We begin this chapter with a citation from Elder Sylvester Hassell to W. L. Parker. It was published on May 19, 1925, thirty one years after he wrote of the beginnings of disagreement and "tension" over the doctrine of the "absolute predestination of all things."
"The Bible doctrine of predestination should not be so stated as to make our Most Holy God, in any sense, the cause of sin; and, while the whole world is against us, we should not bite, consume, and devour one another by unprofitable subverting and unwholesome contentions on the deep doctrine of predestination, which is not comprehended by any finite mind thus proving our pride and carnality, and our willingness to sacrifice the church of God to a humanly invented phrase."
Hassell gives sage advice about the manner of teaching and preaching on the great mystery of the divine decrees, of God's eternal purpose, of predestination. Many have not known when to speak dogmatically and when not. Sometimes it is best, in discussions about this subject, for the teacher to ask the student questions in accordance with the "Socratic method." This way the teacher helps the student to arrive at his own conclusions. Inform the student of the various views of Christian theologians and state which you favor. Emphasize the mystery of the doctrine. Emphasize that finite minds cannot comprehend this topic (like others). As Hassell said, the "doctrine of predestination" is "deep," and "not comprehended by any finite mind."
God wants us to think upon these things and has not left us ignorant. God makes plain statements relative to creation, providence, omniscience, omnipotence, etc. God speaks of his eternal decrees, of his eternal purpose. Those clear and express statements of God ought to be accepted by faith though they be not fully understood. Oftentimes understanding of them will come later, after one accepts the oracles on faith. Further, teachers need to remember that many Christians are "babies" in their biblical understanding, and are not able to digest "meat." (Heb. 5: 12-14) Certainly the doctrine of the "high mystery of predestination" is "meat" and ought not to pushed down the throat of young disciples. Wise teachers should let the Spirit lead these young disciples to come to their teachers and the teachers need to be prepared to aid the disciple to consider the scriptural statements on the topic and meditate upon the leading questions involved in the topic.
One can see how the lack of graded bible classes, or Sunday Schools, and seminaries, in the Hardshell churches, would lead to a division on the doctrine of the divine decrees. The only teaching done, in Hardshell churches, is to the general congregation, which includes both lost sinners and Christians, and the latter being divided into "babies" and "adults," spiritually speaking. Thus, when a pastor wants to teach on the deep things of God, things that would be better to teach to a class of mature Christians, or ministers, he has to do such teaching to a very diverse group. Thus, when the high mystery of the divine decrees is taught, many go away confused and bewildered. Of course, one way that the Hardshells used to accomplish the same thing, apart from segregated Bible classes, was to write in books and periodicals their views on the fine points of the divine decrees. The readers of the periodicals and books were generally the better informed Bible students and scholars and could handle the topic better.
Further, it is best, as Hassell advised, for teachers on the divine decrees to stick with express statements of scripture. Christians should do this habitually on all Bible topics, but especially on the mysteries. It is often the commentary that men make on the biblical statements on God's will and predeterminations that often generates confusion and strife, rather than the statements themselves.
Further, the Hardshells on both sides of the question of the divine decrees, both Conditionalist and Absoluter factions, should have practice tolerance and forbearance with each other on the subject. Making the issue into a test of fellowship, as was done, showed a lack of forbearance. But, the Hardshells, sad to say, have a history of intolerance and division. Their denomination began, ironically, by a division which should never have occurred. They declared non-fellowship for all Baptists who supported Sunday Schools and seminaries. Was that not an act of intolerance and lack of love and forbearance? They declared non-fellowship for every Christian who supported societies to help missionaries preach the gospel. Was that also not a gross lack of forbearance? They continued their lack of forbearance, and restricted more and more the "requirements for membership" and "standing" in a Hardshell church.
In the above citation from Hassell, though his advice was good, yet he was in once instance, showing a lack of forbearance himself. He stated that no Hardshell should affirm that God is, "in any sense," a "cause" of sin. Does Hassell deny what the London Confessions says about God being "the First Cause" of all things? Does he deny that "all things" are "of God"? Does he deny the statement that affirms that "nothing can come to pass apart from God's permissive or decreed will"? In fact, Hassell contradicts himself, for he has elsewhere acknowledged that all things come to pass in accordance with the will of God. God is a cause of all things, but he is not the immediate or blameworthy cause of sin.
Here is what "Deacon Jones" wrote to W. L. Parker in the same context of Hassell's words to Parker. It was in the context of futher division occurring in the 1920's.
"I am much convinced that absolutism is a God-dishonoring doctrine, and always where you find it you find trouble, and you had as well try to push down a thick rock wall as to try to have peace with characters who preach this heresy. It is most unreasonable, and nothing reasonable can result from its teachings."
Deacon Jones continues:
"We who support Elder Washburn agreed with the body to quit using the expression or phrase ‘time salvation,’ and they agreed to quit using the expression ‘the absolute predestination of all things.’"
Notice the connection between the doctrine of "time salvation" and the doctrine of the divine decrees, or predestination. Later we will see evidence from this same decade where it was stated that those who took the Absoluter side were generally advocates of "one salvation," while the Conditionalists side were advocates of "two kinds of salvation." More will be said about this connection later.
Conditionalist Deacon Jones continued:
"They kept this agreement until Sunday, May 7—just one day. A visiting elder loudly proclaimed ‘the predestination of all things,’ with the prefix ‘absolute,’ declaring that Webster said ‘absolute’ meant ‘certain, sure,’ and he wanted a predestination that was sure. We have only used the expression or phrase ‘time salvation’ since the above agreement was made in defending our position, it being forced upon us by our accusers. We are stating frankly that we find no fault with the phrase, because the brethren clearly set forth their meaning of the phrase, which is ‘salvation from error, false doctrine, afflictions, misery, persecutions, perplexities, disasters, calamities, adversities, temptations, etc.,’ in obedience to the commands of our Lord. He who would deny this has either forgotten God or never knew Him in the beauty of obedience."
The one who denies the idea of "two kinds of salvation" and "time salvation," are people who don't know God or have forgotten him? Is that not a harsh un-Christian judgment? Does it not show a lack of love and forbearance? Where is the "charity" and "brotherly love" in that judgment? Was it not divisive for the Conditionalist to insist that one never say "the absolute predestination of all things"?
Which was more justifiable? To insist that the term "time salvation" should not be preached or that the doctrine of God's universal decrees should not be preached? What kind of peace is it when both sides agree simply to not used certain expressions? It seems to me that the extremism of both sides is here evident. The creation of the novel doctrine of "time salvation" and the use of "unguarded expressions" represent the extremes of both sides.
Jones continued:
"Thousands of brethren and sisters over this country know their tactics, because they have already had divisions with these same people (Absoluters - SG), or with this same doctrine (Absolutism - SG). Brethren, if preaching that God did not predestinate all sin and wickedness is heresy, then we are guilty. If they do not believe that He does predestinate all of these things why not leave off the prefix "absolute" and the suffix "all things" then we could begin to agree."
Again, both sides were intolerant and lacked Christian love and forbearance. The Conditionalist faction was asking the Absoluter side to accept the idea that "predestination" did not involve what was "absolute." They were promoting the idea that they believed in a non-absolute kind of "predestination." How could they expect the Absoluters to deny this? How could they expect them to deny what was stated in their confessions? How could they deny that sin occurred only by the willing permission of God? Further, how could they ask the Absoluter to deny that "all things" were the objects of God's decrees? The bible writers and the old confessions did not avoid affirming that "all things" were the result of God's decrees. The Conditionalists were avowing that only some things had been decreed by God.
Jones contined:
"If preaching that we should "save ourselves from this untoward generation," "take heed unto ourselves and the doctrine, for in doing this we save ourselves and them that hear us" is not eternal salvation is heresy, then we are guilty. If preaching that Joseph saved the lives of his people in the day of famine is not eternal salvation is heresy then we are guilty. If preaching that the "great salvation" wrought by Jonathan was a national salvation and not eternal salvation, is heresy, then we are guilty. If preaching these and many other salvations--that is, salvation from many things, is heresy, then we are guilty."
Here the Conditionalist faction shows that it was the faction that promoted the novel doctrine of "time salvation." No one denies that there are temporal deliverances in scripture. Certainly Joseph saved people from starvation and deprivation. But, to carry this idea of temporal salvation to the bulk of biblical passages on salvation, is an extreme. What the Hardshell did was to take his "anti-means" doctrine to scripture and allow it to decide whether salvation, in a given text, was temporal or eternal. Any passage on salvation that involved gospel means was arbitrarily put in the "time salvation" category, regardless of the context, and whenever a text mentioned no means, then it was arbitrarily put into the "eternal salvation" category, though the context demonstrated otherwise.
"Save yourselves from this untoward generation," because it involved a condition, or a "doing" something, according to Hardshell thinking, cannot be eternal salvation, for in their minds, salvation is in no way conditional, or a result of the sinner doing something. Any scripture passage that puts salvation after a sinner doing something, to their thinking, cannot possibly be eternal salvation. However, many passages show otherwise, and to cite them puts the Hardshell in the difficult place of having to twist passages to make them fit into their "time salvation" paradigm. Thus, since "believing" and "repenting," and "calling upon the name of the Lord," involved "doing" something, no passage that connects salvation with these things is interpreted as dealing with eternal salvation. This is a hard position for them to take, however, because many passages show that it is eternal salvation that results from believing and repenting.
Jones continued:
"If preaching and believing that "nothing is gained in obedience and nothing lost in disobedience," is Old Baptist doctrine, then we have never preached or believed Old Baptist doctrine. If the doctrine, "I know that many sweet little texts along the line of duty are found in the Bible, but we have no use for them,” is Old Baptist doctrine, then we have never been an Old Baptist."
The Absoluter view that "nothing is gained in obedience and nothing lost in disobedience" is indeed an extreme. Some level of obedience and adherance to Christ is essential to perseverance and for being finally saved. Also, the Christian's obedience is also essential for obtaining rewards, both now and in the life to come. Wrote Paul:
"For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come." (I Tim. 4: 8)
Notice that "godliness," or evangelical obedience, is profitable, not only for the "life that now is," for merely temporal benefit, but of benefit of "that life which is to come," or for eternal life. For those who "obey not the gospel," there will be lost of eternal salvation. (II Thess. 1: 7-9) For slothful service to the Lord, there will be loss of both temporal and eternal rewards. (I Cor. 3: 11-15)
Jones continued:
"If preaching that Czolgosz was predestinated to kill President McKinley is Old Baptist doctrine, then we have never been an Old Baptist. If preaching that "the man who killed Dr. Phoff at Ferrum, Va., was the blessed man, because he only did that which God predestinated that he should do,;" that "Grant was predestinated to kill a man near Mountain Valley, Va., last year and the murder was predestinated" (the constable who delivered Grant to Sheriff Turner at Martinsville, Va., made this declaration to the officers, and he is considered "sound" by what is called the Pig River Association); that a man could not kill another unless it was predestinated that the gun would not fire (this was argued by one of their number at Canton Creek Church at the May, 1924, session of the association); that if a man breaks into your smokehouse and steals a side of meat, or breaks into your corn crib and steals a bushel of corn, he should not be dealt with, because God predestinated it; that "when God gets ready for one to join the church, He will make them come in," is Old Baptist doctrine we have never been an Old Baptist."
Here is a good example of extremism. The Absoluter went to one extreme in saying that the man was "blessed" who committed the above mentioned murder. The Conditionalist went to another extreme in denying that God willingly permitted the murders, and that he could have stopped the murders had he chosen to do so. Obviously both sides were not educated in the fact that the bible speaks of God's "will" in two senses. Sometimes God's will simply means what he desires men to do by their own choice, but sometimes it means what God has determined shall effectually be brought to pass. Being in accordance with God's determinate will does not determine blessedness or holiness. But, being in his preceptive will does determine blessedness and holiness. The Absoluter thought that doing what God had willingly permitted and decreed excused one from guilt, but this was an extreme.
The Conditionalist objected to saying that no man can murder another man unless God "predestinated" it, but will would they object to saying that no man can murder another man unless God "permit" it?
The Absoluter did go to another extreme in telling souls that they could not "join the church" unless God had predestined it and unless he forced them to do so. Such preaching is not biblical. Men are to be taught according to God's revealed will, not according to his secret will.
Jones continued:
"Allowing these doctrines to be preached and holding in fellowship those that teach these doctrines and calling them "sound Baptists" and condemning us for preaching duty and condemning the aforementioned doctrines is the cause of our division."
One can see the extremes of both sides in these words also. Both sides were guilty of failing to preach "duty." Both sides would not preach that it was the duty of all men to believe gospel truth, to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. Both sides would not preach that it was the duty of all men to repent of their sins. But, the Absoluter side went even farther, for they would not preach duty even to those who were Christians, believing that God would bring about obedience apart from their preaching and exhortations.
Jones wrote:
"When they charge us with preaching "a freedom of will doctrine" that embraces that alien sinner, or "a freedom of will doctrine" in any sense as they charge, they know that they are publishing a falsehood."
But, this charge of preaching "a freedom of will doctrine" was valid as respects the Conditionalist teaching regarding the salvation connected with conversion. The Conditionalist say that conversion, or "time salvation," is that which occurs, not through efficacious grace, as regeneration, but by the free will and effort of Christians. The Conditionalist went to an extreme in denying that any of God's work after regeneration, in the life of the Christian, was of "grace" in the same sense that initial salvation was of grace. Sanctification and perseverance became optional to the Christian, the result of his own will and working, after the Arminian free will fashion.
Jones wrote
"They seem to be unable to distinguish between an attribute of God and an act of God. We hold that which is good is of the Lord; that which is sin is of the devil. We hold salvation is by grace whether eternal or in this time state; but we make a distinction between the given grace (Eph. 2: 6 to 9) and the found grace (Heb. 4: 16); yet we uncompromisingly declare that these salvations are of the Lord."
One can discern the contradiction of the Conditionalist position from the above words. The Conditionalist, in order to avoid being seen as "Arminian," affirmed that "time salvation" was "by grace," and "of the Lord." But, he does not see how this involves him in a contradiction. As Calvinists, the Conditionalist will argue against Arminians by affirming that "salvation is by grace" and that "salvation is of the Lord," meaning it is wholly unconditional, and that it is absolutely effectual and certain for all whom God intends to save. The contradiction is seen in the fact that they do not believe that "time salvation," or "conversion," though being "by grace" and "of the Lord," is wholly unconditional and absolutely effectual and certain for all whom God intends to convert. But, how can he argue that "by grace" and "of the Lord" must denote what is unconditional and irresistible?
Another contradiction is seen in the Conditionalist arguing that all the good in a regenerated soul is "of the Lord." Do they mean "of the Lord" in the same sense that regeneration itself is "of the Lord"? Is the perseverance and sanctification of the believer "by grace" and "of the Lord" in the same sense as regeneration?
The words of Jones in the above citation also border on Daniel Parker's "two seedism," and his view that God and the Devil are both without beginning and one is the source of all the evil and the other is the source of all the good. This has been rightly called "dualism," the old Manichean or Persian scheme. Though most of the Hardshell denomination declared non-fellowship with "Parkerism," they nevertheless retained some of his ideas, or else modified them. Yes, it is true that sin and evil does not come directly from God, but from sinful creatures, yet this does not mean that all did not originally come from God as a first or material cause. Take the evil that Job experienced. It came directly from the Devil, but Job also saw it as coming from the Lord.
Jones wrote:
"We make a distinction in the will of God as revealed to us in His word, to-wit, His decretive will and His preceptive will. We hold that His attitude to holiness is CAUSATIVE; His attitude to sin is PERMISSIVE and OVER-RULING."
Again, one sees further contradiction in these words by the Conditionalist side. If God is the "cause" of "holiness" and good, is he the same kind of "cause" of good as he is of regeneration? Was God's causing of holiness as causative as his causing of regeneration?
It is good that the Conditionalist sees that the "will of God" is used in two senses in scripture. Thus, he should have been able to affirm that though a man's murdering another man is according to God's permissive will, it was therefore not "obedience" in the proper sense of the term, and that it did not excuse the murderer from responsibility.
Jones wrote:
"In my article published in the Gospel Messenger, Feb. 1, 1923, and The Primitive Baptist of March 1, 1923, I charged them with believing and preaching a doctrine that placed the regenerated character under a physical law, as machines, and not under a law to Christ. This they have bitterly denied, and brought many false accusations against me..."
But, let us ask - in God's work of regenerating a sinner, does he put the sinner "under the character of a physical law, as a machine"? If the argument that God's bringing about obedience in the life of Christians, according to the Absoluter scheme, makes the Christian into a machine, then why can the same thing not be said about God's bringing about regeneration in a sinner?
Jones wrote:
"On Sunday at the Pig River Association, May 4, 1924, J. W. Wyatt declared in the pulpit that we were “like a graphophone”—no music in us, no preaching in us, no praying in us, it was all on the record. When the graphophone was wound up, the record put on and the needle placed on the record the music, preaching or praying would come out.”
Again, this is one of the extremes of Absolutism among the Hardshells. The Absoluter so stated matters that the Christian was relieved of all responsibility for singing, preaching, and praying, and for all Christian duties. If the preacher did not preach successfully, then it was because God did not "blow" through him as a graphophone. No doubt the denial of means helped to create this Absoluter mentality and way of stating things. The Absoluter would have been more scriptural, and on safer ground, to have said "except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain who build it, and unless the Lord blesses me to sing, pray, or preach, it will likewise be in vain."
Jones wrote:
"In the introductory sermon by J. F. Good he said, “I want to be submissive to the association. It is not according to my will that I am here, but according to God’s will. I had NO WILL IN THE MATTER.”"
Again, such "unguarded expressions" by the Absoluter faction were harmful and productive of no good. Had Elder Good simply said - "If God did not want me here, he would have kept me from being here" - then there had been little opposition. The Absoluter so stated the matter as to deny that his "will" and choice were at all causes of where he went. He failed to see the doctrine of "concurrence" relative to the doctrine of predestination and providence.
See here for the above citations:
http://primitivebaptist.info/mambo//content/view/1400/70/
No comments:
Post a Comment