One of the important historical events in the feuding of Conditionalist and Absoluter factions over the doctrine of the divine decrees (predestination) was the "Danville (Va.) Church Trial and Division" of 1926. The division over predestination, in a local church in Danville, led to a general meeting of "leading" men among the Hardshells to investigate the exclusion of Elder J. R. Wilson, chiefly for denying the absolute predestination of all things. This meeting formed a committee of investigation and presented evidence on the points in controversy to the general body. Elder S. E. Copeland was "clerk" of this body and Elder R. H. Pittman was the "compiler." The announcement of the meeting was published in "The Primitive Baptist" and in "The Advocate and Messenger," and the records of the general meeting were later published under title of "In Defense of Truth or Danville Church Division Investigated."
The announcement also read as follows:
"The people will be met in Danville; expenses of ministers will be paid. We have invited Elders Hassell, Dalton, Hanks, Turnipseed, Petty, Webb, Cayce, Pittman, Vass, Thompson, Dickerson, Copeland, Rawlston, Parker, Monsees and others. All lovers of the truth and ministers everywhere are cordially invited to be at this important meeting.
Done by order of the church in Danville, Va., at her regular conference, Feb. 1926. J. R. Wilson, Moderator, W. L. Parker, Clerk."
Of course, many leading Hardshell elders came to the council meeting to discuss the exclusion of Elder Wilson and the issues involved. The record states:
"The moderator and clerk also in a special way invited the following elders and brethren to meet with us in the investigation by writing them special personal letters, some of them being opposed to Elder Wilson and those with him in this unhappy division in Danville Church."
Thus the Danville church trial and the case of Elder Wilson became the final formal declaration of non-fellowship between Conditionalists and Absoluters. This trial is important for the presence of leading Hardshell elders at the meeting and for the historical records that it contains. Thus is is further recorded:
"The churches that met with Mill Church by messengers, and those represented by brethren who came only on their own accord, not being especially appointed by their respective churches to represent them in this meeting, were assembled together in the Mill Church house on Friday, May 28, 1926 and after song service and prayer by Elder J. N. Bobo of Alabama were invited to take seats in conference. They are as follows:
A Committee on Information was appointed to gather evidence bearing on the question of doctrine and order involved, predestination, good works, etc. and associations and their recently assumed authority over the churches. This was done because it was claimed by those opposing Eld. Wilson and those with him, that his (Eld. Wilson's) abusive language toward the moderator and the church was the cause of the division, and not the doctrine, nor the assumed authority of the association over the churches, while Eld. Wilson and those with him contend that it was the doctrine and the assumed associational authority that caused the division.
Now it is the understanding of this Investigation Committee that it is called upon to find out whose claim is right, and to say who, in their best judgment, is the church in order in Danville."
Thus, there were three issues to be decided. First, whether the doctrine of absolute predestination of all things were "the" cause of the division. Second, whether the association exercised an "assumed authority over the churches." Third, whether any personal misdeeds of Elder Wilson was "the" cause. Clearly, however, all three issues were causes. Whether one cause was the superior cause became the point to be decided. Another issue, however, as we shall see, concerned "time salvation," or "the one salvation" view. Two other issues also were involved, as we shall see. The fifth issue concerned the doctrine of "the non-resurrection of the dead," and the sixth issue concerned "the annihilation of the wicked."
The record continues:
"Now, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and prayerful consideration of the troubles leading up to the division we were brought to the following conclusions or findings, (the evidence upon which we based them being appended hereto) to-wit:
1. We find that the doctrine of the indiscriminate predestination of God-making no distinction between God's attitude toward sin and His attitude toward righteousness was the main cause which led to the division in Danville Church; this being clearly evident by opposition upon the part of some in certain associations to the preaching of certain elders because these elders were not advocates of "the absolute predestination of all things",-and this was before the trouble in Danville Church."
This document was written by the Conditionalist faction and so may be viewed as being biased. Does the first finding of the "Investigative Committee" object to the doctrine of the "absolute predestination of all things"? In the first part of the citation it does not seem that they condemn it per se, but only condemn "making no distinction between God's attitude toward sin and His attitude toward righteousness." But, the forefathers, who espoused the doctrine, did not fail to make such a distinction, so one wonders whether the Conditionalists are simply fighting a "straw man." Were the Absoluters of the 1920's failing to make such a distinction as did Gilbert Beebe and Samuel Trott, to whom they confessed to be in agreement? Is the Committee and Council not only condemning the "Absolutism" of the brethren of the 1920s, or of their forefathers also?
The record continues:
"2. We find that also the doctrine of "the one salvation theory" and the assumed authority of associations over the churches was involved in the contention of brethren, and that Elder J. R. Wilson and those who would not advocate these things were opposed by some in different associations."
Why is the doctrine of "one salvation" connected with the doctrine of predestination? Why did the Absoluters, and those who confessed to believe in the absolute predestination of all things, reject the idea of "time salvation," or "conditional time salvation"? Why did they rather promote the view that the bible only speaks of "one salvation"? Was it because the Absoluter faction still believed in gospel means, and that the new birth was the same thing as gospel conversion? Possibly this was true, to some degree. By the 1920s both factions had almost completely rejected the gospel means view of their forefathers, so it is unlikely that the Absoluters rejected the novel view of "time salvation" as held to by the Conditionalist faction. But, this connection will be investigated further in the next chapter or two. But, we might here ask the questions - "which view was the novel view? which was the original view?"
The record continues:
"3. We find that Elder J. R. Wilson was excluded by Danville Church without gospel labor, and that the charge against him, of abusive language toward the moderator and the church (which appeared in the papers) was not correct.
4. We find that Elder Wilson, after his exclusion from the Danville Church was received into the Mill Church on confession of faith before gospel labor was bestowed by Mill Church upon Danville Church, and that Elder Wilson realizing the mistake thus made went before Danville Church,-first in December 1923 and upon two other occasions during the months following having laid down his gift while thus laboring for reconciliation, making confession for any mistakes made by himself, and asking forgiveness for same, and that Danville Church refused to forgive Elder Wilson.
5. We find that Mill Church also realized her mistake in receiving Elder Wilson as above stated, and rescinded said act and that she, together with Lawyer Spring and Dan River Churches, realizing that they had erred by retaining Elder Wilson as pastor before bestowing gospel labor upon Danville Church for reconciliation did, by messengers, go before Danville Church in her regular conference, first in December, 1924, and upon two other occasions, receiving the promise of forgiveness by Danville Church, which act she later rescinded. Then said messengers, while making the third effort for peace, were told by Danville Church that they would have no more to do with the case, but had referred it to the association!"
Thus, Elder Wilson and his followers were judged to be the ones in good order by the Council. Both sides were judged to have made mistakes in exercising discipline.
One cannot help but see how ironic it is for both sides to be disputing over the "assumed authority of associations over churches" seeing that both sides are guilty of promoting "association rule" among their churches. The council meeting itself became the "supreme court" in a local church matter! Associations and Churches had sent representatives to this general council meeting so that it could decide the matter for the local churches! It is ironic, and hypocritical too, for the Hardshells to have associations, and councils, and yet to condemn associations (societies) of Christians for the promotion of bible distribution, and evangelism, and Christian education. They have as much "scriptural authority" for the former as Mission Baptists do for the latter. I refer the reader back to chapter three where I talked about my personal experiences among the Hardshells and of the "popery" and "association rule" that prevails among many Hardshell churches.
The record continues:
"6. We further find that a minority of Danville Church consisting of about seventeen members withdrew from said church being aggrieved because of the doctrine (of the absolute predestination of all things that come to pass) held to, advocated or tolerated by the majority, and the illegal exclusion of Elder Wilson, did, with him (on the night that they last visited Danville Church seeking reconciliation and being told at this time to stay away from the church) retire to the home of Elder Wilson where a conference was organized by messengers from the following churches: Lawyer Spring, High Hill, Mill, Union Grove, Strawberry, Sugartree, High Point, Dan River, Walton, Martinsville and Leatherwood, by electing Elder J. M. Bagwell moderator and H. M. Baucom, Clerk, and upon investigation by the said conference in session Elder J. R. Wilson and those with him were declared to be the church in order and doctrine at Danville, and the Baptists present recognized them as such by the extention of the right hand of fellowship, and
7. We find that before this present meeting efforts were made by Lawyer Spring and Mill Churches, and by Elder Wilson and others to call a council of Elders for the purpose of bringing about a reconciliation, but that no agreement could be reached, and this call for investigation was open for all and not a one sided affair.
Now, we, the Investigating Committee believe from the evidence submitted that Elder J. R. Wilson and those standing with him is the church in order at Danville, Va., and we respectfully submit the evidence hereto appended for the careful consideration of all Baptists concerned."
Where is the "scriptural authority" for a "council of Elders" to decide matters of dispute within churches, or between churches? How can they legitimately practice having such associations and councils and yet denounce all the associations, societies, and boards of Mission Baptists as lacking "scriptural authority"?
The record continues:
"The first witness heard and questioned was Eld. J. R. Wilson who testified as to How The Trouble Started, the cause of the division, etc. Eld. Wilson said that about fifteen years ago he was sent as a messenger or correspondent from the Mayo Association to visit the Pig River association. W. I. Carnell, an excluded absoluter from Tennessee was visiting in the bounds of the Pig River at that time. Knowing his standing; that he was not then identified with orderly Baptists, Elders A. B. Philpot and J. R. Wilson entered their protest against his preaching among the Baptists here, whereupon Elder J. C. Hurst a member of the Pig River questioned Elder Wilson on the doctrine of predestination. Elder Wilson answered that he believed in the doctrine of predestination as the Bible teaches it, but he did not believe, nor could he fellowship the doctrine of the absolute predestination of all things both good and evil, nor the doctrine of the non-resurrection of the dead and the annihilation of the wicked; that it was not then the doctrine of the Mayo Association of which he was a member. Elder J. C. Hurst (now excluded from the orderly Baptists) said he was an absoluter and he objected to Elder Wilson in that association. His objection was sustained and Elder Wilson, who had already been seated and appointed to preach, was unseated and not allowed to fill the appointment."
It is interesting to me that Elder Hurst is listed in the book "Biographical History of Primitive or Old School Baptist Ministers of the United States" (1919) and compiled by Elder R. H. Pittman. I am sure that Elder Pittman would have "excluded" Hurst from his book had it been published a few years later. Notice from this citation how the additional issues in dispute were mentioned, the issue of "the doctrine of the non-resurrection of the dead" and of "the annihilation of the wicked."
The record continues:
"Shortly after this meeting Elders L. H. Hardy and J. R. Wilson had extensive correspondence over the doctrine of the absolute predestination of all things that come to pass both good and evil. Elder Hardy in said correspondence endorsed the doctrine of the absolute predestination of all things. He said that sin was as much a link in God's predestination as righteousness. Elder Wilson could not agree with him."
I am sure that the "extensive correspondence" over the doctrine of predestination between Hardy and Wilson reflected the general argumentation and debate that had been published for many years. Notice again how the issue is framed. It is not a question as to whether all things were predestined, but whether good and evil were predestined in the exact same way. Both sides should have been able to agree that sin is willed permissively, and that apart from God's will of permission, no sin could exist.
The record continues:
"A few years later Elder J. A. Shaw preached in one of our associations that God predestinated that Czolgosz should kill McKinley at that particular time and place. Some in the Staunton River, Pig River and Upper Country Line Associations, who were in sympathy, did not object, neither the pastor, Elder Spangler, nor the moderator of the association, but Elder W. F. Pruitt, then a member of the Upper Country Line, and Elder J. R. Wilson and others did object to that extreme position. At that same association (the Staunton River) those extremists objected to Elders Lee Hanks, R. H. Pittman, and W. F. Pruitt preaching on that occasion "because they are not sound.""
Concerning the debate over the killing of McKinley we have already analyzed that issue in previous chapters. Again, how could the Conditionalist faction deny that McKinley could not have been murdered did the Lord not allow it? It was certainly unprofitable, however, for the Absoluter faction to find it necessary to go around preaching that God willed the murder of Mckinley, as though it was no sin. It was certainly against the preceptive will of God, though it was in accordance with God's permissive will.
The record continues:
"The absoluters hold that Adam was passive in disobedience or the fall; that man is as passive after regeneration as he was before; that the association holds power over the churches and when a church joins an association she surrenders her sovereignty. We the Baptists with Elder Wilson do not believe that Adam was predestinated to break the law God gave him, but that he was responsible for his fall. Now, fallen man is passive in regeneration, but active after regeneration. God put man in the garden to dress and keep it; not for the purpose of violating the law and falling. Adam was not forced to disobey; he sinned willfully." (Statement by Elder F. F. Eggleston)
The question of the passivity or activity of men has been long debated. All this discussion involves the question of the "freedom of the will." Is the will free? In what way? To what degree? How does freedom relate to responsibility and guilt? From what does Christ and the truth set free in salvation? and in sanctification and perseverance?
The psychology of the will is not only debated theologically but philosophically. Determinism has its theological context and its scientific context. Generally, in the debates on this topic, determinism is often set in opposition to the freedom of the will. To what extent is the will determined? Are there causes to choice? Can choice and behavior be predicted? If it can be predicted, is it not because one knows that there are causes to choice? Are the causes of choice simple influence or determinative?
Can God predetermine the sanctification and perseverance of believers without predetermining every act of obedience? Are the terms passive and active sufficient to describe the salvation or perseverance experience? To describe and explain "obedience"?
How should disagreement over these questions affect church fellowship and cooperation?
These are questions which the Hardshells have not been able to handle well. Both factions erred in contending that the whole work of regeneration, including conversion and the new birth, was in some respects passive and in some respects active. This is what is clear in the London Confession. Both factions are not consistent on this topic. Most will affirm, as did their forefathers, that the will is acted upon in salvation, citing verses such as Psalm 110: 3 and Philippians 2: 13. The Conditionalist faction fails to appreciate the fact that the general obedience of Christians may be said to result from "constraint," as Paul said - "the love of Christ constrains us." (II Cor. 5: 14)
One verse that needs to be examined in the light of this controvesy is Galatians 5: 17, where Paul says:
"For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would."
On this verse Dr. Gill wrote:
"so that ye cannot do the good that ye would which may be understood both of evil things and of good things. The former seems to be chiefly the apostle's sense; since the whole of this text is a reason given why those who walk spiritually shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh, because they have a powerful governing principle in them, the Spirit, or grace; which though the flesh lusts against, and opposes itself unto, yet that also rises up against the flesh, and often hinders it from doing the works and lusts of it. There is in regenerate men a propensity and inclination to sin, a carnal I, that wills and desires sin, and wishes for an opportunity to do it, which when it offers, the flesh strongly solicits to it; but the Spirit, or the internal principle of grace, opposes the motion; and like another Joseph says, how can I commit this great wickedness and sin against a God of so much love and grace? it is a voice behind and even in a believer, which, when he is tempted to turn to the right hand or the left, says, this is the way, walk in it, and will not suffer him to go into crooked paths with the workers of iniquity; and so sin cannot have the dominion over him, because he is under grace as a reigning principle; and the old man cannot do the evil things he would, being under the restraints of mighty grace. This is the apostle's principal sense, and best suits with his reasoning in the context; but inasmuch as the lusting and opposition of these two principles are mutual and reciprocal, the other sense may also be taken in; as that oftentimes, by reason of the prevalence of corrupt nature, and power of indwelling sin, a regenerate man does the evil he would not, and cannot do the good he would; for he would always do good and nothing else, and even as the angels do it in heaven; but he cannot, because of this opposite principle, the flesh."
These words of Gill should have been the bond of union between Conditionalists and Absoluters as respects sin and its relation to the believer's life. A good book on this topic was written by John Owen titled "Indwelling Sin In Believers."
God does not have to directly cause of every act of obedience in a believer. It is sufficient that he has planted the principle of grace in the soul of a believer, which principle will surely cause the believer to win the war with sin and the flesh, though sometimes losing particular battles and skirmishes. Just as a believer may say, when he disobeys, "Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me" (Rom. 7: 17), so he may so when he obeys, "yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me." (I Cor. 15: 10)
Believers blame themselves for their sins but they give credit to God for their righteousnesses. Should such a proposition not be enough to prevent division between Conditionalists and Absoluters?
The record continues:
"Brother W. L. Parker stated as follows:-"Brother Moderator and Brethren: I feel weak and insufficient to the task of testifying in so grave and great a cause but will state the facts as I see them, for the consideration and benefit of God's people everywhere. This trouble which is so great a menace to our people first appeared, according to the best historical account that I have of it, in the bounds of the Sand Lick Association on May 16, 1896, and the issue was the doctrine of "the absolute predestination of all things” which caused a division in several churches and associations in that country. This doctrine gradually crept eastward until the year 1915 when it was introduced in the Pig River Association by Elders W. I. Carnell from the state of Ohio and J. C. Hurst of Roanoke, Va. and it was tolerated and advocated by others. But it was opposed by Elders. J. R. Wilson and A. B. Philpot, the much loved and efficient assistant moderator of that old and honored association. Elder J. R. Wilson was, on that occasion, sent as a messenger to represent the Mayo Association, and he was received and seated, but later he was called in question and unseated because of his opposition to Elders W. I. Carnell and J. C. Hurst on their doctrine of the absolute predestination of all things and the non-resurrection of the body."
"This trouble which is so great a menace to our people." And, what a needless trouble it was and is!
The record continues:
"Eld. Ben Martin said at Friendship Church while preaching, 'that just before we got to the depot this morning, the train blew for the station and my father said, 'Ben we just as well turn around, we are too late,' and I said, come on, if the Lord has predestinated for us to go to Friendship, He will hold the train some way. We got to the depot several minutes before the train. The Lord had caused a strong wind to blow a telegraph pole across the track and delayed the train. I believe that God predestinated before the foundation of the world that the wind should blow that telegraph pole down.' I replied that, 'I did not believe that God would injure any company, corporation or individual just to accommodate a man who was too lazy to get up soon enough to catch a train.' Will you please sign my name to the 'Hassell Peace Proposition' that was unanimously endorsed at the Council Meeting?" (Bassett, Va. J. T. Jackson)
I have not been able to find the "Hassell Peace Proposition" but I am sure it would be worth reviewing.
The debate between the Conditionalist and Absoluter about the telegraph pole demonstrates how one's views on the subject of divine providence affect one's worldview, and how one interprets events.
In an article titled "Background and Observations of the Danville Document," Elder Joseph R. Holder wrote some comments on the division resulting in Danville. See
http://primitivebaptist.info/mambo//content/view/1398/36/
Holder wrote:
"There can be no doubt that the problems in the Primitive Baptist Church at Danville, Virginia in 1923 gave our critics ample fuel for criticism. Notwithstanding this sad event, the document here reviewed offers a wealth of information from a wide array of respected and reasonable Primitive Baptists throughout the eastern and southern states of that time. This document further reveals a number of major theological issues that surrounded the primary doctrine of contention, the extreme view of predestination referred to typically at the time and in this document as “the predestination of all things.”"
The reader can see why I have chosen to include much evidence from the Danville trial in this series. Elder Holder acknowledges the watershed nature of this event.
Holder continues:
"The problem in the Danville, Virginia church was not an isolated problem. Advocates of absolute predestination and the “one salvation theory” as it is termed in the Danville document used this issue to spread their beliefs across the whole eastern seaboard of this country. They used the Danville problem to further division among Primitive Baptists, claiming that the problem was with a preacher’s conduct, but, as the facts were investigated and reported in this document, the real problem was doctrine, specifically the “new doctrine” (so termed by advocates of absolute predestination at the time) had to do with absolute predestination of all things and the “one salvation theory,” the idea that God causatively predestinated our faith and obedience as fully as he predestinated our final destiny in glory. Advocates of absolute predestination rejected both multiple aspects of salvation, eternal and temporal, and they fiercely rejected that our temporal deliverances, or blessings in obedience, are conditional on us in any way."
The Conditionalist faction were apostates from the Old Baptist faith in denying that "faith and obedience" were not part of the salvation that God had chosen the elect to obtain. The apostle Paul did not separate salvation from belief of the truth. He wrote that "God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth." (II Thess. 2: 13) One can also see how both sides failed to see how salvation is both conditional and unconditional, as I shall show in an upcoming series. The error of both sides consisted in their denying that faith was a requirement for being eternally saved.
Holder continues:
"Advocates of only one salvation, or as it was described in the Danville document the “one salvation theory,” often strongly affirm their belief that this view is the historical view of Baptists, as well as the correct Biblical interpretation."
Of course, the Absoluter side was correct to deny that the Old Baptists ever believed in the novel view of "time salvation."
No comments:
Post a Comment