Wrote Alexander Campbell about Daniel Parker (one of the fathers of the anti-mission movement and of the "Primitive Baptist" (Hardshell) denomination):
"Particularism, under the auspices of my friend of Oakly and the new theological school, and the doctrine of the "Two Seeds," is rather looking up on the banks of the Licking. Elder Parker, of Illinois has been translated to Kentucky through the efficacy of his faith in the "two seeds."--He founds election on the natural birth, by a discovery which eluded the eagle eye of Calvin and Beza and all the Jansenists of Rome. He found that Cain was literally begotten by the Devil, and Seth by the Almighty, through the instrumentality of Adam. And so it has been ever since. The Devil is the literal father of all the non-elect, and the Almighty of the elect. Hence the sons of Seth were literally the sons of God, and the daughters of Cain were really the daughters of the Devil; and so each after death must necessarily return to their respective parents.
Friend Parker has reduced the "five points" to two. His first is, that "God never created a set of beings, neither directly nor indirectly, that he suffered to be taken from him and made the subjects of his eternal wrath and indignation." The wicked are therefore indirectly created by the Devil. Mr. Parker has literally taught this doctrine. This is the best argument against catechisms Illinois has yet produced. Mr. Parker cannot, dare not, ask any child, "Who made you?" for the good reason that neither he nor the child knows whether God or the Devil made it!!--Thus the friends of the creeds and catechisms are likely to help us much. His second point is, that "God, as God, in no case possesses more love and mercy than power and wisdom." This is sublimated fatalism. This new creed has great simplicity about it, though its inventor has made it so shameful in his different theories of generation and regeneration, that my nerves have never been strong enough to read it all through. There is a mystery in all cases of twins, which my friend Daniel Parker has not fully solved.--He admits, it is true, that the Devil begat Esau, and the Almighty begat Jacob, but fails very much in his exposition of the modus operandi. The struggling of the unborn infant comes in to his relief, but does not help him quite through. But his theory makes Jesus the Saviour no more the Son of God, than Jacob the brother of Esau.
I threw this pamphlet aside about a year ago, and never intended to open it again; but recent information that the Particulars in Kentucky were placing this modern Daniel along side of Silas and John, and about to have a theological school for teaching the marrow of modern divinity, in which one of the three was to act the Principal, I took it up to see if it had mellowed by time: but it smells as rancid as ever--and I cannot now read it all. JULY 6, 1829.
http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/acampbell/tcb/TCB612.HTM#Essay7
The "Church Advocate," edited in Vincennes, by elder Daniel Parker, author of the two seeds, or modernized Manichean doctrine of two principles changed from the Persian to the American philosophy, is engaged in slandering me with his usual dexterity in the good work of defamation. He boasts of great intimacy with Dr. Noel, and says he found a cordial welcome into his pulpit in Frankfort. This pulpit, it is said, is consecrated after the manner of the sanctum sanctorum of the Jews.
Mr. Parker resolves every thing into his philosophic scheme of predestination, and he that denies his work of the Holy Spirit, or his call to the ministry, he represents in his last number as having committed the unpardonable sin. Reader, brace your nerves, and read what follows from his fourth number!
"If so be, that denying the office and work of the Spirit in experimental religion, and call to, and work of the ministry, should be that sin against the Holy Ghost, (which appears to me to be the fact,) then with awful sensation of feelings, we know the fate of those who are thus engaged. We need not pray for them; the Lord will not hear on their behalf; their doom is filled, and their conscience seared. You cannot bring conviction to their minds--and to say that we do not deny the office or work of the Spirit, and yet contend that the Spirit and Word are one, or that there is no spirit but what is in the Word, is making the matter worse. It is not only denying the work of God, as a Spirit, but also lying before God, for the purpose of covering a blasphemous sin."
Surely this is a wonderful age, an eventful time! We may expect to hear soon that the Earth is as flat as a trencher, and that the Sun is a ball of fire whirling round it; that language has any meaning, or that Revelation is any blessing to man, may soon be denied. Every one who opposes the dreams of Daniel Parker about his call to the ministry, is not to be prayed for!!! This is the fair meaning of the text and context. MARCH 1, 1830."
http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/acampbell/tcb/TCB708.HTM#Essay6
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Campbell on Dr. Noel & Elder Rule
Wrote Alexander Campbell:
"He (Dr. Noel) maintained that the Baptist government was altogether too inefficient; that there ought to be ruling elders in the churches; and that Associations should have appellate jurisdiction over the churches, In short, sir, he came out a full-blooded PRESBYTERIAN.
Now the object I have in view, as already stated, is, to request of the Doctor information upon this matter. Is he really a Baptist, or a Presbyterian?
He may, for aught I know, have changed "his views of what the Scriptures teach" on this matter. Will he, therefore, distinctly say if Romans xii. 8. 1 Cor. xii. 28. 1 Tim. v. 17. now teach that there should be ruling elders in the churches, as he contended, they did then? These passages were as plain then as they are now. If they taught Presbyterianism then, as the Presbyterians believed Doctor Noel had proved, they teach it now. If Doctor Noel believed what he then said he did, he must have had good reasons for it; and if he does not now believe what he then did, he must have better reasons for the change--if, indeed, he be a reasonable man, which some doubt.
If, too, Doctor Noel is now really a Baptist, a "genuine Baptist" a "Baptist of the old stamp," and not a reformer, a "restorationer," a revolutionist--a Presbyterian and no Baptist, as was there said by those opposed to him; he can certainly give his reasons why he then wrote and acted as he did--or why he has changed in his "views of what the Scriptures teach," concerning the alleged inefficiency of the Baptist government.
Pardon me, sir, for this intrusion upon your time; (I trust the Doctor will pardon it;) but I thought it right that the Baptists should distinctly ascertain if Doctor Noel be a real Baptist, or a Presbyterian--if he has any creed at all, or ever had."
http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/acampbell/tmh/MH0104.HTM
Campbell wrote elsewhere:
"Every person possessed in a good degree of the qualifications laid down by the apostle Paul as essential to the christian bishop, and who, after having been first well proved by a congregation of disciples, is ordained or appointed by the congregation to the overseer's office, in which he is to exercise the functions of a bishop, every such person, I say, is to be esteemed and valued as a bishop, and by no means to be ranked among the clergy. But some few Baptists, tickled by the love of novelty, and lured by the false majesty of Presbyterianism, exhibited in a classical priesthood, of ordinaries, co-ordinates, subordinates, priests and Levites; ruling elders, licentiates, reverends and doctors of divinity, have compromised the distinguishing features of their own grand peculiarities, and palmed upon themselves a species of demagogues, who, while they have all the airs, hauteur, and arrogance of some Paido-Baptist priests, have neither their erudition, nor their talents, nor their policy. They can neither wear the gown decently, nor conceal the cloven foot." (OCTOBER 4, 1824 - Address to the Public)
Thus, it seems that the Baptists of Kentucky were engaged in this debate in 1824. It also appears that the Baptists of Kentucky would not tolerate the views of Dr. Noel.
I will continue to search for more information about Dr. Noel and his attempts to turn Baptist churches into a Presbyterian style of government.
I also plan to write on what constitutes "ordination," and on what is the role of what is called the "presbytery" in such ordinations. Involved in this is the issue of whether an elder, being ordained by a church, is thus forever an ordained elder for the whole denomination. Certainly Dr. Gill did not believe the latter, believing that "ordination" was strictly for the local church, and not for multiple churches or for the whole denomination. In other words, if I am not presently pastoring a church, then I cannot presently claim to be an elder or bishop.
More to come, the Lord willing.
"He (Dr. Noel) maintained that the Baptist government was altogether too inefficient; that there ought to be ruling elders in the churches; and that Associations should have appellate jurisdiction over the churches, In short, sir, he came out a full-blooded PRESBYTERIAN.
Now the object I have in view, as already stated, is, to request of the Doctor information upon this matter. Is he really a Baptist, or a Presbyterian?
He may, for aught I know, have changed "his views of what the Scriptures teach" on this matter. Will he, therefore, distinctly say if Romans xii. 8. 1 Cor. xii. 28. 1 Tim. v. 17. now teach that there should be ruling elders in the churches, as he contended, they did then? These passages were as plain then as they are now. If they taught Presbyterianism then, as the Presbyterians believed Doctor Noel had proved, they teach it now. If Doctor Noel believed what he then said he did, he must have had good reasons for it; and if he does not now believe what he then did, he must have better reasons for the change--if, indeed, he be a reasonable man, which some doubt.
If, too, Doctor Noel is now really a Baptist, a "genuine Baptist" a "Baptist of the old stamp," and not a reformer, a "restorationer," a revolutionist--a Presbyterian and no Baptist, as was there said by those opposed to him; he can certainly give his reasons why he then wrote and acted as he did--or why he has changed in his "views of what the Scriptures teach," concerning the alleged inefficiency of the Baptist government.
Pardon me, sir, for this intrusion upon your time; (I trust the Doctor will pardon it;) but I thought it right that the Baptists should distinctly ascertain if Doctor Noel be a real Baptist, or a Presbyterian--if he has any creed at all, or ever had."
http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/acampbell/tmh/MH0104.HTM
Campbell wrote elsewhere:
"Every person possessed in a good degree of the qualifications laid down by the apostle Paul as essential to the christian bishop, and who, after having been first well proved by a congregation of disciples, is ordained or appointed by the congregation to the overseer's office, in which he is to exercise the functions of a bishop, every such person, I say, is to be esteemed and valued as a bishop, and by no means to be ranked among the clergy. But some few Baptists, tickled by the love of novelty, and lured by the false majesty of Presbyterianism, exhibited in a classical priesthood, of ordinaries, co-ordinates, subordinates, priests and Levites; ruling elders, licentiates, reverends and doctors of divinity, have compromised the distinguishing features of their own grand peculiarities, and palmed upon themselves a species of demagogues, who, while they have all the airs, hauteur, and arrogance of some Paido-Baptist priests, have neither their erudition, nor their talents, nor their policy. They can neither wear the gown decently, nor conceal the cloven foot." (OCTOBER 4, 1824 - Address to the Public)
Thus, it seems that the Baptists of Kentucky were engaged in this debate in 1824. It also appears that the Baptists of Kentucky would not tolerate the views of Dr. Noel.
I will continue to search for more information about Dr. Noel and his attempts to turn Baptist churches into a Presbyterian style of government.
I also plan to write on what constitutes "ordination," and on what is the role of what is called the "presbytery" in such ordinations. Involved in this is the issue of whether an elder, being ordained by a church, is thus forever an ordained elder for the whole denomination. Certainly Dr. Gill did not believe the latter, believing that "ordination" was strictly for the local church, and not for multiple churches or for the whole denomination. In other words, if I am not presently pastoring a church, then I cannot presently claim to be an elder or bishop.
More to come, the Lord willing.
Campbell - Double Sense
One of the series planned for upcoming chapters of my book, "The Hardshell Baptist Cult," will be titled "Hardshell Hermeneutics."
In this series I will show how the Hardshells are infamous for their giving strange interpretations to bible words and ideas, and of their giving to words a "double sense" (among other errors in interpretation). I have demonstrated this many times already in the previous 84 chapters already published.
I found this interesting citation from Alexander Campbell on this very issue. Surely he battled many in his day who, like the Hyperists, who are guilty of errors in what is called "equivocation." Do the Hardshells not say there are "two kinds" of
1. Faith
2. Repentance
3. Birth
4. Life
5. Etc.
Campbell, writing in an article titled - "THE DOUBLE SENSE OF SCRIPTURE," wrote:
"The darkness of mysticism is fast passing away. The double sense, or the triple and quadruple sense of Scripture, once so fashionable, so sacred, amongst the great mass of Protestant and Catholic commentators and sermonizers, is falling much into disrepute amongst the most learned and pious of this generation. The textuary mode of interpreting, which grew out of the equivocal sense of Scripture, will soon be confined to the more enthusiastic and weak minds of the sectaries. Enlightened men of all denominations are fast abandoning the double sense." [A. C.], 1830, page 38.
In 1831 Mr. Campbell wrote, "On the Laws of Interpretation."
A more essential service, in our judgment, no man can render the present generation, than to call the attention of the readers of the Sacred Scriptures to the standard rules of interpretation. We are daily more deeply convinced that the confusion, ignorance, enthusiasm and superstition of this generation are attributable more to false principles, or, perhaps, to the lack of all principles of interpretation, than to all other causes combined. It is the teachers that cause the people to err more in this respect than in any other. One says the Bible means what it says; another says it means not what it says. One denounces the literal, another the spiritual meaning of the book. One is all for the spirit, another all for the letter; and some are always in quest of the recondite and hidden meaning. Thus the people know not by what star to steer their course, and are in worse circumstances than if they acknowledged no other guide, over seer, or ruler, than plain, honest, common sense." [A. C.]
Sources:
1. Alexander Campbell. Extract from "The Double Sense of Scripture." The Millennial Harbinger 1
(January 1830): 38.
2. ----------. Extract from "On the Laws of Interpretation.--No. I." The Millennial Harbinger 2 (November
1831): 488.
http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/blsmith/mha/MHA10404.HTM
In this series I will show how the Hardshells are infamous for their giving strange interpretations to bible words and ideas, and of their giving to words a "double sense" (among other errors in interpretation). I have demonstrated this many times already in the previous 84 chapters already published.
I found this interesting citation from Alexander Campbell on this very issue. Surely he battled many in his day who, like the Hyperists, who are guilty of errors in what is called "equivocation." Do the Hardshells not say there are "two kinds" of
1. Faith
2. Repentance
3. Birth
4. Life
5. Etc.
Campbell, writing in an article titled - "THE DOUBLE SENSE OF SCRIPTURE," wrote:
"The darkness of mysticism is fast passing away. The double sense, or the triple and quadruple sense of Scripture, once so fashionable, so sacred, amongst the great mass of Protestant and Catholic commentators and sermonizers, is falling much into disrepute amongst the most learned and pious of this generation. The textuary mode of interpreting, which grew out of the equivocal sense of Scripture, will soon be confined to the more enthusiastic and weak minds of the sectaries. Enlightened men of all denominations are fast abandoning the double sense." [A. C.], 1830, page 38.
In 1831 Mr. Campbell wrote, "On the Laws of Interpretation."
A more essential service, in our judgment, no man can render the present generation, than to call the attention of the readers of the Sacred Scriptures to the standard rules of interpretation. We are daily more deeply convinced that the confusion, ignorance, enthusiasm and superstition of this generation are attributable more to false principles, or, perhaps, to the lack of all principles of interpretation, than to all other causes combined. It is the teachers that cause the people to err more in this respect than in any other. One says the Bible means what it says; another says it means not what it says. One denounces the literal, another the spiritual meaning of the book. One is all for the spirit, another all for the letter; and some are always in quest of the recondite and hidden meaning. Thus the people know not by what star to steer their course, and are in worse circumstances than if they acknowledged no other guide, over seer, or ruler, than plain, honest, common sense." [A. C.]
Sources:
1. Alexander Campbell. Extract from "The Double Sense of Scripture." The Millennial Harbinger 1
(January 1830): 38.
2. ----------. Extract from "On the Laws of Interpretation.--No. I." The Millennial Harbinger 2 (November
1831): 488.
http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/blsmith/mha/MHA10404.HTM
Campbell on Christian Experience
Alexander Campbell wrote much on the topic of Christian experience, and on the "spritual operations of the Spirit," for he lived in a time when many Baptists believed that assurance of salvation, or regeneration itself, came from certain emotional states or from some sensation. Though I think he went to an extreme himself, in fighting an extreme, nevertheless I cannot disagree with what he wrote in the following. Can you?
"CHRISTIAN EXPERIENCE" -- No. IV.
"THE object of this essay is to account for a difference in degree between the comforts of forgiveness enjoyed by the first converts, contrasted with those now converted to the ancient gospel.
As a preliminary to this, it may be remarked that amongst the moderns, corrupted by human gospels, there is a prevailing idea that persons are pardoned by means of, or in consequence of, a thought or a feeling. Hence, we often hear persons, in relating their experience, date all their joys and their hopes of heaven from some idea which they formed, from some feeling of which they were conscious, or from some impression made upon their minds, at a certain time. Ask such what they know concerning the pardon of their sins and they generally refer to that idea, feeling, or impression, as proof that they were pardoned. From this, in retrospection, often spring all their confidence and their present joys. Their knowledge of remission is their recollection of such an idea, feeling, or impression. According to its vividness, or faintness are their present comforts and hopes. If, at any time, their recollections should fail, or the original idea or impression become less vivid, doubts and fears arise; clouds overspread their heaven, gloomy feelings, and religious chills and fevers, disturb their tranquility. But, if the impression, that at a certain time they were truly converted, increase by new experiences, called by them the witness of the Spirit, the first idea, feeling, or impression, augmented by more recent ideas, feelings, and impressions of a similar character, produces a glow intense and a joy unutterable. Still, however, the fons et principium, the fountain and origin of all their hopes and joys, is an impression that they were at a certain time pardoned; and, mark what follows, that they were at that time pardoned is an INFERENCE drawn from what passed in their minds. Their feelings were the premises, and their pardon is the conclusion.
That the fountain and origin of all true peace, hope, and joy is an assurance of the pardon of all sin, and an adoption into God's own family is cheerfully conceded: for this is that for which we contend. But whether this assurance is any inference drawn from such premises;--from the workings of a guilty conscience--terrors, [498] convictions, feelings, and a subsequent calm, or from the written and well attested testimony of God, received and obeyed, is the great question.
The foundation of this assurance with the ancient converts was the testimony of God; with the modern converts to humanized gospels, it appears to be an inference drawn from one's own feelings. On testimony true and faithful, the ancients built; on inference the moderns rely. When the controversy is pruned from all verbosity and intricacy, this seems to be the fair and simple state of the case."
"When we reflect that all mental comfort, all spiritual health, all peace of mind, hope, and joy, arise from a sense of the friendship and favor of God, or from the knowledge of the remission of our sins, it is most obvious that the clearer the evidence, or the greater the certainty of pardon, the greater the peace, hope, love, and joy of the convert."
Millenial Harbinger Nov. 1830
"CHRISTIAN EXPERIENCE" -- No. IV.
"THE object of this essay is to account for a difference in degree between the comforts of forgiveness enjoyed by the first converts, contrasted with those now converted to the ancient gospel.
As a preliminary to this, it may be remarked that amongst the moderns, corrupted by human gospels, there is a prevailing idea that persons are pardoned by means of, or in consequence of, a thought or a feeling. Hence, we often hear persons, in relating their experience, date all their joys and their hopes of heaven from some idea which they formed, from some feeling of which they were conscious, or from some impression made upon their minds, at a certain time. Ask such what they know concerning the pardon of their sins and they generally refer to that idea, feeling, or impression, as proof that they were pardoned. From this, in retrospection, often spring all their confidence and their present joys. Their knowledge of remission is their recollection of such an idea, feeling, or impression. According to its vividness, or faintness are their present comforts and hopes. If, at any time, their recollections should fail, or the original idea or impression become less vivid, doubts and fears arise; clouds overspread their heaven, gloomy feelings, and religious chills and fevers, disturb their tranquility. But, if the impression, that at a certain time they were truly converted, increase by new experiences, called by them the witness of the Spirit, the first idea, feeling, or impression, augmented by more recent ideas, feelings, and impressions of a similar character, produces a glow intense and a joy unutterable. Still, however, the fons et principium, the fountain and origin of all their hopes and joys, is an impression that they were at a certain time pardoned; and, mark what follows, that they were at that time pardoned is an INFERENCE drawn from what passed in their minds. Their feelings were the premises, and their pardon is the conclusion.
That the fountain and origin of all true peace, hope, and joy is an assurance of the pardon of all sin, and an adoption into God's own family is cheerfully conceded: for this is that for which we contend. But whether this assurance is any inference drawn from such premises;--from the workings of a guilty conscience--terrors, [498] convictions, feelings, and a subsequent calm, or from the written and well attested testimony of God, received and obeyed, is the great question.
The foundation of this assurance with the ancient converts was the testimony of God; with the modern converts to humanized gospels, it appears to be an inference drawn from one's own feelings. On testimony true and faithful, the ancients built; on inference the moderns rely. When the controversy is pruned from all verbosity and intricacy, this seems to be the fair and simple state of the case."
"When we reflect that all mental comfort, all spiritual health, all peace of mind, hope, and joy, arise from a sense of the friendship and favor of God, or from the knowledge of the remission of our sins, it is most obvious that the clearer the evidence, or the greater the certainty of pardon, the greater the peace, hope, love, and joy of the convert."
Millenial Harbinger Nov. 1830
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Dedication
This blog is dedicated to fighting the errors of "Campbellism" and "Restorationism" and the errors of Alexander Campbell and his followers. In it I will post historic writings and my own writings on Campbellism's errors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
