Hardshell J. H. Purifoy (1837-1908), in "God's Saving Power Made Manifest In The Everlasting Preservation of the Saints," wrote the following in his sub-section "The Power of God Unto Eternal Salvation."
"To my mind, everlasting preservation is a more thoroughly Scriptural expression than the 'final perseverance' of the saints. If our eternal salvation at last depends on our 'final perseverance,' what are we to persevere in? Are we to persevere in grace, or faithfulness to God, His cause and each other, or persevere in obedience to God?
I have failed in it so often myself, and have seen so much of it on every hand that I would like to see the expression 'final perseverance of the saints,' completely stricken out of our articles of faith, and instead say we believe in the EVERLASTING PRESERVATION of the saints, for our eternal salvation does depend on that, if we are what we profess to be."
See here
Elder Purefoy (M.D.) lived during the division of 1889-1892 over the "means question," when the Hardshells divided over the question of whether the gospel was a means in regeneration, or eternal salvation, and over whether faith in Christ was necessary to be eternally saved. Elders Pence and Burnam were leaders for the "means" side and Elder Purefoy, with others, were leaders on the "anti-means" side. The famous Mt. Carmel Church trial grew out of this division. Both sides testified in this trial, which is available now on the internet. Another issue that naturally arose from the debate about means was the question of "perseverance." The means side defended the old Baptist traditional belief regarding "perseverance," while the anti-means side rejected it, and confessed to believe only in "preservation."
In the book, "Biographical Sketches of Primitive or Old School Baptists Ministers," the following words are written about Elder Purefoy and his role in the division.
"When Elder E. H. Burnam began to advocate publicly the doctrine of regeneration through the written and preached word, followed by his pleas for toleration while at the same time pressing his Armenian (sic) practices, Elder Purefoy was one of the first to warn the Baptists of the Ketocton and Ebenezer Associations against these things and to publicly condemn this heresy." (pg. 221)
Purefoy said - "I would like to see the expression 'final perseverance of the saints,' completely stricken out of our articles of faith." And, in this he got what he wished. Hardshells today mostly reject a belief in "perseverance," and claim to believe only in "preservation."
Purefoy admits that the doctrine of the saints final perseverance is taught in the old articles of faith of the Hardshell churches. He cannot therefore legitimately claim to be "primitive" or "original" in denying the faith of his forefathers! Not only do the articles of faith of the oldest Hardshell churches aver belief in the "final perseverance of the saints," but so does the Philadelphia/London Confession aver it, and which is the confession historically accepted by Hardshells as an expression of their faith. Here is what the London Confession says in Chapter 17: Of The Perseverance of the Saints:
1. Those whom God hath accepted in the beloved, effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, and given the precious faith of his elect unto, can neither totally nor finally fall from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved, seeing the gifts and callings of God are without repentance, whence he still begets and nourisheth in them faith, repentance, love, joy, hope, and all the graces of the Spirit unto immortality; and though many storms and floods arise and beat against them, yet they shall never be able to take them off that foundation and rock which by faith they are fastened upon; notwithstanding, through unbelief and the temptations of Satan, the sensible sight of the light and love of God may for a time be clouded and obscured from them, yet he is still the same, and they shall be sure to be kept by the power of God unto salvation, where they shall enjoy their purchased possession, they being engraven upon the palm of his hands, and their names having been written in the book of life from all eternity.
(John 10:28, 29; Philippians 1:6; 2 Timothy 2:19; 1 John 2:19; Psalms 89:31, 32; 1 Corinthians 11:32; Malachi 3:6)
2. This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father, upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ and union with him, the oath of God, the abiding of his Spirit, and the seed of God within them, and the nature of the covenant of grace; from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof.
(Romans 8:30 Romans 9:11, 16; Romans 5:9, 10; John 14:19; Hebrews 6:17, 18; 1 John 3:9; Jeremiah 32:40)
3. And though they may, through the temptation of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins, and for a time continue therein, whereby they incur God's displeasure and grieve his Holy Spirit, come to have their graces and comforts impaired, have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded, hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves, yet shall they renew their repentance and be preserved through faith in Christ Jesus to the end.
(Matthew 26:70, 72, 74; Isaiah 64:5, 9; Ephesians 4:30; Psalms 51:10, 12; Psalms 32:3, 4; 2 Samuel 12:14; Luke 22:32, 61, 62)
These words will be referred to several times in this series as the present denial of this article, by the Hardshells, is examined. Clearly, however, the old Baptists who wrote the confession believed in both preservation and perseverance. By this standard, therefore, Hardshells are not the real primitive or old Baptists.
In the Mt. Carmel church trial, Elder Burnam was questioned as follows:
Q. Has there ever been any departure on the part of any considerable body of the membership of the church from the doctrine, which you have stated, from the deed of 1849, and as treated of in the books which you have cited, and if so, when and under what circumstances did that occur. Speak with especial reference to any such division in the Mount Carmel Church at Luray?
A. Since I was here there has been put forth the idea that a man could be saved, if regenerate, without faith. The faith of Mount Carmel Church, as the faith of all the Baptists of our connection, Old School Regular Baptists, has been by the grace of God through faith. There has been a departure from that in the putting forth of the idea that men could be saved without faith.
Q. By whom has that departure been made?
A. That was made by what we call the Anti-Means Baptists, in 1891, by Dr. Waters, editor of Zion’s Advocate.
Q. Now state if there was any further departure from the faith as laid down in the deed of 1849, especially with reference to the words “final perseverance of the saints to glory, etc.?”
A. This book---this same paper---Zion’s Advocate and Herald of the Truth, of the same date, June, 1891, contains this as one of its articles, on the second page of the cover, and numbered seven, seventh article: “The final preservation and eternal happiness of all the elect of God by grace.” Now the faith of the Old School Baptists or Regular Baptists, as they used to be called and are still called by us, was salvation by grace through faith, and the perseverance of the saints in grace to glory. The perseverance! The word perseverance instead of preservation. A clear distinction must be drawn between the two words. Preservation does not necessarily include faith, but perseverance could not exist without it. None persevere unto eternal life except through a God-given faith. Therefore, we hold that there has been a clear departure from the original faith on these two points that I have named. We hold to the ancient faith, just as it was, and expect to do so while life lasts, as the truth of God.
Q. You have drawn a distinction between perseverance and preservation?
A. I have.
Q. Please tell the commissioner whether or not it is your belief that God has predestined one to be saved, whether that one can by means of his own fall from grace?
A. He cannot.
Q. He cannot be lost?
A. He cannot be lost, because the means as well as the end has been provided for.
Q. Then he will be finally preserved?
A. He will finally be kept by the power of God through faith up to salvation.
Q. Won’t preserve be as good a word as perseverance?
A. It will not.
Q. He will be finally saved, will he not?
A. He will not be finally saved simply by preservation. He will be finally saved by perseverance through faith.
Q. What has his perseverance to do with it?
A. God imparts, Mr. Leedy, grace of faith to work out his course, to work out his salvation according as God has worked in him with his regenerating grace.
Q. After all, God does it all, doesn’t he?
A. Certainly, it is God working in us to will and to do according to his will and pleasure.
See here
From the foregoing testimony we can conclude that the change from believing in perseverance to denying it, is affirmed by both sides, to have occurred with the Hardshell anti-means side. Today's Hardshells represent the descendents of those anti-means Baptists who wanted to throw out what the old confessions taught about perseverance. Who then is "primitive" on this issue? Today's Hardshells, like Purefoy, deny the traditional confessional view of the old Baptists, and cannot legitimately claim therefore to be "primitive" on this point. Their claim to being "primitive" is farcical and a veritable falsehood. There is really no debate on this point. While the first Hardshells all professed allegiance to the London Confession and its statements on perseverance, their 20th century descendents do not.
The Fulton Convention of 1900 was an assembly of fifty-one leading Hardshell elders who representated the Hardshell position regarding their historic and traditional acceptance of the London Confession.
Wrote Hardshell elder, Mark Green, under the title "The Fulton Confession of Faith" :
"In the year 1900, with many trials afflicting Zion, as has always been the case, two meetings of Primitive Baptist ministers took place. The first was at Oakland City, Indiana, on September 27, involving fifteen ministers, including Elders James H. and John T. Oliphant. At this meeting a general address to Primitive Baptists was written, in which various subjects were discussed, and in which the London Confession was recommended to the denomination. Then in November, fifty-one ministers met at Fulton, Kentucky. They republished the Confession, adding some explanatory footnotes and a general address, and appended the Oakland City address." Green said that "the London Confession of Faith was approved by a unanimous vote of the meeting."
See here
The Fulton address said this about the London Confession:
"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."
Today's Hardshells, however, have departed even from this view, affirming that they do not recognize the London Confession as stating their faith, and that they do not recognize those churches who have endorsed it as being in the true "succession" of the "churches of Christ."
Hardshells are forced to take one of two positions relative to the Fulton Convention of 1900. They can agree with the Convention's affirmation of the London Confession, and agree that it has been historically the criterion for deciding who was orthodox and original, or they can reject the position of the Fulton Convention. Either choice, however, involves the Hardshells in "hot water."
If they agree with the Fulton brethren and accept the London Confession as an expression of the doctrinal views of the ancient Baptists of England, Wales, and America, then they will either have to 1) admit that, in many ways, they are not primitive or original, or 2) accept the twisted interpretation of the Fulton Convention as given in their infamous "footnotes." Most Hardshells today acknowledge that the "footnotes" distorted the actual words of the confession, and twisted those sections dealing with means and faith by rewriting them. In this they show themselves more honest than their Fulton forefathers.
It is very interesting, however, to observe how the Fulton Confession, though inserting "footnotes" in those sections dealing with predestination and effectual calling, left out adding any footnotes to the section of the confession dealing with "perseverance"!
In an article titled "Two Old and Honored Friends," see here, Elder Mark Green writes (emphasis mine):
"It is an easily documented fact that among uninspired writings, the London Confession of Faith and the works of John Gill have been held by Primitive Baptists in high regard and with great respect. We have claimed them as our own..." (foreword)
He also wrote:
"Probably no other works have been so frequently alluded to by our ministers in their writings concerning the agreement of Primitive Baptist faith and that of our forefathers...Included in the contents of this article are numerous quotes from a number of leading Primitive Baptist ministers over the years concerning their affection for the London Confession and the writings of that fierce opponent of Arminianism, Dr. Gill." (ibid)
He also wrote:
"It should be noted that Elders C. B. Hassell, Sylvester Hassell, J. S. Newman, and W. S. Craig in particular were well-known as experts in the history of our denomination. Others, including Elders J. Harvey Daily, S. N. Redford, R. H. Pittman, Jesse Cox, and Lee Hanks, published works in this field, and were serious students of the subject. Elder Lemuel Potter’s references to church history in his debates and lectures were so extensive that his knowledge in that field is unquestionable. When these men recommended these “two old friends” to their people, they knew whereof they spoke."
Elder Potter is cited as saying, in his debate with Elder Throgmorton, that "...the Philadelphia confession of faith is still a 'Hardshell' Baptist document..." He is further cited, from his work - "Treatise on Regeneration," as saying - "In our efforts to identify ourselves with the Old Baptists against the claims of the missionaries, we claim to be identical with these old English brethren in doctrine."
Green cites from the "History of the Primitive Baptist Church" by Elder J. Harvey Daily [1909], where Daily wrote:
"In 1643 the English Baptists drew up a “confession of faith,” which was afterwards revised and published in 1689, known as the “London Confession of Faith,” which contains all the doctrinal and practical features of all the former 'confessions of faith' but forth by the Baptists. It has ever been recognized as the nearest correct expression of faith of true Baptists every where, until the present time, that has ever been published in a like form."
Green also cites from "The Autobiography of Elder J. H. Oliphant" where Oliphant wrote:
"I served as moderator of the meeting (Fulton)...The meeting was made up, for the most part, of true Primitive Baptists."
Thus, we prove the following:
Today's so-called "Primitive Baptists" are not really primitive at all respecting their denial of the doctrine of the "perseverance" of the elect and called.
In the next chapter we will discuss how the novel change in doctrine concerning the nature of regeneration (new birth), by the Hardshells, forced them into a change regarding perseverance. Elder Burnam expressed that fact when he showed that the belief that "regeneration" excluded faith and repentance, evangelical graces, is what led to a denial of "perseverance," because perseverance requires such faith and repentance.
No comments:
Post a Comment