"The commission is still made (1906) a bone of contention. Eld. J. V. Kirkland continues to advocate what the Missionary Baptists have held since their separation from us, agreeing with Throgmorton and differing from Potter in the position those leading men took in their discussion on church identity.
We affirm that the Scriptures teach that the commission, as recorded in Matthew xxviii. 18-20, was not given to the church, but directly to those called and sent forth to preach the gospel."
Observations:
Why does Elder Daily only mention the commission to evangelize as given in Matthew 28: 18-20? Believe me when I say that this is probably no accident, but was what was carefully worded and intended. Why then does he not mention the commission as given by Mark, or by Luke, or by John? But, I will enlarge upon this point shortly.
Why does Elder Daily say that the Missionary Baptist "separated from us"? Is that the way it was? Or, is he trying to "re-write" history like many of his brethren? Actually, many of his brethren have not shunned to admit that they withdrew from the Baptist denomination, and formed their own, and not vice versa.
Who declared non-fellowship against whom? Who assembled brethren together to make a formal declaration of non-fellowship? Who refused to recognize the other as having valid baptisms? Who became a separate denomination with a new name? Who went across the country in the 1800's getting churches, ministers, and associations to take up formal declarations of non-fellowship? Was it the "Missionary Baptists" or the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists?
Daily knows better (or should), but he is just trying to either convince himself, or his owned blinded brotherhood, of what is clearly not the historical truth. Again, as I have said, you have to watch these slick and wily Hardshells in how they cite people (often in a deceptive 'piece-meal fashion'), and in how they phrase things, in how they distort facts, both of scripture and of history, and how they redefine words.
Daily speaks of how the issue of the "Great Commission" was a "bone of contention" (or "hot potato"?) in splits with those Primitive Baptist, like Elders J. V. Kirkland, E. H. Burnam, and many others, who did not believe the "Great Commission" was as limited as Elder Daily believed it was. Then why do the Hardshells, at other times, write as if they have always been united on their understanding of the "Great Commission"?
What they do is "cover up" all the historical information that shows that there were far more Hardshells, particularly in the 1800's, that held to the view that the "Great Commission" was not fulfilled, nor binding only upon the apostles, nor only upon ordained ministers, but upon all disciples. Such information, as it is discovered and revealed, will further show that the view of Elder Daily, the "traditional view," was not the "only one" that was believed. But, I will have more to say on these divisions later when we take up more historical issues.
Who cares what Elder Potter or Throgmorton believed? Daily uses an ad hominem argument, for use only with his Hardshell brothers, over which view, on the "Great Commission," is the "primordial view" of their "forefathers," Elder Daily saying that Elder Potter (his protege, by the way, but more on this later) is a criterion for judging whether a view is correct and Baptistic. In other words, if you agree with what Potter believed and taught, then you are "old liner," and have the "right" to the "claim" of being "correct," and of being truly "Primitive" or "Old School"!
Oh is not this "argument" convincing?! Why has it not historically "won over" many more Missionary Baptists? Why did Elder Daily not mention Elder Clark as a "criterion" for judging soundness and orthodoxy on the matter of evangelism and on the "Great Commision"? especially seeing that Elder Clark was the "forefather" who began the famed "Zion's Advocate" periodical, and which he later took editorship, after Elder Clark's death, and at the turn of the 20th century?
Why did he not mention Elder John Watson as a criterion, one who was there at the beginning of the division in 1832, and before Elder Potter? Could it be because Elder Watson wrote, before he died, in his famous book, "The Old Baptist Test," how he and his Hardshell brothers in the ministry had "violated our commission"? Why does Daily not go back and quote the first Particular Baptists? Why not cite Spilsbury, or Richardson, or Knollys, or Kiffin? Why not cite Keach? But, more on this too in upcoming chapters.
Daily says it very loudly and emphatically - The "Great Commision" was "not given to the church"! It was "given directly" to someone, he affirms, but to whom? He says it was "to those called and sent forth to preach the gospel."
Well, that would certainly be at odds with Elder Beebe, clearly one of the "fathers" of Hardshellism! So, where would that put Elder Daily if he were alive today to answer? Where does it put those today who agree with him? Where does it put dad, and the men who signed the "Pitts Resolution"? Where does it put Elder Ralph Harris, whom I shall cite shortly on this matter, and who presents other arguments to uphold the "strict view" of Elder Beebe and many of today's neo sophisticated Hardshells, but one that is against the traditional view as reflected by men like Elder Daily?
If Elder Daily is right in saying that the "Great Commission" is "given directly to" every ordained gospel minister, then the view that says it has been annulled, or fulfilled, and that it is "no longer binding upon any," in any sense, is clearly false! Elder Daily must have realized this when he wrote this treatise on the "Great Commision" because he does not advocate the view that says the "Great Commission" has been fulfilled," nor advocate the view that says that it is "no longer binding in any respect," but argues rather that it was given to the ministry, albeit not to the church.
Daily believed, like Potter, that the "Great Commission" was not "fulfilled," but still in force and operative, and that every gospel minister is under it, in some measure at least. Thus, the view that says it was "fulfilled" is not correct nor "primitive" teaching, if one uses them as criteria. On the other hand, if one takes Beebe as a criterion, then the view of Daily and of most Hardshells, is not correct nor primitive. Now, which "faction" today is correct on the "Great Commission"?
Daily, and other Hardshell apologists like him, have no problem saying that the "Great Commission" was given to a group (although they might squirm on this point, it being a "hot potato" you know), but they will be careful to qualify exactly which group he gave the Commission, they being sure that all understand that they mean the "apostolic group," or the "ministerial group," but certainly not the general group of disciples, or the church. Why are the Hardshells so determined to eliminate the ordinary disciple from this Commission? Are thet for or against what they have traditionally decried as "priestcraft"? Which?
Elder Daily, after giving us the negative proposition he intends to affirm, i.e., proposing that the "Great Commission" was not given to the church, no not, in any sense, he then continues with his "proofs" of that proposition, affirming that the "Great Commission" does not apply to any and every disciple, but only to the ordained clergy of the Hardshell cult.
He continues:
"Our first argument we deduce from the language of the commission itself. The Saviour said, "Go teach all nations," not send and teach them. We insist that if the commission had been given to the church, as an organic body, the Saviour would have said, Send teachers into all the world. If the commission had been given to the church, the Saviour would have used language susceptible of such an interpretation. To parry the force of this argument, the Missionary Baptists insist that, "as the Lord's Supper was instituted for the whole church to observe, so the commission, 'Go teach all nations,' was in like manner intended wholly for the church." But the church was then in session, and so this ordinance was given as a church ordinance for all to partake of it, because it was a commemorative service. The Saviour gave laws and ordinances for the whole church, but he likewise gave a special command to his ministers to go and preach his gospel, and they only are sent forth under it into all the world."
Elder Daily here repeats the one argument that probably "gets the most play" from Hardshell "defenders of the faith." It is the one "argument" that gets "played" and repeated by both views, by the "strict view" and by the "traditional view," by both those who believed the "Great Commission" has been "fulfilled" and by those who say it is still binding upon all those called into the ministry. He says the "language" of the Savior, in the words "go ye," absolutely cannot, by any laws of philology or linguistics, be made to include any idea of "sending" others, no, not in the least.
He admits his "argument" is merely a presumed logical "deduction" from the words "go ye," and affirms that it is a great violation of language to suggest that those words could possibly include any kind "sending" being done, either by the apostles, or by the ministry, or by the church. But, I have already shown how faulty is Hardshell "logic," have I not? So, what they might think is proper and valid "logical deduction," is not always so. As a side note, recall how I mentioned in an earlier chapter how Elder Daily, in his many debates, often used the term "reductio ad absurdum," being very fond of it, but yet, ironically, he did not always use good logic, as I have shown, and will show yet further.
I will deal with this oft repeated "argument" later in this series, but wish to call attention now, however, to a few things in the above citation, that call for dealing with now while it is fresh in the reader's memory. In dealing with this "argument," I wish to deal with it fully and adequately, and so will not address it fully as yet.
Elder Daily says that the rebuttal argument that had been raised historically against the novel Hardshell view on the "Great Commission," by the "Missionary Baptists," or by those who rejected the hybrid Hardshell interpretation on the "Great Commission," in regard to similar language given to the same group in regard to the Lord's Supper. Recall that Jesus, the night before his was crucified, said to "the eleven" - "take ye" and "eat ye" and "drink ye." It is similar to "go ye," is it not? The rebuttal argument is simple. If Elder Daily's "argument" is correct, then when the Lord said to "the eleven," "eat ye," he meant to exclude all except apostles! Or, perhaps he meant to exclude all except the ministry! Clearly, by Daily's logic and argumentation, the term "eat ye," like the term "go ye," absolutely MUST exclude the ordinary disciple, or the church!
How does Daily deal with this mighty argument, one that absolutely overthrows the Hardshell view? He says - "the church was then (at the time of the Lord's Supper) in session," and therefore it was not for the apostles as apostles, or as assembled, or for them alone, but as a church group!
Well, how does he know that the church was not "in session" when the Lord uttered the words to "the eleven" in Matthew 28? Is there something in the passages, dealing with the Lord's Supper and with the "Great Commission," which make it necessary for the honest exegete to make such a distinction? Or, is it rather a sophisticated tactic of a wily debater, who is not concerned with finding the truth on this subject, but one who simply wishes to defend his cult's hybrid views?
So, let me summarize, before proceeding further with this review of Elder Daily's "arguments" against the idea that the "Great Commission," as given in Matthew at least, was restricted to the ordained clergy, the leading arguments that have been thus far presented in this series and which annihilates the Hardshell hybrid view on the "Great Commission."
1) "Teach them (the discples) to obey (observe) the command to 'go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.'"
2) "Eat ye" the Lord's Supper.
So, really, all the mustered "argumentation" of Daily, and all the other "leading lights" and "apologists" of the Hardshell denomination, against the "Great Commission" being binding upon the church, and upon every disciple, mean absolutely nothing! Nothing they say can overthrow the two arguments above. I still repeat what I said earlier in this regard.
The Hardshells read the words of the "Great Commission" and see it with added words (as they often do), and as saying - "teach every disciple, yea, the whole church, to obey every command I am personally giving to you, EXCEPT FOR THE COMMAND TO GO AND PREACH the gospel, for this command is given alone to you eleven, and applies to no one else, and so don't teach others to obey this command to go." But, as I said, I will enlarge later upon the argument about the words "go ye" necessarily excluding any idea of the apostles or church "sending" anyone to fulfill the "Great Commission."
Elder Daily continues with his next "argument," saying:
"Our second argument we deduce from the fact that women are forbidden by the Scriptures to teach in public. Now if the commission was given to the church, it necessarily follows that all the church, including women, are thereby commissioned to preach the gospel. See I. Cor. xiv. 34, 35. But this the Scriptures contradict, for the apostle says, "Let your women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted unto them to speak, and if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home, for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." See also, I. Tim. ii, 11, 13. The fact that the Missionary Baptists send forth female preachers grows out of their view of the great commission, for if the commission was given to the church, (then) they cannot consistently refuse to ordain them to the work.
What silly argumentation! He is really deficient if this is the best he can come up with, hey? Again, it is obvious that the hybrid and extreme view of the Hardshells has forced (logically, ironically!) them into practicing and promoting the very thing, as I have said, that they have historically decried as being characteristic of Missionary Baptists, which is "priestcraft"!
One can only get the saving gospel from an ordained Hardshell elder! No one else can tell others about Jesus, or announce the good news! According to Daily's interpretation on those passages that forbid women teachers in the assemblies, as leaders and chief spokespersons, a woman cannot even tell her children the story of the gospel! According to Daily and the Hardshells, a woman cannot even witness to her sister!
Daily also "shows his colors" and his extreme hatred for those who believe in preaching the gospel to every creature when he says that it is a "fact" that "Missionary Baptists send forth female preachers," if he means that they ordain them and send them out as formal pastors and evangelists.
But, he is not so careful in his language when he is talking about the wicked Missionary Baptists, as when he tries to speak apologetically for his cult. He knew that the Missionary Baptists, at least in his day, did not ordain women as pastors and formal ministers of the gospel. He also knew that the Missionary Baptists taught all their members, every disciple, male and female, young or old, to "go and tell others about Jesus!" He knew that Missionary Baptists taught disciples to obey the apostolic command to go! But, I will also enlarge upon this also later in this series.
Daily continues:
"Our third argument we deduce from the fact, that, after his resurrection, and after the church was fully organized, by the installation of Deacons, and thousands had joined it, Christ sent forth preachers who traveled and preached extensively and successfully before they were authorized by the church to baptize. Paul and Barnabas both traveled and preached extensively before they were ordained at Antioch. Compare Acts ix. 20-29 and Acts xi. 23-25, with Acts xiii. 2-4. By no other than the immediate authority of Christ did they thus travel and preach the gospel. Paul said, "Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel." I. Cor. i. 17. May it not be concluded from this that the authority to preach the gospel is not to be confounded with the authority delegated to the church?"
How does all this prove that no disciple has either the authority or privilege to announce the good news to others? Also, does the "Great Commission" not give the right to baptize to the same ones to whom he gave the commission to preach and to teach?
I heard Elder Sonny Pyles, one of the most famous of Hardshell preachers of the last 5o years, say in a sermon one time - "the ones Jesus commanded to do the preaching are the same ones that Jesus commanded to do the baptizing."
He was surely stating Hardshell and Landmarker views when he said that; however, does that statement not contradict what Elder Daily says above? To whom did Christ command to authorize baptisms? Elder Daily says the church has the final authority on the matter. Elder Daily says that the ministry was given the commission to do all the teaching and the preaching and the church was to do the baptizing!
Pyles and other Hardshells who share his view are apparently at odds with their forefather, Elder Daily, on this point. But I will deal with this further in my series on "Hardshell Landmarkism." But, the question is - Did the Lord command the ministry or the church to do the baptizing? And I can but repeat again, "consistency thou art a jewel"!
All this reveals how the Hardshell departures in soteriology have led to departures in other areas of bible doctrine, like in ecclesiology, and in eschatology, but of this more in a planned series on "Hardshell Hermeneutics" and on "Hardshell Landmarkism."
Is the church part of the ministry or is the ministry part of the church? Is a church wholly subject to a minister but not vice versa? If the authority to administer baptisms was given to the church, and yet in some sense to the ministry as well, then obviously one does not exclude the other, at least in the area of having authority to baptize; And, if the authority to baptize could be given to the ministry and the church, then why can't the authority to teach and preach the gospel not also be what is jointly shared?
Notice also, from the last citation, how Daily continues to "deduce" Hardshell premises and propositions from scripture rather than just citing plain and express scripture statements to prove them!
Daily, however continues:
"Our fourth argument we deduce from the fact that the church of Christ is merely the executive body in the kingdom of Christ, hence it cannot be said with propriety that it has authority to send forth ambassadors abroad. There never was an instance in the history of nations where a subordinate body, such as the executive or judiciary department, was authorized to send forth ambassadors. The king or chief executive always retains this authority in his own immediate hands. He sends them when and where he pleases without consulting any subordinate body in his kingdom. Christ, who alone is the King in Zion, sends forth his ambassadors into all the world to preach his everlasting gospel."
The church is merely an "executive body"? Well, what about his Hardshell ministry? That group that he and his brethren are always wanting to completely divorce from the church? Is it too merely an "executive body"? What about the apostolic group, was it too merely an "executive body"?
What is an "ambassador"? Is this term restricted only to ordained elders in the bible? To ordained pastors alone? Or, is it not like the words "minister," and "servant," and "messenger," in that they are used in scripture to sometimes refer to all the Lord's people, and then sometimes more narrowly to particular officers in the church?
Did not Daily already say that the Church at Antioch "sent out" Paul and Barnabas? Is an "ambassador" not one who is "sent out," one who has been "commissioned"?"As for Titus, he is my partner and fellow worker among you; as for our brethren, they are messengers of the churches, a glory to Christ." (II Corinthians 8: 23 New American Standard Bible)
On this verse John Gill wrote:
"They (messengers of the churches) were chosen and sent forth by the churches, not only to preach the Gospel, but particularly to take care of the ministration to the poor saints. They were messengers appointed by the churches for this service, and were also appointed to the service of the churches..."
It is good to be able to pit Gill against Daily once again, seeing he is the one who grossly misrepresented the writings of the good doctor in his famous debate with Elder Throgmorton! Would he take Gill on this point today? No! Oh yes, but Gill is the "father of Hardshellism"!
What is the Hardshell church doing when it "ordains" a man to the "ministry" IF it is not in order to send him forth to preach? And to baptize? The authority to authorize baptisms they seem willing to admit, as Daily does, is what belongs to the church to grant to the minister, but not to authorize the preaching and teaching of the gospel?! The thing that precedes baptism, and is an essential requisite to baptism?!Daily wants to say that only the Lord can send out preachers to preach, and in his mind, this excludes the church, in any way, "sending" them out! Oh glorious Hardshell logic again!
Okay, let us try that "logic" in other similar areas. If the Lord "ordains" a man to preach the gospel, does this exclude the church from "ordaining" him? Well, Daily's "logic" would say yes!
If the "chief executive" of our country (president) "sends" out an ambassador to represent him, does that exclude others from "sending" the ambassador? Does it exclude the Secretary of State also "sending" him? Does it also exclude the citizens from having "sent" him out? No! Stupid "logic"! Again, I say in regard to this argument, like others the Hardshells put forth, "that dog just won't hunt"!
Besides, does Elder Daily and the Hardshells really want to affirm that no ordinary disciple represents Christ and his word? How then can ordinary disciples even teach their children then?
I have said it before in this book - "you fight one extreme, and if you are not careful, you will go into the opposite extreme"! This has been true, in large measure, in reviewing the history of the Hardshells. The Hardshells will end up forcing themselves into saying that parents cannot even teach their own children, if they stay with this kind of perverted logic and flaky argumentation.
Oh, please note again how Daily again "deduces" this his fourth argument! Yes, good deduction there!
But, Daily continues:
"Our fifth argument is deduced from the following words of the commission, "Go teach all nations, " "go ye into all the world." If the Saviour had delegated the church to send forth the ambassadors, then the church could limit the field of their operations (like the Hardshell ministry?!) to certain countries, as China or the South Sea Islands, as many churches of the world are now doing. Thus the church could abrogate the commission given by Christ, and substitute one of her own in its stead. As Christ's commission is unlimited, in its extent of territory, no church has the right to nullify, repeal or abrogate it by limiting it to some definite country (again, like the Hardshells have done?!). The very fact that the church dare not interfere with the field of labor which Christ has assigned his ministers, is proof positive and certain that the act of ordaining a man confers no authority respecting the work of preaching the gospel." ("A Loving Appeal To Primitive Baptists" 1906)
Well, besides the comments I put in parentheses behind Daily's false statements, I really need say no more. Has Daily proven his case for the Hardshell "traditional view"? I trow not.
In my next chapter I will continue to cite the Hardshell forefathers and leading apologists and demonstrate their grave error. I will take up an interesting article on the "Great Commission" by Elder Ralph Harris, an Elder I met in my younger days in the Hardshell cult. He wrote his article on the "Great Commision" for the same reason the brethren did who wrote the "Pitt's Resolution" against those Hardshells today ("Bradleyites") who are making some attempt to finally do as the Great Commission requires of them. Stay tuned!
No comments:
Post a Comment