Hardshells & Mission Opposition IX

Chapter 152

In the previous chapter we showed that the Great Commission gives the authority for the church, and for each individual Christian, to teach the Scriptures and to proclaim the Gospel. This is important because one of the objections that the Hardshells and other opponents of Sunday Schools and Bible classes give is that there is no Scriptural basis for it. The Great Commission and other new testament texts do not give detailed instructions for how this teaching is to be done, and to insist that such is necessary to justify Bible classes is ludicrous. This is typical of those who adhere to "patternism," a concept I will deal with later in this series. Those who insist that the Bible must specifically mention every aspect of a church's or Christian's practice do not fully follow their own rule. Hardshells have many practices that they cannot find a specific reference to in Scripture, so their insistence that Sunday Schools and Bible classes be specifically mentioned is hypocritical.

Paul wrote:

"The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed." (Titus 2: 3-5)

One of the objections that Hardshells make against Sunday Schools is the fact that they often, though not always and necessarily, have women teachers. But, clearly Paul thought it proper that women teach, albeit with restrictions. If an aged woman in the church holds classes for younger women in order to teach the things Paul mentions, is this not in keeping with his counsel?

Many cite these words of Paul in order to affirm that women are not to do any teaching at all.

"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." (I Tim. 2: 12)

But, these words do not forbid women doing any teaching at all. If it did, then it would contradict what Paul said in Titus 2: 3-5. "Over the man" connects both with "to teach" and "to usurp," that is, women are not to teach over the man nor usurp authority over the man. She may teach, but not so as to teach over men or to usurp the authority of men. Also, the word for "man" is anēr and refers to adult men.

They will also cite these words of Paul:

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law." (I Cor. 14: 34)

But, clearly this prohibition cannot possbily mean absolute silence or else women would not be able to sing in the church. But, other Scriptures command all the members of the church to sing unto the Lord. (Col. 3: 16, Eph. 5: 19) Further, she sometimes is called upon to bear witness in disciplinary cases. What Paul is condemning is the practice of allowing women to teach the entire assembled church, or a mixed assembly. But, interesting is the fact that Paul also mentions women prophesying in the church. (See I Cor. 11: 5) This was in fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel that “your sons and daughters shall prophesy” (Acts 2:17). It seems to me that what Paul forbids is the speaking of women ahead of men. If men are talking then women are to remain silent. But, it there is no man who desires to speak, then women may. Women are to give way to men.

Further we read this about Priscilla:

"And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus. This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly." (Acts 18: 24-26)

Though this was in the private home of Aquila and Priscilla, yet they both "expounded" unto Apollos, a preacher, "the way of God more perfectly." Thus, it is not forbidden that women should do absolutely no teaching at all. Further, women are commanded to teach their own children, along with their husbands, "training them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." (Eph. 6: 4) Further, Peter said that every Christian ought to be able to give an apology or defence of his/her faith. (I Peter 3: 15)

But, Sunday Schools may be conducted with only male teachers, so the objection against Sunday Schools and Bible clases on this ground does not invalidate the appropriateness of such with adult men. Further, churches have historically had men who were gifted as either "lay preachers" or as exhorters. These make excellent teachers in Sunday Schools and Bible classes. So should deacons. It is an error to think that only those specially called to preach and rule in the church should teach.

Now let us resume our look at the objections given by the Black Rockers. The Address continued:

"Secondly, because such schools were never established by the apostles, nor commanded by Christ. There were children in the days of the apostles. The apostles possessed as great a desire for the salvation of souls, as much love to the cause of Christ, and knew as well what God would own for bringing persons to the knowledge of salvation, as any do at this day. We therefore must believe that if these schools were of God, we should find some account of them in the New Testament."

This is an argument from silence and carries very little weight. Just because there is no mention of Bible classes by churches is no proof that they did not have them. In fact, as I shall show, the early church often taught people various levels of catechism. It is interesting how such logic as is employed in the above does not seem to apply to associations. Where is there mention of associations in Scripture? If Hardshells followed their own advice, they would do away with associations for the same reason they do away with Bible classes.

We have already seen how Paul mentions older women in the church teaching the younger women. Is this not a special Bible class, whether done on Monday, Tuesday, etc.? Also, did we not notice Paul's admonition in Heb. 5: 12? Where Paul willed that all the members mature into teachers? Did he not divide people into two classes? There were those who were styled as "babes," and those who were "of full age." Those who are babes or novices should not be fed "meat" but "milk" only. Would it be wrong then to divide people into at least these two classes and feed them accordingly? Certainly it would. In fact, Paul does not think it good to feed meat to babes, and so, by implication, it justifies separating them from the meat eaters and feeding them milk. It is the duty of the father especially to teach his children, and this is not limited to religious instruction. And, though he bears the chief responsibility to see that his children are educated, this does not preclude him delegating authority to others, such as his wife, and others. When he sends his children to school to be taught by teachers, they do it by his authority. Paul alluded to this practice in Galatians 4: 1-2 where he said regarding children:

"Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father."

These "tutors and governors" were the teachers and guardians of infants and children and were given the authority by the father to instruct and care for his children. What is Sunday School for children but the appointing of "tutors and governors" for the education of children? And a father who had many children of various ages would not have them all in the same class, but would separate them by age and learning just as we do in public education.

The Address continues:

"Thirdly. We have exemplified in the case of the Pharisees, the evil consequences of instructing children in the letter of the Scripture, under the notion that this instruction constitutes a saving acquaintance with the word of God. We see in that instance it only made hypocrites of the Jews; and as the Scriptures declare that Christ's words are spirit and life, and that the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, we cannot believe it will have any better effect on the children in our day."

One is simply stunned and bewildered to hear any Christian speak of "the evil consequences of instructing children in the letter of the Scripture." Did God order the Israelites to do such an evil thing when he commanded the Israelites to teach their children the Scriptures? The Black Rockers added - "under the notion that this instruction constitutes a saving acquaintance with the word of God." If not with the intention that their children would be saved by hearing and obeying the word of God, then for what other reason? Do the Hardshells not know that the Bible says that the word of God is the instrument of salvation? Certainly the word alone is not sufficient, but there is no salvation apart from it either. Does not the whole 119 Psalm glorify the word of God as a means of salvation? Did not the Psalmist say - "Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word"? (vs. 9)

The Black Rockers, in the above, speak evil of the teaching of the word of God to others! For shame! They say that teaching the Scriptures "only made hypocrites"! Did it do so in the case of David? Of the other godly men and women in the Old Testament? They say that "Christ's words are spirit and life" as if the Scriptures are not also words of spirit and life! By this they mean that only the words that Christ, supposedly, speaks to the sinner directly and personally are spirit and life, but that there is no life or spirit in the words of Scripture. Further, when they speak of the inability of the natural man to receive the words of Scripture, they use it as an excuse to not teach the word to any lost soul! But, the prophets and apostles, nor even Jesus, believed such nonsense, for they were often found teaching the Scriptures to natural men.

The Address continued:

"The Scriptures enjoin upon parents to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; but this, instead of countenancing, forbids the idea of parents entrusting the religious education of their children to giddy, unregenerated young persons, who know no better than to build them up in the belief that they are learning the religion of Christ, and to confirm them in their natural notions of their own goodness."

Just how does supporting Sunday School and Bible classes lead to "parents entrusting the religious education of their children to giddy, unregenerated young persons"? Are the Hardshells saying that because some church has had someone teach a Bible class who fits this description, who is unregenerate, therefore the whole idea of Bible classes are wrong? If we accept that kind of logic, we would have to quit holding church services because some minister was unqualified! Just because some churches put unqualified people into teaching Sunday School does not mean that Sunday Schools themselves are the problem.

Further, as I have already shown, though the parents have the responsibility to insure that their children are educated, this does not preclude them delegating to others the authority to teach their children.

The Address continued:

"But whilst we thus stand opposed to the plan and use of these Sunday Schools, and the S.S. Union, in every point, we wish to be distinctly understood that we consider Sunday Schools for the purpose of teaching poor children to read, whereby they may be enabled to read the Scriptures for themselves, in neighborhoods where there is occasion for them, and when properly conducted, without that ostentation so commonly connected with them, to be useful and benevolent institutions, worthy of the patronage of all the friends of civil liberty."

Again, this is pure nonsense. No Christian in his right mind will accept such reasoning. It is okay to teach children to read, so that they can read the Scriptures, but it is not okay to also teach them the Scriptures? What if the only thing that was done in Sunday School classes was to read Scripture? Would not the Hardshells find fault even in this?

Hardshells & Mission Opposition X

Chapter 153

One of the arguments that Hardshells also make against Sunday Schools, besides the one that says they are wrong because not specifically mentioned in Scripture, is to say that they are a new thing among Baptists. But, how do they know this? Further, though some Baptists, and other denominations, did not have Sunday Schools, as we have them now, in the centuries before the 19th, yet they did have Bible classes and other methods for instructing the young and the ignorant. Catechisms once did the work of the Sunday School. But, before we notice the Old Baptist use of chatechisms, before the Sunday School phenomenon, let us consider how the early church involved herself in Christian education.

In the book "Exploring the History & Philosophy of Christian Education: Principles for the 21st Century," by Michael J. Anthony and Warren S. Benson, the authors wrote the following about Christian education in the early church: (see here)

"The apostles' teachings continued to establish and strengthen the church body. As new believers were added to the church, some systematic form of instruction was necessary to ensure authenticity of faith and consistency in practice. People with the gift of teaching and shepherding took the lead in providing this training." (pg. 107)

The church has always seen the need for instructing men, women, and children in the Christian faith and special classes for this purpose have been a part of the church from the earliest ages. Yes, sermons by the clergy were instructive, but the church was not limited to this method. When one considers the fact that Hardshell churches have typically met only once or twice per month for most their history, one or two sermons per month is hardly adequate for instructing people systematically in the Christian faith.

Notice that the authors of the above work not only speak of the early church providing "some systematic form of instruction," but also used "people with the gift of teaching," and this was not limited to members of the clergy.

The authors say further:

"The words catechism and catechumen are derived from the Greek workd that is translated "instruct." They occur in the New Testament seven times (Luke 1:4; Acts 18:25; 21:21, 24; Rom. 2:18; I Cor. 14:19; Gal. 6:6). These passages reveal the systematic nature of the instruction that was provided as preparation for accepting the new convert into fellowship. The period of preparation lasted two to three years and was comprised of three distinct levels. Those in the first level were called hearers because they were allowed to listen to the reading of the Scriptures and to sermons in the church service. They also received instruction in the basic tenets of the faith. Those at the second level were referred to as kneelers because they remained for corporate prayer after the hearers were dismissed from class. They received more detailed instruction in matters pertaining to living the Christian life. Finally, the chosen were people who received intensive training in doctrines and church liturgy and were prepared to receive baptism." (pg. 108)

Notice that the instruction given in the early church was structured, providing "levels" for the various students. Is this not what is done in modern Sunday Schools?

The authors also wrote:

"Eventually, a learned generation of believers recognized the value of educating their children. Heretical philosophies of Greek and Roman origin began to creep into the church and required an educated and rational response. Scholarly preparation in the literature and the philosophical teachings of ancient Greece and Rome put one at par in a rhetorical debate. Soon, believers began attending schools where they could be taught sound biblical doctrine integrated with the seven liberal arts. The result was a powerful defense of the faith among the learned class...The educational institutions that prepared these learned Christian leaders were known as catechetical schools." (pg. 110)

These remarks show that the idea of having schools and Bible classes was a practice of the early church and so the assertion that such is a new phenomenon in the church is an error. There is practically very little difference in the early church's "catechetical schools" and Sunday Schools.

The authors also wrote about educational practices during the Renaissance. During the Renaissance, the above authors refer to a group of Christians in the Netherlands who were called the Brethren of the Common Life. It is said that this "movement spread across the Netherlands, Europe, and eventually to North America itself." (pg. 169) "One book that has survived, the Imitation of Christ, attributed to Thomas a Kempis, reveals the heart of the movement." (pg. 170) "Erasmus's (the famous opponent of Luther - SG) early training was in the school of the Brethren of the Common Life at the famous church school at Deventer." (pg. 173)

Concerning these Christians, the authors say:

"They sought to influence the church and society as a whole through their unique curriculum and instructional methodologies. Their curriculum emphasized Bible study in the vernacular so people could form their own understanding of a passage's meanings and applications." (ibid) And that "They initiated a different means of dividing the class. The grade plan taught students in smaller groups according to the students' levels of progress. These and other innovations were responsible for radical educational reforms in schools across Europe." (Ibid)

How can it be claimed by the Hardshells that Sunday Schools, in the early 19th century, were an entirely new thing?

Tom Nettles, Baptist history professor at Southern Baptist theological seminary, wrote:

"Although literally hundreds of catechisms were produced in English in the seventeenth century, the most influential catechisms were those that arose from the Westminster Assembly, the Larger and Shorter Catechisms. The Shorter Catechism especially influenced Baptist life, as it formed the basis for Keach's (or The Baptist) Catechism and subsequently Spurgeon's Catechism. In America, the Philadelphia Association catechism and the Charleston Association catechism were duplicates of Keach's catechism. Richard Furman used it faithfully and effectively."

He says further:

"Several principles appeared to govern the theory of catechisms. One, many catechist believed that catechisms of different levels should be produced. Luther had published two as did the Scottish divine Craig and the Puritan John Owen (Two Short Catechisms). Richard Baxter had three, suited for childhood, youth, and mature age. The Westminster Assembly's two catechisms are will known. Henry Jessey, another of the leading early Baptists, had three catechisms, all bound together, one of which contained only four questions: What man was, is, may be, and must be. John A. Broadus includes sections of "advanced questions" at the end of each respective section in the body of his catechism. This graduated difficulty in catechism rests on the theory that the earlier the stamping on the mind, the more indelible the result."

This testimony simply shows that the Baptist Church, along with other Puritan groups, believed in the church's mission to educate people in the Christian religion. The method employed by our Old Baptist forefathers of the 17th century was to instruct people by the use of catechisms and these catechisms recognized various levels of instruction. This is what the Sunday School does.

Nettles also wrote:

"Two, exact memory is generally considered important. The power of words to substantiate reality enforces the necessity of some precision at this point. "I serve a precise God," said Richard Rogers. Luther instructed those teaching the Small Catechism "to avoid changes or variation in the text and wording." We should teach these things, he continued, "in such a way that we do not alter a single syllable or recite the catechism differently from year to year."

Nettles continued:

"Exact head knowledge, however, is obviously not the end of catechetical instruction. Rather, catechizing aims ultimately at the eyes of understanding, heart knowledge. Even in the Westminster Assembly some were concerned that "people will come to learn things by rote, and answer it as a parrot but not understand the thing." The design of the catechism is, under God, to chase the darkness from a sinner's understanding, so that he may be enlightened in the knowledge of Christ and freely embrace him in forgiveness of sin. John Bunyan specifically wrote his catechism, "Instruction for the Ignorant," that God might bless it to the awakening of many sinners, and the salvation of their souls by faith in Jesus Christ. The major purpose of Henry Jessey's "Catechism for Babes" was to give instruction concerning how God could forgive those who "deserve death, and God's curse," and could still "be honoured in thus forgiving, naughty ones as we are."

With this testimony, how can Hardshells claim that instructing varying groups in a class setting is entirely new? John Bunyan was a Baptist. Also, though the Black Rockers thought it an error to expect conversions to occur from Bible classes and tracts, Bunyan felt differently.

Nettles also wrote:

"Henry Fish, an American Baptist, screwed in tightly the application of each section of his catechism by a poignant rhetorical question sealing discussion of each doctrine. For example, "Are you a believer, or does the wrath of God abide on you for unbelief?"

A catechism written by the English Baptist John Sutcliffe pinpoints this same concern as the goal of catechetical instruction.

Q. To conclude: what do you learn from the catechism you have now been repeating? A. I learn that the affairs of my soul are of the greatest importance, and ought to employ my chief concern."

Again, the purpose of Bible teaching is to bring about the conversion of sinners, something the Hyper Calvinist Black Rockers thought was blasphemous.

Nettles continued:

"A charming reminiscence of one of the children Furman catechized gives a clear picture of the importance he attached to this process and these doctrines. A 1926 edition of In Royal Service quotes the remembrance a grandchild had of her grandmother's experience under Furman."

We had no Sabbath school then, but we had the Baptist Catechism, with which we were as familiar as with the Lord's Prayer. At our quarterly seasons, we children of the congregation repeated the Baptist Catechism standing, in a circle round the font. We numbered from sixty to a hundred. The girls standing at the south of the pulpit, the boys meeting them in the center from the north, Dr. Furman would, in his majestic, winning manner, walk down the pulpit steps and with book in hand, commence asking questions, beginning with the little ones (very small indeed some were, but well taught and drilled at home). We had to memorize the whole book, for none knew which question would fall to them. I think I hear at this very moment the dear voice of our pastor saying, "A little louder, my child," and then the trembling, sweet voice would be raised a little too loud. It was a marvel to visitors on these occasions, the wonderful self-possession and accuracy manifested by the whole class. This practice was of incalculable benefit, for when it pleased God to change our hearts, and when offering ourselves to the church for membership, we knew what the church doctrines meant and were quite familiar with answering questions before the whole congregation, and did not quake when pastor or deacon or anyone else asked what we understood by Baptism, the Lord's Supper, Justification, Adoption, Sanctification. Oh, no; we had been well taught...What a pity that such a course of instruction has been abandoned."

Furman was a leading Baptist and followed that practice of the early American Baptists in teaching the young to memorize and study the catechism.

Nettles continued:

"John A. Broadus felt the same tension when writing his "Catechism of Bible Teaching." Reflecting on finishing Lesson 1 entitled "God," Broadus said, "It is, of course, an extremely difficult task to make questions and answers about the existence and attributes of the Divine Being, that shall be intelligible to children, adequate as the foundation for future thinking, and correct as far as they go." Those three guidelines should serve well to judge any catechism."

This shows that the early Baptists, prior to the rise of the Hardshells, believed in giving special instruction to the young through the means of special classes to learn the Baptist catechism.

Nettles continued:

"Baptist catechisms have existed virtually since the appearance of modern-day Baptists in the seventeenth century. Typical of early Baptist commitment to catechizing is an admonition that appears in the circular letter of 1777 from the Baptist ministers and messengers assembled at Oakham in Rutlandshire, England."

Again, if if be allowed that the use of catechisms showed that our Baptist forefathers believed in giving special teaching to the young and ignorant, then this shows that the Sunday School is but an outgrowth of this practice.

Nettles continued:

"Our confession of faith and our catechism for the instruction of our young people, are published to the world; and from these glorious principles we hope you will never depart...At present, blessed be God, we believe there is no apparent apostasy in our ministers and people from the glorious principles we profess; but, at the same time, we must in great plainness and faithfulness tell you, that catechizing of children is most sadly neglected, both in private families and in public congregations."

Sunday Schools, if properly conducted, are in keeping with the historical practice of the early church and of our Old Baptist forefathers in conducting catechism schools and classes.

Nettles continued:

"Our honoured brethren, the ministers at Bristol, have lately encouraged the publication of two editions of our catechism,...and we do most earnestly entreat you to furnish yourselves with this excellent compendium of true divinity, and that you would teach it diligently to your children in private, and desire your pastors to instruct them, at least for the summer season, in public."

("An Encouragement to Use Catechisms" - see here)

Our Baptist forefathers encouraged parents to teach the Baptist catechism to their children, but they also had special classes for these young people to learn the catechism and the teachings of the Bible.

In an article titled "The Lost Art Of Catechesis It's a tried and true way of teaching, among other things, Christian doctrine," J. I. Packer and Gary A. Parrett - see here) wrote:

"Historically, the church's ministry of grounding new believers in the rudiments of Christianity has been known as catechesis—the growing of God's people in the gospel and its implications for doctrine, devotion, duty, and delight. It is a ministry that has waxed and waned through the centuries. It flourished between the second and fifth centuries in the ancient church. Those who became Christians often moved into the faith from radically different worldviews. The churches rightly sought to ensure that these life-revolutions were processed carefully, prayerfully, and intentionally, with thorough understanding at each stage."

If catechetical schools are so similar to Sunday schools, and they are, then the argument that Sunday schools are new is a falsehood.

The authors continue:

"With the tightening of the alignment between church and state in the West, combined with the impact of the Dark Ages, the ministry of catechesis floundered. The Reformers, led by heavyweights Luther and Calvin, sought with great resolve to reverse matters. Luther restored the office of catechist to the churches. And seizing upon the providential invention of the printing press, Luther, Calvin, and others made every effort to print and distribute catechisms—small handbooks to instruct children and "the simple" in the essentials of Christian belief, prayer, worship, and behavior (like the Westminster Shorter Catechism). Catechisms of greater depth were produced for Christian adults and leaders (like Luther's Larger Catechism). Furthermore, entire congregations were instructed through unapologetically catechetical preaching and the regular catechizing of children in Sunday worship."

These words show that both tract ministries and classes for Bible instruction are not new but in keeping with the practice of our Christian forefathers.

The authors continue:

"The conviction of the Reformers that such catechetical work must be primary is unmistakable. Calvin, writing in 1548 to the Lord Protector of England, declared, "Believe me, Monseigneur, the church of God will never be preserved without catechesis." The Church of Rome, responding to the growing influence of the Protestant catechisms, soon began to produce its own. The rigorous work of nurturing believers and converts in the faith once for all delivered to the saints, a didactic discipline largely lost for most of the previous millennium, had become normative again for both Catholics and Protestants."

Again, special instruction for the young and for new converts, as well as for those ignorant of the Christian faith, are not new.

The authors continue:

"The critical role of catechesis in sustaining the church continued to be apparent to subsequent evangelical trailblazers of the English-speaking world. Richard Baxter, John Owen, Charles Spurgeon, and countless other pastors and leaders saw catechesis as one of their most obvious and basic pastoral duties. If they could not wholeheartedly embrace and utilize an existing catechism for such instruction, they would adapt or edit one or would simply write their own. A pastor's chief task, it was widely understood, was to be the teacher of the flock."

Again, there is very little difference between these ancient schools and of the Sunday schools we have today.

In writing under the sub title "The Problem with Sunday School," the authors wrote:

"Today, however, things are quite different, and that for a host of reasons. The church in the West has largely abandoned serious catechesis as a normative practice. Among the more surprising of the factors that have contributed to this decline are the unintended consequences of the great Sunday school movement. This lay-driven phenomenon swept across North America in the 1800s and came to dominate educational efforts in most evangelical churches through the 20th century. It effectively replaced pastor-catechists with relatively untrained lay workers, and substituted an instilling of familiarity (or shall we say, perhaps, over-familiarity) with Bible stories for any form of grounding in the basic beliefs, practices, and ethics of the faith."

Yes, Sunday schools did replace the catechism schools, but it can be reasonably argued that Sunday schools can be conducted in such a way that catechisms are taught, as well as teaching the doctrines of the Bible.

The authors continued:

"Thus, for most contemporary evangelicals the entire idea of catechesis is largely an alien concept. The very word itself—catechesis, or any of its associated terms, including catechism—is greeted with suspicion by most evangelicals today." ("Wait, isn't that a Roman Catholic thing?")

But, it ought not to be so. Many Baptist Sunday schools are conducted that are equal to, or superior to, the schools of our forefathers. If the Bible is being taught by qualified men and women, then it is indeed but an outgrowth and improvement upon the religious education given by our Baptist ancestors.

Hardshells & Mission Opposition XI

Chapter 154

In the preceding chapter the claim of the Hardshells that Sunday Schools or structured Bible classes were a new thing in Christendom, and among Baptists, was shown to be false. It was shown that the church has always been involved in specialized and systematic teaching of the Scriptures. In this posting we will add to this argument the fact that the education that Christ received, undoubtedly in the synagogue at Nazareth, was in all essential points, similar to today's Sunday Schools. In describing "THE SYNAGOGUE SCHOOL," an author at followtherabbi.com (see here) says:

"Boys and girls went to school in Galilee though boys continued till they were 15 if they displayed unusual ability while the girls were married by that time. Students probably attended school in the synagogue and were taught by the hazzan or a local Torah Teacher. Study began at age five or six in elementary school, called bet sefer. The subject was the Torah and the method was memorization. Since the learning of the community was passed orally, memorization of tradition and God's Word were essential."

Now, if Christian education today in Sunday schools simply involves teaching the Bible and teaching young people to memorize the Scriptures, then how is that any different than what was done in the synagogue at the time of Christ?

The author continues:

"At first students studied only the Torah. Later they began to study the more complicated oral interpretations of the Torah. Question-and-answer sessions between teacher and student were added to the memorization drills. The more gifted students might continue after age 12 or 13 in beth midrash (meaning "house of study," or secondary school). Here began the more intense process of understanding and applying the Torah and oral tradition to specific situations. The truly gifted would leave home to study with a famous rabbi to "become like him" as a talmid (disciple). Although their discussion and study might be held in the synagogue, these disciples would travel with their rabbi, learning the wisdom of Torah and oral tradition applied to the daily situations they faced."

These words show us that the instruction in the typical Jewish synagogue involved teaching the Scriptures, the very thing that the Black Rockers called an evil thing! Further, a kind of catechetical type of instruction was done in that Bible questions were raised and answered. This also involved instruction in apologetics. Further, it is witnessed that the synagogue schools had levels of instruction, the students being divided according to age and learning. There was also a kind of college education that went beyond the common elementary and secondary education. Again, this is similar to what now exists in the Christian world.

The author continues:

"By the time a person was an adult, he knew most of the Scriptures by heart. If someone recited a passage, the audience would know whether it was quoted accurately or not. Jesus, in keeping with his culture, would simply begin with "It is written ..." knowing his audience would recognize an accurate quote."

If Sunday schools taught children to memorize Scripture, then by the time they became adult they would also know the Scriptures as well as those who attended synagogue. I wonder if children raised by Hardshells would know the Scriptures as well as children who went through years in a Sunday School where they were taught the Scriptures? But, our Black Rockers tell us that to simply teach lost sinners the Scriptures implies that one believes that the Scriptures alone are able to save a person, or somehow denies total depravity and the necessity of the physical (non moral) energy of the Holy Spirit.

The author continues:

"The Mishnah (the written record of the oral traditions of Jesus' time and after) recorded that the gifted student began study of the written Torah at age five, studied oral traditions at age 12, became a religious adult at 13, studied the application of Torah and tradition at 15, learned a trade at 20, and entered his full ability at 30. Although this was written after Jesus, it represents the practice of his time. It is significant that he came to Jerusalem at age 12, already wise; then he learned a trade from His father until his ministry began at age 30. His life seemed to follow the education practices of his people quite closely. He surely attended the local school of Nazareth and learned from great rabbis as well. Being addressed as "Rabbi" certainly indicated someone who had learned from a rabbi. He certainly selected a group of students who followed him, learning as they went. And everywhere his audience had the knowledge of the Bible on which Jesus so often based his teaching."

Again, such instruction that Jesus received in the synagogue is quite similar to what is taught in properly conducted Sunday schools.

According to Holman's Bible dictionary, we learn this about the synagogue schools in existence when Jesus was a child. (see here)

"The synagogue apparently came into existence during the Babylonian captivity when the Jews were deprived of the services of the Temple. During captivity they began meeting in small groups for prayer and Scripture reading. When they returned to Israel the synagogue spread rapidly and developed into an important educational institution. Synagogue services made an important educational contribution to the religious life of the community. The elementary school system among the Jews developed in connection with the synagogue. Even before the days of Jesus, schools for the young were located in practically every important Jewish community."

The synagogue was a place of worship but it was more than this. It was also a school with instruction in class form where the class was divided. Hardshells say that the church is simply a place of worship but has no schools for instruction for the young and for other groups. But, this was not the case with the synagogue in which Jesus himself worshipped and went to school. Further, according to Matthew 4: 23, "Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom." Notice that the "teaching" was distinct from the "preaching." He did this in the synagogue in a school setting. In fact, the Gospel records show that this was a common practice for Christ. John records that Jesus said - "I ever taught in the synagogue." (John 18: 20)

The article continued:

"The teacher was generally the synagogue “attendant.” An assistant was provided if there were more than twenty-five students. The primary aim of education at the synagogue school was religious. The Old Testament was the subject matter for this instruction. Reading, writing and arithmetic were also taught. Memorization, drill and review were used as approaches to teaching."

The fact that the synagogue school taught other subjects besides religion is important to note, and will especially relate to our discussion of theological education for ministers. No doubt this teaching of various subjects involved more than one teacher.

The article continued:

"Boys usually began formal schooling at the “house of the book” at age five. He would spend at least a half day, six days a week for about five years, studying at the synagogue. Parents brought their son at daybreak and came for him at midday. While not at school the boy was usually learning a trade, such as farming or carpentry...If a boy wanted training beyond that given in a synagogue, he would go to a scholarly scribe. Saul of Tarsus received such advanced theological training “at the feet of Gamaliel” in Jerusalem (Acts 22:3 )."

The article also says:

"While the synagogue school still existed, the home was still considered a primary place of education for children. Timothy is a notable example of a child who had been educated in the Scriptures in the home (2 Timothy 1:5 )."

Certainly believers ought to instruct their children in the Scriptures at home, but the error of the Hardshells is to think that this was the only place where children ought to be taught. Jesus received instruction in the home and in the synagogue. The parents have the right to delegate the authority to teach to others.

In answer to the question - "Why do Primitive Baptists not have Sunday schools?" - ( see here) a Hardshell web page answers by saying:

"Bible study is greatly to be commended, and there are definite benefits to studying and discussing scriptures with other Christians; however, scriptural example dictates that such activities should be conducted in contexts other than formal church worship. There is nothing in scriptures to indicate that worshippers, either in the church or in the law, were ever segregated by knowledge, age, sex, marital status, or any other criterion. Instead, all worshipped in a common assembly."

What is said in these words is clearly against the Scriptures and I have already disproven it by showing that the teaching in the synagogue segregated people by knowledge, age, sex, and marital status. It is true that the synagogue was a place of worship, but it was also a place for schooling. Notice how the Hardshells refer to "scriptural example." By this they mean that "Sunday School" must be specifically referred to. Again, this is part of their hermeneutic that is called "patternism," concerning which I will have somewhat to say shortly.

The same web page adds these remarks:

"The importance of adherence to scriptural example on this and other matters is considered in the question treating scriptural precedent."

One must ask, in light of these words, where is the "scriptural example" and "scriptural precedent" for associations? For many other things the Hardshells use and practice?

In explaining this hermeneutic principle, the same web page writes:

"Some will say that Sunday schools are necessary for the instruction of children; however, the Lord cautions against assuming a posture which views the understanding of children with slight or disdain. He tells us that their understanding can exceed that of the wise and prudent (Mt 11:25, Mt 21:15), and that God has ordained praise in the utterances of babes (Mt 21:16). Accordingly, Jesus rebuked His disciples for denying admittance of children to His presence (Mt 19:13-15, Mk 9:36-37, Mk 10:13-15). Hence, it should not be assumed that children are incapable of receiving proper instruction from the general assembly. The modern practice of denying children entrance to church sanctuaries is very much against the spirit of the scriptures."

The passages referred to in reference to children and babes knowing the Scriptures and praising God only show that they were taught in their childhood, both at home and in the synagogue and religious schools. Further, most churches that have Sunday schools have them before the regular worship service and allow the students of the Sunday schools to be present in it. The only exception to this is in the case of babies, where many churches have nurseries and this so that screaming babies will not disrupt the worship service. In this day and time, many of these nurseries have speakers which allow the nurses to hear the singing, prayer, and sermon. Even some Hardshell churches now have such nurseries.

The web page adds these words:

"Scriptures themselves teach that adherence to scriptural example is not a matter of indifference. Paul told the Corinthians, Be ye followers of me, even as I also am a follower of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances (traditions), as I delivered them to you (I Cor 11:1-2). Accordingly, he told the Thessalonians, Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle (II Thes 2:15). One chapter later he wrote, Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us (II Thes 3:6)."

But, it has already been shown that Jesus attended the synagogue school and that he, and his apostles, often "taught" in these schools. Thus, there is biblical example and precedent for schools for children being a part of the church institution in keeping with them being an institution in the synagogue.

Then the web page adds this:

"Traditions which have no biblical authority are nonobligatory, and to make them otherwise can reduce worship to vanity (Mk 7:5-13). On the other hand, traditions which have biblical authority are clearly expected of us, and are sufficiently important to be criteria of fellowship." (Question: How do Primitive Baptists use scriptural precedent to resolve questions of church practice? ibid)

But, it has been shown that there is biblical precedent for such teaching tradition. Further, it is wrong for the Hardshells to claim that having such schools is a "criteria of fellowship." How uncharitable are the Hardshells to declare churches in disorder for having schools to teach the Scriptures. Had the Hardshells been in existence in the time when Christ was a student in the synagogue, they would have disfellowshipped him and his parents!

From the web page of Aberdeen Primitive Baptist church we find these words relative to Sunday Schools:

"While we believe in Bible Study, we do not have Sunday Schools or other auxiliaries because of the absence of a New Testament command or precedent. Sunday Schools are modern in origin, not existing in the gospel church for almost 1800 years. Primitive Baptists believe that the gospel minister is the only public teacher of the Word of God authorized by Jesus Christ, the Head of His Church. Private instruction of children is the responsibility of the heads of the households. (See Ephesians 6:4.) Further objections to the Sunday school system of today can be raised on the grounds that it is contrary to the teaching of the Apostle Paul in I Timothy 2:11-12, “Let your women learn in silence with all subjection, but I suffer not a woman to teach nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” (See also I Corinthians 14:34-35.) (see here)

But, all these objections have been shown to be false. Sunday schools are not entirely new. Further, the ordained clergy, as we have seen, is not the only teacher of the Scriptures. It is true that parents are responsible for the education of their children, but they are allowed to delegate this authority to others. Do they not allow the ordained clergy to teach them? Do they not send their children to secular schools where teachers, other than the parents, teach them? Further, as we have seen, women are not forbidden to do any teaching at all, but are simply restricted in this teaching.

In his book "History and Heresies of Hardshellism" (see here) Bob Ross wrote on "Patternism" and said:

"One of the notions shared in common by all three of these schisms (Campbellism, Hardshellism, and Landmarkism - SG) is what is sometimes called "patternism."

"PATTTERNISM is the idea that the Bible presents a specific pattern, plan, method, procedure, or precedent, given for the purpose of subsequent conformity by succeeding generations of Christians. Campbellites are fond of the term "pattern," the Hardshells like the word "order," and Landmarkers like the term "scriptural." Of course, these are not the only terms used by these various groups, but whatever the term used, the concept is the same -- the idea of a "Divine Pattern" given in the Scriptures designed for our conformity."

"If any one of these groups "lived up" to their own contention, there might at least be one incentive for us to give their teaching a moment's serious consideration; however, the only thing to result from the theory of "patternism" is open hypocrisy, endless contentions, and crystallized, sectarian legalism. In every instance wherein the alleged "divine pattern" is defined and applied, it comes down to being whatever the strongest "leader"of the sect holds to be the "truth." When two or more "leaders" butt heads over some point of doctrine and practice in the "pattern," then factions develop, and non-fellowship is declared. This accounts for many of the endless controversies and divisions which have taken place in the history of Campbellism, Hardshellism, and Landmarkism."

"Among the Hardshells, the curse of "patternism" was very well demonstrated in their history in the state of Alabama. Reading the history of the Alabama Hardshells is akin to reading the history of gang warfare. Arminianism, Missionism, New Schoolism, nor any other outside "ism" has done as much damage to Hardshellism in Alabama as their own committal to "patternism," with its natural consequences. A trip through Alabama Hardshell history is like a visit to a leper's colony or some plaque-stricken area of the world -- conflict, division, dissolution, and death abound."

"If nothing else refuted the theory of "patternism," the changes that invariably take place over a period of time would be sufficient. Among the Hardshells, the changes have been many, despite their congratulating themselves as being one with the "Old Baptists." Elder Watts says:

Whether we accept it willingly or not, the first hundred years of the Primitive Baptists in Alabama, and elsewhere, saw several drastic changes of policy in churches and in associations. The first of these was the revolt against systematic missions which came about in the 1830's and early 1840's. Up to this time, most, if not all, Baptist churches respected "domestic missions" or to be more specific, "itinerant preaching" within the bounds of the associations. It was not until the churches and associations became agents of the Baptist State Convention, did they abandon the support of missions in every form . . .revivals and protracted meetings were commonplace among most, if not all, the Baptists before the division (page 113)."

These remarks by brother Ross reveal the hypocrisy of the Hardshells in the practice of their hermeneutics. They do not live up to it. They practice many things for which they can find no specific mention of in Scripture. Historically, many of them have had "singing schools" to teach shape note and sacred harp singing. But, where is such a practice mentioned in Scripture? And, as has been asked already, where is their "scriptural example" for associations?

Hardshells & Mission Opposition XII

Chapter 155

Throughout the new testament there are numerous commands for Christians individually, and for the church as a whole, to "teach" the Gospel and word of God to all the nations, or to all men. In the Great Commission Jesus said - "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations...Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." (Matt. 28: 19-20) And, Paul said of his own ministry - "Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom." (Col. 1: 28) Had the Lord wanted this teaching to be done strictly by a called minister, and only to an undivided assembly, he certainly would have given orders to that end. The fact that he did not give such instructions shows that Christ left it up to his followers to decide on the specific ways to do this teaching.

Teaching people in various groups in different classes, in Sunday schools or in theological schools, does not violate any scriptural injunction. There is no command in Scripture that forbids such. Thus, when the Hardshells condemn such, they do it on their own authority and not from any biblical authority. In fact, as has been shown, Paul said "by all means" (I Cor. 9: 22), when it came to teaching people unto salvation. Furthermore, the command to teach all the nations is a command to school all the nations.

If anything, the Scripture forbids giving meat to spiritual babes, as we have seen. Paul said that some Christians should not be given meat because they are not able to digest it. (I Cor. 3: 2) But, if the Hardshell idea is correct, that all teaching is to be done to a mixed assembly of babes and adults, then the teacher will be violating this principle of the apostle. David even invited children specifically to come to him for schooling. He said: "Come, ye children, hearken unto me: I will teach you the fear of the Lord." (Psa. 34: 11)

In condemning ministerial education, the Black Rock Address said:

"Colleges and Theological Schools next claim our attention. In speaking of Colleges, we wish to be distinctly understood that it is not to colleges, collegial education, as such, that we have objection. We would cheerfully afford our own children such an education, did circumstances warrant the measure. But we object, in the first place, to sectarian colleges, as such. The idea of a Baptist College, and of a Presbyterian College, &c., necessarily implies that our distinct views of church government of gospel doctrine and gospel ordinances, are connected with human sciences, a principle which we cannot admit: we believe the kingdom of Christ to be altogether a kingdom not of this world."

The objections offered in these words are unsound and false. They condemn the idea "of a Baptist College," and yet Bristol Baptist College goes back to the 17th century (being the result of the efforts of the churches who wrote the London Confessions) to promote the education of young ministers. But, the historical proof of Baptist support for theological education will be covered later. For now it is desired that we look strictly at the objections made by the Black Rockers from Scripture and from reason.

The objection seems to be against colleges teaching subjects in addition to theology, but they also condemn colleges which strictly teach the Bible. The Hardshells argue that such an institution degrades the Scriptures and the true religion, and yet, as has been shown, such a school Jesus himself attended. The synagogues in the time of Christ taught the Scriptures but also taught reading, writing, arithmetic, and other subjects. The Black Rockers reasoned that the teaching of other subjects in the same institution with teaching the Scriptures connects the Lord's religion or science with "human sciences." But, such is false reasoning. It may not be a necessity for a man to preach to be able to add or subtract, but who can deny that he would be a better preacher if he could do basic math? Who can deny that a liberal knowledge of the sciences will make a man's sermons more interesting?

Anyone familiar with the Book of Job, for instance, sees how both God and Job spoke about the mysteries of God in connection with knowledge of nature. It is a false assumption to think that knowledge of the physical world is somehow wholly disconnected with knowledge about God.

So too did Solomon in Proverbs, who saw God and his working in nature, and spoke of the various animals as illustrations of God's wisdom and working. In fact, most of the great authors of the books of Scripture show that they had a great knowledge of the "human sciences."

“He spake three thousand proverbs: and his songs were a thousand and five. And he spake of trees, from the cedar tree that is in Lebanon even unto the hyssop that springeth out of the wall: he spake also of beasts, and of fowl, and of creeping things, and of fishes.” (1 Kings 4:32,33)

Many of Solomon's insights into the physical world are contained in the Book of Proverbs, a book that also contains much theology. Both the Book of Proverbs and the Book of Job mix knowledge of God with knowledge of the physical world and show how they relate and complement each other. This in itself destroys the reasoning that the Black Rockers made in the above citation from the Address.

Jesus himself showed a great knowledge of the physical world. When he spoke about spiritual or religious truth he often borrowed truth from the physical world to illustrate it.

Also, it is part of the special calling of ministers to be able to defend the faith, to do apologetics, and be able to persuade and to convince the gainsayers. Surely to learn the depths of theology at the hands of men more learned than ourselves will be of great benefit in fulfilling this ministry.

One also wonders what the Hardshells did before the days of compulsory public education? When all the education that a person received was in the home? Did they not teach the Scriptures along with reading, writing, and arithmetic? If so, then the same objection would apply, would it not? Were they degrading the teaching of the Scriptures in the institution of the home when they taught reading, writing, and arithmetic in conjunction with teaching the Bible?

The Black Rocker Hardshells also decry strictly secular colleges, as if it is wrong for a particular denomination to have its own college. But, what are they saying? That they would rather see a non-denominational college, one that did not teach any dogmatic views? They say that for the Baptist denomination to have a distinctively Baptist college "necessarily implies that our distinct views of church government of gospel doctrine and gospel ordinances, are connected with human sciences." But, that is simply not logical. Rather, the reason why there are various denominations is because men disagree in their interpretations of Scripture. The Hardshells have had numerous periodicals over the past one hundred and eighty years. Were these not designed to teach doctrine? Were they not purely secular and denominational? But, if being purely secular and denominational condemns schools as such, why do they not, by the same criterion, condemn their periodicals?

The Black Rockers further said:

"In the second place, we object to the notion of attaching professorships of divinity to colleges; because this evidently implies that the revelation which God has made of himself is a human science, on a footing with mathematics, philosophy, law, &c., which is contrary to the general tenor of revelation, and indeed to the very idea of a revelation. We perhaps need not add that we have for the same reason strong objection to colleges conferring the degree of Doctor of Divinity, and to preachers receiving it."

But, this is blatantly false. Such reasoning would lead us to believe that the first apostles were already qualified for their ministry at the time when the Lord first called them to follow him to become fishers of men. But, the truth is clearly the opposite. He said "come, follow me, and I will make you to become fishers of men." The words "I will make you to become" foreshadows his qualifying of them by his personal teaching of them for three years. During these three years, Christ was their professor and they were enrolled in his ministerial school. By this school they would be taught all about fishing for men.

The ancient method of teaching, in Greece and in Jerusalem, was for the students to learn by sitting at the feet of their teachers. But, this is what ministers do when they attend theological school. They sit in a classroom to listen to the lectures of their teachers, who are themselves experienced ministers of the word.

This is the second time that the Black Rockers uses the word "implies" in their denunciations of higher education for ministers. But, their deductive logic is not valid. It seems to me that it would be good for the Hardshells to avail themselves of college classes in "logic" for they are often guilty of making logical fallacies. They want to decry a minister learning logic and yet they try to make much use of it. How does "the notion of attaching professorships of divinity" in Bible colleges imply that the Biblical revelation is a "human science" and one "on a footing with mathematics, philosophy, law"?

There is no doubt that theology is the queen of the sciences and in every Christian college this is an accepted maxim. Paul spoke of "science falsely so called" (I Tim. 6: 20), but such a statement implies, correctly implies, that there is a legitimate science. The Greek word for "science" in this verse simply means "knowledge," as it is translated in most instances in Scripture. The prophet Daniel was a man "skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science." (Dan. 1: 4)

Are the Black Rockers stumbling at the word "professorship"? Suppose we simply say teachership? A professor is simply a teacher. The fact that they are called "professors" is simply to show that such an occupation is a "calling" and "profession." A professor is one who professes. In this sense every Christian is a professor. The Hardshells are not only against ministers becoming professors of theology (divinity) but also of receiving the title "doctor of divinity." But why? There were "doctors of the law" in the time of Christ and Christ, while a young child, sat in their midst "hearing them, and asking them questions." (Luke 2: 46; See also Luke 5: 17) Of course, the word "doctors" in these passages simply means "teacher," one who was expert in the Hebrew law, Torah, or Scripture. Jesus never denounced them for having this title or position. In fact, Jesus himself, by definition, was a doctor of theology. And, the apostles who learned from him, also became doctors of divinity. Jesus was a trained Rabbi or Master. "Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,)." (John 1: 38) Why is it okay for ministers to be called elder, pastor, bishop, teacher, preacher, etc., but not doctor? Is it okay to say "teacher of divinity" but not "doctor of divinity"? The only objection that the Hardshells give for not calling educated ministers "doctor of divinity" is because they think that this makes the religion of the Lord a mere human science. But, this is a non-sequiter. Besides, this is just nitpicking. It certainly is not a reason for declaring churches in disorder for supporting the further education of men called into the ministry by the Lord.

The Address said further:

"Thirdly, We decidedly object to persons, after professing to have been called of the Lord to preach His gospel, going to a college or academy to fit themselves for that service. lst. Because we believe that Christ possesses perfect knowledge of his own purposes, and of the proper instruments by which to accomplish them. If he has occasion for a man of science, he having power over all flesh, will so order it that the individual shall obtain the requisite learning before he calls him to his service, as was the case with Saul of Tarsus, and others since; and thus avoid subjecting himself to the imputation of weakness. For should Christ call a person to labor in the gospel field, who was unqualified for the work assigned him, it would manifest him to be deficient in knowledge relative to the proper instruments to employ, or defective in power to provide them."

Again, all this is just pure nonsense. Obviously the Lord wants his servants to be learned men, especially in the Scriptures, or else he would not have called men like Saul of Tarsus. Saul was taught in the college of Gamaliel, a doctor or professor of the law. If the Lord wanted to avoid any countenancing of such a kind of education, then he would not have called Saul at all, or would have called him before he went off to the college of Gamaliel. Do the Black Rockers think that it is wrong for a man, after he has been called to preach, to acquire more in depth instruction by sitting at the feet of master teachers? Further, theological schools are nothing more than young ministers sitting at the feet of highly educated and experienced older ministers. These older and more experienced ministers are the ones that Baptist colleges generally look for to teach young ministers. Further, as has been already stated, Christ gave us the example for the training of ministers. He first called ministers (apostles) and then trained them. It was a theological school. Also, as we shall see, many Hardshells have said that young ministers ought to go to individual senior ministers for one on one instruction. But, they do not realize what they are saying, for they are really, in principle, supporting the idea of ministerial education.

The Biblical principle is that the more learned and experienced are to teach the less learned and experienced. This principle was seen in Paul's counsel that the "aged women," those with more learning and experience, should teach the "younger women." This same principle is true with regard to the ministry. The older and more learned ministers should teach the younger. If they can do this one on one, why is it wrong for an older, gifted, and experienced minister to instruct several at the same time? And, why is it wrong to call this a school?

The Address continued:

"2nd. Because we believe that the Lord calls no man to preach his gospel, till he has made him experimentally acquainted with that gospel, and endowed him with the proper measure of gifts, suiting the field he designs him to occupy; and the person giving himself up in obedience to the voice of Christ will find himself learning in Christ's own school. But when a person professedly called of Christ to the gospel ministry, concludes that, in order to be useful, he must first go and obtain an academical education, he must judge that human science is of more importance in the ministry, than that knowledge and those gifts which Christ imparts to his servants. To act consistently then with his own principles, he will place his chief dependence for usefulness on his scientific knowledge, and aim mostly to display this in his preaching. This person, therefore, will pursue a very different course in his preaching, from that marked out by the great apostle to the Gentiles, who determined to know nothing among the people save Jesus Christ and him crucified."

If the intent of these words is to say that the Lord calls men who are already fully equipped to minister, then they are wrong. The example of Christ teaching his apostles shows this to be false. The apostles were not already equipped to fulfill their ministries when Christ first called them. If they were, what was the purpose of his training of them for three years? No one denies that the gift to preach comes with the call, but the gift itself is not enough to minister well. Many are naturally gifted, in art, intellectual abilities, and in other areas. But, are they therefore to skip all further training to help develop their gifts?

Further, the Black Rockers set up a false assumption when they suggest that those who support theological schools (for those who have been called to the ministry) think that such a person cannot be "useful" unless they attend such schools. It is not a question of being useful or not, but one of being more useful. Paul told Timothy to "neglect not the gift that is in you." (I Tim. 4: 14) It would be a neglect of a preacher's gift to fail to educate himself in the work that God has called and gifted him to do. Of course, it is not absolutely necessary for a man to attend theological school, for he can obtain the books that are used by the professors and study them himself. He can learn Greek and Hebrew on his own without the help of professors. But, to say that it is an evil thing for him to do it in a theological school is pure slander. It also manifests pride in the Black Rocker Hardshells.

By the criteria they have set up, they put down preachers who attend seminary and exalt themselves. Those who attend seminary in order to be better equipped to serve the Lord's people do not give proper credit to the Lord, but those, like the Hardshells, are the ones who give the Lord the proper credit. The Hardshell preachers have been educated in "Christ's own school," but the preacher who goes to seminary has not! Those who attend seminary to become a better speaker, apologist, and servant, "must judge that human science is of more importance in the ministry. than that knowledge and those gifts which Christ imparts to his servants." But, the Hardshells judge themselves as the ones who give proper credit to the divine knowledge and gifts given to ministers! That is just pure arrogance! Could it be that those young ministers who have been called of the Lord want to avoid neglecting their gift? Could it be that they want the help of the aged ministers?

The Hardshells attack the motives of those who attend theological schools, saying - "To act consistently then with his own principles, he will place his chief dependence for usefulness on his scientific knowledge, and aim mostly to display this in his preaching." Again, who made these Hardshells judges of the hearts of ministers? Further, it is not "scientific knowledge" that the young minister seeks in attending seminary, but knowledge of Bible doctrine. "His aim" is "to display" his knowledge "in his preaching"? What is this but another ad hominem attack? What is this but a boasting of themselves! The Hardshell elder who has refused to go to theological school is the one who acts meekly and humbly!

The Black Rockers speak of called ministers "learning in Christ's own school." What do they mean by this? That Christ personally teaches ministers as he did the first apostles? That the Hardshell preachers who have not gone to seminary are taught by Christ but those who go to such schools have not?

The Adress then concludes by saying:

"As to Theological Schools, we shall at present content ourselves with saying that they are a reflection upon the faithfulness of the Holy Ghost, who is engaged according to the promise of the great Head of the church to lead the disciples into all truth. See John xvi. 13. Also, that in every age, from the school of Alexandria down to this day, they have been a real pest to the church of Christ. Of this we could produce abundant proof, did the limits of our address admit their insertion."

Again, what arrogant judgments on the heart and motives of others! Those who attend seminary are casting "reflection upon the faithfulness of the Holy Ghost"! Further, how does the work of the Holy Spirit in guiding disciples into all truth exclude the teaching of other disciples? When Aquila and Priscilla showed unto Apollos the way of the Lord more perfectly, was this not the Holy Spirit guiding Apollos into further truth by the means of Aquila and Priscilla? Also, by such words, the Hardshells are saying that they, because they do not attend theological schools, are the ones who are giving proper credit to the Holy Spirit, that they are the only ones being lead into all truth by him!

What they have to say as commentary upon all theological schools that have existed in the history of the church is simply their opinion. Why don't they just cite us the Scriptures which condemn theological schools? In all their condemnations there is no citation from Scripture given that would validate their objections. Further, there have been many preachers who attended seminary before joining the Hardshells. These often became the best preachers the Hardshells ever had! They have often been the ones who became the best apologists for the Hardshells! Further, many of the ablest preachers of the Hardshells have systematic theologies, and other books, written by seminary professors, and have learned much from them! Why is it okay to study these books, which are often used in seminary, and benefit from them, but then decry the theologians who wrote them for teaching in seminary?

Hardshells & Mission Opposition XIII

Chapter 156

According to leading Hardshell web page, in answering the question - "Why do Primitive Baptists not have schools for training ministers" (see here), the answer is given in these words:

"All Primitive Baptist elders are expected to be self educated in the Word of God and are expected to seek the counsel of experienced ministers about questions of scriptural interpretation and other matters pertaining to the church. Both young and old elders are expected to seek the aid of the Holy Spirit in the furtherance of their wisdom and understanding.

This system of education is preferred above ministerial training schools because:

1. Elders in the New Testament were primarily self-educated in the scriptures.
2. Elders in the New Testament learned under the direction of the Holy Spirit and other elders rather than academicians.
3. The system makes the scriptures themselves to be the curriculum.
4. The elder learns in the same setting in which he is expected to teach. Congregations taught by these elders will be expected to have the discipline to educate themselves in the Word of God. The elder should therefore prove himself to have the same discipline.
5. The system is less vulnerable to the widespread propagation of error so commonly found when numerous ministers are trained under the same teachings of heretical academicians."

It is not exactly clear just what the Hardshells mean when they say that biblical elders should be "self-educated." Why then do they recommend that they get educated by experienced ministers? Is that not a contradiction? Further, when they say that "elders in the New Testament were primarily self-educated in the Scriptures," they state what is blatantly false. If they mean that every elder/minister in the new testament was educated as a result of a desire and choice to learn more, then every minister is such, and not only those of the Hardshells. It is doubtful that they mean that, however, since the writer is wanting to draw a distinction between Hardshell ministers, who choose not to go to a theological school, and other ministers who choose to do so. In other words, Hardshell ministers are "self-educated" but others, who attend seminary, are not. Again, this is nothing more than another arrogant boast. It seems that their idea of being "self-educated" is the same as saying that they are self made men, which latter title is generally recognized as a boast, the person claiming to have achieved without help from others.

But, just who are these new testament ministers who are supposed to have been "self-educated"? Which one learned the doctrine of Scripture apart from any teacher or guide? I cannot think of a single example. I am reminded of the story of the Eunuch who was riding in his chariot, returning to Ethiopia from worshipping in Jerusalem. He was reading the scroll of Isaiah, particularly that part dealing with the suffering servant (chpt. 53). Philip, the evangelist, was moved by the Holy Spirit to go join himself in conversation with the Eunuch. Luke says:

"And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me?" (Acts 8: 30-31)

Was the Eunuch wrong in saying that he needed someone to guide him in interpreting the Scripture? Were not pastors and teachers given to the body of Christ for this purpose? (See Eph. 4: 11-12)

It is also interesting how the above Hardshell apologetic mentions how young inexperienced ministers are to both seek the aid of both older ministers and of the Holy Spirit. This is impossible, however, if we are to accept the logic and reasoning of the Black Rock Hardshells because they thought that to seek education from other ministers was to reject the teaching of the Holy Spirit. To them one could not be educated by both. To them, accepting the teaching of the Spirit excluded accepting teaching from other ministers.

Another Primitive Baptist web page writes:

"Although Primitive Baptist have not objection to a minister having or seeking an education, they view theological seminary schools, and preaching seminars as being unscriptural and the invention of flawed man and are to be avoided. In this way each elder will learn totally by and through the Holy Ghost, aided by his fellow ministers, as it was from days of the apostles and the early church."  (see here)

Notice again the language of patternism. Theological schools are "unscriptural." But, are their associations, by the same rule, "unscriptural"? Are their singing schools also not "unscriptural"?

But, again, the above statement says that it is in accordance with Scripture for young and less educated ministers to seek instruction from elder and more educated ministers. But, is this not the principle on which theological schools are founded? Perhaps the Hardshells simply resist the obvious, refusing to call the instruction that older ministers give to younger ministers a school.

Further, as I have shown, the principle of seeking help in understanding doctrine from older ministers is the same principle upon which seminaries are based. The Hardshell defense for their recommendation that younger ministers seek help from older ministers is to say that "this system of education is preferred above ministerial training schools." But, how is their system different? Both their system and that of "ministerial training schools" are both based upon getting guidance in biblical interpretation from other ministers. Also, how are these Hardshells who seek help in understanding Scripture "self-educated" men? Suppose that a few young Hardshell elders regularly go to an aged elder for help in understanding Bible doctrine. Why can we not say that the older minister is schooling the younger?

The Hardshell apology says - "Elders in the New Testament learned under the direction of the Holy Spirit and other elders rather than academicians." But, if one understands the meaning of "academic," then he will understand that the older elders who regularly teach the younger are acting the part of an academician. According to the dictionary "academic" means "of, relating to, or characteristic of a school, especially one of higher learning." And, an "academician" is simply one who is a member of an academy or school.

If one peruses the long list of Hardshell periodicals that have existed over the past 180 years, he will see how many ministers wrote to these periodicals to ask the editor(s) questions about Bible doctrine and texts. Did these periodicals not act as a kind of school, a kind of "long distance learning"? Further, what is wrong with several of these older elders conducting a school where they regularly teach the younger ministers? What Scripture would that violate?

The opening Hardshell apology then says - "The system makes the scriptures themselves to be the curriculum." But, are not the Scriptures the curriculum in the seminaries, at least of the Baptist? Further, what about teaching church history? Is this allowable? What about teaching Greek and Hebrew? Is this forbidden? Further, such a statement seems to allow that there be a "curriculum" when younger ministers go and seek instruction from older ministers. So, to have a curriculum is not in itself an evil thing.

The Hardshell apology says - "The elder learns in the same setting in which he is expected to teach." What is meant by this statement? That the older elder can only teach the younger in the church meeting house but no where else? If the younger elder goes to the home of the older elder, and there receives instruction, is this outside of the proper "setting"? How ix a classroom not a proper setting? Did Paul do wrong when he lectured daily in the school of Tyrannus? (See Acts 19: 9) Was that a proper setting? What about when he taught in the synagogues? Did the school of Tyrannus and of the synagogues not have "academicians"?

Next, the above apology of the Hardshells for their own system, and against that of those who support seminaries, is - "The system is less vulnerable to the widespread propagation of error so commonly found when numerous ministers are trained under the same teachings of heretical academicians." This is really laughable because anyone who has studied the past history of the Hardshell denomination is introduced to the fact that heresies and numerous wild theories have plagued them. They have been troubled by two-seed doctrine, eternal vital union doctrine, hollow log regeneration doctrine, whole man doctrine, universalism, no-hellism, non-resurrection doctrine, Sabellianism, Arianism, time salvation doctrine, etc. So, this is really no argument at all. In fact, the opposite is no doubt the case. It is ignorance that breeds such heresies and the Hardshell denomination, both clergy and laity, have been plagued by ignorance. When ministers are uniformly trained under the great men of the Baptist faith, there is far less likelihood of such divers departures from sound doctrine.

Elder Lasserre Bradley Jr., a long time elder in the Hardshell church, and pastor of one of their leading churches in Cincinnati, Ohio, began a preacher's meeting, or school of sorts, in 1992. This, and other issues, caused many Hardshells to label Elder Bradley with having departed from the faith, and is now recognized as a leader of the "liberal faction" because of such things. In defending these preacher meetings, the purpose of which was to do exactly what had been long recommended, for preachers to learn from each other, Bradley wrote the following in an article titled "Preacher's Meetings" (Copied from the March 1997 issue of The Baptist Witness) (see here):

"Through the years preachers meetings have been held on both a local and regional basis; but since, by our announcement in this publication, we had ministers come from across the country, this meeting caused some to be concerned who had seen no problem with similar meetings elsewhere. It is certainly not my desire to promote something which will be divisive; but I learned long ago that if opposition was the only reason for backing away from anything, we would soon discontinue everything and consequently be doing nothing. During the 50's and early 60's, I faced considerable opposition to radio preaching. In fact there were Associations which declared against radio preaching, radio preachers and all who had anything to do with radio preachers. I regretted their action but believed preaching on the radio violated no scriptural principle and so have continued to do so until this day. I somehow believe that the Apostle who preached at Mars Hill would gladly have preached into a microphone and sent his message all over Athens had it been available to him."

Elder Bradley, knowingly or unknowingly, destroys the "patternism" principle that guides much of the Hardshell argumentation against Bible schools, either for ministers or for others. Is radio preaching specifically condoned in Scripture?

He also wrote:

"Some have expressed concern about the meetings because they are structured. The fact is that most of the meetings among our churches are also structured."

Good rebuttal by Bradley! This is another argument that some Hardshells make against both Sunday schools and theological schools. They are structured!

He also wrote:

"Just as with most things in life, following a disciplined format brings about the best results. I have found that where people have worked at their singing they enjoy it most. Many of our churches through the years have held singing schools to teach both the young and old how to sing. To my knowledge this practice has never been considered a departure form any scriptural principle and has not been a test of fellowship."

Another good rebuttal! And, as I have already argued, there is no express biblical support for holding singing schools. But, this has not kept the Hardshells from having schools for learning how to sing. So, their argument that Sunday schools and theological schools are not specifically mentioned in Scripture carries no weight.

He also wrote:

"Sometimes objections are raised about any custom that does not have a direct command in Scripture. Without question the Scriptures are our only source of authority, but the view which I have generally heard set forth among us with regard to the practice of the church is that a plain command to do something one way eliminates all others ways, but if the Scriptures are silent on an issue it may be implemented if it is not in violation of some clear instruction or New Testament pattern. For example, if one should take the position that every detail of practice must be spelled out in the Scripture, questions could be raised about the use of hymn books, the whole idea of a church owning property and maintaining a meeting house, the conducting of a church conference, the appointment of a church clerk and on the list could go. Many churches in the Apostolic era met in private homes. Most churches would have serious problems with that today, not only in finding a home large enough to accommodate the whole congregation, but also in violating building codes. Churches are not commanded nor authorized to build meeting houses in the Scriptures, but surely there is no departure from sound principle in doing so. The Scriptures do not require preachers to meet with each other for admonition and encouragement but neither is any principle violated when they do so."

Here Bradley puts his finger on the error of "patternism," though he does not call it by that name. He says "sometimes objections are raised about any custom that does not have a direct command in Scripture." He then adds a good rebuttal to patternism when he says - "if the Scriptures are silent on an issue it may be implemented if it is not in violation of some clear instruction or New Testament pattern." This being true, Sunday schools and theological schools are perfectly scriptural since they are no where specifically condemned and violate no biblical principle.

He also wrote:

"Baptists have always believed in a God called ministry but have had some differences among them as to how that man is to proceed following the call. In 1722 the Philadelphia Association proposed for the churches to "make inquiry among themselves, if they have any young persons hopeful for the ministry, and inclinable for learning, to give notice of it to Mr. Abel Morgan...that he might recommend such to the academy." While the minutes do not reveal any specifics about this academy, the brethren obviously had a concern to see that young ministers received some help as they sought to apply themselves for the work before them."

It is interesting that the Hardshells who have attacked Bradley for having his preacher's meeting, where instruction is given for the benefit of ministers, not one has responded to the historical evidence that the first Baptists in America believed and practiced ministerial instruction, even having a theological school. But, more on all this later when we look at the history of the Baptists relative to theological training for ministers. The Hardshells certainly cannot legitimately claim that theological schools were something new among the Baptists in the early 19th century.

He also wrote:

"Hassell quotes from the 1807 Minutes of the same association and the circular letter written by William Staughton. "We acknowledge with gratitude and joy that every able minister of the New Testament is made such of God and not of men. The ablest preacher is but an earthen vessel, and the feeblest bears heavenly treasure. We are sensible that an ostentation of learning may be food for a weak or aspiring mind; nevertheless, as knowledge of almost every kind may be useful to a gospel minister; as in the Bible we have only a translation, behind the veil of which many a beauty is concealed; as we have no reason to expect that extraordinary assistance which the apostles enjoyed; and as education places a minister of the gospel on equal ground with a learned adversary, to seek an acquaintance with language, history, and other similar studies, where it can be accomplished, is praiseworthy." In the same letter it is acknowledged that God raised up Gideon from the threshing-floor, and David from the sheepfold. The wealthy and the learned were not called to be the apostles of our Lord, but fishermen, publicans, and tent-makers. Many among the most useful of the ministers of Christ in the present day, have received instruction only at the Master's feet. History reveals that Baptist have not as a people made a formal education a qualification for the ministry; but it is also clear that, for the most part, they have not opposed education and have encouraged ministers to "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." (II Timothy 2:15)

All this simply proves that all the hullabaloo against theological schools is unfounded. Again, further historical evidence shows that Baptists once supported ministerial education and that there were no Hardshells around to protest. Bradley also shows how such ministerial education is in keeping with the principles given in Scripture.

He also wrote:

"While some seem to object to the whole idea of ministers instructing each other, an article written by Elder W. N. Tharp and published in the October, 1915 Zion's Advocate seems to confirm that it has been an ongoing concern of ministers to offer advice to young preachers. The article which was reprinted in the Advocate and Messenger, January 1997, received the endorsement of the editor, Elder Ralph Harris. Under the heading "Ten Don'ts," these introductory remarks were made: "The following "Don'ts for Young Baptist Preachers," "Based upon my observations this advice is not only needed by young preachers but by those of us who are not so young as well." The list of the ten "don'ts" included such practical admonitions as "Don't introduce your discourse with apologies," and "Don't" read a text and then neglect to tell the people what it means." Surely no one would think that either Elder Tharp who wrote the article or Elder Harris who published it were attempting to exalt themselves over other ministers and trying to tell them how to preach; they were simply demonstrating a spirit of concern about the ministry which has prevailed among out people through the years."

Again, Bradley points out the need for Hardshell preachers to be instructed in how to deliver sermons. Such instruction does not usurp the authority of the Holy Spirit in calling and qualifying men for the ministry. He shows how the Hardshells have been hypocritical on this topic.

He also wrote:

"If such admonitions are beneficial in print, should they not also be beneficial when delivered in person or on tape? Certainly a one-on-one labor can be extremely profitable as a father in the ministry works with a young preacher, but is any scripture principle violated for a minister to speak to a group of preachers who assemble in the Lord's name and hear His word expounded?"

This same argument is one that I have already made in this series and is one that the hard line Hardshells will have no way to refute.

He also wrote:

"Somewhere along the way this diligent effort by older ministers to teach the younger ministers has declined or has been abandoned entirely in some places."

So, what does all this prove? It proves that the Hardshell apologetic response against theological schools is but a smokescreen. They favor personal ministerial instruction by an older minister to a younger, but they have not practiced what they have preached.

He also wrote:

"The saviour taught us to "Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth labourers into this harvest" (Matthew 9:38). As that prayer is answered and men are given a gift to preach, the mature ministers should be ready to spend time "instructing and encouraging them." Not only can this be accomplished by ministers but by others in the church as well. Such an example is found in Acts 18:26 with reference to Apollos, "And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly." Not only should brethren and sisters in the church be ready to help instruct a young man, they need the spiritual discernment to reject unbiblical concepts about preaching and be willing to warn ministers of these errors. Some have incorrectly assumed that because the Apostle Paul had the truth of the gospel revealed directly to him that this pattern will be followed with preachers today. We must remember, however, that we do not have any Apostles today."

These arguments in favor of ministerial education have already been made by me in this series. These arguments support not only what Elder Bradley and the Cincinnati church are doing in holding preacher meetings for instructing ministers in their work, but also support theological schools.

He also wrote:

"But as it is the responsibility of the pastor-teacher to equip the saints, how many of our people have been adequately equipped to do the teaching they ought to do at home? Since parents feel poorly prepared to do the teaching, it is not done. Is it any wonder then that many young people are lost to the world or to false doctrine? Is it not time to spend our energy not just pointing out the wrong way of doing things but to diligently do it the right way, to the glory and praise of our Saviour Jesus Christ?"

Again, Elder Bradley testifies of how the Hardshell emphasis on parents teaching their children as a rebuttal to holding Sunday schools and Bible classes has proven to be a failure. The young people are not being taught. Elder Bradley's words give support to Sunday schools and special classes to teach parents on how to teach their children.

He also wrote:

"Ministers can also receive great benefits through the writings of other ministers. Just as they need to hear preaching, there is profit in reading a sermon or the writings of a man who is faithfully expounding biblical truth. Without question the only book that can be given complete, unreserved endorsement is the Bible. It is our only standard of authority. But for a man to assume that the Lord is going to lead him directly into all truth apart from the advantage of learning from other men seems to be rather presumptuous."

Again, Bradley overthrows the historical apology of Hardshells against ministerial education and shows how hypocritical they have been. This line of argumentation has been already set forth in this series. Do Hardshell elders read the systematic theologies that are used in theological schools? Then, they are in effect attending those schools. Further, the books and periodicals published by the Hardshells have been for the purpose of teaching ministers. If this is allowable, what is wrong with this being done in person, in a school, by the writers of these books and periodicals?

He also wrote:

"In the Preachers Meetings here at Cincinnati Church, we have provided opportunity for ministers to share with each other the things they have been blessed to learn through their own study. It has served to help and encourage some young ministers who have no father in the ministry currently helping them. But many of the older ministers have spoken of the blessing they received through messages by younger ministers. One older minister wrote, The fellowship of the ministers and the prayer sessions were evidences to me the Spirit of the Lord was there, and also those who rendered messages on various topics brought many challenging thoughts to my mind. A young minister wrote, It was as if God was confronting me on areas of my ministry that were terribly lacking. I received information on how to shore up these areas and how to teach them to the membership. The meeting condemned me in a good way and will hopefully make me a better Christian and minister. Tapes and printed materials from each of these meetings have been made available for those wanting to study the material further. I would not necessarily endorse the interpretation of every text found on these tapes. In fact, in some of the exchange sessions at the meeting it is evident that all brethren do not see every point exactly alike. This in itself, though, is a learning experience. A man who will only fellowship those who see eye to eye with him on every subject will soon find he is all by himself. We in no way want to compromise on essential doctrine but brethren can love each other and labor together in spite of minor differences."

Again, all this is but a defense of systematic and structure ministerial education and today's Hardshells need to listen to the wisdom of what Elder Bradley says. They need to repent and turn from what the Black Rockers said on this issue.

Another objection that is often made against theological schools is to say that these schools usurp the authority and work of the Holy Spirit and that those preachers who come out of seminary training are "man made preachers." Hardshell preachers, it was argued, are God called and trained men, but seminary preachers are called and trained by men. But, all this is pure nonsense. It is also nothing but ad hominem attacks. It would be better if the Hardshells would show how theological schools violate the scriptures. If a young Hardshell minister is taught privately by an older and more learned minister, does he become a "man made preacher" in doing so?

Another objection that is often made against giving elders advanced education is that seminaries are new among the Baptists. This was one of the arguments advanced by the Black Rockers in the 1830s. But, as we shall see, this is also not true. We shall demonstrate this in later in this series.