One might think this is not an important issue, but it becomes such in light of the argumentation and twisting of the words of the "Great Commission" done by the Hardshells (see previous chapter), who insist that the command to "go" was made to "the eleven" and that no one else is included. Further, such argumentation has further forced them to argue that what was said to the eleven apostles were said to them individually.
Did he say this to "the eleven" as a group or as individuals?
Obviously, "the eleven" did not interpret his words to mean that they must stay together as a group, and as a group travel into all the world.
History, both inspired and not, shows that no single apostle went into all the parts of the world. Yes, together, they did go into all the then known civilized world, the world of the Roman Empire, but this was fulfilled by one apostle going to one part of the world and another into another part.
It is also to be observed that Christ did not tell each of the eleven into which parts of the world each of them would personally go. He surely did lead them in their minds and in their deliberations about their fulfilling of the work, but he gave no such specific instructions in the general words to the group of eleven.
It is more than just probable that "the eleven" (at least) discussed among themselves how they might fulfill this command.
Certainly they had the later added instruction from the Lord, in Acts chapter one, just prior to his Ascension, "after forty days," wherein he gave them a more specific missionary plan for the fulfilling of the general command. He said to them -
"But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth." (Acts 1: 8 KJV)
I will discuss, in this series, whether the post-resurrection appearances to the disciples, were made strictly to the apostles, and whether the several commissions he gave for the spreading of the gospel were made solely to the small apostolic group of eleven, or whether they were made to several groups of disciples. But, for the present time, it will be noted, from the above passage, how the "witnesses" were the same in number with those who would receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit, on the Day of Pentecost, and be empowered to witness, and this was the entire "one hundred twenty" who were in the upper room with the apostles. As one reads the story of the Book of Acts, from Pentecost, it is obvious that those who "went out everywhere" to witness to the gospel were more than just the eleven apostles. So, the argument of the Hardshells that restricts the fulfilling of the "Great Commission" to only the eleven, is false. But, as I said, I will enlarge upon this later in this series.
"It was about this time that King Herod arrested some who belonged to the church, intending to persecute them. He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword. When he saw that this pleased the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also." (Acts 12: 1-3 NIV)
The apostle James was one of the original eleven who was told to "go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature." He did not personally do this. In the context of Acts 12, the gospel was just in its second and third stages, of having gone into Samaria and into Judea, but not yet "unto the uttermost parts of the earth."
Thus, if the Lord only spoke to the eleven apostles as individuals, then it could only be "fulfilled" by them as individuals, and not collectively as a group, and thus the death of James presents a serious problem for the Hardshell paradigm on the "Great Commission." If the Hardshells argue that the "Great Commission" is fulfilled, then they must admit that it was fulfilled without each one of them individually doing exactly as he said.
So, two reasons have been given to show that the "Great Commission" was given to "the eleven" (and others, as I shall show) as a group, and not as strictly individuals.
First, each did not "go" into all the parts of the world! James did not even go into any "uttermost part."
Secondly, history confirms scripture in showing that no single apostle went personally into all the parts of the world.
Other arguments also show that the "Great Commission" was given to the eleven and to others as well, and all as a group, and these will be enlarged upon in this series, as I said, howbeit not in this chapter. For now let me simply state, in brief, those other arguments.
Third, the "signs" that were to follow "those who believe," and the apostles who were admittedly under the "Great Commission," were said to belong to them as a class of people, or as a group. But, more on this in this series.
Fourth, Matthias and Paul, and many others, clearly were under this same "Great Commission," as the Book of Acts especially evidences.
As one looks at a sampling of what has been written by the Hardshells on the topic of the "Great Commission," since the days of Beebe and the "Black Rock Address," it will be obvious that the "doctrinal argumentation" has had one clear practical objective, although it is not always honestly acknowledged by many Hardshell apologists, and that is to give a "defense" and "apologetic" against the charge of being against "spreading the gospel," and of being against "preaching the gospel to every creature," and against "missions" and "missionaries," and against nearly every method of telling others about Jesus.
It is as if the Hardshell denomination has been "on trial" ever since they declared non-fellowship for all Baptists who believed they were under obligation to "preach and teach the gospel to every creature." It is as if they have been trying to come up with the "best case" in the court of Christian public opinion, for why they do not do as Jesus commanded in the "Great Commission."
It is as I said in the previous chapter - "what precisely is it in the "Great Commission" that is no longer something Christians ought to be doing?" Obviously too, as has been shown, and will be more fully shown in the rest of the chapters in this series, after two hundreds of years of trying, as "doctors of the law (scripture)" trying to figure out the "best defense" for why they do not believe in obeying the commandments of Christ as given in the Great Commission, their "excuses" and "cases for non-compliance" are very weak indeed!
So, in the remainder of this chapter I will be citing some lengthy interrogations of the attorneys from the famous "Trial of Mt. Carmel Old School Baptist Church" of Luray, Virginia. The case was tried in Luray, Virginia, 1909. According to the records of the court, the following were involved as either complainants or as defendants.
WITNESSES FOR COMPLAINANTS - Elder E. H. Burnam, Elder John Huff, Elder J. B. McInturff, Elder Wm. Huff, Elder W. T. Pence, Elder J. L. Paris, W. F. Keyser, Herbert Barbee, Mrs. May S. Thompson, Mrs. Laura C. Perry.
WITNESSES FOR DEFENDANTS - Elder T. S. Dalton, Elder C. H. Waters, Elder R. H. Pittman, Elder J. R. Daily, J. W. Grove, J. B. Compton, I. C. Bumgardner, Mrs. J. K. Booten, John H. Booten, Mrs. Mary A. Miller, M. V. Gander, Rev. H. M. Strickler, Dr. J. F. Long, E. T. Brumback, D. H. Gander, E. L. Yates, J. B. Ruffner, W. E. Grayson, T. R. Campbell, A. M. Hite, David Spitler,C. J. Mauck, John W. Long, B. F. Coffman, Isaac Spitler, J. B. Aleshire, F. H. Tharp, F. W. Weaver, Milton Moyer, Martin Strickler, V. H. Ford.
THE DECISION - The Judge’s decision was in favor of the Defendants. An appeal was contemplated, and notice of same entered, but the case was never taken to a higher court.
I will be citing quite a bit from this trial, as it is a famous one, and occurring at a critical time in the history of the Primitive Baptist denomination, and one in which a number of leading figures in the Hardshell church took a part. I wish to cite from several Hardshells, both elders and laymen, to show just how opposed they are to obeying the command to go into all the world and preach to every creature.
I will begin with some excerpts from the questioning of Elder R. H. Pittman, who's credentials are widely recognized and accepted among the Hardshells.
Q. You preach the gospel, don’t you?
A. I try to.
Is this not amazing? Is it not the "pretended humility" that I have mentioned in earlier chapters as characteristic of this cult? I "try" to preach the gospel? Does he not know whether he does or not?
I think he has the idea that the question involves him judging himself on whether or not he is called or gifted to preach, and shows that he has this idea that no one can tell another person about the gospel except ordained ministers of the gospel and then only when they are blessed with "preaching grace."
Q. You believe that anybody can preach the gospel, don’t you, ordained or not ordained?
A. I don’t believe that it is the duty of all men to preach the gospel.
Can you believe that a man who claims to be a believer of the Bible and a minister of the gospel, and a Baptist, can say such things? I am sure that nearly everyone outside of this cult will find Elder Pittman's remarks truly amazing and bewildering.
Q. But the right, isn’t it?
A. No; I believe it is the duty of some men to preach the gospel.
This all seems such a contradiction to the historic plea of the Hardshells who have so regularly and loudly decried a "professional clergy," and "priestcraft"! More irony! No one can preach or tell the simple gospel story to another but an ordained clergy? Then, how in the name of reason, can unordained Christian parents teach the gospel to their children? To get the "gospel" one must go to an ordained Hardshell preacher! No other one can preach it to you!
Q. Is there any reason then why good women should not preach the gospel to little children, gathered together for that purpose, on the Sabbath or any other day?A. The Apostle says, “I suffer not a woman to teach or to usurp authority.”
Q. Then you draw the line---
A. And therefore we today in our churches take the position of the Apostle, and do not suffer women to become teachers in spiritual things.
Q. You are drawing the line then between male and female teachers of Sunday Schools, is that what you mean?
A. Teaching entirely and altogether.
This is unbelievable! A Christian woman cannot teach anyone anything about spiritual truths! But, I will enlarge upon this later in this series.
Q. Suppose the case of a child without a parent---and there are many of them---who have no means of knowing the gospel, do you think it would be a sin, or an antagonism to the Calvinistic doctrine of the Baptist Church for good women to teach such bereft children?
A. I think, sir, in the days of the Apostles, there were perhaps, according to the population, as many children without parents as there are today, and if the Lord and His Apostles had thought it necessary for a Sabbath School, or any other school of that kind, to be established in the church, they would have established it.
Q. Do you think that the teaching of a Sabbath School on Sunday or any other day to children by good men the doctrine of the Baptist Church as laid down in the deed of 1849, would be contrary to that doctrine?
A. It would be contrary to the New Testament.
These Hardshells are not going to preach the gospel except under the most rigid rules! All these citations just prove how much opposed they are to preaching the gospel to every creature!
Q. Well, sir, missionaries that go to preach the gospel, do you know who God sends and who he does not send?
A. No; I don’t know.
Again, it is unbelievable that a man who professes to be a preacher of the gospel does not even know how to recognize one!
Q. How can you judge then between a man who is sent by God and one who is not sent by God?A. I judge this way, in my own mind, one who is sent by God is willing to trust God in his going and don’t wait to go until the money is raised by his friends here to pay his way.
That is Pittman's and the Hardshell's rule for judging whether a man is called to preach the gospel, and who's heart is burdened to take it to a destitute people? But, again I will enlarge upon this later in this series.
Q. How do you know any of them wait until the money is raised by his friends?
A. I think the evidence I have submitted here today by Fuller brings out the fact that Carey waited until he got a promise from those who were at home, not to let the rope go while they lived.
I will also be enlarging upon this point in this series. This is just a bunch of nonsense. If the Hardshells lived up to their own standards, one might take them seriously, but the sad fact is, very few of them have had the kind of faith to pick up and go "without money" and without a paid ticket!
Q. Y ou have spoken of Mr. Carey: How many hundred thousands of men are there who have been for many years and are now preaching the gospel in foreign parts and in this land and in these mountains here?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Do you believe that those men, Mr. Pittman, would leave their homes and sacrifice all their comforts and their ambitions and their expectations of worldly happiness and go and preach the gospel in foreign parts and in the mountains of this country, unless they believed they were called of God to do so?
A. I am free to say that I believe many of them are God’s servants. At the same time I desire to say that I believe they are in error, and instead of showing faith in God, they show lack of faith in him, from the very fact that people who believe in no God and who believe in no doctrine will go to the same extremes of personal trials and sacrifices for worldly attainments and honors. For instance, how many thousand people have lost their lives in trying to reach the North Pole.
Yes, but those people who risk all to go to the North Pole did not go naked and without food, clothes, gear of all kinds, and provisions! Oh the hypocrisy here in Pittman's testimony! When one of his preaching brothers leaves home to go to another location to preach, and without a promise of help from his brothers at home, then he is "trusting in the Lord," and showing that he is truly called to preach, but when a Missionary does far much more in the way of sacrifice, to take the gospel to a place further away, and to a place where Christ is not known, then he does it selfishly and with no better motives than explorers!
Q. Now tell me, sir, which it is you think is a denial of, and inconsistent with, the doctrine of the deed of 1849, the persons going to preach the gospel or the contribution of money to send them there, which?
A. As I have before stated, believing that God sends his people to preach his truth, he is their guide, has promised to be with them even to the end of the world, that they manifest faith in him in going whether the money is forthcoming or not, and that they show forth a lack of faith in him in not going without the money is produced before they leave.
Q. Well, I will ask you this, as to whether the instruction of children in the Bible outside of a church building is incompatible with the deed of 1849?
A. In organized Sunday schools.
Q. In Monday schools or Tuesday schools?
A. And Sunday schools?
Q. Leave out Sunday schools. On Monday and Tuesday?
A. Anybody have such a school as that?
Q. I ask you that question?
A. I don’t know. Organize some and I will give you my views.
Q. You don’t know whether the instruction of children on Monday in the Bible in classes in incompatible with the deed or not; do you?
A. I would say this, that I understand and believe that catechetical instruction in Sunday schools would be incompatible with the deed, from the fact that I believe that those people who worshipped in Mount Carmel church for forty years after the deed was written were the best construers of the meaning of that doctrine.
Q. Well, now then; you object to the word Sunday school don’t you---isn’t that your main objection to these classes, the word Sunday school?
A. I object to Sunday schools; and I have reason to object to what I personally know has been taught in Sunday schools, from personal attendance upon Sunday schools.
Q. Now I will ask you this question: Can you conceive in your mind of a Sunday school conducted on right principles?
A. I could not, taking the New Testament as a basis of my doctrine and practices.
These people are simply not going to teach and preach the gospel except in their singular straight-laced manner! They are going to oppose all teaching of the bible in classes on Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, etc.!
Q. Now I want to read you from Zion’s Advocate, published in 1877, an editorial written at the time Elder John Clark was editor, on the first page, August 1, 1877. Elder John Clark says there, in this editorial :
“As to a ‘Sunday School,’ there can be no reasonable objection to it on account of the day. One man esteemeth one day above another, and another esteemeth every day alike, and the difference was a matter of no vital importance. With us, the objection is not to the day, or to the school for children, but to what is taught in the Sunday Schools of this day and generation.”
Do your views now coincide with Elder John Clark who you dote on as being a follower of him. Do your views coincide with him on that point?
A. Partly.
Q. In what respect do they not?
A. I have just told you in regard to the teaching, I agree with him about what is taught in the Sunday schools.
Q. You don’t believe in Sunday schools at all, under any consideration, do you?
A. I told you that that was one objection which Elder Clark objects to.
Q. I want to ask you---
A. If Elder John Clark meant there that he advocated the establishment of Sunday schools, I cannot understand why he didn’t establish them in his own churches.
Q. Then you don’t believe with Elder Clark in that view?
A. Not entirely, if that is what he believes.
Q. Well, Mr. Pittman, you don’t believe in Sunday schools at all do you?
A. Not as they are organized, and taught and practiced at the present time among the people whom I have had opportunity to mingle with and that have Sunday schools.
Q. Do you believe in a Sunday school taught as you would teach one yourself?
A. I think, sir, as the Sunday school was first organized by Robert Raikes and the purpose for which it was organized, as he states himself, to teach ignorant children their letters and how to read---
Q. How to read the Bible?
A. How to read the Bible as well as other books, and other books as well as the Bible---that there was no one in the Baptist denomination at that time objected to them on that ground, but when they became seemingly engines of priest craft, each denomination vying with the other to bring children under their influence and church government, and further, teaching doctrines that seem to be Arminianism in opposition to Calvinism, I think the Baptists, a great portion of them, objected to the Sunday schools from then on, and have always done so.
Q. Now Mr. Pittman, I will ask you one more question on this. Do you think that the article here as written by Elder Clark, the portion I have quoted, is incompatible with the doctrine as laid down in the deed of 1849?
A. I would say so---if he intends there to say that he would advocate organizing Sunday schools among the Baptist churches, I would say it is incompatible with the doctrine of that deed.
Q. Mount Carmel has no prayer meeting, has she?
A. I don’t think what you might call a regular prayer meeting.
Q. Would you undertake to say they don’t believe in prayer meetings?
A. No, indeed. We have been discussing frequently the possibility of having prayer meetings, not only at the church but at our own homes, from one time to another.
Q. I am glad to see you coming our way?
A. No; it isn’t your way. We were there before you came.
Q. Then if your church here believes in prayer meetings and does not have them, isn’t it just as reasonable to believe that Elder Clark believed in Sunday schools, and yet didn’t have them in his church?
A. No; I don’t think that’s reasonable, , from the fact that Sunday schools had been non-fellowshipped by the Old School Baptists, as plainly brought out in the evidence, in the Black Rock convention, which Elder John Clark stood upon.
Anyone with one eye can see that the attorney here had Elder Pittman in the "hot seat" on the question of his "historical example" argumentation. One can believe in something and yet not practice it!
Elder Pittman thinks what the attorney says is "not reasonable," but it clearly is so. Many Hardshell churches do not regularly practice "prayer meetings," but they are not opposed to them! So, Elder Clark also was not opposed to Sunday Schools, though he did not practice them. But more on this in chapters dealing with Sunday Schools, bible classes, and the "Black Rock Address."
Q. Do you believe in Bible classes in Old School Baptist churches?
A. I have never attended what you might call a Bible class, perhaps.
Q. Mr. Pittman, you are a Missionary Baptist of some sort, aren’t you?
A. Well, suppose you state the sort.
Q. On Bible plans?
A. I think, sir, that I advocate preaching the gospel for the purposes laid down in the Bible.
Now Elder Pittman, do you endorse the portion of the article that I have just read?
A. I understand the reference there is to what was taught those benighted heathen, taught to read, that they might read the Bible. I think that is all right, if it is properly conducted, according to the plans of the New Testament; whether that was done, I don’t know. Elder Dalton knew the circumstances better than I, and I would not say that I fully endorse any position unless I was competent to understand the circumstances.
"If properly conducted"? He really does not believe you can properly conduct a bible class! He really believes you cannot properly teach the bible in a class! How do I know that? One, from his previous answers. Second, from the fact that he and the Hardshells have never shown the Christian world how to do it "properly" and "on the plan of the bible"! Truly, the "legs of the lame are not equal" here!
Q. Now if I understand you, then you are a missionary Baptist, if missions are conducted in a proper manner; is that right?
A. I would say this, that our position---and when I say our position, I mean the position of the Old School Baptists, so far as I am able to understand, and especially the people with whom I am identified---take a view of the missionary question something like this: When Christ in the commission, so-called commission, says “Go,” we believe in going; and when He says “preach,” we believe in preaching; and when He says the gospel, we believe ill preaching the gospel, and at the same time we further believe that Christ set an example, by sending his own apostles and disciples to preach, of how to go, telling them how to go, telling them not to take script and purse, but go alone depending “upon me;” that the laborer is worthy of his hire...
I will be dealing with this hypocrisy and sophistry further in this series but will call attention just now how Elder Pittman does not have any problem putting missionaries and gospel preachers under the commission given to the seventy, which commission is truly fulfilled and abolished, the commision given after Christ's resurrection now superseding it! But, more on this point later in this series.
Q. Well, Mr. Pittman, when I ask you if you believe in missions on the Bible plan, can’t you answer that question yes or no?
A. I don’t believe the word “mission” is used in the New Testament.
Obstinate! Hard-headed! Stubborn! Opposed to preaching the gospel, though pretending otherwise!
Q. Well, I will change it this way: Are you a missionary or do you believe in missionaries on the Bible plan?
A. Suppose you also define what you believe the Bible plan is.
Q. No; can’t you answer my question yes or no.
Oh how squirmy and wormy these Hardshells can get when hard-pressed on this matter of preaching and teaching the gospel to every creature! They cannot give you a simple yes and no to themost simplest questions of the bible! And, of this, we shall see more shortly, from other Hardshell witnesses!
Q. I will ask you, Mr. Pittman, this question: Do you believe in missionaries on any plan at all?
A. Just read my answer to that question.
Q. It is not necessary to read that. You adopt your previous answer as an answer to this question?
A. Yes sir. I will further say in enlarging that answer---
Q. Well, its pretty large now; but if you want to enlarge it?
One can only chuckle in a spiritual way at all this! It would be truly "funny" if it were not serious!
A. You seem to want it large. I will further say in enlarging that answer that inasmuch as there is no organization of any kind in the New Testament by Christ and the apostles, except the direct sending of ministers of Jesus by Him alone, and the support of those ministers by those to whom they preach, we today are not favorable to any other plan or organization.
Laughable! No, no, Elder Pittman! The attorney just wants a simple yes or no! He does not want a sermon! He does not want it large!
Q. Now when Paul was preaching to the Corinthians wasn’t he supplied by other churches?
A. I think that to understand this there is an explanation needful. For instance, Paul says he robbed other churches. I don’t believe you would contend he robbed other churches in the sense we look upon the word rob.
Q. No; but don’t you think the other churches supplied him with means?>A. I think that it is possible that they did; and that it is also possible that the Apostle wanted to bring out the fact especially that he did not want to be a burden to them, as it goes on further and says, in opposition to, or rather, condemning the practice of other preachers who were making themselves a charge to these people. He wanted to be without charge to them; and I think perhaps in this same connection, you will find that he labored with his own hands that he might not be a burden.
Q. He did; but the fact remains, nevertheless, very prominently there, that other churches contributed towards his expenses when he was preaching to these Corinthians?
A. I think so, I think that is an exception to the rule.
Q. But there is one Bible exception then that we can tie to anyway; isn’t that true?
A. I think you can tie to the exception.
Pittman has admitted all! He has admitted that other churches supplied Paul with funds while he was a missionary preaching to the Corinthians!
Q. Then Mr. Pittman, you will not answer this question, or cannot answer this question, when I ask you if you are a Missionary Baptist in any sense of the word, by yes or no?
A. I have before stated, and as plain as I could, that I did not believe the word “mission” or “missionary” is used in the New Testament; but that we Old School Baptists today preach and claim to be sent of the Lord for that purpose, and are willing to depend upon Him for our support. Personally, I will say this, that when I moved to Virginia in order to serve churches that I am now serving, I was engaged in business, as well as serving one church in town, that business of a secular nature paying me between $1200 and $1500 a year; and that I came to this country without any guarantee or any promise of any ministerial support, but feeling a desire to preach the truth as I believed the truth and believing there was a field for that purpose here for me, I felt disposed to come trusting the Lord for my maintenance among the people with whom I labored. This I believe is my definition, as you might say, of missionary work.
Questioning of Elder Dalton
Q. I believe those depositions refer to you in several places. Please state whether or not Mr. Burnam has correctly quoted you or interpreted your view.
A. Mr. Burnam did not undertake to quote me, but simply made a statement in which he said that he and I stood together on the mission question at one time; that’s as far as he quoted me.
Q. Well, is it a fact that you and Mr. Burnam stood together on the mission question; and if it is a fact, how did you stand with reference to missions?
A. I really thought we did at one time.
Q. Well, please explain what you mean, giving your version of the agreement?
A. I simply mean this, that Elder Burnam once stood with the Old School Baptists, and his doctrine and his practice were endorsed by the Old School Baptists, as far as my knowledge extended; and if at that time, he held any views contrary to what the Old School Baptists believe generally, none of us knew it.
Q. Are his views now different from what his views were years ago?
A. I cannot say positively, because I have not heard him, but from his writings, I think they are. I will say they are.
Q. Have you any---
A. I would like here, Mr. Downing, if you please, as he has stated that he and I stood together on the mission question along about 1883, to read a little article that I wrote on that subject, and if Elder Burnam still stands there, there is no need of this division.
Q. Well, you have a right to read that.
A. If he is still there, there is no need of this law suit, and no need of the trouble.
Mr. Keyser: What is the date of that article?
The Witness: This article was in 1883, February 15th, published in the Herald of Truth, at the time I was editor of it, and published in Union City, Tennessee.
“One of the strongest features connected with it all, is, they never seem to notice what the Bible says upon the subject of giving, ‘Let him that is taught, communicate to him that teaches, in all good thing.’ They seem to have gotten the thing backwards; they want the people here in this country to communicate in order that they may teach someone away in some foreign country; those preachers in China or Burma and other foreign countries are not teaching the people here; then the Bible no where requires that the people here, should communicate to them there; but it does require that those who are taught here, should communicate to those who teach here, and those who are taught there, should communicate to those who teach there, this is the Bible rule.”
Now if he stands with that on missionism, then we are together yet.
Q. I will ask you another question: Do you believe in preaching repentance to those who are dead in sin?
A. Now then, it would take me an hour to answer that question; but if you want a sermon, Will, you can get it.
Again, your typical Hardshell answer to a simple question! He needs an hour's sermon to answer it! Typical of heretics.
Q. I merely ask you if you are opposed to preaching repentance to those who are dead in sin?
A. I will say that there are two ways I would have to answer that question.
Q. You can answer that question, if it takes you from now until tomorrow morning; I have no objection?
A. I will answer it this way, first, Will: The Bible teaches me, in the last chapter of Luke, 24th chapter of Luke it says:
“Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day. “And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. “And ye are witnesses of these things.”
We believe as a people, in carrying out the mission of the Saviour, Go into all the world, and we go. We do not wait to be sent; and when we go we preach repentance to everybody that will listen to us; but we preach it in the name of Jesus Christ; and we claim that Jesus is exalted, a Prince and a saviour, to give repentance to the sinner and the forgiveness of sins; and we claim this, that a Godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of. It is not an act of man; it is the product of the divine Spirit of God that produces that sorrow in the sinner’s heart that turns him away from sin, and hence it is repentance to salvation not to be repented of. But the sorrow of the world, as Paul says, worketh death. Now you understand what we understand in preaching the gospel to every creature. Wherever God, in his providence, casts our lot we preach, but we preach in the name of Christ, and none of it in the name of the sinner, and leave the event of it to God.
So, blame it all on God! Why have the Hardshells not sent out a single missionary? Why have none of their preachers gone on their own, "without money," to a foreign land? Well, it is because the Lord did not put it on the heart of any of them! It's God's fault for not burdening the hearts of the Hardshell preachers! It's God's fault for not providing miraculous means for them to do so!
Q. But you believe in preaching the gospel then to those outside of God’s church?
A. I do, Will, as strong as anybody in the church.
Q. You believe in the spread of the gospel?
A. I don’t know that you can spread it. It is a kind that won’t spread.
What an answer! Elder Dalton is just trying to be cute and funny about an issue that is serious! He simply, like his Hardshell brothers, do not see the seriously of their obligation to tell others the good news!
Q. But you believe in preaching the gospel everywhere?
A. I certainly do.
Q. At home and abroad?
A. I certainly do.
But, the fact is, the history of the Hardshells shows that they only talk the talk of a missionary, of a spreader and promoter of the gospel! They do not "practice what they preach," nor "walk the walk"! The question is obvious - "why have you not done it? why have you not preached the gospel to every creature?"
Q. To that extent you are a missionary?
A. Yes sir; when God sends a man, I say “Go and preach with all your might.”
Q. Would you help to support one that would go, if he needed support?
A. If he was sent here in my country, I would do my best because God says so. If I was over in Japan I would help there, but I do not believe it is my duty to help him here in order to send him over there.
Q. You would not help send him there?
A. I have no right to do it. My Bible don’t teach me to do it.
Q. You would not help send him there, but you would help him after he got there?
A. I certainly would, if I was over there.
Q. The only difference is this: if you were over there you would help to support him, but being here you would not help to support him?
A. I claim this, Will, that the Bible does not authorize my helping to support a man way off yonder.
Q. That is exactly what I mean?
A. That is what I mean.
Q. Then the only difference in the world is, as to whether you would support that man over there, whether you were living here or living there; isn’t that right?
A. Yes sir; that is about it.
All this needs little commentary. Were I still a Hardshell preacher, I would be ashamed of being identified with such "gospel ministers"! Does all this testimony, thus far, not evince a cultic mentality? Such a deep-seated opposition to "spreading" the gospel?
Q. Don’t you know that you and I are pretty nearly together on the mission question?
A. Well, we ought to be.
Q. With all that you are a pretty good missionary, didn’t you know that? And you are not an anti-mission Baptist are you?
A. No; I don’t like that expression a bit, and none of my brethren are. If you will pick out one, I will help to kill him.
Q. You are a missionary Baptist, too, is that right?
A. Of the Bible order; yes sir.
Q. You also believe in the preaching of God’s word everywhere, don’t you?
A. I certainly do.
Q. At the meeting of the Ebenezer Association held in Mount Carmel church, I believe it was, last August, there is one extract taken from the circular letter, as published in the Page News which reads this way:
“Since we believe it is impossible for the sinner to choose eternal life before he has been created anew by the Holy Spirit, and since this recreation by the spirit is a creation anew to eternal life, and since the employment of a fallible agent would make possible the failure of God’s purpose, we cannot believe that God employs the preached word or any other human agency as a means of salvation.”
I have addressed the absurdity of these Hardshell "man-made" propositions that have no biblical foundation. Does he quote scripture to prove his propositions? Where does the Bible say - "no fallible agent can be employed in a means of salvation without making the purpose of God a failure"? If that proposition is such an integral proposition to biblical truth, where is it in the bible? Also, have I not already overcome this argumentation in earlier chapters?
Notice too the "Pelagianism" in the above words of the great Hardshell debater and apologist! He argues that since no one is able to obey the gospel, therefore, he is not obligated to do so! and he argues that no one therefore can be called upon to be saved, or born again, or converted! Again, where is this stated in the bible?
Do you believe that the preached word employed by God in the sense used here is a human means or a divine means?
A. I think he means there human means, sir.
Q. You think that he means human means?
A. Yes; I think that is the idea he had in view.
Q. What would have been necessary to have made it a divine means?
A. Well sir, I have just said---
Q. How would you have worded it to make the preached gospel a divine means?
A. I would make that the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ himself.
Q. In other words you would add, “when attended by the Holy Spirit” in order to make it a divine means?
A. You will let me answer that in my own way. I will say that where the Spirit of God goes before the preaching and opens the understanding, that which opens the understanding is a divine means and not human; that is the point.
Q. Now I will ask you just one question: Does the Spirit of God ever attend the preached word, or does it always go before it?
A. Well, the Bible very clearly shows, Will, that it goes before, and it is utterly impossible to understand the gospel---the natural man---until the Spirit of God opens his understanding, and that must be before. It is foolishness to him until that. The word preached, as I said just now, quoting from Hebrews, did not profit them---there is no profit in it, not being mixed with faith in them that hear it. The man that hears it must possess faith in order that it be profitable to him to hear the gospel; that is the point. That is Paul’s point.
There are several erroneous points made here, some of which I have addressed in earlier chapters. But, the question of the precise meaning of the terms "divine" versus "human" means, is one that needs much time to address, both from scripture and from the history of the Hardshells. I will therefore address this issue in upcoming chapters. I have also addressed the argumentation of Elder Dalton on the definition of saving faith, and have shown his statements to be utterly false and unscriptural.
Q. You believe in salvation by grace through faith?
>A. I certainly do.
Q. You believe that faith is necessary to salvation?
A. It is the gift of God.
Q. I mean a God given faith?
A. It is a grace implanted by the Spirit of God and is called the divine evidence of things not seen.
Q. You believe that this God given faith is essential to the salvation of God’s people; do you not?
A. Now, Will, that is going to involve a point that I would not like to take the time for; but I will say this, that there is a belief produced through the preaching of the gospel and there is a belief of the sacred truth of God; but that belief which is produced through the preaching of the gospel is not a necessary adjunct in the eternal salvation of the sinner. But there is a faith that is implanted by the Spirit of God in the soul of every man that will ever enter heaven, and no man will ever go to heaven without that divine eternal faith implanted by the Spirit of God.
Q: You believe, Brother Dalton, in two faiths like Elder Dailey, I believe?
A. I do not call it two faiths. I simply call one belief and the other is faith; one is the product of the other.
Q. Now let us take faith: Do you believe that faith is essential or necessary to the salvation of God’s people?
A. That implanted faith?
Q. I don’t care which---it is the only faith I know anything about?
A. The revealed faith in the heart of man---no man will ever go to heaven without that.
Q. Will any child go to heaven without that faith?
A. The Bible teaches that except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God, and the word “man” there is used in a generic sense and means everybody, no man will ever go to heaven that is not born of God.
Q. It means the idiot and the lunatic?
A. It means everybody that will go there. God saves the idiot and the infant just like he does you and I.
Q. Mr. Dalton, in reply to a question by Mr. Keyser, I believe I understood you to say that you were a missionary of the Bible order. I wish you would explain just what you mean by that, please sir?
A. I mean, sir, a missionary called by the God of heaven to preach and sent by the power and authority of God of heaven to preach the gospel; and not sent of men or bodies of men, nor churches. That is what I mean.
Q. Are you opposed to churches sending missionaries to foreign lands and supporting them?
A. I am.
Q. Please state whether or not the Old School Baptist church is opposed to that doctrine?
A. If I have rightly understood them; they are.
What testimony from Elder Dalton! We will surely hear more from this great Hardshell apologist in upcoming chapters. But, he surely has revealed himself in this testimony, has he not?
Questioning of layman Grove
Q. Mr. Grove, please state your age, residence and occupation?
A. My age is 64; my occupation is that of merchant; my place of residence is Luray, Virginia.
Q. Are you a member of any religious organization, if so, what; and how long have you been a member?
A. Yes sir; I am a member of Mount Carmel Old School Baptist Church in Luray, and have been for 41 years.
Q. Do you believe in teaching children the scriptures?
A. Yes sir; I believe it is a good book to teach children.
Q. Anybody’s children?
A. I believe it is my duty to try to teach my own children the bible.
Q. Well, would you be so selfish as not to endeavor to teach anybody else’s children?
A. I never have tried that. Never have endeavored to do it.
Q. Would you hesitate to do it, if an opportunity presented?
A. In a Sunday school in a Baptist church; yes.
Q. Do you believe it would be wrong or unscriptural to read and explain the bible to any other person’s child outside of your own anywhere?
A. I don’t know that it would unless I would be intruding myself upon other parents and other children.
Q. Then if you do not believe that it would be improper or unscriptural to read and explain the bible to any person’s children outside of your own, do you think it would make any difference when and where you read and explained the bible?
A. I believe it would make a considerable difference if I were to go to an Old School Baptist church and engage in a Sunday school contrary to the practice---faith and practice---of the Old School Baptists, when they did not have any of that kind of thing when I joined them; that was not their practice and custom when I joined them, I believe it would be wrong for me to do something that would mar the peace and fellowship of that church.
Q. Regardless of what your belief might be?
A. Yes sir; I believe that would be wrong regardless of what my belief might be.
Q. Now I am asking you what is your belief individually in the matter?
A. I believe it would be wrong for me to go and organize a Sunday school in an Old Baptist church, or any other church, with my understanding of scripture.
Q. You believe it would be wrong to organize a bible class in which nothing but the bible itself was used?
A. Yes sir, I do; if it would mar the peace and fellowship of the body to which I belong.
Q. Is the practice of Sunday schools or bible classes incompatible with the doctrine of unconditional and eternal election?
A. Well, according to the common acceptance of the term, the object of Sunday schools, I would say it is incompatible with that doctrine.
Q. In what respect?
A. Because the object of Sunday schools, the main and prime object of Sunday schools, as I understand it, is to feed the church, a nursery to the church, to build up the church, and to retain our children, to keep them from going off to other denominations, which is not trusting the Lord fully as to their salvation.
Q. Mr. Grove, I will ask you the same question that was asked Elder Dalton. You believe in teaching your own children the bible; do you not?
A. I try to teach my children to read the bible. I tell them that frequently.
Q. What is your purpose in trying to teach your children to read the Bible?
A. It is a good rule of life. It is a good, moral code. It teaches them their duty to parents, and their duty to everybody else; and their duties in this life as moral men and women.
Q. And it is also a fact that you teach them that in order to bring them up in the nature and admonition of the Lord.
A. Yes sir; I try to do that. Even outside of the bible, I try to do that.
Q. Now we have plenty fatherless and motherless children in this world, do you believe it is wrong for anybody else to teach them what you teach your children?
A. I cannot see, Mr. Keyser, what relevancy there is to this point in that question at all. We are talking about a Sunday school in an Old Baptist church.
Q. I understand that, Mr. Grove, but I want to get your views on teaching children the scriptures at all anywhere; and I want to then differentiate between that teaching that you believe in and the teaching that we believe in, and see, after all, if there is much difference. Now then the point is this: if here is a fatherless and motherless child, the scripture cannot apply to that child, when it says “Parents, bring your children up in the nature and admonition of the Lord.” Now the point I want to ask you is this: Take that fatherless and motherless child, would it be wrong or improper for any other person to teach that child and to endeavor to bring it up in the nature and admonition of the Lord?
A. As far as I am concerned, I do not feel called upon to bring up that child.
Q. You do not believe that any person ought to extend the same privilege or the same duty to that child that you conceive to be the duty to your own children?
A. I do not believe it to be my duty to bring up another man’s child, in that sense. I see no scripture for it.
Q. Now Mr. Grove, what difference would it make to teaching your child at your home the. scriptures, and teaching your child in the church building the same scriptures. What difference would it make?
A. Well, so far as teaching my own child is concerned, it would not make any difference. I am simply required to teach my own children, bring up my own children, and no one else.
Q. Then if I understand you, after all, the only objection you have to teaching children at any time or at any place, is this: That the bible requires only parents to teach their own children, and you do not think it is right for anybody else to teach those children but the parents?
Q. Do you believe in bible classes in the church?
A. Well, sir, we have never had a bible class in our church to any extent, except that little class you refer to here, which was about 1868.
Q. You would not object to members of your church meeting at your house and reading and discussing the Bible, could you, in the presence of your children, or anyone else’s children?
A. No, sir.
Q. You would not consider that wrong, would you?
A. I would not object to it, or make any fuss about it.
Q. Well, would you consider it wrong?
A. Well, if I didn’t invite them there, I would consider it a little breach of etiquette.
Q. Then if they were to go to the church for the same purpose, would you consider that wrong, necessarily so?
A. I would consider it wrong to have a Sunday school in an Old Baptist church.
Q. Would you consider that a Sunday school, such as I have named?
A. Well, yes, if you would have it on Sunday.
Q. Well, suppose it was on a week night or a week day?
A. Then I would hardly call it a Sunday school.
Q. Then would you object to it, during any week day in the church?
A. No sir; I would not object to meeting at the church---the membership to meet at the church on Wednesday night or Thursday night and study the bible.
Q. In the presence of children who may come there?
A. Wouldn’t keep anybody out that wanted to come in.
Q. Then, after all, it is the day you object to?
A. It is a Sunday school in Old School Baptist churches, we never had them, and it disturbed our peace and union.
Q. Do you believe in any sort of missions or missionaries?
A. I do not exactly approve of the word mission, in any way, or missionism.
Q. You are prejudiced as to the word “missions;” is that right? A. Well, yes, to some extent. On the common acceptation of the term, I may be somewhat prejudiced. But I do not like the mission term, or mission system.
Q. Just as you are prejudiced to the term “Sunday school”?
A. I believe that the Holy Spirit sends out his own missionaries, and that the Lord calls preachers to go to certain places to preach the gospel.
Q. And they are missionaries?
A. When sent by Him, they are.
Q. Now then you believe that those missionaries are called by God to go; do you not?
A. I believe certain of them are called. They are impressed by His Spirit, and they so understand it and so interpret it, and they do go.
Q. And you believe that the Lord or that God also selects the field for those missionaries to go to; do you not?
A. Well, it seems he sent Paul to certain places.
Q. Now you believe that if the Holy Spirit were to send, or to put it in the heart of Brother Dalton to go to China and preach the gospel, you believe that it would be the duty of Brother Dalton to go; do you not?
A. Yes; I believe if he was fully impressed and convinced in his own mind to go anywhere to preach the gospel, he ought to go.
Q. And wouldn’t you encourage Brother Dalton in that?
A. Well, Brother Dalton would have to settle that matter between himself and his God.
Q. Would you render Brother Dalton any assistance along that line to send him?
A. No; I don’t know that I would.
Q. Would you render him any assistance on the field when he got there?
A. I wouldn’t be there.
Q. If he were there and you were here, would you render him any assistance?
A. No sir.
Q. If you were there after he got there, would you render him any assistance?
A. If I appreciated what preached, no doubt I would.
Q. Then to that extent you believe in God-sent missionaries?
A. I believe he sends men.
Q. To foreign lands?
A. I don’t know whether or not.
Q. You just said---
A. I didn’t say to foreign lands.
Q. Well, I asked you a moment ago that if Brother Dalton believed in his heart that God had directed him to go to the Chinese or the Japanese or any foreign land, to preach the gospel, if you believed that Brother Dalton ought to obey that command or that call?
A. Well, Brother Dalton would have to decide that matter himself as his own cause; and he would have to depend upon the Lord to get there.
Q. Well, but suppose Brother Dalton were to tell you he felt impressed that way, wouldn’t you believe he ought to go then?
A. Why, certainly, if I thought he was an honest man. That isn’t saying I ought to help to get him there.
Q. You spoke of Paul going somewhere to preach. Where was that?
A. Well, he went to different places. I don’t remember now.
Q. Wasn’t he helped on the way?
A. Yes; as he went he was helped. I don’t know that he was helped before he started.
Q. But if Brother Dalton were to start to China for that purpose, and you were to meet him on the way, then you would help him, wouldn’t you. You would help him on his way, wouldn’t you?
A. If he were to ask me to help him, I might. If he asked me, I might, and tell me he needed it, and couldn’t depend on the Lord.
Q. Now, Mr. Grove, I hand you a copy of Zion’s Advocate, dated April 15th, 1882, and I ask you to read the last paragraph on page 307, being an editorial headed, “The Relation of Churches and Associations” of which John Clark appears to have been the editor at that time?
A. (Reading:) “But, say some, this is missionary operations. Very well. Are not God’s ministers missionaries? We contend that they are the only true Gospel missionaries on earth. The root of the Word is one sent; and they are sent of God, for, how can they preach except they be sent? and the Church is to pray to Christ to send forth laborers into his harvest. They are not sent of men, neither called nor qualified of men, but of God. Ought not the Churches then to hold up the hands of such, help them on their journey, and contribute to their necessities to enable them to preach to the destitute? Can any among us forbid this? We protest against conceding the copyright to the New School and Arminian societies, to the word missionary. In a Gospel sense, our people have the exclusive right to it. Our doctrine is that God’s ministers are called and qualified of God, and put into the work. That they received it not of men, neither were they taught it but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. And they go depending upon God, to support them through his people; without looking to Mission Boards for their support. The difference is, one class is sent of God, the other of men; and so let each one to his own master stand or fall.”
Q. Now, Mr. Grove, don’t you subscribe to that?
A. I said awhile ago, that I believed the Lord, or the Holy Ghost, did send out men to preach, and He would provide for their support. I say that now, that he would provide for their support.
Q. Then, after all, you believe like Brother Clark that nobody had a better right to the word “Missionary” than the Old School Baptists at that time; that you are Missionary Baptists too, on the gospel plan; isn’t that true---or on the bible plan?
A. Yes sir; we have always believed-that is, we have always practiced home missions to a great extent. On home missions our preachers have been missionaries to a great extent. We had not a greater missionary in our denomination than Elder T. N. Alderton. He traveled throughout the country, in distant places, even where there were no churches, and he was always cared for.
Q. Now, Mr. Grove, the article that you just read in Zion’s Advocate; do you not know that Regular Baptists subscribe to that, and that that is the kind of missions they also believe in?
A. Well, we have never had a foreign missionary, and as I understand, you do. You have them and contribute to their support, foreign missionaries---what we term foreign missionaries in heathen countries. We have never had them that I have ever heard of, and never contributed toward their support. We have our preachers, our home missionaries that travel through this country, where necessary.
Q. Now, I hand you Zion’s Advocate, dated August 1, 1877, the time that Elder John Clark was editor, a part of an editorial on the first page. It is really on page 65, and ask you to read the article marked there with reference to Sunday schools?
A. (Reading:) As to a “Sunday school,” there can be no reasonable objection to it on account of the day. One man esteemeth one day above another, and another esteemeth every day alike, and the difference was a matter of no vital importance. With us, the objection is not to the day, or to the school for children, but to what is taught in the Sunday schools of this day and generation.”
Q. Now then do you subscribe to the doctrine there laid down by Brother John Clarke?
A. No sir; not that.
Q. Now, Mr. Grove, do you believe in God’s ministers preaching the gospel to everybody?
A. Yes sir.
Q. You believe then in preaching to the unconverted; do you not?
A. The command was given to preach the gospel to every creature, not making any distinction, Jew or Gentile, bondman or free, male or female.
Q. Then you believe in preaching the gospel to the dead in trespass and sin; do you not?
A. Yes sir; I believe in preaching indiscriminately to a mixed crowd or congregation.
Q. Then you believe, as I say, in preaching the gospel to the dead in trespasses and sins; isn’t that true?
A. Yes sir; I believe in rightly dividing the word of truth, the law for the ungodly; the promises of the gospel to believers.
Q. What should the preachers methods be to the unconverted or the dead in trespasses and sins?
A. Well, he should preach whatsoever he is commanded, and Jesus says, “Lo, I am with you always; even unto the end of the world.”
Q. Are they not commanded to preach repentance?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Then you believe in preaching repentance to the dead in trespasses and sins; is that right?
A. I believe in preaching repentance to a mixed crowd.
Q. Well, if the crowd is not mixed, would it make any difference?
A. Well, he should preach both law and gospel.
(http://primitivebaptist.info/mambo//content/view/827/36/)
I read some of the above testimony of brother Groves to my dad a few months back, and I asked him after reading it to him - "what kind of preaching and teaching produced this kind of attitude and stubborn opposition to spreading the gospel?" Will anyone want to answer it? Is it not the teaching of men like Pittman and Dalton that produced members like Groves?
No comments:
Post a Comment