"Our Lord Jesus Christ, a little before his departure, commissioned his apostles to Go, and teach all nations; or, as another evangelist expresses it, Go into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. This commission was as extensive as possible, and laid them under obligation to disperse themselves into every country of the habitable globe, and preach to all the inhabitants, without exception or limitation. They accordingly went forth in obedience to the command, and the power of God evidently wrought with them. Many attempts of the same kind have been made since their day, and which have been attended with various success; but the work has not been taken up, or prosecuted of late years (except by a few individuals) with that zeal and perseverance with which the primitive Christians went about it. It seems as if many thought the commission was sufficiently put in execution by what the apostles and others have done; that we have enough to do to attend to the salvation of our own countrymen; and that, if God intends the salvation of the heathen, he will some way or other bring them to the gospel, or the gospel to them. It is thus that multitudes sit at ease, and give themselves no concern about the far greater part of their fellow-sinners, who to this day, are lost in ignorance and idolatry. There seems also to be an opinion existing in the minds of some, that because the apostles were extraordinary officers and have no proper successors, and because many things which were right for them to do would be utterly unwarrantable for us, therefore it may not be immediately binding on us to execute the commission, though it was so upon them. To the consideration of such persons I would offer the following observations."
From the above words of Carey it is clear that Hyper Calvinism was in existence, in some form, within the Baptist denomination of the late 18th century. The Hyperism at that time, however, was more practical than doctrinal.
Notice that Carey speaks of some Baptists who affirmed that 1) The Commission was sufficiently put into effect by the apostles and others (thus no need to fulfill it to today) and 2) The Lord would somehow, without their efforts, get the gospel to the heathen or the heathen to the gospel, and 3) that the Commission "may not be binding on us."
Thus, there is no denial that the seeds of Hyperism, in regards to the fulfilling of the "Great Commission," and of it being the means of bringing in the elect from among the nations, had been sown in the 18th century in England. But, more on this in future chapters.
Carey continues:
"FIRST, If the command of Christ to teach all nations be restricted to the apostles, or those under the immediate inspiration of the Holy Ghost, then that of baptizing should be so too; and every denomination of Christians, except the Quakers, do wrong in baptizing with water at all."
"An Enquiry into the Obligations of Christians to use means for the Conversion of the Heathens" by William Carey
I have already alluded to how the Hardshells have a serious "paradigm problem" (arising from their twisted views on the "Great Commission," and bias against fulfilling it), with regard to their ecclesiology regarding baptism and its administration. If you ask them who has the authority to baptize, you will not get a straight answer; And if you ask the typical Hardshell apologist questions along this line you will see him squirm and dance around the questions.
From the citations from leading Hardshells already given, one can see how the typical Hardshell wants to say that the authority to baptize is given to the gospel ministry, apart from the church, but then will generally reverse that statement by saying that the church will or must approve of the baptism for it to be legitimate, or affirm that baptism is a "church ordinance."
In actuality they are trying to take both positions, affirming that both the ministry and the church have authority in the matter, although there would be disagreements over the nature of the authority given to each.
Those Hardshells like Elder Harris, Eddie K. Garrett, Sr. (my father) as well as those who, in recent years, signed the "Pitts Resolution" against Elder Lasserre Bradley, Jr., and who say that the "Great Commission" was given only to the eleven apostles, and that it was fulfilled by them in the first century (and thus no longer binding upon either the church or the ministry), truly have a hard paradigm problem in dealing with this first point of Dr. Carey!
This ecclesiology problem, dealing with the question of - "who did Christ command to baptize?" - arises from erroneous views on the "Great Commission." Proof of this has already been demonstrated in previous chapters in this series, especially where a question was put to Elder Hassell regarding these very paradigm problems, and where he gave a wiggly and meaningless answer, one that did not really answer the question nor deal with the obvious paradigm problem.
Speaking of Elder S. Hassell, he wrote many times in defense of the standard Hardshell view on the "Great Commission,"; And, in answer to the question - 'to whom was the Great Commission given?' - said:
"Primarily to the Apostles, as shown by the connection, and as fulfilled by them initially - (Acts 1:8; 2:5; Rom. 10:18; Psalm 19:4; Col. 1:23), who went and preached the gospel both to Jews and Gentiles, wherever, in all the world, they were directed by the Spirit and Providence of God; and secondarily to all other true ministers of the first and succeeding centuries, as they are directed by the Spirit and Providence of God; and when the latter shall have preached the gospel of Christ (first preached by the Apostles) "in all the world for a witness unto all nations, then shall the end come," says Christ (Matt. 24:14). The end of the world or the age or the Christian dispensation has not come yet, but even until that time Christ will be with His true ministry (Matt. 28:20)." (Pittman & Hassell- Advocate and Messenger - November 1927)
I have already indicated how this is typical of Hardshell hermenuetics. Hassell wants to say that it was "initially fulfilled" but that it has never been "FULLY fulfilled"! Perhaps he took this view because it was a compromise position between the opposing views, regarding "fulfillment," being in this case a "fence straddler" of sorts. Again, it is typical of many of their preachers who try to find a "synthesis" (or 'sythetic'!) view.
Still, this leading Hardshell apologist and historian says that the "Great Commission" has not been "fulfilled" for obvious reasons. First, history and present facts about the world show that not all the nations have heard the gospel. Second, Christ has not come, which he must have, had this "Great Commission" been fulfilled.
It is probably the "Preterists" among the Hardshells who would attempt to reply to these arguments by affirming that Christ has already come!
Still, the predominant and historical (traditional) view has been to affirm the "Great Commission" has not been fulfilled, and would therefore be in agreement with Carey on this point, affirming that it is binding upon all ministers, at least.
It is interesting how Elder Hassell leaves the ordinary disciple and the church completely out of any part of fulfilling this Commission! He has the apostles "primarily" fulfilling it, and the ministers "secondarily" fulfilling it, but he will not allow for the average disciple to fulfill it "thirdly"!
Neo-Hardshell Jonathan Crosby wrote:
"Many today believe that this command of our Lord's still awaits fulfillment. It is widely taught that this command was given to all believers, and that all Christians are responsible to carry the gospel to every man, woman, and child in the world."
I wonder why "many" believe that the "Great Commission" is not fulfilled? Conversely, I wonder why only a little few, an extreme minority, believe that it has been fulfilled? As observed, only a splinter group among the Hardshells have, historically, believed that the "Great Commission" has been totally "fulfilled."
I know that there are probably cases in Christian history where only a small "few" held to a correct interpretation of a particular passage of scripture or on or of some minor points of doctrine, but it certainly requires, of those who disagree with 99% of Christian tradition, that they have solid grounds for doing so! After looking at all the evidence presented by those who believe in the "fulfilled" view, it can be safely said that such grounds do not exist, and that the "fulfilled view" begets numerous inconsistencies and contradictions, and other adverse consequences.
Notice what is involved in Elder Crosby's "fulfilled" view. First, it takes away from all believers the duty and privilege to preach (or tell, or announce) the good news to any!
This one statement by Elder Crosby demonstrates that the charge is just that accuses the Hardshells of being opposers of preaching the gospel, except in the few cases where it is preached by an "orderly" Hardshell preacher! I say it is devilish doctrine to teach that no one except preachers can fulfill the command to tell others of the gospel! The previous chapters in this series have totally refuted this nonsense of Elder Crosby.
Elder Crosby continues:
"But the Bible does not teach this false application of Jesus' words at all!"
A "false application" of the words "go and make disciples"? Only ordained Hardshell preachers can make a disciple? Good Lord! Have I not repeatedly said that it is both ironic and hypocritical for the Hardshells to have historically decried "priestcraft" as the worst of all evils, and then practice it to such a degree themselves? But, again, I have cited numerous scriptures that show that Crosby is simply either ignorant of those verses or stubbornly opposed to them.
Besides, many of the members of Hardshell churches, especially those who came from other denominations, were converted to Hardshellism by efforts of other ordinary Hardshell members. These ordinary disciples either taught the Hardshell gospel to the new members or passed out literature to them. So, the question becomes this - "did these ordinary members violate the scriptures in teaching Hardshellism to others?"
Crosby continues:
"First, notice that Jesus gave this command only to the eleven disciples (v.14). (See also Matthew 28:16-20; Acts 1:1-8) Nowhere in the Bible are New Testament believers taught that they must go into all the world and preach the gospel to every person."
Again, I have already disproven these false claims of Crosby. First, I have shown that the various "Commissions" to evangelize were not made only to "the eleven."
Crosby references Acts 1: 1-8, but I have shown, from that passage, that the entire church, every disciple, was filled and empowered with the Holy Spirit, and that the purpose of it was for the work of evangelizing. If Crosby's claims are correct, then only the apostles, or "the eleven" should have been empowered and filled.
Did only the "eleven" receive the "gift of tongues" or become "filled with the Spirit" and with "power"? Second, I have cited numerous verses where Christ commands all disciples to "speak from the roof-tops" all that they have heard him teach. Also, consider that the prophecy cited on the Day of Pentecost stated that "sons and daughters" would "prophesy."
Crosby continues:
"Second, the eleven disciples were specially empowered by the Holy Spirit with miraculous signs and abilities so that they might accomplish Jesus' command (Mark 16:17-20; Acts 2:1-4; Acts 3:1-7)."
ONLY "the eleven" apostles were so empowered? Is this man that ignorant of scripture? First, the ones who began to "fulfill" this Commission were not only the "eleven"! Does Crosby exclude all others in the book of Acts? Those who "went everywhere preaching" were only the "eleven"? Neither Matthias, Joseph, Barnabas, Silas, Philip, nor Paul were empowered to preach in its fulfillment? This is ridiculous.
Was it only the "eleven" that had "signs following" them? That worked miracles? That spoke in tongues? Does not the Book of Acts and the I Corininthian letter not show that these gifts were given to ordinary disciples in the church?
Crosby says further:
"Third, the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ accomplished the mission during their lifetimes in the first century A.D. Notice what Mark 16:20 plainly states:
"And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen."
The Apostle Paul confirms the fulfillment of the Great Commission in Colossians 1:23:
"… the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven."
Notice what the Apostle Paul also said in Romans 16:26:
He stated that the gospel of Jesus Christ was "made known to all nations for the obedience of faith."
And so we see by the testimony of Scripture, the Great Commission that Jesus gave to the eleven disciples in Mark 16:15 was fully accomplished by His apostles during their lifetimes in the first century A.D. The Great Commission has been fulfilled!" ("Was the Great Commission fulfilled?")
http://www.letgodbetrue.com/questions/great-commision.htm
Do all these verses teach that the "Great Commission" was "fulfilled"? Elder Hassell did not think so! Most of the Hardshells historically have avowed that it was not fulfilled. Elder J. R. Daily did not believe (as we shall see) that is was fulfilled. Did they not properly understand those verses cited by Crosby that supposedly teach that it has been fulfilled?
No doubt it was due to the verses cited by Crosby that lead Elder Hassell to say that the "Great Commission" was "initially" fulfilled. He did NOT, however, believe that these verses taught an actual fulfillment of it.
However, if the "Great Commission" is fulfilled, then Carey's argument stands firm, and so the Hardshells who take this view must deal with it, hopefully, in an honest manner.
If the "Great Commission" has been fulfilled, and no longer binding, then where is warrant for preaching, making disciples, teaching, baptizing, etc.?
If the "Great Commission" has been fulfilled, then why have we not seen the "end of the age"?
If the "Great Commission" has been fulfilled, then the promise of Christ's presence is also no longer valid!
If the "Great Commission" has been fulfilled, then why did Jesus say "I am with you till the end of the age"? Were all our Baptist forefathers in error for believing that these words indicated that the fulfilling of the "Great Commission" would culminate at the same time the world (age) ends?
Now, let us look at the passages offered by Crosby and others of the fulfilled view and see if they teach that the "Great Commission" has been fulfilled.
"And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen." (Mark 16: 20)
Crosby left out these words that precede the above citation.
"And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God." (verses 17-19)
Who is the group denominated by the various pronouns in the above words? Is it simply the "eleven" (or "ten" as some affirm, seeing Thomas was not present the first Sunday evening of the resurrection)? No, clearly, as I have shown, there were many other disciples present with the "eleven" when the various "commissions" were given.
Also, if Crosby's view was correct, then the passage should say - "and these signs shall follow the eleven apostles" instead of saying "these signs shall follow them who believe." Are the number of "believers" limited to the "eleven"? Did the Lord "confirm the word" of the "eleven" only? Balderdash!
"Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word." (Acts 8: 4 KJV)
Who is designated by the pronoun "they" in this verse? Is it "the eleven" only? Obviously not. Were most of these not ordinary disciples? Did they not go out and "preach the word"?
Crosby said:
"The Apostle Paul confirms the fulfillment of the Great Commission in Colossians 1:23:
"… the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven."
This is the verse that gets cited the most often by those who believe the "Great Commission" has been fulfilled. However, such a view of the words of Paul is foolish. On this verse John Gill wrote:
"This must be understood not of every individual creature, even human and rational, that was then, or had been in, the world; but that it had been, and was preached far and near, in all places all over the world, to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews; who are sometimes styled "every creature", "the creature", "the whole creation", "all men"..." (Commentary)
First, Gill believed that the words of Paul were simply to say that the gospel had been preached to men of every nation, without distinction, as the Lord commanded. Paul is affirming that the gospel had not been restricted to the Jews, as it had been prior to the death of Christ.
Also, the statement does not mean that the gospel had been preached in all parts of the globe, but in all parts of the Roman Empire.
If the view of Crosby and other Hardshells of the "fulfilled" view is correct on this passage, then why did Paul keep right on preaching and evangelizing after he penned those words to the Colossians? Did he stop "preaching" and "teaching"? Did he stop "making disciples" of all the nations? Did he stop baptizing?
Notice too what Paul says just a few verses later in Colossians 1.
"Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily." (Verses 28, 29)
On this verse John Gill wrote:
"Ver. 28. Whom we preach,...Under the above considerations; as the riches, the glory, and the mystery of the Gospel; as the hope set before lost sinners to lay hold upon; as the only Saviour and Redeemer, by whose righteousness believers are justified, through whose blood their sins are pardoned, by whose sacrifice and satisfaction atonement is made, and in whose person alone is acceptance with God: Christ and him crucified, and salvation by him, were the subjects of the ministry of the apostles; on this they dwelt, and it was this which was blessed for the conversion of sinners, the edification of saints, the planting of churches, and the setting up and establishing the kingdom and interest of Christ:
warning every man; of his lost state and condition by nature; of the wrath to come, and the danger he is in of it; of the terrors of the Lord, and of an awful judgment; showing sinners that they are unrighteous and unholy, that their nature is corrupt and impure, their best righteousness imperfect, and cannot justify them before God; that they stand guilty before him, and that destruction and misery are in all their ways; and therefore advise them to flee from the wrath to come, to the hope set before them in the Gospel: and teaching every man in all wisdom; not natural, but spiritual and evangelical; the whole Gospel of Christ, the counsel of God, the wisdom of God in a mystery, and all the branches of it; teaching them to believe in Christ for salvation, to lay hold on his righteousness for justification, to deal with his blood for pardon, and with his sacrifice for the atonement of their sins; and to observe all things commanded by Christ, and to live soberly, righteously, and godly: by these two words, "warning" and "teaching", the several parts of the Gospel ministry are expressed; and which extend to all sorts of men, rich and poor, bond and free, greater and lesser sinners, Gentiles as well as Jews; and who are chiefly designed here, and elsewhere, by every man and every creature:
that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus; not in themselves, in which sense no man is perfect in this life; but in the grace, holiness, and righteousness of Christ, in whom all the saints are complete: or it may regard that ripeness of understanding, and perfection of knowledge, which, when arrived unto, saints become perfect men in Christ; and is the end of the Gospel ministry, and to which men are brought by it; see Eph 4:13; and to be understood of the presentation of the saints, not by Christ to himself, and to his Father, but by the ministers of the Gospel, as their glory and crown of rejoicing in the day of Christ.
Ver. 29. Whereunto I also labour,...In the word and doctrine, by preaching Christ, warning sinners of their danger, teaching them the way of salvation, and their duty; with this view, that, in the great day of account, he might bring a large number of them, and set them before Christ as the seals of his ministry, as instances of the grace of Christ, and as perfect in him." (Commentary)
Clearly Paul was not a Hardshell, nor was Dr. Gill! Notice that he seems to say that it is a sinner's "duty" to accept the gospel and the salvation it offers. Note also that Gill says that lost sinners should be "advised" to "flee from the wrath to come" and to "lay hold of salvation" in Christ. He does not sound like a Hyperist here!
Notice also that the words of Paul clearly show that he did not believe that the "Great Commission" was fulfilled because he is still out there "preaching" and "teaching" and "warning" those he calls "every man" or "every creature"!
Besides, by the view of Crosby and others who are insistent upon limiting the command of the "Great Commission" to only "the eleven," this would exclude the preaching of Paul, who was not of "the eleven"! Who did this preaching in all the world that Paul refers to? Is it only "the eleven," or only "apostles"? Was it not mostly by ordinary disciples? A fact that even Hardshells like Hassell admit in their writings? These writers do not limit the words "they went everywhere preaching" to only "the eleven" or to only the "apostles."
Crosby next cites Romans 16:26 where Paul mentions how the gospel had been "made known to all nations for the obedience of faith."
But, again, the same rebuttal arguments made above for the verse in Colossians are applicable here. It is simply a statement that the gospel had been preached to all ethnic groups without hesitation or limitation. It is not saying that the "Great Commission" had been fulfilled.
Elder J. R. Daily wrote:
"In "The Apostolic Herald," for December 1, 1905, Eld. J. V. Kirkland's paper, the editor says, "As to the commission, he (Eld. J. H. Oliphant) says, 'They claim that the commission was given to the apostles as an organic body, and is resting on the church today." Our reason for this is that the supper was given to them and them only in its origin, and it has ever been considered by all Bible scholars as a church ordinance. If the supper is a church ordinance the apostles must have been considered as an organic body or the nucleus of the church. The commission was given to the very same body. If they were an organic body or church when the supper was given to them, they were when the commission was given to them. If they were not an organic body the supper could not have been a church ordinance in its origin, and if not in its origin it is not yet. Jesus commanded the apostles to teach all they baptized to observe all things whatsoever he commanded them. If the apostles must teach the baptized to observe all that Christ had commanded them, and he commanded them to go into all the world and teach all nations, it follows that the command is binding on all the baptized."
In futute chapters dealing with historical information on the Hardshell denomination, I will be giving details about the various divisions that have taken place in the 200 year history of the denomination. The names and careers of men like Elder Kirkland, Elder Burnam, and Elder Pence, will be discussed. Elder Kirkland is an important figure in the history of the Hardshells. He was one who tried to lead the Hardshells away from their "extremism," especially as it related to the carrying out of the "Great Commission."
Elder Kirkland saw the "paradigm problems" that the Hardshells had created for themselves regarding the relationship between the ordinance of baptism and the authority of the church and ministry. He saw the weight of the "Lord's Supper" argument (that I have already mentioned as disproving much of the Hardshell argumentation on the topic) as destructive to the apologetic given by his brethren in their denial that baptism is a church ordinance. Elder Kirkland knew the history of his people, even writing a history of them, and therefore also knew that all his Baptist forefathers held to the view that baptism was a church ordinance and must therefore have been given to the church in the "Great Commission."
Elder Kirkland also mentions the most devastating argument of all, and one that I mentioned in my first chapter in this series. He saw that the words "teach them (the church or body of disciples) to observe all things (including the ordinances of the 'Lord's Supper' and of 'Baptism') I have commanded you (the apostles or original band of disciples)..." Jesus commanded the first disciples to make disciples by teaching and baptizing them and these first disciples taught new disciples to do the same! But more on all this shortly.
Let me now cite further Elder Daily's rebuttal against Elder Kirkland. Daily says:
"Thus Eld. Kirkland takes the same position that Throgmorton did, and uses the same arguments in defence of it. He, like Carpenter, seems to think that "not ministers only, but all Christians, ordained or unordained, male or female, old and young," are bound by the words of Jesus in commanding the apostles to go and preach the gospel. The supper was intended to be eaten by all alike, ordained and unordained, male and female. To say that the commission to go and preach was binding upon all in the same sense implies that all, ordained and unordained, male and female, are to be required to go and preach. This absurd position is taken by New School Baptists, to support their theory of modern missionism. To say that the command to teach the brethren and sisters to observe all things commanded them embraces preaching as well as other duties is absurd, for this would make it the duty of all the brethren and sisters to baptize as well."
There are a few observations that demand stating here. Notice that Daily does not present one argument from scripture to disprove the position of Elder Kirkland. He simply calls it "absurd" and thinks that just saying this makes it so! And he is one of the "great debaters" of the Hardshells?
Second, one can see the proverbial "hot spot" that Elder Daily was occupying in trying to defend his extreme views on the "Great Commission"! How can he deny that not only the scriptures dealing with the "Great Commission," but many other scriptures also, show it to be a duty and privilege for every disciple to be out "making" other "disciples"?
This duty of disciples to spread the gospel does not necessitate that one have the duty also to be pastors! That again is a non sequiter. When Jesus said - "go and make disciples" - he did not intend to restrict this to only the ordained clergy! Also, when Jesus said to his disciples, all of them, to "teach" and "preach" his word, he did not mean do it professionally and formally as ordained clergy! The words "teach" and "preach" are not to be understood in a professional sense as Daily and the Hardshells want to do.
And, again, what kind of "argument" is it to say that Elder Kirkland's position cannot be right because Elder Thorgmorten believed it? Did not Elder Throgmorten have two debates with Hardshells (Potter and then Daily) on the question of "Who Are The Primitive Baptists?" Did not Elder Throgmorton show that he was more "primitive" or "original" on the matter of "means" in the new birth and on the "Great Commission"? Indeed he did. Daily should have seen that he was himself out of line with his forefathers and that Elders Kirkland and Throgmorton were in line with them. But, more on all this shortly.
Daily says that the view of Elder Kirkland (and the Baptist forefathers) cannot be correct, for if it were so, then not only could all disciples "teach" and "preach" or "make disciples," but could "baptize." But, did Elder Daily disprove the proposition that says that any ordinary baptized believer may baptize another? No, he did not. He simply assumes that the readers agree with that view, and to him that is sufficient. But, plainly, the "Great Commission" does authorize any teaching (baptized) disciple to baptize others!
I shall shortly show, however, that this was the view of the first Particular Baptists of 17th century England, of Dr. Gill, and of a large portion of our Baptist forefathers. The most common view among American Particular Baptist was to believe that any one designated by the church, and who is himself a member, could do the baptizing, whether he were ordained or not. They did not believe that there must be a "proper admininistrator" for baptism to be valid. But more on this shortly and also in future chapters on Hardshell Landmarkism and Ecclesiology.
Elder Daily continues:
"D. B. Ray, a missionary Baptist of note, says in his "Baptist Succession," page 34, "But the commission was given to them (the apostles) in their church capacity: and, consequently, it remains with the churches to this day." This position, then, that the commission was given to the church to send her preachers into all the world, and not to the preachers to go, is the position taken by the New School Baptists. It is the bedrock of modern missionism, and is false and dangerous. It shifts the responsibility from the ministers, where it was placed by Christ, to the church, where he never placed it, and lays the foundation for a salaried ministry with all the pernicious evils that follow in its wake. We appeal in love to all our beloved brethren to "beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."
http://www.carthage.lib.il.us/community/churches/primbap/Appeal.html
Again, let us examine closely the line of reasoning of Elder Daily. First, he says the position that the "Great Commission" was given to the church or to all baptized disciples (the real "Old Baptist" position, I might add), is "false and dangerous"! Oh that is a good one! The actual history of the Hardshell denomination disproves this as being the case, however. Rather, it demonstrates that it is Daily's view that is "false and dangerous."
Which view has done more to spread the gospel and make new disciples? No wonder Elder Cayce, as I observed in previous chapters, did not want to defend the history of his people as regards being obedient to the "Great Commission"!
Which is more "false and dangerous"? To restrict the telling of others about Jesus to only ordained clergy OR to include every baptized disciple?
Which is more "false and dangerous," the view that says the "Great Commission" has been "fulfilled," either "initially" or "fully," OR the one that says it is still binding?
Which is more "false and dangerous," the view that says the authority and oversight of the ordinance of baptism is in the hands of the ministry ALONE, OR one the view that says it is in the hands of the church as well as the ministry?
Which is more "false and dangerous," the view that says the church has no duty to support missionaries OR the view that says that they do have such a duty?
Elder Daily also says that the view that says the "Great Commission" is binding on all the body of Christ, or on every baptized disciple, "shifts responsibility from the ministry to the church." Yet, what has he and his Hardshell brethren done? Have they not done the reverse? Have they not "shifted the responsibility from the ordinary disciple to an ordained clergy?" How is this NOT "priestcraft"? Besides, why does he see this as an "either or" question, as if the "responsibility" to "evangelize" could not be a shared responsibility between the church and the missionary, evangelist, or elder?
He also says that the belief that the "Great Commission" was given to every baptized disciple supports another unscriptural idea, that of a "salaried ministry"! As if that is forbidden in scripture! But more on this point in future chapters.
Daily continues:
"That this ordinance is taught in the New Testament no one will question. That it was intended to be perpetuated is evident from the commission given by the Saviour to preach and baptize, and from the fact that the apostles, acting under that commission, did continue to practice it. This commission was given just before Christ ascended to heaven, which shows that it was designed for the dispensation then introduced. No change of dispensation has taken place, so the commission has never been revoked. The promise of the presence of Jesus to the end of the world clearly implies the perpetuity of the commission. True ministers of the gospel, now acting under that commission, are bound by it to preach the gospel and administer baptism. In this investigation of the subject we wish to consider the following points: 1. What baptism is. 2. Who are to be baptized. 3. What its design is. 4. Who are authorized to baptize."
http://oldlinemessenger.homestead.com/johnrdaily2.html
("Water Baptism" - Zion's Advocate, Vol. 39, No. 10, October 1900)
It is all well and good that Elder Daily uprooted the false notion, existing only among his heretical denomination, about the "Great Commission" was fulfilled. Thus, several of the greatest Hardshell debaters and apologists, Elders Daily, Cayce, Hassell, Thompson, Potter, etc., all believed that the "Great Commission" was not fulfilled, just as Dr. Carey pointed out long ago. Daily's error is in limiting the responsibility, duty, and privilege of "discipling" others to only the clergy.
It seems that we again have another "reform" movement within the Hardshell denomination led by Elders Lasserre Bradley, Jr., and Elder Gus Harter. As I have mentioned before, I know these two men personally from my years in the Hardshell church. As I have said before, there have been several attempts by certain leaders in the "anti-mission movement" or "Old School Baptist" denomination to "reform" the denomination, or to "roll back the tide" that was taking the denomination further into extremism.
The "Pence-Burnam" division over "means" and over "Sunday Schools" and "Missions," and over the "Great Commission," has already been mentioned in my book, and was an attempt to "reform" the Hardshells. Kirkland also attempted to "reform" the Hardshells but also met with failure. The churches represented by these "reformers," where are they now? Yes, some became Missionary Baptist, yet surely remained Calvinistic, but whether they remained independent and outside of associations, are questions I cannot answer at this time. But I will have more to say about this in upcoming chapters. Also, I will be having more to say about this modern attempt at "reform" by Bradley and Harter in upcoming chapters later in this book. But, here is what Harter said about the "Great Commission" in writing to his more "conservative" or "hard-headed" brethren.
"In Matthew 28:19-20, baptism was given as a church ordinance and inseparably linked to baptism was the command to teach all nations. You cannot accept baptism as a church ordinance without accepting that the command to teach all nations is also addressed to the church." (Elder Gus Harter, Atlanta Newsletter Jan. 1996)
("Today's Primitive Baptist Missionary Movement Compared with the Black Rock Address" by Elder Claude McKee)
http://oldlinemessenger.homestead.com/cmckeetodaysmissionarymovement.html
Well, obviously many others have seen the silliness and absurdity of the argumentation of the Hardshells on the "Great Commission." It is really easy to demonstrate the contradictions and inconsistencies in the position that affirms that the "authority to baptize" and to "evangelize" was not given to the church. Kirkland saw it. Pence and Burnam and Todd saw it. I saw it. Harter has seen it. How many others today are seeing it?
Elder Potter wrote:
"I argue that as it (Lord's Supper) is a church ordinance, it necessarily follows that baptism is as truly a prerequisite to the Lord's Supper as that the ordinance of baptism is essential to a gospel church."
"The first text that I will introduce in support of my position is the commission, as recorded by Matthew: "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen."
"Second, to baptize, and afterwards teach them to do all other things that Jesus had commanded them. If he had commanded them to observe the communion at all, which will not be denied, then it is plain that the communion is embraced in "all things whatsoever I have commanded you," and, if so, then baptism is given by the Lord, himself, before the communion. The best way for Christians to prove their loyalty and fidelity to the Savior and His word is to obey him." (Communion Lecture 1)
http://www.paradisepbc.org/Articles/communionlecture1potter.htm
Again, the inconsistency here is clearly observable. The apostles taught the church to keep the Lord's Supper, as an "ordinance," and this was part of the "all things" mentioned in the Commission. But, why does he not see that the ordinance of baptism was likewise part of the "all things"? I have repeated this rebuttal more than once. Why does Elder Potter EXCLUDE the command to "go" and the command to "teach," and the command to "preach," and the command to "make disciples," and the command to "baptize"?
Most of the original objections to "mission boards" and "societies" and "agencies" were because it took this duty away from the CHURCH. But, if those people, who originally made the objections, believed that this duty was not given to the church, then how could they legitimately argue this way?
Most writings and articles of faith of the Primitive Baptists say that "baptism and the Lord's supper are the two ordinances the Lord GAVE TO THE CHURCH."
"Our Ordinances"
"We believe that Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are the only two ordinances prescribed for the New Testament Church. We practice the washing of the saints’ feet as an example given by the Lord of Christian humility. (See Matthew 26:26-28, 28:18-20, John 13:3-17, I Timothy 5:10, I Peter 3:21.)"
http://www.aberdeenprimitivebaptistchurch.org/Doctrine&Practice.htm
I dare say that old Primitive Baptists documents will all say the same thing. They all show that the Old Baptists all spoke of baptism as being given to the church and as a "church ordinance."
Elder Daily, in other writings, argued that the "ordinances" were delivered to the church, per I Cor. 11: 2. Did this exclude baptism? The "making of disciples"?
Elder Claud Cayce wrote:
"Those who are called of God to preach the gospel are commanded not only to teach or preach and to baptize, but they are to teach them to "observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." (Editorial writings, Volume III, page 274)
It is amazing that Elder Cayce could have affirmed that those who were given the commission were to teach new disciples to "observe ALL things" that Christ commanded the apostles and yet turn around and deny it by saying that the commands to "preach (proclaim)," and to "teach," and to "baptize," and to "make disciples" (the main verb), are NOT commands to teach the average disciple to "observe"! Is this not great blindness?
As I said previously in this series, the Hardshells read the words of Jesus in Matthew 28 and interpret it as if it read thusly:
"You (ordained ministers) teach them (the disciples, or non-ministers) to observe all things I have commanded YOU (the ordained ministers) EXCEPT for the COMMAND to GO, and the COMMAND to MAKE DISCIPLES, and the COMMAND to BAPTIZE, and the COMMAND to TEACH"!
No, no, say the Hardshells! DO NOT TEACH them to observe the commands to "go, teach, disciple, or to baptize"!
"All things commanded" to the apostles must include the commands to go, teach, preach, disciple, and baptize, must it not? How can one exclude these commands and then say "we teach disciples to observe every command that Christ gave to the apostles"?
Cayce says further:
"In the days of Gill and Brine there were not disturbances among the Baptists on the question of the commission or missions." ("History Repeats Itself" - Volume I, page 153)
"Gill and Brine were eminent men, they were representative men, of the Baptist Church in their day, and they did not call upon the unregenerate to repent and believe the gospel." (Page 154)
"The churches were having no trouble on the mission question in those days. It is evident that the Baptist ministers and churches of that day did not hold to the idea that the obligation of the commission was resting upon the church, for they were not engaged in mission work." (Ibid)
Cayce is in error when he implies that the Baptists of the 18th century, or even before then, did not believe that the church or average disciple was under solemn obligation to spread the gospel in their communities and in foreign countries. Yes, sure, the Baptists did not practice mass evangelism then to the same extent as in later years. But, Cayce is wrong to infer that this was due to the denomination not believing in them.
First, the denomination did not come out of the wilderness till the 17th century and were still a relatively small denomination and were therefore limited to mission work in England and nearby countries. Second, persecution kept them from doing any evangelism on a widespread scale. When you are being jailed for preaching the gospel, you cannot very well get heavily involved in mission work. Third, yes, there was a spirit of Hyperism existent then in England when Carey and Fuller began to stir the denomination in regard to missions.
Providence had opened the door by growing the denomination and by advances in travel and by other such things.
The Old Baptists in England did not sing in church for a long time. Did this mean that it was wrong? Were they not wrong not to sing and did they not need to be "reformed"?
Cayce cites the "Black Rock Address" which stated - "we do regard as of the first importance the command given of Christ, primarily to the apostles, and through them to His ministers in every age, to ‘Go into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature,’ and do feel an earnest desire to be found acting in obedience thereunto, as the providence of God directs our way, and opens a door of utterance for us." (Page 155)
But why did he not cite this part?
"...the Lord has manifestly established the order, that his ministers should be sent forth by the churches. But the mission plan is to send them out by a mission society."
Cayce says further:
"If you remove the idea from the minds of men that the commission is binding on the church, you would have removed the foundation from under the whole mission theory and the fabric would crumble and fall, having no foundation upon which to stand." (Ibid)
And, that my friends, has been the "mission" of the Hardshell clergy ever since their genesis. They are trying to get disciples to quit their evangelizing of others! They are trying to get them to stop making other Christians! To stop telling others about Jesus and the gospel!
What good has come of this taking away the responsibility of mission work from the church and average disciple? Has the Hardshell "ministry" fulfilled THEIR "responsibility" and executed the "Great Commission"?
Cayce says further:
"These brethren at Black Rock held the original view, that the commission was given primarily to the apostles and through them to the ministry in every age. This was Gill’s view."
Yes, they did apply the "Great Commission" to the ministry, but they did not exclude the church! I have already cited the Black Rock Address to prove that point. Yes, Gill did believe the "Great Commission" was binding on the ministry, but NOT TO THE EXCLUSION OF THE CHURCH. I have already cited Gill where he said that the churches were to "send out evangelists" and to support them financially.
He then cites Gill wherein Gill said - "...and besides, this commission not only included the apostles, but reaches to all the ministers of the gospel in succeeding ages to the end of the world; and since this, one part of the world which was not known, is now discovered: and the order includes that, as well as the then known parts of the world; and the gospel accordingly has been sent into it." (Page 156)
Cayce then comments, saying - "This shows that Gill held that the commission was to the apostles and ministry and not to the church." (Ibid)
But, where did he get that from Gill? Did Gill say that it was not given to the church or to the ordinary disciple? I will shortly cite Gill which shows that Cayce is wrong on this point. But, I have already shown how they misinterpret and misquote the good doctor quite frequently. But, before I do, let me cite a little more from Elder Cayce.
"The ordinances can be administered by those, only, who are authorized by the church to administer them." ("Authority to Ordain" Page 385)
"Authorized by the church to baptize"? I thought he believed that every Hardshell minister got his "commission" directly from Christ? If a minister has to get authority from the church to baptize and to preach, then this destroys his whole apologetic that avers that the church has no responsibility in this matter! But, Cayce, like all others who handle this subject, show how it is indeed a "hot potato" issue! Is baptism an ordinance of the church or the ministry? He cannot have it both ways without denying Hardshellism!
Cayce writes further:
"This is one trouble now in the church of God-preachers control too much. They are too much like lords and masters, instead of "your servants for Jesus’ sake." (Volume IV, page 41 - "A Suggestion")
I wonder why so many Hardshell preachers became "control lords" and "masters"? Could it be because of their views on giving to much "responsibility" on the ministry to the exclusion of the body of disciples?
1644 London Confession - Article XLI.
"The persons designed by Christ, to dispense this ordinance, the Scriptures hold forth to a preaching Disciple, it being no where tied to a particular church, officer, or person extraordinarily sent, the commission enjoining the administration, being given to them under no other consideration, but as considered Disciples. Isa. 8:16; Mat. 28:16-19; John 4:1-2; Acts 20:7; Mat. 26:26."
These words of the first Old Baptists show:
1) That they believed any baptized disciple could baptize another disciple. Thus, Cayce and the Hardshells are not Old Baptists and are against the oldest confessions of the Baptists.
2) They also show that the first Baptists believed that the "Great Commission" (referenced by them) was given to "ordinary disciples," or to the church.
Besdies, it all makes sense that if one disciple can impart to another the substance or reality of the gospel, then surely he can impart to him, or perform upon him, the symbol of it!
Article LI."Remembering always we ought to obey God rather then men, and grounding upon the commandment, commission, and promise of our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, who as He has power in heaven and earth, so also has promised, if we keep His commandments which He has given us, to be with us to the end of the world: and when we have finished our course, and kept the faith, to give us the crown of righteousness, which is laid up for all that love His appearing, and to whom we must give an account of all our actions, no man being able to discharge us of the same.
1) Acts 2:40,41; 4:19; 5:28,29,41; 20:23; 1 Thes. 3:3; Phil. 1:27-29; Dan. 3:16,17; 6:7, 10, 22, 23.
2) Matth. 28:18-20; 1 Tim. 6:13-15; Rom. 12:1.8; 1 Cor. 14:37; 2 Tim. 4:7,8; Rev. 2:10; Gal 2:4,5 "
This language is clear and unmistakeable. These first Old Baptists believed that the "Great Commission" was given to every disciple and was still binding and would be till the end of the world. There is no way to limit the pronouns used by these brethren to mean only the "clergy" but clearly denote all members of the church.
John Gill wrote:
Baptism: A Public Ordinance of Divine Worship
"As the first covenant, or testament, had ordinances of divine service, which are shaken, removed, and abolished; so the New Testament, or gospel dispensation, has ordinances of divine worship, which cannot be shaken, but will remain until the second coming of Christ: these, as Austin says, are few; and easy to be observed, and of a very expressive signification. Among which, baptism must be reckoned one, and is proper to be treated of in the first place; for though it is not a church ordinance, it is an ordinance of God, and a part and branch of public worship. When I say it is not a church ordinance, I mean it is not an ordinance administered in the church, but out of it, and in order to admission into it, and communion with it; it is preparatory to it, and a qualification for it; it does not make a person a member of a church, or admit him into a visible church; persons must first be baptized, and then added to the church, as the three thousand converts were; a church has nothing to do with the baptism of any, but to be satisfied they are baptized before they are admitted into communion with it. Admission to baptism lies solely in the breast of the administrator, who is the only judge of qualifications for it, and has the sole power of receiving to it, and of rejecting from it; if not satisfied, he may reject a person thought fit by a church, and admit a person to baptism not thought fit by a church; but a disagreement is not desirable nor advisable: the orderly, regular, scriptural rule of proceeding seems to be this: a person inclined to submit to baptism, and to join in communion with a church, should first apply to an administrator; and upon giving him satisfaction, be baptized by him; and then should propose to the church for communion; when he would be able to answer all proper questions: if asked, to give a reason of the hope that is in him, he is ready to do it; if a testimony of his life and conversation is required, if none present can give it, he can direct where it is to be had; and if the question is put to him, whether he is a baptized person or not, he can answer in the affirmative, and give proof of it, and so the way is clear for his admission into church fellowship. So Saul, when converted, was immediately baptized by Ananias, without any previous knowledge and consent of the church; and, it was many days after this that he proposed to join himself to the disciples, and was received (Acts 9:18,19,23,26-28), and as it is water baptism which is meant..."
http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Sermons&Tracts/sermon_59.htm
Dr. Gill's position, it seems to me, would be more consistent with the Hardshells who say that baptism was solely given to the ministry. I do see inconsistencies in the view of Dr. Gill, but the above commentary of Dr. Gill does not contradict what was said in the first London Confession. Dr. Gill believed that an "evangelist" or traveling minister, even unordained by a church, may adminster baptism. So, he did not restrict it to only ordained men, men who got their authority from the church. What Gill is saying is that any man who is under a calling to preach and to spread the gospel, and who in fact does so, may baptize others who come to embrace the gospel he preaches. But, I will elaborate on these points in future chapters.
Elder Daily wrote:
"As it was not said to the apostles to send into the world but to go, we have always held that the commission was given to the ministry. That the minister must have the sanction of the church is not disputed...the commission to go and preach is one thing, and an approval or sanction of that commission is quite another."
Is it "quite another thing"? No, only in Daily's twisted mind.
Daily said:"Christ sent forth preachers who traveled and preached extensively and successfully before they were authorized by the church to baptize."
("A Loving Appeal to the Primitive Baptists" By Elder John R. Daily 1906)
http://www.carthage.lib.il.us/community/churches/primbap/Appeal.html
But, why must he get authority from the church if the church has no authority in the matter of baptisms? Does the church name and appoint the administrator or not?
He said again:
"Who are authorized to baptize. This is a subject about which there has been much disputing. Many contend that the lack of authority on the part of the administrator does not invalidate the baptism; or rather that no one person has authority to baptize to the exclusion of any others. Mr. A. Campbell laid down the following as a rule of his faith: "There is no law in the christian Scriptures authorizing any one class of citizens in the christian kingdom to immerse to the exclusion of any other class of citizens." He found no precept or example, however, even when pressed by Mr. Rice in their noted debate, in proof that all "citizens of the kingdom," ministers and laity, men and women, adults and children, have equal authority to baptize. We once heard a preacher, who pretended to be a Baptist, outstrip Campbell himself in stating this loose practice. Just before the Pence-Burnam party left the Danville Association, of Indiana, one of their leading preachers, J. W. Shirley, in a session of that Association when this question was being discussed, arose and made this startling statement: "If the devil himself should transform himself into an angel of light, and deceive and baptize one of the Lord's children, that baptism would be valid." We give this merely to show to what extremes people may be led by heresy."
But, Campbell was right on this point! He could state, at times, the proper view of Baptists. He knew their history. And, he was accurately stating the teaching of both the bible and of the Baptists. The question about the validity of baptist administered by the devil is a far cry different from saying, as did the first Confession, that any disciple can baptize. But, our first Baptist forefathers dealt at length with this issue when they debated with other denominations on the validity of their baptisms. They taught that the case of John the Baptist proved that an unbaptized person may adminster baptism. They said that to affirm that only a baptized person could baptize would nullfy all the baptisms of John, for John was himself never baptized! John also did not get his authority for baptizing from a church. So, the case of John the Baptist probably does more to uphold the view of Gill. But, as I said, Gill did not say that baptism administered by an appointed member of the church or a "teaching disciple" was not scriptural.
Daily writes further:
"Our position is that the authority to administer baptism is restricted, by the inspired word, to certain persons to the exclusion of all others. In the first place it is restricted to the church. The commission to preach and to baptize was given by the Saviour to his disciples. Then they constituted his church. On the day of Pentecost "they that gladly receive his word were baptized" and thus added to the church. From that day to the last recorded fact given us in the Acts of the Apostles there is not an instance to be found where this holy rite was performed by any one not connected with the church of Christ. As this was the practice of the Apostles, we must follow their example in order to be apostolic in this respect. Those who tarried at Jerusalem until they were endued with power from on high received their authority from Christ. The authority to baptize, therefore, was committed to the church, to whom the Lord gave apostles, teachers, prophets, &c., for the work of the ministry. The office of bishop or elder was formed, and to such as were deemed worthy and competent to fill that office was given authority to administer the ordinances of the church."
Here is another contradiction by Daily. Who was "endued with power from on high"? Was it only the "eleven" or only the "apostles" or only the "elders"? No! So, Daily's argumentation goes down the drain! Daily is not handling this "hot potato" very well! He wants to try to say the authority to preach and to baptize comes inititally from the church when it ordains a man, and yet say that the church was never given authority in those areas! Well, as I have said before, "that dog won't hunt."
Daily says:"A plea is sometimes made in behalf of spurious baptisms that it is impossible to prove a regular succession of authorized administrators from the apostles to the present day. This plea assumes that "the gates of hell" have prevailed against the church, which is a palpable contradiction of the Saviour's declaration. If there has been a period, long or short, at which the church set up by Christ became extinct, then the King has been dethroned, his work has been a failure, his purpose has been overturned, his promise has failed, and his word has proved false! How preposterous! This plea assumes that to be true for which there is not only no proof, but which is in direct opposition to all the facts pertaining to the case. The reason the idea of church succession is so bitterly opposed by the Arminian churches is that they know that the proof of it gives them no right to claim authority.
Again, the plea is sometimes made that the candidate is baptized upon a profession of his own faith, and it matters not what the faith and order of the administrator is. It is true that when one is scripturally baptized, he is baptized because he holds right views and sentiments, but it is also true that he is baptized into the faith of the church. His baptism is a public acceptance, on his part, of the doctrine of the church. When a person is baptized into the Methodist church by a Methodist preacher, that act declares him to hold to the doctrine of that church, and so of the Presbyterians, and any other sect. If he does not believe the doctrine of the church into which he is baptized, his baptism declares a falsehood. It follows that the doctrine or faith of the candidate and of the church into which he is baptized must be right to render his baptism valid gospel baptism."
"For centuries the Old Order of Baptists have been hated and derided for their practice of baptizing those who came to them from other churches. How much more popular they would be with the world if they would abandon this distinguishing practice and receive the works of men! But is it not much better to be consistent than popular? Early in the fourth century, and during many subsequent centuries, the Baptists, who were opposed to the Roman Catholic party, were called anabaptists by their enemies, which means re-baptizers. Their practice of baptizing those who came to them from the Catholics gave them this appellation. They denied being re-baptizers, however, asserting that the members thus received had never been baptized. If the Roman Catholic church is not the church of Christ its ministers have no authority to administer an ordinance for the church of Christ. The same is true of any church. We have baptized a great many who came from other churches, not that we thought there were no christian preachers except in our church, but for reasons already stated. We have heard many say they were satisfied with their baptism but not with their church, and that they would join the Baptists if they would receive their baptism. Such are not strong enough Baptists to be Baptists, and they had better wait till they are tired of their Babylonish garment and are ready to throw it off. Joining the wrong church is a step in the wrong direction, and being baptized in that church is a step in the same direction. If two steps are taken in the same direction, both are wrong if the first is wrong."
http://oldlinemessenger.homestead.com/johnrdaily3.html
("Water Baptism" - Zion's Advocate, Vol. 39, No. 12, December, 1900)
Truly Elder Daily did more to help his opposition than he did to help his own cause on the matter of the proper interpretation of the "Great Commission" and of the relationship of individuals to it. Daily's entire argumentation against accepting "alien baptisms" from other non-Hardshell Baptist churches is based upon the supposition that baptism is a church ordinance! If it is not a church ordinance, then all he says in support of his not accepting the immersions of others, becomes of no weight. Certainly Elder Harter and others among today's Hardshells are being honest enough to admit the error of their forefathers on this point, by men like Daily and Hassell.
Yes, the old "Anabaptists" did practice "re-baptizing" but this was mainly in regard to all those who had not been immersed, properly baptizing those who had been "sprinkled" or "baptized" as an infant. But, it remains to be shown that they rebaptized people who were immersed by other groups who likewise immersed upon profession of faith and repentance.
In summing up this chapter, and all the other foregoing chapters on "Hardshells and the Great Commission," I wish to say this.
With the Hardshells the "Great Commission" it is the "Great Omission"!
They have taken the "go" out of "gospel" and all they are left with is a bewitching "spell." (Galatians 3: 1,2)
No comments:
Post a Comment