What About Those Eastern Association PBs?

This posting is a follow up to the excellent research that Kenny Mann has done on the Eastern District Association of Primitive Baptists. The above pictures are taken from the Eastern District's web page.

There is not a lot of information available on the Internet about this group of Primitive Baptists. However, I do want to cite from a couple books that do give information that is helpful to understanding the origins of this "unusual" group of PBs. First, let me cite from "Old Time" Baptists By Howard Dorgan of Appalachian State University (see here). He writes (emphasis mine):

"By the middle of the eighteenth century, Baptists had begun to settle the mountain valleys of what is now East Tennessee, and by 1786 their small churches were numerous enough to establish what became the second Baptist association west of the Alleghenies, the Holston Valley Association. However, these early Tennessee Baptists brought with them a doctrinal division that had flourished before and after the Great Awakening. "Regular Baptists" held an allegiance to the Philadelphia Association (established in 1707) and to that organization's creed, the Philadelphia Confession (adopted in 1742 as a heavily Calvinistic, limited atonement document). "Separate Baptists" had become non-credal, Arminian, general atonement Baptists. Although most of the larger Baptist churches of Tennessee now are affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention, there still are Regular and Separate congregations within the state, preserving many of their eighteenth- and nineteenth-century traditions."

First, let me say that it is not true that the Separate Baptists were uniformly in favor of the general atonement. Some of them did. Also, in the coming together of the Regulars and the Separates, the Separates agreed to accept the Philadelphia Confession as a basis of fellowship, with the stipulation that it was not to be made an ironclad rule nor put on a par with the scriptures. Second, from what I see in the Eastern District PBs they seem to show more signs of their Separate Baptist ancestry than of the Regular Baptists.

Dorgan continued:

""Old Time Baptists" or "Old Baptists" are informal titles employed by some in the Central Appalachians to indicate not only the Regulars and the Separates, but also a host of equally small denominations with titles such as Old Missionary Baptists, Old Regular Baptists, Regular Old School Baptists, Regular Primitive Baptists, and United Baptists. All are derivatives from either the Regulars, the Separates, or both, and share many of the same tenets such as the observance of such traditional practices as lined a cappella singing, rhythmically chanted impromptu preaching, congregational shouting, and warmly tactile worship behavior; strict adherence to "natural water" (also called "living water") baptisms and communion services that are followed by footwashings; the practice of such governance rules as Paulinian gender mandates, Paulinian directives for elders and deacons, and articles of decorum that date from the earliest history of colonial Baptists; and restrictions on divorce and "double marriage" (remarriage after divorce, while the original spouse still lives). A common liturgical format that, for example, makes the typical Regular Primitive service appear remarkably similar to those of Regular, Old Regular, and United Baptists includes--among other common liturgical elements--at least three sermons, and as many as seven or eight, depending on the nature of the service."

There are various practices and beliefs of the Eastern brethren that shows that they have come from the same source as other PB groups. Though there is a lot that is remarkably different about them, there is nevertheless much that they have in common.

Dorgan continued:

"In terms of doctrine, these "Old Baptists" are a mixed lot. With the exception of the Separates, each of these subdenominations believe in some version of "election." However, Primitives usually interpret election as meaning that before the beginning of time God chose who would become the beneficiaries of Christ's atonement, while Regular, Old Regulars, and Uniteds generally see election as a process by which God individually "calls" the sinner to regeneration and redemption. Separates have adopted a general atonement doctrine that grants to the individual the "free will" to choose or reject redemption. One unique Regular Primitive group found in Appalachia, the Primitive Baptist Universalists, believes Christ's atonement is for all, with the result that at the "Resurrection" all of humankind will be reunited with God and Christ in heaven."

Again, this all helps to explain the "unusual" nature of the Eastern branch of "Primitive Baptists."

Next, I want to cite from the "PRIMITIVE BAPTISTS IN TENNESSEE" by Albert W. Wardin Jr. (see here). Wardin wrote (emphasis mine) the following under the sub heading "Other Groups":

"In their shifts from their Primitive Baptist roots, three other bodies in Tennessee carry many of the features of the National Primitive Baptist Convention. They include the Progressive Primitive Baptists, the Eastern District Association of Primitive Baptists, and the Central Baptist Association, which may properly be labeled as progressive or transitional bodies. Although they began as traditional Primitive Baptists and still, by and large, practice foot washing, these bodies accept Sunday Schools and permit musical instruments in worship. In addition, the first and third bodies have dropped their opposition to institutions— whether educational, benevolent, or missionary. The second and third groups have also modified their strict predestinarianism."  (pg. 44-45)

I think this is true. Although the elders from the Eastern Association that brother Kenny interviewed asserted that today's PBs departed from them, I don't think that is totally true. The fact is, there are some things about the mainline PBs of today that is more like the first PBs of the late 1820s and 1830s, while there are some things about the Eastern group that are more like the first Hardshells than the main-liners. For instance, the first Hardshells were believers in means and in perseverance. In this respect, the Eastern District is more like their forefathers. But, in respect to their views on election, predestination, and on the atonement, they are less like their forefathers and the main-liners are more like them.

Wardin continued:

"On an average, the churches of the transitional bodies are larger than the traditional ones. The Progressive Primitive Baptist body, primarily in Georgia, has seven churches and 371 members in East and Middle Tennessee. The Eastern District Association, primarily in Central Appalachia where Kentucky, Virginia, and Tennessee converge, has thirty churches with 3,648 members in East Tennessee. The Central Association, a division in 1956 from the Eastern District Association and located in the same territory as its parent body, numbers nine churches with 1,845 members in the state."

The thing not mentioned by Wardin is how the groups he mentions compares with the main-liners. The groups mentioned by Wardin are all doing far better in growth than are the main-liners, who have continued to dwindle and die. This information backs up my recent article on Garrett's Prescription for the survival of the main-liners.

Brother Kenny mentioned how the Eastern Association was begun in 1848 but that the Association did not have minutes or records from the period of 1848 through 1878. That is sad because I am sure that those records would reveal a lot about how the Eastern Association was being formed and shaped into what it is today. Further, in that period of time, there was beginning to be a battle among the Hardshells over the means question. It began with a few Hardshells and kept growing until the 1880s when a split finally began to occur. The means side was finally declared against by the anti means side. I suspect that the Eastern District was further shaped by this division. But, more on that shortly. Let me first cite from the book "The Roots of Appalachian Christianity: The Life and Legacy of Elder Shubal Stearns" by Elder John Sparks (emphasis mine).

"In the northeastern corner of Tennessee, though, one break-off group from the old Holston confederacy, first known as the Mulberry Gap Association of United Baptists, made no hard-line statements about predestination and was and is as evangelistic as its Separate Baptist ancestors. Having expanded northward to southwestern Virginia, eastern Kentucky, and, like all Applalachian Baptist subgroups, transplanted Appalachian communities in the industrial cities of the north, the Eastern District is possibly the largest Appalachian Primitive Baptist association extant." (pg. 246)

From what I have been able to ascertain, the Eastern District group was a branch off of the old Mulberry Gap Association. Keep in mind that the title "United Baptists" was the name given to the Baptists that were formed as a result of a uniting of the Separate and Regular Baptists. In many ways the Eastern Association reflects not only the Separate Baptist tradition, but also that of the United Baptists. As an aside, the great Hardshell leader, Elder Grigg Thompson, always considered himself more a "United Baptist" than a "Primitive Baptist," and before he died in the late 1800s actually left the Hardshells and joined himself with the United Baptists of Kentucky.

Sparks wrote:

"...and the Progressives, such as the Eastern District who are evangelical Separate-style mild Calvinists." (pg. 249)

Yes, the Eastern District churches may be in some sense classified as "Progressives," but not as fully as those who are actually part of the sub denomination. There are some differences between the Eastern brethren and the Progressives. For instance, the Progressives stress ministerial education while the Eastern brethren do not. They also stress supporting their pastors financially, promoting having full time pastors, while the Eastern brethren do not. For more information of the "Progressive Primitive Baptist Church" see here. Further, to my knowledge, the organized Progressive PB church retains a strong belief in the five points of Calvinism, unlike the Eastern District. Also, some of the formal Progressives still have elders and churches who reject the idea of means in the new birth. So, yes, the Eastern District is "progressive" in some respects, but not so in others.

Sparks continued:

"...the Primitives of all factions have received a deep bite from the Landmark bug, and of course the twist that native central Appalachian Baptist groups have always given to Landmarkism was undoubtedly the reference point by which they came to define themselves in the years of their development. Regular, Absolutes, Universalists, and to some extent eve the Progressives all claim that their doctrine and their ancestry is purely apostolic, calling each other and indeed all other denominations renegades who broke off from them and their pure belief at some point in time." (pg. 250-51)

"...the Primitives of all factions have received a deep bite from the Landmark bug." Boy, is that ever true! It seems however that perhaps the Eastern District has become less infected by the bite of that bug! That is good.

According to a leading main-line PB historian and web page, there was a division among the "Primitive Baptists" in the late 1800s. On that web page there is a list of the major divisions that have occurred in the history of the "Primitive Baptists." The division over the "means doctrine" is called "The Division Over the Gospel as Means of Regeneration, Caused by Burnam, Pence, Bradley, Lee, and others, 1882-1892" (referred to here). Under this heading we have these links (which seem to be broken at this time)

Divisions in Churches and Associations over the Means Doctrine
Trial and Decision of Mt. Carmel Church, Luray, Virginia
Resolution of Mt. Carmel Church, Luray, Virginia
Resolution of Chappawamsic Church, Chappawamsic, Virginia
Resolution of Bethel Church, Vienna, Fairfax County, Virginia
Resolution of Thumb Run Church, Marshall, Fauquier County, Virginia
Resolution of Greenwood Church, Minnieville, Prince William County, Virginia

One of the important moments in this division was "The Debate Between Elder Lemuel Potter and Elder W. T. Pence, over the Gospel As a Means of Regeneration, at Luray, Virginia," in 1890. Elder Pence, along with Elder E.H. Burnam, were leaders of the PBs who retained the original PB belief in means and Potter represented the growing faction of PBs who denied the use of means, and of evangelical faith and repentance, in being born again. Another event was the division in the Mt. Carmel Primitive or Regular Baptist church in Luray, Virginia in the late 1800s over the means doctrine, Sunday Schools, missions, etc. There was eventually a famous trial over the church property by both sides, in 1909. A book was published by the anti means faction titled "The Trial and Decision of Mount Carmel Church, Luray Virginia." I have cited from this book frequently in my writings on the history of the Primitive Baptists. In "A Loving Appeal to the Primitive Baptists," by Elder John R. Daily (1906) of the anti means faction, wrote this about the division:

"The effort made by Pence, Burnam and others to "lift the Old Baptists out of the old ruts," and place them on a higher plain of popularity, resulted in a separation from us of a faction..."

For several articles of mine on this division, occurring in the late 1800s, and continuing into the early 1900s, see here. In one of those articles I cite the words of Elder E.H. Burnam, a Primitive or Regular Baptist of the "means faction," who said:

"It was left to the last quarter of the 19th century to give birth among the Old Order of Baptists to the notion of regeneration without faith, or that it is not necessary that one should exercise repentance, faith, or any spiritual gift, in order to be saved, a heresy than which none more pernicious was ever put forth by any professing to be followers of Christ."

I have no doubt, from my research, that Burnam was correct. The original position of the first Primitive Baptists taught that evangelical faith was essential for being born again for being eternally saved. And, of course, "evangelical faith" requires that the gospel be preached for its production as Paul taught in Romans 10. It was also shown that the anti means faction, in denying the necessity of faith for salvation, also began denying the teaching of their forefathers on the subject of perseverance.

Now, keep in mind that the changes in doctrine and practice among the PBs was always in a state of flux, but that the period referred to by Burnam, the late 1800s, was a period that further splintered the PBs. I have no doubt that the Eastern District brotherhood is a resulting faction from that tumultuous period.

In our next posting we will look at the articles of faith of the Eastern District group and discuss them along with some of their other beliefs and practices.

Mulberry Gap Association of United Baptists

As noted previously, Kenny Mann and I have researched the history of the Eastern District Association of Primitive Baptists. Due to the seeming less Calvinistic or Predestinarian characteristics of the Eastern Primitives, our attention as historians of the "Primitive Baptists" was stirred and we were curious to find the root historical causes of this "unusual" phenomenon, at least among the white or Caucasian "Primitive Baptist" churches. We discovered that the Eastern District Association of churches was formed in 1848 from churches that came out of the Mulberry Gap Association of United Baptists. This led us to research the history of the Mulberry Gap Association and to discover what led to the breach in 1848.

In looking at the articles of faith of the Mulberry Gap Association, and the original articles of the Eastern District Association, one cannot discern any major difference. What is certain, however, is that at the time of the division, and the constitution of the Eastern District Association, that differences regarding various organizations and practices associated with the "mission movement" were the cause. Why else would the Eastern District take the name "Primitive Baptist" in 1848? Surely it was to identify with other "Primitive Baptist" churches in their protestations and declarations of non fellowship against those who became styled as "Missionary Baptists."

But, the thing that must be kept in mind is that nearly all "Primitive Baptists" in 1848 still believed that the Gospel was the means that God employed in the eternal salvation of the elect, and that many of them still passionately preached to the unregenerate and called upon them to repent and believe the gospel. Many of them retained their evangelistic zeal in preaching and exhorting the lost. The loss of such belief and preaching among the Hardshells would not occur to after the Civil War.

The Eastern District churches seem to have fought going along with other PB churches, in the latter quarter of the nineteenth century, in rejecting means, and in losing their desire to preach evangelistically to lost sinners. As previously written about, the Alabaha Association of Primitive Baptists also did not go along with the other Hardshell churches who were changing their beliefs about means in the new birth, preaching to the lost, perseverance of the saints, and who were inventing a new doctrine called "time salvation."

As we will see from the following information about the founder of the Mulberry Gap Association, Elder James Gilbert, the Mulberry Gap were only mildly Calvinistic and Predestinarian, retaining more of their likeness to the Separate Baptists than to the Regular Baptists.  In "Sketches Of Tennessee's Pioneer Baptist Preachers" (see here) we learn this about Gilbert. (emphasis mine)

"James Gilbert, son of Hiram Gilbert, was born on Walker's Creek, in Giles County, Virginia, in the year of our Lord 1787. The family moved to Lee County, Virginia, when James was quite a lad. In 1813 he was converted and united with the Thompson Settlement Church.

James Gilbert enjoyed few advantages of a school education, and never was a man of many books. But as a preacher of the old-school type he was mighty in the Scriptures, one of the ablest preachers of his day.

His ministry was largely in Virginia, where he was pastor of the Thompson Settlement Church, and did successful work as missionary and evangelist. In Tennessee, the larger part of his labors was in Hancock, Claiborne, Sullivan, and one or two other counties. Dr. I. B. Kimbrough, who as "secretary" and "agent" went almost everywhere, used to say that when he struck Powell's Valley and Lee County, Virginia, "where old Jimmy Gilbert preached," he found "nobody but Baptists." He was the founder and builder of the Mulberry Gap Church, and was pastor of Sneedville, Beech Grove, Little Sycamore, and other churches.

Of the Mulberry Gap Association he was moderator for sixteen years in succession: He presided over the conference or convention at the organization of the association (1835), and was for years the leading spirit, the "big preacher," of the association. He fought long and hard against the "anti-mission" heresy in the association: Frequently he would call some brother to occupy the moderator's chair while he went down into the arena, to "hew to pieces" the bold and defiant spirit of anti-Christ, which thus dared to lift its head among Baptists."

Notice that Gilbert was an opponent of "the anti-mission heresy" and that there were, in the early days of the Mulberry Gap Association, Hardshells or "Iron Jackets," people who opposed missionary work outside of the local church, theological education, etc. Further, the fight with those Hardshells was "long and hard." This fight no doubt went on till 1848 when the Hardshells finally split off from the Mulberry and formed the Eastern District Association. I am sure that Elder Gilbert won a lot of Hardshells over by his efforts. Yet, his efforts were not completely successful. Notice how the writer speaks of Gilbert's belief that the "spirit" that motivated the Hardshells was "of anti-Christ," and which had newly "lift its head among Baptists."

However, a look at the present belief and practice of the Eastern District Association shows how they are far less possessed of such a Hardshell anti-mission spirit as they were in 1848. If Elder Gilbert were alive today, he would no doubt be pleased about this.

This article continues:

"At other times he would turn the association into a protracted meeting: When the association met at Little Sycamore, he preached and called for penitents. The vast throng, as if moved by one impulse, came forward. Only two sinners in all the crowd were unmoved. On another occasion the association met at a private house. After the regular sermon, Brother Gilbert was called on to "conclude" the service, according to the custom of those days. The preacher arose and said, "I have a headache, brethren; and, what is worse, I have a cold heart" - but before he had talked ten minutes the fire had kindled and he was launching out on an exhortation. The audience was stirred. One woman, a "hard-shell," shouted. She had broken her iron jacket, and was shouting herself hoarse, as she came out from among the "antis" to join the "missionaries.""

I have no doubt that many of the first Hardshells also "preached and called for penitents." We have proven that such was the practice in the Kehukee Association long before the division over hardshellism occurred in 1827. The type of preaching and "exhortation" that characterized Gilbert's preaching at one time characterized the preaching of the first PBs. Elder John Watson spoke about the decline in this kind of preaching among the Hardshells at the time of the Civil War. He wrote this about it in his book "The Old Baptist Test":

"A gospel without exhortation; without a call on the sinner to repent and believe; a gospel which does not in word address itself to all; is not the gospel which Christ ordained subordinately for the bringing in of his "other sheep."" (page 86 - see here for more such citations from Watson on the subject)

Oh what a great joy to see the cold Hardshells come to see the truth as this old sister! To see them become on fire, as old Elder John Leland, with a burning desire to win souls for Christ! To see them throw off that "spirit" that refuses to believe that the gospel is the power of God to save!

The sketch about Gilbert continued:

"As a visitor to the Holston Association, when that body met with the Muddy Creek Church, Elder Gilbert was appointed to preach out of doors. His text was, "I have a message from God unto thee." In the midst of the sermon it began to rain. The preacher told his hearers they had better find shelter, but they said, "Go on!" The few umbrellas at hand were lifted. The preacher preached and the rain poured. Most of the audience were drenched, but still they listened. More than one offered to hold an umbrella over the preacher, but he said, "No; if you can listen in the rain, I can preach without a shelter."

What motivated such men? Was it not his belief that souls were stake in his preaching efforts?

The sketch continues:

"Brother Gilbert's special gift was that of an evangelist. His greatest work was in revival meetings. He was instrumental in the conversion of more than 2,000 souls, who were added to the Lord through his ministry."

When I think of how many souls many of the Hardshell preachers could have been instrumental in saving, had it not been for their anti mission, anti means, spirit, I weep. Men of the past, like elders C.H. Cayce, John R. Daily; And, men of the present, like Sonny Pyles, Lasserre Bradley Jr.; Oh how many souls they could have saved by preaching to the unregenerate and pleading with them!

The article continues:

"East Tennessee and the mountains have had few men, if any, who had greater power over an audience than James Gilbert. Under the lightning strokes of his fiery denunciations of sin hard-hearted sinners would quake and tremble -would sometimes fall to the floor, crying out, "Pray for me! I am a lost sinner!" A noted preacher and competent critic said of James Gilbert, that "when the spirit of exhortation, was upon him he was simply irresistible."

When the "Primitive Baptist" lost that "spirit of exhortation" that Watson spoke about, they died! You just do not see sinners coming to PB meetings! You don't see sinners trembling under Hardshell preaching! Why? Because they have no faith in their preaching! They have no faith in the gospel being the power of God to save. They have no desire to be used of God in saving sinners! Have they forgotten such verses as these?

"And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever." (Dan. 12: 3)

"The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life; and he that winneth souls is wise." (Prov. 11:30)

Elder Gilbert believed that he could, through preaching God's gospel, "turn many to righteousness," and that he could "win souls." But, our modern Hardshells do not believe that the gospel they preach will save anyone. Further, they don't want to be such a means! Thankfully the Eastern Association preachers of today have not imbibed such a belief and spirit! God bless them for that!

The sketch write up on Gilbert continued:

"In personal appearance, Elder Gilbert has been described by those who knew him as a man of "portly mien, tall and commanding, eyes dark and flashing, voice powerful and trumpet-like, as if given to awaken sinners and call them to judgment. His manner was grave and impressive. He had a fine delivery, and was a persuasive, melting preacher." He was also a great singer, and had a voice not only of great power but of wonderful melody and sweetness, both in preaching and singing the gospel.

Of all the things that I could wish said of me after I am gone, by either God or men, is that he was used by God to awaken sinners! That God used him to save sinners! That would be far more desirable than having been used in correction of erring saints or in fighting the heretics.

The article continues:

"January 21, 1858, this noble servant of God passed to his reward, at the age of 71. His brethren memorialized him in their Associational Minute as "an able minister of the gospel," and his death as removing "one of the few remaining ancient pillars of the sanctuary among the Baptists of East Tennessee."

Notice that Elder Gilbert labored in the Association about ten years after the time when the Eastern District formation in 1848. It is obvious that the Eastern District was formed by Hardshells within the Mulberry Association who opposed the preaching of Gilbert and of his efforts to support mission societies.

The sketch continues:

"Slightly smaller is the Eastern District Association of Primitive Baptists (over six thousand members), which was organized in 1848 and which is still found mainly in the Appalachian Mountains of Tennessee and Virginia. Though it allows musical instruments in worship and has a modified view of predestination, it holds to traditional Primitive Baptist attitudes towards camps, beneveloent institutions, foreign mission programs, and similar extra-congregation activities."

Let it be observed that 1) the Eastern District does not now oppose the same things she opposed when she was first formed, having been mostly cured of that "anti mission spirit," and 2) that she has not lost her belief in means and in evangelistic appeals to the unconverted. She does not now "hold to traditional Primitive Baptist attitudes" in many ways and she is to be praised for this.

Now let me cite from the famous Baptist Jeremiah Jeter, in his book on Virginia ministers, concerning James Gilbert. He wrote:

"For somethings like ten years Elder Gilbert engage with characteristic zeal and fidelity in preaching the gospel in the counties of Southeastern Virginia. Having exercised a blessed influence among the churches of this region, it was reserved for him to be still more useful in a new field. He removed to Mulberry Gap, Tennessee, in 1832, and here, in this new country, comparatively sparse in its population, he patiently toiled until it became his privilege to see numerous churches rising up mainly as the result of his instrumentality. In 1843 the Mulberry Gap Association was organized. Of this body he may be properly considered the father. It now contains thirty-two churches, some of which are large and flourishing. Up to the year 1853 he was regularly chosen the presiding officer of the Association, and, as such, commanded the respect of his brethren. The church at Mulberry Gap, of which he was the efficient pastor, rose to a condition of marked efficiency, being the largest in the Association."

"The subject of this sketch took a noble part in defence of the missionary enterprise at the time when some of the churches and ministers took ground against it. He entertained enlarged views of Christian duty. Because salvation is of grace he could not, therefore, conclude that the use of appropriate means in the sending out of Christ's gospel was wrong or unnecessary. He regarded such instrumentality as a solemn duty, and was unwilling to be found a loiterer in his Master's vineyard. He suffered much opposition and reproach from the anti-mission party on this account."

It was doubtless due to "opposition and reproach from the anti-mission party" that churches split off in 1848 and formed the Eastern District Association of Primitive Baptists. Would to God that all Hardshells today would "conclude" as did Gilbert "that the use of appropriate means in the sending out of Christ's gospel" was right and necessary! Thank God the Eastern District brethren feel this way!

Jeter continued:

"As a speaker," says one who knew something of his influence, "he was ardent and earnest, yet meek and calm. His speech, though plain, was always with grace, seasoned with salt. There was fire, holy fire in his eye and in his head, and much unction in his matter and manner. He was a true, God-made man. As a theologian he was neither a hard-shell nor a soft-shell, iron-jacket nor blue-jacket, high nor low-not lop-sided in any way, but a true gospel spiritualist." (see here)

The thing here said of Gilbert may well be said now of the Eastern District Association of Primitive Baptists - that they are neither Arminian nor Calvinist, neither Hardshell or Softshell!

More On The Eastern District

In this posting we will continue our investigative look into the Eastern District Association of Primitive Baptists about whom brother Kenny Mann and I have been writing. In this posting I want to look at some of their articles of faith. (see here for their full articles of faith) I will first cite an article of their faith and then make some comments.

Articles of faith

2. We believe the Old and New Testament Scripture, as recorded in the King James translation of 1611, to be the written and revealed Word of God. II Tim. 3:16; II Pet. 1:20, 21.

With this article of faith I do not of course agree, although many PBs of all types have rewritten their articles of faith in recent years to reflect their adherence to "kjv onlyism." What is a little ironic about the Eastern Association adopting it lies in the fact that it seems to contradict their more liberal and forbearing nature, their not wanting to split over everything, and not wanting to make every disagreement into a test of fellowship. The KJV has been blessed of God, but it is not perfect in its translation. There are as good or better translations available today for the English reader.  Further, what about the bible in other languages other than English? Which bible in Spanish, German, or Russian, for instance, is to be used? Will these kjv onlyists tell us that?

6. We believe God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son to be the propitiation for the sins of the world, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16; I John 2:2.

Of course I do not have any disagreement with this article. Nor would most Calvinists. Most PBs would not, although they would want to add something like "world of the elect." I do believe that God loves all men enough that he invites and calls all by the gospel to salvation. Of course, believing in unconditional election, as the authors of the 1689 London Confession, I do not believe that God loves all equally, nor that he draws all equally. He specially loves and draws his elect. This article may mean that these brethren believe in a general atonement, but not necessarily. Remember that the great Andrew Fuller believed in a general atonement but in a particular redemption. In my talks with Kenny about his conversations with the elders of the Eastern Association, it seems that they want to occupy a ground in the middle between "limited" versus "general" atonement, saying that Christ died for any and all those who believe. I say the same thing. So did Spurgeon. These brethren, and I also, reject the idea of most PBs that says that God has no love for the non elect and that he does not call them to salvation or that he does not in any degree desire or will their salvation.

7. We believe sinners are justified by faith and saved by grace. Eph. 2:8; Rom. 5:1, 2.

This is in accordance with the 1689 Confession and is in keeping with the beliefs of the first PBs as a reading of their writings before the Civil War will attest. The Hardshells of today divorce faith from any role in eternal justification and salvation. The Eastern Association has retained this truth while most modern PBs have departed from it. In fact, the anti faith, anti means, PBs have rewritten their articles of faith and leave out the word "faith" in their old articles on justification.

8. We believe the Gospel is the only means God has ordained by which sinners are brought to Christ. I Cor. 1:21-24.

This is what not only the 1689 London Confession taught, but is what the first PBs taught. It was not till the 1840s that there first began to be some departure from it. Elder John Watson and others began to denounce such a departure and claimed that it was invented by the "Two Seed" Baptists. Still, it was only being taught by a few till after the Civil War, when the number of those denying means began to increase, and their advocates began to denounce as "Arminians" all their brethren who still believed in means. As mentioned previously, the means faction of the PBs, in the late 1800s, was led by men such as Elders W.T. Pence and E.H. Burnam. You can read more about how some, like the Eastern Association, remained believers in means, in my write up about the "Alabaha Association" in Georgia. (see here)

This is such an important issue. This departure from the faith has had a disastrous effect on all PBs who have embraced it. The bible is so clear on this issue. In order for those who became anti means to give some semblance of remaining scriptural, in the light of so much scripture that teaches that faith in Christ is necessary for salvation, they invented their novel doctrine of "time salvation." It also killed their evangelism efforts. Before their departure on this issue, they believed in preaching to the unregenerate, and in bidding them to believe and repent. But, once they denied means, such things became unscriptural and wrong.

9. We believe he that believeth in the Son of God hath the witness in himself. I John 5:10.

It is unusual to put such a verse in an article of faith without some comment or as support for a peculiar doctrine. It seems to be a remnant of the "new light" movement that gave rise to the Separate Baptists. If I could talk to the Eastern Brothers I am sure that they connect this idea of an inner witness with becoming assured of one's salvation. I believe they would reject our main-line PBs for their saying how they only "hope" that they are saved and how that they cannot know it for sure. Again, all this would be in keeping with the Separate Baptist tradition.

10. We believe baptism, the Lord's Supper, and feet washing are ordinances of Jesus Christ given to the church by example and command for us to observe until He comes again. Matt. 28:19; John 13; I Cor. 11:23-26.

This article on "feet washing" shows that the Eastern brothers come from the same source as their Hyper Calvinistic counterpart PBs. Of course, not all PBs have practiced feet washing, nor have they all viewed it as an "ordinance" on equal par with baptism and the supper. Many PBs in the north did not practice feet washing in the 1800s. I would be in agreement with those who did not see it as an ordinance. When Christ said "you ought to wash one another's feet," he meant you ought to do what is signified by the act, which is to serve. It is ironic to me that the PBs, though practicing feet washing, have not been too good at serving their brethren. Their slandering and cutting off their Baptist brethren for minor disagreements in doctrine and practice is not the way to love, serve, and forbear. As the history of this denomination is known, it will show that these Hardshells could wash your feet one minute, and then cast you out in the next.

12. We believe all the saints will persevere through grace and never fall away. Eph. 1:13, 14; I Pet. 1:5; John 10:28, 29.

Again, this was the teaching of the 1689 Confession and nearly every PB up until the later 1800s. The denial of perseverance coincided with the denial of means. Faith is required to persevere, but the anti means PBs had come to the point where they believed that many sinners would be saved "faith or no faith." So, they began to deny perseverance and claimed to believe in preservation only. It is good that the Eastern brotherhood has not gone down the same road as have other PBs.

13. We believe in election according to the foreknowledge of God and the sanctification of the Spirit through the belief of the truth. Eph. 1; I Pet. 1:2, 3.

In Kenny's talk with the elders in the Eastern District Association, there was more of an Arminian idea of election promoted, it seems. By election according to the foreknowledge of God the belief seemed to be that God chose people because he foresaw that they, of their own free choice, became believers. That would be a conditional election. The traditional view of the ancestors of the PBs, as expressed in their confessions, has been that faith is the result of having been chosen, and not the other way around. This article does not expressly say that, however. It does say that those God chose to salvation are those who are sanctified by the Spirit and who believe the truth. The traditional understanding of Calvinists is that II Thess. 2: 13-14 says that God chose (unconditionally) some to be saved and that the means of this salvation are Spirit sanctification and faith in the gospel. It is unconditional election to a conditional salvation.

15. We believe God chooses, calls and qualifies those whom He would have to preach the gospel, and God has promised temporal support of His ministers. Rom. 10:14, 15; I Cor. 1:25-29; I Cor. 9:7-11.

On the surface there is nothing wrong with this article. However, it does reflect the language of the first Hardshells who objected to theological education of ministers, to seminaries. It seems that the Eastern Association still reflects that view. Those who are fully in league with the Progressive PBs would feel differently. Further, it was never the view of those Baptists who supported theological schools for ministers that they, by such education, were choosing, calling, and qualifying men to preach the gospel, nor that they were usurping authority over the Holy Spirit. The Baptists who supported theological education of ministers believed that God chose and called men for the ministry and that the schools, supported by the churches, was simply there to help educate them so that they could fulfill their calling in a more effective way. When the article says that "God has promised temporal support of His ministers," they seem to place the responsibility upon God alone to financially take care of his ministers. But, the teaching of the NT is that God has placed this responsibility upon the churches. And, in this respect, the Eastern brethren seem not to have "progressed" as far as they should. Even though their churches are large enough to support their pastors full time, none seem to do so. They all work full time jobs. And, the members of the churches seem to pride themselves in that fact, much like the main line Hardshells have done for the past couple hundred years. Here is what one of their members wrote about this issue (emphasis mine).

"My pastor and the pastors of the Eastern District Association churches work for a living just as I do. They receive no salary. They try to feed the flock with the word of God, spending much of their free time studying and doing for the church. Also laboring during the day on their jobs and many times throughout the year they hold revivals, which takes up much of their time from their families. Again doing all of this they receive no pay. Yes the congregation may take up an offering but this usually just takes care of their gas money that allows them to get to church. If we invite someone to come preach for us a week surely we could make sure they have the money to get there. Oh by the way when the collection plate is passed at the church I belong at, which goes to paying the bills for the upkeep of the church, guess who is the first one that is dropping money into the plate? You probably didn't guess right. Anyway it is our pastor."

(posted by Kim Robinette, a person who uploads to Youtube nearly all of the videos of their preachers and services - see here for the citation)

This sister seems proud of the fact that they do not support their pastors full time. In this respect these Eastern brethren are just like most of their Hardshell forefathers who opposed preachers being supported full time and having salaries.

16. We believe in a restricted communion confined to the church in fellowship, walking in the light and observing gospel order. I Cor. 5:11, 12; John 13; I Cor. 11:31, 32.

The question is this - how restricted are they? From Kenny's talk with them, they are more open than today's "old line" PBs. They will allow anyone, PB or not, who was immersed and a true believer when immersed, to partake of communion. I would agree with them on this.

In an interview, one member of one of the churches said (see here):

"We do use the King James Version of the Bible," she said. "But, one of the things I guess that is most unique about our church is our pastors do not have prepared sermons. They depend upon the revealing of the Spirit to give them the sermons. That's the one thing I know that's totally different from any other churches."

I think this again shows that they still have things in common with other groups of PBs. I recently wrote a short piece on this ideology about preaching. I think the truly Progressive PBs have come to see the shortcomings of it. There is nothing wrong with preaching with short notes. Some of the greatest Baptist preachers have done so.

The same member said:

"We've never had any music. We never started having it here and it's never been anything we felt like we needed. That's one of the more unique things about our church. We sing and the choir sings and we have guest singers. We just sing a cappella."

But, we have learned that some churches in the Eastern Association do have musical instruments. They seem to let each church decide and do not make the issue a test of fellowship. It would be nice if the main line PBs would follow their example here. I think it is good also that they allow special music by groups within the church.

All in all, I would feel far more at home with these PBs than most other groups of PBs, excepting maybe the full blown Progressives. I do admire their efforts at preaching to the lost, their efforts at evangelism, their enthusiasm in worship, their forbearing and lovable spirit, and their retention of the doctrine of means and perseverance. Perhaps one day I can get to attend one of their association meetings.

A Research into a Less Calvinistic PB Group

Brother Kenny Mann recently informed me that he had found, via Internet search, a group of "Primitive Baptists" who seem to be more like Southern Baptists, being less Calvinistic, known as the Eastern District Association Of Primitive Baptists. He immediately informed me about them and we both began to research them. We decided that one of us needed to make contact with them and find out more about them. Brother Kenny did this, having had two or three conversations with some of their leaders on the question of their beliefs and their history. Kenny and I have had several phone conversations about them as well as e-mails and the following write up by him gives us the substance of his research. I will be making a follow up posting to Kenny's posting as it relates to this group of "Primitive Baptists." You can check out the web page for the Eastern Association HERE. You can also find a lot of videos on Youtube that make a lot of their church services, associational meetings, and sermons available. Just type in "eastern association of primitive Baptists" in the Youtube search box to find them.

I appreciate brother Kenny sending this information to me as I am always interested in learning more about the history of those who call themselves "Primitive Baptists." In my years of study into this denomination, I have focused on the main group, those with the most adherents, which would be those who would be styled as the "Conditionalist" faction. I have not done much historical research into certain other factions, such as the "Primitive Baptist Universalist," or the black PB churches, nor have I written much against groups such as the "Progressives." I did know that there were some "Arminian leaning" groups that called themselves "Primitive Baptists," but did not research them.

The Eastern Association of Primitive Baptists
By Kenny Mann of Conyers, Ga.

I've discovered an "unusual" group of Primitive Baptists concentrated in the area where Tennessee, Virginia and Kentucky come together. They are known as the Eastern Association of Primitive Baptists. Their association started in 1848. Unfortunately, the minutes from the years 1848 to 1878 have been lost, but from 1878 til now, they can still be found.

 The most unusual thing about them, is that they are the only group of PB's that I know of, that deny predestination when it comes to salvation. They strongly believe that ANYONE can be saved. One aspect of their worship includes an invitation for anyone who is lost, to know Jesus. They exhort sinners to call upon Christ and be saved. This is not the belief of most PB's that I've had contact with. In my talks with Elder Scott Tipton, the pastor of Willow Chapel Primitive Baptist Church and Elder Burnice Sieber of West View Primitive Baptist Church, I've discovered that I have much in common with them. They are very open to talking about their doctrine and history, and they strive to be Jesus followers. Although there are some differences between us, I consider them brothers and sisters in Christ, and would gladly labor with them them for the Gospel.

Here is a concise version of their history.

They were founded in 1848. According to these 2 elders, they still follow the original doctrines of their association. They have not "gone off course" like other PB's may accuse them of going. In fact, they believe that the OTHER PB's are the ones who left their original doctrines. They readily admit that many other PB's may have believed in predestination of the soul as part of their particular association's doctrines, but believe they "went off course" when they began to change their doctrines in the late 1800's to early 1900's. Some of these errors include "time salvation", not giving invitations to the lost, adoption of non-instrumentalism as a doctrine, and a hybrid form of hyper calvinism. The Eastern Association can prove that the doctrines they teach go back to at least 1878, the oldest record of minutes that they have.

Until around 1994 they had over 90 churches with over 10,000 members. Around that year there was a split among them, mainly over the issue of open and closed communion. About 30 churches left, believing communion should be open to anyone that wanted to participate, while those that remained believed it should be restricted to believers who were baptized by immersion, and who were known among the congregation to be walking in the truth. The group that left formed a new association called the Central Baptist Association. As you can see, they dropped the word "primitive" from their name. Some of these churches no longer exist, and some have joined the "missionary" associations around them.

Another split occurred around 2006 over the issue of ministers being divorced and remarried. A group of churches left the association when the vote to allow divorced elders was taken, the majority being in favor of allowing such ministers to be ordained. The group that split became known as the Southern District Association of Primitive Baptists. Doctrinally the Eastern and Southern association are identical except for the divorce issue.

Here are the issues that I have some disagreement with, but I do understand Eastern Association's view.

1) They reject missions. They do believe it is the responsibility of every believer to tell others about Christ, but they reject the use of mission boards and societies. I believe much of their objection comes from the fact that they believe it is difficult to oversee the doctrines that far away missionaries may teach, and the fact that much of the money is used to pay salaries, especially the salaries of people who only do "paperwork" or other non gospel functions.

2) They do not believe in a "rapture." They believe the second coming will occur at the end of the tribulation, and that the tribulation has no set number of years. They are Amillennial (while I differ from them on this, it isn't important as a test of fellowship for me).

3) They don't believe a minister "must" have a salary, or expect such, although they do support and give to their minsters in many ways. This has not been at the forefront of their thought, as their churches are small enough, that it isn't an issue, but I wonder if it would become an issue if some of their churches grew to the point of requiring a full time pastor. Only time will tell.

 Here are some things I am in total agreement with them.

1) They believe the Gospel is for EVERYONE and ANYONE can be saved without exception. This is VERY rare among PB's. They don't really define themselves as believing in either a "general" or "limited" atonement. They are happy to simply say the Christ died for all who will come to Him. They would say that, because of God's foreknowledge, a certain number of people will be saved, and when the final one comes to Christ, then He will appear in His second coming. They reject the notion that God chooses some to salvation and other to be left in a lost state with no hope.

2) They believe in inviting sinners to be saved and to make sure of their calling and election.

3) They believe in Sunday schools, which most other Pb's reject.

4) They believe the use of instruments in worship is a matter of preference. Some churches have it and some don't. This is fine by me. It's not a matter of doctrine, and no church is frowned upon based on their preference.

 5) While they are not "ecumenical" they are glad to call other Christian friends and brother in Christ, and most of their churches would welcome you to communion IF they knew who you were and knew of your testimony, and that you had been immersed in baptism. Most other PB's would have an issue with someone taking communion who was not exactly in line with their particular beliefs. All in all, I find them to be completely orthodox in their doctrine, and that they have a burden for lost souls, and that they are evangelistic in outreach. You would be welcomed in their churches. They have a Christ like spirit, they are loving and accepting, and desire to be Jesus followers.

Research and phone interviews by Kenny Mann and info shared with Brother Stephen Garrett, July 2017.

Trip To Ohio & PB Meetings

It has been my desire for a few years now to visit the Eastern District Association of Primitive Baptists, an association of semi Calvinistic Primitive Baptists of which brother Ken Mann and I have written about. They have 36 churches in their association in four states (Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Ohio). This year the Association was held at a church near my sister's house (she lives in Lebanon, Ohio, the old stomping ground of Hardshell founding father Wilson Thompson). They have 48 ministers, including "licentiates." I have also wanted to visit Cincinnati Primitive Baptist church and see Elder Lasserre Bradley once again (it has been over forty years since I last saw him). I also wanted to meet Elder Jeremiah Bass, the new senior pastor at Cincinnati. He and I have exchanged some e-mail correspondence and I have recommended many of his writings since he became pastor there. I have also not seen my sister since father passed away back in March, 2016. So, with this one short visit of 5-6 days I was able to do all three. This is a record of this trip.

I left this past Thursday (Sept. 30) on a flight from Charlotte, N.C. and arrived in Dayton, Ohio around noon. My brother in law, Bob Jaster, picked me up and took me to his and my sister's house (Judy). I spent a delightful day with them both. I have not seen them since father passed away. We talk regularly on the phone. Both are now retired and enjoying their "golden years." Judy is my younger sister and we have always been close since we were siblings. She is a devoted Christian, a member of father's church (now called "New Hope Primitive Baptist Church" in Franklin, Ohio). 

We spent the day (the whole time together too) talking about our lives, about our parents, about the poverty of our upbringing, our hard times as children. We also talked a lot about father (Elder Eddie K. Garrett Sr.). Though I came to see some things differently than father, yet I respected him for his convictions. We agreed on much more than we disagreed upon. He was a diligent student of the bible. Had he not had to support himself as a pastor he would have had much more time to study and no doubt would have advanced further in his theological studies. Such is the hindrance that many preachers face, having to work full time jobs and yet find time to study, visit the sick, comfort and counsel members, witness, etc. But he made the most of the time he had as a pastor who had to work a secular job. He had a huge library (donated to SBTS library by Judy). 

He had been saved in a "Missionary Baptist" church, went to a Missionary Seminary (Springfield, Mo. where Judy was born when father was there). While in seminary he came to believe in "the five points of Calvinism," though this was not the stated belief of Springfield fellowship (Baptist Bible Fellowship, where Jerry Falwell attended, and who father said was a year ahead of him). He also seems to have embraced "Landmarkism" at this time. He left Springfield, returned to Hamiliton, Ohio, and started a mission church and became a sovereign grace Baptist with the help of Calvary Baptist Church of Ashland, Kentucky. This was in the start of the decade of the sixties. It was called "New Testament Baptist Church" and located at 953 Walnut Street, Hamilton, Ohio. 

You can go to the archives of "The Baptist Examiner," published in Ashland for many years and sponsored by that church. (For the archives of the Baptist Examiner see here) Elder John R. Gilpin was the pastor and Bob L. Ross, my dear friend (who passed away the past year), married Gilpin's daughter and became editor of the paper. You can see a picture of our family along with founding members of the church father began (here - go to page six on this issue ). I am the little boy at the bottom of the pic, my sister Judy is to my right, and my older sister Brenda (deceased) is on her right. My older brother Eddie Jr. is the other child. My mother is the second from the right in the row of four women. Father's sister (my aunt) is on the far left. It is in the Oct. 3rd, 1959 issue and I would have been almost four (two days later on Oct. 5th). Father is second from left and there is another picture of him on the same page in the writing that Bob Ross wrote of the constitution of New Testament Baptist Church. 

You can see a picture of father on the front page of the Examiner for April 16, 1960 (here) at the top of his article in a series titled "Amillennialism Examined." In this article he was defending Premillennialism. "God's Eternal Purpose" (here) for August 13, 1960. Another picture of father can be seen in this issue where he is pictured with another elder (father is on the left - see here) It was for November 24, 1960 and on page five. "Free Will? - No!" (Feb. 4th, 1961 - here) "Faith-The Gift Of God's Grace" (here and in the March 25th issue for 1961) with his picture. "Assurance vs. Assumption" (June 24, 1961 here); "Why Preach The Gospel" (here); "Bible Doctrine Of Election" (here - for Dec. 23, 1961); "Contend For The Faith" (May 5th, 1962 - here); "The Unscripturalness of "Religious Socialism" (June 2, 1962 - here); Another picture of father can be seen in this issue on page five (Sept. 19, 1959 - here);

Father had gone to Calvary to seek membership and support for his mission work in Hamilton. Mother and father both joined Calvary and began a mission church. There are lots of articles of father in those years, other than the ones mentioned above, and I have read some of them. What father believed at that time is what I believe now (for the most part). He was then a believer in absolute predestination of all things (all things come to pass by the will of God), a believer in means in rebirth, in the necessity of faith and repentance for salvation, in the necessity of perseverance in faith and holiness, and in Premillennialism. 

He was also blessed to have about fifteen years of pretty good retirement years and this time was spent in preaching, study, etc. I have thanked God for giving him this time in his golden years. I could go on an on about father, but will forbear the reader. Needless to say we talked much about him whom we both loved dearly. We recalled his words and sage advice. His good example in many things. Thank you Father for our father!

My sister is a good cook! She fed me well. Bob and Judy show much Christian hospitality. They enjoy life every day in the Spirit of the Lord, giving God thanks for all they have. Judy has been used by the Lord in her life to help so many sick and dying family and church members, including father. Full of good works. Helping to raise an orphan family member, giving money to those in need, etc. 

Eastern District Primitive Baptist Association

I attended this association on Friday and Saturday morning. They had lively enthusiastic worship and praise! They felt their religion. They identified with the words of the hymns and spiritual songs. There was much testifying, exhorting, shouting, lots of amens, etc. They also had several prayer requests for lost family members, the thing I recently wrote about as not characterizing the Hardshell variety of prayer requests. (See Hardshell Prayer Requests) 

The preachers I heard were like many of the ones I heard among the Hardshells in certain geographical areas. They got excited, very excited. One preacher jumped upon two chairs and I thought he was going to fall! Many had that rhythmic chanting style of preaching. One was very good, singing in a melodious tone, like many of the Hardshell preachers of the past. One preacher said something that has made me laugh a lot since I heard it. He said that he had a "big mouth" when he was in sin and when the Lord saved him he heard the Lord saying to him "come now and use that big mouth for me." These preachers could mix doctrinal preaching with experimental preaching. 

After the Friday morning service, I walked to the front to speak to Elder Burnace Sybert, the one that brother Ken Mann has spoken to about the history of this group of Primitive Baptists. Elder Sybert knew from these conversations that I was a Calvinist. When I introduced myself as Stephen Garrett, associate of brother Mann, elder Sybert mentioned my being Calvinist (they are not five point Calvinists). I responded by saying that I believed as Spurgeon. I said that Southern Baptists have one point, two point, three point, four point, and five point Calvinists and yet they get along fairly well. Others were crowding around the front where we were speaking, some wanting to speak to him, and so we did not talk any more. He was scheduled to preach on Saturday morning and yet failed to show because of kidney stones. I pray he is recovering. I guess he was around 80 years old. He was for many years the clerk of the association and is supposed to know most about the history of the Eastern District, which began in 1848. 

On Saturday after the morning service I got to speak with the Moderator of the Association, elder Sizemore. I told him that I would like to have information on the history of the Association from 1848 to 1880, the period when there are no records. Elder Sizemore said I should talk to Sybert. Elder Sizemore had a nice sing song style of preaching, the kind I often heard among the Hardshells.

In talking with Sybert in that short few minutes I said that the Eastern brethren seem to be a non Hardshell type of Primitive Baptist. One sister who I knew from her YouTube page (giving many videos of Eastern Association meetings) I was glad to meet. She heard my remark about being primitive but not Hardshell and said to me that she had been called Hardshell by others. I then told her what I meant. I said that the Hardshells don't believe that sinners are saved or regenerated by the gospel and denied perseverance to be necessary for salvation. The Eastern brothers do believe in means (articles of faith expressly say this), I said, and are therefore not Hardshell. She then spoke of God "speaking" to an individual and my mind immediately went to the Hardshell idea of "direct speaking." I told her that there was both an inward and an outward call. The word is preached and the external call given to come to Christ, to believe and repent, and yet it requires the inward call of the Spirit to attend the outward call and make it effectual. This internal call is the inner work of the Spirit in saying to the sinner "this is right." 

I had no discussion of doctrine with any preachers and members except the above. I did not go there to fight and debate. I went there to see and observe them for myself. I hopefully will get to attend again, possibly when they meet in Virginia or East Tennessee. 

Cincinnati Church

On Sunday morning I drove to Cincinnati Primitive Baptist Church's meeting house. I had not been there since about 1979 when I filled in for Elder Bradley on one Sunday. The church paid for me to fly up there. I went the year after this (maybe two) when they held their Annual Meeting. I drove up with several of my church members. The meeting was held in a large gymnasium back in those days as the crowds were so large. When I was there I guess there were at least five hundred people in attendance. I used to go to Cincinnati church on Wednesdays (they then had services Sunday morning and night, and on Wednesdays) and this would have been in the years 1972-1976 (I moved to NC in March, 1976). 

Elder Bradley introduced services after singing and the new pastor, Elder Jeremiah Bass, delivered the discourse. He is going through the Book of Hebrews and was in chapter five. I have been listening to his Sunday discourses since he became pastor back in the Spring. He is a sound exegete. I expect great things from him in the years to come, if the Lord tarries his return.

After service I immediately went to Elder Bradley who I had not seen in the past forty plus years. "Father Bradley," I said, "it is so good to see you after all these years" (paraphrase). We spoke of several things in those few minutes. I told him that I believed that the church did very well in selecting Jeremiah. He agreed and felt as though the Lord had been in the decision. I pray for them all. Father Bradley spoke of his having had Covid (his wife Emily also). As he spoke he had that gleam in his eye that I always remember. He also looked you in the eye as he talked and I like that. Jeremiah also had this trait. I pray God they will look sinners in the eyes as they preach to and counsel sinners. The Methodist minister that the Lord used to convert Charles Spurgeon also looked him in the eye as he addressed him saying "You look like a miserable man." He told him all he had to do was "look" to Christ and the Father to be saved. 

I met elder Jeremiah Bass when I first arrived at the church house. Was so glad to have had the opportunity to meet him. We talked together a good bit, especially during lunch (I stayed for it). I also had intentions of speaking to elder Bradley some more but we did not get a chance as he was sitting with church members. Really, it was a precious sight to see such an aged minister still ministering, giving counsel, comfort, and encouragement to the saints. Elder Bass and I got to talk about several things and will not relate the precise topics but simply say it was quite enjoyable.

Staying for lunch after morning services I was able to enjoy good fellowship with several, some who knew father from back in the sixties when father joined Cincinnati church. I spoke to one who knew him well and spoke highly of father.

I asked Elder Bradley to think about writing his memoirs. I told him how important this would be. He could dictate on tape and others could write it down. He should be able in them to document his time with the PBs, his experiences, his going away from means and to hardshellism, his battles with the PBs, and give advice for the future, for young ministers. I also told Jeremiah of this and encouraged him to do this. I think they plan to have a special service at their October meeting to highlight father Bradley's ministry.

I also requested of elder Bradley a copy of the cassette of the quartet that had him singing with Paul Trautner, brother Prather, and another brother. I asked him "didn't you sing bass?" He nodded yes. I said that is amazing (he does not have a deep bass voice). I asked "was it a Trio or Quartet?" He said there were four of them. I said "Elder Trautner and brother Prather were two, who was the fourth?" He could not recall right fast (and others were crowding towards the dining hall). I also asked Jeremiah to help me get that tape and to encourage Bradley to write his memoirs in which he could give advice, tell of his experiences in ministry, and give direction for the future of the Primitive Baptists of his affiliations.

All in all it was a wonderful trip! I thank God for it. I hope I can have opportunities in the future to do the same. Pray for us.

SOMEBODY'S IN TROUBLE

 Recently, I discovered another primitive sect of Baptists in northern Alabama. They are officially titled the Towns Creek Association of United Baptists of the Primitive Faith and Order, founded in 1870. I had not known of any United Baptists that far south until recently. They were formed from churches out of the Will's Creek Association, which was founded in 1836.

Of course,as a historian, I always want to see articles of faith, especially the originals if there has been any change.The main thing I look for is the article on election, or predestination, or atonement. The Towns Creek article on the subject reads as follows:

"We believe in the doctrine of election by grace in Christ, and that God according to His foreknowledge, purpose and grace, chose His people in Christ, before the foundation of the world, thru sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the Truth. (article 6) and "We believe the saints will persevere in and be preserved by grace and never finally fall away nor be lost." (article 7)

Now let's compare this to the Wills Creek article on the same subject, which states:

"God working all things after the counsel of His own will, and all His works from the beginning being known unto Him, of course all that the Father hath given to Christ, through sanctification of the Holy Spirit, and belief of the truth will come unto Him, so that none of them will finally be lost." (article 8)

Both Wills Creek and Towns Creek taught/teach general atonement. If you have followed mine and Stephen's articles of the Eastern District Association of Primitive Baptists, you'll certainly notice that both of these articles share something in common with the Eastern PB association articles, which is the statement "through sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the truth."  This phrase seems to be the "code word" for general atonement beliefs. The Eastern District PB's came out of the Mulberry Gap Association of United Baptists. All three associations mention the statement above, along with foreknowledge (from the beginning being known to Him). This (to me) seems to support the idea of corporate election, as those who are chosen are those who "believe the Truth". It definitely rules out any notion that someone could be saved without hearing the gospel. The Wills Creek article seems more calvinistic to me than the Towns Creek. Perhaps this was an example where there was a mixture of Regulars and Separates,as it does seem more deterministic, yet there is no "certain number" clause, but neither is there any mention of perseverance. If this was the case, then the churches that came out of it to help from the Towns Creek Association, seems to have toned it down further. Wills Creek was formed at the height of the missionary/anti missionary split.

Any historian of Baptist history knows that United Baptists came about as an attempt to unite the Regular and Separate Baptists. There are now two kinds of Uniteds, both of which are general provisionist, one holding to eternal security, the other being totally Arminian. This seems to show that the Uniteds were not always a "mixture" of Regulars and Separates, as much as it was a recognition and acceptance of each others baptisms, ordinations, and church status. It seems that most associations kept their distinctive theologies. Many, such as the Mulberry Gap and Old Bethlehem associations have an article that specifically states the general nature of the atonement.This would also seem to show that the Separates had total Arminians within their camp. This would beg the question as to why are there no totally Calvinist Uniteds? Of course my theory is that the more Calvinistic Uniteds either became Primitive Baptists and dropped their tolerance of general provisionist Baptists, as they may have viewed them to be more in sympathy with missions, or took up the with the Missionary Baptists if they fell on that side of the issue. The Uniteds could still operate under the "United" banner, as there were still two distinct views which were tolerated.

So what are the current practices of Towns Creek? Have they changed over time? It's really hard to tell. The Uniteds were always "tolerant" of things like music, Sunday Schools, revivals and missionary support, although against "boards". Today, Towns Creek practices all those things, but still rejects boards. However, their members send support as individual families to various missionaries. The signs on their churches do not even say "United" they simply say "Baptist". However, they do love acapella singing and practice it often. One elder I spoke with told me his church had a piano, but he can't even remember the last time it was played. The other churches use it unashamedly. One thing all Uniteds have in common is the "mourner's bench" where people pray when they feel burdened or seek salvation, as all Uniteds give an invitation at the end of preaching. They practice foot washing as well. One practice that was new to me, is that of "setting aside" of someone who wished to join, unless it is through baptism. This practice states that one is "set aside" not becoming a member until some time has passed to prove you will be faithful. Preaching is done extemporaneously, like most other primitive groups, and may involve two or more preachers at any one service.

Since Towns Creek is only about an hour and 20 minutes away, I decided to visit one of the churches. The first thing I noticed, was there were plenty of younger people. That is encouraging. Like the Primitives, they practice family integrated worship. Summer is the "revival" season, and each church has a week long revival, so the association has a revival going on somewhere for about 8 weeks straight. I had watched some of their videos before visiting. Throughout all the services I kept hearing the phrase "somebody's in trouble."  It didn't take long for me to realize this was their way saying someone was under conviction, and they hung in the balance. I like the term. I heard testimonies of how when someone came to Christ for salvation, how they had been miserable, couldn't sleep, some fighting Him, yet realizing if they died without Him, they were doomed. At the end of the service, the preacher said once again, "for the last few weeks, I have known that somebody's in trouble. You don't have to be, but you are." Then he gave an invitation, and two precious souls responded, and are candidates for baptism. Are you in trouble? If you don't know Him, you are. We are all in trouble before coming to Jesus. A savior rescues folks who are in trouble. If you are a sinner, you are in trouble. I know I was. What about you?  If not, then sleep well for Jesus said "I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance." However, if you are not righteous, and in trouble, call on Him and be saved!

DAVID BENEDICT'S HISTORY - ANOTHER VIEW

    First, let me state clearly, that this is in RESPONSE to Bro Stephen's article on Benedict's History, as another view, not a rebuttal or debate. Bro Stephen is honest, desires truth, and has granted me great liberty, even when he strongly disagrees. I love him as a brother, as I know he does me.

   What I wish to discuss here, is how two people can view the same facts, but see different things. This is not a fault, but in fact, has scriptural example. For instance, Matthew says Jesus' robe was bright red (scarlet) while Mark and John say it was purple. Luke just says it was "gorgeous". Was one or more of them mistaken? Absolutely not. There is an explanation, but now is not the time for that. It is just an example of differing views of the same event. It is also an example of WHY we should believe what the gospel writers wrote, because if they had "colluded" in making up the story, surely they would've gotten together and gotten their "facts" straight. Sometimes what Bro. Stephen calls "scarlet" I call "purple", yet we both are describing the same event. Stephen is a Calvinist, staunchly so. I am what is now called a Non Calvinist, but it is a term I do not really like. Nevertheless, it is a term I will use for the rest of this article to denote my views for clarity's sake. I am definitely NOT Arminian. This is the crux of my response, as some would call me Arminian, because I believe in general atonement, yet others decry me as a Calvinist, because I believe in perseverance of the saints or eternal security. Terms are tricky and the meaning at times, depends on who is defining them.

   Let's get started. In the 19th century, all Christians were classified as either Calvinist or Arminian. These were the only options "allowed". A Calvinist could've been anything from a 2 pointer to a 5 pointer. There are also "points" in the Arminian system. Some have said that Arminius himself was a "one point Calvinist", believing in total depravity. And, as Stephen has pointed out, Arminius was "Reformed", which on a side note, is why I make a distinction between being "Reformed" as opposed to being merely "Calvinist". Defining terms is important, especially when speaking historically. We must understand how writers of that day defined  terms, as opposed to how we define them today. Even now, the hardshells accuse anyone who believes in "means" of being Arminian. If a hardhshell, were writing about Baptist history, they would say "all those mission Baptists were Arminians" (most of which later became the Southern Baptist Convention). This is false. If I stopped writing at this point, some people would say "Kenny has said all those in the SBC were Calvinists", merely because I said they were NOT Arminians. This too would be false.  Nevertheless, IF the hardshell defines "Arminian" as one who preaches the gospel to ALL persons, then count me an Arminian!  IF the Free Will Baptists call me a Calvinist for believing that the power of God has caused me to be born again, and that once born, I cannot be "unborn", then count me as a Calvinist! But please don't count me as being any less of a Baptist.

   For a political example, Puerto Ricans today may be called "Americans" and this would be true. But they may also be called "Puerto Ricans" and this would also be true. Puerto Ricans pay no income tax IF they live in Puerto Rico. Once they move to the mainland, they must pay taxes. But if I move THERE, then I still have to pay the taxes, because I am not a Puerto Rican citizen. Puerto Rico has the right to sever all ties with the USA, but I do not as a Georgian. So they are "Conditional Americans" whereas I am a "Natural American". Then you have "Native Americans". When writing about the history of the USA, you must make a distinction between "American" and the other descriptive terms. Is Native American history  part of "American" history? Some would say "yes" but the Native Americans would say "no". While they are "American citizens" they don't consider themselves as Americans but citizens of their respective Sovereign Nations, with their own courts, police, laws etc. They cannot be charged even with murder by any state. They must be charged by their own tribe. The same is true when talking about Calvinism (or Arminianism for that matter). I might speak of myself as a "Conditional Calvinist", but I could also be called a "Conditional Arminian". I say this to prove a point, but I see myself as neither. But as a "Conditionalist" I may be included in one group or the other, depending on what angle the writer is coming from. This same concept comes up when I am debating a Campbellite. I affirm that "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved.." but I do NOT affirm that "whoever believes and is NOT baptized will be damned". If I failed to clarify the former by adding the latter, it is still true that I am affirming the former, but it is an incomplete and misleading picture.

   Now on to another view of Benedict's History.

Said Benedict:

"The Philadelphia Confession of Faith, published in that city, in 1742, was the standard of most of the oldest Baptist churches in this country, especially in the middle and southern States.

 As a Non Calvinist, I view this statement with caution. While it is true that it was the standard by MANY old Baptists, it was not of all, especially among the Separate Baptists. Almost all churches had their own Articles of Faith (henceforth AoF), and there'd be no need to do so if they simply subscribed to the Philadelphia Confession. The Separates were fiercely independent, and agreed to unite with the Regular Baptists with the condition, that the Holy Scriptures alone was their "creed". Nevertheless, many Separates said "We will unite with our Philadephia brethren, so long as their Confession does not conflict with Holy Scripture", then many of them simply ignored the Confession and adopted their own AoF. This is one reason why the union didn't last very long. Recently I have been lucky enough to have access to hundreds of AoF of the Separates kept in the archives of New Orleans Baptist Seminary. Associations who wished to join the SBC, sent their AoF to the convention to ensure they were "in good order and orthodox". To date, I have scoured thru 78 of them. 16 of them are decidedly Calvinist. 34 are clearly Non Calvinist. 28 are ambiguous, using terms that could be interpreted either way. As an example of known Non Calvinist Separates, read the 11th article of three Associations of Separate Baptists, the Central, Unity, and Nolynn, dealing with the atonement.

"11. We believe that Jesus Christ, by the grace of God, tasted death for every man, and

that all may partake of his Divine benefits through repentance toward God and faith in

the Lord Jesus Christ. Also, infants and those who have never developed the mental

ability to receive regeneration, are included in the covenant of God’s grace. John 3:15-

17; Acts 4:12 "

 

This clearly is not an article today's Calvinists could subscribe to. Notice it says "all may partake" and notice it does NOT say "elect infants" or "elect mentally disabled" as the London and Philadelphia Confessions state. In article 5 it says

"5. We believe that he who endures to the end the same shall be saved. Rev. 2:10; Matt 24:1

This is an article that is vague, but is calvinistic, but not strongly so. While it does describe perseverance, there is no language that says "none shall be lost"  etc. For someone who didn't know, it could be interpreted as Arminian. However, we know that they weren't because the  Central Association declared non fellowship of  an elder for and his church for teaching "it is possible for some to fall away", Stating that these three associations were Arminian or Calvinist, without digging into their history would be a false statement. For those who simply read these articles, it is very possible that they would conclude that these associations were totally Arminian, because even they believe the believer must "persevere" to "stay saved", but their emphasis is very different from how the these Separate brethren believed in perseverance.

Said Benedict:

"The old Baptists in New England, although, for the most part, they held with their brethren elsewhere the doctrines of Depravity, Election, Divine Sovereignty, Final Perseverance, etc., yet they were not in the habit of enforcing them so strongly as were those in New York, Philadelphia, and further South."

 

 This statement also has some issues. This is absolutely true when referring to Regular Baptists, but the Separates would never accept "enforcement" from anyone. Even a few of the Regulars were not as Calvinistic as some would make them out to be. The Ketocton Association of Regular Baptist Churches is one such example. Smith Creek Regular Baptist Church, est. 1756, is the oldest Regular church still in existence in Virginia. They applied for membership in the Philadelphia Association in 1762, but in 1765 they withdrew, along with other churches to form the Ketocton Regular Baptist Association. When they adopted their AoF, they dropped the "certain number" clause found in so many other AoF.. Article 4 of their AoF states "We believe that God, from the beginning or in eternity, chose His people in Christ unto salvation, through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ; all of which are set forth and affected through the Gospel." This is very similar to how it is phrased in the Eastern District Primitive Baptist articles. Stephen, in his second article about the Eastern District, saw that they were likely never Calvinists, at least in the predestinarian sense. But in His first article, he expressed much doubt, and said that they had indeed started out as Calvinists, but changed over time. I stressed to him that they had NEVER interpreted predestination as Calvinists do, and upon further research, he found that to be consistent with the association they split from. To his credit, he admitted such. I myself, although I'd word it differently, could subscribe to the 4th article of the Ketocton Association, the key phrase being "IN CHRIST" and "His people" rather than "certain number" of persons. I could also interpret "through sanctification" as a PROCESS decreed by God, rather than a decree of who will be saved. I cannot tell for certain how much the Ketocton Association has changed, but I can verify that now, none of their churches are Calvinist in the predestinarian sense, and are in complete agreement with my views about soteriology, and still subscribe to those AoF, as I have spoken at great length with some of their pastors. They identify as Independent, fundamental, but not KJV only, which in itself is rare, as most Independents do not belong to an association. So can anyone tell me "why" so many different strands of Baptists have "strayed" from Calvinism, if  Calvinism, as defined by today's definition, was "the" orthodox Baptist position? Not only SBCers, but the Old Regulars, the Ketocton Regulars, the Uniteds, the Independents, the Separates that remained aloof from the SBC, and the Seventh Day Baptists have ALL "strayed", and yet they have had little to no contact with each other for the last 150 years. If Calvinism (defined in today's terms) was the main standard of Baptists, why have none of these groups remained faithful to it? It seems there are only two choices. Either they defined Calvinism in different terms back then, or ALL of these groups, after biblical study, have concluded that Calvinism, is not the best example of the way the gospel is to be understood. Either way, the strict Calvinist will not be happy.

Said Stephen:

Though some want to affirm that the Separate Baptists were not Calvinists, this is not true. Certainly Backus was either a five pointer or a four and a half pointer. It is true that the Separate Baptists  were generally "Calvinists of a still milder type." What Benedict means by this is not known.

 

 I do affirm that the majority of Separate Baptists were not Calvinists by TODAY'S definition of the term. When Stephen says "What Benedict means by this is not known" it speaks volumes. I believe Benedict throws them in the Calvinist category, because they held to total depravity and perseverance or eternal security. Any writer of the 19th century would have definitely EXCLUDED the Separates from Arminianism. Again, how one defines the term is important. They could have (and most definitely were) at least "2 or 3 point Calvinists", but by today's standards, they would be considered Non Calvinists, with most, but definitely not all, interpreting predestination differently than 5 point Calvinists. My personal opinion is that they abandoned certain points of TULIP because many (but not all) came from the Congregational churches, which relied so heavily on Calvinism, at least in the Reformed sense, that they frowned upon revivalism, invitations, or the need to call sinners to faith in Christ. If the Separates were overwhelmingly Calvinist, why is there not one single association of them that still exists with that sentiment? There are at least 38 Separate Baptist Associations still in existence that I know of, and none could be called "Calvinist" by today's definition of the word. Yet there remains Primitive Baptists of both stripes.

In an article dealing with Calvinism on the site "Desiring God" which is a Calvinist site, Thomas Kidd says the Separates were "likely"  Calvinists. However "likely" doesn't belong in an article where the writer is a supposed expert. He never gives any facts to support "likely". He also says that out of 1032 churches, 956 were Calvinist according to a "survey" done in 1793. I know the survey he speaks of, but why doesn't he name it? And even if he did, what does that prove except that most Baptists did not want to be placed in the Arminian category? I could do the same today. In fact, in a survey done in the 90's of SBC churches, two different surveys were done. One asked the question "Do you consider your church to be Calvinist?" Guess what the answer was? 90% said "yes". Are you going to tell me that 90% of SBC churches are Calvinist by today's standard? That is impossible, but 25 years ago "Calvinist" was considered as "not Arminian". When another survey was done by Lifeway, it asked "Do you believe God has chosen some to be saved, to the exclusion of others?" Guess what that survey said? 88% said "no".Kidd also says "An impression grew that the Primitive Baptists, always a smaller presence among Baptists in America, were the true defenders of Calvinism." I have already proved this false in my previous articles. There were MANY Primitives who would NOT defend Calvinism, and declared against it. Why does he leave you with the impression that all Primitives were Calvinists? That is simply not true. Either he wants to leave us with a false impression, or he is not as educated as he purports to be. Article 2 of the Hiwasee Primitive Baptist Association states "We believe in election according to the foreknowledge of God, the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit". This is almost the exact same wording as the Eastern District PB's. Again, we have the phrase Through sanctification of the spirit", which is interpreted by these groups as a "process". If one didn't know what to ask or look for, they might conclude that this was a Calvinist statement. But as Stephen as shown himself in his article on the Eastern District, they were very much not 5 pointers,. Neither were the Hiwassee PB's. Their origins lie in the Separate Baptist camp. In their Query Book, the Eastern Association was asked by Flat Rock Church in 1877,  "Can we fellowship the doctrine known as Calvinism, or is it heresy?" (page 11) The answer was "...fellowshipping the doctrine known as Calvinism, or limited atonement, or fatalism, which we believe to be heresy, should be rejected...we do not believe God created the mass for destruction or...that God left them in their helpless state without offered mercy. And we have no fellowship with that doctrine that God foreordained all things that come to pass, even as some claim that God has predestined all the wicked acts of men, and yet holds them guilty. This compared to the teachings of Christ is a grievous error not to be tolerated by the saints of God. We believe what God has predestined will come to pass." You cannot get all this simply by reading their AoF! To make a statement this strong about Calvinism in 1877 means that the feeling MUST have been there long before this time. Remember, the question was about "fellowshipping" Calvinism, so they must have always not believed it, else why would anyone ask whether or not to fellowship it? They would definitely NOT claim to be Calvinist, nor would they claim to be Arminian! However, a historian who simply saw their AoF, might declare them as "Calvinists" of some sort. Let's also remember, that Alexander Campbell took with him quite a few Baptists who held to general atonement, and most of them were members of Regular Baptist churches. Before this, it was a Regular Baptist Association that took his church into fellowship, even though they knew he did not subscribe to the Philadelphia Confession. A second church of his was received into yet another Regular Baptist association. So it could be argued that some Regulars were not as staunchly Calvinistic as they may have appeared according to their AoF, or at least not strictly requiring it.

 

 

Said Benedict:

"In my early day the Associated Baptists were all professedly Calvinistic in their doctrinal sentiments. The term, however, was not agreeable to many, as they did not subscribe to all the sentiments of John Calvin, but they submitted to it for distinction sake, and in contradistinction from those whose views were less orthodox on Predestination, etc. Beside the people of our order in the associations, the Freewill and Seventh Day Baptists were then coming into notice, and they, with but few exceptions among the Sabbatarians, were decidedly opposed to some of the distinguishing doctrines of the Calvinistic creed.

Enough said! I totally agree. " but they submitted to it for distinction sake",  This I believe further proves my point, that terms were used not necessarily to show complete agreement with one side, but to distance themselves from the other.

Stephen said:

Not much to comment here except to say that those Baptists today who decry predestination are condemning their own Baptist leaders of previous times. Most Southern Baptists today are more in agreement with the Methodists on soteriology than with their forefathers.

 

I do not agree with this statement. Yes many  Baptists (not just SBCers) do decry Calvinism. But many do so because many Calvinists have not made it a point to distance THEMSELVES from Reformed theology. Also, what forefathers? Why do you compare Non Calvinist Baptists to Methodists, when you could just as easily compare them to the Free Will Baptists or the earliest Baptists who were Arminian like Thomas Helwys and the General Baptists? Are these not also our Baptist forefathers? What about the first seven Baptist Confessions that predate the Second London Baptist Confession by up to 78 years? Though I deny that Non Calvinist views can be rightly compared to an Arminian view, there are plenty of examples within the Baptist family to use, rather than the Methodists. I am not angry, and I know what Stephen means, but that is exactly my point. Others reading these articles may not know what he means, especially those who are not Baptist. So we must keep definitions and examples in mind when writing about history. If we are going to compare when we debate, let's keep the comparisons within the Baptist family as much as possible. In this way, we can disagree, without seeming to say that one is more or less of a Baptist because his view is different from ours. Baptist liberty is at the very heart of who we are.

Said Benedict:

"I well remember, to me, at the time, a very striking instance of this kind. A minister of another class of Baptists, but who had rendered me essential service in my historical pursuits, amused a large company in a public house, in which we happened to be at the time, and which company, also, happened to be of his own way of thinking, by repeating, evidently for my special benefit, some doggerel verses, the chorus of which was, 

 

“Then fill up the glass, 

and count him an ass 

Who preaches up predestination.”

 

 Stephen made a response to this by saying these sentiments are true today, that many Baptists have a "bitterness of feeling" and an assailant attitude towards Calvinists. This is true I admit.. But again, until Baptists who are Calvinistic display more solidarity with their Baptist brothers than they do the Reformed and Presbyterians, then it is only going to continue. I am not saying it is right though. However, it happens quite often the other way around as well. Many Calvinists will make statements to Non  Calvinsts such as "You just don't understand the gospel". Some will even make fun that we offer an invitation. Why doesn't Benedict also offer an example of the other way around such as Elder Elijah Hanks, and how his Calvinist brethren ridiculed him and railed him as an Arminian, told their churches to not hear him preach, even tho in 1815 the Cumberland Association had made a declaration that "the preaching that Christ tasted death for every man shall be no bar to communion"? How deep the pain Elder Hanks must have felt when he said "I was shunned and avoided by them all, as if to touch me would contaminate or sully their purity". That same sentiment still exists in the Calvinist camp. Counter views are very important if you want to teach true history.

Said Benedict:

"But for many years past the asperity of feeling above described has been a good deal mollified, so that the differing men can meet together without taunting each other with their offensive creeds. On this subject I lately remarked to a Freewill Baptist minister, “Your side has been coming up, and ours has been going down, till the chasm between the two parties is by no means so great as formerly.

 I for one have no issue that this happened, and we should rejoice that the ill feeling had been "mollified". We need each other to temper our views, challenge our thoughts and sharpen our swords. I have never been frowned upon or ridiculed by my Free Will Baptist brethren, and they have no issue inviting me into their pulpits, even though they jokingly call me a "Calviminian" and I jokingly call them "Free for alls, willing to trip but please don't fall". That has not always been the case with my Calvinist brethren, especially those that call themselves "Reformed Baptists".

Said Benedict:

"The Fuller system, which makes it consistent for all the heralds of the gospel to call upon men everywhere to repent, was well received by one class of our ministers, but not by the staunch defenders of the old theory of a limited atonement. According to their views, all for whom Christ suffered and died would certainly be effectually called and saved. These conflicting opinions caused altercations of considerable severity for a time, among the Baptists, who had hitherto been all united on the orthodox side.

 

 This I totally deny. Is Benedict saying there were NO General Atonement Baptists? Is he saying ALL those who may have been counted on the Calvinist side were 5 pointers? Is he saying that the "Fuller system" was NOT orthodox? If that is the case, Stephen is not orthodox, for he himself has declared "I may be a semi Calvinist or Semi Arminian DEPENDING ON HOW ONE DEFINES THE TERMS". Stephen is not the first Baptist to examine his stand. I applaud him for this. Yet some of the Calvinist brethren would say he is not "orthodox". At times Benedict writes as though Calvinism was the only standard among Baptists. This is not true at any time during our history. Also, if we are going to judge what truth is by which side has the most in numbers, then we must concede that the Catholic Church is the most true, as even now, they are three times more in number than all Protestants combined. If there were only one General Atonement Baptist church during the 50 years Benedict speaks of, they are still part of Baptist history. Stephen has also stated that he "may be a 3 pointer". He firmly believes that faith precedes regeneration which is anathema to many Calvinists, especially among the so called "Reformed Baptists. They would say Stephen is requiring a "condition" for salvation. Yet he and I are agreed on this point. I hope Bro. Stephen is proud to be "lumped in" with my side on this issue, as I am proud to be "lumped in" his side on other issues. Benedict said "John Leland, although a Calvinist, was not one of the straitest class. Two grains of Arminianism, with three of Calvinism, he thought, would make a tolerably good compound." This "compound" of Arminian and Calvinist thought, was rampant among the Separates. It is a "compound" I am glad to serve up. But notice how Benedict STILL puts Leland in the Calvinist tribe.

Said Benedict:

"...the old-fashioned doctrines of Predestination, Total Depravity, Divine Sovereignty, etc., if referred to at all, must be by way of circumlocution and implication."

 

 "Old fashioned" according to who? Stephen has defined total depravity differently than other Calvinists do today. He has said that too many Calvinists make man out to be mere robots. I suspect that Stephen has many Baptist forefathers who would agree with his "unorthodox" view. Stephen also believes faith precedes regeneration. I know for a fact that many old Baptists also believed in faith before regeneration, as both the London and Philadelphia Confessions teach. Yet today, many, if not most Calvinists deny that fact. Benedict speaks as though Baptists of my stripe don't believe in predestination at all, and that the Calvinist alone believes in it. That too is false. Do I interpret it differently than they? Absolutely. But for a Calvinist to declare that those in my camp "deny predestination" is false.

 

In closing, I thank Stephen for allowing me to speak freely. He doesn't have to do that. He is gracious.  He may try to "roast me" in a follow up article, or in comments to this one. If he does, I hope he doesn't burn me and only roasts me until I medium rare, as that is how I prefer to be served up. As I said in the beginning, he sees the robe as "red" while I see it as "purple" but we both (I hope) see it as GORGEOUS!