A STRONG DOSE FOR A STRONG BROTHER: OR, AN OLD BAPTIST FLY-FLAP FOR A BAPTIST GADFLY (ELDER JOHN G. CROWLEY)

This is an article from our dear brother Elder John G. Crowley, who we have been trying to tempt to submit articles for us and has finally consented - ed.

While searching for an item related to “Hardshells,” I stumbled across a “Strong Brother’s” Baptist Gadfly blog. More than a gadfly, he resembles a tumble-bug in his assiduous collection of the errors of the Primitive Baptists, or in his favorite piece of cant, the “Hardshell Cult.” Probably the chief benefit of his voluminous writings has been to vent his own spleen, like a jilted suitor’s post-mortem of a defunct love affair. 

I have not read The Strong Brother in detail, nor intend a point-by-point commentary, but see no reason that his insolence should go unrequited. I do not expect to enlighten the omniscience of The Strong Brother, nor do I think he will draw off after himself anyone the Hardshells will miss, but mocking those I love is a privilege I reserve to myself.

The Strong Brother gives a bit of background on his blog, so I suppose I ought to do the same. I am sixty-eight years of age, and was once described as “a savage Cracker from South Georgia.” My mother’s family staunchly adhered to the Primitive Baptist doctrine for six generations, and to the Calvinistic scheme generally since the Sixteenth Century. Through them, I am very distantly related to Jonathan Edwards and Elder Gilbert Beebe. I am more closely related to Elder Henry Milton, Moderator of the Ochlocknee Association during the Missionary Split, and who played a major role in the defenestration of the Fullerites from that body. My paternal lineage was less religiously inclined. My grandfather once publicly cursed the local Missionary Baptist preacher to his face for a bloodsucking parasite. I have an eye for both the sublime and the ridiculous in these matters and can read John Gill and Tom Paine with equal interest.

At fourteen, I went to the 1969 session of the Original Union Primitive Baptist Association, October 18, 11 AM, at Union “Burnt Church” in Lakeland GA and something told me “This is it.” Though I loved the church at first sight, I did not love its doctrine until I heard Elder Lamar Carter preach from Rom. 9:13 and soon after realized I not only believed the doctrine but loved it. I joined the Primitive Baptist Church at the age of seventeen and soon began to speak in public. “A young saint makes an old devil,” examples of which are seldom far to seek to be both conceited and overly curious, I read enough of the Puritans, followed by the maypole dancing of C.S. Lewis, and topped off with Cardinal Newman’s poetry disguised in logic, to create spiritual indigestion sufficient to land me in a Catholic Seminary. 

Providence eventually returned me to the people my soul loved. By then, I could argue equally well for three or four religions, and better against all of them, but my original “eureka” kept me dragging around after the Old Baptists. At present my name is on the book of Union Primitive Baptist Church, Lanier County, Georgia, which belongs to the Bennett faction of the Alabaha River Primitive Baptist Association. Now retired, my secular employment was to teach lies agreed upon, otherwise known as history, at Valdosta State University, as an Associate Professor. However, I think that as a semi-defrocked, but “eddicated” sometime supposed preacher, I am qualified to address The Strong Brother’s quibbles.

Softshell Squasher Number One: You can’t pickle all Hardshells in the same tub. Much of Sampson’s criticism is directed toward the “Conditionalist” faction of the so-called “Old Line.” He obviously knows little of the Absoluters, less of the Progressives, and nothing of smaller factions that have been preserved in large measure from many of the faults of which he complains. Three Primitive Baptists will form four factions and excommunicate each other, and Providence has often overruled this fissile tendency in their favor.

The late Elder Elisha Roberts, a frequent visiting preacher at my home church, never preached without mentioning that “the gospel is the power of God unto salvation,” and that “I ain’t nothin’ but an ol’ instrument, but God can tune that instrument.” The Original Alabaha River Primitive Baptist Association, commonly known as Crawfordites, has always strongly advocated gospel instrumentality and gospel address to the unconverted. And far from being Progressives, these people are but a shave away from the Amish. In my own association, warm expressions of concern for the spiritual state of all our hearers are frequently heard and are certainly no bar to fellowship. I have heard one of our ministers call out from the stand, “Repent! Repent! Repent!” We also exclusively use the Primitive Hymns, which are chock full of the old divinity. Also, in 1910, we adopted a resolution dropping fellowship with all churches and associations “infected” with Elder Lee Hanks, the Fulton Convention’s principal pimp in Georgia and Alabama.

 
Softshell Squasher Number Two: There is a saying among historians, “God can’t change the past, but we can.” Of course, Primitive Baptists have been guilty of selectively quoting the historical record. Of course, they are biased in their interpretation of the past. That is why history is called “a lie agreed upon.” Most church history is nothing but filiopietistic balderdash. The President of the Debate Team’s selective handling of Dr. Gill is equally egregious. Genealogists can outlie church historians, but not by much. The Baptists have been a divided and mixed bag throughout their history, and their records contain precedents for almost anything.

Softshell Squasher Number Three: To be taken seriously, a critic ought to avoid raking up every silly peculiarity to which mortal inconsistency gives rise. His Softshell Cult abounds in ultraists and eccentrics. If his blog is anything to go by, he despises virtually every professed Predestinarian living and dead. Too much of The Strong One’s hoorawing concerns picayunish matters that amount to sheer piffle. It is like being stoned with popcorn.

Softshell Squasher Number Four: True definition of a cult: Any religious group

the speaker does not like. On a more serious note, a cult usually has an unquestioning adherence to the leadership and teaching of some charismatic figure. The Fullerite Softshell Staretz, the Archflamen Bob Ross of the Shrine of the Deified Spurgeon at one time sold busts of their god. I rest my case.

Softshell Squasher Number Five: Novel interpretations and doctrines. The Primitive Baptists, especially the Conditionalist faction, have had an unfortunate number of clever wiseacres who showed their superior penetration with a range of boneheaded novelties, penetrating the bottom of the world and falling out of it. On the other hand, The Strong Brother maintains, in opposition to all known commentators, that the “weak brethren” Paul mentions in I Cor. 8 are actually unbelievers, since believers are “strong,” and throws Esther out of the Canon in defiance of nearly every known list of the Sacred Books from the translation of the Septuagint to the present day. So: Strong Brethren can interpret Scripture contrary to the sense of the last 2000 years, and prune the Sacred Canon, but God forbid the“weak” and ignorant Hardshells should do so.

On the issue of novelty, doctrinal definitions have been called forth by controversy. The Arian heresy called forth the definition of Nicaea, and the Monophysites that of Chalcedon. Closer to our own time, the superstitions of the Middle Ages called forth Luther’s Solas, and the heresy of the Remonstrants the Five Points of Dort. Godly reaction against the National Church of England led to the gathered church, which in turn led to believer’s baptism.
I assume The Strong Brother is with me thus far. But, should I assert that the excesses of Arminianism and “low” Calvinism led to the rejection of the free offer, and Fullerite errors to the non-instrumental theory of regeneration, then suddenly all new definitions of doctrine are heresy. 

Softshell Squasher number six: True definition of a hyper Calvinist: anyone higher on Divine Sovereignty than the speaker.

Softshell Squasher number seven: John Gill. The Sage of Goat Yard seems to be something of a hot potato for our Atlas. From his Hardshell days he seems to retain a fondness for the “Coryphaeus of the Hyper-Calvinists,” but despite his best efforts to whistle past Bunhill Fields in the dark, he seems to know that the shade of the Great Doctor is not his friend, and stalks close behind him like a horrid fiend he dares not gaze at directly. That Gill did not completely repudiate the instrumentality of the word in regeneration must be conceded by any candid reader. The same candid reader must also concede that he came as close to repudiation as makes little difference. His doubts about the doctrine anticipate almost every anti-instrumental argument set forth by the Primitive Baptists and others. He also plainly asserted that infants and others incapable of hearing the gospel may be saved without it. In short, the Great Doctor may not have entered the Hardshell Canaan, but he certainly gazed upon it from his lofty Pisgah. Further, if I have any understanding of my mother tongue, the Doctor plainly opines that effectual calling may be distinguished from regeneration if regeneration is understood as the first imparting of life to the soul. How does this differ in any essential from the division between regeneration and conversion Sampson Redidivus condemns as hybrid Calvinism, which he seems to think infects not only the Hardshells but virtually all Predestinarians. I will freely grant that the Conditionalist faction of the Primitive Baptists have used this idea as a launch site for an uncontrolled doctrinal spaceflight culminating in a sort of creeping universalism. Our Hercules may flog the blood out of this foolishness with my blessing. But abusum non tollet usum [abuse does not cancel use : misuse of something is no argument against its proper use. ed]

Speaking of the Great Doctor, let me here insert a lengthy quotation from the section “Of Effectual Calling” in Book Three of the Body of Doctrinal Divinity. If the Hardshells do not preach like this, then neither did his god Spurgeon: 

“First, This may be considered either as a call to saints, to such who have a work of grace already begun in them; and to such it is a call, not only to the means of grace, but to partake of the blessings of grace; to come as thirsty persons, eagerly desirous of spiritual things, "to the waters", the ordinances, and drink at them; to "buy wine and milk", spiritual blessings, signified hereby, without "money, and without price", these being to be had freely: and these are also called as laboring under a sense of sin, and under a spirit of bondage, to "come" to Christ for "rest", peace, pardon, life, and salvation (Isa. 55:1; Matthew 11:28), and these in and by the ministry of the word, are called, excited, and encouraged to the exercise of evangelical graces, wrought in them, and bestowed upon them; as repentance, faith, hope, love, and every other; such were the three thousand converts under Peter’s sermon, and the jailor, who were under a previous work of the Spirit of God, when they were called and encouraged to repent and believe in Christ, (Acts 2:37, 38; 16:29-31), and these are also called, and urged, and pressed, in and by the ministry of the word, to a constant attendance on ordinances, and not to forsake the assembly of the saints, and to a diligent performance of every religious duty, and to be ready to every good work in general: or this external call may be considered, as a call of sinners in a state of nature and unregeneracy; but then it is not a call to them to regenerate and convert themselves, of which there is no instance; and which is the pure work of the Spirit of God: nor to make their peace with God, which they cannot make by anything they can do; and which is only made by the blood of Christ: nor to get an interest in Christ, which is not got, but given: nor to the exercise of evangelical grace, which they have not, and therefore can never exercise: nor to any spiritual vital acts, which they are incapable of, being natural men, and dead in trespasses and sins. 

Nor is the gospel ministry an offer of Christ, and of his grace and salvation by him, which are not in the power of the ministers of it to give, nor of carnal men to receive; the gospel is not an offer, but a preaching of Christ crucified, a proclamation of the unsearchable riches of his grace, of peace, pardon, righteousness, and life, and salvation by him. Yet there is something in which the ministry of the word, and the call by it, have to do with unregenerate sinners: they may be, and should be called upon, to perform the natural duties of religion; to a natural faith, to give credit to divine revelation, to believe the external report of the gospel, which not to do, is the sin of the deists; to repent of sin committed, which even the light of nature dictates; and God, in his word, commands all men everywhere to repent: to pray to God for forgiveness, as Simon Magus was directed by the apostle: and to pray to God for daily mercies that are needed, is a natural and moral duty; as well as to give him praise, and return thanks for mercies received, which all men that have breath are under obligation to do. They may, and should be called upon to attend the outward means of grace, and to make use of them; to read the Holy Scriptures, which have been the means of the conversion of some; to hear the word, and wait on the ministry of it, which may be blessed unto them, for the effectual calling of them. And it is a part of the ministry of the word to lay before men their fallen, miserable, lost, and undone estate by nature; to open to them the nature of sin, its pollution and guilt, and the sad consequences of it; to inform them of their incapacity to make atonement for it; and of their impotence and inability to do what is spiritually good; and of the insufficiency of their own righteousness to justify them in the sight of God: and they are to be made acquainted, that salvation is alone by Christ, and not other ways; and the fullness, freeness, and suitableness of this salvation, are to be preached before them; and the whole to be left to the Spirit of God, to make application of it as he shall think fit.”

Here is another quotation from the Exposition of the New Testament, which, if not Hardshell doctrine is not quite Strong Brother doctrine either: 

“And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? …this is to be understood of the ordinary way and means of believing; for though God can, and sometimes does work by other means, and even without any, yet his usual way and method is, to bring men to faith and repentance by the hearing of the word”

Before I leave Dr. Gill, let me say that The Strong Brother is not altogether correct in his assessment of the current Primitive Baptist attitude toward him. The late Elder Mahue Young, a most able man, once told me, “I have spent my life arguing with John Gill, and I have lost every argument I ever had with him.”

Softshell Squasher Number eight: Divorce: The Strong Brother is apparently not strong enough to stomach the doctrine and discipline of divorce as administered by the Primitive Baptists of North Carolina, who are notoriously strict on this subject. To this, I can only say that he must have known their views when he joined them.

One of the most striking differences between the Westminister Confession and the London Confession is the section on marriage. The Westminister Confession provides explicitly for divorce, while the London Confession is as silent as the grave on the matter. This may reflect the legal changes brought about at the Restoration, but it is an interesting difference. On this as on other topics, all Hardshells and “Hypers” can’t be measured in the same bushel. The Gospel Standard Strict Baptists do not allow re-marriage after divorce for any reason while the former spouse is still living. The Original Alabaha River Primitive Baptist Association follows the same rule. On the other hand, my own wing of the Alabaha River has for the last seventy-odd years received members who re-married after divorce if the events took place before their conversion. Today, I would say most South Georgia Primitive Baptists are only slightly less lax than most other denominations. The Strong Brother opines that the Hardshells became super-strict after the Missionary Split to show how pure they were. I think a cursory perusal of Baptist minute books from the 1700s would quickly correct this misapprehension.

Softshell Squasher number ten: Gospel instrumentality and addresses to the lost. This quotation from the London Confession reduces the whole means/anti-means absquatulation to unprofitable strife of words, a mere distinction without a difference: “Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.”

As to the question of whether to preach “Repent,” or “Repentance,” either will enter the heart if they come in power and demonstration of the Spirit, and neither will do anything otherwise. The Lord knoweth them that are His, and not one will be lost for lack of any means or instrumentality.

Can we preach today like Christ and the Apostles? They commanded their hearers to repent and be converted, true. They also commanded the dead to arise and the lame to walk. Is The Strong Brother strong enough to do that?
Samson Junior has this in his favor, he hates the Campbellites. However, I wonder if he ever realized that the same hermeneutic he uses on the Campbellite baptismal regeneration proof texts would work on the Scriptures he cites in favor of gospel instrumentality? They might also remember that the massive structure of transubstantiation, with its sacrificing priesthood, was reared upon an excessively literal reading of the words of the institution. Emphasis on gospel means has bred priestcraft also.

The essential difference between the Primitives and the Fullerites lies not in the role of the gospel, but in their understanding of the atonement. Somewhere or other The Strong Brother quotes Spurgeon in I Timothy 2:4 to the effect that the Word comes ahead of a mere system, and if God says he wants everyone to be saved, so we should preach, even though God in other places says he will not have all men to be saved. How wonderfully profound! How superior to Hardshell logic! Seemingly he is saying the atonement both is and is not universal, or is and is not particular. But why limit this generous interpretation to the atonement? Why not make peace with our Arminian brothers by saying that election both is and is not unconditional, and that grace both is and is not irresistible. And why stop there? Let us assert that the Pope both is and is not infallible and that Scripture both is and is not the sole rule of our faith, and heal the breach with Rome. Then we can say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone and at the same time proceeds from the Father and the Son, and heal the breach with Orthodoxy. Then we could crown all, by asserting that Jesus both is and is not the Messiah, is and is not Divine, and that Mohammed is and is not a prophet, and unite all the Abrahamic religions.

Wouldn’t that be nice? All one big happy family, and not sulking in corners like the mean old Hardshells.

 
Softshell squasher number eleven: Patternism. The Strong Brother took to this clunky neologism like a Scot to whiskey. Seeking conformity to Scripture in all things pertaining to worship was a distinguishing feature of early Calvinists and Baptists. This is so universally known that I can scarcely credit him for being ignorant of it. I suspect opposition to “patternism” boils down mostly to a defense of instrumental music in worship. As late as 1810, Benedict said the Baptists would have had the Pope in their pulpit as soon as they would have had an organ in their meetinghouse. Knox reputedly scorned an organ as “a kist of whistles,” and even Wesley said he had no objection to organs in Methodist Chapels provided they were neither seen nor heard. As far as I know, only the Anglicans, Lutherans, and Moravians among Protestants employed musical instruments in worship prior to 1800.

But Oh! Tell it not in Gath, lest the daughters of the Hardshells rejoice! Oh! How joy unspeakable and full of glory will illuminate the dreary ponds and stagnant marshes of the waterish Dipped-or-damned Country! The Strong Brother’s infallible oracle, god of his idolatry, last word on law, gospel, and everything: SPURGEON, was opposed to instrumental music in worship!!!!!!

"What a degradation to supplant the intelligent song of the whole congregation by the theatrical prettiness of a quartet, bellows, and pipes! We might as well pray by machinery as praise by it."

Well, boys, there you have it. Spurgeon locuta est, causa finita est.
Anyone of the least taste and discernment, who has heard the unaccompanied hymns of the Great Awakening, finds inconceivable the modern religionist’s irrational addiction to third-rate jingles and fourth-rate melodies accompanied on a cheap piano. All doctrinal questions aside, I know there are people who like new-fangled church music and actually claim they enjoy a “special” bawled like a dying calf in a snowstorm. There are people who enjoy being tied up and flogged, too.

I want to conclude with a few observations on the natural tendency of The Strong Brother’s methods. Paul warned against the wisdom of this world, and good old Martin Luther called reason “Aristotle’s Whore.” Our Gadfly loves to mock the Hardshell use of Scripture, yet the Apostles quote the Old Testament in a manner that “scientific” critics deride. Indeed, the use of the Old Testament by Christians is the laughingstock of skeptics, as witnessed in Paine’s Examination of the Prophecies. Therefore, let those who mock “Hardshell logic” beware. The Bible is written by the Holy Ghost and only understood by His guidance.

“The purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error,” says the London Confession, and certainly the Primitive Baptists are no exception. They are often narrow, dogmatic, tradition-bound, overly speculative and theoretical, cold-hearted, and wrong-headed, and their “benefactions would not amount to the supper bones for a hungry dog.”And, if the foregoing was all there was to them, I could do as I once did and walk away from them rejoicing in my deliverance. But they are also the Church of the Living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. One can either see that, or not see it, and if he doesn’t know it, I can’t show it.

The Strong Brother rejoices that he escaped from the tyrannical Popes and dogmatism of the Hardshells, yet he has only exchanged Cayce for Spurgeon, and Gill for Fuller.

Lastly, he scorns the “landmarkism” of the Primitive Baptists, but he dotes on church history and standing in some sort of “succession.” Given his fatal attraction to historicism, one sad day he will go a-tilting at Catholicism or Orthodoxy, and that will be all she wrote on The Strong Brother. Or, he will follow earthly logic straight into infidelity. Paine didn’t title his magnum opus The Age of Reason for nothing. As for this savage Cracker in the wilds of South Georgia:

I’d rather be a Hardshell, 

And see my children die, 

Than send them to a Sunday School, 

To learn to love a lie.