Chapter 37 - Eternal Children Doctrine

Eternal Children Doctrine or Eternal Vital Union Doctrine

Error begats error. One departure in fundamental doctrine leads to further departures from the truth, an example of theological "slippery slope." Once the Hardshells abandoned the truth, as expressed in the Old Confessions, especially on the new birth and conversion, and began to take extreme and heretical views on essential doctrine, they found the obtaining of unity among them very difficult, especially with such divergent views emerging on the subject of the new birth. One of those new ideas came to be known as the Eternal Children Doctrine or Eternal Vital Union Doctrine. Elder Beebe became a leading spokesman for this novel idea, together with Elder T. P Dudley and others.


Elder Gilbert Beebe wrote:

"We now speak of his spiritual or mystical body. If it be admitted that they are one with Christ, even as is Christ one with God the Father, we can no more deny the eternal vital union of Christ and his members than we can deny the eternal identity of the Father and the Son in the Godhead."

And further he writes:

"As aliens and strangers we are brought nigh by the blood of Christ, together with the impartation to us of the spirit of adoption, while our vital relation to God is far more ancient and eternal, based upon a life given us in Christ which was never alien to God, but forever hid with Christ in him, and this sonship is developed by a spiritual birth."

(Editorials of Gilbert Beebe, Volume 6 pgs 46-63 June 15, 1864)

The idea that the Lord's elect people had a real or actual existence before the world began was clearly believed and advocated by Elder Beebe. It seems to have been one of the leading ideas associated with Daniel Parker's famed "Two Seed" doctrine. The elect, or chosen "seed," were actually "in Christ" before the foundation of the world. Parker did not go into the later errors of soul sleep or non-resurrection, as Elder Potter made clear (as will be seen). But, he did believe in the pre-existance of the elect.

As one can imagine, there soon developed several absurd consequences to this new and novel idea. One of those is mentioned in the above writing by Beebe. He refers to some objections by Elder Pence (to be referred to later), such as, “Was the spiritual family of God ever corrupted in sin?” Further, what is the "new birth," and how could the elect have been born "children of wrath" IF they were already, from eternity, the children of God?

Wrote neo-Hardshell, James Poole, in defending Beebe's view -- "Well,” they say, “you don’t need to be born again if you were already in Christ.”

(http://www.asweetsavor.150m.com/ejp/eternal.html)

This topic was hotly debated by the first generation or two of Hardshells. It was very nasty at times. Beebe continued to have difficulties uniting his Hardshell brothers under one umbrella with this odd view (and others) that the bulk of the Hardshells could not accept.

Though Elder Daniel Parker was the father of the "Two-Seed Doctrine," he nevertheless did not become the leading spokesman for one of its main ideas, that of the eternal existance of the children of God as an uncreated "seed." The reason why Elder Parker did not continue to be the leading spokesman for the anti mission cause as well as the idea of "eternal vital union," was due I firmly believe, to the views he took relative to the Devil's origin and things relative to his "seed." Were it not for those "hard to swallow" views of Parker, about the origin of Satan, I believe Parker would have continued to be a leader among the first Hardshells, rather than retiring to Texas in relative obscurity, and why the Hardshells disassociated themselves from him.

I also believe that Parker's heretical views on the origin of Satan created a "stigma" around any preaching or doctrinal discussions respecting the origin of Satan, an issue I have referred to earlier in this work, and concerning which I will yet have more to say.

Historically speaking, the first generation or two of Hardshells were still "staking out positions" on doctrine. Once they had abandoned the teaching of the Bible and the Baptist confessions relative to the new birth and conversion, it was inevitable that such an error would lead to other errors in related doctrine. Some of the men who wrote exhaustively against the "eternal children" doctrine were leading Hardshells like Elder Grigg Thompson, Elder J.H. Oliphant, Elder John Clark, and Elder Lemuel Potter. I will also be citing from Hardshell WM CONRAD who wrote much on this subject, both historically and Biblically, and referring to how both Elder Beebe and Elder T.P. Dudley (of the famous old church Bryan's Station) rode this topic as a "hobby horse," and causing division among the newly formed Hardshell denomination. But, before I give their rebuttals to Beebe and other advocates of this idea of Parker's, let me cite other references to this doctrine by Beebe.

Elder Gilbert Beebe - "INCARNATION OF THE CHILDREN OF GOD"

"...the participation of the children of God of flesh and blood, and the incarnation of the Son of God, are placed on the same ground, and based upon the same principle, by the inspired apostle in his epistle to the Hebrews: "Forasmuch, then, as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same." [2:14] To our mind, this text is a key to the subject..."

And again Beebe writes:

"It being established that Christ did exist, not only as God, but also as the Son of God, the only begotten of the Father, and as the first-born, and before all things, and at the appointed time, when the fulness of that time had come, he was sent forth, and the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us; so the doctrine of the incarnation of his children, together with that of their previous existence in him, is exemplified. They were created in him, chosen in him, preserved in him, saved and called, according to the purpose and grace which was given them in him before the world began. And all spiritual blessings [past, present, or to come, that the saints ever have, or ever will or can enjoy] were given them according as God hath chosen them in him before the foundation of the world. Eph.1:3,4. Their spiritual, eternal life was given them in Christ before the world began, as their earthly, fleshly life was given them in the earthly Adam, in time. John says, "And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life, and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life." I John 5:11,12."

And further:

"These children in Christ were, in the matchless wisdom of God, destined to partake of the life of the natural Adam."

"So, after this example, that life by which God’s people were identified in Christ before all time, is implanted in those persons, by which God’s chosen people were identified in the earthly Adam. The Holy Ghost comes upon them, and the power of the Highest overshadows them. The incorruptible seed, not by the agency of man, but by the word of the Lord, which liveth and abideth forever, implants in them that spiritual, eternal life which was and is hid with Christ in God, by which is given to them "power to become [manifestly] the sons of God;" and they are "born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." John 1:13."

(From Signs of the Times- September 15, 1856 Vol.24)

This is all quite fantastic of course. It is pure "gnosticism" in Baptist clothing. It is something out of Christian fiction, or something one might expect from those who believe that there are "aliens among us," people with "star seed"! Beebe's and Parker's novel ideas about what constitutes "regeneration" and the "new birth" helped alleviate them from belief that gospel preaching was God's instrument in birthing his people and from their duty to support missions.

Now let us hear Elder Grigg Thompson, who wrote the following with rebuttals against the view of Beebe and Parker, and ironically, even his father, Elder Wilson Thompson." (but more on that later):

"Election is personal, and positive, made in Christ before the world began. "According as he hath chosen us in him, before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love;" Eph., i, 4. I have heard some quote this text in a way of triumph, and say, "How could they be chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, if they did not exist in him before the foundation of the world? "And this existence, they say, "is both in essence and substance." So that I can not understand them, unless they mean that the elect existed in him before the foundation of the world as wheat exists in a sack, or a pig in a pen. They who use such expressions, must be careless readers of their Bibles, or ignorant of their own language; for there is no such an idea contained in the text. A bitter fountain can not send forth sweet water: a sinful seed can not exist in a holy parent. If the elect existed in Christ before the foundation of the world in substance or seed, it was a holy substance or seed, and could not be chosen that it "should be holy; "for it was already holy, and could be nothing else but holy while it existed in Christ unless he became corrupted and unholy; the seed would then inherit the corrupt nature of the parent, and all would be sinners together. God the Father chose his people before the foundation of the world, and he made that choice in Christ, and in Christ he blessed them with all spiritual blessings or things. While God in Christ made this choice, he chose them out of the world, out of all nations, and from among men. The choice was made in Christ, and not in Adam; but they were chosen out of Adam's fallen race." ("The Primitive Preacher," section on "Forgiveness of Sins")

Other Hardshells also began to distance themselves from the view that the children of God pre-existed before their natural births.

Elder James H. Oliphant writes:

We think that the doctrine of the two seeds, as taught by Parker, and also the doctrine of eternal vital union, as held by others, are opposed to the doctrine of election as taught by the bible, and that they are equally as objectionable as the doctrine of election as taught by Wesley. Each of these views finds the reasons of one's election in himself. Wesley ascribes our election to our obedience, which is at war with grace. Parker and others find a difference in the origin of men that accounts for the election of some and the reprobation of others, while the bible puts it upon the sovereignty of God. Eld. Lemuel Potter has recently published a pamphlet in which this subject is fully investigated, in which he has shown that all these views are open to the same objections: These pamphlets can yet be had by addressing Eld. Lemuel Potter, Cynthiana, Posey county, Indiana. (This pamphlet is worthy of a general circulation.)

(from the book "Principles and Practices of the Regular Baptists" -- http://www.upbuild.org/article4/page6.html)

Now let us cite from Elder Potter's book against the doctrine of the eternal seed.

A DENIAL OF THE DOCTRINE OF ETERNAL CHILDREN, OR TWO SEEDS IN THE FLESH, by Elder Lemuel Potter, 1880, 67 pp.


THE NEW BIRTH

"It is not our intention, in this article, to discuss the subject of the "new birth," or to even introduce it for others to discuss, through the ADVOCATE, but simply to let our readers know where we stand. Our reasons for even that much is, that we have recently received two letters, both of which invited controversy on that subject, on the plea that some of our writers had dropped a remark or two that they did not endorse. We claim the right to publish the doctrine of our people on that, or any other subject, without being under any obligations, whatever, to give space to those who may differ, though they be Primitive Baptists, and our personal friends. THE CHURCH ADVOCATE believes that the sinner, the Adam sinner, is the subject of salvation; that it is the man that is the subject of the new birth, and that this man has a soul and a body, and that the soul is born again, in the work of regeneration in time, and that it goes immediately to heaven when the body dies. We believe that in the resurrection, the body will be born again, and go to heaven, and that the soul and body will be reunited in heaven, and thus the sinner will be born again, and saved. This has been the doctrine of our people for the past two hundred years, provided it was our people who first drew up and published the London Confession of Faith, in England, in the year 1689. In chapter 23, of that confession, we have the following, on "THE STATE OF MAN AFTER DEATH, AND OF THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD."

Note: Did you see the caveat of Elder Potter? "Provide (if) it was our people who first drew up and published the London Confession"! Was it his people, the Hardshells, or not? We will address this later when we discuss Elder Potter further along with Elder Pence, Burnam, and others.

And again, Elder Potter writes:

"In our efforts to identify ourselves with the Old Baptists, against the claims of the missionaries, we claim to be identical with these old English brethren in doctrine. THE ADVOCATE does now stand, and always has stood there, especially on the new birth. We hope that none of our brethren will differ from them, and at the same time claim identity with them. This article is not to controvert the point, but it is intended as a statement of the doctrine of the ADVOCATE, on this subject. It is also intended as an answer to a question, recently, in a letter from Brother J. P. Harris, of Sunfield, Illinois. Prior to this time I had said nothing in the paper on the subject, and yet I knew that our brethren who differed, were preaching on the new birth in almost all their sermons, and that they were trying to intimidate those who opposed them. But I let it all pass, and said nothing for some time afterwards."

There are some very interesting things to observe from the above words of Potter.

1. Potter called into doubt, in the prior quotation, whether the Hardshells were indeed the ones who wrote the Old London Baptist Confession of faith (and just why would he doubt that, except for what it had to say about the new birth and the means used in it?), and yet now says "We hope that none of our brethren will differ from them, and at the same time claim identity with them"!

2. He also affirms that it has been the defense, thus far, of the first generation of Hardshells, in debate with those Baptists who supported missions, and who yet adhered to the Confession on means and the new birth, to not outright deny non-adherance to it, but rather to "twist and distort" what the writers of the old Confession actually said (in much the same way people "twist and distort" the words of holy scripture). This is certainly what was done at the famed "Fulton Convention in 1900 (and of which we will have much more to say later and of which Brother Ross has already addressed in his writings upon this subject).

3. He plainly says that his Hardshells believe the same thing, relative to the new birth, that the Old Baptists believed. This is a total falsehood and one which he was called upon by Elder Pence (and others) to defend in public debate. But, more on that also in later chapters.

Potter went on to say:

"...if we say that in the work of regeneration, the body is born of the Spirit, then we have man in possession of a spiritual body, after regeneration. But Paul still refers to the bodies of the saints as natural, fleshly bodies. If the bodies are not born of the Spirit, in the work of regeneration, in time, then there must, of necessity, be something about man, that really is man, that is not body, that partakes of spirituality, at the time of the new birth, or else no part of man is born of God in time."

This statement partly relates to another controversy swirling about among the first generation of Hardshells. It relates to what part of the man is born again in regeneration? His soul only? Or his body too? What change does this experience bring about in the individual who is born again and regenerated? I will be addressing these issues later.

Potter wrote further:

"I now want my readers to know that the reason I am saying so much on this subject is that there are some who do not believe that man is changed in the new birth, but just a new principle is put into him, and the same old principle that was in him before regeneration, is still in him, and that makes the warfare, and that the whole man, soul, body and spirit, some of them say, is born of God in time, and that the same man, all of him, soul, body and spirit, will die, and remain dead until the resurrection. They make strange of the idea that any part of man goes to heaven at the death of the body. They believe that man is not changed until the resurrection. Then he will be changed. These people, I denominate "No Soulers," and I charge them with believing and preaching heresy. It is not warranted in the Bible, and it antagonizes the Primitive Baptist doctrine. Those who deny the doctrine of a distinction of soul and body have become so intolerant in some localities, that with them a man brother, with whom I am well acquainted, in referring to one of his brethren, who believed as I do, stigmatize him "Doctor of Divinity," with quite a sarcastic air. I think that was a bad spirit."

This all confirms what I said earlier about "error begetting error," about how one departure leads to others and to a "slippery slope," theologically speaking. One can obviously see why the first generation of Hardshells began to "go to seed" on the subject of what constitutes the "new birth." Once you take out conversion and anything connected with knowledge of truth, or cognition, or human choice or activity, you end up with a view of the "new birth" that ends up being a "bunch of nothing"! Hence, you will see how some began to believe in a view of the "new birth" as being one that does not "change" the person, and finally to the view that "regeneration is all on the sub-conscious level" (the view of most modern Hardshells).

Again, Potter writes:

"On account of these facts I have always denied, and do yet deny, that the body is regenerated in time."

And again:

"But I have been often told by good people that the body must be born again, for the Savior said to Nicodemus, "Ye must be born again." They claim that he did not say a part of him, nor he did not say that his soul or spirit must be born again, but he, Nicodemus, must be born again. Let me ask, did he tell Nicodemus that his body must be born again? But "no soulers" claim that the body is born again, for it is the body that weeps and cries and feels badly and condemned."

This all respects what later became known as the "Whole Man Doctrine," the opposite idea of the "no change" view of the "new birth." I will have more to say about that in the next chapters.

Potter continues:

"I do not wish to divide the man up, I do not want to dissect man. I believe I am the man, both soul and body, that is born of God, in the work of regeneration, in time.""

Here Potter seems to believe in the whole man doctrine, but in other places, he states that the body is not regenerated till the resurrection, while the soul in the new birth. Here he seems to put them together "in time"

He writes further:

Is Man Changed in the New Birth?

"We have seen hints from some that man is born of God in time, but not changed until the resurrection. This idea, to me, seems to contradict everything that is said on the subject in the Scriptures, as well as in the experience of the saints. The apostle says, "Therefore if any man be in Christ he is a new creature; old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." II Corinthians 5: 17. No one has ever explained to me how a man becomes a new creature, and yet undergoes no change. Those who deny any change in the new birth, must necessarily deny that man becomes a new creature by being born of God, it seems to me. Christ is in the man that is born again. Romans 8: 10. He has the mind of Christ. I Corinthians 1: 16. The love of God is shed abroad in his heart. Romans 5: 5. He has been delivered from the power of darkness and translated into the kingdom of God's dear Son. Colossians 1: 13. Created in Christ Jesus unto with Christ (sic). Ephesians 2: 5. The eyes of their understanding have been enlightened. Ephesians 1: 18. They were sometime darkness, but are now light in the Lord. Ephesians 5: 8. They have passed from death to life. John 5: 24. God dwelleth in them. I John 4:16. All these things are true of the regenerate man, and none of them are true of the unrenewed man. The no change doctrine is not new among some who once stood with us. They believed that in regeneration, something was simply implanted in the man, that did not change the man. If the sinner is not changed he is not born again. He has been translated into the kingdom of God's dear Son, and if he gets into the kingdom of Christ without being changed, he goes into the kingdom while in a state of enmity against God, for that is the condition he was in before. I claim that in the work of the new birth, the sinner is changed. He was dead, but he now has eternal life. His heart was evil, and it spoke evil things, and Jesus said, "A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth good things, and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth evil things, for of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." Luke 6: 45. If man undergoes no change in regeneration, he is just the same in adaptations and in his nature after the new birth that he is before the new birth. Before he is born of God, he is natural, so, if he undergoes no change in the new birth, he is still natural. The apostle says, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." I Corinthians 2: 14. Is it true of the saints that they do not discern the things of the Spirit? Can the saint know the things of the Spirit? We read, "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God: that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God." The very things that the natural man does not know the saint knows. The natural man is made a saint in the work of regeneration, and the saint knows the things of the Spirit of God, but the natural man does not. So, it is inevitably true that the man is changed in the new birth; not merely changed as to his state and surroundings, but he is changed in his nature. He himself is changed. The apostle Peter intimates that he partakes of the divine nature. He was fleshly before regeneration; he is spiritual after regeneration. "Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such a one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted." Galatians 6: 1. "Ye that are spiritual." To whom does this important language apply? I hold, and I suppose no one will dispute it, that it applies to the man that has been born of God. Will it apply as truly to the unregenerate? I suppose all will agree with me that it does not. If man was natural before he was born of God, and is spiritual now, since he is born of God, he is certainly changed, is he not? Reader, you say. All these glaring oppositions to the plain teachings of God's word, grow out of the unscriptural idea that all there is of man is body, and we know it is not changed in the new birth; so if we claim that it is born again, we must claim that the sinner is not changed in the..."

In the above, Potter says, "The no change doctrine is not new among some who once stood with us." Yes, and it started with the birth of the Hardshells. Their view of regeneration and the new birth, when looked at fairly and squarely for what it is, is a "no change" view of the subject, in spite of the noble defenses the second generation Hardshells made to the contrary. But, more on all this in later writings.

And again Potter writes:

"But our effort now, is to prove that the very thing we advocate, that, perhaps twenty of our ministers, and a very light sprinkle of brethren in the Mississippi valley, object to, is the very doctrine that Baptists have always believed, and have had in their confession of faith. We shall now call up the late and renowned Elder Daniel Parker, the "Two Seeder." In his Church Advocate , Vol. 2, No. 4, January 1831, page 90, he says: "The soul thus being made immortal by the Spirit of God, is fitted and prepared for the presence of God, and to enjoy him." On the same page he says, "When we turn our attention to the experimental part of the Christian religion, as wrought by the Divine Spirit in the soul, we find it to be the same divine truth, realized by the soul, which is declared in the word of God. The soul is quickened by the Spirit, the dead is made to hear the voice of the Son of God and live." On page 91, he says, "Take away, or deny the work of the Spirit in the internal experimental knowledge of saving grace in or to the soul, and you take away, or deny the truth of the word of God to the soul, the life of the soul, the hope God has wrought in the soul, the comfort of the soul, the love of God in the soul, the divine principle implanted in the soul, the food and clothing of the soul, the warm feeling desires of the soul, the drawing of God's love to the soul, and in fact you take everything that makes religion sweet, the true worship of God delightful, the word of God powerful, the presence of God desirable, and the glory of God as the prime objects of the soul, which stimulates it, in acts of obedience to God from proper and pure motives, for its religion, the life or Spirit of God in the soul, that moves it forward in action, in the service of God at war against sin." We hope the reader will bear in mind that we, in this article, are trying to prove that, upon the subject of what is born again in time, and the state of the dead until the resurrection, we are identical with the Primitive Baptists, not only of the present time, but in all the past.

To this end we will continue to quote from Parker. In the same paper, of July 1831, page 234, six queries were propounded to Elder Parker, and the sixth one was as follows: "Did Adam possess a spirit in his created state superior to animal? As I understand the soul and spirit to be different, dear brother, be pleased to answer these queries, as they are matters of considerable moment to me."

On page 240, after stating that "Adam was certainly a natural being, and not a spiritual one, when created," etc., he concludes his answer, as follows: "There is a controversy as to which is the existing part of man, the soul or spirit, and I have no doubt that both terms are used in the word of truth, as expressive of that part of man, which will eternally exist, but I think you will understand me as to that part of man which I have been pointing out, and as to any thing further on this subject, I 8th number." On page 180, of the same paper, we find his answer in number 8, and in it he says, "I do not consider the bare lump of clay, separate from the soul, to be the man, neither the soul separate from the body, but it took both soul and body to complete the Adam which God created."

We also have before us a circular letter, written in 1849, by the late Elder Joel Hume, in which he treats on the regeneration of the soul, and the resurrection of the body, and he is very pointed, and stands in line with all the foregoing witnesses, on the subject before us. Our next witness will be the late Elder John M. Watson, in Old Baptist Test, page 551: "It is a matter of surprise that any should have supposed that the soul, after the death of the body, passes into a state of insensibility, which will continue until the morning of the resurrection." On page 550, he says, "As the regenerated soul is endowed with eternal life, its destinies extend far beyond the present world, time, and time things." On Page 551, he says, "The renewed soul at death is in a state to enter heaven." On same page, "The soul can exist without a body, but the body can not exist without the soul. The soul can not die." On page 552, he says, "Christ makes a clear distinction of soul and body in the following words. "Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear him, who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." Our next witness is the late Elder John Clark, of Virginia, the founder of Zion's Advocat, which is now published by Elder T. S. Dalton. In volume 10, of that paper, Feb. 14, 1871, page 272, he gives his readers a very able article on regeneration, in which he says, "No change takes place in the mental powers of man after regeneration at any time, and the souls of the redeemed go immediately to heaven at death, for which they were fully and effectually prepared in regeneration, as heaven is a prepared place for a prepared people, as some one has justly said, and hence the Redeemer said to the malefactor that hung by his side on the cross, "Today shalt thou be with me in paradise;" and John saw "the souls of them that were slain for the word of God under the altar." Revelations 6: 9; 20: 4. They were then absent from the body and present with the Lord; and those that had killed their bodies, could do nothing more; they could not kill their souls. Their bodies were, and still are, under the power of the grave, though their ransomed spirits are before the throne." Elder Clark believed that the soul of man was redeemed and renewed in regeneration. He says it in this article. We have now seen that the Waldenses, and the old English Baptists, and the first American Baptists, and our own authors of the present century, as Parker, Hume, Watson, and Clark, have all written that when the body dies the soul goes immediately to heaven or hell.

All these authors believed in the resurrection of the body, and the salvation of the Adam sinner. None of them believed in the doctrine of eternal children. We have others present, but can not quote them in this article, as Elder Jesse Cox, Dr. John Gill, and others who believed as we do. These have been our spiritual fathers; I Corinthians 4: 15, and they have all believed without controversy, that at death the soul left the claims to the name of old Primitive Baptists. We are truly sorry that any of our dear brethren are engaged in opposing this Old Baptist doctrine. Some of them are very near to us, and we do not wish to treat them unkindly, but when they make a fight against the doctrine we, and our church as a denomination, have always believed, it wounds us. Shall we be compelled to be neutral on this point, while others, in almost all their sermons and exhortations, are preaching that the entire man, soul, body, and spirit, dies, and remains dead until the resurrection? We do not believe that doctrine, and we find no comfort in it, and we are sure that wherever it has been advocated, it has caused trouble, and we feel sure that it is neither the doctrine of the Bible, nor of the Baptists. We have been advised by some to let the matter go, and say nothing about it, especially those who teach that all the man dies, say that we are the agitator of the matter. That is just what the Missionary Baptists said about us, that it was our opposition to missionism that caused the division, and not the introduction of missionism. We made no noise about missionism in our churches until it came into our churches; just so, we made no fight on the doctrine that the whole man dies, until it was preached among us."

Note: Potter here claims that Gill is one of their "founding fathers". More on that later.

Potter continues:

" But I wish to call one more witness to this question. Elder G. M. Thompson, in his book called Primitive Preacher, says, on page 144, "It is not that he is a new creature physically; he is the same person he was, his flesh is not changed and immortalized, as it will be in the resurrection, but he is renewed in the spirit of the mind by a gracious principle imparted from above, which changes the affections of the soul, which sways and guides him in another way, and to a different end than he ever acted before."

On page 145, he says, "Our bodies may be said to be new bodies by the change wrought in them, and the endowments bestowed upon them in the resurrection. So the soul is now resurrected from a death in sin, and renewed by imparting new principles to it in the work of regeneration." Again, he says, "This new creation is the first work of the Spirit in the soul of the sinner, preparing it to receive and enjoy the salvation that is in Christ Jesus. Page 170. One more witness to this point is all that I will trouble the reader with to show that I stand, doctrinally, where our people have always stood, and that to elbow me off for advocating the doctrine that the soul lives after the death of the body is to treat me unjustly."

"In the circular letter of the Ketocton Association, of Virginia, in the year 1890, this old time-honored body of Baptists, the fifth association constituted in the United States, said: "The doctrine of regeneration now claims our attention, as this is the pivotal point from which departures are taken when error enters the Baptist fold.

We begin with the statement that we believe in the existence of the human soul, though unable to define it. The words of the Master's warning, "fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell," Matthew 20: 28, are sufficient to justify us in holding this cornerstone of faith.

About half a century ago metaphysics was introduced among the Old School Baptists, and men began to question the existence of the soul; hence, the regeneration of the soul was denied.

Note: I agree with this statement wholeheartedly! It is a characteristic of the Hardshells. In many ways it is pure gnosticism. But, more on this later.

Potter continues:

Among the many theories invented, the most plausible and popular was that of eternal spiritual existence in Christ, as our seminal head; and implantation into the Adam sinner, making no change in soul, body, nor spirit; hence, non-resurrection, and a host of equally fatal heresies, came in a natural course.

Into this error, by the mercy of God, the Ketocton Association did not fall; but through the dark days, when this cloud was most threatening, she declared her belief in the regeneration of the soul, by the Spirit of God; eternal life being the result of begetting by the Holy Ghost, whose presence in the soul is manifested by a change so apparent that even the ungodly take knowledge of the saint that he has been with Jesus." Ever since those new things were introduced among the Baptists there have been little factions here and there whose feelings are so very sensitive on the subject of the regeneration of the soul, or the separate existence of the soul after the death of the body, that the man who still contends for the old doctrine of the church is, to say the least of it, admonished to that subject causes unpleasant feelings in some places."

"...the "no change" doctrine...has caused so much distress among our people in some places..."

This statement ought to be fully weighed. Why has the "no change" view of regeneration been such a prevalent one among the Hardshells? Is it not because they divorced conversion from regeneration? More on this later too.

Potter writes further:

"Those who hold the doctrine of eternal children might tell us, but those who deny that doctrine and who reject the doctrine that any part of the child of God came down from heaven, must have some other idea about it."

http://www.paradisepbc.org/Articles/regenpotter.htm

Let us pick out, from the above words of Potter, these statements:

"The no change doctrine is not new among some who once stood with us. They believed that in regeneration, something was simply implanted in the man, that did not change the man. If the sinner is not changed he is not born again."

But, after all I have shown of the views of the Hardshells on the "new birth," is it not obvious that their view of what it is amounts to a bunch of nothing? Does it not, in the final analysis, amount to the "no change" view? Oh yes, they will speak of the dead sinner being "alive," and so speak of a "great change," but when you look at all the things absent from that "life," then it becomes a bunch of nothing, actually no change at all.

"I claim that in the work of the new birth, the sinner is changed."

Yes, but in Potter's description he had a man being made to love God and Christ Jesus. He cited scripture passages that referred to regeneration as being "enlightened." These are terms that show that the means of applying gospel truth to the mind and heart are part and parcel of regeneration. Yes, he and the majority of Hardshells did claim to believe in the great change affected in regeneration, but the consistent ones, advocated the "no change" doctrine. Again, I repeat, if you take the elements of "conversion" away from "regeneration" then you have nothing left.

"The very things that the natural man does not know the saint knows...the saint knows the things of the Spirit of God..."

But, what are these things that a regenerated soul "knows"? If "regeneration" is all on the "sub-conscious level," then "knowing" anything, truth or otherwise, is not part and parcel of regeneration. Why then does Potter seem to believe otherwise?

"None of them believed in the doctrine of eternal children."

He says this relative to his Hardshell "founding fathers," leaving out, of course, men like Beebe. This is really not that unusual as most Hardshells will pick and choose which of the first and second generation Hardshells they will accept in their "church geneology." But, it is not true that all the first founding fathers of Hardshellism disbelieved this doctrine, for Beebe, Dudley, Parker, and others, believed it. And, there is much reason for believing that Wilson Thompson also did, although his son Grigg Thomspson did not, as the above citations prove. When he says "these have been our spiritual fathers," and includes Gill. But, I have already cited Gill and shown that he did not believe the Hardshell view. I will have more to say on this later.

"About half a century ago metaphysics was introduced among the Old School Baptists."

What a insightful admission! Have all that I have written thus far not evidence of the truth of that statement? They have made the "faith of God's elect," some kind of "metaphysical spiritual goo," as I have afore written.

"Among the many theories invented, the most plausible and popular was that of eternal spiritual existence in Christ, as our seminal head; and implantation into the Adam sinner, making no change in soul, body, nor spirit; hence, non-resurrection, and a host of equally fatal heresies, came in a natural course.

Notice how there is admission here that the "eternal children doctrine" has been popular among the Hardshells. Sometimes they will deny this, wanting to hide the fact, but other times the facts are honestly presented by someone.

"...the "no change" doctrine...has caused so much distress among our people in some places..."

This again proves what I just said. The Hardshells will often speak as if this error never caused much problem, then at other times you get the honest facts of the case, as in the above.

Seeing this is such an important area to look at, relative to the history and heresies of the PB's, I will split this topic into two chapters.

In the next chapter I will conclude this look at the doctrine of "eternal children," and then go on to talk about the "whole man" versus the "hollow log" view of the new birth.

Whose Mouths Must Be Stopped

"For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God...Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers. For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake." (Titus 1:7-11)

That is one of my mandates as a steward of the word of God. I will by sound doctrine refute the errors of the cultists and heretics. I will also by this means seek to stop the mouths of such people and thereby fulfill this mandate. By this book on the Hardshell cult I am stopping the mouths of the Hardshell gainsayers, their unruly talkers and subverters, convincing them of all their gainsaying of the truth. I pray God blesses my work in this regard.

Steve Garrett

Patterson Postscript

"Steve,

As stated previously, I think there may be a possibility of one Hardshel (sic) that would debate you. In addition to that, I would say there would be quite an interest and perhaps quite a number of Primitive Baptists that would attend the debate. Is there any possibility that you would debate Elder Eddie Garrett? He is a Hardshell. Would you do it?

I did check out your situation with Primitive Baptists in North Carolina. It is not a pretty picture according to the elders in the Bear Creek and especially according to Elder Newell Helms. An elder in Kernersville, E.W. Hooven said...and I quote, "Answer not a fool according to his folly." So there you have it. This concludes our discussion.

Jeff Patterson"

I have decided to post the above e-mail I got from Elder Jeff Patterson (after I sent him my final e-mail). I have no intention of communicating further with him, but since I have posted his other statements, I thought I would post this one also together with my comments.

In regard to a possible debate with my father, Elder Eddie Garrett, Sr., a leading Hardshell, I have several things to say, and not only because of the above e-mail but also because Brother Ross ask me about doing the same a few months back.

First, dad and I debate these things all the time over the phone. Why do we need to make it public? The very verse that is most used to uphold debating says, “debate thy cause with thy neighbor and him alone.” Secondly, it is too awkward and not something I feel would be productive of any good, nor glorifying to the Lord. Thirdly, I do not believe it would be showing proper honor and respect to my father to debate him publicly. Fourthly, his age and health are not conducive for it. Fifthly, it is my firm belief that the Primitive Baptists have relied too much on dad to debate their cause over the past forty years. Their history is filled with men who debated their cause. It is only neo-Hardshells, other than dad and Elder Tolley, and a few others, who are cowards, who attack the Arminians and Missionaries in the regular preaching but never give their opponents opportunity to defend themselves. They practice “hit and run” tactics. I give my dad credit for having the spiritual guts that the modern Hardshells lack. He has been willing to defend his beliefs in debate with those he preaches against, but all other sickly Hardshells are content to take “pot shots” at their enemies and castigate them when they try to defend themselves against the onslaught! Finally, dad can get a copy of this book and attempt to answer it, can he not? Cannot any of you Hardshells who read this? When I threw out the challenge to debate, it included the challenge to take up pen and answer the arguments! Brothers, are we not in an electronic age? Why can’t Patterson just write an rebuttal to all that I have written? If all my arguments, evidences, and proofs are so untenable, then it ought to be easy for any Hardshell to come forward with clear refutations, correct? And, why is it, that I still do not have, after asking it many times, the evidence that the Hardshell position on gospel means was the view of the Baptists prior to the 1800's? Would it not be easy for them just to provide the historical records? Also, why can't one of you younger Hardshells come forward and give old dad a break and do some debating?


Dad puts the modern Hardshells to shame. Yes, I firmly believe he went into a heretical cult when he left Brother Ross and the Ashland Brotherhood in the mid 60's. Before he became a Hardshell he believed what the Old Confessions said (as did Elder Bradley and others). He believed in gospel means, absolute predestination, premillenialism, and other truths he now denies. This grieves me. But, I am glad that God had mercy on me and delivered me from this cult.

Next, Brother Patterson “insinuates” many things, just like the great insinuator himself. Elder Newell Helms is my ex father in law. He is a leading Elder in the Bear Creek Association here in North Carolina. My daughter told him a couple months ago that I was writing this book against the Hardshells. I don’t think he took it very well. I had hoped that he and some of the other local Hardshells would have attended the debate I had with Pat Donahue of the “Church of Christ,” but he nor they came (but they did in 1993, after I had left them and held a debate in Monroe). So, I think I have alienated further their affections.

I was a member of one of the churches of the Bear Creek Association in the late 70's and early 80's and regularly preached in their churches. I did this till I took pastorship of two non-associational churches in eastern N.C. I then moved my membership to one of those churches. I remained there till my wife and I divorced. At that time I was given a letter by them (I did not feel like preaching any longer, especially in this area – I wanted to go on sabbatical) to move my membership to another Primitive Baptist Church. I never placed that letter anywhere. My ex was excluded from the church her father pastors, however, for marital infidelity. So, what this brother insinuates in his e-mail is false, besides being a clear case of backbiting and spreading malicious gossip. What did Elder Helms say to Elder Patterson? What can he say? They can all read the book and get the facts.

Besides, I left the Primitive Baptists, coming to see, by the grace of God, their several grave errors in doctrine and practice. That is why I am writing this book. I spent so many years in this group, have had a brother ordained an elder also for them (but who left also), as did my sister. God delivered us all from this cult. I traveled far and wide among the Hardshells. I know their beliefs and their oddities and can well write about them. Who is to say that this is not what the Lord wants me to do? I will therefore not stop but continue to expose the grievous and damnable heresies of this group.

As far as Elder Hooven is concerned, I know him also. But, does this not substantiate what I said earlier? Hardshells are good at taking “pot shots” and then running away! They are good at “hit and run” tactics! Everyone is free to see it for what it is. Anyone else want to speak up for the Hardshells? Can anyone offer a different apologetic than Elder Patterson?

Hardshell Correspondence

The following is the e-mail correspondence I had with Elder Jeff Patterson of the "Primitive Baptist Church". He initiated the correspondence in response to my "open challenge" to debate the issues respecting Hardshellism.

"Hello Steve,

I don't know if any Primitive Baptists are willing to take you up on your challenge, but I believe a fellow named Crosby could handle you quite well. His website address is http://www.letgodbetrue.com/index.htm

His sight (sic) is much better, more informative and persuasive than your and Ross' blog-sights. From listening to some of Crosby's sermons I really believe he could trounce you and Ross both together. I really don't think the two of you would have much of a chance. Lovetruth"

Here is my first letter to Jeff.

Dear Brother Jeff:

It was good to hear from you. It has been many years since we have seen or talked, hasn’t it? I hope you are doing well. Do you associate with Elder Bradley?

I want to respond to your e-mail and do hope that you will be pleased to communicate further.

You say – “I don't know if any Primitive Baptists are willing to take you up on your challenge.”

Yes, and one must question the reason for this, right? I do not think that the first Hardshells nor the leading ones of the 19th century would be characterized in this manner. Modern Hardshells may not want to debate their history and heresies but they only show how unlike they are to their founders and forefathers, yes?

If I were still a Hardshell, I would not have ignored someone writing against them, as Bob Ross and I have done, but would have engaged them in debate, as would Elder Daily or Elder Cayce. I think it was Elder Tolley, one of my old fathers in the ministry, who said, “Primitive Baptists have debated every denomination who has issued a sincere challenge to debate their differences.” Is that not true any more?

Of what are the neo-Hardshells afraid?

You then say – “but I believe a fellow named Crosby could handle you quite well.”

I do not know this man nor his church. I notice that he and his church do not call themselves “Primitive Baptists.” Why is this?

Are you in fellowship with him and his church? With what “faction” is he and his church in league? Would the Hardshells here in Monroe (Bear Creek Association) support him if he came to debate here at the seminary and Baptist Churches with which I am connected?

Are you speaking for him? Do you plan to contact him to see if he will take up the challenge I have published in my blog?

There is only one way to see if Crosby can handle such a debate, is there not? Why don’t you contact him to see if he will come to Monroe the coming year to debate the propositions I have published?

I do not think you are a prophet in the matter of how such a debate would conclude. I do not have any doubt that there is a Hardshell in all the world who can overcome the avalanche of Scripture and historical records that refute Hardshell false teachings on the new birth, predestination, perseverance, etc. But, bring it on!

Hoping to hear from you soon, I am,

Yours in Christ,

Stephen M. Garrett
Emmanuel Theological Seminary (Monroe Campus)

And here is a short follow-up e-mail I sent.

Dear Jeff:

I will add this to my previous e-mail.

On Crosby's web site, he says these things:

"Without Scripture, we cannot know Jesus Christ."

I suppose then his view of the new birth is that one does not come to know Christ?

He says further, on his web page,

"Are there any established church creeds to which you hold? We hold to the Bible, as the Holy Spirit leads us to understand it. But if you want to see some historical Baptist creeds with which we find much agreement, we recommend you look at these two:

Old London Confession of 1646 (Second Edition)
The Midlands Baptist Confession of faith of 1655

Who believes the Old London Confession, you Hardshells or Baptists as myself?
Who are the true “Primitive” Baptist?



In Jeff's next e-mail response he simply says "no" in answer to the question as to whether he associates with Elder Bradley. I have since found out that Jeff is with the conservatives who have opposed Bradley and the "liberal movement."

He then writes:

"I stated "I don't know if any Primitive Baptists are willing to take you up on your challenge" because of the person and not the challenge. You are an excluded member of the Primitive Baptist Church. You are basically unknown and have very little influence on other people. Why debate an unknown? What profit would there be in it, except for some type of mental exercise."

And then further, he says:

"Crosby is not a Primitive Baptist, I believe he is a disciple of Conrad Jarrell and Ben Mott. While I don't know of any Primitive Baptists who will debate you, perhaps he will."

And,

"Sound PBs have no fellowship with Crosby. I sent him your challenge via email. I really don't know if he will take you on. Crosby is an intellectual and gifted in making arguments."

Here is my response to the above.

Dear Brother Jeff:

I was a little surprised by the contents and spirit of your latest correspondence. You say:

“I stated ‘I don't know if any Primitive Baptists are willing to take you up on your challenge" because of the person and not the challenge.’”

Is that a personal attack? Why then did you even write to me suggesting a debate? What kind of a person will the Hardshells debate? Give me the criteria, okay?

You seem to be under the impression that I am out eagerly looking for a debate with the Hardshells. My challenge to debate the Hardshells still stands, but it does not represent an eagerness to do so without any conditions. I think I have written that I would myself not debate just anyone in the Hardshell Denomination. The person would have to meet some qualifications. I have listed some of those to you. That person would need the support of the Primitive Baptists to the same extent that I have support from the Baptists with whom I am in fellowship.

I also will require that any would be debater of Hardshellism first give some attempt at answering just a little of what I have already written against Hardshell history and heresies. Why not try to answer some of those “Hardshell Buster Questions”? Instead of a debate, why don’t one of you Hardshells come forward and just try to answer what I have already written?

I am busy enough already. I plan to have over a hundred chapters in this book on Hardshellism before it is finished and put into book form. Besides this I teach in a seminary and have other books and essays that I am heavily involved in writing. So, I am not looking for ways to fill my time. I expect to have at least another debate this coming year.

Brother Jeff, you next say:

“Your are an excluded member of the Primitive Baptist Church.”

Where do you get your information? Is this not another example of how Hardshells can twist and distort history as well as Scripture? For your information, I left the Hardshells here in North Carolina in good standing, with letters to move my membership to another Primitive Baptist Church and I have more than fulfilled that in finding the true Primitive Baptist faith.

Next, you say:

“You are basically unknown and have very little influence on other people.”

Who are you to know all this? How could you possibly know the extent of my name being known among the Hardshells? How do you know how much influence I have on other people? Are you a prophet or psychic? But, I do hope that more of the Hardshells will come to know my name, once they have had a chance to digest the book I am writing. I fully believe I really have no need to debate orally any Hardshell. Rather, just let any one of them answer the book!

You then say:

"Why debate an unknown? What profit would there be in it, except for some type of mental exercise.”

If you cannot think of another reason, then I pity your mental powers, my brother. If you cannot think of another kind of “profit” from such discussions, then again I have sorrow in my heart for you. Again, forget the oral debating – JUST ANSWER THE BOOK! I think this book, together with the writings of Brother Ross (who is very well known, by the way), give you Hardshells plenty to think about, much to stimulate you all in “mental exercise.”

You then write:

“Crosby is not a Primitive Baptist, I believe he is a disciple of Conrad Jarrell and Ben Mott. While I don't know of any Primitive Baptists who will debate you, perhaps he will.”

I remember both the Elders you mentioned, from my early days as a Hardshell. Yes, they are renegades, especially in that they deny the eternal sonship of Jesus Christ. So, they are of course not “primitive” on that point, right? But, you agree that their view that men are born again apart from any knowledge of Christ or through the gospel, is “primitive,” which I have proved is not the true primitive Baptist position as expressed in the oldest confessions. I have a standing challenge for any Hardshell to come forward and produce one document that sets forth Hardshell views on the new birth prior to the 1800's. Why don’t you, Jeff Patterson, simply do that for them?

Why do you want another non-Primitive Baptist to do your debating? Are you joking? Are you wasting my time? Playing games? What is your motive in this correspondence? What are you seeking to accomplish?

You then write:

“Sound PBs have no fellowship with Crosby.”

And just what criteria do you use to judge what it means to be a “sound” or “primitive” Baptist? My challenge was to debate Hardshells who claim to be the “original” Baptists on the point relative to whether the Holy Spirit uses the means of gospel preaching to regenerate his elect. And, before any actual oral debate, why not first take a stab at just answering in writing what I have thus far written regarding Hardshells distortions of history and Scripture?

You next say:

“I sent him your challenge via email. I really don't know if he will take you on. Crosby is an intellectual and gifted in making arguments.”

Well, surely he can read well, and can look over the almost forty chapters that I have already written and give his time to refuting it. Can he not? Are you not just saying simply this – “ignore what Steve Garrett is writing”? Do you think that tactic will work very long?

I have visited Crosby’s web site and yes, he does have a nice web site. He wins hands down on that score. Take it for what it is worth. But, I have already cited a couple things from his web site’s confession of faith, which show that he contradicts the Hardshellism he spouts elsewhere in some of his sermons. He contradicts himself frequently in the sermons I have heard and the writings I have read already from his mouth and hand.

Brother, I don’t care if Crosby does not “take me on,” if by that statement, you mean an oral debate. Why does he not just first try and “take me on” relative to what I have already written? He has a web page. Is he not just as gifted a writer as a speaker? Can he not put his argumentation skills at work in writing as well as in oral sermons?

About Crosby being an “intellectual” and “gifted in making arguments,” that really matters little, in the end, doesn’t it? Why are you saying such things as these? What are you insinuating? What are you trying to accomplish with me? Do you just want to condemn me by ad hominem arguments and do you not have any desire to “win me back” to Harshellism?

Again, yours for the truth’s sake, and in Christ Jesus our Lord, I am, truly yours,

Stephen M. Garrett
Asst. Professor at Emmanuel Theological Seminary (Monroe, N.C.)

Copy: Bob Ross




In the latest e-mail Jeff writes these words:

"Steve, Let me speak frankly and please answer truly.

Did you receive baptism when you claimed to have found "the true Primitive Baptist faith".

If not, then the baptism you currently have is from the so called "Hardshell Cult" you are writing against.

If you have received baptism from the group you state as "the true Primitive Baptist faith", then what was the purpose of the letter of good standing?

You ask for my motivation. I will tell you plainly. I was hoping, as the Apostle Paul set the Pharisees against the Sadducees, that you and Crosby would lock horns and give the PBs a little rest. I wish you no ill. I do wish you would remove your blog-book from the internet for it is an embarrassment. Especially to you. While you may pride yourself in your shallow arguments that beguile unstable souls, those arguments are no match for many an elder within the gates of Zion. Frankly, I believe the fear of the Lord has left you and that God has turned you over to a reprobate mind. Anyone who writes so vehemently and spitefully against the church of the living God will answer for it...either in time or in eternity. It is doubtful that anything I say will cause you to lay aside your rancor against the saints in light.

I am not writing you because I am concerned about your soul or have a desire to see you restored as questioned in your reply. I believe we both understand you are where you need to be....on the outside of the church. If you think you are still a member of the Primitive Baptist faith and order, then name the Primitive Baptist Church with whom you take the communion of the Lord Jesus Christ and I will send them some excepts from your diatribe. And again, please answer the questions concerning your baptism or baptisms...whatever the case may be."

Here is my response.

Dear Brother Jeff:

You say, “Let me speak frankly and please answer truly.”

Brother, I have been answering “truly,” but you admit you have not been “frank” with me. What do you think that says? You have never even addressed me as “brother.” I find that very ironic. First, because most Hardshells would say that I have evidence of being “born again” by my faith and works, would they not? If they can call idol worshiping heathens “brothers,” because they have been “regenerated,” why not me? Second, are not even “erring brothers” still to be addressed as “brothers” and not “treated as an enemy”? (II Thess. 3:15) Third, are not those who are “weak in the faith” still called brothers? (Romans 14) Does this not show the state of your heart my brother? Does it not show that you approached me as an “enemy” who “cared not for my soul”? How did this fulfill the holy command to “love” and “edify” your “neighbor”? (Rom. 13:10; 15:2)

You write:

“Did you receive baptism when you claimed to have found "the true Primitive Baptist faith". If not, then the baptism you currently have is from the so called "Hardshell Cult" you are writing against. If you have received baptism from the group you state as "the true Primitive Baptist faith", then what was the purpose of the letter of good standing?”

It is obvious from your statements above that you are guilty of two unsound and heretical doctrines, namely, “Landmarkism,” and “Patternism.” Bob Ross has written a book against the former and has treatises on the latter that completely overthrow these two doctrines. Besides this, you show how you are not a truly “Primitive” Baptist in believing that the credibility of baptism depends on who is the “administrator,” a thing which the first London Baptist Confession of faith (1644 & 1646) both denied was the case. The Scriptures clearly teach, and so did the first Old Baptists, that anyone can baptize a believer, and it does not have to be done by the authority of a church, although this is preferable. My baptism is not valid because of who administered it, but because I was immersed as an expression of my faith and allegiance to the Lord Jesus Christ. Had anyone baptized me, instead of my father, it still would have been the same with the Lord and me. That is what Gill, Keach, Kiffin, and the truly Old Baptists believed. So did John Bunyan. Yes, I admit, many Baptists have been, traditionally, “Landmarkers,” and have imbibed the Catholic and episcopal idea that the sacraments depend an “authorized” clergy to “administer.” But, sound Baptists, like Gill, did not take this view.

Do you realize that I can prove, by your own arguments along this line, that your own baptism is not valid? Can you show the “genealogy” of your baptism? If we could prove that someone in the chain of administrators was not a valid or authorized baptizer, then would that not nullify every baptism after that error? Can you answer that?

Jeff, I am with a group of Baptists who believe the Old London Baptist Confession of Faith. I am with those who believe what all Baptists believed prior to the rise of the Hardshells in the 1820's and 1830's. That makes the group I am with more “Primitive” and more “Original” and more “Old” than you who erroneously and arrogantly call yourselves that! So, does that answer your question?

You then say:

“I am not writing you because I am concerned about your soul or have a desire to see you restored as questioned in your reply.”

Again, this admission of yours speaks volumes! You are clearly outside the Spirit of Christ, not having his mind or heart, and so I see no reason to converse further with one with such a spirit. “You know not what manner of spirit you are of”! (Luke 9:55)

Next, you write:

"I believe we both understand you are where you need to be....on the outside of the church.”

Brother, that is nothing in the world but wishing my damnation. What a spirit! I am lost if I am outside the church, doomed to eternal destruction.

You next write:

"If you think you are still a member of the Primitive Baptist faith and order, then name the Primitive Baptist Church with whom you take the communion of the Lord Jesus Christ and I will send them some excepts from your diatribe. And again, please answer the questions concerning your baptism or baptisms...whatever the case may be.”

I have answered all the above.

You say you want me to “give the PBs a little rest.” Brother, I do not plan on letting up one whit.

You then say, “I wish you no ill. I do wish you would remove your blog-book from the internet for it is an embarrassment...Especially to you.”

I think the previous statements show that you do wish me ill, so this is a glaring contradiction. “A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.” Remove it? Yes, you would like that, right? And why? because you care about me being embarrassed? Do you really care that much for my reputation after having impugned it? You are slick, are you not? Brother, my exposing of the hypocrisies of the Hardshells in their heresies is an embarrassment, but not to me, but to those who, like you, arrogantly claim to be the “original” Baptists in spite of all the evidence to the contrary!

Now brother, I thank you for your correspondence but believe it has now come to the point where I must leave you to yourself and to the Lord and now not allow you to distract me from my work in the Lord.

I do plan on posting our correspondence in my blog.

Yours in Christ,

Stephen M. Garrett

Another Open Challenge To Debate

I have a standing invitation in this blog to debate any leading Hardshell on the stated propositions. I now offer this second invitation to all Arminian Baptists, including the Hardshell's "twin brother," the "Campbellites." I have just finished (October) my debate with Pat Donahue of the Huntsville, Alabama "Church of Christ" (see his web site for the audio of this debate, at www.bibledebates.info, on the topics of "once saved always saved," and on "unconditional election"). I have also just finished listening to the recent debate between "Campbellite" Larry Hafley (Baytown, Texas) and Baptist brother, Ken Brandenburg and have corresponded with both Larry and Ken on my overview of the discussion.

Here are two propositions I am willing to affirm in debate.

1. The Book of Romans teaches the five points of Calvinism.

2. The Book of Galatians teaches the doctrine of once saved always saved.

I would insist on a rule disallowing citations from any other books of the Bible. We must stay in these books alone to prove our doctrines. If the Book of Romans does not teach the system known as "Calvinism," then I cannot read plain English.

I will let all know when I get a taker on this.

Emmanuel Theological Seminary (Monroe, N.C. campus), which I am connected with, together with both Crossroads Baptist and Fellowship Baptist Churches, of Monroe, have agreed to sponsor an annual debate.

Will any of the Hardshells and Campbellites come forward?

Chapter 36 - Pray For Salvation Of Your Children?

I believe it is inconsistent for the Hardshells, in their "anti-means" views about regeneration, to pray for the salvation of their unregenerate children. They do not believe that the gospel and word of God, the truth, are "means" in the new birth, arguing that no human means of any kind are used. But, that would exclude the prayers of humans too, would it not? You would expect it to be against the creed and practice of the Hardshells to pray for the salvation of the lost, for then their prayers, by their "logic," would become "means," human means, and that can never be, at least for neoHardshells. Yet, what do we find in many cases? We find Hardshells praying for the salvation of their children! We find the old Hardshells, like Grigg Thompson, calling upon his concerned mothers and fathers to pray to God to regenerate their children. Why do this if you do not believe in such "means"?

Elder John Watson

"It was through Him that an affectionate and believing mother hoped and prayed that the lost might be found; that the brand might be plucked from the fire. That prayer--as elsewhere stated in this work was heard and answered by Him who had in mercy prompted it. The prayer was the gift of grace--Rom. 4:15; enabling a distressed mother to trust in God for the salvation of her son under all the adverse circumstances of his case." (Old Baptist Test, page 31)

Watson believed in both the means of gospel preaching and the means of prayer in the salvation of the elect. He believed that the prayers of his mother for his salvation were "means" in his regeneration and conversion.

Notice these words from Elder Grigg Thompson, from the close of some of his sermons.

"It is a creation, and a creation work is above the power of the creature. No power but that power which gave being to the world can give being to this new creature. It is not born of the flesh, or of blood, nor of the will of man, but of God; John, i, 13. Human means, or instrumentalities, with all the ordinances and service of the church must forever fail, and can not, in whole or in part, produce this new creature."

And further:

"This doctrine drives despair from the mind of the Christian in regard to his unregenerated children and friends, and emboldens him to carry them to the throne of mercy in his prayers, knowing that where means and instrumentalities must forever fail, God can perform the work."

"Consistency Thou Art A Jewel!"

Surely the average Christian can see the great inconsistency in these views. This "leading light" in Hardshellism, this "founding father," believed that salvation and regeneration were, in one instance, performed without any human means, such as the preaching of the gospel by God sent men, but he, in another instance, believes that God moves upon mothers and fathers to pray for the salvation and regeneration of their children! Why can one be a "means" and the other not? I ask all Hardshells to come forward and tell us how they stand on this issue. Do you pray for the regeneration and salvation of your lost children? I try to remember my days as a Hardshell. Did I pray for the salvation of my unregenerate friends and family?

I believe I did do so, but 1) I did not see the inconsistency in it as I do now, and 2) I did not pray with the "fervent spirit" of a soul winner who believed in human means (under the direction of the Holy Spirit).

Thompson said further, in his sermon endings:

"You may see no encouraging indications in your children or friends toward God, or spiritual things; nay, possibly they are haters of God, and persecutors of his children, they deride and hold in scorn the humble disciple of Christ. This, indeed, is sad, and very sad, but remember that the work of grace is from above; God can new create them, and command the light to shine in their hearts to give them the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. The Spirit of the Lord can breathe upon the dry bones and make them live; it can subdue the proud and stubborn heart, and make it willingly yield itself to God, and delight in the things it now hates. Thy heart may now be sad, tears of grief may stream from thy eyes, as you realize their sad condition, and your inability to change their hearts, or snatch them from their awful fate. But God can make thee rejoice; oh, he can turn all thy sad groanings into sweetest songs over thy most hopeless friend or child. As the father of the prodigal, thou mayest yet say, "This my son was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found. And they began to be merry;" Luke, xv, 24.

Dear brother or sister, these difficulties are with men, and not with God. He can speak, and the dead live; he works the regeneration, quickening, conversion, and faith in the sinner by the same power which raised up Christ from the dead, and will subdue all things unto himself. Let the truth drive despair from your heart, and cause you with boldness to come to a throne of grace in their behalf."

(From "The Primitive Preacher," section titled "A New Creature")

Here is what is inconsistent and unacceptable in the above words of Thompson.

First, notice that Thompson defines "regeneration" as an experience that gives sinners "...the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." How is this anything akin to the modern Hardshell definition of "regeneration"? The modern Pb will say there is no "knowledge" of Christ or gospel truth implanted in the mind in "regeneration"! They will all now say that the sinner learns nothing in "regeneration" for it is all on the "unconscious level." Does Thompson's definition of "regeneration" apply to the "regenerated infant" or to the "regenerated idiot," or to the "regenerated heathen"? No, it does not.

He says, "Human means, or instrumentalities, with all the ordinances and service of the church must forever fail, and can not, in whole or in part, produce this new creature." Is prayer not a "human means"?

He said again, in a sermon ending:

"I see a sister weeping; I know her, and can understand the meaning of those tears that flow so freely from her eyes; her heart is burdened; she feels that her sorrows are more than she can bear. I can look into the face of the daughter, for whom those tears are flowing, floating upon the stream of time to the ocean of eternal destruction and misery, thoughtless and unconcerned. For you those tears are shed; for you those prayers are rising up to the throne of mercy. 0, blessed Jesus! was thy sympathizing heart moved with compassion at the tears of bereaved sisters at the grave of a dead brother, and wilt thou not hear the cries of these thy saints, whose hearts are broken with grief, as they look upon their beloved ones dead in sin, and realize in their hearts that thou alone canst give life to the dead, and break the fetters that bind their captive souls, and set the prisoners free? Thou canst save; thy word is spirit, and it is life. My dear brother, you tremble like a leaf shaken by the wind. I know thy feelings, I can read thy heart; for I, too, have shed the tear of sorrow, and drank the bitter dregs you are now drinking. 0, how sad it is to feel and know that our words can not reach or move the hearts of those we love!" ("Abiding In Christ")

I can testify that I have not heard a single modern Hardshell pray for the lost in this manner. They manifest no such prayers for the unregenerate in their church meetings. Again, it must perplex one to read how Thompson
can believe in such prayers to be divine means to regenerate the lost, but not the preaching of the gospel!

He again preached to his hearers, saying:

"Our tears and prayers can never wash your sin and guilt away; none but Jesus can save from sin, cleanse the guilty sinner, and save him from sinking down into the pit of endless woe! and all I can do is to close this feeble address with the humble prayer, God be merciful to sinners." (Ibid)

Again, all this is the height of inconsistency. If the prayers of the saints are means in regeneration, then so are their words, when they are the words of Christ, which, whether spoken by himself, as in his earthly ministry, or by his servants today, they are indeed "spirit and life."

Chapter 35 - Parable of The Sower & Seed

Elder Grigg Thompson

"But the objector to our views will say, "Jesus has taught us in the parable of the sower and the seed, that we should sow the seed broadcast, and it, falling into the human heart, brings forth a crop of holy fruits, such as faith, love, and obedience to the laws of Christ, and is the means of re-begetting, or regenerating the soul." But we answer that the seed has no power to prepare or fertilize the soil. If it fall on stony ground, or among thorns and thistles, it can not prepare the ground for its reception, and will perish because it can not prepare and fertilize the soil. Paul may plant, and Apollos water, but God must give the increase, or prepare and fertilize the soil that the seed may grow and bring forth fruit, as lie did the heart of Lydia that she should hear and obey the words of his servant. No sensible husbandman sows his seed in unprepared ground, expecting the seed to prepare the ground and bring him a crop. We are not the husbandman, and can not prepare the human heart for the reception of the word; but it is our duty to sow the seed broadcast, for we know not what heart the Lord has prepared for its reception. We are to sow the seed in the morning, and to withhold not in the evening, for we know not which is to prosper, or whether both alike is to be good. We are not of that people who were never called to preach to sinners. The command we have received from our King is, "Go into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." But we are nowhere commanded to prepare their hearts to receive it, but he that can prepare their hearts has promised to be with us always. With this promise, we go sowing the seed, and leaving the event with him who can prepare the heart for its reception, and fertilize it so that a crop can be produced, to his honor and glory."
(From "The Primitive Preacher," chapter on "The New Birth")

There are a number of interesting remarks made here by Elder Thompson. Two of them will be taken up in forthcoming chapters. He mentions how he is going to preach the gospel "to sinners," unregenerate sinners. I will enlarge upon this in future chapters dealing with "Addresses To The Lost," and in the chapter dealing with "Evolution In Hardshell Doctrine." He mentions too the "Great Commission" as being one that gives him his authority for so preaching, and I will deal with this too in the chapters dealing with the "Great Commission." For now I wish only to deal with his remarks against the "gospel means" position, wherein he says that the "heart must first be regenerated, or have life, before it can receive the seed of the word of God."

I can endorse most of what Elder Thompson wrote above. No believer in gospel means believes that the word of God is required in all the "preparatory work" of God on the heart prior to one's "hearing" the word of God. There are many "providential means," as the Old Baptists spoke about, whereby the person was "prepared" for the preaching of the gospel. We do not deny that much "preparatory work" is done in the heart, mind, and life of a sinner, before he hears the saving gospel, before the seed finds depth of lodging in the soil of the heart, but we do deny that the heart of the sinner is yet regenerate, is yet fully renewed. We deny that a heart, without seed, is a "habitation of the Spirit of God." Until that "seed" has been sown in that prepared heart, there will be no "life" or "fruit."

How far will Thompson carry this analogy? Does the entrance of the "seed of God" in I Peter 1:23 not "begat" life? Certainly all Hardshells will admit this. They will deny that the "seed," in that passage, is planted by the means of gospel preaching, but they will not deny that the "seed" in that passage is the "seed of God" himself, metaphorically speaking, and that its entrance into the heart makes the soil good! So, Thompson's "logic" would not apply to the "seed of God."

If seed, of any kind, cannot possibly, in any sense, "prepare" or otherwise change the nature of the soil, then what of the passage in I Peter 1:23? Does the seed of God, that "incorruptible seed," entering the heart, beget life? Does the entrance of that "incorruptible seed" not change the soil (heart) and prepare it? Thompson's "logic" clearly does not apply in this case, does it?

Let me ask the Hardshells some questions along these lines, relative to the parable of the sower and the seed.

1. "Is there "life" in the soil without seed or water?"
2. "Is there any "fruit" from or in soil that is without "seed" or "water"?
3. "If there can be no "fruit" nor "life" in soil that is without "seed" and "water," then how can such soils (hearts) be said to be "alive"?
4. "Why would God prepare hearts for seed and yet have no one sent to sow seed in them?" How can he make the heart change from a desert wilderness to a delightful garden without both cultivating and seeding the soil?
5. "Since faith and repentance are immediate "fruits" of regeneration, how can "fruit" come from soil that is without water and without seed?"

There can be no fruit, no faith and repentance, in soil that has not had seed planted. To speak of "regenerated infants" and "regenerated heathen" having a "sub-conscious faith," a "seed faith," counters all the argumentation put forth by Thompson above, for the fruit of faith implies some kind of seed being planted.

Many Hardshells believe that all four of these different types of soils represent four different kinds of regenerated people! Cayce believed this, arguing that since one of the soils (one that was not good), corresponded to one who had "believed," even though it was only "for awhile," therefore they could not be said to have been unregenerate. Though the "belief" was temporary, Cayce and other Hardshells will argue that this proves that not only the good soil heart, but shallow ground hearts too, represent born again children of God! After all, some of them will argue, they all, in some way, "received" the seed!

Elder C. H. Cayce

"We do not wish to set our views up as a standard...On this parable of the sower we do not agree with many of our brethren. They may be right and we wrong. This makes us fearful of expressing our views...We are aware that many of our brethren hold the position that the hearers denominated as the "wayside," the "stony places," and the "thorns" were all unregenerated, and that the hearers called the "dry ground," and these only, were children of God. We know that there is a preparation of heart that is necessary in order that the preaching of the gospel be of spiritual benefit to anyone." (Editorials, Vol. I, page 132)

And again:

"But we do not think these represent three classes of unregenerate and the good ground, and that only, represents the regenerate. This would give us three classes of unregenerate and only one class of children of God. All God's children, according to this view, would be a fruit-bearing class. It is true they all have that faith that God gives, which is called a fruit of the Spirit, but they do not all bear fruit in the sense of this parable, for the fruit bearing here, we think, is in rendering obedience to the Saviour. Notice the Master's explanation of the parable. Verses 18 and 19, "Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower. When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the wayside." Many of the Lord's dear children hear the word of the kingdom and do not understand it. They get many precious crumbs, perhaps, from the experimental truths the servant of the Lord proclaims, but when the minister begins to apply these same truths in a doctrinal way they cannot understand it, and the wicked one catcheth away that which was sown in their hearts. Many of God's dear children, too, are not in the way, but are by the way--hence way side hearers. "These received seed by the way side." Mark the expression, the statement of the Saviour, "they received seed." Then remember Paul says "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God." Thses received seed." (Pages 132, 133)

Well, he goes on in his writing to show how, in his view, each of the various hearers were all "born again children of God," arguing that they all had "received" the word.

But, before I overthrew these views, let me cite one more leading Hardshell "apologist" on the parable.


Elder Lemuel Potter

"On the parable of the seed he claimed (Elder Pence whom he was debating on the question of gospel means) that the life-germ was in the seed and not in the ground in which it was sown, and that it was often the case that the gospel came to men in word only, and that in such cases the seed did not contain the life-germ in it. That this was the case where the seed fell by the wayside. He argued that the result of sowing the seed depended upon the condition of the seed sown instead of the ground in which it was sown. He also added that the result of sowing depended in a measure on the sinner giving the gospel a favorable hearing, which I claimed is as rank Arminianism as I ever heard a man utter: "Depends entirely on the action of the sinner at last."" (An Account of Elder Potter's Affirmative Arguments and Elder Pence's Reply)

And again:

"I further argued that in the case of the parable of the sower, Matthew 13, where some seeds fell by the wayside, and the fowls of the air caught them away, others into stony places, and, because they had not much earth, they sprang up, and when the sun was up, because they had no root, they withered away, and that others fell among thorns, and the thorns sprung up and choked them, - that this seed was the gospel preached, and if it was the intention of the Lord to change the condition of the ground by sowing the seed in it, it was a complete failure; because in all three of the cases mentioned, the seed left the ground in the very same condition in which it found it. "Other fell into good ground," which ground, of course, was good before the seed fell into it, so the seed could not have made that ground good."

(http://www.carthage.lib.il.us/community/churches/primbap/Potter-Pence2nd.html)

I have noticed how both Campbellites and Hardshells, cousins that they are, both err greatly on this parable. I asked my dad the other day about the evolution in Hardshell views on this parable. I told him that the first Hardshells, like Thompson, believed that only the good ground hearers were the children of God. That is the really Old Baptist position, one you will find advocated by 17th and 18th century Baptist writers. Dad assured me that today's Hardshell all agree that all four of the soils represented children of God. I told him that such a view was new, that the first Hardshells did not take this view. He did not want to acknowledge this, but it is a fact nonetheless.

I just had another debate with a Campbellite preacher and the parable of the sower and the seed was discussed. I took the view that only the good ground hearers were regenerated children of God. My Campbellite opponent argued that at least one of the other three was a child of God, the shallow ground hearers, because they "received the word with joy," and "believed for a while."

Obviously, however, the word "but" shows that only one of the four hearers had an "honest and good heart." "But he that received seed on good ground...out of an honest and good heart..." The other hearers did not have honest and good hearts. How then could they be regenerated? Especially when men, like Thompson, argue that this good heart is regeneration? Did the other hearers have good and honest hearts? No! How many soils were good? All? No! Only one had a good and honest heart and received the word unto salvation.

"Lest They Should Believe And Be Saved"

"Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved." (Luke 8: 12)

They had "received" the word, but it was sown on the heart, not in the heart, and they did not believe nor were they "saved" who "received seed" in this manner.

Those who received seed on shallow ground, though they believed for a short time and brought forth some kind of fruit, yet they are clearly not children of God, for they do not have good and honest hearts.

It is also clear that none of the good ground hearers fell away. Only the other type soil hearers "fell away." What did John say about the matter?

"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." (I John 2:19)

Those who "fall away" then show that they were never truly saved to begin with.

The parable of the sower and the seed does not prove, as the Hardshells imagine, that men are born again before they hear or receive the gospel and they have departed from the faith of the Baptists on this parable.

Here is what Hardshell patriarch Elder J. R. Respass wrote about this parable.

"Brother B.B. Stallings, of Humbolt, Tenn., writes us that some people in his section use this parable to teach the doctrine of "falling from grace;" but to our mind it teaches the opposite doctrine, or rather the absolute necessity of grace in the salvation of sinners. The Jews were well acquainted with sowing wheat and barley. They knew from experience that it was necessary to have the ground broken by the plowshare to raise it; and that, therefore, the Saviour was telling the truth when he taught them that grain sown by the way or road-side would be unfruitful, because men would walk on and tread it down, and the fowls would devour it; and that seed sown on stony, hard and unbroken land would yield nothing; because, though it sprang up quickly, it could take no root, and that when the hot sun necessary to its maturity should shine upon it, that it would be scorched, and soon wither away. They knew, also, that seed sown among thorns, in a briar patch, for instance, would make nothing, because the thorns would choke it. All these things they knew from natural experience as farmers or husbandmen. They knew that the land must be enclosed or fenced, cleared of thorns, bushes and briars, and be broken up before the seed was sown; enclosed from the fowls and the tread of men; cleared of thorns and briars that would choke it; and broken up so as to absorb and retain moisture, and the roots have depth of earth to strike down into the moisture when the hot sun poured down upon it. But, like people now, they did not perceive the truth when applied spiritually. No sensible Jewish farmer would have undertaken to make a crop of wheat otherwise than as taught by the Saviour in this parable. Nor would he have undertaken to break his land until the first or "former rain" was sent by the Lord upon it; because the land, especially in that country, by the dry, hot summer sun grew, like the sinner's heart, very hard, so that it could not be broken until softened by the first rain. But land softened by the rain, broken by the plow, enclosed from the fowls and cleared of thorns, and sown, will be unharmed by the fowls, the feet of men, the cares of the world or the heat of the sun, and will yield thirty, sixty and one hundred fold. Any thing short of this thorough preparation will be fruitless. So in the way-side, stony and thorny ground hearers the Saviour shows the lack of grace, rather than the falling from it. And another thing perhaps he taught, and that is, that the fault was not in the seed sown, or the word preached, but in the sinner's heart. "Ye will not come unto me that ye might have life."--John v. There were many of these kind or hearers in the Saviour's day as well as in this; and doubtless the Saviour spoke the parable for the comfort of his people then and his people now; that they should not be discouraged when they should see many, who had received the word with a temporary joy, turn back for love of the world, its honors or riches, or to escape persecution; that they should know that such professors had not received the word in a contrite and broken heart, and hence they neither understood it nor kept it. He asked his true disciples when many so-called disciples went back and walked no more with him on account of his hard and unpopular doctrine, "Will ye also go away?" but they answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life."--John vi. Thus the hot sun of trials and persecution that withered up the shallow letter hearers, only caused his good-ground hearers to take deeper root in Christ, making them feel more and more the necessity of Christ in their salvation; and thus they brought forth an hundred fold, whilst the others brought nothing to perfection. This briefly, Brother Stallings, is our understanding of Christ's teaching in the parable of the sower."

I think he doubtless reflected the view of his fathers, of the truly Old Baptists, for he himself was a fairly old man when he penned the above commentary. He says that three of the four kinds of hearers were lost and without the grace of salvation. He also believed that all the good ground hearers would persevere and bring forth fruit and grow. Again, that is the Old Baptist position. (The Sower -- Matt. XIII - Written by John R. Respess in the GOSPEL MESSENGER, Butler, Ga., May 1885)

http://primitivebaptist.info/mambo//content/view/365/36/