The following is from the book "Life and Travels of William Conrad," and was written in the year 1875. It has much information about the "eternal children doctrine," and which is of great value in knowing the history of this heresy among the Hardshells. It was written later in his life and recorded the errors in Eld. Thos. P. Dudley's "Circular on the Christian Warfare" wherein Dudley sought to defend the view of "eternal vital union." Elder Conrad was a Hardshell. He preached for old Ray's Fork church in Kentucky, a church I myself visited more than once and where I also preached. One of my old fathers in the ministry, Elder Rice Bolender, pastored this church in the 70's.
First, let me begin with this statement of Conrad's relative to unity in Baptist doctrine in ages past.
"Now, in the present age of the church it is like as in ages past, that a great diversity of opinion exists in regard to doctrine;" (How can Hardshells, out of one side of their mouths, say that the Baptists were all one in doctrine in the 1700's (and early 1800's) and then make such statements out of the other side of their mouths?) "and among other items the doctrine of union has become a source of strife and sometimes of angry contentions, and it is mostly because brethren do not give words their proper bearing and take into consideration that with which it stands associated." (we might put this statement into a future chapter on "Hardshell Hermenuetics") "When it is rightly explained it will readily appear there is no sufficient ground to become alienated, especially in church relations. It is certainly a matter of great imbecility for brethren to create dissentions in the church about the application of a mere term;" (Amen to that! The Hardshells are infamous for this! They give to terms, relative to the new birth, strange and unsound definitions!) "for it is contended that the term actual must always be associated with eternal union.
Much confusion has and always will arise about unqualified assertions in reference to actual eternal union; we must therefore absolutely explain what we mean by the term, for the words are not set down in the Bible in an abstract form; and to use the term in an unqualified sense is to confound the eternal infinite existence of God with finite and created beings. It is certainly a sober and acknowledged truth that nothing existed before it was created unless there was something co-evil and co-eternal with God, and if that; something did so exist, we have no evidence in the Bible of its actual union with God; but yet, if it did so exist, then it embodies some of the highest and brightest traits of the divine Jehovah, and of course there would be more than one eternal being. This assumption may do heathens and deists, but a child of God will never acknowledge it," (I seriously doubt that modern Hardshells will say that all who believe in this are lost, for they have many idol worshiping heathens born again, by their heresy, who worship a false God and believe false teachings about him) "for the apostle says: "To us there is but one God-he the only wise God, and God our Saviour." (But, this verse cannot be used to talk about what is true of all the "born again," by Hardshell definition of what constitutes the experience of "regeneration," for they learn no doctrine in it!) "This item has been a matter of faith in every age, from the days of Enoch with the holy seers of Israel, the Church in the Jewish dispensation in the apostolic age-even up to the year 1850 they have never deviated nor can they falter in this all-important point. Men, angels, nor demons can not show from the Revelations any other actual eternal being; two seedism or any other extraism" (as "Hyper-Calvinism"?) "to the contrary notwithstanding.
Now, in the investigation of truth we must always keep this point in our minds that the great Jehovah is the only actual self-existent being, and that other beings in heaven, earth, or hell, are created and of course derivative, and therefore not actual eternal beings. It seems superfluous to labor this topic, for surely no Christian can for a moment indulge the thought that there is any other actual eternal being; but should a contrary position be assumed, then its advocates would have to prove that-first, there is more than one actual eternal being; and, second, that these actual eternal beings were united...You may very easily see how God could give them grace, etc., on the principle of a surety, and not on the principle of an actual eternal union."
"Now, to make this matter more plain we will introduce a scriptural example: Andronicus, Junia, and Paul were all elected in Christ at one and the same time; were all chosen in Christ before the world began, and there was no space of time between the gift of these by the Father to the son, and yet in the reception and actual enjoyment of them there was a difference of time; and hence, Paul says: "Andronicus and Junia were in Christ before me; were actually born of God before me.""
"We will venture to remark that there is not a Christian in all the universe but was shown by the spirit of grace in due time that he was in league with Satan, and that his soul and body was sunk under the destruction of sin, and so far from being actually united to Christ. He saw under the light of grace that he was condemned by the very law he expected justification by, and therefore, in great anguish of heart with a deep-felt sensibility cries: "O Lord undertake thou for me." The spirit of life awakened this person from the sleep of death, he sees his danger, bewails his case as a sinner united to destruction and no hope of a union according to law. When he fully realizes his entire helplessness, this same spirit of grace which brought him to see himself thus justly condemned shows him that Jesus bore his sins in his own body on the tree of the cross, and infuses in him a faith and hope that Jesus died for his sins, and under the light of this grace he can understand how his sins was imputed or placed to the account of Christ, and for which Christ died. On the other hand he can, with the same light see how he can be justified and actually united and eternally saved by the imputation of Christ's righteousness unto him; he now understands but never before how Christ bore him and carried him all the days of old; and on this point every Christian in the world stands and rejoices in hope of the glory of God."
The last paragraph above cries out for some observations to be made. First, the writer is arguing against the idea that we were actually children of God before we were "born again" and argues that in being "born again" one is taught (in conviction) that he is not a child of God, not saved, not born again, and the argument is that the Holy Spirit could not witness these things to them in the new birth if they were not true. Wonderful! Recall then my argument earlier in this book where I asked the question whether the Holy Spirit, when convicting a sinner that he is condemned, was telling a truth. In other words, if by Hardshell views, this person being convicted is already born again, then the Holy Spirit would be telling them they are lost when they are really saved! I showed how Elder Sarrels saw this difficulty and stated that the Holy Spirit is not convicting of actual sin, but hypothetical sin!
Second, the way Elder Conrad described the "new birth" experience makes it foreign to modern Hardshell views which do not allow for the "regenerated" soul to "learn" anything, all "learning" coming after "regeneration"! To them the "new birth" experience is all on the "sub-conscious level"!
Elder Conrad continues:
"The foregoing sentiments entirely harmonize with our circular of 1847, which says: "Our broad principles are salvation from first to last through Christ alone, which necessarily embraces election, effectual calling, final perseverance," etc.; this covers the entire ground. And God viewed the sinner justified in Christ virtually but not actually. Union we consider eternally virtual but not actual; in the second place actual union arises from the sufferings and death of Christ; then there is a vital or actual union between Christ and these souls and a declarative and actual justification; but so far as time is concerned it requires all this in time, etc. we pass. The actual existence of anything excludes the idea of predestination...God can give them grace in Christ before they had an actual being, union, or existence, and thus bear them and carry them all the days of old."
This is of course the Baptist view relative to this new innovation in doctrine.
Elder Conrad continues:
"David, the prophet of God, in reviewing and discanting on the works of creation at large, as bespeaking the power of God, had also a prophetic view of the Church of God in Jesus, and says: "Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being imperfect, and in thy book were all my members written, which in continuance were fashioned when as yet there was none of them...figurative language designed to show the ultimate formation or visibility of the Church of Christ as forever existing in the eternal mind when as yet there was none of them."
Again he continues:
"We think no Christian will dispute this point, but if they should, then the next step is to enter the wild chimerical field of the ancient heathen philosophers who maintained, 4,000 years ago, that there was two self-existent eternal spirits-one said to be good, and the other said to be evil, and that each governs its own dominions and subject. Two-seedism rightly explained approximates this...But, if there be eternal souls there may exist an actual eternal union, but unless there be souls in actual eternal existence, there can not be an actual or vital eternal union; for to say that a thing is actually united when it does not exist is talking at random and outside of the Bible, and to say that a soul or sinner is actually united when that soul or sinner does not exist is preposterous to an extreme. There must be an actual existence of the person before there can be an actual union between them.
Again, if there is (sic) actual beings in eternal existence, a capital vein of divine revelation is destroyed, which vein is that God is the only eternal self-existent being, for the former system multiplies eternal beings, ad infinitum.
And further, it destroys those Scriptures that speaks of being created in Christ, begotten, born, etc." (Amen to that! The new birth becomes a bunch of nothing in Parker's, Beebe's and Dudley's novel idea of eternal children). Creation hath a beginning, whether the thing be one year or twenty millions old, otherwise it is uncreated and eternal. There is also a begetting and being born, but our being born does not give us life; we are born because we have life; but there is a begetting, and previous to this begetting there is no vital or actual existence; but there is eternal decreed, purposed or treasured in Christ before it is given, and in due time we are said to receive it according to the election of grace; and therefore we are said to be the Temple of God, which is holy, which temple ye are."
I must pause and observe here that though Elder Conrad objects to the views of Parker, Beebe, Dudley, and others, relative to the "eternal seed," he does share the view of Beebe wherein he breaks down the new birth into separate aspects, the initial begetting (conception, when the sperm and egg unite), and gestation (the period between begetting and being delivered from the womb), and the final birth (deliverance) of the begotten child from the womb. I have addressed this idea before but only note how it was a common view among the first and second generation of Hardshells.
Elder Conrad continues:
"We have yet to learn where the topic of vital or actual eternal union was ever an item of faith set down in the confession of the Church of Christ. We have looked through every century from John the Baptist until the beginning of the present one, and we can not see any traces of it anywhere...Now, our commentators and ecclesiastic historians have been much at fault if the point of vital or actual eternal union was ever an item of faith for not setting it down. But the whole tenor of the ecclesiasticals and commentators go to demonstrate and make plain the position we assume. Indeed we do but follow in the old beaten paths of our fathers for near 1800 years."
Yes, that may be true relative to the novel idea of eternal vital union, but can he say the same relative to the Hardshell views on the new birth, what it is, how it is connected with conversion and discipleship, and how it involves coming to know the truth of the gospel?
He continues:
"There have been, however, of late, a few writers in England and America who have played off their talents and bent all their energies on this point. But, although 1800 years have rolled by, and every point of doctrine has been contested, disputed, and strongly controverted, yet this point seems not to have been thought of until recently."
He then writes:
"Now, the different sentiments on this point may be classed thus, and we stand on one or the other:
1st. There is a vital, actual eternal union; not virtual, treasured, or purposed in Christ before the world began, but a real, actual eternal union, and of course those who are thus united are in actual eternal existence, and are as old as eternity, and a transplantation is substituted in the state of regeneration, and that-the infusion of a new eternal creature does not change the person in soul or spirit; does not illuminate, make rejoice, make hope, make believe in Christ to the saving of the soul; does not produce faith, hope, nor charity, but its production is a war between itself and the old man, soul and spirit; and that Jesus Christ died and arose again for the purpose of resurrecting this body and soul, which has never been renewed in the spirit of the mind nor tasted of the grace of God, a vital or actual eternal union, and a new eternal creature are collateral or equal terms; they both stand or fall together.
This position is outside of the bible, and therefore cannot be admitted."
The above should be enough to show the reader how the strange views of the Hardshells relative to the new birth, eventually ended up evolving into a belief that the "new birth" or "regeneration" did not produce any change in a person, nor any knowledge of truth, nor any faith in God or his Son Jesus Christ. It does not, as he said, produce any hope or love, in the Christian sense, in the Hardshell "regenerated" soul!
"3rd and lastly. That union is one of the graces of spirit, one of the covenanted blessings treasured Christ before the world began, according to foreseen persons, which foreknowledge and election gave us a representative existence, which existence was in the eternal mind and purpose of Jehovah; but just as complete as though all these things had an actual eternal existence in us, for God speaks of and calleth those things which be not as though they were. And the course of these blessings result in their being conferred, given, made known to the heirs of grace, and they, the elect, are said to receive them, and of course they could not be said to be forever in actual possession of them.
Union then is only one of the links in the great chain of doctrine fastened to the throne of God by eternal love, and all the graces of salvation have their existence in the eternal Lord, and are revealed to the elect upon earth."
Again, please note how the farther back one goes in reading the view of Hardshells on the "new birth," the more they describe the experience under terms of "conversion." The later you get away from the Hardshell founding fathers the less "regeneration" connects with the elements of "conversion."
He continues:
"That part of my history which relates to doctrines and heresies that are and have been troubling God's dear circumcised children in these last days-these days of darkness and gloom that hath overtaken the Zion of our God near the close of this nineteenth century, with the great departures in life and in practice from the old landmarks, of which we have made mention in the above; that which did not come under our own personal observation as eye witnesses. We have given and have in our possession the printed documents to which we referred, as well as those documents, of which we have copied a part of what we have written."
And again:
"And lastly, that I am now among the oldest in profession that claims to be an Old School Baptist in our part of Kentucky, and feeling deeply impressed in mind from what I have seen and observed for over twenty years of the various and repeated efforts being made to introduce false doctrines or heresies among the Zion of our God during that long period of time."
And again:
"And, as above, having lived near fifty-five years an unworthy member among them, that these, these considerations connected with my own personal knowledge, while thus to mingle and commingle among the people with whom we have been so long identified."
"These things have led us to use great plainness of speech in writing the above biography or short history; for while I have narrowly watched the approach of the innovations in their approach and introductions among the dear people of God and the windings and various coils of those and their adherents who were and are still using their remaining powers to spread as well as make fast those already within their coils, and to strive in the mean time in a covert course of procedure to hesitate to speak out in words as they teach and preach in that plain manner in which they have written out their new doctrines, or what we call heresies, as they well know that what they have written in pamphlet form or otherwise will, in this day of novelty, if read at all are soon cast aside, and no more noticed, and so die out of the minds of the reader. While, if they should preach everywhere they went, both at their regular meetings or otherwise in the same plain manner in which they have written out those new doctrines, as a matter of course, those heretical sentiments would be up before the people afresh from time to time, as often as those preachers preached, whether to great or small congregations (if they preached the same things wherever they went), which the faithful minister of God does as he knows that the Gospel of God is one."
"Now, to us it is made manifest from what we, ourselves know that the recent or late heresy in its original shape, as first published in 1849, by Elder Thomas P. Dudley, in his circular on the origin, nature, and effects of the Christian Warfare, will not again appear. When it was first published, Elder Dudley sent me three or four copies of his circular. I soon parted with all the copies but one, wishing all to read and see for themselves; that the worst of all heresies to me it was plain."
"The holding those circulars fast by the members of Licking Association, and not letting them out to those outside their connection, I am led to judge, tells to me plain that there is an object for withholding them, and it is now over twenty-five years since the circular on the warfare was published. Hence, we feel as above, that it will no more appear in its original shape as first published, unless copied and published by some one else besides its original writer. That we have and can see in subsequent documents and minutes of Licking the same sentiments in different shape or expressed by different words, and as before hinted, I am quite confident I know more about the introduction of above heresy as embraced in the circular on the warfare-so often named in this history, than any other now living except its author. And, besides my own personal knowledge I have in possession the printed minutes, circulars, and other printed documents, mostly from 1808, before Licking was organized."
"While as yet not separated from Elkhorn Association, and feeling a conviction that unless I made some record-history of said heresy as above named, it might not be known, certainly fifty years hence, how introduced and by whom.
And hence, the historians that may be writing up church history and showing of the strange doctrines and heresies that troubled the Zion of our God near the middle of the nineteenth century, (as Brother Ross and myself?) and still continues to be a matter or subject preached and taught in some of the many forms hitherto presented to the hearers.
As we are nearing the last quarter of the present century it would, as we think, be best to copy off and print with this, the circular on the warfare as first published.
Touching the heresy above alluded to, we can say in truth of it as Paul said of Alexander, the coppersmith, that the heresy done us, the Old Baptists in Kentucky and elsewhere, much evil. The Lord reward its author according to his works, of whom be thou aware also, for he hath greatly withstood our words."
WM CONRAD.
Near Williamstown, Grant Co. Ky.,
October 23, 1875.
http://www.upbuild.org/article97/page2.html
It is quite obvious that Elder Conrad was one of the best witnesses to call forth in a discussion of some of the novel ideas making their way into the ranks of the newly formed "Primitive Baptist Church" and how the views of the founders of Hardshellism, men like Parker and Beebe, led to the view that "regeneration" produced no change in the person "regenerated," a view that came to be known in other circles, while the controversy raged, as the Hollow Log view of this new birth experience, a view in stark contrast to the idea that the "whole man" was "born again" and "regenerated." In the next two chapters I will be discussing this further.
No comments:
Post a Comment