Chpt. 124 - Hardshells & Justification II

Chpt. 124 - Hardshells & Justification II

Wrote Dr. A. H. Strong, in the "Relation of Justification to Faith," wrote:

A. We are justified by faith, rather than by love or by any other grace:

(a) not because faith is itself a work of obedience by which we merit justification, for this would be a doctrine of justification by works,

(b) nor because faith is accepted as an equivalent of obedience, for there is no equivalent except the perfect obedience of Christ,

(c) nor because faith is the germ from which obedience may spring hereafter, for it is not the faith which accepts, but the Christ who is accepted, that renders such obedience possible, but

(d) because faith, and not repentance or love or hope is the medium or instrument by which we receive Christ and are united to him. Hence we are never said to be justified dia pistin, = on account of faith, but only dia pisteos, = through faith, or ek pisteos, = by faith. Or, to express the same truth in other words, while the grace of God is the efficient cause of justification and the obedience and sufferings of Christ are the meritorious or procuring cause, faith is the mediate or instrumental cause."  (pg. 160, 161)

Strong, a moderate Calvinist, states the correct Calvinistic and Baptist view about union with Christ being first in any sound ordo salutis.  And, in that tradition, he says that the Bible teaches that men are joined to Christ "by faith."  Thus, faith precedes everything connected with salvation, though faith is the result of God's working through the Spirit and the word.  This view of faith being the means of union with Christ, and with justification and salvation, is clearly taught in scripture.  For instance, Paul wrote:  "...whatsoever is not of faith (relative to salvation - SG) is sin."  (Rom. 14: 23)  From this proposition it is deducible that all is from faith, since whatever is not from faith is sin.  The word "sin" here is "hamartia" and literally means to "miss the mark," and involves faulty aim.  Thus, a salvation that is "not of faith," as Hardshellism and many non-Christian religion teach, misses the mark of truth.  According to Hardshellism, justification, regeneration, santification, and salvation are "not of faith," and therefore Hardshellism makes the foregoing things to be "sin," an error.

A "regeneration" that is not from or by faith leads to the absurdity that there are regenerated people who cannot please God, for Paul says that "without faith it is impossible to please God" (Heb. 11: 6).

Union with Christ is by faith, by coming to him with the heart.  In chapter 11 of Book 3 of his Institutes, John Calvin wrote:

"I trust I have now sufficiently shown how man’s only resource for escaping from the curse of the law, and recovering salvation, lies in faith; and also what the nature of faith is, what the benefits which it confers, and the fruits which it produces. The whole may be thus summed up: Christ given to us by the kindness of God is apprehended and possessed by faith, by means of which we obtain in particular a twofold benefit; first, being reconciled by the righteousness of Christ, God becomes, instead of a judge, an indulgent Father; and, secondly, being sanctified by his Spirit, we aspire to integrity and purity of life." 

Calvin recognized, of course, as do all Calvinists, that there is an eternal mystical or virtual union between Christ and the chosen people.  In God's eternal decree of election the people chosen are joined together, in the mind of God, with Christ their appointed Head.  This union does precede faith and salvation.  However, actual union in time occurs at the point a soul is brought to faith in Christ.  Calvin also appropriately places union with Christ ahead of justification and sanctification, the latter including regeneration. 

Paul wrote:  "...he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit."  (I Cor. 6: 17)  Marriage is one of those kinds of union that the scripture adopts to describe the union that exists between Christ and his church bride.  (Eph. 5: 23-33) 

Paul wrote:

"Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God."  (Rom. 7: 4) 

Saved people are people who have been "joined" or "married" to the Lord, who are "bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh." 

Paul also spoke of Christ being made to "dwell in your hearts by faith."  (Eph. 3: 17) 

Throughout the scriptures people "believe in (Greek "eis," or "into") Christ."  Faith is the medium by which Christ is entered and possessed.  Without this possession and union with Christ, there is no salvation. 

Strong mentions, as have others, such as Berkhof, that scripture never says that men are justified "dia pistin" but "dia pisteuo."  Had the biblical writers believed that "by faith" meant that justification was based upon faith, they would have used "dia pistin," the accusative case inflection.  Thus, the Hardshell accusation that those who teach that justification is "by faith" must teach that faith is the ground or foundation for justification, is without merit.

Craig Hawkins, on the same point, wrote:

"Another point of misunderstanding that some have is regarding the role and relationship of faith to justification. It is not our faith or the faith of the individual believer that justifies, but God who justifies by grace through faith. That is, faith is what is called the instrumental means or cause of salvation, not what is termed the efficient cause. As J. I. Packer rightly remarks: “Paul says that believers are justified dia pisteos (Rom. 3:25), pistei (Rom. 3:28), and ek pisteos (Rom. 3:30). The dative and the preposition dia represent faith as the instrumental means whereby Christ and his righteousness are appropriated; the preposition ek shows that faith occasions, and logically precedes, our personal justification. That believers are justified dia pistin, on account of faith, Paul never says, and would deny.” Packer also remarks: “faith is…personal trust and confidence in God’s mercy through Christ; that it is not a meritorious work, one facet of human righteousness, but rather an appropriating instrument, an empty hand outstretched to receive the free gift of God’s righteousness in Christ….”

Hawkins then cites B.B. Warfield:

"It is, accordingly, solely from its object that faith derives its value. This object is uniformly the God of grace…Jesus Christ, God the Redeemer, is accordingly the one object of saving faith…The saving power of faith resides thus not in itself, but in the Almighty Saviour on whom it rests…It is not faith that saves, but faith in Jesus Christ…faith in any other saviour…brings not salvation but a curse. It is not, strictly speaking, even faith in Christ that saves, but Christ that saves through faith. The saving power resides exclusively, not in the act of faith or the attitude of faith or the nature of faith, but in the object of faith…"  ("Justification – A Right Relationship with GOD" by Craig S. Hawkins see here)

Thus, the argument by Oliphant that those who teach that justification is "by faith" teach that faith is the ground or foundation of justification is without merit.

Oliphant wrote:

"I want first to assign some reasons why faith can not be the ground, or condition, on which justification is based; and then I will try to point out what is intended by those texts in which we are said to be "justified by faith."



Many places speak of "little faith," "O ye of little faith," "Lord, help my unbelief." "Increase our faith," and such texts. Now, if faith is to be understood as the condition or cause of our justification, then justification would necessarily be in different degrees, one man would be just, and another more just, according to the degree of faith, and none could be perfectly justified, seeing that none have perfect faith, for "now we see through a glass darkly." So our justification would have an imperfect cause, or foundation, whereas I think it is admitted on all hands that justification admits of no degrees."  ("Justification and Kindred Subjects: Chapter 8" - See here)

But, though faith is the "condition" for justification, it is not the "ground" of it.  Oliphant, however, thinks that if faith be a condition, it must therefore be the foundation, or the meritorious "basis" for it.

Oliphant's argument is that whatever results from faith cannot be "perfect," for faith is always imperfect.  But, this is untenable.  Has he not affirmed that faith is the gift of God?  God gives an imperfect faith for imperfect results?  Oliphant also again affirms that faith being a "condition" makes faith the "foundation" of justification and salvation, but this is false.  The righteousness of Christ is the efficient cause of justification, but faith is the instrumental cause. 

It is also once again apparent how Oliphant has to resort to such logical arguments to prove his doctrine rather than to express statements of scripture.  He denies that justification is by faith because it is not logical, in his mind, and not because he can refute it by scripture. 

Oliphant wrote:

"So the righteousness of God’s people is of God, Christ is their righteousness; hence it is not the office of faith to produce it. It exists aside from, and independent of faith."

Yes, it is "of" God, but it is "by" faith.  Faith does not "produce" the justifying righteousness of Christ, but merely receives it.  It is amazing that Oliphant and the Hardshells fail to see these simple things.  Oliphant is very frank in affirming that the righteousness of Christ "exists independent of faith," which is contrary to the whole of Romans chapter four.  The scriptures teach that sinners are justified by faith but Hardshells say apart from faith.
 
Elder Joe Holder, Hardshell apologist, wrote:

"The Bible speaks of justification by the blood of Christ, by grace, by faith, and by works. Many sincerely attempt to make every statement in the Bible on justification refer to eternal justification. Justification is the New Testament term for a judge's verdict of "Not guilty." In our judicial system there are many different courts to hear and judge the large variety of issues which must be adjudicated. A traffic violation and a mass murder should not be heard by the same court. Applying this principle to the New Testament teaching on justification, we can see the eternal court of justice which heard the evidence against the elect and declared the "Not guilty" verdict at the resurrection of Christ, based on his death and the grace of God, Romans 4:25. Yet in the same chapter, we can see the court of conscience, before which Abraham was justified by works, Romans 4: 3. Paul did not teach that a dead effortless faith is acceptable any more than James taught that eternal justification is by works."  (Chapter 5, "Justification By Faith" - see here)

Thus, according to Hardshellism, being justified by faith pertains only to the "court" of the believers conscience.  But, this is not what Paul taught.  This was shown in the last chapter where Paul does not make justification by grace to be a different justification from that which is by faith.  The whole purpose of this paradigm of justification is to affirm that justification by faith is not necessary for being eternally saved.  But, where there is no justification by faith, then there is no "peace with God" (Rom. 5: 1), and thus one is not reconciled to God, and is still his enemy.

Holder and the Hardshells fail to understand that the realization of pardon and justification in the conscience occurs when one is actually justified and regenerated.  In this experience the conscience is cleansed by the application of the blood of Christ.  At the same time that God declares that a sinner is justified, at the same time the sinner experiences peace with God.  Or, to state it according to the Hardshell paradigm, when the court of Heaven declares the sinner acquitted, the sinner's "court of conscience" receives and welcomes the verdict.

Not only does Romans chapters three through five show that the same justification is under consideration, but so does the Book of Galatians.

"Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."  (Gal. 2: 16)

"But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith." (Gal. 3: 11)

This "justification" is "in the sight of God."  And, it is "by faith."  "We have believed," said Paul, "that we might be justified by the faith of Christ." 

In closing this chapter, let us notice these verses:

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life."  (John 5: 24)

"And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses."  (Acts 13: 39)

Who is justified?  The believer in Jesus.  Who is condemned?  The one who does not believe in Jesus.

Chpt. 125 - Hardshells & Justification III

Chpt. 125 - Hardshells & Justification III

Hardshells will often argue that Abraham being justified by faith, or accounted righteous, before God, cannot be part of salvation, because Abraham's being justified by faith occurred in Genesis 15, though he was a believer, and already saved, in Genesis 12.  But, the fact that Abraham was justified by faith in Genesis 12, when he first believed and obeyed, does not disprove that justification by faith is not required for being eternally saved.  I agree with the Hardshells that Abraham was a man of faith prior to Genesis 15 where we first have the words "and Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness."  But, I do not agree with the inferences and conclusions that they attempt to draw from the facts.

In an article titled "When Was Abraham Justified?" (Part 1), by Phil Gons (see here), this issue is addressed.  Gons wrote:

"When was Abraham justified? This might seem like a rather elementary question with an obvious answer: Abraham was justified when he believed the Lord and the Lord reckoned it to him as righteousness, which is recorded in Genesis 15:6. Certainly Paul’s use of this text in defense of justification by faith apart from works in Romans 4 and Galatians 3 confirms that Genesis 15:6 was the precise point of Abraham’s justification, doesn’t it? This is probably what most people assume."

After saying this, Gons affirms:  "Abraham was already justified prior to the events recorded at the beginning of Genesis 15." 

But, affirming this does not support the Hardshell notion that justification by faith is different from that justification which is by blood and grace.

Gons wrote:

"Removing all doubt, Hebrews 11:8 makes clear that Abraham’s faith in Genesis 12 was genuine faith: “By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going.” The author of Hebrews, in setting forth examples of faith to be followed, intentionally begins the story of Abraham with Genesis 12, when he “by faith” obeyed the Lord, believing His promises to him to be reliable. Had Abraham still been an idolater (cf. Joshua 24:2) and his faith something less than genuine, surely the author of Hebrews would have cited Genesis 15 or some point later in the narrative as the start of Abraham’s exemplary faith.

Paul quotes (with slight modification) Genesis 12:3 in Galatians 3:8 and says that Abraham had the good news preached to him, which—I have sought to demonstrate—he believed. This calls into question the notion that Abraham had substantially different revelatory content—which would have been insufficient for Abraham to have been saved—prior to Genesis 15.

The language of God’s reckoning as righteousness is perhaps used as non-conversion language. Paul’s use of Genesis 15:6 in Romans 4:22, where he says, “Wherefore it was reckoned to him as righteousness (διὸ [καὶ] ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην),” is connected to Abraham’s faith in Genesis 18, which is post-conversion for both the Genesis 12 and Genesis 15 views. Some argue on this basis that God reckoned Abraham’s subsequent faith as righteousness as well. This would mean that God’s reckoning righteousness need not be connected merely to conversion, but to faith as often as it is exercised throughout the Christian life. This is essentially the point Calvin makes. We are always considered or reckoned righteous through faith—from start to finish.

As confirmation to the above conclusion, it is nice to know that virtually all the commentators and theologians that I have come across who deal with the issue are in agreement that Abraham was justified by the events recorded at the beginning of Genesis 12. Luther, Calvin, Brakel, and Spurgeon defend a Genesis 12 justification, as do O. Palmer Robertson and Brian Vickers.

Luther:

Therefore if you should ask whether Abraham was righteous before this time, my answer is: He was righteous because he believed God. But here the Holy Spirit wanted to attest this expressly, since the promise deals with a spiritual Seed. He did so in order that you might conclude on the basis of a correct inference that those who accept this Seed, or those who believe in Christ, are righteous.

Calvin:

Therefore, by a consideration of the time in which this was said to Abram, we certainly gather, that the righteousness of works is not to be substituted for the righteousness of faith, in any such way, that one should perfect what the other has begun; but that holy men are only justified by faith, as long as they live in the world...But now since after such great progress, he is still said to be justified by faith, it thence easily appears that the saints are justified freely even unto death.
Spurgeon:

I take it, beloved friends, that our text does not intend to teach us that Abram was not justified before this time. Faith always justifies whenever it exists, and as soon as it is exercised; its result follows immediately, and is not an aftergrowth needing months of delay.

Robertson:

The fact that this declaration concerning the faith and resulting righteousness of Abraham comes at this particular juncture does not imply that now for the first time he believes and his faith is reckoned to him for righteousness. To the contrary, he continues in a state of faith and its resulting righteousness. But the placing of this declaration of righteousness at this juncture of the patriarch’s life underscores the fact that nothing has been added to faith as the way to righteousness."

Not only was Abraham justified by faith in Genesis 12 and 15 when he believed God and the gospel, but James says that he was also justified when he put his faith into action.
"Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God." (James. 2: 21-23)

When was the scripture "fulfilled" that says "Abraham believed God and it was imputed unto him for righteousness"?  We have already seen that it was "fulfilled" when he first believed and obeyed the Lord in Genesis 12, when he forsook his idolatrous surroundings and embraced the living God.  We have seen also that it was "fulfilled" in Genesis 15 when he believed God when he heard the good news about the coming of his "seed" and of the great salvation that would be the effect of the seed's coming.  And, according to James, it was also "fulfilled" when Abraham performed those activities that resulted and proved the genuineness of his faith. 

It is sometimes argued that this justification by works was not "before God," or "in his sight," but in the sight of others. But, this is obviously against the text. James does not deny that it is God who "sees" Abraham's work of faith.  It is true that we "see" it, but it is more important that God "sees" it.  By the works of faith was faith "made perfect."  By the works of faith was God's testimony concerning Abraham's faith "fulfilled," or demonstrated.  Abraham's works proved the genuineness of his faith.  Upon Abraham's offering of Isaac God says to him - "for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me."  (Gen. 22: 12)  Certainly God already "knew" that Abraham feared and believed God, but the statement by God was meant to be a formal declaration of the fact.  In other words, God was saying - "now I formally acknowledge that you fear and believe me." 

When Abraham believed God, his faith in God and in the gospel promises moved God to declare him righteous.  But, every time a believer trusts God and believes his word he is declared righteous, and every time the believer puts his faith into action, God declares him righteous.  By the actions of faith a believer is justified in his public person, or in his profession.  By faith he is justified in his private person, but faith in action justifies him in his public person.  His faith is shown to be real by the actions of faith.  Works of faith do not make faith real but only show that it is real.  The acts of faith prove the veracity of God's testimony concerning the justified state of a man. 

Faith alone saves, but not a faith that is alone.  The works of Abraham demonstrated that God's declaration concerning him was true, that he was indeed a man of faith.  The actions of Abraham proved that God was true in his declaration concerning Abraham.  Every time a person believes God he is declared righteous.  Every time a believer demonstrates his faith in works of faith he is declared righteous.  God continuously "sees" and "knows" and declares the believer justified. 

Hardshells & The London Confession I

Chapter 126

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

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

The Fulton Confession can be found here.

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

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

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

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

Wrote Brother Ross:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ross continues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hunt wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hardshells & The London Confession II

Chapter 127

In the previous chapter it was noted how the Hardshells have been divided over the London Confession of faith.  Historically, it was adherence to this Confession that the founding fathers of the "Primitive Baptist Church" claimed to be the original Baptist church.  It was also shown how it was due to a departure from the teachings of the Confession regarding the absolute predestination of all things and of God's use of the Gospel in the salvation of the elect that led later generations to either twist and distort the Confession's teaching on those topics or to disregard it altogether and to admit that it does not teach basic Hardshell views.  The Fulton Confession was an attempt to justify the historic adherence to the Confession by denying that it taught absolute predestination of all things and the means position.  However, it was a failure, as Elder Hunt confessed, for the Confession clearly teaches those doctrines, a fact which many other Hardshells have frankly, though reluctantly, admitted.  In this chapter we will continue to cite from leading Hardshell writers for proof of this.

Ivey continued (emphasis mine - SG):

"Elder Cox's appendix suggests that in 1646 not all Particulars Baptists embraced certain principles of Calvinism. But, adoption of the overtly Calvinistic tenets of the 1689 Confession indicates if dissenting arguments were presented at the general conference, they were not publicly acknowledged. Inclusion of Chapter Ten, parts one and three, which deals with gospel instrumentality in the effectual call, and Chapter fourteen, part one, which describes saving faith through a concert of divine impartation and rational belief of the gospel, together with supporting scriptural references, all serve to demonstrate the commitment the conferees had to Calvin's doctrine. By expressing the heart of Calvin's theory of regeneration in their Confession they moved away from those brethren who held to primitive faith. This tends to indicate the theology of the 1689 Confession went beyond political expediency and embraced conscience. These brethren were Calvinists with regard to Gospel agency. It must be assumed they heartily believed what they wrote into their Confession."

Thus, Ivey agrees with Hanks, Tolley, Garrett, Sarrels, Hunt, and others, that the London Confession teaches the Gospel means position. 

In the forward to Ivey's work, he wrote:

"This book began as a simple desire to understand a seeming inconsistency which I believed existed in Primitive Baptist history relative to the question of our succession as Christ's church. I could not resolve the differences I perceive between Primitive Baptist Confessions of Faith and the 1689 London Confession of Faith. I heard various arguments relating to differences in language, but did not accept them because the King James Version of the Bible is written in the same language and is readily understandable. I was given an explanation that the London brethren were attempting to escape persecution and so, wrote an "acceptable" confession. This did not seem to make sense to me since the church has always been a dissenting body from popular religion and always suffered persecution for her convictions. It did not seem reasonable that men who came to Baptist conviction knowing full well the persecution they must suffer would suddenly lay their convictions aside to avoid persecution. My problem with resolving the language of the London Confession to Primitive Baptist faith was centered around the concepts of saving faith, and gospel agency as it is described in Articles 10 and 14 of the 1689 edition."

Ivey acknowledges that the Hardshells have a problem with the fact that the London Confession has been historically adopted by the "Primitive Baptist Church" as proof that they had a succession to Baptists of former centuries and were therefore not a new denomination.  The insurmountable difficulty is, however, that what the Confession teaches on Gospel instrumentality is opposed to Hardshell views.  He then states what has been one of the ways that his forefathers dealt with this problem.  He gives the response of those who wrote the foreward to the Fulton Confession wherein they sought to convince others that the old Confession did not really teach the Gospel means position, but only seems to do so, and that the reason why it only seemed to do so was because of the old English in which it was written.  Ivey rejects this line of reasoning and so should all others.  Ivey also gives another justification of the Hardshells in response to their historic acceptance of the Confession, a Confession which teaches contrary to Hardshell views.  He says that some Hardshells claim that the signers of the Confession really did not believe in Gospel means, even though the Confession says that they did.  Ivey rejects this position also for he saw that the signers of the Confession were not dishonest men or men who would lie about their beliefs (as charged by some Hardshells) through fear of persecution. 

The articles of the Confession that Ivey confesses are not in keeping with Hardshell beliefs are cited by him.  He says:

"In part these articles state:
 
Article 10, Part 1. Those whom God hath predestinated unto Life, he is pleased, in his appointed, and accepted time, effectually to call by his word, and Spirit, out of that state of sin, and death, in which they are by nature, to grace and Salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds, spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his Almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his Grace.
 
Article 14, Part 1. The Grace of Faith, whereby the Elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts; and is ordinarily wrought by the Ministry of the Word; by which also and by the administration of Baptism, and the Lords Supper, Prayer and other means appointed of God, it is increased, and strengthened."
 
In response, Ivey writes:

"The archaic language and punctuation of the London Confession, to some measure, leaves the meanings of the these articles open to interpretations. However, inclusion of proof texts seem to indicate the London brethren believed in gospel agency, or instrumentality, in regeneration. Particularly, the use of II Thessalonians 2:13-14 as a proof text for Article 10 led me to conclude the authors believed that gospel utility includes its employment as a verbal instrument of effectual calling in regeneration. In addition, the use of Romans 10:14-17 to define the Ministry of the Word in Article 14 caused me to believe they were writing of the preached word, despite the use of capital punctuation. If I understand what they wrote, it is: The divine influence of faith, whereby the Elect are enabled to believe and thereby save their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts; and is ordinarily produced by the agency of the preached word."

There is no "archaic language" in the London Confession.  That is what some Hardshells want others to believe so that they can get them to believe that the Confession does not really say what it says.  Ivey is honest enough to acknowledge that the Confession's statements, as cited above, do in fact teach that God saves his people through the preaching of the Gospel. 

Ivey continued:
 
"My perplexity concerning the meanings of these articles was heightened when I read a copy of the Presbyterian Westminster Confession of Faith. I discovered the language of Article 10, parts 1 and 3 in the two Confessions is identical. Also, I found the only difference in the language of Article 14, part 1 is the London Confession substituted the phrase, "by the administration of Baptism, and the Lords Supper, Prayer and other Means appointed of God" for the Westminster phrase "by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer." Apparently, the only hesitance the Particular Baptists had with this part of the article of the Westminster Confession was the latter's reference to baptism and the Lord's supper as sacraments. The only other difference I found was incidental punctuation and capitalization. At first, I thought capitalization had some significance, but upon closer review I discovered the original transcript of the London Confession used capitalization indiscriminately. Therefore, I was unable to determine any significance for capitalized words."

Ivey, like other Hardshells, find it impossible to honestly accept the reasoning of the elders who wrote the foreward and reworked the old London Confession in Fulton, Kentucky.  Ivey knows that the Confession's words unmistakedly teach the Gospel means position.  He also rejects the twisting of some Hardshells who argue that "the Word" by which men are effectually called is not the Gospel, is Christ, because "Word" is capitalized in the Confession.  He shows that this is no proof for the Confession made frequent use of capitalization.  He also sees that the texts the Confession refers to for proof of their affirmations shows that they meant the Gospel or the Scriptures by their use of "the Word." 

Ivey continued:
 
"Knowing that Presbyterian Calvinism teaches a principle of gospel agency in regeneration using the same two articles to set forth their position, I became convinced the early Particular Baptists also must have believed the same."

Ivey sees several reasons why it cannot be denied that the Confession taught the Gospel means position.  He cannot bring himself to accept the premises of the Fulton Convention whereby they sought to pervert the words and intention of the authors of the London Confession.  Ivey is simply saying what many other Hardshells, like the elders I have already cited, have also reluctantly confessed.  When I was a Hardshell elder and read the old Confession, there was no doubt in my mind about what they taught.  I also was forced to affirm what Sarrels and Hunt confessed about the authors of the Fulton Confession.  They were attempting to "explain away" the Confession's clear teachings,  a "literary effort of TORTURING of language," and to "to make this old article MEAN WHAT IT DOES NOT SAY."
 
Ivey continued:

"As I continued to ponder these things, it came to my attention that certain brethren, who no doubt are struggling with these same questions, are teaching gospel agency in regeneration and citing an historic perspective of church succession through the Particular Baptists as a point to support their theology. Simply put, they assert Primitive Baptists abandoned their true beliefs in the 19th century, claiming that until then all orthodox churches subscribed to the tenets of the 1689 London Confession of Faith. They reason abandonment of the London Confession occurred gradually through minor deviations in theology, which developed as an extremist response to anti-missionary, anti-Arminian sentiments. They have asserted that gospel means, or agency in regeneration is first, a bible doctrine and second, an historic belief of the Primitive Baptists owing to our historical connection to the London Confession. I knew this could not be the case. I have read articles of faith written prior to the 19th century, which do not support gospel means."

It is obvious that Ivey is unable to refute the points made by those "certain brethren" who affirm that the London Confession teaches the use of means and that the abandonment of this belief by the Hardshells, in the late 19th century, was a departure from the faith of the Baptists prior to the birth of the "Primitive Baptist" denomination.  How does Ivey respond to the points made by those brethren?  First, he says of the fact that the Gospel means position is "an historic belief of the Primitive Baptists," that he simply "knew this could not be the case."  Why could he not believe that this was in fact the case?  All the historical evidence shows it to be the case.  I suggest that the reason why he cannot accept the historical facts is because he is wedded to the Hardshell cult and to the belief that the Hardshell church is the church Jesus established and that it must have existed since the days of the Apostles, no matter what the evidence shows to the contrary!

He then says that he had "read articles of faith written prior to the 19th century which do not support gospel means."  Yet, he produces none of those articles!  He does attempt to do so in his book called "A Welsh Succession of Primitive Baptists," but I have shown, in postings in my blog "The Old Baptist," that those citations do not affirm the views of the Hardshells.  In Ivey's book he tries to say that the Welsh Baptists who wrote the "Midlands Confession" did not believe in means and that it was one of the reasons why they would not fellowship the London churches who accepted the London Confession.  But, I have shown that this is false and will publish those postings in upcoming chapters on Hardshell history.  What Ivey does in his book is to cite pre 19th century articles of faith that he thinks can be made to deny gospel means, but looked at honestly and with other historical evidence, shows that Ivey is simply reading into those articles what he wants to read into them, the very thing he condemned the Fulton Confession as doing!

Ivey continued:

"I have read Elder Wilson Thompson's autobiography in which a detailed narrative is given of his opposition in 1858 to this doctrine. And, I have read the sermons of Elder Greg Thompson in which he valiantly proclaims God's sovereignty in regeneration and refutes the notions of gospel instrumentality in regeneration. Further, careful restudy of this issue led me to believe the bible void of a doctrine which invokes the gospel in any way to any degree as a requisite principle of new birth."

Citing the words of Hardshell founding father Wilson Thompson does not prove that the Baptists of the 19th century believed as did Thompson.  Further, Elder Thompson, though he rejected the idea that the  preaching of the Gospel was a means in "regeneration," he did not reject the idea that it was unnecessary in being "born again."  Thompson, like his associate, Elder Gilbert Beebe, another Hardshell founding father, that being "regenerated" was only a necessary stage that led to being born again, and that being born again was the same as being converted to Christ by the Gospel.  So, to cite Thompson proves nothing as to the point in debate.  Though Ivey claims to be a Baptist historian, especially of his own denomination, he shows how ignorant he is of what the first generation of Hardshells believed.  In previous chapters in this book we show that Elder Beebe believed that being born of God was the same as being saved by the Gospel.  This was also the view of other leaders in the 1830s, such as Samuel Trott, William Conrad, and James Osbourn.  In the above citation from Ivey, he equates being "regenerated" with the "new birth"  and seems to be ignorant of the fact that the first generation of Hardshells did not do so.  Those founding fathers may have believed that no means were used in "regeneration" but they did believe means were used in "new birth."

Ivey continued:
 
"All this deepened my desire to know more about the circumstance of the writing of the London Confession. I did not initiate this study to find some non-London Confession succession of the church; rather, my intent was simply to understand how the 1689 London Confession came to such wide acceptance among the Baptists. Also, from a historical perspective, I was anxious to know what events caused the Primitive Baptists to leave it. What I found was a Baptist succession which does not embrace the London Confession or, for some, has only coincidental contact."

Thus, Ivey came up with what he thought was a better solution to the problem of tracing Hardshell succession back prior to the 19th century.  He believes that his forefathers were wrong to trace their lineage through the London and Philadelphia confessions of faith.  The problem with Ivey's new solution is the fact that he was unable to find such a succession, even though he tried to do so.  Further, he has not dealt with the fact that nearly all the oldest churches and associations of the Hardshells endorsed either the London or Philadelphia confessions!  Ivey also acknowledges that the Hardshells have forsaken the London Confession!  It was good enough for his Hardshell forefathers but not for him!  What does that say?  He says he did research in order to discover the causes for the Hardshells abandoning the London Confession.  But, surely he knows the reason, though he is unwilling to acknowledge it.  It was because the Hardshells abandoned believing in means!

Ivey continued:

"Neither am I attacking our forefathers who met in Fulton, Kentucky, in 1900. To the contrary, I thank God for their efforts. These brethren were evidently struggling with the same issues, concerning the London Confession, with which I have struggled. They give historic precedence to my struggle. They arrived at a solution which satisfied themselves and their congregations. I applaud their efforts and its outcome. However, we cannot assume their solution is the last word on the matter. If they felt at liberty to scrutinize the London Confession from a theological perspective, is it not our privilege to scrutinize it from an historical vantage? I do not see the result of my work as confrontational towards theirs, rather as a complimentary addendum. Theological truths must always take precedent over historical perspective. But when theology and history agree, historical perspective compliments truth."

Ivey says that he is not attacking what his forefathers did to the old London Confession when they met in Fulton.  Yet, has he not shown them to be dishonest?  Has he not charged them with not accepting the plain statements of the Confession?  He acknowledges that they struggled with the teaching of the Confession regarding means in salvation.  He also rejects the "solution" that the Fulton elders invented, a solution which sought to convince the simple minded that the Confession really did not mean what it said!  Ivey says that he applauds their efforts and the outcome!  He also says that his work in writing "A Welsh Succession of Primitive Baptists" is "a complimentary addendum" to what they wrote!  Though the authors of the Fulton Confession attempted to "explain away" the clear meaning of the Confession, Ivey does not want to condemn them for doing it!  Does this not show how he is a member of a cult?

Ivey continued:

"The Fulton brethren exercised their theological perspective of truth by adding footnotes to the London Confession. I have now come along and offered my applause for their work. I say to them, bravo! History affirms that your concerns were valid and your corrections accurate. Brethren in years past made the same corrections. It proves that the truths you penned at the bottom of the page are the same truths held by Old Baptists through the years. My work is merely an appreciative reaction to yours, a standing ovation."

Only a cult member would applaud the dishonesty of its leaders!  Also, Ivey can't even be consistent with himself.  He disagrees with the Fulton brethren about the Confession denying the Gospel means doctrine, and yet he says that their "concerns were valid" and "your corrections accurate."  How could they be "accurate" if they distorted the words of the Confession?  Yes, give these perverters of the old Confession a "standing ovation"!  Ivey has acknowledged that the Confession clearly teaches that God uses the Gospel and word of God as an instrument in salvation, and yet he praises the Fulton Hardshell Sanhedrin for perverting it!

Hardshells & The London Confession III

Chapter 128

In  chapter three of "Regeneration," written by Elder W.H. Crouse, published in 1928, Elder Crouse attempts to defend the "anti-means" side against those of the "means" side from both Scripture and Baptist history.  His main antagonist was Elder Screws of the "Progressive" faction.  You can read the entire work here.

Crouse wrote:

"Much has been said about the London Confession of faith. It was written by a number of English Baptist ministers in 1689. Their manner of expression was quite different from ours. In so long a time language has naturally undergone some change. Some sections, standing alone, seem ambiguous. These sections, separated from the remainder of the Confession, and without explanation, have never been accepted by American Primitive Baptists as clearly and correctly expressing their faith. Taken as a whole, and properly explained, our ministry has most universally accepted it as a true expression of our faith. That there might be no misunderstanding in reference to its teaching the meeting at Fulton, Ky., in 1900, added explanatory footnotes. To illustrate let us notice a few sections."

Elder Crouse wrote his work as a result of controversy with some Hardshells in the 1920s who were returning to the teaching of the London Confession regarding God's use of means in salvation, a phenomenon that is even now occurring in a limited way among today's Hardshells.  Some in the Progressive wing of the "Primitive Baptist Church," such as Elder Screws, were giving historical proof for the contention that the denial of means by the Hardshells was a modern innovation, just as Elder Watson had affirmed in his book "The Old Baptist Test." (1866)  Elder Crouse attempted to rebut all the historical evidence that was against him on this point and one of those proofs was the London Confession of Faith. 

Elder Crouse admits that some sections of the Confession, read by itself, teaches against the Hardshell anti-means position and that such sections "have never been accepted by American Primitive Baptists."  Yet, this is clearly not the case.  Most of the first generation Hardshell leaders believed in means in the new birth and eternal salvation, men such as Gilbert Beebe, Samuel Trott, William Conrad, Hosea Preslar, John Watson, R. W. Fain, John Clark, James Osbourn, Daniel Jewett, etc.  Also, the fact that there was a division in the 1880s over this issue shows that even at that date many Hardshells and Regular Baptists still believed in means. 

Elder Crouse says that those sections which teach means are "ambiguous," and by this he wants his fellow cult members to believe that those sections really do not mean what they say.  Well did Solomon say - "The simple believeth every word."  (Prov. 14: 15)  It is not doubted that the average cult member will believe everything that their leaders tell them, but Elder Crouse was delusional to think that anyone who looks at the issue honestly and researches the matter would believe him.  The words of the old Confession were not "ambiguous" to the original Hardshells and to those who originally wrote the Confession.  They are not ambiguous to me, nor are they ambiguous to Elders Tolley, Hanks, Hunt, Garrett, Sarrels, Ivey, nor many other Hardshells who have forsaken the Confession. 

Elder Crouse says "Taken as a whole, and properly explained, our ministry has most universally accepted it as a true expression of our faith."  "Properly explained"?  How is it proper explanation to attempt to "explain away" the clear meaning of the document?  The "explantory footnotes," as we shall see, are not "explanations" at all but perversions and distortions and many Hardshells candidly acknowledge this as we have seen. 

Crouse cited this from the LBC:

Chapter 7, Section 2: “Moreover, man having brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a Covenant of Grace, wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and  salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him that they might be saved, &c.”

Crouse then made these comments upon it.

"Primitive Baptists would not accept this section without explanation. Therefore a footnote was added setting forth our interpretation and calling attention to seven other sections where their teaching clearly shows that they held the same view we do on this point."

What Elder Crouse should have said was - "Primitive Baptists would not accept this section without twisting it to say something else."  He admits that he cannot accept what it says.  Further, what is "ambiguous" about what the Confession says in the section cited?  Where is the "archaic language" that needs "explanation"?  The first generation of Hardshells accepted the Confession and did not feel that it needed such "explanations."  It was not till the year 1900 that Hardshells felt like the Confession needed to be reworded. 

Elder Crouse thinks that the brethren who wrote the old Confession contradicted themselves, that they said things in other sections that showed that they did not mean what they said in the words cited above.  But, no where in the Confession do the writers of the Confession say anything that denied what they said here.  They believed that sinners are freely offered life and salvation, and this through the proclamation of the Gospel.  The section also says that faith is required of sinners "that they might be saved."  Basically, what Crouse is saying is - "we can accept what this section says if we can make it say something totally different."  Hardshells do not believe that sinners are offered life and salvation!  Therefore, they are not in agreement with the Confession and are not "primitive" Baptists.

Crouse continued:

"Thus the reader will see that Primitive Baptists accept the London Confession, ONLY when taken as a whole, and giving to each section that interpretation which the complete Confession demands. It seems strange to us that they would say, “wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation”; but the remainder of the Confession clearly shows that those words did not mean to them what they would, without explanation, mean to us. The most of our American associations and churches in drafting their articles of faith have entirely eliminated this ambiguity and set forth their faith in language so clear that all may easily understand."

Crouse admits that he cannot accept the Confession at face value.  He can accept it as changed and when made to say something else.  Why doesn't he just admit, like other Hardshells have done, that he does not believe the old Confession?  When Crouse says that "most of our American associations and churches...have entirely eliminated this ambiguity," he means that he has rejected what it says and substituted something totally different.  What the Fulton document "eliminates" is not "ambiguity" but the actual clear teaching of the Confession.  Besides, as I have said, all one has to do is to read the other writings of the London brethren who wrote the old Confession to discern what they meant.  It is also to be noted that the new articles of faith that Crouse says the Hardshells wrote did not have anything like what the Confession says.  You will not find anything close to the idea that God offers unto sinners life and salvation. 

Crouse wrote:

"Since we deny that God regenerates sinners through the means of the ministry and the preached word we are no longer to be considered as Primitive but as “Modern” Baptists...And all our ministers, present and past, whom we considered true Primitives, we are now informed, were only “Modern” Baptists, all because they did not believe that God uses such means in the regeneration of sinners."

Did not Elder John Watson in his "Old Baptist Test" say that those who were beginning to deny the use of means in salvation were "modern innovators"?  Would he not know?  When Crouse says "all our ministers, present and past, whom we considered true Primitives...did not believe that God uses such means in the regeneration of sinners," the key phrase is "whom we considered true Primitives."  It is easy to show how all our Baptist forefathers, prior to the 19th century, believed that God used means in the eternal salvation of the elect, as we have shown in previous chapters and will yet show in future chapters.  But, in doing so, all Crouse has to do is to say "we don't consider them true Primitives."  But, this will be difficult for him to do.  Was Elder John Watson and Elder R. W. Fain not true Primitives?  Was Elder John Clark and Elder James Osbourn not true Primitives? 

Crouse continued:

"Let me state clearly his line of reasoning:

1. To be a Primitive Baptist one must believe the  London Confession, which confession teaches that God uses the gospel as a means in the regeneration of sinners.

2. We repudiate that Confession in that we deny that God uses the gospel as a means in the regeneration of sinners.

3. Therefore, we are not Primitive Baptists."

This was the "line of reasoning" that Elder Screws made against Crouse and it is the same which I have made throughout this book on the Hardshell Baptist cult.  The ancestral line of Hardshell churches were churches that endorsed the London and Philadelphia Confessions of Faith and believed that the Gospel was God's ordained means for calling the elect to life and salvation.  But, this is now denied by the Hardshells and therefore they have no right to be deemed to be "primitive" or "original" Baptists.  It was because Ivey saw this problem that he sought to find another line of succession than that which goes through the churches who endorsed the London and Philadelphia Confessions.  He thought he found it in a "Welsh Succesion," but in this he failed as I have shown in other writings which I will eventually include in this book.  Elder Harold Hunt, who I have already cited, also saw that a succession could not be legitimately made through the churches who endorsed the London and Philadelphia Confessions and also sought to find another ancestral line which he thought he found among the "Anabaptists" of England.  But, he also failed as I shall show in future chapters wherein I review various Hardshell histories. 

Crouse continued:

"To escape that conclusion we MUST prove at least one of the premises to be false. The second we readily acknowledge to be true. We must therefore prove the first false or admit that we are not Primitive Baptists-we must either prove that one does not have to believe the London Confession to be a Primitive, or that the Confession does NOT teach that God uses the gospel as a means in regeneration."

Elder Crouse admits that he repudiates the Confession's belief in means but denies that one must be in agreement with the Confession in order to be deemed a "primitive" or "original" Baptist.  The problem that Crouse has is in the fact that his forefathers all attempted to prove their succession by claiming agreement with the old Confession.  Crouse chooses, like the Fulton elders, to deny that the old Confession taught means.  But, in this he can only convince those Hardshells who will believe anything, the dishonest ones.  As I have shown, many Hardshells admit that the Confession teaches the means doctrine.  And, anyone not in the cult, and who has no bias, will acknowledge that the Confession clearly teaches the use of means. 

Crouse continued:

"But let us apply the syllogism to the Editor:

1. To be a Primitive Baptist one must believe the London Confession, which confession teaches that God does NOT use the gospel as a means in regeneration.

2. The Editor repudiates that Confession in that he teaches that God does use the gospel as a means in regeneration.

3. Therefore, the Editor is NOT a Primitive Baptist."

Elder Crouse is taking the position that the London Confession does not teach the use of means in salvation, as did the Fulton brethren.  But, in doing so, he only shows how dishonest he is, and how he is a devoted member of a cult.  That the Confession teaches the Gospel means position is clear to any unbiased minds.  As I have shown, even many Hardshells acknowledge that the Confession teaches the means doctrine.  But, Crouse will not admit it.  Is this not typical of the cults?  Show them in the Scriptures where their false doctrines are taught against and all they will do is to deny it.  Just as cults twist and distort the Scriptures so do the Hardshells twist and distort the London Confession.

Crouse continued:

"I have already shown what Throgmorton said about that Confession. He insisted that he, as a Missionary Baptist minister, was standing on that confession, so far as it relates to the use of the gospel in the regeneration of sinners. And you remember that HE charged Elder Daily with denying that faith. Said he, “In denying my proposition, Brother Daily is out of harmony with the Old Baptist Faith! If he shows that I am wrong in this discussion, he will show that the Old London Confession of 1689, of which his people have boasted so much, is wrong. If he shows that my proposition is wrong, good-bye to the doctrine of the old Baptists. I am here to defend the Old Baptist Faith, as to what is involved in this discussion. Brother Daily is here to oppose it, and to overthrow it, if he can! Will you ‘Old School’ Baptists follow him in this?”"

What could such argumentation prove to anyone?  It is only intended to be an argument to those in the Hardshell cult who have made such men as Elder Daily into a cult leader who could not possibly be in error.  Crouse assumes that he must be right about the teaching of the old Confession on means because Elder Daily took the position of Elder Crouse!  Crouse, rather than using the London Confession as a criterion for judging who is "primitive" uses rather the beliefs of Elder Daily as the criterion!  The truth of the matter is, Throgmorton was right about what the Confession taught about means, and many Hardshells agree with Throgmorton.

Crouse continued:

"So you see when these “Original”(?) Baptists charge US with having repudiated the London Confession, and they assure the brethren that in contending for gospel regeneration they are standing on the London Confession and defending Old Baptist Faith, they are only joining hands with Dr. Throgmorton, the Missionary; and they are publishing to the world that Elder John R. Daily and those who stood with him were traitors to Old Baptist Faith and that Throgmorton was faithful and true! The idea of Elder John R. Daily trying to repudiate and destroy Old Baptist Faith, and W. P. Throgmorton weeping and wailing over it, and declaring that Old Baptist faith SHALL NOT be destroyed!

And after thousands of prayers have gone up in thanksgiving to God for such a man as Elder Daily to so ably present and defend our faith, as he did in that discussion; and after thousands of volumes of that published discussion have been circulated in the interests of our cause, these self-styled “Original” Baptists fly to the defense of Throgmorton and declare to the world that he was right and Daily was wrong! And then they ask us to be quiet, that there is no principle involved, that there is no need for a fight, and will be none!"

What baseless argumentation is this from Elder Crouse!  The Hardshells are right about the London Confession because John Daily took the position of the Fulton brethren in denying that the London Confession taught the use of means!  The Hardshells are right because Throgmorton could not have been right!  Elders Hunt and Ivey, two later day "historians" for the Hardshells have both put out books where they say that the London Confession is a "New School" Baptist document in teaching the means doctrine!  Seems like they don't agree with either Daily or the Fulton Convention. 

Further, thousands of Particular Baptist churches today embrace the London Confession and believe that it teaches means.  Are they all deceived about what the Confession plainly says?  The ones who wrote the original Confession have shown what they meant by their statements on means by looking at their other writings and yet we are to believe, if Crouse is right, that they really did not mean what they wrote! 

Crouse continued:

"As we have said before, if the London Confession does teach that God uses the preached word in regenerating sinners, that is NOT the faith of Primitive Baptists. Primitive Baptists have the right to interpret that Confession for themselves when they adopt it, and they have NEVER so interpreted it."

What an admission!  "Primitive Baptists have the right to interpret that Confession for themselves"!  They have the right to twist and distort it!  I guess they have the same right to interpret the Scriptures in any way they want, regardless of the facts?  Do citizens have a right to "interpret" the statutes in any way they want?  Do they have a right to misinterpret the writings of others?  Frankly, Elder Tolley was right in calling on the Hardshells to write their own confession rather than trying to pretend to believe in the old London Confession.  That would have been the more honest thing to do.

Elder Crouse then cites this section from the London Confession:

"Chapter X, Section 1. “Those whom God hath  predestinated unto life he is pleased in his appointed and accepted time effectually to call by his Word and Spirit out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature, to grace of salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds, spiritually and savingly, to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made most willing by his grace.” 

Then he adds these comments:

"Undoubtedly they were here speaking of regeneration or the impartation of eternal life to dead sinners. This is the effectual call, as they say in Section II. This work is done they say conjointly by the Word and Spirit.

They positively mention no other way in which this work is done. So, if by the “Word” they mean the gospel, then where do our brethren who hold that interpretation and harp on the London Confession, find in this section any ground for saying that sinners are ever regenerated without the gospel? Here again they bind themselves to the position that eternal salvation is limited to the scope of the gospel. And it is another rule in logic that whatever proves too much for one’s proposition proves nothing."

Notice that Crouse is not trying to properly explain or interpret the Confession, but trying to find fault with it, trying to argue with it.  Crouse gives the impression that the authors of the Confession may not have possibly meant by "the Word" the Gospel or the Scriptures, but could have meant that "the Word" means Christ.  But, as Ivey observed, the texts given in the Confession shows that they did not mean Christ but the Gospel.  Further, it is not true that the writers of the Confession were saying that all sinners must be called externally by the preaching of the Gospel, for they spoke of the regeneration of infants as being done without it.  That is why they spoke of God's ordinary method, in regard to adults who are called and quickened, and God's extraordinary method in regard to infants.  Further, they were not denying that even infants attain to faith and enlightenment, but felt that such cases were mysteries of which the Scriptures were silent.

Crouse wrote:

"They must do one of three things, viz.,

1. They must renounce this section of the Confession altogether, or
2. They must deny that the “Word” means the gospel, or
3. They must admit that none can be regenerated where the gospel has not gone."

But, all this is false, as I have already shown.  The "Word" does mean the Gospel as the section with its Scriptural references show, and as other sections of the Confession also show.  Further, the Confession does say that all, except those who die in infancy, who die without hearing the Gospel are lost, a fact which Elder Hunt acknowledges is the teaching of the Confession. 

Crouse continued:

"But this was NOT the meaning of this Section. In the Fulton Meeting, 1900, this footnote was added: “We do not understand that sinners are effectually called by the written word IN ANY SENSE out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature to grace and salvation but by Christ, the Word of God. The quickening and renewing of the holy Spirit prepares the sinner to answer the gospel call, as seen in Section 2 (2 Tim. 1: 9; 1 John 4:6).”"

It is not my intention to deal with this false accusation now for I will look at the Fulton footnotes in a separate chapter.  However, I will say that the "footnote" does not "explain" anything but simply denies what the Confession plainly says.  All the footnotes does is to give their own views on the subject which are in opposition to what the Confession plainly says.  Further, many Hardshells are honest enough to admit it and confess that these Hardshell elders are simply trying to "explain away" the teaching of the Confession.  At least Elder Hanks in giving his approval of the Confession's parts he could agree with, left out this section.

Crouse continued:

"We all KNOW that they meant by the “Word” the Word which John says was made flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14)-the Word which lives and abides forever (1 Peter 1:23). “And this is the word,” says Peter, “which by the gospel is preached unto you.” This Word is NOT the gospel. It is the Word which the gospel declares unto us-even the Lord Jesus Christ. By this Word (Christ) ye are born again.

But concerning these footnotes Elder Screws, who claims to be an “original”, says: “In 1900 the Fulton Convention, composed of representatives from nearly all parts of our country, adopted this confession, with some explanatory footnotes, which footnotes are more confusing than explanatory.”"

But, the "Word" of the Confession is not Christ, as Elder Ivey admits, though he praised the Fulton Sanhedrin for their misinterpretations!  But, again, we shall have more to say on this later.  Further, Elder Screws was correct when he said that the Fulton footnotes were "more confusing than explanatory." Further, would not the numerous writings of the authors of the London Confession not show what they meant by this section?

Crouse continued:

"If the Editor could prove (which he can not) that our representatives erred in their explanation and that the London brethren did mean to teach that sinners are effectually called out of a state of death by the written word he will have established fellowship with London, but NOT with the Primitives of the United States whom our ministers at Fulton represented, nor yet with Christ and the inspired Apostles upon whose teaching our faith is founded."

But, it is an easy thing to prove that the Fulton brethren "erred in their explanation" of the London Confession.  All Baptist writers prior to the birth of the Hardshells who discussed this article of the Confession all interpreted it as teaching that God calls by the Gospel or written word of God.  Even the founding fathers of the "Primitive Baptist Church" interpreted it this way.  It was not till later in the 19th century that some Hardshells began to say that the Confession really does not mean what it says.  Further, as I have said, Elders like Hunt and Ivey who have written extensively on this topic have admitted that the Hardshells cannot claim agreement or succession through the London Baptists.

Crouse continued:

"Let us note other parts of the Confession:

Chapter X, Section 2  “This effectual call is of  God’s free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, nor from any power or agency in the creature co-working with his special grace; the creature being wholly passive therein, being dead in sins and trespasses, UNTIL, being quickened and renewed by the holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it, and that by no less power than that which raised up Christ from the dead.”

That doesn’t sound much like they thought sinners were regenerated through the ministry and the preached word."

Again, all Crouse is doing is attacking what he perceives to be contradictions in the old Confession.  But, the Confession is not contradictory.  This section does not contradict the previously cited section.  All this section does is to explain what happens in the effectual call.  Sinners are brought to "answer this call," this call which they affirm is "by the Gospel," and which causes them to "embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it."  Also, it is again clear that they believe that grace, life, and salvation are "offered and conveyed" through the Gospel call.  Nothing could be plainer.  There is no "archaic" or "ambiguous" language here.  Crouse tries to make an argument on the fact that the article seems to teach that one is quickened or regenerated before answering the call, but the article is not affirming that any who are called do not instantly answer the call and believe the Gospel.  The authors associate the "calling" with the "offering" and one cannot be said to be "called" unless he has answered the call, and one canot be said to have obtained what is offered until he has willingly received it.  They certainly did not believe that any were "effectually" called until the call effected an answer.

Crouse continued:

"We call special attention to this section. Here is the “effectual” call; the call from death to life. This is regeneration. FIRST there must be life imparted by no less power than that which raised Christ from the dead; then there is the outflow, the effect, the  “answer” as they call it, and the laying hold upon or embracing of the grace or promises of God. And in this outflow is to be found all the Christian graces, faith, love and everything else. The preached word may and often does manifest, increase and develop these graces, but the preached word has no more to do in this work of quickening the dead than it had with raising Christ from the grave. The ONLY agency or means mentioned in this work is the Holy Spirit; and as to any avenue or channel or medium through which or by which the Holy Spirit flowed into the soul to accomplish this Work they are as silent as the grave. Now note that in the fourth section, which we will quote, they turn to the gospel call-the call by the ministry of the word, and note carefully how clearly they distinguish between the effectual call and the gospel call-how separate and distinct they are from each other, and that the gospel call is wholly ineffective UNTIL the sinner is made alive; and to be made alive is to be regenerated.

Section 4: “Others not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit; yet, not being effectually drawn by the Father, they neither will nor can truly come to Christ.”"

 Again, Crouse thinks that the Confession teaches that regeneration precedes faith and conversion, and that the authors of it believed that people can be regenerated who are not converted.  Yet, this is clearly not what they are saying as the rest of the Confession makes clear, a fact even acknowledged by Elder Hunt who confessed that they taught that one had to believe the Gospel or burn in Hell.  All this section of the Confession is making clear is that the authors of the Confession did not believe that the "word alone" was sufficient to effectually call or quicken anyone.  But, they also did not believe that this work was by the "Spirital alone."  They rejected what would later be known as Campbellism (word alone) and Hardshellism (Spirit alone).  Certainly they made a distinction between the "word" and "Spirit." 

Crouse continued:

"To this section our representatives at Fulton added the following footnote:  “We understand for man to be spiritually profited by the gospel he must have been born of God and made partaker of his divine nature, and by the words ‘common operations of the Spirit’ is understood as teaching that the gospel has an enlightening and moral influence upon all rational men.”

We would not need to tell our readers that this is Primitive Baptist doctrine."

But, this is nothing but a willful misrepresentation of the words of the Confession.  I will deal with it at length when we examine the Fulton footnotes in greater detail.  How the Hardshell elders in Fulton "understood" the Confession is no argument at all, for they operated from a clear bias, and were not honest with the Confession, a fact which many Hardshells acknowledge.  Again, even if we admit that they argued for a logical priority of regeneration preceding conversion, as do many "Reformed" writers today, such as James White, it does not argue that they believed in any chronological order, or that they believed that any were effectively called who were not converted.  What they were saying was that the word alone was of no effectiveness apart from the work of the Spirit. 

Crouse wrote:

"Our people WILL NOT accept this doctrine. They WILL NOT fellowship nor condone it."

Yes, we know this, but they ought to be honest, as the elders I have cited have been, and admit that the London Confession does not support the view of the Hardshells, which view says that many are "regenerated" who are still heathens, who are still believers in other gods and religions other than the Christian.  The Fulton brethren would have been better off to have done as Hanks and simply omitted those sections of the old Confession that they did not agree with, and then endorsed those parts which they could have endorsed.  They had every right to write their own confession, but they had no right to twist and distort the meaning of the Confession to suit their own ill designs.  In doing so they showed themselves to be dishonest men and members of a cult.

Crouse next cites this section of the Confession:

Chapter XIV, Section 1: “The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the word.”

He then responds:

"We will examine this section carefully presently, but first let us notice the position of our means brethren. If this section teaches what they would have us believe that regeneration is by the ministry of the word, then we draw the following conclusion, and challenge successful contradiction:

First:  Faith and belief MUST precede regeneration."

But, this is all a false analysis.  The view of the London brethren was that conversion and regeneration were synonymous or concurrent.  They were teaching that where there is regeneration, there is faith in Christ, and vice versa.  They did not believe that one could define salvation, effectual calling, new birth, or regeneration, by the causes alone but also by the effects.

Crouse continued:

"Whatever is meant by the expression “to the saving of their souls” follows and is dependent upon faith and belief."

"Whatever is meant by 'to the saving of their souls'?  Only a Hardshell would question what such an expression means.  Is Crouse implying that the London brethren believed in the later Hardshell novel invention of "time salvation"?  Where is his proof for insinuating such an idea?  The Confession confesses in several sections that faith in Christ and in the Gospel is necessary for being eternally saved, a fact which Elder Hunt and other later Hardshell elders admit.  Further, the founding fathers of Hardshellism also confess that faith in Christ via the Gospel is required of every adult sinner.

Crouse continued:

"An unregenerate sinner is dead in sins-destitute of eternal life. He is in the flesh-carnal- sold under sin. In this condition he must exercise faith and belief, if faith and belief precede regeneration. But the Bible teaches us that faith is a fruit of the Spirit and that those who have the Spirit are children of God. It also teaches us that he that behieveth IS born of God, and that they that are in the flesh cannot please God." 

In these words of Crouse, he is not "explaining" the Confession but arguing against it!  Why would he need to argue against it if it was actually teaching what he believed?  Further, if for the sake of argument we admit that the London brethren were Hardshells and did not believe in the means doctrine, could they not have clearly said so?  Would they have left any doubt?  Further, the arguments that Crouse offers to rebut the teaching of the Confession and of the Scriptures have been answered by me in previous chapters of this book.  He refers to I John 5: 1 that says "whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God."  But, is this what Hardshells believe?  Do they not believe that many who are not believers in Christ are likewise "born of God"?  The words of John deny that any who is not a Christian is born of God.  I have already dealt at length with this argument in previous chapters and simply refer the reader to those chapters for a more complete rebuttal of Crouse's argument.