The Fulton Confession Contra Garrett

Brother Garrett wrote recently (here):

"In this "Fulton Confession," the Hardshells twisted and distorted the clear statements of the Confession in the same way they had begun to twist Scripture in support of their denial of means, absolute predestination of all things, and perseverance.  I will be presenting a short series on the "Hardshells and the 1689 London Confession.""

This is a typical claim of Stephen Garrett.  Why he cannot understand the difference between clarification and perversion I'll never know.  The LCF was intentionally vague or lacked a definitive stance on certain points.  This is certainly observed in it's distinction between "ordinary" and "extraordinary" means of God in the effectual call.  How can the Fulton Primitive Baptists be blamed for clarifying the LCF when the LCF itself allowed for both infralapsarian and supralapsarian Calvinism, even by Brother Garrett's own admission?

I have already shown in two prior postings (here and here) the ways that the LCF upbraids Garrett's certain declaration of two points: (1) the effectual call is only (not even just "ordinarily" like the LCF) by both Word and Spirit, and (2) the certain, universal damnation of all adults incapable of being outwardly called by the Word.

The LCF was a much more honest interpretation of Scripture than Garrett's, it reflected an effort to state the teaching of scripture as the scripture presents teaching rather than claiming for certain and indubitable what cannot possibly be known for certain.  Take a lesson, "Hardshell" Garrett, and take for possible what is not certain.

I would like to examine the Fulton Footnotes on each of the doctrines Brother Garrett lists above, and show that wisdom prevailed, not ulterior motives of perversion.

Let us first examine Garrett's claim that the Fulton Confession "twisted" the LCF on the instrumentality of the gospel in the effectual call.

The Fulton Footnote to Chapter 10, Section 1, "Of Effectual Calling":

"We do not understand that sinners are effectually called by the written word in any sense out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature to grace and salvation but by Christ, the Word of God. The quickening and renewing of the Holy Spirit prepares the sinner to answer the gospel call, as seen in Section 2; 2 Tim. 1:9; 1 John 4:6"

The Fulton Footnote to Chapter 14, Section 1, "Of Saving Faith":

"By the words "faith as ordinarily wrought by the Word" we are taught to distinguish between life and the motions or fruits of life, because faith as one of the acts of life may be instrumentally produced by the Word. (Rom. 10:17) While life itself is the immediate gift of the Almighty (Rom. 7:23), and is antecedent to and the foundation of faith."

Why does Garrett suppose that the Fulton brethren were not simply saying that the Word is not the efficient cause of the effectual call?  The language in the LCF could be, and probably was, perverted by Campbellites.  The Fulton brethren even assert in the first footnote that the sinners are, "prepared by the spirit to answer the gospel", and in the second footnote, "life is the foundation of faith", so why does he envision the radical extremes with which some modern Primitives rip life away from truth?

Can there be any doubt that these brethren believed that life was expressly "unto truth"? And can there be any doubt that the modern Primitive Baptists that decry this confession do so because their categorical separation of life from truth is no where supported from this confession?

Brother Garrett should agree with the Fulton footnotes here over against the Campbellites. Where does the Fulton footnotes even clearly disallow Garrett's and the LCF's view that the effectual call to adults ordinarily is wrought through the gospel?  The Fulton's clarification is that it is the spirit of God alone that effects life, and this necessary "first contact" between God and man is antecedent to repentance and faith.  They did not say that the effectual call may not include faith and repentance, but, rather, were jealous that this section not be employed by some to controvert section 2 of the LCF.

Next, let us consider Fulton Footnotes on the "Absolute Predestination of All Things".

The Footnote to Chapter 3, Section 1, "Of God's Decrees":

"This clearly distinguishes between God's attitude to sin and his attitude and relation to holiness. A failure to make this distinction has been a fruitful source of division and distress of our holy cause, and a failure to so distinguish between God's permissive and overruling decree of sin and his causative decree of holiness will ever cause distress and confusion among our people. This distinction is expressed in the last clause of Section 4, of Chapter V: "Which also he most wisely and powerfully boundeth and otherwise ordereth and governeth in a manifold dispensation to his most holy ends; yet so as the sinfulness of their acts proceedeth only from the creatures, and not from God." etc. Chapter IV., last part of Section 1: "Satan using the subtlety of the serpent to seduce Eve, then by her seducing Adam, who without any compulsion did willfully transgress the law of their creation and the command given unto them in eating the forbidden fruit, which God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory." We believe that God is perfect in wisdom and knowledge, knowing all things both good and evil from the beginning that would take place in time. That he is a Perfect Sovereign over all things, and that he absolutely and causatively predestinated all his works of creation and eternal salvation of his elect."

The Footnote to Chapter 5, Section 4, "Of Providence":

"We understand this section to teach that while God does not cause men to sin, nor is his predestination in its attitude to sin causative, yet that he exercises such a control over all his creatures as that all chance and uncertainty is excluded from the universe."

I have not found the Fulton Confession to controvert the use of the word "predestination" in reference to God's providence.  In the latter footnote, it is plain they were zealous to ensure that God's predestination of sin is not causative, but a decree of permission - the sin arising as a direct result of the will of the creature.  From the latter footnote, it seems clear that they did not object to the use of "predestination" in reference to God's general purposes, but the essential point is that the predestination of God encompassed both His causative and permissive will.  Garrett illegitimately accuses the Fulton brethren of denying God's predestination of all things, therefore.


As far as the Fulton brethren on the perseverance of the saints, there are no footnotes to that section.  Why does Brother Garrett accuse the Fulton Confession of perversion when there are no footnotes to that doctrine?  This doctrine was historically embraced by all Primitive Baptists.  Brother Garrett seems like he hasn't read the Fulton Footnotes.  He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.

So, I am at a loss to understand Garrett's accusation against the Fulton Confession as a perversion.  It was a clarification by the express intention of the framers of the Footnotes in the Preface and General Address.  He is completely unfounded to accuse the brethren at Fulton, Kentucky of scriptural perversion.  Really, the Fulton Confession defends itself against the baseless accusations of Stephen Garrett.