either. It will become evident that today's Hardshells would not fellowship a large majority of the first Harshells because they believed in means and in calling upon all men to repent and believe the gospel, for salvation, although they did protest heavily against much of the "mission methodology" of the Baptist denomination.
But, let us now hear from Elder Clark now that his Hardshell credentials have been substantiated.
He wrote:
"The question is settled, that preaching, which is the Gospel of Christ, is what is in harmony God’s revealed will, and in strict accordance with the word of his grace. Upon the question of how this work is to be performed, we have the examples of Christ and his apostles for our guide."
This is exactly what Elder Watson said in the citation given at the outset of this chapter. All one has to do, to answer the question as to whether the gospel is to be preached to all so that all might have opportunity to be saved, is to look at all the preaching done by Christ and the apostles. Can we see them preaching to any who are not regenerated? What did they tell them? Well, Elders Watson, Thompson, and Clark all knew the results of that look. We will do this too in the next chapter.
He wrote further:"The apostles were men of like passions with us. They had the same class of persons to preach to that we have. “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God,” was in the ministry of John the Baptist." In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea and saying,"Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” After the baptism of Jesus and the forty days’ conflict with the Devil, and after John was committed to prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the Gospel of the kingdom of God and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent and believe the Gospel." The apostles preached after this example, and according to the command of Christ, repentance and remission of sins among all nations."
Elder Clark saw clearly that Jesus and the apostles preached to those who were clearly not regenerated or born again and that they called upon them to repent, believe, come to Christ for salvation, etc.He then wrote:
"But some object and say, Why preach repentance to dead sinners? They can neither hear, see nor understand. That is true; that they hear not, see not, understand not, so far as the preacher is concerned or is able to effect them; but why did the prophet call upon the dry bones to hear the word of the Lord? He answered, “And I prophesied as I was commanded.” That was authority then for all who feared God, and it is still the authority for all such. This objection, however, will lie against all the exhortations and admonitions to the saints as it does against addresses to the ungodly, for the Christian has no more power than the unbeliever."
He is hammering the same thing as did Elder Watson! He is fighting the "Ultraists" and the "Antinomians" too! It seems very clear to me that Elder Clark believed in means, did not believe what Hardshells (and the "Gospel Standard Strict Baptists" of England in the mid 1800s) did on this matter of whether the gospel is to be preached indiscriminately to all men.Clark wrote again:
"The theory that we must preach to men according to the power they possess to obey is sublimated Arminianism, and yet; the advocates of it are very fraid of being called Arminians. Christians know, however, by the word of his grace, and by the revelation of that word in their hearts, when it comes in power and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance, that Christ’s word is true which says, “Without me you can do nothing.” The Spirit takes the word of Christ and shows it to his people, and thus it is verified in the experience."
Again, this just echoes what Elder Watson wrote. But, let us hear Elder Clark further.
"To preach to men upon the ground that they have power to do what is commanded, or to refuse to preach to them because they have not the power, shows that the confidence is in the flesh and not in God; that they depend upon the will of the flesh and not upon the power God, and that is the very essence, double refined, of Arminianism."
And again, he said:
"The minister of Christ does not preach to any class of men upon the consideration of their ability or inability."
("What To Preach and How To Preach" in Zion's Advocate--August 1875 -- http://primitivebaptist.info/mambo//content/view/1112/36/)
And again he writes:
"When many of our people ran wild, a few years ago, in support of a great many institutions, which we considered as innovations in the house of God, our churches and ministers that remained seemed to have pressed very far to the other extreme, and so many have settled down upon the plan of not doing anything whatever to promote the cause of Christ and display the glory of God. Hence, when a minister exhorts to the performance of works of faith and labors of love, and is himself diligent in business, fervent in spirit serving the Lord, and insists upon the prompt compliance with all that Christ has commanded by those that love him, those hyper straight-laced brethren become alarmed, lest he should run into Arminianism." ("Correction In Churches" in Zion's Advocate--November 1869)
Were Elder Clark around today, in 2007, what would he see among those who put "Primitive Baptist" over their doors? He would see them as nothing but what he called "hyper straight-laced brethren"! He would be disappointed, like Elder Watson, could he also return, for he would see that the "Ultraists" and "extemists" won out! It is a truly sad epitat to write on the tombstone of the "Hardshells."
Notice how we have terms (labels), other than "Hardshell," of course, or "anti-mission" Baptist, or "Old School," for these people, and from their own too! The are "Ultraists," and "Antinomians," and "Parkerites," and "hyper straight-laced"!
Now let us hear from one whom nearly all Hardshells acknowledge as truly "one of their own," a veritable "founding father." I do not cite these words from this founding father to prove that he believed in the use of "means" in regeneration, for that question will be dealt with later when I take up a more extended look at the first Hardshell founding fathers, but to show that he, like many of the first "anti-mission" Baptists, believed in preaching the gospel to all men, saint or sinner.
Elder Wilson Thompson
"Thus we have briefly shewed, that there is but one God and that he is an uncompounded spirit; and that all the world is under the strongest obligation to worship him..."
I take this as proof that he believed it to be an obligation of unregenerate men to do this, and that this includes the worship and adoration of Christ, of putting faith and trust in him.
But, he says further:
"...because man is blind, and deaf; and his whole mind, and conscience, and will depraved; and in order to his ever being prepared for the worship of God, he must be quickened and made alive, and the love of God must be shed abroad in his heart, by the Holy Ghost; his eyes must be opened to see the glory of God, in the face of Jesus; his ears must be unstopt to the voice of the Son of God...he must be renewed in the spirit of his mind, his heart sprinkled from an evil conscience; and his will subdued to the government of Christ: then, and not till then, will he feel his obligation to praise God, but this being done by the spirit, we love his praise, and are thus prepared to be happy in heaven, which we never could have been, without this change; O that this happy change, may be wrought in your soul, reader, if you are not the subject of it; for without it you are wretched; but with it you are blest." ("Simple Truth," Chapter 1)
Notice that Elder Wilson Thompson is clearly talking about the new birth, or of regeneration, of that "happy change," of being "quickened" and "made alive." Yet, what do we see him doing in the address at the end of this writing? He is addressing unregenerated, unquickened, dead sinners, and praying that they might be regenerated! No Hardshell will tolerate this today, but will call it "Arminianism"!
He says further:
"Rom.10:8; and faith cometh by hearing this word; see verse 17, "So then, faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. " The gospel is sent to men as sinners, lying in the ruins of the first Adam, lost and condemned under the sentence of death; and proclaims and reveals the righteousness of Christ, as the justification of the ungodly; but no eye but that of faith can see it, and on this account many are ignorant of the righteousness of God, and are going about to establish their own righteousness, and because faith is the eye to which this righteousness is revealed, it is called the righteousness of faith, Rom.10:6, and this righteousness is manifested, and the law and prophets attest it to be faultless; and warrants the faith of the sinner to trust in it."
He clearly believed, as did Andrew Fuller, as did John Gill, as did his own son, Elder Grigg Thompson, as did Elders Watson and Clark, that the gospel is "worthy of all acceptation."
He writes further:
"A word on faith; faith is a fruit of the Spirit, Gal.5 :22, and so the spirit is called the spirit of faith, because we have no true faith, without it; see n Cor.4:13, "We having the same spirit of faith," &c. This faith is peculiar to God's elect, Tit.1:1, because the gospel by which faith cometh and which is the word of faith, and which reveals the righteousness of God to faith, comes with power and the spirit, only to the elect, although the word be preached to all. See I Thes.1:4,5, "Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God; for our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance. " Christ taught the same where he said, "Ye believe not, because ye are not my sheep, as I said unto you, my sheep hear my voice," &c. The faith of God's elect has Christ and his righteousness for its object..."But this is all contrary to what the Hardshells have come to say doctrinally about the "faith" that is connected with regeneration. They have today made "faith" some unconscious thing, something a man can have and not know it, something an infant in the womb may have, and nothing like the way Thompson and the first Hardshells described "saving faith." But, this will become more apparent in chapters dealing with the changes in doctrine and practice among the Hardshells over the past two hundred years.
But, let us now ask ourselves, When did this "Antinomianism" and "Hyper Calvinism" first begin to manifest itself among the Baptists? And "What is Hyper Calvinism"?Hyper-Calvinism
"Hyper-Calvinism is a pejorative for a theological position that historically arose from within the Calvinist tradition among the early English Particular Baptists in the mid 1700s. It can be seen in the teachings of men like Joseph Hussey (d. 1726), John Skepp (d. 1721), Lewis Wayman (d. 1764), John Brine (d. 1765), and to some extent in John Gill (d. 1771). These teachings were called Hyper-Calvinism by critics who maintained that they deviated from the biblical gospel — a deviation characterized by a denial that the call to repent and believe is universal (that is, for every person) and that a person who is not influenced by the Holy Spirit has a duty to repent and believe in Christ for salvation because he does not actually have the ability to believe in Christ. Although Hyper-Calvinism became widespread among the English Particular Baptists of that day, many Particular Baptists disagreed with the extremes of Wayman, Skepp, and Brine. While this doctrine is a distinct minority view, it may still be found in some small denominations and church communities today." (Wikipedia.org)
"The archetypal Hyper-Calvinist position may be found explicitly set forth in the confessional articles of the Gospel Standard (Baptist) Churches, specifically: Articles of Faith of the Gospel Standard Aid and Poor Relief Societies, (Leicester, England: Oldham & Manton Ltd., n.d.). Article 26 in that publication reads, "We deny duty faith and duty repentance — these terms suggesting that it is every man's duty spiritually and savingly to repent and believe. We deny also that there is any capability in man by nature to any spiritual good whatever. So that we reject the doctrine that man in a state of nature should be exhorted to believe in or turn to God" (emphasis added). And Article 33 says, "Therefore, that for ministers in the present day to address unconverted persons, or indiscriminately all in a mixed congregation, calling upon them to savingly repent, believe, and receive Christ, or perform any other acts dependent upon the new creative power of the Holy Ghost, is, on the one hand, to imply creature power, and on the other, to deny the doctrine of special redemption."
Wayman contends that saving faith was not in the power of man at his best before the fall and therefore makes the following deduction, "What Adam had, we all had in him; and what Adam lost, we all lost in him, and are debtors to God on both accounts; but Adam had not the faith of God's elect before the fall, and did not lose it for his posterity; therefore they are not debtors to God for it while in unregeneracy" (A Further Enquiry after Truth, London: J & J. Marshall, 1738, p. 51).
John Brine gives some insight into Wayman's statement. Brine taught that every duty incumbent on Adam in his unfallen state he also had the ability to perform, and this duty extends to all men in their fallen state regardless of their lack of ability. Brine maintained that a lack of ability does not release a man from duty (with which most Calvinists would agree), but he sees salvation in a different category because, "with respect to special faith in Christ, it seems to me that the powers of man in his perfected state were not fitted and disposed to that act" (A Refutation of Arminian Principles, London, 1743, p. 5.)
Accordingly, saving faith lay not within the powers of man in his unfallen state, because there was no necessity for it. Since, therefore, it was not part of his powers in his unfallen state, it could not now be required of him in his fallen state. On this basis, duty-faith and duty-repentance are denied by the Hyper-Calvinist." (Ibid)
"English Dissenters Problem"
What began with Joseph Hussey, a Congregational minister, in God's Operations of Grace but No Offers of His Grace (1707) and was reinforced by Lewis Wayman in A Further Enquiry after Truth, came into Baptist life principally through John Brine. He contended that the divine word give no warrant for unregenerate men to consider repentance from sin and faith in Christ as their duty. As a corollary, no minister had warrant to call on the unregenerate to repent and believe. "This becomes duty of Men," he explained, "when they have Warrant from the divine Word, to consider God as their Redeemer in Christ, which no unregenerate Men have any Warrant to do." A sinner must know he is elect before he has warrant to believe.
John Ryland describes how this had affected English Baptists.
The same idea was spreading, faster than we were aware, among our churches also: the ministers might distinguish between repentance and faith, and other internal duties; allowing the latter to be required, while they scrupled exhorting men to the former; but had things gone on a little longer in the same direction, we should soon have lost sight of the essence of duty, and of the spirituality of the divine law; and consequently men would have been treated, as though before conversion they were fallen below all obligation, to any thing spiritually good; and as though after conversion they were raised above all obligation, to any thing more than they were actually inclined to perform. Thus inclination would have been confined to the outward conduct, the turpitude of sin unspeakably lessened, and grace proportionably eclipsed, both as to the pardon of sin, and as to the application of salvation to the soul.""
"Robert Hall's adaptation of Edwards on this issue in Help to Zion's Travelers is remarkable. In addition to his recommendation, Hall's organization of Edwards's thought appears to have had an impact on Fuller's treatment."
"This distinction is one of the clear guiding principles of Fuller's Confession of Faith presented to the church in Kettering in 1783. In article 12 he professed "I believe that men are now born and grow up with a vile propensity to moral evil and that herein lies their inability to keep God's law, and as such it is a moral and a criminal inability. Were they but of a right disposition of mind there is nothing now in the law of God but what they could perform; but being wholly under the dominion of sin they have no heart remaining for God, but are full of wicked aversion to him." Later in article 15, he expanded the same theme. "I believe it is the duty of every minister of Christ plainly and faithfully to preach the gospel to all who will hear it; and as I believe the inability of men to spiritual things to be wholly of the moral, and therefore of the criminal kind, and that it is their duty to love the Lord Jesus Christ and trust in him for salvation though they do not; I therefore believe free and solemn addresses invitations calls and warnings to them to be not only consistent, but directly adapted, as means in the hand of the Spirit of God, to bring them to Christ. I consider it as a part of my duty which I could not omit without being guilty of the blood of souls."
"...Fuller's advocacy of means is virtually impossible to challenge."
"Edwards's impact on John Sutcliff may be seen in two clear instances. First, the catechism that Sutcliff first published in 1783 demonstrates how deeply he drank of the Edwardsean fountain. Particularly important, according to Joseph Ivimey, were the issues of "the harmony between the obligations of men to love God with all their hearts, and their actual enmity against him; and between the duty of ministers to call on sinners to repent and believe in Christ for salvation, and the necessity of omnipotent grace to render the call effectual."[18] Sutcliff's catechism gives a notable amount of space to this issue in the term of natural and moral ability and inability."
http://www.founders.org/FJ53/article1.html
"William Gadsby was an outstanding pastor and evangelist. But he was clearly hyper-calvinist in his thinking. He founded a magazine called The Gospel Standard magazine in 1835 - it became the chief bastion of hyper-calvinism among Particular Baptists. Strict and Particular Baptists who accepted Gadsby’s outlook rallied around the magazine and came to be known as Gospel Standard Strict Baptists. After 1860, they formed themselves into a distinct denomination."
"The GS influence was to be a shadow over the church for many years to come. Wherever hyper-calvinism has taken root, it has had a deadening influence on spiritual life and evangelistic endeavour. Hyper-calvinism can take many forms. What form did it take among the Gospel Standard Strict Baptists? We have only to look at the GS Articles of Faith to see. They include the following statements:
XXVI We deny duty faith and duty repentance - these terms signifying that it is every man's duty spiritually and savingly to repent and believe... we reject the doctrine that men in a state of nature should be exhorted to believe in or turn to God....
XXIX While we believe that the gospel is to be preached in or proclaimed to all the world.... we deny offers of grace; that is to say, that the gospel is to be offered indiscriminately to all.
XXXII We believe that it would be unsafe, from the brief records we have of the way in which the apostles, under the immediate direction of the Lord, addressed their hearers in certain special cases and circumstances, to derive absolute and universal rules for ministerial addresses in the present day under widely- different circumstances..."
That is certainly contrary to the views of Elders Watson and Clark! They believed that the kind of preaching done by Christ and the Apostles were our examples! The Hardshells and the Gospel Standard Strict Baptists must admit that they do not preach like Christ or the Apostles. They don't appear ashamed to even admit this!
"XXXIII Therefore, that for ministers in the present day to address unconverted persons, or indiscriminately all in a mixed congregation, calling upon them savingly to repent, believe, and receive Christ, or perform any other acts dependent upon the new creative power of the Holy Ghost, is, on the one hand, to imply creature power, and, on the other, to deny the doctrine of special redemption.According to the GS leaders, sinful people have no duty to repent and believe in Christ. Gadsby and his followers taught that we must not offer the gospel to sinners indiscriminately. They accepted that the Lord Jesus and his apostles did - but then argued that we cannot follow their example. They said that we must never preach to a congregation calling on everyone to repent, believe and receive Christ. They taught that until a person knows that he has been awakened, convicted of sin, regenerated, he has no right or duty to accept Christ’s invitations, to repent and to believe.
The result of such teaching was disastrous among Strict Baptists. Many people in the congregations concluded that since it was not their duty to do anything, they were not to blame for their unconverted state. Week after week they sat under such preaching, saying to themselves ‘Well, I can’t do anything, I’m not supposed to do anything: it’s up to God and I’m not going to worry about it’. Others reacted differently. They longed to be saved, but instead of going straight to Christ in repentance and faith, they spent their time examining themselves, asking ‘have I been convicted deeply enough of sin? Do I know I’m elect? Am I entitled to believe the gospel promises?’
Many Strict Baptist congregations were full of people who remained loyal chapel-goers for many years but who never came to any assurance of faith. Some were complacent unbelievers, others remained anxious seekers all their lives.
And of course, such doctrines strangled evangelistic zeal. How could people who had no certainty of their own salvation testify to others? And the hyper-calvinist preachers had no message for hardened unbelievers. They could urge ‘awakened sinners’ to repent and believe but they could say nothing to complete outsiders who felt no conviction. They could not even say ‘Turn to God’ or ‘Seek the Lord while he may be found..’
Generally speaking, the strict baptist churches which embraced hyper-calvinism withered during the second half of the nineteenth century. In the course of the last century many have been closed. The Charlesworth cause was to know many barren years. Yet in the mercy of God, hyper-calvinist thinking never quite extinguished the gospel flame. The GS Articles quoted above were added to the trust deeds of many Strict Baptist chapels. Happily, that never happened at Charlesworth. Though the church was thought of as a ‘GS cause’ for many years, those life-killing articles were never written into its constitution. As a result, the church has been free in recent years to shake off the shackles of hyper-calvinism and to return to authentic reformed gospel preaching. The men who preach at Charlesworth today are men who believe wholeheartedly in the sovereignty of God and in election. But they also believe in human responsibility - in the duty of every sinner to turn to God in repentance and faith. Who knows? Under such preaching God may yet revive the work again."
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/members/gracebaptist/cbc/history5.htm
Spurgeon's Views on Hyper-Calvinism
"I do not think I differ from any of my Hyper-Calvinistic brethren in what I do believe, but I differ from them in what they do not believe."
"There are some who do not think it to be their duty to go into the highways and hedges and bid all, as many as they find, to come to supper. Oh, no! They are too orthodox to obey the Master’s will; they desire to understand first who are appointed to come to the supper, and then they will invite them; that is to say, they will do what there is no necessity to do (i.e., present the gospel to those who are already saved). In contrast with this, the apostles’ delivered the gospel, the same gospel to the dead as to the living, the same gospel to the non-elect as to the elect. The point of distinction is not in the gospel, but in its being applied by the Holy Ghost, or left to be rejected of man.
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."
"One final quote from a letter to his father will suffice to show Spurgeon’s feelings toward Hyper-Calvinism.
"The London people are rather higher in Calvinism than I am: But I have succeeded in bringing one church to my own views, and will trust, with Divine assistance, to do the same with another. I am a Calvinist; I love what someone called “glorious Calvinism,” but “Hyperism” is too hot for my palate."
http://www.brooksidebaptist.org/articles/Spurgeon%20and%20the%20Battle%20for%20Gospel%20Preaching.pdf
Said a writer:
"In terms of the charge of “Fullerism” – Spurgeon gladly stood with Fuller and quoted Fuller as saying, “No writer of eminence can be named before this present century, who denied it to be the duty of men in general to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ for the salvation of their souls.”"
"He believed that the emphasis articulated by Fuller (to which he had been charged of adhering) was an emphasis to be found in all of the Reformers, Puritans, and ultimately the Scriptures themselves.
History and the Creeds of Protestant Christendom all side with Spurgeon and Fuller in revealing that it was Well’s and his followers and not Spurgeon, who had departed from orthodoxy in this point (duty faith)."
Said Spurgeon:
"Peter preached the Christ of the gospel –preached it personally and directly at the crowd who were gathered around him . . . Grown up among us is a school of men who say that they rightly preach the gospel to sinners when they merely deliver statements of what the gospel is, and the result of dying unsaved, but they grow furious and talk of unsoundness if any venture to say to the sinner, “Believe,” or “Repent.” To this school Peter did not belong–into their secret he had never come, and with their assembly, were he alive now, he would not be joined.”
And again:
"“Repent and be baptized every one of you,” said Peter . . . . I do feel so grieved at many of our Calvinistic brethren; they know nothing about Calvinism I am sorry to say, for never was any man more caricatured by his professed followers than John Calvin. Many of them are afraid to preach from Peter’s text . . . When I do it, they say, “He is unsound.” But I do not care for that; I know the Lord has blessed my appeals to all sorts of sinners, and none shall stay me in giving free invitations as long as I find them in this book."
"The Warrant of Faith lies in the Objective Commands of Scripture and not
in the Subjective Feelings of the Hearer"
"Christ’s ambassadors are authorized to call “on all people of every clime and kindred, to believe the gospel with a promise of personal salvation to each and every one that believes.” The message is not, “Wait for feelings,” it is, “believe and live.” I find Jesus Christ says nothing to sinners about waiting, but very much about coming.’
If we begin to preach to sinners that they must have a certain sense of sin and a certain measure of conviction, such teaching would turn the sinner away from God in Christ to himself. The man begins at once to say, “Have I a broken heart? Do I feel the burden of sin?” This is only another form of looking at self. Man must not look to himself to find reasons for God’s grace.
The gospel is that you believe in Christ Jesus; that you get right out of yourself, and depend alone in Him. Do you say, “I feel so guilty?” You are certainly guilty, whether you feel it or not; you are far more guilty than you have any idea of. Come to Christ because you are guilty, not because you have been prepared to come by looking at your guilt. Trust nothing of your own, not even your sense of need."
“Sinner, in God’s name I command you to repent and believe. Do you turn away and say you will not be commanded? Then again will I change my note . . . I exhort you to flee to Christ. O my brother, dost thou know what a loving Christ He is? Let me tell thee from my own soul what I know of Him . . . I thought that Christ was cruel and unkind. O I can never forgive myself that I should have thought so ill of Him. But what a loving reception did I have when I went to Him . . . Do you know what it is you are rejecting this morning? You are rejecting Christ, your only Saviour . . . I should be worse than a fiend if I did not now, with all love and kindness, and earnestness, beseech you to “lay hold on eternal life” . . . Some Hyper-Calvinist would tell me I am wrong in so doing. I cannot help it. I must do it. As I must stand before my Judge at last, I feel that I should not make full proof of my ministry unless I entreat with many tears that ye would be saved, that ye would look to Jesus Christ and receive his glorious salvation."
"Let a man go to the grammar school of faith and repentance, before he goes to the university of election and predestination." (George Whitefield)
"What mischiefs have been done to the souls of men by men who have preached only one part and not all the counsel of God! My heart bleeds for many a family where Antinomian doctrine has gained the sway. I could tell many a sad story of families dead in sin, whose consciences are seared as with a hot iron, by the fatal preaching to which they listen. I have known convictions stifled and desires quenched by the soul-destroying system which takes manhood from man and makes him no more responsible than an ox. I cannot imagine a more ready instrument in the hands of Satan for the ruin of souls than a minister who tells sinners that it is not their duty to repent of their sins or to believe in Christ, and who has the arrogance to call himself a gospel minister..."
http://www.brooksidebaptist.org/articles/Spurgeon%20and%20the%20Battle%20for%20Gospel%20Preaching.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment