"Reformed" are "Old Regulars"?

The following is a citation from chapter 57 of my book on the Hardshells. I cite it now to repeat my assertion regarding the Hardshells. The first major view of the Hardshell founding fathers was one that saw a three step (stage) model to the "new birth." I also dealt with this paradigm in other chapters also, in chapter 52, entitled "The Beebe-Trott Model" and in chapters 54-56 on "Conviction of Sin" and in chapter 51, titled "Regenerated and Converted?"

I doubt that very few, if any, Hardshell knows this about their history. Hardshells typically imagine that what they believe and practice today is identical with that of the first Hardshells of two hundred years ago. I wonder how the general Hardshell denomination will react as the historical facts become known? What will they say when presented with all the evidence that shows that their forefathers believed in this three stage model?

Before I give the citation I am talking about, let me cite these words from Elder David Montgomery, the site editor for one of the leading web sources for Primitive Baptist material.

"So far as we know, there has never been a book compiled, giving the essential facts of the Baptist separation in 1832. Such a work, if ever completed, would reveal that one certain man, more than any other, was instrumental in clarifying the issues, which resulted in the division; that man was Gilbert Beebe. With limited space in one quarterly, we can give only a few highlights of this minister’s life and the cause in which his life labors played such a great part.

Those who identify themselves today with the Old School Baptists ought to have some knowledge of the cause for their origin. History shows, even in this short sketch, that the real issues in any given moment are soon forgotten, and those who follow after are ignorant of the original issues. If the few who do have some historical knowledge, it is usually in the letter only. They can and do parrot certain phrases and words which were used in the early controversies, but the understanding of what was involved is limited indeed, if not even perverted.

It is not possible to acquire the same “faith” of our fathers by merely reading their biographies or their sermons and statements of belief."

http://primitivebaptist.info/mambo//content/view/663/36/

I am glad to be able to post Elder Montgomery's "confession" so that I can put it in my book. I have already shown, to some degree, how the Hardshells have written erroneous "histories" about themselves, and I still have chapters planned where I demonstrate this even further.

Here is part of the citation from chapter 57:

"Old Regular Baptists have had several divisions through the years. In the 1960's a debate started over when everlasting (eternal) life began, many Old Regular Baptist hold the same views as the Primitive Baptist (some historians consider the Old Regular Baptist a branch of the Primitive Baptist, that held to a stricter order but more liberal in doctrine, allowing for different views on the atonement)."

"While the doctrine of some Old Regular Baptist would be in harmony with the majority of Primitive Baptist today, others among the Regulars hold to a more modified Calvinism, this difference led to the light is life split that took place in the Union Association. This division soon spread to other associations brought on by requests sent to them from the Union Association, resulting in the isolation of the Mud River Association, and the formation of the Bethel Association, other associations like the New Salem, chose not to divide over this issue, often churches and associations and even Elders are distinguished by which side of this debate they are on, those that hold to the doctrine that an individual is first begotten or quickened into life at the start of their travail, are called the "hard shell side" of Old Regular Baptist or the Old School, [this appears to be the original view of the first Regular Baptist in America] those who hold that life starts at the end of their travail (repentance) are called the "soft shell side". Today the debate is still among the Old Regular Baptist along with when one receives faith, men and women's dress, the receiving of divorced members, the doctrinal differences over hope and knowledge."

"Conversion experiences may be a lengthy "process," beginning with an awakening to sin, through a period of conviction and travail of the soul, to repentance and belief."

(From Wikipedia)

I also want to repeat now what I have said in recent writings about the "Reformed Baptist" and some "Founder's Friendly" churches in regard to their promotion of the idea that men are first regenerated and then believe and repent. Their view is nothing other than the original view of the Hardshells and the view of today's "Old Regular Baptists."

Will the "Reformed" brethren deny that this is their view? Do they put conviction of sin, repentance AFTER "regeneration" or BEFORE it? Do they not say that all the "regenerated" will subsequently be brought to a "full birth," to a "conversion" experience by the gospel? Well, then, my charge stands undisputed! Today's "Reformed Baptists" believe in this model, one created by the apologists for baby regeneration among the Presbyterian Calvinists, even if they will not come forth and acknowledge it! They share the same view as did the first 'Hardshells' and 'Old Regulars' on this "paradigm" on the "new birth."