THE BIRTH OF THE NEW MAN AND ADOPTION OF THE OLD MAN Or, The “Soul of Man” is not the New Man, nor the subject of Regeneration (DUDLEY) 1853

Dearly Beloved Brethren,

In our youth, we were taught to seek instruction from those sources which time and improved opportunities, had rendered most competent to impart it. As we have increased in years, our desire to know the truth as it is in Christ Jesus, has increased.

DO "ALL THINGS" REALLY MEAN "ALL THINGS IN ROMANS 8.28? (POOLE) 1990

"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren." (Rom. 8:28,29)

A SHORT HISTORY OF THE WARWICK OLD SCHOOL BAPTIST CHURCH & ELDER COX'S EXCLUSION

 

ARE WE ANTINOMIANS? (POOLE) 1988

For a long period of time now those who publish "The Remnant" have been variously accused of some of the vilest heresies ever known to humankind, and, in particular we have been branded as Antinomians. By definition an antinomian is one who is "against the law." Using such a definition it would be possible then even to accuse the most extreme Arminian of being an antinomian when he says he is against the law of sin which works in his members. Certainly before one is tagged with malicious titles there should be some understanding of what that title connotes. In this case we refer specifically to being charged with antinomianism.

QUICKENED SPIRITS (DUDLEY) 1877

Lexington, Ky., Jan.25, 1877.

MY DEAR BROTHER BEEBE: - My attention has been recently called to an expression that occurs in the Circular on the Warfare – “quickened spirits.” I remember the expression was severely criticized immediately after the Circular was first printed.

THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD (DUDLEY) 1877

Lexington, Ky., Jan.11, 1877.

MY DEAR BROTHER IN CHRIST: - If you knew my anxiety to hear from you, the interest I take in your temporal and spiritual welfare, I think you would have written before this time. I have not heard anything directly or indirectly from you since we parted in Louisville.

HE IS A VICTORIOUS SAVIOR

"I will be surety for him: If I bring him not unto thee, and set him before thee, then let me bear the blame forever" - Gen 43:9

IF I DON'T FIT SO BE IT

My friends, my goal is not to make God look bad or even good, he is who he is.

WELSH TRACT PUBLICATIONS - ELDER SAMUEL TROTT AMAZON EBOOK $9.99

 

MORGAN EWARDS, HISTORY OF THE BAPTISTS OF DELAWARE AMAZON EBOOK $5.99

 

AND HE HATH BID HIS GUESTS

Zephaniah 1:7 (KJV) "Hold thy peace in the presence of the Lord God: for the day of the Lord is at hand: for the Lord hath prepared a sacrifice, he hath BID his guests."

DOUBT (POOLE) 1989

One of the major tenants of the Arminian's religion is that its adherents must believe with all their heart, and never ever doubt. To doubt, (they say) is to make God a liar; a crime of the deepest hue, and worst magnitude. This has never been fully explained to us, but that is what they say; and "take it or leave it" seems to pervade their stance. And who wants to make God a liar?

While this may not seem too ominous to the new convert, it certainly will aggrieve the woeful sinner that has been far enough down the road to experience a few things for himself. If, for instance, we feel the Word of God condemns some particular activity of ours, will we not sense some condemnation for it? And if we feel some condemnation, then is it not probable that we will be led of the Spirit to examine ourselves? To what purpose would we examine ourselves if there was not at least some little cause for doubt? If you were satisfied beyond a peradventure of your standing before the Lord could you possibly be induced to inquire of yourself as to whether your standing before the Lord was true or false? Simply put, if we sin, and we do, then we are subject to doubts and inquiries.

"Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?" II Corinthians 13:5. That the word whether means "if" needs no proving to the honest soul. Except means "unless" in this text, again raising a question of the possibility of one not being what they once thought they were. It is important here too, to see that the Apostle broached this inquiry to those Corinthians after he had accused their assembly of failing to repent of uncleanness, fornication, and lasciviousness (loose living) II Cor 12:21. Can it be believed that we any less need such an examination in our daily lives? To refuse to examine ourselves is tantamount to saying we are fully established, live in perfect holiness at all times, and "know" we are going to heaven when we die. We cannot speak for others, but for ourselves we feel far, far too much the inward working of sin and unbelief to ignore the admonition.

On one occasion a poor sinner was recorded as saying, "Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief." Mark 9:24. Had there been any of today's modern breed of Arminians there to hear him they would no doubt have rushed upon this wretched unbeliever and severely rebuked him for such a comment. "You had better get saved friend, before it is everlastingly too late. Accept the Saviour before He withdraws the Spirit. Tomorrow's sun may never rise; act now!! Repent! Turn or burn! ....etc, etc, add nauseam." Would their harangue be of any benefit to the sad bemoaner? Only to the extent that it would compel him to flee their company as soon as possible. Sooner far he had rather be alone with his doubts, fears, and unbelief than to endure their sanctimonious company. And so too had the poor little children of the Heavenly King today rather be isolated from all fellowship than to walk with the arrogant Arminians that feel God owes them heaven and happiness because they do not doubt.

J.F. Poole

WELSH TRACT PUBLICATIONS - ELDER WILLIAM L. BEEBE AMAZON EBOOK $5.99

 

WELSH TRACT PUBLICATIONS: H.M. CURRY AMAZON $5.99

THE CONFLICT (POOLE) 1994

"I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me (Romans 7.21)."

The perplexing conflict between good and evil in the Apostle Paul was not an aberration; he said he had discovered a law to that effect. Paul was no religious wastrel, nor was he given to exaggeration. Simply put, this poor man, like all others called by grace, found his life to be swayed by these two principles; good and evil. Thus, by the Spirit of inspiration, he relates his lamentable condition as one of unremitting conflict.

Let us mention that this text is seldom the subject for Arminian inquiry, nor a theme likely to be expostulated upon by those trapped in the web of duty-faith. This text is, rather, a sure beacon in the dark experiences of those tried saints finding so much filthiness and vile imaginations working in the secret recesses of their being. Under God's blessing they may often find comfort, and experience seasons of delight, in learning that such a man as Paul also was vexed by this warfare. It, the warfare, was the endless conflict raging between the old man and the new.

This is not a text to flee from when the great conflict boils within, when many distresses emerge from the love of sin, sinking us down to the lowest regions; it is rather a fountain of truth flowing with comfort and strength. There is no message here of condemnation. No thunderings of threatened punishment gush forth as might be supposed. This text simply sets before us the facts of the matter. In our times of intended good, evil is just as present with us as our aspirations to holiness. There is no "Ought to" or "Ought not to" here; just the exclamation of one who has discovered this law, or certain consequence, of attempting to do good. Evil is present.

Who is there that has not found a little glimmer of hope when hearing a more seasoned child of God lamenting his leanness, and his awful inclinations toward sin? "If that dear brother" we consider, "has these dreadful apprehensions of evil when he desires to do good, then how can we expect to do any better?"

No more sobering and presumption-killing truth ever entered the soul of a child of God than "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit (John 3.6)." These are the sources of good and evil; good naturally flows from the spiritual birth, and evil likewise develops from the fleshly birth. We believe it to be a certain truth that this conflict will continue unabated to the grave.

J. F. Poole

EXODUS 20.8-11 (POOLE) 1990

"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it." (Exodus 20:8-11)

Our text plainly says that the Sabbath day is the seventh day; a point which we wish to strongly emphasize in this article. We do believe a very great misconstruction of the Scriptures has been done in attempting to transfer the Sabbath day from the seventh day of the week to the first, and making it a so-called Christian Sabbath for believers in the gospel age we now live in. We also believe it fairly impossible for those who hold to and teach a Christian Sabbath, to prove their position; either from the Bible, or from Baptist history. We full well recognize that such a statement will bring much criticism, and, even bitter dissent against us, for even suggesting that the Christian has no specific calendar Sabbath at this time. However, we feel it necessary to take our stand here, and to reaffirm the clear, plain, and obvious teaching of the Word of God; that believers are not under law but under grace. And too, that statement will no doubt bring additional criticism and distress among the legal day-keepers; and if our present feeling is not changed by our Lord, we will have to say, humbly, "So be it."

We are continually bombarded with articles on the Christian Sabbath in Baptist papers, which we either receive by subscription or exchange. It seems that the notion of this Christian Sabbath is an increasingly important point among some today; to the extent that the writers of the same will bombast, vilify, and condemn those who cannot agree with them, or walk with them in this purely old covenant, legal way. Within a three-week period we noticed four different papers with articles on this subject. All condemned what they call Sabbath breakers (those of us who differ with them) and those who will not walk with them in their legal precept. Some were more critical than others, but all contended that God's children today were as much obliged to observe the Sabbath as the Israelites were when the commandment was first given them in the wilderness by Moses. It would seem that if the believing remnant was to observe one particular day out of the week as a Christian Sabbath that we would have clear and concise instruction from the Word of God on when this was begun, and how we are to perform it. However, this is not the case! As we previously stated, there is not one shred of evidence that such is so.

Let us first consider briefly what the Sabbath is, according to the Bible. From our text we learn that the seventh day was the Sabbath of the Lord. It was a time for no work and the basis for its existence was that the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that was in them in six days, and rested on the seventh day. As says the text, "Wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it." You will notice that the word "Sabbath day" and "seventh day" here mean one and the same thing. This is the day the Israelites were to remember as the day their Lord rested. So clearly, the Sabbath day was a day of God's rest, and they, from His example, were to rest on the seventh day, so long as they lived under that economy. But, does that still apply today to the Child of God that has found rest in Jesus? By no means.

In Exodus 3 1:12-17 it was clear that the fourth commandment was different from all the others, in that it alone was a sign given by God. As we read, "For it (the Sabbath) is a sign between me and you throughout your generations." Without lengthening the argument at this point it seems very plain that no one was intended here but the Israelites and their generations to whom this commandment or sign was originally given. It is also to be seen that all violators of this sign or commandment were to meet with sure and certain punishment. They were to be cut off from among the people, and put to death. They were allowed to work six days, but on the seventh was the Sabbath of rest, and it was holy to the Lord. Anyone who violated this day was to surely be put to death. We ask; are those who are so intent upon enjoining a Sabbath day upon us in this day, as willing to enjoin upon us the penalties of its violation? If we have today the same Sabbath principles, do we not also have today the same Sabbath protections against its violation? Wherein has one changed, and the other not? Or one remain the same, and the other not? We fail to see any consistency among those who lead us down this legalistic path to a Sabbath ordinance.

The idea of a Christian Sabbath seems to stem from the mistaken notion that there was at some point a change in the day the Sabbath was to be observed; from the seventh day to the first. However, when we begin to look through the New Testament for some indication of this, we find that a record of this supposed change simply does not exist. There is no text, or texts, which tells us anything of the kind. There is nothing stated, nor is there anything even implied, that the seventh day was changed to the first after the resurrection of Jesus our Lord. We fully concur, and believe with others, that the disciples met upon the first day of the week; that they broke bread upon the first day of the week, and many other things according to their worship was upon the first day of the week. We agree that the Scripture is plain that John was in the Spirit on the Lord's day. But none of these things tell us that there was any definite break from the seventh to the first in order that we might have a specific day of legal rest. These things in themselves do not create a "Sabbath Day" by which we are legally bound to its observance. Conjecture is the best that can be said for this position. We further, in examining the Scriptures, find that no where did the Apostles teach, or act out in such a way, a doctrine that God's children today must take one day out of seven, and set it apart to do nothing but worship. That worship is enjoined upon God's children, and assembling likewise, we heartily concur; but that it must be carried out on one specific day is a point we fail to find in our Bibles.

We believe there are three wrong assumptions in this very erroneous view of the Christian Sabbath. The first wrong assumption is that the Sabbath was, in some unspecified manner, changed from the seventh day to the first at some point after the resurrection of our Lord. The second being that it became the believer's particular day of rest. And the third is that it was commanded us by God as law to observe the first day of the week. We fairly conclude that all of these positions are no more than bare assumptions with not one single "Thus sayeth the Lord." If it could be proved that the Lord's people are to gather on the first day of the week, and that alone, it still would not prove that was the Sabbath day. It has been believed by God's children for so long as there has been a people on this earth saved by grace, that they rest in Christ and not in days; that they cease from their labor when they are brought into union and communion with their Lord, and not by observing any legal periods of time. God's children have found the Christian Sabbath to be little more than a renewing of the Israelitish ceremonies and ordinances that were given to those ancient people for their social rule of life and behavior, for that period of time when they walked in the wilderness, and were governed in Canaan's land of promise. And, that we have a commandment as law to observe the first day of the week for a Christian Sabbath, we consider to be a grave error, and we wish not to be bound by it.

Let it be plainly understood that the true followers of the Lamb have no desire to defile themselves, or transgress the Lord's injunctions by living wantonly before the world, or by themselves, for that matter. The children of the Most High would live the strictest life, could they but by grace do so; but they as well vehemently deny that they are governed by legalistic principles, that say "do this, and do not do that" regarding their rest in Jesus. Is not this something akin to what Peter taught when he said "Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?" Acts 15:10.

There are three additional texts in this connection which we wish to address. The first is Romans 13:8-10:

"Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law."

In verse nine the portion of the ten commandments which deals with the relationship of one man toward another is listed; adultery, murder, stealing, lying, covetousness. Those commandments which embrace the relationship of man to God were comprehended, as Paul said, "If there be any other commandment." But of them all, Paul clearly embraces the gospel way when he said they were comprehended in this, namely, "Thy shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Love was the fulfilling of the law. Thus, if love fulfills the law towards man regarding his commandment relationships to them, does not also love fulfill the law in our commandment relationships toward our God? Did not our Lord teach the same thing in the Gospels? (Matt.22:34-40, Luke 25:28.) Then what of a supposed commandment regarding a particular day for worship? It was certainly not embraced in this text, for here, rather than singling out a time frame in which God's children are required to legally serve their God, they find that the new relationship which God has worked in their hearts has bound them together in all of the commandments, and that is that God first loved them, and they love Him. And to the ability that He gives them in grace, they now serve Him. Not from a principle of commandment, but a principle of love.

The second text we wish to observe is Ephesians 2:15:

"Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace."

Paul instructs the church at Ephesus that something was abolished, and he describes it as the "law of commandments contained in ordinances." We do not believe that Paul taught that the law was abolished, or that commandments were abolished; but that rather, legal commandments that were contained in ordinances were abolished. Ordinances here means those systems of rigor and service enjoined upon the Israelites for their dispensation.

This same line of thought is found also in Colossians 2:14

"Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross."

Here it was the "handwriting of ordinances" being blotted out, whereas in Ephesians it was the "law of commandments contained in ordinances" that was abolished. In one a blotting out; in the other an abolishing. In one, a handwriting of ordinances; in the other the law of commandments contained in ordinances. So then it is very clear that it was ordinances from which the child of God was freed. And it was further stated in the Colossian epistle that they were not to be judged in respect of Sabbath days (verse 16), for they were but a shadow of things to come (verse 17), whereas the Body was Christ.

Can it not be seen from these three texts that sabbath-keeping as a legal duty or precept was done by the Israelites, as was all other things in the Old Testament, to set forth in type and shadow, as well as in figures, things to come? The Sabbath prefigured in its legal sense the Spiritual rest the children of God found in Jesus. This is why, today, the child of God can rest in Jesus seven days of the week, and not just one. This is why the child of God can scorn the exhortation of the legalist, when they demand of us that we follow after the things which they think makes for Christian morality. This is true freedom and gospel liberty, which can be found only in Christ our Lord, and revealed by the Holy Ghost to the elect.

Finally, it seems necessary for us to set forth the error of one article we recently read concerning the Christian Sabbath. May we emphasize that we have no desire to act in an evil way toward the publisher of this article, but rather to show what we believe to be the truth, as opposed to error.

"The desecration of the Lord's Day is the most noticeable and perhaps the worst evil of this generation that hath forgotten God. The loud cry always goes up when any mention is made of keeping the Lord's Day holy: 'We are under grace, not under the law.' To tell you the truth, I am getting sick in my stomach at people excusing their ugly sins by waving the banner of grace."

"God sets the day apart and requires us to remember it in the Fourth Commandment. Remembering the Lord's Day is not a matter of Christian liberty, i.e., something neither commanded nor forbidden by God. Rather, it is law, the law of God just as are the matters of having no other gods, honoring our parents, and not stealing. It is the commandment of the Redeemer to His saved people. It is a commandment that at once teaches us to know our sinful nature more and more, so that we fly to Christ for righteousness, and directs us in the way of pleasing our Deliverer and of living a happy life. it is a commandment that the thankful believer gladly obeys, as a child willingly obeys the father whom he loves." (Two separate paragraphs from an exchange paper.)

In the first paragraph, where we supplied italics, it was seen that the writer used the language "keeping the Lord's day holy". We do not accuse him of doing anything sinister, but it is clear he is, whether willingly or unwillingly, attempting to rewrite the Bible. We are not told anything in God's Word about "keeping the Lord's day holy". The Children of Israel were told to "remember the Sabbath day", but the keeping of the Lord's day holy is something we are not familiar with. It will also been seen that the writer did not think too highly of the banner of grace, and attempted to accuse those who denied his legal Sabbath of trying to "hide their ugly sins under the banner of grace," when nothing could be further from the truth.

In the second paragraph, the same error is observed. Again, the words in italics, "remembering the Lord's day". Was it not in the Scriptures the Sabbath day that was to be remembered and not the Lord's day? The next thing in italics, he says, "rather it is law". This is what he describes as "remembering the Lord's day;" that it is law for us. We ask then fairly, again, "Are we under law or grace?" This writer would have us to be under law, as he plainly sets forth. Next he says "it is a commandment of the Redeemer to His saved people". If it is a commandment, we desire humbly to know where this commandment is written.

And so the message goes, continually. The Sabbath day and the Lord's day are supposed by the legalists to be one. God's children, we are told we are to observe them with vigor and rigor, as though they were walking yet with Moses in the wilderness. We say honestly and openly to those who read our paper; be not deceived, God is not mocked. We are free, brethren, to worship our God at any time, and the Scriptures say nothing about the 1st day of the week being our Sabbath, legal or otherwise. It is true, we are not free to sin; we are not free to walk with the world, and we are not free to violate the Lord's plain teachings. Neither do we desire to do so. But we are not willing to be placed under a yoke for the satisfaction of legalists. If they desire to observe a Sabbath, that is fine with us. But we desire the privilege to walk with the Bible in our hand, and abstain from their course.

J.F. Poole

FATE (POOLE)

During the past year there were numerous "disasters" around the world. Like many others did, we watched several of the television news releases regarding them. There were many tragic and depressing accounts given by those involved in these frequent devastations. Some told of the death or injury of their loved ones; others somberly related their personal property losses. Many others, we were informed, had been wiped out completely. There was in all this one thing noticeably absent from these startling accounts. Of those devastated souls we heard being interviewed, not one of them acknowledged the hand of God in these catastrophic events. There was only occasional profanity uttered where the name of Deity in one form or another was used. Sad as that was, there was one statement expressed in one particular interview that came as near shocking us as anything we have heard in many years, and we do not shock too easily any more. A lady that had lost nearly everything but her ignorance was being interviewed. She expressed her estimation of the circumstances this way: "But for the grace of fate, it could have been worse."

But for the grace of what?

Fate!

After considerable reflection on this ridiculous avowal we concluded that this was no slip of the tongue, nor was it said in unawareness. Rather, this was a deliberate impertinence toward the God of all grace. God, the true and living God, had been replaced (at least in the mind of this woman) by a deity called fate. Fate, that blind god of inevitability and impersonal vagary, which knows neither love nor pity; void of mercy and compassion; without feeling, has been accredited with the attribute of grace. Grace is that sweet portion of God's compassion towards sinners and has been given a role with fate. Surely, bitter disappointment must follow for those beguiled by such confusion.

History records the fable of three ancient deities known as The Fates; Atropos, Clotho, and Lachesis. But we have never heard that these three capricious gods ever extended grace to those poor souls in the midst of sudden calamity.

"This know also, that in the last days perilous time shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, truce breakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away (II Timothy 3:1-5)." Observe well the expression, "Having a form of godliness." Attributing grace to the fates comes as near to a form of godliness as we have ever seen, and is little more than religion run amuck.

From a worldwide perspective, religious activity is on the rise. Worship in some form or another is much in vogue. Some deluded souls worship idols, others are mesmerized by crystals. Astrology is the current god of choice for many that have never seen the hand of a creator therein. Humanism, foul as it is, fills the need for a deity for multitudes, both in this nation and in Western Europe. The psychic movement satisfies the yearning of others. Sex, pleasure and materialism answers the religious craving of other multitudes lusting for a more sensual god. Witchcraft is on the rise; especially among the younger population. Volumes have been circulated on just about every conceivable facet of religion to suit the taste of the masses. Thus we see fulfilled the scripture; "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth (II Timothy 3:7)." It is very obvious that today there are vast numbers that do exactly what this scripture says of them; they seek out learning before stocks, stones, parsons, priests, and assorted altars of iniquity, but none of these can impart to them the truth as it is in Christ Jesus. These deluded souls remain as blind as the gods they worship. But for the true grace of God, so would we.

A now dead communist advocated that religion was the opiate of the people. It still is. They are allured by it, and covet its intoxicating effects. Religion provides a soothing balm for those restless souls. And, sad to say, for most, one religion is as good as another; so long as it is not the truth. "Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith (II Timothy 3:8)."

Despite this sad commentary, we may be sure that there is yet a remnant according to the election of grace that has not bowed the knee to Baal. Or to fate. Or any other phony religion. The redeemed family has been in the furnace of affliction. They are an afflicted and poor people. Besides the usual calamities that are common to all men, many of the saints of the Most High have been destituted, tormented, imprisoned, and even killed for their testimony and convictions. But it has never been known that a single one of them has ever departed from the faith by giving the glory of God to fate, chance, luck or any other system of contingencies. Rather their theme is "Praise God from whom all blessings flow."

"Though with afflictions sore,
He may them exercise;
Yet still His hand they shall adore,
And still His love shall prize.

"Should poverty, and loss
Of every kind of good,
Conspire to make our weighty cross,
Our helper still is God.

Unlike the troubled citizens of this world, the saints of the Most High would rather give up all than to deny the source of free grace. Fate has never done a thing for the sheep, and those that put confidence in fate are but strangers to them. Consider Job, the servant of God. It could be said that Job hit the jackpot when it comes to calamities. But did he see fate in the great wind from the wilderness, or the fire from heaven? Was he of the opinion that the Sabeans and the band of Chaldeans were driven on their mission by a whim of fates? Did he seek solace in vagaries? The Scriptures speak: "Then Job arose, rent his mantle, and shaved his head, and fell down upon the ground and worshipped. And said, Naked came I out of my mother's womb and naked shall I return thither; the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord (Job 1:20,21)." Job worshipped His God; the God of all grace. Job acknowledged the hand of God in all he had, and in all he lost as well.

"Grace reconciles to every loss,
And sweetens every painful cross;
Defends my soul when danger's near;
By grace alone I persevere."

With Paul we hope to cling to the sweet message from God in storms and affliction: "My grace is sufficient for thee." Let the fates have their deluded followers. Only grace from the God of all grace will ever calm the troubled beasts of the elect.

Elder James F. Poole

ETERNAL VITAL UNION (POOLE) 2006

Isaiah 53:18

I wish to bring a subject before you this morning that has a lot of sub-subjects. I have no pretense that I will either exhaust this subject or do it any justice, but I do want to, I think the way we said it down in Alabama was, to recapitulate some things that we have attempted to preach to you now for some years. It seems that from season to season the enemies of all eternal righteousness rise up and begin to sniff about like there was an odor in the air. And usually, if you ask them what that odor is, they say; "It smells like an absoluter."

FEW IN THE PEW: TIME STALKS COUNTY'S PRIMITIVE BAPTISTS (POOLE) 1988

Rome, GA News Tribune

[Reply]

The above title gives us a fair sampling of what the world thinks of the Old School or Primitive Baptist Churches. "Few in the Pew." We hardly know whether to consider that a compliment or another dose of ridicule from those who despise God's little flack. Of one thing we may be sure, however; the world has no idea of what the "Few in the Pew" believe in their hearts, or why they believe it.

ELECTION (POOLE) 1988

"What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded." Roman. 11:7

ETERNITY (POOLE)

"For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhibits eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones." Isaiah 57:15

AMAZON EBOOK $2.99: CAN SOMEONE "PREPARE HIMSELF TO WORSHIP?"

 

WELSH TRACT PUBLICATIONS NEW EBOOK $2.99 CONNECTION BETWEEN PROGRESSIVE SANCTIFICATION AND CONDITIONAL TIME SALVATION

 

THE CONNECTION BETWEEN PROGRESSIVE SANCTIFICATION AND CONDITIONAL TIME SALVATION

To most Old School Baptists, this article may seem a waste to write or to read. After all, some might ask why we need to read about views we do not believe.  This would be true for those who believe in absolute predestination, but it is not true for most of the outside world.

“PREPARING YOURSELF FOR WORSHIP”

Can someone “prepare” himself for worship?

CHURCH MEMBERSHIP (DUDLEY) 1879

Lexington, Ky., Jan.8, 1879.

MY DEAR BROTHER BEEBE: - Sitting and reflecting this morning, I remember this day is the anniversary of what was called the great battle of New Orleans, fought on the 8th of January, 1815; and I was led, not for the first time, to ascribe the victory achieved by the American arms on that memorable day to the God who rules in the army of heaven and among the inhabitants of earth. The victory was so astounding to all parties that when the result came to be known, I commenced a letter to my father as follows: “The Lord has blessed us with the most extraordinary victory on record.” But how little I then knew of the power, providence, and grace of our God. I had not then read that Saul shall slay his thousands, but David his tens of thousands; nor the declaration of Moses, “O that they [Israel] were wise, that they understood this, that they would consider their latter end! How should one chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight, except their Rock had sold them?” Deut. 32:29,30. Nor yet the victory achieved by Gideon and his little army of three hundred men, over the innumerable hosts of his enemies. When the battle was over, the victory won by the American arms, it was reported, two thousand, six hundred and fifty of the enemy killed, wounded, and prisoners, while the American army had lost but six killed and eight wounded! You will not wonder that I should have written to my father as I did. The contrast between the loss of the contending armies was so great as to almost bewilder.

Our God made a covenant with Abraham and his seed, which ran thus: “If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land; [not go to heaven for your obedience] but if ye refuse, and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword; for the Lord hath spoken it.” According to the statute, God required a mark to be placed on his covenanted people, which should distinguish them in all time from the other nations of the earth. Hence he commanded him to circumcise his son Isaac; not to constitute or make him his son. The command reached all the male descendants of Abraham, and those males bought with his money. This sign of circumcision was intended to distinguish this people from all other people; hence the Lord said unto them, on a certain occasion, “You only have I known of all the nations of the earth; therefore will I punish you for your iniquities.” A statute of Israel forbade the giving of their sons or daughters in marriage to the heathen nations by whom they were surrounded, that the seed might not be corrupted. Few of the violations of the statute to keep the seed holy were more severely punished than the foregoing. “Thou shalt not bring the uncircumcised into the congregation of the Lord.” The uncircumcised were positively forbidden to eat of the Passover. And yet we hear a prophet say, “In those days saw I Jews that had married wives of Ashdod, of Ammon, and of Moab; and their children spake half in the speech of Ashdod, and could not speak in the Jews’ language, but according to the language of each people.” If there was nothing in the statutes given to Israel forbidding those unlawful marriages, why does the prophet bring them up, as showing the divine displeasure, in that the offspring could speak neither the language of father or mother, but a confounded language that neither father nor mother could understand? We learn from the divine word that, “Whatsoever was written aforetime was written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.” Israel in her corporate capacity was a type of spiritual Israel, or the church of the living God. The vessels of the sanctuary were committed to the priests under the law, and they were held responsible for safekeeping and proper use.

I now come to the matter I had in contemplation when I commenced this letter. Allow me to say at the outset, that our God did not command any to see, whose eyes of the understanding he had not opened to see “wondrous things out of thy law,” or whose ears he had not circumcised, or opened to hear the holy messages he was about to deliver to them. It is but too manifest that the professed Baptist ministry of our day, like those other denominations, have turned their backs on the teaching of the divine word, listening to fables, desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm; worshiping the idols of men’s hands, bible, missionary and tract societies, theological and Sabbath Schools, by which they “worship and serve the creature more than the Creator, who is over all God blessed for evermore.” The Lord by the prophet Jeremiah said, “Among my people are wicked men; they lay snares, they set traps, they catch men.” Again, “The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule, and my people love to have it so; and what shall be at the end thereof.” And yet again, “O my people, they that lead thee cause thee to err.”

The first temple was demolished, raised to its foundation, because of a violation of the statutes and judgments given to govern Israel. With regard to the building of the second, we are told, “When the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard that the children of the captivity were about to build to the Lord God of Israel, they said, Let us build with you; we worship your God, even as ye do.” But Zerubbabel and Jeshua, and the rest of the chief of the fathers of Israel said, “Ye have nothing to do with us; we ourselves together will build to the Lord God of Israel, according to the decree of king Cyrus, king of Persia.” These very pious adversaries set about immediately to obstruct the building, throwing obstacles in the way, so that the builders, before the work was consummated, had to hold their weapons for defense in one hand and rear the building with the other. And seeing their hypocrisy, shall we, dare we, enter into a partnership or make a compromise with such men? Now let us hear the solemn warning of our God, in the prophecy of Ezekiel, 44:5-9 – “And the Lord said unto me, Son of man.” [I do not recollect that the expression, son of man, is ever applied to any but this prophet, and to the Lord Jesus, in the scriptures. “No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.” Again, “What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?” Ezekiel is addressed in that way in the 37th chapter of his prophecy. “Son of man, can these dry bones live? O Lord God, thou knowest.” Again, in the 43rd chapter, “Son of man, shew the house to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities; and let them measure the pattern.”] “Mark well, [give the most earnest attention] and behold with thine eyes, and hear with thine ears all that I say unto thee concerning all the ordinances of the house of the Lord and all the laws thereof; and mark well the entering in of the house, with every going forth of the sanctuary.” I know of only two ordinances pertaining to the anti-type, the gospel church: Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

But the prophet was commanded to mark well the entering in of the house, with every going forth of the sanctuary, as well as “the laws thereof.” The law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus, and the law of sin and death, together with all the laws pertaining to the government of the house, or church of God. “And thou shalt say to the rebellious, even to the house of Israel, O ye house of Israel, let it suffice you of your abominations, in that, ye have brought into my sanctuary strangers uncircumcised in heart and in flesh, to pollute it, even my house, when ye offer my bread, the fat, and the blood, and they have broken my covenant because of your abominations.”

I remember, when I was a soldier in the war of 1812-15, and was posted on picket guard, I forfeited my life if I suffered a stranger to enter the camp who did not give the watchword. And are we less criminal, as the servants of our God, if we allow persons to enter the sanctuary of our God who are unable to pronounce Shibboleth, the pass-word of safety? And are we not guilty of causing them to break the covenant? I remember to have heard a minister ask the question, many years since, “Ought not great allowance to be made for ignorant or illiterate persons, in telling their experience to churches?” He replied, “O yes; but if they have sense enough to tell when the pigs get into the cornfield, they can tell a Christian experience if they have one.”

Allow a short digression. I have heard some contend that baptism is the anti-type of circumcision. Now, the latter was an external sign by which the circumcised identified themselves as the children of Abraham, and bore with them in all countries whithersoever they went, that they belonged to the family of Abraham. Now, what evidence does the sprinkling of a few drops of water on the face carry with it that they belong to the family of our God? Or what evidence do they give to others that they so belonged? Are not both the sign and substance lost in the operation? Again, as circumcision pertained alone to the male descendants of Abraham, and those males bought with his money, where do you get your authority for baptizing females? The whole system is anti-Christian – utterly without divine warrant. Circumcision in the flesh, made by hands, is typical of the circumcision of the heart; hence an apostle said, “He is not a Jew which is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew which is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter, whose praise is not of men, but of God.” Hence we hear it said: “He fashioneth their hearts alike.” And, “As face answereth to face in water, so the heart of man to man.” Again, “The secret of the Lord is with them that fear him, and he will shew them his covenant.” And yet again, “We are the circumcision which worships God in the spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.” Hence the exhortation of the apostle Peter, “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and be ready to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you.” This is indispensable, as the only means of obtaining gospel fellowship, without which a seat in the gospel church has no charm for me. Christ said, “I am the door; by me, if any man enters in he shall be saved, and shall go in and out and find pasture.” A double wrong is committed in receiving persons into the church who fail to give evidence that their hearts have been circumcised by the Spirit of God. They must realize their utter helplessness, their just condemnation as violators of the divine law, and be brought to rely alone on the atoning blood of Christ to cleanse from sin, and his righteousness to clothe and present them faultless before the divine throne, and have been baptized by immersion, by an administrator called of God, as was Aaron, and in fellowship with the church, or they have no right to membership in the church. If brought in otherwise, they eat the bread and drink the wine unworthily, not discerning the Lord’s body, and the church is justly chargeable for the wrong.

“And ye have not kept the charge of my holy things, but have set keepers of my charge in my sanctuary for yourselves.” They have employed men as professed ministers, whom the Lord has not called to the work, “desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor whereof they affirm.” They lack an important qualification; namely, “the husbandman that laboreth must be first partaker of the fruits.” “Therefore thus saith the Lord, No stranger uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh shall enter into my sanctuary, [dwelling place] of any stranger that is among the children of Israel.” Remember the Lord said, “They are prophets of the deceit of their own hearts, prophesying lies in my name.” But our adversaries tell us, “All these warnings, admonitions, and exhortations were well enough in that dark and cloudy day, under the legal dispensation; but we live in a day of light and liberty, the gospel day, and they are inappropriate when applied to us.” Let us see. But do we remember it is said, “The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done, is that which shall be done?” The Savior said, “Beware of false prophets that come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits” – the doctrine they preach. And the apostle Paul says, “I know that after my departure shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.” Again, “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.” Where do the denominations of that order look for teachers, but to the theological schools? One of which boasts of having graduated more than four hundred. How many have other schools graduated, I know not, but presume the aggregate very far exceeds the number of Baal’s prophets. The apostle Peter tells us, “There were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false prophets among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and shall bring upon themselves swift destruction.” And the apostle John says, “And hast tried them which say they are apostles and are not, and hast found them liars.” The King of Zion has given a rule by which to try them. “To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” I well remember when the Baptists of this state were pretty much one people; but how is it now, when Fullerism, Arminianism, Campbellism, Two-seedism, Non-resurrectionism, Missionism, with its kindred heresies, are made tests of orthodoxy? Divided and subdivided. God grant that we may take warning, dear brethren, and may we be found contending for the faith which was once delivered to the saints, remembering the chief Shepherd has said, “Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life that fadeth not away.”

Brother Beebe, you will pardon this long letter when you remember I spend much of my time alone, and that I can neither read a sentence in print or manuscript and am utterly unable to read what I have written. There may be mistakes, especially in quotations, but I am unable to correct them. Truth is omnipotent, and enlightened public justice is certain. If you see anything in this letter that will compensate you for reading, and your compositor for setting the type, it is at your disposal.

As ever, with warm affection, your brother, I hope, in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ,

Thomas P. Dudley.

MISSIONISM (DUDLEY) 1873

Lexington, Ky., March 27, 1873.

To the Editor of the Western Recorder:

My attention has been called to a series of articles over the signature of “Old Flint,” published in your paper, the first, of date Feb.1st, the second, Feb.22nd, and the third, March 1st, in all of which he labors hard to establish his claims to the title of Old School Baptist. 

THE CREATION OF GOD (DUDLEY) 1876

Lexington, Ky., Dec.30, 1876.



MY DEAR BROTHER BEEBE: - I have been able to read or write but little, in consequence of the condition of my eyes, for many months. I have heard read your reply to a correspondent asking your understanding of the expression found in the Circular on the Christian Warfare –

THE NEW BIRTH (DUDLEY) 1868

The word of God teaches, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (John 3:3). 

REPLY TO ELDER TROTT ON JUSTIFICATION (DUDLEY) 1839

Near Lexington, Ky., Jan. 7, 1839.

DEAR BROTHER BEEBE: – Shortly after Brother Trott’s “Thoughts on Justification” appeared in the Signs, I wrote a piece in reply, designed for publication at some future day, when Brother West should have had an opportunity of responding to Brother Trott; conceiving that it would be indelicate for me to interfere, as brother T. had given among others, as a reason for his publication, that a correspondent in Baltimore had requested the correspondence previously had between brother Trott and brother West to be published through the columns of the signs. 

THE TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW (DUDLEY) 1874

Campbell, Coles Co., Ill., July 21, 1874.


BROTHER BEEBE: - By permission, please publish the enclosed letter, written by Elder Thomas P. Dudley.

Isaac Taylor.

Lexington, Ky., June 25, 1874.

TRYING THE SPIRITS (DUDLEY) 1870

Near Lexington, Ky., Dec.19, 1870.

MY DEAR BROTHER BEEBE: - The inquiry is frequently made of me, Why do you not write more for the SIGNS OF THE TIMES? I can most truly say that it is not because I feel less interest in its success than formerly. My correspondence has been, and still is pretty extensive, and as I grow older I find my wounded shoulder gives me much more pain from writing than formerly. Hence it is becoming more of a task to write than in my younger days. In addition to this, the correspondents of the SIGNS are becoming more numerous, and I prefer giving way to them, thinking the patrons of the SIGNS may probably be more edified by their communications than by anything I may write. I regret much to see a spirit of intolerance abroad in the land, which tends rather to anything else than to godly edifying. The Bereans of old left an example for modern saints worthy of imitation. “These were nobler than they of Thessalonica, because they searched the scriptures daily, to see whether these things are so.”

ASSORTED OLD SCHOOL BAPTIST ASSOCIATIONAL MEETINGS AMAZON $9.99

 

MODERN RELIGIOUS SYSTEMS (DUDLEY) 1875

Lexington, Ky., Feb.7, 1875.

MY DEAR BROTHER BEEBE: - I have reflected much, and more recently, on the ancient, compared with the modern systems of religion. In the days of Christ and his apostles, “the wisdom of this world is [declared to be] foolishness with God;” that “He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.”

PARTICLUAR BAPTISTS (DUDLEY) 1833

Fayette County, Ky., March 15th, 1833.

DEAR BROTHER BEEBE: – The subjoined circular, was prepared for, and presented to the Licking Association at her Session 1829. The timidity (as I believed) of some few Brethren induced them to oppose its adoption, in consequence (as it is said) of what is said in it, relative to the word ‘particular’ at the same time they declared “that they believed the doctrine it contained, as cordially as the writer did.” The rule of our Association requiring unanimity and opposition manifesting itself, the letter was withdrawn. I have been much pressed by many Brethren to have it published, but have hitherto resisted their requests. If you think it is worth preserving, you are at liberty to use it at your discretion. Yours in hope of eternal life.

THOS. P. DUDLEY.

THE TWO NATURES (DUDLEY) 1877

Lexington, Ky., Oct.3, 1877.

MY DEAR SISTER IN CHRIST: - I am gratified to learn you reached home in safety on Thursday evening after leaving us. I retain a very vivid recollection of the delightful season we enjoyed with the brethren and sisters from the north, south, east, and west, at my house, the association, and with the dear saints in that vicinity. 

THE SOUL OF MAN (DUDLEY) 1849

Near Lexington Ky., Aug. 15, 1849.

MY DEAR BROTHER BEEBE: – From the moment I read your response to Elder Williams’ queries in No. 12 “Signs,” I have had it in contemplation to write to you, and drop some suggestions for your consideration – knowing Elder Williams, and being satisfied that I know the motive which prompted him in propounding the queries to you, I was prepared for his exultation at your admitting that the soul is regenerated. That brother Beebe has committed himself in his reply to Elder Williams, I think will be manifest upon his re-examining the following positions taken in his reply.

WELSH TRACT PUBLICATIONS ELDER JAMES F. POOLE 1 AMAZON EBOOK $3.99

 

THE HAND OF GOD IN HISTORY

The Lord rules in the army of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth, and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?

THE WORKS OF ELDER THOMAS P. DUDLEY $3.99 VOLUME 1

 

THE WORKS OF ELDER WILLIAM M. SMOOT AMAZON EBOOK $9.99

 

SCIENCE AND PREDESTINATION

It is the prevailing opinion that the doctrine of predestination is held only by the ignorant class of men, and that the mere elements of an education are sufficient to free one from the influence of such a baleful, absurd and unreasonable doctrine. If there is any just ground for this opinion, it can be shown that scientific truth is incompatible with the doctrine of decree, and also that no well educated person has ever believed the doctrine of predestination.

COMPARISON OF CHRISTIAN AND HEATHEN CIVILIZATIONS

[The following lecture was delivered March 10th, 1898, in University Hall, Lebanon, Ohio, before the assembled students and faculty of all the departments of the University, by Elder H. M. Curry.]