Friday, August 29, 2008

Hardshells & The London Confession I

Chapter 126

In the year 1900, a large group of "Primitive Baptist" elders assembled together near Fulton, Kentucky for the purpose of putting forth a "Confession of Faith." In this endeavor they sought to reaffirm their adherence to the old London Confession of 1689 but with "footnotes" attached to portions of the old confession. Those infamous "footnotes" have been the subject of debate ever since. In the "Appendix" to their confession, historically called "The Fulton Confession of Primitive Baptists," the elders wrote:

"We recommend the London Confession of Faith as an expression of Bible truth. The articles of faith of our churches are substantially in harmony with the doctrine and practice set forth in that instrument, and we do heartily recommend the London Confession to the household of faith everywhere."

The Fulton Confession can be found here.

The Hardshells claim that their denomination is the "one true church of Christ," or "kingdom of God," and that all other church groups are not.  This is why they will not accept the baptisms of any other church other than their own.  It is also the reason why they eventually chose the name of "Primitive Baptist" for their denomination.  By choosing this name they were declaring to all that they were the "original" Baptists and that all other Baptists were apostates from the original Baptist faith and the faith of the Apostles.  Being "Landmarkers," they believe that no church can claim to be a true church of Christ unless it can show an unbroken chain of churches back to the days of the Apostles.  One of the problems, however, with this claim is the fact that the Hardshells cannot show an unbroken chain of churches, believing the same thing, back in history prior to the 19th century.  Though I have constantly challenged the Hardshells to prove that Baptists prior to the 19th century believed their hybrid and aberrant views on "Spirit alone regeneration" they have not as yet produced the evidence. 

Throughout the 19th century the Hardshells claimed that they were the successors of those Baptists who wrote the London Confession of 1689 and yet it was often a source of difficulty for them as they gradually abandoned the Confession's teaching regarding the use of means in salvation.  In the latter half of the 19th century, as the Hardshells divorced themselves completely from a belief in means, the claim to be in agreement with the old Confession became difficult, if not impossible.  This difficulty led the Hardshells to decide which answer to give to their opponents, the means Baptists, regarding their alleged agreement with the Confession.  Some chose to drop their claim of being the successors of the Baptists of London who wrote and endorsed the confession, together with those Baptists in America who endorsed the Philadelphia Confession, which was virtually the same.  Others, however, chose to argue that the old Confession did not teach the use of means in salvation and began to reinterpret the old Confession to make it affirm a denial of means.  This latter group could therefore continue to claim to be the successors of the Confession, and therefore "primitive" Baptists, but by affirming that those sections of the Confession that seemed to teach the use of means did not in fact teach such. 

This latter group organized a large number of elders to meet in Fulton, Kentucky in 1900 in order to endorse the Confession and to reinterpret those sections that seemed to teach both the absolute predestination of all things and the use of means in effectual calling.  In the next several chapters we will look at this issue and see whether the Confession teaches the use of means and what Hardshells have had to say about it.  It is my view that those Hardshells who acknowledge that the Confession teaches the use of means in salvation are at least honest, though such an acknowledgment puts them into a hard spot as regards showing an unbroken succession of Hardshell churches.  Those Hardshells who have chosen to reinterpret the Confession, and to affirm that the ministers who wrote it did not believe in means, i.e. that they were Hardshells like themselves, are dishonest interpreters of the old Confession. 

My dear friend, Bob Ross of Pilgrim Publications, who has written a series of articles called "The History and Heresies of Hardshellism," wrote about this gathering of Hardshells in 1900.  (see here and see here)

Wrote Brother Ross:

"THE FACT IS, IT WAS "UNDERSTANDING" THE BAPTIST CONFESSION WHICH MADE IT NECESSARY FOR THIS GATHERING OF HARDSHELLS TO HACK AND HEW ON THE CONFESSION IN THE EFFORT TO MAKE IT ACCEPTABLE. All of their pious reasons notwithstanding, the truth is, these Old School Primitive Baptists DID NOT BELIEVE the doctrines of the London Confession and would have set up "bars of fellowship" against every last one of those who originally signed the 1689 Confession had the signatories arisen from the dead and asked for a "home" among these Hardshell brethren." (Chapter 5)

From Chapter Four, Ross wrote (some emphasis mine - SG):

"In one of them -- the June 1971 issue -- Elder Tolley headlines a front-page article entitled A Re-Statement of Our Faith Needed.  One of the primary targets of the article is the London Confession of 1689.  Here are a few excerpts from Bro. Tolley's remarks:

Although the "London Confession" does set forth much of what we believe -- it does not clearly set forth our full and proper views on several points of doctrine.
  
Although we do accept most of the London Confession of Faith, we certainly do NOT agree with ALL of it!  And we would not agree with the wording on some of the points even though we would agree with the sentiments.
  
To show that the "London Confession" does not set forth the beliefs of Primitive Baptists in full I will here give some excerpts from it:  [then follows quotes from chapters 2, 10, 14, and 15].
  
This quote [from chapter seven of the Confession] has overtones of "Arminianism" in it . . .  If a Primitive Baptist preacher should set forth such a statement from his pulpit you would clearly see the clamor that it would justly provoke.
  
They [signatories of the London Confession] believed that the "elect" are ordinarily called to regeneration and salvation by the medium of the preached word.  Primitive Baptists do NOT believe this.
  
This [chapter 10] is NOT the concept that Primitive Baptists hold relative to "Effectual Calling."
  
Does this [chapter 14] sound like Primitive Baptists sentiment?  It is not.
  
We believe that there will be millions of the "elect" saved in heaven who have never, nor will they ever, hear the gospel of the Son of God.  [Tolley's comment on chapter 15, paragraph 5 of the Confession].
  
There are several similar expressions in the "London Confession" that we do not agree with, and some statements that need to be more fully explained in order to show just what is intended.

In Elder Tolley's "Library News," in this same issue, he says:

I have for several years talked with many ministers and other interested individuals about this ["a statement (confession) of faith of the Primitive Baptists of our times"] and there has been much interest in this long needed work.
  
If any of our readers will read the "London Confession of Faith" (this is the confession of faith that Primitive Baptists are said to believe) you will clearly see the need for re-stating our beliefs -- as we hold today."

In Elder Tolley's January 1983 issue of The Christian Baptist, he is still "grinding an ax" about the London Confession.  He refers to chapters 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, and 15, and says:

It would be hard to understand how any man could fully endorse all that is stated therein and remain in good standing and full fellowship with Primitive Baptists.  No one could be well informed on the doctrine and beliefs of the Strict Baptists of England and not understand that they were and are, today, different from Primitive Baptists of America on several important points.

The men who drew up the London Confession of Faith held what we call "absolute" tendencies, and, although they believed in predestination and election, they also believed that the gospel was ordinarily God's ordained means to call the elect to regeneration . . . We have published several articles in THE CHRISTIAN BAPTIST pointing out these discrepancies."

Ross continues:

"Another editor could be added to these: I refer to Elder Eddie Garrett (my father - SG) of The Hardshell Baptist magazine.  Garrett was on Elder Tolley's staff for some time, and from 1982 published his own monthly paper from Thompson Memorial Primitive Baptist Church, Franklin, Ohio.  Garrett, who at the time also was in the same faction of Hardshells in Lassere Bradley's "Primitive Baptist Church Directory," stated in his paper some of the differences he has with the London Confession.  He disagrees with this Confession on such doctrines as predestination, regeneration, effectual calling, the gospel, "means," and perseverance of the saints.  He devotes a lengthy article to discussing "Confessions of Faith" in the May 1992 issue, saying, "There are some things in the London Confession of Faith that I do not agree with."  He specifies "absoluter statements" and the "means doctrine."  In another issue (June 1992), he specifies that he differs with the London Confession on perseverance of the saints, and he expounds his view on this in the issue of September 1989."

Under the heading ""Hatchet-Job" Done to the London Confession by Hardshell Book" Ross continued:

"Several years ago, a well-known Hardshell preacher, Elder Lee Hanks, compiled a number of historical items and published them under the title, The Church of God.  I have the reprinted edition of 1982, published by Elder S. T. Tolley's Christian Baptist Publishing Company, and I have also examined an original edition.
  
The book mutilates the London Confession, not only omitting significant words (indicated by a series of dots), but it even cuts-out entire chapters!  It omits chapters 5, 14, 15, and 17 thru 25.  It is significant that the material which is omitted includes the same points of doctrine which Hardshells such as Tolley admittedly do not believe, particularly those that express the Baptist position on the use of the Word, or Gospel, in regeneration."

In chapter five Ross wrote (highlighting mine - SG):

"We have already called attention to Elder S. T. Tolley's repudiation of the London Confession (chapter four) on those chapters of the Confession which he specified, as he called for the composing of a new confession which would accurately represent Primitive Baptists. Another Hardshell, Elder R. V. Sarrels, who wrote a book presenting Hardshell doctrine, ostensibly called a "Systematic Theology," very candidly confesses that Primitive Baptists "do not believe" chapter three of the London Confession, and he charges that the Fulton Convention of 1900 wrote a footnote "to make this old article MEAN WHAT IT DOES NOT SAY" (Systematic Theology, pages 109, 110).

Sarrels indicates that the sweet brethren who gathered at Fulton, Ky. in 1900 were engaged in a "literary effort of TORTURING of language" when they tried to "clarify" and "explain" the London Confession. He says, "Moderate or Non-fatalist Calvinists must either repudiate this statement [in the London Confession] or resign themselves to the endless task of trying to make it mean what it does not say" (page 111)."


Thus, so far, several witnesses have been called forth to show that many Hardshells acknowledge that the old London Confession does in fact teach the Gospel means position.  In honestly confessing this fact, these Hardshells are acknowledging that those Hardshells who have attempted to subvert its teachings by reinterpreting it were not honest. 

Elder Harold Hunt, in his book "The London Confession: And its Place in Baptist History" (2007), states:

"In 1900, the Primitive Baptists were seriously divided.  They were about to split three ways.  A large and representative body of capable Primitive Baptist preachers came together at Fulton, Kentucky.  The Primitive Baptists were in crisis, and they intended to fend off a division if they could.  Like the Regulars and Separates one hundred years before, they tried to use the London Confession as a rallying point.

They reaffirmed what they could accept;  they explained away what they could not accept;  and they looked aside, and walked past what they could not explain away."  (This sentence was in bold in Hunt's book - SG) 

Here is another honest confession from a leading Hardshell elder.  "They explained away what they could not accept"!  While it is a commendable thing for these Hardshells to be honest about the teaching of the Confession, it ought to cause them to see the ramifications of it. 

Hunt wrote:

"They did everything that could be done to rehabilitate a fundamentally flawed document--and they failed.  They had hardly done their work before the Primitive Baptists split into Absoluters, Progressives, and Old-Liners.  The elders who assembled at Fulton, Kentucky in 1900, were some of the brightest and best the Lord's church has ever known--in any age."  (pg. 20)

Elder Hunt says of the men who tried to "explain away" the teaching of the Confession on the use of means in effectual calling, that they were "some of the brightest and best the Lord's church has ever known."  Of course, by "the Lord's church" Hunt means the "Primitive Baptist Church," and he says that their ablest men were dishonest interpreters of the old Confession! 

On page 10 Hunt says that the Baptists who endorsed the 1689 Confession "were the New School Baptists of that day."  By "New School Baptsts" Hunt means those who believe that the Gospel is God's ordained means of birthing children into the kingdom and who supported church sponsored evangelists.  Hunt denies that the Confession is a "Primitive" or "Hardshell" document. 

On pages 106-107 Hunt lists what he considers to be the errors of "the Particular Baptists in England who adopted the London Confession of 1689."  The sixth error Hunt gives in these words:

"They erred in in retaining the doctrine that everybody who does not hear the preached gospel, and believe it, is going to burn."

Michael Ivey in his book "A Welsh Succession of Primitive Baptists" believed that the Fulton brethren did not properly interpret or explain the confession relative to the use of means.  He also did not believe that Primitive Baptists could or should trace their heritage through the Particular Baptists who endorsed the 1689 Confession, arguing that they should rather see it through the Welsh Baptists and their Midlands Confession of 1655.  In chapter three (see here) Ivey wrote:

"With regard to gospel instrumentality in regeneration, there is evidence that at least some of the early leaders of the Particular Baptists held Calvinist Presbyterian religious views. Hansard Knollys expressed his support for this tenet in an exposition of the work of the ministry, to preach the gospel, in relation to God's sovereignty in regeneration. He declared, "I say then when they (ministers) have done this, they must leave the issue to the Lord, who onely (sic) makes this ministry powerful to whom he pleaseth, giving them repentance...enabling them to believe in him unto remission of sins and everlasting life. And surely God hath appointed the Ministry, especially for this end, that by means thereof he might worke faith in all those whom he hath ordained unto eternal life."

"Knollys demonstrated a position which balanced gospel agency and election in a sermon titled The World that Now is, and the World that is to Come. He stated, "If the sinner be willing to open the door of his heart, Christ will come in by his holy Spirit and He will communicate of his Grace to his soul. Not that you can do those things of your selves; I have told you, without Christ you can do nothing, John 15.5. But it is your duty to do them and it is the Free Grace of God, to work in you to will and to do, according to his good pleasure, Phil. 2.12,13. That he so working in you, you may work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."

Elder Ivey is another honest Hardshell regarding the teaching of the old London Confession regarding the Lord's use of means in salvation.  He says that the fact that Hanserd Knollys believed in means, and who was a signer of the Confession, helps to show that the Confession does in fact teach the use of means.  I have Internet articles from many of the signers of this old Confession, in addition to Knollys, which show that they all believed just exactly what they wrote in the Confession, that the Gospel is God's ordained means for calling the elect to life and salvation.   I have argued that this evidence completely destroys the rebuttal apology of those Hardshells who say that the old Confession does not really teach means, but only seems to do so, and that properly "interpreted" it actually denies that God uses means.  Thus, it is not enough for Hardshell elders, like the Fulton group, to simply twist and distort the words of the Confession in order to make it appear as though the authors of the Confession agreed with them, but they must also showed that this was in fact the view of the authors.  But, in order to do this, they would need to cite from their other writings to substantiate their view that the authors did not really believe in means, though their Confession seems to affirm so.

In the next chapter we will continue to look at things Ivey says about the London Confession and look at some other witnesses to the teachings of the Confession regarding means.  But, in summation, it is to be noted how many able writers today have acknowledged that the old Confession did in fact teach the use of means in salvation and that the work of the Fulton Convention in 1900 was an effort to make the Confession teach what it clearly does not teach.

No comments: