History In Perspective

In Stephen Garret's most recent post at his blog, http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/, he states:

"Elder Lemuel Potter represented the "Primitive" or Hardshell Baptists in a Public Debate with Elder W. T. (Tom) Pence , at Luray, Virginia, in 1890. Elder Pence represented those in the anti-mission movement who believed that regeneration and gospel faith could not be divorced, that regeneration or being born again was a work of God done through the application of gospel truth to the heart and mind, or through hearing and believing the gospel. Several debates had been occurring among those who called themselves "Anti Mission Baptists," or "Old School Baptists," "Reform Baptists," "Old" or "Original Baptists." Many of the Calvinistic Baptist churches who became part of the anti mission movement were called "Regular Baptists."

From my historical studies of the 1820-1860 period, those in the anti mission movement who denied the use of means in the new birth were a minority. Certainly the early great leaders in the movement, believed in means, men such as James Osbourne, Gilbert Beebe, Samuel Trott, William Conrad, John M. Watson, R. W. Fain, John Clark, and several others that could be named, believed in means, that the gospel or word of God was the instrument, in the hand of the Holy Spirit, whereby the elect are born again."

Garrett is a bit confusing when he places some of the anti-missionary advocates in the camp of believing in gospel instrumentality in the new birth, as he admits later of Beebe and Trott:

"The leading men for the "no-means" side, at the beginning, were Wilson Thompson and his son Grigg Thompson, together with several other Thompson relatives, all who became leading first generation Hardshells. Wilson Thompson, however, seemed to hold to the view of Beebe and Trott, that the new birth was distinct from regeneration, that regeneration was first, without means, but that the new birth was equated with conversion, and was accomplished by the means of the gospel. His son Grigg, however, seems to have gone farther than his father, for he equated regeneration with the new birth and denied means altogether in the glorious work."

The "new birth" being re-defined as gospel conversion would seem to render the insistence that Beebe and Trott believed in means in the "new birth"/conversion of only rhetorical or semantical significance. Modern Primitive Baptists still make this distinction, though they do not typically refer to conversion as the "new birth"; conversion to discipleship is, of course, mediated or brought about through the gospel. Garrett confuses the historical issue, therefore, by including Beebe and Trott among those that believed in gospel instrumentality in the "new birth", as they did not define the "new birth" in the typical manner.

Many of the others that Garrett names as supporting gospel means in regeneration, particularly Clark, are historically inconsistent in this support, which seems to indicate that the anti-missionary controversy had the effect of clarifying what people believed about gospel instrumentality in regeneration. Debate has always had this effect on doctrine in the history of Christianity. Admitting this lack of consistency and clarity in John Gill, for example, in reference to gospel instrumentality only indicates that it was not a subject of debate - that it was presumed by most early Baptists, particularly from England, that the gospel was God's instrument to bring about regeneration and conversion. Careful distinctions between regeneration and gospel conversion were not made because debate had not yet created the need.

Therefore, appeal to early Baptist doctrine as evidenced by the London Confession has little cogency for the later anti-missionary debate because this confession was not framed with this debate in mind. Lack of precise distinctions between regeneration and gospel conversion in the early confessions or in the writings of early Baptist theologians offer little proof that such distinctions are not proper.

Now, I can openly state that the anti-missionary debate created extremes as debate is wont to do. Though I think it Scripturally warranted to distinguish regeneration from conversion, this does not mean that every passage in the Bible evidences a clear distinction. In this gospel era, in which the gospel has been preached to the Gentile world in large part, the Scripture often melds the two as would have been often the case in the early Church, as in Acts 13:48.

James 1:18 shows the pervading presence of the gospel under which the early Jewish disciples were both born again and converted in a seemingly seamless fashion. The will of God effected regeneration and the gospel was present to ensure conversion that those early Jewish disciples would be a firstfruit of the entire elect family of God. Notice, however, that Peter's experience requires a clearer distinction.

Surely James included Peter as a firstfruit, but it is clear according to Luke 22:31-32 that Peter possessed faith before he was fully converted. It would seem, then, that James 1:18 should be viewed as a summary of the complete translation from the darkness of the unregenerate to the gospel inheritance of the saints, which encompasses both regeneration and conversion. The seamlessness of the text in reference to a distinction between sonship and discipleship is a proof of the consistency of discipleship with sonship (that the truly regenerate embrace the revelation available to them), not that there is no distinction.

It is also unnecessary for the sake of opposing missionary societies or boards to claim that the gospel has no relevance for the unregenerate. According to 1 Peter 4:6, the gospel is to be preached to spiritually dead men for the purpose of judgment that they might be judged according to men in the flesh. So, in reference to Garrett's attack on C. H. Cayce's exposition of Acts 17:28-30, I must in large part agree that Cayce's exposition of this passage is not his finest moment.

It seems to me that many Primitive Baptists have, even as some do now, gone to unnecessary doctrinal extremes to oppose missionary societies. Though I believe that the Scripture upholds the principle of a distinction between sonship and discipleship, this Biblical distinction does not carry with it the idea that the gospel is not to be preached to all men, as the elect are scattered abroad among them and the rejection of the gospel by the damned treasures up wrath against that day of wrath and righteous judgment of God who will render to every man according to his deeds.

In conclusion, it is necessary to recognize the deleterious and the profitable effect of controversy. The missionary controversy afforded doctrinal clarity in regard to gospel instrumentality, but also incited expositional misapplications. Just because a principle is taught in the Bible does not mean that it is the key to understanding every passage of the Bible.