An Account of Elder Potter's Affirmative Arguments and Elder Pence's Reply

On the afternoon of the second day I began to affirm the following proposition: "Do the Scriptures teach, that in the regeneration of the sinner, in all cases, the Holy Spirit operates without the use of the gospel as means?" My first argument is based on I. Cor. 6:13, Eph. 2:4,5, "But God who is rich in mercy," etc.; Eph. 5:25, 26, 27, "Husbands, love your wives," &c.; Titus 3:5, "Not by works of righteousness," etc. I claimed that in each one of these cases, the subject of regeneration was referred to, and as a reason for believing that the gospel was not used as a means, that it was not mentioned in connection with either case. I then quoted John 3:3-7, "Except a man be born again," etc., which means, except a man be born from above. If a man is born from above, how can the gospel be the means of such a birth?

Again, on John 3:8, "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth; so is every one that is born of the Spirit." I claim that this text not only teaches the independence of the Spirit in his operations, but that the text also too teaches, that in the new birth, or regeneration, in all cases, the Spirit operates the same way. "So is every one that is born of the Spirit." This argument, Mr. Pence did not condescend to notice. I referred to it repeatedly during the debate, but got no response from him on this text.

My second argument is based on the fact, that we must know in the majority of cases, the people of God are regenerated without the means of the gospel, and that being true, the necessity of the gospel as a means of regeneration, is obviated. I argued that God does not use unnecessary means in the work of the eternal salvation of his people, but that the Holy Spirit does regenerate without the use of the gospel as a means, in some cases, and if it does in some, it does in all. I referred to Acts 4:12, to show that there is no salvation outside of Christ. To Romans 8:9, to show that if a man is Christ's, he must have his spirit, and to Rev. 5:9, to show that Christ will have a people out of every nation, kindred, tongue, and people. If he has a people out of every nation, kindred, tongue, and people, then those people have his spirit, and if they have his spirit, then they are his, and if they are his, they are saved. But the gospel is not preached to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people, so the gospel is not necessary to the impartation of Christ's spirit to sinners, if they have that spirit where there is no gospel.

My third argument is based on the certainty of the regeneration and sanctification of all God's chosen people. John 6:37-45, "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me," etc. Psalm 2:7 and 8, "I will declare the decree," etc. I also referred to the new covenant, that was entirely different from the old, in that, under the old, the people taught one another, under the new covenant, they should teach no more every man his neighbor and every man his brother, saying, know the Lord. I further argued that in the case of the parable of the sower, Matthew 13, where some seeds fell by the wayside, and the fowls of the air caught them away, others into stony places, and, because they had not much earth, they sprang up, and when the sun was up, because they had no root, they withered away, and that others fell among thorns, and the thorns sprung up and choked them, - that this seed was the gospel preached, and if it was the intention of the Lord to change the condition of the ground by sowing the seed in it, it was a complete failure; because in all three of the cases mentioned, the seed left the ground in the very same condition in which it found it. "Other fell into good ground," which ground, of course, was good before the seed fell into it, so the seed could not have made that ground good. In reply to these things, Elder Pence claimed that the new covenant was not in force yet, and that it was to be made to the house of Israel and to the house of Judea, literally speaking, and that the reason that they should not teach every man his neighbor and every man his brother, saying, know the Lord, is because they shall all know him. His argument was that the teaching will all have been done, and they shall no more teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, know the Lord, because they all will have been taught. On the parable of the seed he claimed that the life-germ was in the seed and not in the ground in which it was sown, and that it was often the case that the gospel came to men in word only, and that in such cases the seed did not contain the life-germ in it. That this was the case where the seed fell by the wayside. He argued that the result of sowing the seed depended upon the condition of the seed sown instead of the ground in which it was sown. He also added that the result of sowing depended in a measure on the sinner giving the gospel a favorable hearing, which I claimed is as rank Arminianism as I ever heard a man utter: "Depends entirely on the action of the sinner at last."

On the text, "The God of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ should shine unto them," he merely asserted that the gospel goes and opens the window shutters, and shines in. This is about all the reply he made to my argument on that text of Scripture. He then came up accusing me, as I have had Campbellites and others to do before, of teaching that God reveals new things to sinners not revealed in the Bible, which of course I deny. He claimed that the gospel was good sheep-feed. I claim also that it is, and that is one of the main purposes for which it is to be preached. He seemed to manifest a great interest in me - said it was a great pity that I was taking the position I was, that I was a man of great usefulness if directed in the right way. I had had the same sort of sympathy from a Campbellite gentleman twenty years ago. I argued from John 3:8, "The wind bloweth where it listeth and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh and whither it goeth; so is every one that is born of the Spirit." I argued that all cases of the new birth were exactly alike, and that if one man is born against without the use of the gospel as a means, so is every one that is born of the Spirit. This argument Elder Pence did not condescend to notice during the entire debate, though I referred it to him frequently during my affirmation.

On Wednesday morning, after the debate had gone on for two days, he had complained about the dead state of the churches, some churches dying out and in some places associations dying out, under the influence of the anti-means doctrine, claiming all the time that the anti-means was an innovation of the Baptist not exceeding fifty years. I told him that I would measure arms with him, and called on him to know how many he had baptized during his ministry. He had been preaching longer than I have, but he seemed to believe more in effort than I did, and that a different course on the part of our ministers might make our churches stronger and more influential in the world, but still I was willing to measure arms with him. Elder Pence, how many have you baptized? To which he replied, speaking up to me, that he didn't come here to boast, and on that plea he refused to tell me anything about the state of his churches. He says our position on means and instrumentalities is new among Old School Baptists; in answer to which I claimed that his position was not only new, but there was not an Old School Baptist in America that believes as he does. There may be some among us that bear the name, but they are not Old School Baptists. I challenge him for an author, even of a little book that you could slip in your vest pocket, or less than that; (he spoke of some men writing a little book that you could stick in your vest pocket) a letter in any of our periodicals from any of our brethren who have said that if sinners are saved without the gospel, they were saved without Christ. I challenge him to produce an author or writer among us who, twenty years ago, would challenge for a regenerated sinner where the gospel was not. I further challenged him for an expression of his own in any article that he had written as far back as fifteen or twenty years ago, himself taking the position that people who are saved without the gospel are saved without Christ. In all this he ingloriously failed.

Again I said, but if all he claims is true, that anti-means is a thing of recent date among us, he gives us credit for being the most successful set of ministers that ever trod the soil of America. With all our anti-missionism, he gives us the credit of having converted almost our entire denomination to the anti-means doctrine. We have converted, according to what he says, a great many of our preachers, as Elders Hess, Purifoy, Dalton, and a great many others, together with all our religious periodicals, except the Regular Baptist Magazine, who all now stand up in favor of the anti-means side of the question. Elder Pence and a few others stand alone, with a pitiful few here in Virginia, a small remnant in Ohio, and a few in Missouri, and none in Illinois that I know of, a mere few in Kentucky and Tennessee. With all their effort and their use of means, and their zeal and energy for the cause, while the whole church was once, according to what he says, where he now stands; and we with our anti-effort system, and anti-nomian principles have converted the whole denomination over. Of course that looks very reasonable. They tell us that they are in favor of Sunday-schools to keep the Arminians from getting our children. In their efforts to defend the unscriptural institution, they are fond of saying that we neglect the instruction of our children, and are opposed to their being taught the Scriptures, that it has become a sweet morsel to them. At the same time we are told that Elder Lee, of Ohio, in his advocacy of Sunday-schools, brought his daughter up in that institution, and when grown she would not live with him, but preferred the New School Baptists, and that he baptized her, and gave her over to them. So much for keeping your children out of other denominations. I claim that the plea for Sunday-schools is as false as Sunday-schools are unscriptural. Where the Baptists are willing to be distinguished from other people on account of the peculiarities of their doctrine, and practice, they perhaps get a half dozen from other denominations while others get one from us. He says he didn't come here to boast. The reason of that is obvious. He is so modest that he cannot even give an account of the churches under his care without being guilty of boasting. He would be as ready to give an account of the condition of his churches as any man if he had anything to boast of, but the truth is, he is ashamed of the condition in which his churches are today, and that is the reason he will not tell us something about them. He finally admitted that in the parable of the seed falling in the good ground, that God had done something for the people before. In that case, of course, my proposition was sustained. He persisted frequently that there is no salvation without the gospel.

I have now given a brief outline of the arguments and positions occupied by us both during the discussion. It is not so much my intention in this article to show that I gained a victory over Elder Pence, as to show the position occupied by him. I hope that every reader may thoroughly understand the position taken by Elder Pence and those who agree with him. During the discussion, Elder T. N. Alderton of West Virginia approached Elder C. L. Yates, and asked him if he endorsed the positions advocated by Elder Pence, to which he replied that he did with all his heart. Let me say to all concerned, they are nothing more nor less than a set of Arminians, and the longer they stay in our ranks the greater the rupture will be when it does come. Let all the churches rid themselves of such things, and be careful to draw the line of demarcation at all times, and on all occasions between these innovations and the true doctrine of God, so that the saints may be comforted, edified, and built up in the most holy faith, and that God himself may be glorified.

Love to all the saints,

LEMUEL POTTER.


Copied from "Zion's Advocate," 1890, pages 267-272.

This page maintained by: Robert Webb - (bwebb9@juno.com)