Said Charles Spurgeon:
"Then the decree of election could not have been formed upon good works. "But," say others, "God elected them on the foresight of their faith." Now, God gives faith, therefore He could not have elected them on account of faith which He foresaw. There shall be twenty beggards in the street and I determine to give one of them a shilling. Will anyone say that I determined to give that one a shilling—that I elected him to have the shilling—because I foresaw that he would have it? That would be talking nonsense."
"In like manner to say that God elected men because He foresaw they would have faith—which is salvation in the germ—would be too absurd for us to listen to for a moment. Faith is the gift of God. Every virtue comes from Him. Therefore it cannot have caused Him to elect men, because it is His gift. Election, we are sure, is absolute and altogether apart from the virtues which the saints have afterwards."
"I never knew a saint yet of any denomination who thought that God saved him because He foresaw that he would have these virtues and merits."
(UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION - NO. 41-42)
Oct 13, 2010
Sep 29, 2010
Don't Teach Calvinism to the Lost?
It has been said by Arminians that the doctrine of election, or Calvinism in general, should not be preached to the unconverted, but, if true, only to those already converted. It is argued that to do so would harm evangelizing the unconverted. Is this true?
In reply to the first proposition, it is not true that the doctrine of unconditional election was not preached to the unconverted. Clearly, John 6 and John 10 are lengthy teachings on the subject and addressed to unconverted men.
It is not true that preaching the doctrine of election to the uncoverted is unsuccessful in conversion. Jesus and the apostles all openly taught the doctrine of unconditional election and were successful in evangelism of the lost. So too, in modern times, have been men such as Charles Spurgeon and George Whitfield.
In reply to the first proposition, it is not true that the doctrine of unconditional election was not preached to the unconverted. Clearly, John 6 and John 10 are lengthy teachings on the subject and addressed to unconverted men.
It is not true that preaching the doctrine of election to the uncoverted is unsuccessful in conversion. Jesus and the apostles all openly taught the doctrine of unconditional election and were successful in evangelism of the lost. So too, in modern times, have been men such as Charles Spurgeon and George Whitfield.
Sep 25, 2010
A. H. Strong on Ordo Salutis
A. H. Strong wrote the following in his section on "conversion," page 842.
"Faith therefore is not chronologically subsequent to regeneration, but is its accompaniment. As the soul's appropriation of Christ and his salvation, it is not the result of an accomplished renewal, but rather the medium through which that renewal is effected. Otherwise it would follow that one who had not yet believed (i.e., received Christ) might still be regenerate, whereas the Scripture represents the privilege of sonship as granted only to believers."
This is the biblical view, which views regeneration/new birth as concurrent with faith and repentance. The bible knows nothing of a regenerated unbeliever.
"Faith therefore is not chronologically subsequent to regeneration, but is its accompaniment. As the soul's appropriation of Christ and his salvation, it is not the result of an accomplished renewal, but rather the medium through which that renewal is effected. Otherwise it would follow that one who had not yet believed (i.e., received Christ) might still be regenerate, whereas the Scripture represents the privilege of sonship as granted only to believers."
This is the biblical view, which views regeneration/new birth as concurrent with faith and repentance. The bible knows nothing of a regenerated unbeliever.
A. H. Strong on Conviction
It is an error of the Hardshells, in their understanding of regeneration (new birth), and its attendant evidences, to speak of the experience of conviction of sin as a result of regeneration. This is a grave error, and leads to fateful consequences. First, those who are unregenerate, yet under conviction, are told that they are regenerate, which keeps them from believing and following Christ, and gives them false assurance. It makes them harder to convert. Second, professing Christians who believe this error are always looking within to see if they are still experiencing the sorrows of conviction, being their way of "making their calling and election sure."
The biblical and Baptistic view is ably expressed by that great bible scholar, Augustus H. Strong, and is taken from his Systematic Theology, the section on "conversion,," pages 826, 827). He wrote:
"Conviction of sin is an ordinary, antecedent of regeneration. It results from the contemplation of truth. It is often accompanied by fear, remorse, and cries for mercy. But these desries and fears are not signs of regeneration. They are selfish. They are quite consistent with manifest and dreadful enmity to God. They have a hopeful aspect, simply because they are evidence that the Holy Spirit is striving with the man. But this work of the Spirit is not yet regeneration; at most, is preparation for regeneration. So far as the sinner is concerned, he is more of a sinner than ever before; because, under more light than has ever before been given him, he is still rejecting Christ and resisting the Spirit. The word of God and the Holy Spirit appeal to the lower as well as to higher motives; most men's concern about religion is determined, at the outset, by hope or fear."
The biblical and Baptistic view is ably expressed by that great bible scholar, Augustus H. Strong, and is taken from his Systematic Theology, the section on "conversion,," pages 826, 827). He wrote:
"Conviction of sin is an ordinary, antecedent of regeneration. It results from the contemplation of truth. It is often accompanied by fear, remorse, and cries for mercy. But these desries and fears are not signs of regeneration. They are selfish. They are quite consistent with manifest and dreadful enmity to God. They have a hopeful aspect, simply because they are evidence that the Holy Spirit is striving with the man. But this work of the Spirit is not yet regeneration; at most, is preparation for regeneration. So far as the sinner is concerned, he is more of a sinner than ever before; because, under more light than has ever before been given him, he is still rejecting Christ and resisting the Spirit. The word of God and the Holy Spirit appeal to the lower as well as to higher motives; most men's concern about religion is determined, at the outset, by hope or fear."
Sep 23, 2010
Faith by Hearing?
Today's "Primitive" or "Hardshell" Baptist teaches that one must have faith before they can hear the gospel. It is said by them that God, in regeneration, implants "faith" and then later, perhaps, some of them will exercise this "faith" by hearing and believing the gospel. It is astonishing however how they could teach what is so contrary to what the scriptures teach. For instance, Paul is very clear on this matter.
"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Romans 10: 13, 14, 17)
The Hardshells say faith comes before hearing and believing the gospel, but the apostle said it comes after.
The best the Hardshells can do is to say "well, there are two kinds of faith in the bible. One is given to all the elect in regeneration and the other to only those regenerated elect ones who hear and believe the gospel." The first, they say, is regeneration faith and the latter is gospel or conversion faith.
The first kind of "faith," however, is nonsensical. It believes nothing, understands nothing, receives nothing. It has no object. It is totally indescribable, some kind of metaphysical substance. This kind of "faith" does not believe in the one true and living God, does not believe in Christ, or in the gospel, and does not trust. The scriptures know nothing of this kind of "faith."
To have belief in God, one must first hear about God. One cannot believe in one whom he does not know. Men come to believe, to have faith, when they have heard the gospel and been convinced of its truthfulness.
The Hardshells thus teach what is opposite of what Paul taught about faith and can only distort Paul's words in order to make them appear to harmonize with their non-biblical ideas.
"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Romans 10: 13, 14, 17)
The Hardshells say faith comes before hearing and believing the gospel, but the apostle said it comes after.
The best the Hardshells can do is to say "well, there are two kinds of faith in the bible. One is given to all the elect in regeneration and the other to only those regenerated elect ones who hear and believe the gospel." The first, they say, is regeneration faith and the latter is gospel or conversion faith.
The first kind of "faith," however, is nonsensical. It believes nothing, understands nothing, receives nothing. It has no object. It is totally indescribable, some kind of metaphysical substance. This kind of "faith" does not believe in the one true and living God, does not believe in Christ, or in the gospel, and does not trust. The scriptures know nothing of this kind of "faith."
To have belief in God, one must first hear about God. One cannot believe in one whom he does not know. Men come to believe, to have faith, when they have heard the gospel and been convinced of its truthfulness.
The Hardshells thus teach what is opposite of what Paul taught about faith and can only distort Paul's words in order to make them appear to harmonize with their non-biblical ideas.
Sep 22, 2010
Reviewing a Hardshell Sermon
A friend of mine, who recently left the "Primitive Baptists" because he came to see their error on the use of gospel means in regeneration, recenly asked me to listen to a sermon by Hardshell pastor, Elder Zack Guess, on the topic of means in regeneration. Zack is one who is part of the "liberal movement" among today's Hardshells, which includes many Hardshells who are returning to the truth of the bible and the faith of their Baptist forefathers on the subjects of means in new birth, perseverence of the preserved saints, theological and bible schools, etc. He seems to represent those in the liberal movement who believe all the regenerated will later come to believe the gospel, or be converted.
I wrote this former Hardshell elder this review of Zack's sermon, which can be found at http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=91806135724 under the sermon title "immediate regeneration."
Dear Friend:
I listened to the sermon by Zack and it is obvious that he does not believe in means in regeneration. His upholding of what he calls “immediate regeneration,” is a denial that it is mediated through the gospel.
Also, he equates “regeneration” and being “born again.” In this respect, he falls in the line of the Potter tradition within the Primitive Baptist sect. I would suspect that he does believe all the regenerated will respond to the gospel, if they hear it. It is not clear if he believes that all will hear it. His view is better than the common Hardshell view, but it still has a large distance to go to arrive at the truth as it is in scripture and in Old Baptist history.
Guess came out hard against the use of the gospel and word of God as a means in regeneration and was a typical Hardshell on this point. Let me give this review of what he preached.
First, he mentions some former leaders , two Baptist (Best, Pink) and one Presbyterian, who believed as he does. It is remarkable that he cites two modern, 20th century Baptists, and no pre 19th century Baptist authority or confession. He could have added Shedd and Berkhof to his list of Presbyterians who promulgated the “no means” view of regeneration.
Next, he argues that to believe in “total depravity,” and that men are spiritually “dead,” logically omits God’s use of gospel truth as an instrument in giving spiritual life. But, clearly his statements contradict plain scripture. The story of Ezekiel’s preaching to the dry dead bones destroys all the logical reasoning of Zack Guess and the Hardshells. God used preaching to raise the dead. God could have done it without Ezekiel, no question about that. But, it is not what he chose to do. The Hardshells are denying the sovereignty of God in their affirming that God can’t regenerate through the preaching of the gospel.
He then asks – “what do dead people do?” “Nothing,” he says. This question, of course, can be answered one of two ways, depending upon one’s perspective. “With man,” this is impossible. “With God,” however, it is possible. Dead people do not do anything unless God make the dead do something. The dead hear the voice of Christ, they obey it, and they come forward. Secondly, if we take Zack’s question and apply it to the case of the dry bones of Ezekiel’s vision, we would respond – “the dead bones moved, came together…” The dead doing something! What Zack said cannot be!
He speaks of regeneration as “God speaking to your heart.” Yet, the Hardshell idea of what this means is ridiculous. First, according to them, the one spoken to cannot identify who spoke to him, cannot tell you what was said. Yet, in scripture, people who heard the Lord speaking to them, both recognized who spoke to them, and what he said to them. Second, it is ironic that Zack brought up the case of Saul of Tarsus, in this connection. He even said that Paul’s regeneration on the Damascus road was, as Paul said, a “pattern” of how God regenerates his elect. Zack affirms that God “spoke to his heart” on the Damascus road. This is where he heard the voice of Christ. The irony here is that the example of Saul’s hearing the voice of the Son of God contradicts Hardshell ideas as to what it means to experience hearing the voice of the Lord. Saul knew who it was who spoke to him! He knew the “words” the Jesus spoke to him! And, if this is the “pattern,” then all God’s regenerated people, when they hear the voice of Jesus, all know it is Jesus, hear his words, believe in Jesus and the gospel, and become disciples. At the end of Zack’s sermon, he even confessed that he did not know when he had been born again, when he heard the voice of God, when he experienced gospel revelation.
He also said that, in Paul’s case, “the gospel was not present,” and that this was the “pattern” for all the elect. But, he contradicts himself and the gospel record in saying this. He had earlier spoken of how Saul “heard” Stephen “preach” a glorious sermon prior to his regeneration experience on the Damascus road. So, unless Saul had forgotten all he heard from Stephen’s gospel preaching, the gospel was indeed present when Saul was regenerated and converted. It was present in his heart and memory, lying dormant like a seed, and when Jesus appeared to him and spoke to him, that seed of gospel truth, was there ready to be germinated. Besides this fact, consider how Jesus spoke to Saul, in his regeneration, in sentences, which conveyed revelation of gospel truth, and so to say that “the gospel was not present,” is a grievous falsehood. Jesus said to Saul – “I am Jesus whom you persecute.” Was this not gospel preaching? Is this the “pattern” for all the elect who hear his voice in regeneration? Saul’s regeneration brought him to acknowledge Jesus as Lord and Savior, and if he is the “pattern,” then all who are regenerated, confess Christ as Savior and Lord in that experience.
Zack then said – “people don’t find God in conversion but find him in regeneration.” I found this interesting. First, because I believe the scriptures to show that regeneration and conversion are terms that speak of the same experience of being reborn. But, seeing how the Hardshells fail to rightly divide the word of truth on this issue, putting asunder what God has joined together, making regeneration and conversion to be distinct and divided, I can see how Zack would say this.
I am glad that he admits, however, that sinners “find God” in “regeneration.” I assume he does not mean just any “god,” but the one true God. I assume he understands that men cannot find something unconsciously. It is the common Hardshell view that “regeneration” is on the “sub conscious level.” This is why they speak of the regeneration of infants in the womb and of some practicing pagans. They commonly believe that many religious people, Christian and non Christian, have experienced “regeneration” on the “sub conscious level,” people who are born again, but don’t consciously know it, people who love Jesus, but don’t consciously know it, who are Christians but do not know it, etc.
Zack makes the common Hardshell assertions regarding John 6: 63, where Jesus said “the words that I speak to you are spirit and they are life.” He says that these are words that Jesus speaks personally to each of the elect, and is never through an agent, or preacher of the gospel. The words Jesus may speak through gospel preachers has no power to regenerate, but only those words that Jesus himself speaks to the sinners. Supposedly too, all on the sub conscious level! Was that, however, the way it was in the case of Ezekiel and the valley of dead bones? That the words of God spoken through a preacher cannot raise the dead? Were not the words that the prophet spoke to the dead bones “spirit and life”? According to Zack and the Hardshells, the “words” of Jesus, the message of the gospel, has no power to raise the dead, unless Jesus himself be the preacher!
He then brings up the case of John the Baptist to prove his Hardshell idea of “immediate regeneration.” But, the case of John the Baptist, like the case of Saul of Tarsus, affords the Hardshell no comfortable place. The Hardshells need to leave the case of John the Baptist alone, as a proof text for Hardshellism, for it clearly refutes their views.
Zack says that the “leaping for joy” of the Baptist, while in the womb, was evidence that he had been already regenerated. He says that “joy is the fruit of the Holy Spirit,” and to him that means “joy is the result of the new birth.” But, I would ask him, does not joy imply knowledge and understanding? Does not the rejoicing of the Baptist prove he had gospel knowledge? If his joy proves his prior regeneration, then it also implies his former knowledge of the gospel. And, was not the gospel announced to him, and is what produced the exultation? Was he not rejoicing over the good news of the birth of Jesus? How can he say, as he did with the case of Saul, that “the gospel was not present”? Its seems to me that both cases show that the gospel was indeed present and working in regeneration. So, not only was the Baptist “filled with the Holy Ghost,” from the womb, he was also filled with gospel truth.
Zack next brings up the case of David, where David said that God had “made me to hope while upon my mother’s breast.” Here he attempts to make the case of David to be like the case of the Baptist. David too was regenerated while an infant, the only difference being, one was while being in the womb, and the other when upon mother’s breast . He believes that David’s being “made to hope” to be a description of David’s “regeneration.” But, how can one “hope” sub consciously? Or unconsciously? How can one hope ignorantly, without any understanding? So, this case of David refutes Hardshell conceptions of what it means to be “regenerated.” David hoped in the Messiah, had a gospel hope. His mother taught him the gospel and he learned it as well as his nursery rhymes. How old was David when this happened? First, we must decide what is meant by David being “upon my mother’s breast”? Is he referring to the time spent on the breast sucking? If so, then David would have been probably no older than three years. If, however, “upon my mother’s breast,” alludes to time in her lap, in reclining in her bosom, this time could reach up to the years of puberty, till teenage years. Toddlers spend a lot of time upon their mother’s breast long after they have stopped sucking the breast.
Zack then affirms that only he and his Hardshell brethren, who believe in “immediate regeneration” apart from the word and gospel, are the only ones “giving God 100% of the glory for regeneration.” They are “guilty of giving God too much credit.” He affirms that those who believe God regenerates by the gospel do not give all the glory and credit to God for regeneration. Did God fail to get 100% of the glory and credit in the resurrection of the dry dead bones when they were raised through the preaching of the prophet? Did God fail to get all the credit when the prophets and apostles raised the dead? But, notice how this reasoning backfires on Zack and the Hardshells. Do they believe, unlike regeneration, that conversion is by means of the preached gospel? Yes, they do. But, then Zack, by his own criterion, must affirm that God does not get 100% of the credit in conversion! He believes God gets 100% of the credit in regeneration because he acts apart from means, but since he uses means in conversion, then God, by his own admission, does not get all the credit for Hardshell conversions!
I have a question for Zack and the Hardshells at this point. When the Holy Spirit convicts a sinner of sin and lost condition, you say that this is proof of his prior regeneration. But, if the Holy Spirit were convicting only those who have already been regenerated, then would the Holy Spirit not be lying to them in convicting them of lost condition?
Zack next began to describe the regeneration/new birth experience by going to Hebrews chapter eight where it is described by God “writing his laws” into the heart and mind. It was argued that this divine writing was done by God on the unconscious level, that it must be done apart from the revelation of gospel truth to the mind, and is what must occur before a person will consciously be converted. But, to the ruination of Hardshellism, Paul included the preacher in this writing. He wrote:
“Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.” (II Cor. 3: 3)
Here clearly the preachers of the gospel, the “ministers” mentioned, are the quill, and the Spirit is the ink. The writer is Christ, the heart is the paper, the ink is the Holy Spirit, and the “instrument” is the “minister.” “Ministered by us” clearly identifies the preachers as being the instruments of this writing. The ministers act as the “finger” of God just as Ezekiel acted as God’s hand and finger, yea, and his tongue. Hardshells envision Christ using no quill. It reminds me how they, as Zack did in this sermon, are contradictory on their attempts to make physical birth the exact mechanical replica of spiritual birth. But, I would ask Zack – “do you believe you can have a birth without both a father and mother?” Then why do you have a “father alone” view of regeneration? Where is your “mother”? If the church is the mother, which obviously it is, then birth takes place by means of the church, by means of her proclamation of the gospel. Who is the mother in Hardshell new birth?
Zack also refers to the words in Hebrews eight, where further description is given of those who experience regeneration, where God says “and they shall be my people and I will be their God.” But, how does this harmonize with Hardshell immediate regeneration? How does it harmonize with their “Father alone” and “Spirit alone” view of regeneration? Can one be the people of God unconsciously? Without knowing God? Without knowing God as the Father of Christ?
Zack next brought up the words “and they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying know the Lord, for all shall know me, from the least even to the greatest.” First, Zack should read the citation from the Old Testament, where Jeremiah says “they shall teach no more…saying know the Lord.” Obviously, men do teach men to know the Lord. Obviously, when all have come to know the Lord, there will be no more reason to say know the Lord. Also, how can Zack and the Hardshells divorce knowledge of the true God, knowledge of Christ and gospel truth, from the description of the text? They shall know “me”? Who is the “me”? Is it not the God of Israel? The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ? How can one know unconsciously? How can one know God but does not know that he knows him? How does a regenerated infant “know the Lord”?
Zack went on to say that regeneration was “God putting the love of God into your heart.” But how can one love another and not know it? How can one love unconsciously? How can one love another that he has no knowledge of? If a love of God is what is produced in regeneration, then this love springs from knowledge about God, and from a belief in what one knows. Does Zack’s “regenerated infant” in the womb, know and love God? It seems Zack, on one hand, wants to associate religious and gospel truth with the experience of regeneration, but on the other hand, to deny it. And, it seems, what knowledge of God is given in regeneration must not be more than nature itself reveals. It must be some kind of innate knowledge that is not conscious. All this is theological metaphysics at its worst.
He then refers to II Cor. 4: 6 as a reference to regeneration. “For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” He tried in vain to divorce this work of divine shining in the soul from the preaching of the gospel, and from faith in it. But, clearly this work is done by the application of gospel truth to the heart and mind, as the context shows. In verse 5 Paul says “For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.” Notice how Paul is talking about preaching the gospel of God, the message concerning Jesus and his salvation, and as “servants,” God’s instruments. What is given in the regeneration experience, this verse affirms, is the light of gospel knowledge, knowledge of Jesus. Hardhells do not believe that this shining light experience, this regeneration, produces knowledge and faith in Christ. According to Hardshells, millions are walking around who have had this light shine into their hearts, but who do not acknowledge Jesus as Lord and Savior, but remain pagans.
He then gave the old Hardshell argumentation on II Tim. 1: 10 where Paul affirmed that “life and immortality” are “brought to light by the gospel.” To Zack and the Hardshells, Paul was giving the Hardshell “ordo salutis” in these words. They insist that the gospel does not give life, is not a means in giving it, but only is the manner in which those who have been regenerated come to realize it. The gospel when preached, turns the light on, and the elect regenerated are manifest. Thus, Paul is viewed as affirming, as they do, that the gospel only reveals those who are already spiritually alive, and cannot be a means to actually make them alive. Yet, this is clear eisegeses, reading into the text what is not there. All Paul is saying is that the truth about these subjects are revealed in the bible, or in the gospel. Where does one find revelation about salvation? About God? Are these topics of discussion not “brought to light” by the bible, by the gospel?
In summation, the argumentation of Zack Guess to prove “immediate regeneration,” or “Spirit alone regeneration,” or “father alone regeneration,” is untenable, contradictory to both scripture and sound logical principles.
I wrote this former Hardshell elder this review of Zack's sermon, which can be found at http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=91806135724 under the sermon title "immediate regeneration."
Dear Friend:
I listened to the sermon by Zack and it is obvious that he does not believe in means in regeneration. His upholding of what he calls “immediate regeneration,” is a denial that it is mediated through the gospel.
Also, he equates “regeneration” and being “born again.” In this respect, he falls in the line of the Potter tradition within the Primitive Baptist sect. I would suspect that he does believe all the regenerated will respond to the gospel, if they hear it. It is not clear if he believes that all will hear it. His view is better than the common Hardshell view, but it still has a large distance to go to arrive at the truth as it is in scripture and in Old Baptist history.
Guess came out hard against the use of the gospel and word of God as a means in regeneration and was a typical Hardshell on this point. Let me give this review of what he preached.
First, he mentions some former leaders , two Baptist (Best, Pink) and one Presbyterian, who believed as he does. It is remarkable that he cites two modern, 20th century Baptists, and no pre 19th century Baptist authority or confession. He could have added Shedd and Berkhof to his list of Presbyterians who promulgated the “no means” view of regeneration.
Next, he argues that to believe in “total depravity,” and that men are spiritually “dead,” logically omits God’s use of gospel truth as an instrument in giving spiritual life. But, clearly his statements contradict plain scripture. The story of Ezekiel’s preaching to the dry dead bones destroys all the logical reasoning of Zack Guess and the Hardshells. God used preaching to raise the dead. God could have done it without Ezekiel, no question about that. But, it is not what he chose to do. The Hardshells are denying the sovereignty of God in their affirming that God can’t regenerate through the preaching of the gospel.
He then asks – “what do dead people do?” “Nothing,” he says. This question, of course, can be answered one of two ways, depending upon one’s perspective. “With man,” this is impossible. “With God,” however, it is possible. Dead people do not do anything unless God make the dead do something. The dead hear the voice of Christ, they obey it, and they come forward. Secondly, if we take Zack’s question and apply it to the case of the dry bones of Ezekiel’s vision, we would respond – “the dead bones moved, came together…” The dead doing something! What Zack said cannot be!
He speaks of regeneration as “God speaking to your heart.” Yet, the Hardshell idea of what this means is ridiculous. First, according to them, the one spoken to cannot identify who spoke to him, cannot tell you what was said. Yet, in scripture, people who heard the Lord speaking to them, both recognized who spoke to them, and what he said to them. Second, it is ironic that Zack brought up the case of Saul of Tarsus, in this connection. He even said that Paul’s regeneration on the Damascus road was, as Paul said, a “pattern” of how God regenerates his elect. Zack affirms that God “spoke to his heart” on the Damascus road. This is where he heard the voice of Christ. The irony here is that the example of Saul’s hearing the voice of the Son of God contradicts Hardshell ideas as to what it means to experience hearing the voice of the Lord. Saul knew who it was who spoke to him! He knew the “words” the Jesus spoke to him! And, if this is the “pattern,” then all God’s regenerated people, when they hear the voice of Jesus, all know it is Jesus, hear his words, believe in Jesus and the gospel, and become disciples. At the end of Zack’s sermon, he even confessed that he did not know when he had been born again, when he heard the voice of God, when he experienced gospel revelation.
He also said that, in Paul’s case, “the gospel was not present,” and that this was the “pattern” for all the elect. But, he contradicts himself and the gospel record in saying this. He had earlier spoken of how Saul “heard” Stephen “preach” a glorious sermon prior to his regeneration experience on the Damascus road. So, unless Saul had forgotten all he heard from Stephen’s gospel preaching, the gospel was indeed present when Saul was regenerated and converted. It was present in his heart and memory, lying dormant like a seed, and when Jesus appeared to him and spoke to him, that seed of gospel truth, was there ready to be germinated. Besides this fact, consider how Jesus spoke to Saul, in his regeneration, in sentences, which conveyed revelation of gospel truth, and so to say that “the gospel was not present,” is a grievous falsehood. Jesus said to Saul – “I am Jesus whom you persecute.” Was this not gospel preaching? Is this the “pattern” for all the elect who hear his voice in regeneration? Saul’s regeneration brought him to acknowledge Jesus as Lord and Savior, and if he is the “pattern,” then all who are regenerated, confess Christ as Savior and Lord in that experience.
Zack then said – “people don’t find God in conversion but find him in regeneration.” I found this interesting. First, because I believe the scriptures to show that regeneration and conversion are terms that speak of the same experience of being reborn. But, seeing how the Hardshells fail to rightly divide the word of truth on this issue, putting asunder what God has joined together, making regeneration and conversion to be distinct and divided, I can see how Zack would say this.
I am glad that he admits, however, that sinners “find God” in “regeneration.” I assume he does not mean just any “god,” but the one true God. I assume he understands that men cannot find something unconsciously. It is the common Hardshell view that “regeneration” is on the “sub conscious level.” This is why they speak of the regeneration of infants in the womb and of some practicing pagans. They commonly believe that many religious people, Christian and non Christian, have experienced “regeneration” on the “sub conscious level,” people who are born again, but don’t consciously know it, people who love Jesus, but don’t consciously know it, who are Christians but do not know it, etc.
Zack makes the common Hardshell assertions regarding John 6: 63, where Jesus said “the words that I speak to you are spirit and they are life.” He says that these are words that Jesus speaks personally to each of the elect, and is never through an agent, or preacher of the gospel. The words Jesus may speak through gospel preachers has no power to regenerate, but only those words that Jesus himself speaks to the sinners. Supposedly too, all on the sub conscious level! Was that, however, the way it was in the case of Ezekiel and the valley of dead bones? That the words of God spoken through a preacher cannot raise the dead? Were not the words that the prophet spoke to the dead bones “spirit and life”? According to Zack and the Hardshells, the “words” of Jesus, the message of the gospel, has no power to raise the dead, unless Jesus himself be the preacher!
He then brings up the case of John the Baptist to prove his Hardshell idea of “immediate regeneration.” But, the case of John the Baptist, like the case of Saul of Tarsus, affords the Hardshell no comfortable place. The Hardshells need to leave the case of John the Baptist alone, as a proof text for Hardshellism, for it clearly refutes their views.
Zack says that the “leaping for joy” of the Baptist, while in the womb, was evidence that he had been already regenerated. He says that “joy is the fruit of the Holy Spirit,” and to him that means “joy is the result of the new birth.” But, I would ask him, does not joy imply knowledge and understanding? Does not the rejoicing of the Baptist prove he had gospel knowledge? If his joy proves his prior regeneration, then it also implies his former knowledge of the gospel. And, was not the gospel announced to him, and is what produced the exultation? Was he not rejoicing over the good news of the birth of Jesus? How can he say, as he did with the case of Saul, that “the gospel was not present”? Its seems to me that both cases show that the gospel was indeed present and working in regeneration. So, not only was the Baptist “filled with the Holy Ghost,” from the womb, he was also filled with gospel truth.
Zack next brings up the case of David, where David said that God had “made me to hope while upon my mother’s breast.” Here he attempts to make the case of David to be like the case of the Baptist. David too was regenerated while an infant, the only difference being, one was while being in the womb, and the other when upon mother’s breast . He believes that David’s being “made to hope” to be a description of David’s “regeneration.” But, how can one “hope” sub consciously? Or unconsciously? How can one hope ignorantly, without any understanding? So, this case of David refutes Hardshell conceptions of what it means to be “regenerated.” David hoped in the Messiah, had a gospel hope. His mother taught him the gospel and he learned it as well as his nursery rhymes. How old was David when this happened? First, we must decide what is meant by David being “upon my mother’s breast”? Is he referring to the time spent on the breast sucking? If so, then David would have been probably no older than three years. If, however, “upon my mother’s breast,” alludes to time in her lap, in reclining in her bosom, this time could reach up to the years of puberty, till teenage years. Toddlers spend a lot of time upon their mother’s breast long after they have stopped sucking the breast.
Zack then affirms that only he and his Hardshell brethren, who believe in “immediate regeneration” apart from the word and gospel, are the only ones “giving God 100% of the glory for regeneration.” They are “guilty of giving God too much credit.” He affirms that those who believe God regenerates by the gospel do not give all the glory and credit to God for regeneration. Did God fail to get 100% of the glory and credit in the resurrection of the dry dead bones when they were raised through the preaching of the prophet? Did God fail to get all the credit when the prophets and apostles raised the dead? But, notice how this reasoning backfires on Zack and the Hardshells. Do they believe, unlike regeneration, that conversion is by means of the preached gospel? Yes, they do. But, then Zack, by his own criterion, must affirm that God does not get 100% of the credit in conversion! He believes God gets 100% of the credit in regeneration because he acts apart from means, but since he uses means in conversion, then God, by his own admission, does not get all the credit for Hardshell conversions!
I have a question for Zack and the Hardshells at this point. When the Holy Spirit convicts a sinner of sin and lost condition, you say that this is proof of his prior regeneration. But, if the Holy Spirit were convicting only those who have already been regenerated, then would the Holy Spirit not be lying to them in convicting them of lost condition?
Zack next began to describe the regeneration/new birth experience by going to Hebrews chapter eight where it is described by God “writing his laws” into the heart and mind. It was argued that this divine writing was done by God on the unconscious level, that it must be done apart from the revelation of gospel truth to the mind, and is what must occur before a person will consciously be converted. But, to the ruination of Hardshellism, Paul included the preacher in this writing. He wrote:
“Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.” (II Cor. 3: 3)
Here clearly the preachers of the gospel, the “ministers” mentioned, are the quill, and the Spirit is the ink. The writer is Christ, the heart is the paper, the ink is the Holy Spirit, and the “instrument” is the “minister.” “Ministered by us” clearly identifies the preachers as being the instruments of this writing. The ministers act as the “finger” of God just as Ezekiel acted as God’s hand and finger, yea, and his tongue. Hardshells envision Christ using no quill. It reminds me how they, as Zack did in this sermon, are contradictory on their attempts to make physical birth the exact mechanical replica of spiritual birth. But, I would ask Zack – “do you believe you can have a birth without both a father and mother?” Then why do you have a “father alone” view of regeneration? Where is your “mother”? If the church is the mother, which obviously it is, then birth takes place by means of the church, by means of her proclamation of the gospel. Who is the mother in Hardshell new birth?
Zack also refers to the words in Hebrews eight, where further description is given of those who experience regeneration, where God says “and they shall be my people and I will be their God.” But, how does this harmonize with Hardshell immediate regeneration? How does it harmonize with their “Father alone” and “Spirit alone” view of regeneration? Can one be the people of God unconsciously? Without knowing God? Without knowing God as the Father of Christ?
Zack next brought up the words “and they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying know the Lord, for all shall know me, from the least even to the greatest.” First, Zack should read the citation from the Old Testament, where Jeremiah says “they shall teach no more…saying know the Lord.” Obviously, men do teach men to know the Lord. Obviously, when all have come to know the Lord, there will be no more reason to say know the Lord. Also, how can Zack and the Hardshells divorce knowledge of the true God, knowledge of Christ and gospel truth, from the description of the text? They shall know “me”? Who is the “me”? Is it not the God of Israel? The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ? How can one know unconsciously? How can one know God but does not know that he knows him? How does a regenerated infant “know the Lord”?
Zack went on to say that regeneration was “God putting the love of God into your heart.” But how can one love another and not know it? How can one love unconsciously? How can one love another that he has no knowledge of? If a love of God is what is produced in regeneration, then this love springs from knowledge about God, and from a belief in what one knows. Does Zack’s “regenerated infant” in the womb, know and love God? It seems Zack, on one hand, wants to associate religious and gospel truth with the experience of regeneration, but on the other hand, to deny it. And, it seems, what knowledge of God is given in regeneration must not be more than nature itself reveals. It must be some kind of innate knowledge that is not conscious. All this is theological metaphysics at its worst.
He then refers to II Cor. 4: 6 as a reference to regeneration. “For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” He tried in vain to divorce this work of divine shining in the soul from the preaching of the gospel, and from faith in it. But, clearly this work is done by the application of gospel truth to the heart and mind, as the context shows. In verse 5 Paul says “For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.” Notice how Paul is talking about preaching the gospel of God, the message concerning Jesus and his salvation, and as “servants,” God’s instruments. What is given in the regeneration experience, this verse affirms, is the light of gospel knowledge, knowledge of Jesus. Hardhells do not believe that this shining light experience, this regeneration, produces knowledge and faith in Christ. According to Hardshells, millions are walking around who have had this light shine into their hearts, but who do not acknowledge Jesus as Lord and Savior, but remain pagans.
He then gave the old Hardshell argumentation on II Tim. 1: 10 where Paul affirmed that “life and immortality” are “brought to light by the gospel.” To Zack and the Hardshells, Paul was giving the Hardshell “ordo salutis” in these words. They insist that the gospel does not give life, is not a means in giving it, but only is the manner in which those who have been regenerated come to realize it. The gospel when preached, turns the light on, and the elect regenerated are manifest. Thus, Paul is viewed as affirming, as they do, that the gospel only reveals those who are already spiritually alive, and cannot be a means to actually make them alive. Yet, this is clear eisegeses, reading into the text what is not there. All Paul is saying is that the truth about these subjects are revealed in the bible, or in the gospel. Where does one find revelation about salvation? About God? Are these topics of discussion not “brought to light” by the bible, by the gospel?
In summation, the argumentation of Zack Guess to prove “immediate regeneration,” or “Spirit alone regeneration,” or “father alone regeneration,” is untenable, contradictory to both scripture and sound logical principles.
Aug 6, 2010
Original Sin I
"Therefore, just as through one man sin (hamartia) entered into the world, and death through sin (hamartia), and so death spread to all men, because all sinned (hemarton)--for until the law sin (hamartia) was in the world, but sin (hamartia) is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned (hamartesantas) in the likeness of the offense (parabaseos) of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. But the free gift is not like the transgression (paraptoma), For if by the transgression (paraptomati) of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned (hamartesantos); for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions (paraptomaton) resulting in justification. For if by the transgression (paraptomati) of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. So then as through one transgression (paraptomatos) there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man's disobedience (parekoes) the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous." (Romans 5: 12-19 NASV)
This is the major passage dealing with what is called the Imputation of Adam's transgression to the human race. The first ones to deny this doctrine were Pelagians, those who sided with Pelagius against Augustine, in the 4th century. Today, the overwhelming majority of Christians believe in the universal imputation of Adam's sin to all the race, sometimes also called the Doctrine of Original Sin or Inherited Depravity or being Born in Sin. One of the groups today who follow Pelagius in his denial of this imputation are the Campbellites, with whom I have had numerous public debates. In fact, I have had one debate with them on this topic. These people believe that people are born into this world innocent, free from sin, unaccountable to God for the transgression of Adam. These teach that the child is not a sinner until he matures to a point in time and commits his first transgression.
The major point of Paul in introducing the sin of Adam and its consequences is in order to illustrate the righteousness of Christ and its consequences. They are parallel. Adam is identified as being the "figure of him who was to come," that is, a figure of Christ, who is called by Paul "the second Adam." (I Cor. 15: 45-47)
Paul says that "the sin," or "the transgression," or "the offence," of Adam, not only brought (1) "death," (2) "judgment," and (3) "condemnation" to himself, but to "all men." Paul is specific. "One specific man," and "one specific sin or transgression."
The Pelagians argue that this passage does not tell us "how" the sin is "imputed," "counted," or "reckoned" to all men. They affirm, however, that other passages do tell us how it is imputed to all men. They say it is by "example." Adam showed men "how" to sin and become guilty. Men become guilty, they affirm, by following his example, by imitating his sin.
The Pelagian view says that people do not come to be sinners, do not have sin imputed to them, until they themselves sin, offend, or disobey. But, this would be contrary to Paul's clear statement that says the death, judgment, and condemnation, is the result of one single act of disobedience by one man. The Pelagian says that the equation is - Adam's disobedience + my personal disobedience = condemnation. Yet, Paul says by the "disobedience of one," not the disobedience of two, that "many are made sinners." This of course affects one's view of salvation, or imputation of Christ's righteousness. If it takes Adam's act plus my act to constitute me a sinner, then likewise it takes Christ's act plus my act to make me righteous. Yet, again, Paul affirms that "it is by the obedience of one that many are made righteous." Who's obedience constitutes one righteous? The obedience of the sinner or of Christ?
The Campbellites affirm that the sin of Adam only brought physical death on men, and that physical death is not a punishment for sin. They have to argue this way because infants die physically, and yet they affirm that they are not sinners. This is clearly false, however, for two reasons. First, physical death is a punishment for sin. Secondly, to limit the "death" to physical death is an error, because Paul contrasts the "life" that Christ, the second Adam, gives, to the death the first Adam gave to us. Does the "life" that Christ gives only refer to physical life? Does it not also include spiritual and eternal life? Also, the "death" that resulted from Adam's sin is connected with "condemnation" and "judgment," with being "made sinners." Thus, it cannot be restricted to physical death.
Further, the manner in which Adam's sin is "passed on" to all men cannot be by sinners imitating the sin of Adam for verse 14 says that death passed to men who did not sin after the similitude or example of Adam, men who did not imitate his sin.
Paul contrasts the disobedience of Adam with the obedience of Christ. The disobedience of Adam makes all men sinners, unrighteous, while the obedience of Christ makes all those he represents, righteous. Made sinners is contrasted with being made righteous.
Paul says "through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men." Notice the several times Paul says such and such "resulted" such and such. Does he mean universally and unconditionally resulted? Surely he does. Who is excepted? What man has not died because of the transgression of Adam?
"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (6: 23)
"For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." (I Corinthians 15: 21, 22)
These verses show that death is the infliction of a penalty and implies guilt. To affirm that there are people who die who have not previously been declared sinful, is to contradict scripture and have God unjustly inflicting a penal evil upon the innocent. Is God's wrath upon the innocent? Is it not upon those whom he has judged as guilty?
Adam and Christ are what we call "heads," or federal heads, representative men.
Mediate versus Immediate Imputation
Since the fall of Adam, we do what we do because of what we are. We do not become sinners by what we do, as did Adam. We are not guilty because we inherit a sinful nature, but we inherit a sinful nature because we have been reckoned as guilty of Adam's sin.
"Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others." (Ephesians 2: 3 KJV)
"By nature" obviously means "by birth" or natural generation, just as when Paul says "We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles." (Galatians 2: 15)
This is the major passage dealing with what is called the Imputation of Adam's transgression to the human race. The first ones to deny this doctrine were Pelagians, those who sided with Pelagius against Augustine, in the 4th century. Today, the overwhelming majority of Christians believe in the universal imputation of Adam's sin to all the race, sometimes also called the Doctrine of Original Sin or Inherited Depravity or being Born in Sin. One of the groups today who follow Pelagius in his denial of this imputation are the Campbellites, with whom I have had numerous public debates. In fact, I have had one debate with them on this topic. These people believe that people are born into this world innocent, free from sin, unaccountable to God for the transgression of Adam. These teach that the child is not a sinner until he matures to a point in time and commits his first transgression.
The major point of Paul in introducing the sin of Adam and its consequences is in order to illustrate the righteousness of Christ and its consequences. They are parallel. Adam is identified as being the "figure of him who was to come," that is, a figure of Christ, who is called by Paul "the second Adam." (I Cor. 15: 45-47)
Paul says that "the sin," or "the transgression," or "the offence," of Adam, not only brought (1) "death," (2) "judgment," and (3) "condemnation" to himself, but to "all men." Paul is specific. "One specific man," and "one specific sin or transgression."
The Pelagians argue that this passage does not tell us "how" the sin is "imputed," "counted," or "reckoned" to all men. They affirm, however, that other passages do tell us how it is imputed to all men. They say it is by "example." Adam showed men "how" to sin and become guilty. Men become guilty, they affirm, by following his example, by imitating his sin.
The Pelagian view says that people do not come to be sinners, do not have sin imputed to them, until they themselves sin, offend, or disobey. But, this would be contrary to Paul's clear statement that says the death, judgment, and condemnation, is the result of one single act of disobedience by one man. The Pelagian says that the equation is - Adam's disobedience + my personal disobedience = condemnation. Yet, Paul says by the "disobedience of one," not the disobedience of two, that "many are made sinners." This of course affects one's view of salvation, or imputation of Christ's righteousness. If it takes Adam's act plus my act to constitute me a sinner, then likewise it takes Christ's act plus my act to make me righteous. Yet, again, Paul affirms that "it is by the obedience of one that many are made righteous." Who's obedience constitutes one righteous? The obedience of the sinner or of Christ?
The Campbellites affirm that the sin of Adam only brought physical death on men, and that physical death is not a punishment for sin. They have to argue this way because infants die physically, and yet they affirm that they are not sinners. This is clearly false, however, for two reasons. First, physical death is a punishment for sin. Secondly, to limit the "death" to physical death is an error, because Paul contrasts the "life" that Christ, the second Adam, gives, to the death the first Adam gave to us. Does the "life" that Christ gives only refer to physical life? Does it not also include spiritual and eternal life? Also, the "death" that resulted from Adam's sin is connected with "condemnation" and "judgment," with being "made sinners." Thus, it cannot be restricted to physical death.
Further, the manner in which Adam's sin is "passed on" to all men cannot be by sinners imitating the sin of Adam for verse 14 says that death passed to men who did not sin after the similitude or example of Adam, men who did not imitate his sin.
Paul contrasts the disobedience of Adam with the obedience of Christ. The disobedience of Adam makes all men sinners, unrighteous, while the obedience of Christ makes all those he represents, righteous. Made sinners is contrasted with being made righteous.
Paul says "through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men." Notice the several times Paul says such and such "resulted" such and such. Does he mean universally and unconditionally resulted? Surely he does. Who is excepted? What man has not died because of the transgression of Adam?
"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (6: 23)
"For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." (I Corinthians 15: 21, 22)
These verses show that death is the infliction of a penalty and implies guilt. To affirm that there are people who die who have not previously been declared sinful, is to contradict scripture and have God unjustly inflicting a penal evil upon the innocent. Is God's wrath upon the innocent? Is it not upon those whom he has judged as guilty?
Adam and Christ are what we call "heads," or federal heads, representative men.
Mediate versus Immediate Imputation
Since the fall of Adam, we do what we do because of what we are. We do not become sinners by what we do, as did Adam. We are not guilty because we inherit a sinful nature, but we inherit a sinful nature because we have been reckoned as guilty of Adam's sin.
"Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others." (Ephesians 2: 3 KJV)
"By nature" obviously means "by birth" or natural generation, just as when Paul says "We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles." (Galatians 2: 15)
Plans & Agenda
I have been very busy in my ministerial duties the past couple months and I have a "full plate" of things yet to do. I am in the last two weeks of my 16 week seminary/bible school class on "The Gospel in the Stars." This has been a bible class that has required much of my time. We have had two classes each week for two hours each class. I am also now involved in a short four week class on Sunday mornings for all those who teach or preach, or want to do so, in the church, on "homiletics." I also had a recent class where I taught on the subject of "interpretation." I talked about interpreting the bible, the events of history, and the events of our personal lives.
I should be done with these classes in the next 2-3 weeks and will have some free time to work on other things. I need to prepare my materials for my upcoming four night debate, with Campbellite Bruce Reeves, of Conway, Arkansas, on the question of whether election to salvation is conditional or unconditional. This will occur here in Monroe the first part of November.
I hope I will have time to continue editing my writings on the Hardshells and then go on to adding chapters and hopefully completing the massive work one day!
I have my favorite blogs and web pages that I visit, some not as much as I would like, however, due to constraints of time and other priorities.
One such web page I recently visited, one authored by a Southern Baptist pastor who opposes, in some respects, the presence of Calvinism in the Southern Baptist Convention of churches, and which also has Dr. Malcom Yarnell, a SBC seminary professor, as a sometimes commenter, and a supported of the blog and pastor, asserted that the bible does not teach "original sin" as historically believed by Calvinists. It was argued that the bible teaches only that men inherit Adam's fallen nature, and suffer evil consequences for it, but do not inherit or receive the "guilt." It was argued that men are born "innocent." It was argued that they therefore needed no regeneration or salvation from sin and guilt. It was also argued that this is what is taught in the latest, twentieth century, revisions of the Baptist Faith and Message, and supported their assertions, and that it represented historic and traditional Baptist teaching. I began to engage the author, pastor Peter Lumpkins, and Dr. Yarnell, and others, about these things. The subject also involved a discussion of what the bible says about the state of those who die in "infancy." You can read the article by Peter and the comments in the comment section, here
I told them that their view was almost completely the same as the Campbellites, and they even admitted it! I was really surprised to see Southern Baptists leaving this landmark of Southern Baptist faith. Certainly the founders of the SBC did not believe as Lumpkins and Yarnell. Peter attempted to prove this by citing John Smyth, a General Baptist. But, the pedigree of Southern Baptists is not of the General, but of the Particular Baptists, of those who embraced the London and Philadelphia confessions of faith. These confessions of faith, however, do not support the assertions of Lumpkins and Yarnell. I did of course offer to formally debate this topic, which I have formally done in years past with the Campbellites.
There was also a small discussion about the so called age of accountability. It was argued to me that the bible taught that men sin, but, if they do not know it is sin, then they are not guilty!
Interestingly, I asked these brethren how their views are in harmony with their view that Christ made an atonement for the sins of all men. If Christ died for all men, or the whole human race, without exception, then he must have died for those who die in infancy. Ergo, those dieing in infancy are judged as being guilty sinners, or else we affirm that Christ died for others who were not guilty sinners.
I should be done with these classes in the next 2-3 weeks and will have some free time to work on other things. I need to prepare my materials for my upcoming four night debate, with Campbellite Bruce Reeves, of Conway, Arkansas, on the question of whether election to salvation is conditional or unconditional. This will occur here in Monroe the first part of November.
I hope I will have time to continue editing my writings on the Hardshells and then go on to adding chapters and hopefully completing the massive work one day!
I have my favorite blogs and web pages that I visit, some not as much as I would like, however, due to constraints of time and other priorities.
One such web page I recently visited, one authored by a Southern Baptist pastor who opposes, in some respects, the presence of Calvinism in the Southern Baptist Convention of churches, and which also has Dr. Malcom Yarnell, a SBC seminary professor, as a sometimes commenter, and a supported of the blog and pastor, asserted that the bible does not teach "original sin" as historically believed by Calvinists. It was argued that the bible teaches only that men inherit Adam's fallen nature, and suffer evil consequences for it, but do not inherit or receive the "guilt." It was argued that men are born "innocent." It was argued that they therefore needed no regeneration or salvation from sin and guilt. It was also argued that this is what is taught in the latest, twentieth century, revisions of the Baptist Faith and Message, and supported their assertions, and that it represented historic and traditional Baptist teaching. I began to engage the author, pastor Peter Lumpkins, and Dr. Yarnell, and others, about these things. The subject also involved a discussion of what the bible says about the state of those who die in "infancy." You can read the article by Peter and the comments in the comment section, here
I told them that their view was almost completely the same as the Campbellites, and they even admitted it! I was really surprised to see Southern Baptists leaving this landmark of Southern Baptist faith. Certainly the founders of the SBC did not believe as Lumpkins and Yarnell. Peter attempted to prove this by citing John Smyth, a General Baptist. But, the pedigree of Southern Baptists is not of the General, but of the Particular Baptists, of those who embraced the London and Philadelphia confessions of faith. These confessions of faith, however, do not support the assertions of Lumpkins and Yarnell. I did of course offer to formally debate this topic, which I have formally done in years past with the Campbellites.
There was also a small discussion about the so called age of accountability. It was argued to me that the bible taught that men sin, but, if they do not know it is sin, then they are not guilty!
Interestingly, I asked these brethren how their views are in harmony with their view that Christ made an atonement for the sins of all men. If Christ died for all men, or the whole human race, without exception, then he must have died for those who die in infancy. Ergo, those dieing in infancy are judged as being guilty sinners, or else we affirm that Christ died for others who were not guilty sinners.
Jul 25, 2010
Beebe vs. Howell & Peck
In the 1830's a debate was carried on, a war of words, between the leaders of the "anti mission movement" and those Baptist leaders who supported organized missions, theological and Sunday schools, revival meetings, and other such things. Elder Gilbert Beebe was viewed as the chief leader of the Hardshell, Old School, or Primitive Baptists and Dr. R. B. C. Howell was a vocal leader of Baptists who supported missions and education, with others, like J. M. Peck. The following is an interesting exchange of words between Beebe and Howell, which was published in each side's periodicals. First, we will cite Beebe's response to Howell's writing entitled "ANTIQUITY OF NEW SCHOOLISM," wherein he sought to prove that missions and education had a long tradition among Baptists of the prior centuries and that the Old Schoolers or Hardshells were uttering falsehoods when they claimed that such things were new inventions among the Baptists.
Beebe wrote (emphasis mine - SG):
"THIS is truly a singular head for an article, but the subject to which we have to advert is perhaps no less singular.
John M. Peck, now associated with J. L. Waller, R. B. C. Howell & Co., in conducting the Banner and Pioneer, of Kentucky, has poured forth nearly three columns of foaming wrath upon the Old School Baptists in their Fourth of July number. He charges us with forgery in appropriating to ourselves the name “Old School,” and attempts a justification of the charge by alleging that the Philadelphia Association, the Old English Baptists, and some Welsh Baptists, have in some instances so far turned aside from the divine rule as to practice some of those things which we, as bible Baptists, denounce; and having from history found men in the Baptist connection, in England, Wales and America, from 1654 extending to 1801, capable of projecting and practicing such innovations on Baptist doctrine and order, claims the appellation of “Old School” as belonging to the practices which they advocate."
Howell and Peck had the historical facts to prove that the Baptists of the preceding centuries practiced and supported cooperative mission work, theological schools, and bible classes. This being proved, the Hardshells were shown to be false in their claims that 1) such things were new among Baptists, and 2) they were most like the primitive Baptists. You will see how Beebe responded, which is no different than all the rest of the Hardshell brotherhood, when confronted with the historical facts. Does Beebe respond with counter historical evidence? Does he deny the evidence presented by Howell?
Beebe continued:
"Having, as he appears to suppose, stripped off our covering and shown that we are not twenty years old, (and so the appellation cannot belong to us,) his benevolent soul (moved perhaps with compassion) has dealt out to us a volley of epithets; but as all of them, strung together, would make rather an inconvenient jingle, perhaps he only intends we shall wear them one at a time. Henceforth all who take John M. Peck as their oracle are to recognize us as the hyper-Calvinistic, Antinomian, Excrescence of a Party, a most unpleasant and cumbrous excrescence, Monstrosity, Snake Species, New Cohort, New Test Party, a mere fragment of a party, a few scattered fragments, a clan, not twenty years old, misnamed Old School Baptists, of the Lawrence, Beebe, Trott and Dudley stripe, Lickingites, base metal, deceptive, counterfeit, &c. How forcible are right words! And with what ample profusion has this learned and polite New School editor lavished on us those flattering titles! Well, we care but little what they call us. Our divine Master was called hard names; and for want of arguments the enemies of the cross have often resorted to a similar course. We only wish it recollected that the Old School Baptists (and particularly our paper) are charged with scurrility, and with using harsh expressions. Suppose we copy some of the above gentle, soft and charitable terms from this organ of New Schoolism."
Notice that Beebe does not attempt to meet the evidence or argument of Howell! He only asserts that Howell and Peck were making false charges, but offers no rebuttal with hard historical facts. Anyone who reads the first Hardshell periodicals of the period will see that Peck and Howell "hit the nail on the head" in their descriptions of the Hardshell character and mindset. On Howell's calling the Hardshells "New Test Men," see my posting here. It was an easy task for Howell and Peck to unmask the pretensions and claims of Beebe and his Hardshell brethren. It would be an easy task today to meet any Hardshell in debate on who is truly "primitive" or "old school," who truly represented the Baptists who endorsed the London and Philadelphia confessions.
Beebe continued:
"As to the instances adduced by Mr. Peck, in which professed Baptists of by-gone days have turned aside from the good old way, they only show, if true, that there was then, as there is now, corruption in the nominal kingdom of the Redeemer; but the imperfections of those of former times can no more justify us in departing from the laws of Christ than the present corruptions of New Schoolism can justify those of generations to come in following their pernicious ways."
Notice that Beebe does not disprove the claims of Howell and Peck about the Baptists of former centuries supporting the things denounced by the Hardshells. His only rebuttal is to claim that those former Baptists were apostates. But, he cannot deny that the "New Schoolers" were truly primitive and original in continuing the long Baptist tradition of supporting missions and education. This is typical of Hardshells. When I have confronted my dad (a Hardshell preacher) with these facts, he retorts - "I'm only interested in what the Bible says." Yet, in spite of the falsity of their claims, they still claim to be the true original Baptists in opposing missions and education. They are willing to tell untaught men that they are the true original Baptists, but when a learned historian confronts them with the historical evidence that overthrows their false claims, they run from the historical debate to the scriptural debate. But, they cannot find support in scripture either.
Beebe continued:
"Who the legitimate successors of the Philadelphia Association, of the English Baptists, or of the Welsh Baptists are, is not the question with us; but the grand point is, Who are followers of the Lamb? Who are walking in the footsteps of the primitive church? Who are teaching for doctrines the commandments of men?"
Again, this is a case of running from the historical debate, yet their name arrogantly affirms that they are the true primitive Baptists, the ones who held to the practices of their forefathers! Notice that Beebe and the Hardshells assert that the Baptists who wrote the London and Philadelphia confessions are apostates and yet they claim to be their successors! The "legs of the lame are not equal."
Beebe continued:
"These references to the history of Baptists of a few centuries past have been often met and refuted."
That is a falsehood! If Beebe truly had evidence to support his contention, he would have offered it in his rebuttal. Does he not say that the former Baptists who supported missions and ministerial education were apostates? Not followers of the Lamb?
Beebe continues:
"We have often informed the New School that anything short of the apostolic age is too late to have weight with us. The foibles of professed Baptists three hundred years ago are entitled to no more consideration with us than those of yesterday. But as Mr. Peck says all genuine Old School Baptists were missionary Baptists, from their own mouths we will judge them. Let us sum up the testimony and strike the balance."
Notice how Beebe says that the Baptists of former days, who had supported missions and ministerial education were creating "foibles" and were made by those who were not really Baptists, being only "professed" Baptists. Why didn't Beebe simply cite historical evidence to show how Baptists of prior centuries protested against missions and ministerial education? Where can he find evidence of the existence of his brethren prior to the 19th century?
Beebe continued:
"The Philadelphia Association, just seventy years ago, approved the establishment of Rhode Island College (now Brown University); directed collections to be made to it in all the churches; and all the ministers pledged themselves to promote the object. In 1767 this venerable association sat in legislation over the churches, and supplied them with laws. concerning family prayer. In 1670 collections were made for certain students of Rhode Island College. In 1754, and subsequently, sent out missionaries under pay, viz: Gano, Miller and Van Horn. In 1775 seventeen shillings were contributed for Rhode Island College. In 1778 more money was collected for preaching the gospel in destitute places. Further testimony from this deponent, Mr. Peck thinks unnecessary; he will, we presume, now suffer us to cross-question his witness.
Question. By what divine authority or New Testament rule did the Philadelphia Association engage in these anti-christian practices?
Answer. This deponent saith not."
Notice again how Beebe does not dispute the historical evidence submitted by Howell and Peck. All he can do is to say that his forefathers were engaged in anti-christian practices! He really proves how he and his Hardshell brethren are not the real "Old" Baptists but a new sect of Baptists, espousing doctrines that no Baptist espoused prior to the 19th century. But, Howell, Peck, and other Baptists not only demonstrated that Baptist history was against the claims of the Hardshells but the Bible as well. The reason why the Old Baptists supported missions and education is because they saw it supported in scripture.
Beebe continues:
"Q. Did the Philadelphia Association ever organize missionary, Tract, Education, Sabbath School, Temperance, or even Bible Societies, by selling membership, directorship, and other high sounding titles, to professors and non-professors) and by electing presidents, treasurers, agents, &c., until within the last twenty-five years?
A. They did not."
Beebe is raising a "red herring" in his rebuttal. It was not necessary for Howell and Peck to show that the organizational makeup of prior entities for the promotion of missions and education were exactly the same as those in the 19th century. It was enough to show that the Baptists who endorsed the confessions all supported missional and educational methods, either by individual churches or by groups of churches.
Beebe continues:
"If the present race of New School Baptists are the regular successors of the Old English and Welsh Baptists, and of those of the Philadelphia Association of 1707, why have they, within a few years past, discarded the Old Philadelphia Baptist Confession of Faith, which was originally adopted by the Old English Baptists?"
Beebe here charges the Baptists who continue the tradition of supporting missions and education with discarding the old confessions. But, this charge is not correct. Some Baptist churches did begin to place less emphasis on the old confessions as a means of determining church fellowship, like the Separate Baptists, but this was not universal among Missionary Baptists. Interestingly, it is today's "Primitive Baptists" who do not accept the oldest confessions!
Beebe continued:
"Will John M. Peck have the assurance to tell us that the present Philadelphia Association has not discarded the old published a new and improved edition - an altered edition, more congenial with the doctrines of the new order? We think he will not."
It is not possible to comment on this retort by Beebe as it is not known what he is referring to. Is Beebe trying to say that the old confessions are "more congenial" with Hardshellism?
Beebe continued:
"In looking over the April number of the Baptist Record, (so called) we are greeted with a copy of the speechifying of some of the great men of New Schoolism, at their spring anniversaries in Philadelphia; of which, as they will serve to help us out in showing the antiquity of New Schoolism, we will notice a few specimens.
Baron Stowe, of Boston, offered a resolution in favor of the Tract Society; and during his remarks in support of his motion, it is said adverted with peculiar feeling to the origin of the society; the honored names of Davis, Knowles, Staughton and Reynolds, who were engaged in it. They were all there then. But fifteen years have passed away, and all these are gone! Only the brother who first spoke and himself were now here of all its founders! Having assisted in rocking the cradle of the society, (how appropriate the idea to lull the little new comer,) in its infancy, he felt a very strong desire to see and to aid it now in assuming the manly attitude of mature years.”
Beebe thinks he has a proof that shows the Mission and Education Baptists are new because a particular tract society was only fifteen years old! Poor debater and apologist! Can he show that the Baptists of former centuries were opposed to printing and distributing tracts on bible topics?
Beebe continues:
"New School institutions, like mushrooms, are soon matured; hence J. M. Peck may plead for the antiquity of Tract Societies as fifteen years of age. The American and Foreign Bible Society held her second anniversary also in Philadelphia last April; so we may venture to put down her age at about two years and three months. A very reverend set of digniare now engaged in rocking its cradle; but, poor thing, it must either be very weakly, greedy or ill-natured, for with all their rocking, it continues to cry, like the horsleech’s daughters. As for the old American Bible Society, which the New School Baptists have helped into being, and which they assisted to rock for several years, they have at length found out that it is an Ishmael; so they have weaned it and sent it forth into the wilderness."
With this kind of logic one can prove the Hardshells began in 1832! They had no periodicals or organs of protest prior to 1827 and so this proves them to be new, using his own brand of "logic." No societies = No Missionary Baptists ----> No Hardshell periodicals = No Hardshell Baptists.
Beebe continues:
"The same paper from which we have collected the above items, being a kind of family record of New Schoolism, has put down the age of the American Baptist Foreign Mission Society at twenty-five years. Mr. J. M. Peck, as we have noticed, very sneeringly asserts that the self-styled Old School Baptists (as he calls us) are not of lawful age, not twenty-one years of age. What will he say of this ancient institution at the very advanced age of twenty-five years, when he reads the following extract which we make from the report of its board of cradle-rockers, viz: “The time is not come to restrict our operations. The work is only begun; the laborers are few. From almost every mission the cry is help, and helpers are waiting to be sent. Let the advance be made. Let fervent unceasing prayer ascend to God, and prayer lead to effort,” (i. e., cradle rocking,) “earnest, united effort, that the treasury of the Lord may be full.”
Is this the best retort Beebe and his Hardshell brethren can make? Prior to Benjamin Keach the Baptist churches did not generally sing in their worshipful gatherings. Does this prove that singing in worship is an error?
Beebe continues:
"We might go on and give, from documents by them furnished to our hand, the birth, age and insatiable appetites of the Sunday School, Education (for the ministry) and Temperance Societies, and every other institution belonging to New Schoolism, and we should find that the most aged among them all has not yet numbered forty years; and the fullest fed among them have never been satisfied, nor is there the least prospect they ever will be. Their revenue now, we believe, exceeds the expense of our national government. So much for the antiquity of New Schoolism among the Baptists. The most ancient horn by which they are distinguished from the church of Christ is not yet thirty years old; yet they claim to be the Old School, and denounce the disciples of Christ as a “New Test Party,” to which epithet we would not object if they would not abbreviate it; we claim to be a “New Testament Party,” and the only test of fellowship we admit is that of the New Testament." (ALEXANDRIA, D. C., August 15, 1839. Elder Gilbert Beebe Editorials Volume 1 Pages 516 – 521)
http://www.asweetsavor.info/beebe/newschool4.html
Again, this is poor rebuttal. Howell and Peck gave all kinds of historical evidence to show that Baptists of prior centuries, those who wrote and endorsed the London and Philadelphia confessions, supporting missions and theological and Sunday schools. What does it matter that a particular organ or means of doing this work is new?
Beebe, in another writing, responds to another article entitled "ANTIQUITY OF THE OLD SCHOOL," and responds by saying:
"In the “Recorder and Watchman” we find an article over the anonymous signature “Faith and Works,” copied into that sink of corruption edited by Mr. Waller, advertising the Old School Baptists as impostors, and calling on the Baptist denomination to beware of them as such!
The writer defines an impostor to be one who practices a cheat or imposture upon a people or community, and adds that the impostors he alludes to call themselves Old School Baptists. He says moreover, “If he establishes the fact that they (meaning the Old School) are of a New School, and not the Old School order, he proves them cheats or impostors.” Well, be it so, we will on the part of the Old School Baptists pledge ourselves, as far as we are concerned, that we will yield the ground, if this or any other writer will prove that we are not of the Old School order, and as he has unhesitatingly and unreservedly charged us with imposition, we hold him bound to prove his assertion, or he must be considered a vile calumniator, a slanderer, and a fit companion for such as Wailer, Sands, Meredith, and the whole clan of our persecutors. Now for his proof, the first item of which is palpably false, viz: “They assume the title of Old School because they oppose Bible, Education. Missionary and Sunday School Societies.” All who are acquainted with the sentiments of Old School Baptists know that they oppose these institutions because they are Old School Baptists, and as such feel themselves bound, by their allegiance to King Jesus, to reject from their religious order, all that is invented by men and unsupported by any direct warrant from his royal throne. So it is not their opposition to these inventions that constitutes them Old School Baptists; hence if the writer has proved anything by this part of his testimony, it is that he has mistaken or wilfully misrepresented the ground of our claim to antiquity. “If these objects, therefore,” says this anonymous writer, “were taught and practiced by the Old School Baptists, such pretenders are to all intents guilty of a gross trick, palpable imposture, which should be exposed.” To this proposition also we cordially consent; let him prove that in the Old School of Christ, these humanly invented institutions had a place, in the primitive age of the church, and we will be content to pass for impostors. But hear him! He proceeds to his proof thus: “They must claim their seniority from the English or Welsh Baptists, or from the Waldenses of Piedmont.” What a consummate scholar! He appears to have read something in the history of the church as far back as the days of the English and Welsh Baptists, and of the Waldenses of Piedmont, and forsooth he concludes he has got to the end of the row, into the remote depths of antiquity. Poor, infatuated, stupid soul, when he has finished his study of Ivimy’s history, if he will read a few volumes of church history, indicted by divine inspiration, and written by such as Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, Jude and James, he may learn that he has greatly erred, not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God."
Beebe belies the claims of his brethren by rejecting the historical proofs that show that the Baptists who preceded the Hardshells were ardent supporters of missions and education, by various means. He no longer wants to say he and his brethren are "primitive" because they are like the Baptists of the 17th or 18th centuries, but because they are like the apostles! Notice how he runs from the historical criterion.
Next, he thinks that because one cannot find a bible, mission, or temperance society mentioned specifically in the bible, that they cannot therefore be supported! What logic! Can he find his Hardshell "associations" mentioned specfically in the good old book? Can he find his church periodicals? Can he find his hymn book? Of course, the great Baptists who fought the Hardshells, did not run from debating these things from scripture, just as they did not relative to church history.
Beebe continued:
"We must claim our seniority from the English or ‘Welsh Baptists or the Waldenses, must we? Has any Old School Baptist ever set up such a claim? Never. We do claim, however, that even these, with, some few discrepancies, which the New Order are hard run to dig up in justification of their course of hostility to the gospel, were Old School Baptists; but we are far, very far from claiming them as the originators of our faith and order."
What a dodge is this! We claim them but we don't claim them! We call ourselves "primitive" Baptists, but we claim no direct connection with those who endorsed the old confessions! Who ever argued that the Baptists who endorsed the old confessions were the "originators" of the "faith and order" of the apostles? The question is - were the Baptists of the 17th and 18th centuries, who wrote and endorsed the old confessions, followers of the apostolic faith? Notice also how Beebe concedes that the "New School" Baptists, who supported missions and education, like their forefathers, did rightfully claim that they were more kin to their forefathers, while the Hardshells reject the faith and practice of their Baptist forefathers prior to the rise of the Hardshells. "Few discrepancies"? Is it not rather the case that history shows a continuous widespread support for missions and ministerial education among Baptists prior to the Hardshells?
Beebe continued:
"We could no sooner take them as our guides than we could any other set of men, any farther than they followed Christ, and in our use of the distinctive appellation, we have, as we have frequently published, not the remotest allusion to any school of men, we reject alike every system of scholastic divinity, and profess to be pupils in the school of Christ, who as a teacher, teaches as never man taught; we call this the Old School, because it is the original gospel school, and in it the same divine lessons are taught now which were taught eighteen hundred years ago. And although, to our mortification, we confess that we are but dull scholars in this blessed school, yet it is our mercy to be found among those despised ones, who renouncing every other kind of religious teaching, are taught of God, come to Christ, learn of him, for he is meek and lowly, and here alone we find rest to our souls. It is the privilege of all Regular Old School Baptists to set where Mary sat, at the feet of Jesus, where they may receive his gracious words and divine instruction. It is our peculiar glory to wait on him; not like the New School, to plan, contrive, chalk out and dictate, and then call on the Lord to lay aside his plan and wisdom and adopt ours, or to come on in our rear, and succeed our undertakings, and follow with his blessing our efforts, &c. "Tis his to command, and ours to obey.”
Beebe wants people to know that the name "Old School" or "Primitive" does not affirm that they are kin to the Baptists who endorsed the old confessions, the Baptists of the 17th and 18th century! Being Landmarkers, however, where is his historical chain or linkage to the apostles? Who can believe that they only meant to affirm apostolicity by giving themselves the name of "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists?
Beebe continues:
"But this mighty champion of New Schoolism, by dint of study, has found that some English Baptists, in 1686, set up an abomination in Israel (if their historian does not belie them) called the Baptist Bristol Education Society, and one Edward Ferrel was silly enough, even as long ago as 1686, to bequeath his large estate to sustain this idol, and that a swarm of young men have been instructed, &c. From this beginning Mr. Faith and Works, (as the writer has been silly enough to nickname himself,) has in attempting to prove that the school to which we belong did not exist anterior to that date, has succeeded in proving the origin, rise and progress of the New School Baptist anti-christian beast. From this small beginning, this little harmless looking horn, the Bristol Divinity School, and the estate of E. Ferrel, this inlet of corruption in faith and practice found its way among the Baptists, has gathered force and impetus, as it has dashed its headlong way for centuries, and has now become a mighty flood; but agreeably to the divine assurance given in the book of God, the Spirit of the Lord has now set up a standard against it."
Beebe cannot rebut the proof that the Baptists had theological schools back in the 1600s, so all he can do is indict the true primitive Baptists by calling them abominable idolaters! He admits that those who support missions and ministerial education are in line with the Baptists of former years! One wonders why they call themselves primitive Baptists. Then he boasts that his Hardshell brethren were raised up, finally, to set things right!
Beebe continues:
"But shall we ask this valiant historian, this learned novice, what was the state and condition of the church of Christ prior to the setting up of these abominations among the Baptists? Could he! would he! dare he tell us? The truth is they were then precisely what the Old School Baptists are now, “a poor and afflicted people which trust in the name of the Lord.” They did not trust in E. Ferrel’s large estate, nor this Bristol minister-making machine, before the first gave his bequest, or the other was erected. They had no confidence in the flesh."
We might ask Beebe and his brethren, after the same manner, "where were the "antis" in the days of Bristol college"? Where were the protestors? Does he not admit that these things existed for centuries without any Hardshell existing to protest? All Beebe can do is assert that he and his brethren are the ancient church, without any historical proof, just as his twin brother, the Campbellites!
Beebe continued:
"Go back then, Mr. F. and W., with your researches into the ancient history of the church, as far as the third of Matthew, and from thence trace down the channel of time the history of the people of God. Read it not in ostentatious bequests, in the erection of Theological Seminaries, or the formation of unscriptural Mission Boards, but read in characters of blood, the rise and progress, the persecutions, afflictions and the deliverance of the people of God, placed by grace in the Old School of Christ. You may find them, with some few interruptions, steadfastly adhering to the doctrine of the apostles, and conforming to the laws of Christ."
Again, when Beebe can't meet the historical argument and proof, he simply claims that they are like the apostolic church. He shows that he cannot prove his "primitive" status by appeal to history. Yet, in spite of this admission, his followers continue to affirm that they are most like the Baptists of the old confessions! Notice the arrogance of Beebe and his brethren!
Beebe continues:
"Should you be at any loss to recognize them, remember the infallible mark by which they shall be known. Such as will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. The Old School, of whom we write, and among whom we desire to be numbered, were persecuted by the Jews, Scribes, Pharisees and priests, then by the Pagans, afterwards by the Papists, subsequently by Protestants, and now by the New School Baptists, but thanks be to God who giveth them the victory, they are the same people, one in the Lord their Savior, who will bring them one and all up out of great tribulation, having their robes made white in the blood of the Lamb."
What a twist! What a self deception! Because Howell, Peck, and other Baptist historians overthrow the pretensions and claims of those who boast of being "primitive" Baptists, and show how they are against scripture that supports missions and theological training, therefore they are "persecutors" of the "Old School"! Their false doctrines and practices being overthrown proves the "Old School" are the true church of Christ! The Mormons were persecuted in this manner also, so does that prove they are the true church of Christ?
Beebe continued:
"We once saw when a boy a bird called, where we were raised, a woodpecker, dash his bill against the trunk of a very large tree, and immediately flew round the tree, apparently to see if he had not forced a hole through its diameter. We were reminded of the circumstance when we read the conclusion of our hero’s silly attack, for in his conclusion he apprehends that some of the readers of the Watchman may conclude that be should not have exposed the Old School Baptists so far; but should they not be satisfied with this hint, he threatens to give them another or two in a future number. O, spare us, Mr. Mule, (for we suppose by your significant anonymous title you must be something of a mongrel,) spare us the trouble of sifting out your trifling trash, for the game will but too poorly pay for the amunition." (ALEXANDRIA, D. C., August 25, 1838. Elder Gilbert Beebe, Editorials Volume 1, Pages 441–446)
here
Notice how Beebe cannot rebut the evidence against him but can only hurl epithets against Howell and Peck. Does this not speak volumns?
Beebe wrote (emphasis mine - SG):
"THIS is truly a singular head for an article, but the subject to which we have to advert is perhaps no less singular.
John M. Peck, now associated with J. L. Waller, R. B. C. Howell & Co., in conducting the Banner and Pioneer, of Kentucky, has poured forth nearly three columns of foaming wrath upon the Old School Baptists in their Fourth of July number. He charges us with forgery in appropriating to ourselves the name “Old School,” and attempts a justification of the charge by alleging that the Philadelphia Association, the Old English Baptists, and some Welsh Baptists, have in some instances so far turned aside from the divine rule as to practice some of those things which we, as bible Baptists, denounce; and having from history found men in the Baptist connection, in England, Wales and America, from 1654 extending to 1801, capable of projecting and practicing such innovations on Baptist doctrine and order, claims the appellation of “Old School” as belonging to the practices which they advocate."
Howell and Peck had the historical facts to prove that the Baptists of the preceding centuries practiced and supported cooperative mission work, theological schools, and bible classes. This being proved, the Hardshells were shown to be false in their claims that 1) such things were new among Baptists, and 2) they were most like the primitive Baptists. You will see how Beebe responded, which is no different than all the rest of the Hardshell brotherhood, when confronted with the historical facts. Does Beebe respond with counter historical evidence? Does he deny the evidence presented by Howell?
Beebe continued:
"Having, as he appears to suppose, stripped off our covering and shown that we are not twenty years old, (and so the appellation cannot belong to us,) his benevolent soul (moved perhaps with compassion) has dealt out to us a volley of epithets; but as all of them, strung together, would make rather an inconvenient jingle, perhaps he only intends we shall wear them one at a time. Henceforth all who take John M. Peck as their oracle are to recognize us as the hyper-Calvinistic, Antinomian, Excrescence of a Party, a most unpleasant and cumbrous excrescence, Monstrosity, Snake Species, New Cohort, New Test Party, a mere fragment of a party, a few scattered fragments, a clan, not twenty years old, misnamed Old School Baptists, of the Lawrence, Beebe, Trott and Dudley stripe, Lickingites, base metal, deceptive, counterfeit, &c. How forcible are right words! And with what ample profusion has this learned and polite New School editor lavished on us those flattering titles! Well, we care but little what they call us. Our divine Master was called hard names; and for want of arguments the enemies of the cross have often resorted to a similar course. We only wish it recollected that the Old School Baptists (and particularly our paper) are charged with scurrility, and with using harsh expressions. Suppose we copy some of the above gentle, soft and charitable terms from this organ of New Schoolism."
Notice that Beebe does not attempt to meet the evidence or argument of Howell! He only asserts that Howell and Peck were making false charges, but offers no rebuttal with hard historical facts. Anyone who reads the first Hardshell periodicals of the period will see that Peck and Howell "hit the nail on the head" in their descriptions of the Hardshell character and mindset. On Howell's calling the Hardshells "New Test Men," see my posting here. It was an easy task for Howell and Peck to unmask the pretensions and claims of Beebe and his Hardshell brethren. It would be an easy task today to meet any Hardshell in debate on who is truly "primitive" or "old school," who truly represented the Baptists who endorsed the London and Philadelphia confessions.
Beebe continued:
"As to the instances adduced by Mr. Peck, in which professed Baptists of by-gone days have turned aside from the good old way, they only show, if true, that there was then, as there is now, corruption in the nominal kingdom of the Redeemer; but the imperfections of those of former times can no more justify us in departing from the laws of Christ than the present corruptions of New Schoolism can justify those of generations to come in following their pernicious ways."
Notice that Beebe does not disprove the claims of Howell and Peck about the Baptists of former centuries supporting the things denounced by the Hardshells. His only rebuttal is to claim that those former Baptists were apostates. But, he cannot deny that the "New Schoolers" were truly primitive and original in continuing the long Baptist tradition of supporting missions and education. This is typical of Hardshells. When I have confronted my dad (a Hardshell preacher) with these facts, he retorts - "I'm only interested in what the Bible says." Yet, in spite of the falsity of their claims, they still claim to be the true original Baptists in opposing missions and education. They are willing to tell untaught men that they are the true original Baptists, but when a learned historian confronts them with the historical evidence that overthrows their false claims, they run from the historical debate to the scriptural debate. But, they cannot find support in scripture either.
Beebe continued:
"Who the legitimate successors of the Philadelphia Association, of the English Baptists, or of the Welsh Baptists are, is not the question with us; but the grand point is, Who are followers of the Lamb? Who are walking in the footsteps of the primitive church? Who are teaching for doctrines the commandments of men?"
Again, this is a case of running from the historical debate, yet their name arrogantly affirms that they are the true primitive Baptists, the ones who held to the practices of their forefathers! Notice that Beebe and the Hardshells assert that the Baptists who wrote the London and Philadelphia confessions are apostates and yet they claim to be their successors! The "legs of the lame are not equal."
Beebe continued:
"These references to the history of Baptists of a few centuries past have been often met and refuted."
That is a falsehood! If Beebe truly had evidence to support his contention, he would have offered it in his rebuttal. Does he not say that the former Baptists who supported missions and ministerial education were apostates? Not followers of the Lamb?
Beebe continues:
"We have often informed the New School that anything short of the apostolic age is too late to have weight with us. The foibles of professed Baptists three hundred years ago are entitled to no more consideration with us than those of yesterday. But as Mr. Peck says all genuine Old School Baptists were missionary Baptists, from their own mouths we will judge them. Let us sum up the testimony and strike the balance."
Notice how Beebe says that the Baptists of former days, who had supported missions and ministerial education were creating "foibles" and were made by those who were not really Baptists, being only "professed" Baptists. Why didn't Beebe simply cite historical evidence to show how Baptists of prior centuries protested against missions and ministerial education? Where can he find evidence of the existence of his brethren prior to the 19th century?
Beebe continued:
"The Philadelphia Association, just seventy years ago, approved the establishment of Rhode Island College (now Brown University); directed collections to be made to it in all the churches; and all the ministers pledged themselves to promote the object. In 1767 this venerable association sat in legislation over the churches, and supplied them with laws. concerning family prayer. In 1670 collections were made for certain students of Rhode Island College. In 1754, and subsequently, sent out missionaries under pay, viz: Gano, Miller and Van Horn. In 1775 seventeen shillings were contributed for Rhode Island College. In 1778 more money was collected for preaching the gospel in destitute places. Further testimony from this deponent, Mr. Peck thinks unnecessary; he will, we presume, now suffer us to cross-question his witness.
Question. By what divine authority or New Testament rule did the Philadelphia Association engage in these anti-christian practices?
Answer. This deponent saith not."
Notice again how Beebe does not dispute the historical evidence submitted by Howell and Peck. All he can do is to say that his forefathers were engaged in anti-christian practices! He really proves how he and his Hardshell brethren are not the real "Old" Baptists but a new sect of Baptists, espousing doctrines that no Baptist espoused prior to the 19th century. But, Howell, Peck, and other Baptists not only demonstrated that Baptist history was against the claims of the Hardshells but the Bible as well. The reason why the Old Baptists supported missions and education is because they saw it supported in scripture.
Beebe continues:
"Q. Did the Philadelphia Association ever organize missionary, Tract, Education, Sabbath School, Temperance, or even Bible Societies, by selling membership, directorship, and other high sounding titles, to professors and non-professors) and by electing presidents, treasurers, agents, &c., until within the last twenty-five years?
A. They did not."
Beebe is raising a "red herring" in his rebuttal. It was not necessary for Howell and Peck to show that the organizational makeup of prior entities for the promotion of missions and education were exactly the same as those in the 19th century. It was enough to show that the Baptists who endorsed the confessions all supported missional and educational methods, either by individual churches or by groups of churches.
Beebe continues:
"If the present race of New School Baptists are the regular successors of the Old English and Welsh Baptists, and of those of the Philadelphia Association of 1707, why have they, within a few years past, discarded the Old Philadelphia Baptist Confession of Faith, which was originally adopted by the Old English Baptists?"
Beebe here charges the Baptists who continue the tradition of supporting missions and education with discarding the old confessions. But, this charge is not correct. Some Baptist churches did begin to place less emphasis on the old confessions as a means of determining church fellowship, like the Separate Baptists, but this was not universal among Missionary Baptists. Interestingly, it is today's "Primitive Baptists" who do not accept the oldest confessions!
Beebe continued:
"Will John M. Peck have the assurance to tell us that the present Philadelphia Association has not discarded the old published a new and improved edition - an altered edition, more congenial with the doctrines of the new order? We think he will not."
It is not possible to comment on this retort by Beebe as it is not known what he is referring to. Is Beebe trying to say that the old confessions are "more congenial" with Hardshellism?
Beebe continued:
"In looking over the April number of the Baptist Record, (so called) we are greeted with a copy of the speechifying of some of the great men of New Schoolism, at their spring anniversaries in Philadelphia; of which, as they will serve to help us out in showing the antiquity of New Schoolism, we will notice a few specimens.
Baron Stowe, of Boston, offered a resolution in favor of the Tract Society; and during his remarks in support of his motion, it is said adverted with peculiar feeling to the origin of the society; the honored names of Davis, Knowles, Staughton and Reynolds, who were engaged in it. They were all there then. But fifteen years have passed away, and all these are gone! Only the brother who first spoke and himself were now here of all its founders! Having assisted in rocking the cradle of the society, (how appropriate the idea to lull the little new comer,) in its infancy, he felt a very strong desire to see and to aid it now in assuming the manly attitude of mature years.”
Beebe thinks he has a proof that shows the Mission and Education Baptists are new because a particular tract society was only fifteen years old! Poor debater and apologist! Can he show that the Baptists of former centuries were opposed to printing and distributing tracts on bible topics?
Beebe continues:
"New School institutions, like mushrooms, are soon matured; hence J. M. Peck may plead for the antiquity of Tract Societies as fifteen years of age. The American and Foreign Bible Society held her second anniversary also in Philadelphia last April; so we may venture to put down her age at about two years and three months. A very reverend set of digniare now engaged in rocking its cradle; but, poor thing, it must either be very weakly, greedy or ill-natured, for with all their rocking, it continues to cry, like the horsleech’s daughters. As for the old American Bible Society, which the New School Baptists have helped into being, and which they assisted to rock for several years, they have at length found out that it is an Ishmael; so they have weaned it and sent it forth into the wilderness."
With this kind of logic one can prove the Hardshells began in 1832! They had no periodicals or organs of protest prior to 1827 and so this proves them to be new, using his own brand of "logic." No societies = No Missionary Baptists ----> No Hardshell periodicals = No Hardshell Baptists.
Beebe continues:
"The same paper from which we have collected the above items, being a kind of family record of New Schoolism, has put down the age of the American Baptist Foreign Mission Society at twenty-five years. Mr. J. M. Peck, as we have noticed, very sneeringly asserts that the self-styled Old School Baptists (as he calls us) are not of lawful age, not twenty-one years of age. What will he say of this ancient institution at the very advanced age of twenty-five years, when he reads the following extract which we make from the report of its board of cradle-rockers, viz: “The time is not come to restrict our operations. The work is only begun; the laborers are few. From almost every mission the cry is help, and helpers are waiting to be sent. Let the advance be made. Let fervent unceasing prayer ascend to God, and prayer lead to effort,” (i. e., cradle rocking,) “earnest, united effort, that the treasury of the Lord may be full.”
Is this the best retort Beebe and his Hardshell brethren can make? Prior to Benjamin Keach the Baptist churches did not generally sing in their worshipful gatherings. Does this prove that singing in worship is an error?
Beebe continues:
"We might go on and give, from documents by them furnished to our hand, the birth, age and insatiable appetites of the Sunday School, Education (for the ministry) and Temperance Societies, and every other institution belonging to New Schoolism, and we should find that the most aged among them all has not yet numbered forty years; and the fullest fed among them have never been satisfied, nor is there the least prospect they ever will be. Their revenue now, we believe, exceeds the expense of our national government. So much for the antiquity of New Schoolism among the Baptists. The most ancient horn by which they are distinguished from the church of Christ is not yet thirty years old; yet they claim to be the Old School, and denounce the disciples of Christ as a “New Test Party,” to which epithet we would not object if they would not abbreviate it; we claim to be a “New Testament Party,” and the only test of fellowship we admit is that of the New Testament." (ALEXANDRIA, D. C., August 15, 1839. Elder Gilbert Beebe Editorials Volume 1 Pages 516 – 521)
http://www.asweetsavor.info/beebe/newschool4.html
Again, this is poor rebuttal. Howell and Peck gave all kinds of historical evidence to show that Baptists of prior centuries, those who wrote and endorsed the London and Philadelphia confessions, supporting missions and theological and Sunday schools. What does it matter that a particular organ or means of doing this work is new?
Beebe, in another writing, responds to another article entitled "ANTIQUITY OF THE OLD SCHOOL," and responds by saying:
"In the “Recorder and Watchman” we find an article over the anonymous signature “Faith and Works,” copied into that sink of corruption edited by Mr. Waller, advertising the Old School Baptists as impostors, and calling on the Baptist denomination to beware of them as such!
The writer defines an impostor to be one who practices a cheat or imposture upon a people or community, and adds that the impostors he alludes to call themselves Old School Baptists. He says moreover, “If he establishes the fact that they (meaning the Old School) are of a New School, and not the Old School order, he proves them cheats or impostors.” Well, be it so, we will on the part of the Old School Baptists pledge ourselves, as far as we are concerned, that we will yield the ground, if this or any other writer will prove that we are not of the Old School order, and as he has unhesitatingly and unreservedly charged us with imposition, we hold him bound to prove his assertion, or he must be considered a vile calumniator, a slanderer, and a fit companion for such as Wailer, Sands, Meredith, and the whole clan of our persecutors. Now for his proof, the first item of which is palpably false, viz: “They assume the title of Old School because they oppose Bible, Education. Missionary and Sunday School Societies.” All who are acquainted with the sentiments of Old School Baptists know that they oppose these institutions because they are Old School Baptists, and as such feel themselves bound, by their allegiance to King Jesus, to reject from their religious order, all that is invented by men and unsupported by any direct warrant from his royal throne. So it is not their opposition to these inventions that constitutes them Old School Baptists; hence if the writer has proved anything by this part of his testimony, it is that he has mistaken or wilfully misrepresented the ground of our claim to antiquity. “If these objects, therefore,” says this anonymous writer, “were taught and practiced by the Old School Baptists, such pretenders are to all intents guilty of a gross trick, palpable imposture, which should be exposed.” To this proposition also we cordially consent; let him prove that in the Old School of Christ, these humanly invented institutions had a place, in the primitive age of the church, and we will be content to pass for impostors. But hear him! He proceeds to his proof thus: “They must claim their seniority from the English or Welsh Baptists, or from the Waldenses of Piedmont.” What a consummate scholar! He appears to have read something in the history of the church as far back as the days of the English and Welsh Baptists, and of the Waldenses of Piedmont, and forsooth he concludes he has got to the end of the row, into the remote depths of antiquity. Poor, infatuated, stupid soul, when he has finished his study of Ivimy’s history, if he will read a few volumes of church history, indicted by divine inspiration, and written by such as Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, Jude and James, he may learn that he has greatly erred, not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God."
Beebe belies the claims of his brethren by rejecting the historical proofs that show that the Baptists who preceded the Hardshells were ardent supporters of missions and education, by various means. He no longer wants to say he and his brethren are "primitive" because they are like the Baptists of the 17th or 18th centuries, but because they are like the apostles! Notice how he runs from the historical criterion.
Next, he thinks that because one cannot find a bible, mission, or temperance society mentioned specifically in the bible, that they cannot therefore be supported! What logic! Can he find his Hardshell "associations" mentioned specfically in the good old book? Can he find his church periodicals? Can he find his hymn book? Of course, the great Baptists who fought the Hardshells, did not run from debating these things from scripture, just as they did not relative to church history.
Beebe continued:
"We must claim our seniority from the English or ‘Welsh Baptists or the Waldenses, must we? Has any Old School Baptist ever set up such a claim? Never. We do claim, however, that even these, with, some few discrepancies, which the New Order are hard run to dig up in justification of their course of hostility to the gospel, were Old School Baptists; but we are far, very far from claiming them as the originators of our faith and order."
What a dodge is this! We claim them but we don't claim them! We call ourselves "primitive" Baptists, but we claim no direct connection with those who endorsed the old confessions! Who ever argued that the Baptists who endorsed the old confessions were the "originators" of the "faith and order" of the apostles? The question is - were the Baptists of the 17th and 18th centuries, who wrote and endorsed the old confessions, followers of the apostolic faith? Notice also how Beebe concedes that the "New School" Baptists, who supported missions and education, like their forefathers, did rightfully claim that they were more kin to their forefathers, while the Hardshells reject the faith and practice of their Baptist forefathers prior to the rise of the Hardshells. "Few discrepancies"? Is it not rather the case that history shows a continuous widespread support for missions and ministerial education among Baptists prior to the Hardshells?
Beebe continued:
"We could no sooner take them as our guides than we could any other set of men, any farther than they followed Christ, and in our use of the distinctive appellation, we have, as we have frequently published, not the remotest allusion to any school of men, we reject alike every system of scholastic divinity, and profess to be pupils in the school of Christ, who as a teacher, teaches as never man taught; we call this the Old School, because it is the original gospel school, and in it the same divine lessons are taught now which were taught eighteen hundred years ago. And although, to our mortification, we confess that we are but dull scholars in this blessed school, yet it is our mercy to be found among those despised ones, who renouncing every other kind of religious teaching, are taught of God, come to Christ, learn of him, for he is meek and lowly, and here alone we find rest to our souls. It is the privilege of all Regular Old School Baptists to set where Mary sat, at the feet of Jesus, where they may receive his gracious words and divine instruction. It is our peculiar glory to wait on him; not like the New School, to plan, contrive, chalk out and dictate, and then call on the Lord to lay aside his plan and wisdom and adopt ours, or to come on in our rear, and succeed our undertakings, and follow with his blessing our efforts, &c. "Tis his to command, and ours to obey.”
Beebe wants people to know that the name "Old School" or "Primitive" does not affirm that they are kin to the Baptists who endorsed the old confessions, the Baptists of the 17th and 18th century! Being Landmarkers, however, where is his historical chain or linkage to the apostles? Who can believe that they only meant to affirm apostolicity by giving themselves the name of "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists?
Beebe continues:
"But this mighty champion of New Schoolism, by dint of study, has found that some English Baptists, in 1686, set up an abomination in Israel (if their historian does not belie them) called the Baptist Bristol Education Society, and one Edward Ferrel was silly enough, even as long ago as 1686, to bequeath his large estate to sustain this idol, and that a swarm of young men have been instructed, &c. From this beginning Mr. Faith and Works, (as the writer has been silly enough to nickname himself,) has in attempting to prove that the school to which we belong did not exist anterior to that date, has succeeded in proving the origin, rise and progress of the New School Baptist anti-christian beast. From this small beginning, this little harmless looking horn, the Bristol Divinity School, and the estate of E. Ferrel, this inlet of corruption in faith and practice found its way among the Baptists, has gathered force and impetus, as it has dashed its headlong way for centuries, and has now become a mighty flood; but agreeably to the divine assurance given in the book of God, the Spirit of the Lord has now set up a standard against it."
Beebe cannot rebut the proof that the Baptists had theological schools back in the 1600s, so all he can do is indict the true primitive Baptists by calling them abominable idolaters! He admits that those who support missions and ministerial education are in line with the Baptists of former years! One wonders why they call themselves primitive Baptists. Then he boasts that his Hardshell brethren were raised up, finally, to set things right!
Beebe continues:
"But shall we ask this valiant historian, this learned novice, what was the state and condition of the church of Christ prior to the setting up of these abominations among the Baptists? Could he! would he! dare he tell us? The truth is they were then precisely what the Old School Baptists are now, “a poor and afflicted people which trust in the name of the Lord.” They did not trust in E. Ferrel’s large estate, nor this Bristol minister-making machine, before the first gave his bequest, or the other was erected. They had no confidence in the flesh."
We might ask Beebe and his brethren, after the same manner, "where were the "antis" in the days of Bristol college"? Where were the protestors? Does he not admit that these things existed for centuries without any Hardshell existing to protest? All Beebe can do is assert that he and his brethren are the ancient church, without any historical proof, just as his twin brother, the Campbellites!
Beebe continued:
"Go back then, Mr. F. and W., with your researches into the ancient history of the church, as far as the third of Matthew, and from thence trace down the channel of time the history of the people of God. Read it not in ostentatious bequests, in the erection of Theological Seminaries, or the formation of unscriptural Mission Boards, but read in characters of blood, the rise and progress, the persecutions, afflictions and the deliverance of the people of God, placed by grace in the Old School of Christ. You may find them, with some few interruptions, steadfastly adhering to the doctrine of the apostles, and conforming to the laws of Christ."
Again, when Beebe can't meet the historical argument and proof, he simply claims that they are like the apostolic church. He shows that he cannot prove his "primitive" status by appeal to history. Yet, in spite of this admission, his followers continue to affirm that they are most like the Baptists of the old confessions! Notice the arrogance of Beebe and his brethren!
Beebe continues:
"Should you be at any loss to recognize them, remember the infallible mark by which they shall be known. Such as will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. The Old School, of whom we write, and among whom we desire to be numbered, were persecuted by the Jews, Scribes, Pharisees and priests, then by the Pagans, afterwards by the Papists, subsequently by Protestants, and now by the New School Baptists, but thanks be to God who giveth them the victory, they are the same people, one in the Lord their Savior, who will bring them one and all up out of great tribulation, having their robes made white in the blood of the Lamb."
What a twist! What a self deception! Because Howell, Peck, and other Baptist historians overthrow the pretensions and claims of those who boast of being "primitive" Baptists, and show how they are against scripture that supports missions and theological training, therefore they are "persecutors" of the "Old School"! Their false doctrines and practices being overthrown proves the "Old School" are the true church of Christ! The Mormons were persecuted in this manner also, so does that prove they are the true church of Christ?
Beebe continued:
"We once saw when a boy a bird called, where we were raised, a woodpecker, dash his bill against the trunk of a very large tree, and immediately flew round the tree, apparently to see if he had not forced a hole through its diameter. We were reminded of the circumstance when we read the conclusion of our hero’s silly attack, for in his conclusion he apprehends that some of the readers of the Watchman may conclude that be should not have exposed the Old School Baptists so far; but should they not be satisfied with this hint, he threatens to give them another or two in a future number. O, spare us, Mr. Mule, (for we suppose by your significant anonymous title you must be something of a mongrel,) spare us the trouble of sifting out your trifling trash, for the game will but too poorly pay for the amunition." (ALEXANDRIA, D. C., August 25, 1838. Elder Gilbert Beebe, Editorials Volume 1, Pages 441–446)
here
Notice how Beebe cannot rebut the evidence against him but can only hurl epithets against Howell and Peck. Does this not speak volumns?
Jul 24, 2010
Christian on Hardshells
J.T. Christian on the Hardshells
John T. Christian (emphasis mine - SG) wrote:
"Contemporaneous with the formation of the Triennial Convention there began among some Baptists an aggressive campaign against missions, education, Sunday schools, and indeed almost everything that organization fostered. The history of the Baptists of that period would be incomplete which did not give an account of the anti-effort secession variously called anti-missions and hardshellism. One can hardly, in this day, understand the rancor of speech which prevailed for years in many of the churches, and most of the early associations.
This was largely true of all parties. For example, Rockwood Giddings, who was, at one time, President of Georgetown College, said of the editor of The Signs of the Times (Gilbert Beebe - SG), the anti-effort publication: "His examination was published in the Signs of the Times; a paper which is read by but few respectable people, and still fewer who are capable of appreciating sound arguments, when they are presented to them. Indeed, Mr. Trott (Samuel Trott - SG), in that paper reminds me forcibly of a rather factious couplet which Mr. Wesley’s clerk is said to have read to the congregation, with the old-cast-off-wig of his master on his head—
‘Like an owl in ivy bush,
That fearsome thing I am’
I have therefore no disposition to enter the ‘bush’ with him; and shall for the present dismiss him and his writings with a few remarks" (The Baptist Banner, January 9, 1838. IV. 2). This is rather a mild sample of things which were said.
Ignorance, prejudice, and misunderstandings were the fruitful source of many of these denominational dissensions. The following is a fair representation of many other letters written by William Hays, Weakley county, Tennessee, in 1838, and published in The Old Baptist Banner (Published from Nashville, Tenn., area and supported by Elder John Watson, and was an antogonist paper to the "Baptist Banner" - SG):
I am certainly glad of the alternative of your paper, as I think it will be of benefit to some of us Old School Baptists in the west, where the floodgates of iniquity and Arminianism are open; and the hideous roar of the lion of the tribe of serpents is heard; together with the missionary éclat which is so clearly adverse to the gospel and the church of God; and whose operations have been simultaneous since their model was set up at Mill Creek in this State. But modernism, in these days, especially in theology, has become most desirable with many, notwithstanding the opposition of such things so fully and clearly developed in the book of God, according to my understanding; as such, I am opposed to any, and all such errors, for the following reasons: Phantasm is not to be depended on in matters of indemnity, though preponderance of authority may, &c.
Christian mentions two of the leading periodicals of the "anti mission movement" in this citation, the "Signs of the Times" and the "Old Baptist Banner." He also mentions two of the leading writers of the Signs, Elder Gilbert Beebe (editor) and Elder Samuel Trott, who was a contributing editor. I plan to write some about these two elders in upcoming posts.
Christian continues:
"While there was great opposition to missions, which gradually augmented as time went on, there was, if possible, a more bitter opposition to education, and to the establishment of Baptist colleges. The expressed opposition to these benevolent enterprises, as they were designated, was a conviction that they were human institutions, inventions and schemes, and contrary to the simplicity of the instructions enunciated in the New Testament for the spread of the gospel. There were also, of course, lower considerations, such as that preachers would not receive their support if mission collections were pressed, and some dissatisfaction because some preachers failed to receive appointments which they desired. Others feared that educated men would take their places. The Holy Spirit instructed preachers what to say, and therefore human learning was unnecessary. So missions and mission societies, Sunday schools, colleges and education, paid ministers, and temperance societies were denounced as contrary to the Word of God and human liberty."
Notice that Christian does not mention any doctrinal differences. He does not mention the Hardshells as believing that men were saved apart from faith and apart from hearing the gospel. Those novelties would come later in the 19th century. The first Hardshells were opposed to mission methodologies.
Christian continues:
"The name by which they designated themselves was Primitive, or Old School, Baptists; and they claimed that all Baptists were originally of their contention, which certainly was not the fact. "They arrogate to themselves," says J. M. Peck who was a contemporary, "the name of Old School Baptists because they reprobate all these measures (missions, education and Sunday schools, etc.), and declare non-fellowship with all Baptists who have anything to do with missionary work or any of those forms of active benevolence, and with all who hold correspondence with or fellowship missionary Baptists. In this charitable act they cut themselves off from at least nineteen-twentieths of all our Baptists in the United States, unless we can admit that a mere fragment of a party can exclude a vast majority" (J. M. Peck, Baptist Banner and Western Pioneer, July 4, 1839)."
J. M. Peck was perhaps the leading opponent of the Hardshells, together with R. B. C. Howell. Peck debated Daniel Parker twice on the topic. I am still researching to find records of these debates.
Christian says:
"The Signs of the Times and The Primitive Baptist, were widely circulated and from every standpoint attacked the new institutions. Many of the charges preferred were unjust but they produced the desired results.
One of the leaders in this reaction was Samuel Trott. He "was for many years," says J. M. Peck, "in connection with the Regular Baptist denomination, first in New Jersey, and afterwards in Kentucky. Then he professed and acted with the denomination on missions, ministerial education, and other benevolent operations. He was always rather ultra in doctrine, verging toward Antinomian fatality, rather narrow in his views and tinged with a little bigotry. While in Kentucky he was connected with the Kentucky Missionary Society and, for a time, served as agent to collect funds. Whether his salary and expenses exceeded his collections; or his dogmatical-Calvinistic style of preaching dissatisfied the brethren, we never learned. They discontinued his agency. His preaching never proved very attractive, interesting, or useful anywhere. Some years since he migrated to Virginia. When the antinomian and anti-missionary party in that quarter, a few years ago, formed the Black Rock Convention, broke from the denomination, and sent forth their harmless anathemas against the whole Baptist phalanx, as missionary operators, Trott found himself amongst this little ‘sect.’ He had always found a peculiar itching to be a great man, and as greatness is comparative, and, doubtless, recollecting the adage, ‘better be the head of the dog than the tail of the lion,’ he is now nearly in the front rank" (The Baptist Banner and Western Pioneer, June 27, 1839. IV. 1) .
It was Daniel Parker, however, who was the originator of the system. "Daniel Parker, in the west, and Joshua Lawrence (of the Kehukee Association in NC and a supported of Beebe and the two major peridicals in the east, the "Signs of the Times" and "The Primitive Baptist" - SG) are in truth and fairness, the fathers and founders of this sect" (J. M. Peck, The Baptist Banner and Western Pioneer, July 4, 1839. IV. 1). "These two worthies—one in Texas and the other in North Carolina—are the two heads of the party." Parker was an enigma; and his system was a strange rehash of the old Gnostic philosophy."
("A History of the Baptists" Chapter Seven "The Anti-Effort Secession from the Baptists")
See here
Joshua Lawrence was a leader in the movement in the Kehukee Association of North Carolina. When I write about the leaders in the anti mission movement, I plan to detail the lives and work of these men. But, Christian gives a correct analysis of the movement. Other historians would demonstrate the same facts, as I will show in the future when I get back to writing chapters in my book on the Hardshell cult.
John T. Christian (emphasis mine - SG) wrote:
"Contemporaneous with the formation of the Triennial Convention there began among some Baptists an aggressive campaign against missions, education, Sunday schools, and indeed almost everything that organization fostered. The history of the Baptists of that period would be incomplete which did not give an account of the anti-effort secession variously called anti-missions and hardshellism. One can hardly, in this day, understand the rancor of speech which prevailed for years in many of the churches, and most of the early associations.
This was largely true of all parties. For example, Rockwood Giddings, who was, at one time, President of Georgetown College, said of the editor of The Signs of the Times (Gilbert Beebe - SG), the anti-effort publication: "His examination was published in the Signs of the Times; a paper which is read by but few respectable people, and still fewer who are capable of appreciating sound arguments, when they are presented to them. Indeed, Mr. Trott (Samuel Trott - SG), in that paper reminds me forcibly of a rather factious couplet which Mr. Wesley’s clerk is said to have read to the congregation, with the old-cast-off-wig of his master on his head—
‘Like an owl in ivy bush,
That fearsome thing I am’
I have therefore no disposition to enter the ‘bush’ with him; and shall for the present dismiss him and his writings with a few remarks" (The Baptist Banner, January 9, 1838. IV. 2). This is rather a mild sample of things which were said.
Ignorance, prejudice, and misunderstandings were the fruitful source of many of these denominational dissensions. The following is a fair representation of many other letters written by William Hays, Weakley county, Tennessee, in 1838, and published in The Old Baptist Banner (Published from Nashville, Tenn., area and supported by Elder John Watson, and was an antogonist paper to the "Baptist Banner" - SG):
I am certainly glad of the alternative of your paper, as I think it will be of benefit to some of us Old School Baptists in the west, where the floodgates of iniquity and Arminianism are open; and the hideous roar of the lion of the tribe of serpents is heard; together with the missionary éclat which is so clearly adverse to the gospel and the church of God; and whose operations have been simultaneous since their model was set up at Mill Creek in this State. But modernism, in these days, especially in theology, has become most desirable with many, notwithstanding the opposition of such things so fully and clearly developed in the book of God, according to my understanding; as such, I am opposed to any, and all such errors, for the following reasons: Phantasm is not to be depended on in matters of indemnity, though preponderance of authority may, &c.
Christian mentions two of the leading periodicals of the "anti mission movement" in this citation, the "Signs of the Times" and the "Old Baptist Banner." He also mentions two of the leading writers of the Signs, Elder Gilbert Beebe (editor) and Elder Samuel Trott, who was a contributing editor. I plan to write some about these two elders in upcoming posts.
Christian continues:
"While there was great opposition to missions, which gradually augmented as time went on, there was, if possible, a more bitter opposition to education, and to the establishment of Baptist colleges. The expressed opposition to these benevolent enterprises, as they were designated, was a conviction that they were human institutions, inventions and schemes, and contrary to the simplicity of the instructions enunciated in the New Testament for the spread of the gospel. There were also, of course, lower considerations, such as that preachers would not receive their support if mission collections were pressed, and some dissatisfaction because some preachers failed to receive appointments which they desired. Others feared that educated men would take their places. The Holy Spirit instructed preachers what to say, and therefore human learning was unnecessary. So missions and mission societies, Sunday schools, colleges and education, paid ministers, and temperance societies were denounced as contrary to the Word of God and human liberty."
Notice that Christian does not mention any doctrinal differences. He does not mention the Hardshells as believing that men were saved apart from faith and apart from hearing the gospel. Those novelties would come later in the 19th century. The first Hardshells were opposed to mission methodologies.
Christian continues:
"The name by which they designated themselves was Primitive, or Old School, Baptists; and they claimed that all Baptists were originally of their contention, which certainly was not the fact. "They arrogate to themselves," says J. M. Peck who was a contemporary, "the name of Old School Baptists because they reprobate all these measures (missions, education and Sunday schools, etc.), and declare non-fellowship with all Baptists who have anything to do with missionary work or any of those forms of active benevolence, and with all who hold correspondence with or fellowship missionary Baptists. In this charitable act they cut themselves off from at least nineteen-twentieths of all our Baptists in the United States, unless we can admit that a mere fragment of a party can exclude a vast majority" (J. M. Peck, Baptist Banner and Western Pioneer, July 4, 1839)."
J. M. Peck was perhaps the leading opponent of the Hardshells, together with R. B. C. Howell. Peck debated Daniel Parker twice on the topic. I am still researching to find records of these debates.
Christian says:
"The Signs of the Times and The Primitive Baptist, were widely circulated and from every standpoint attacked the new institutions. Many of the charges preferred were unjust but they produced the desired results.
One of the leaders in this reaction was Samuel Trott. He "was for many years," says J. M. Peck, "in connection with the Regular Baptist denomination, first in New Jersey, and afterwards in Kentucky. Then he professed and acted with the denomination on missions, ministerial education, and other benevolent operations. He was always rather ultra in doctrine, verging toward Antinomian fatality, rather narrow in his views and tinged with a little bigotry. While in Kentucky he was connected with the Kentucky Missionary Society and, for a time, served as agent to collect funds. Whether his salary and expenses exceeded his collections; or his dogmatical-Calvinistic style of preaching dissatisfied the brethren, we never learned. They discontinued his agency. His preaching never proved very attractive, interesting, or useful anywhere. Some years since he migrated to Virginia. When the antinomian and anti-missionary party in that quarter, a few years ago, formed the Black Rock Convention, broke from the denomination, and sent forth their harmless anathemas against the whole Baptist phalanx, as missionary operators, Trott found himself amongst this little ‘sect.’ He had always found a peculiar itching to be a great man, and as greatness is comparative, and, doubtless, recollecting the adage, ‘better be the head of the dog than the tail of the lion,’ he is now nearly in the front rank" (The Baptist Banner and Western Pioneer, June 27, 1839. IV. 1) .
It was Daniel Parker, however, who was the originator of the system. "Daniel Parker, in the west, and Joshua Lawrence (of the Kehukee Association in NC and a supported of Beebe and the two major peridicals in the east, the "Signs of the Times" and "The Primitive Baptist" - SG) are in truth and fairness, the fathers and founders of this sect" (J. M. Peck, The Baptist Banner and Western Pioneer, July 4, 1839. IV. 1). "These two worthies—one in Texas and the other in North Carolina—are the two heads of the party." Parker was an enigma; and his system was a strange rehash of the old Gnostic philosophy."
("A History of the Baptists" Chapter Seven "The Anti-Effort Secession from the Baptists")
See here
Joshua Lawrence was a leader in the movement in the Kehukee Association of North Carolina. When I write about the leaders in the anti mission movement, I plan to detail the lives and work of these men. But, Christian gives a correct analysis of the movement. Other historians would demonstrate the same facts, as I will show in the future when I get back to writing chapters in my book on the Hardshell cult.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)