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.

My Advice To My Nephew

Elder John Davenport is my nephew. He took over the pastorship of the church my father started and pastored for about fifty years, the church in Franklin, Ohio called "The Thompson Memorial Primitive Baptist Church." John preached father's funeral. During the time I was in Ohio, staying with my sister, mother to John, and also a attendant of that church, I was able to talk to John a good bit. I had hoped that he and I would come to be close friends. Since then, we have had times where we spoke often, and times where we did not. During the time I was at my sister's house, I would talk to my sister and John about what the church needed in order to grow. I also witnessed to them about some of the errors that father taught them and which they would have to study and hopefully see that fact for themselves.

Since then I have been happy to learn that John, and the church I hope, has come to see that father was wrong on his not allowing women to vote. I also think they see that he was wrong on the adultery issue. One of the reasons I have written on these topics of late is in order to help them.

I have also thought that John was at times close to seeing that the Hardshell anti means doctrine was also an error. Whether that is true or not, and whether he eventually sees it, only time will tell. But, I told him before I left Ohio after father's funeral - "John, you need to imitate Spurgeon if you want the church to grow." I still believe that and hope he will listen. I also encouraged him, if he was intent on remaining with the "Primitive Baptists," to at least align himself with the "Progressives" or with those styled "Liberals." I recently encouraged him to seek out a friendship with Cincinnati Primitive Baptist Church and Elder Bradley. The church in Franklin is less than an hour drive away from the Cincinnati church. Further, it was Cincinnati church that originally baptized the first members of the Thompson Memorial church and re-constituted them. I don't know whether Elder Bradley and the Cincinnati church has come all the way back to the faith of their forefathers and embraced a belief in gospel means, but they are, it seems, going in that direction, in the right direction.

Let us keep such churches and elders in our prayers as they study and pray over the state of their churches and as they seek to learn the truth about their history and the teachings of the bible on these issues.

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.

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.

Extempore & Sing Song Preaching

Many old timer groups of Baptists, including old Regular Baptists, Hardshell or "Primitive" Baptists, etc., especially in rural Appalachia, believe it is "taboo" to preach with notes, or from a pre-planned outline. These believe in complete extempore preaching. There is a philosophy of preaching behind this. It is the belief that a message that is God given will be impressed upon the preacher, or put into his mind somehow, once he begins reading a text or portion of scripture. Further, the evidence that a preacher is "blessed" to preach, given "liberty" to preach, will be judged to a large degree on how excited he becomes, or how fast he will preach, and whether he can get into that "sing song" mode of speaking, where there is some rhythm or cadence to the words spoken. Invariably, in this style of preaching, there is generally the rhythmic sucking of air and the "uhs" and "ahs" between breaths. Forgive me, but I just don't understand this thinking.

I understand that this idea goes way back. Daniel Parker, the notorious founder of several sects of Baptists, including the Hardshells, was known for believing that he was often "inspired" by God with his messages, and that God was the one who gave him his unction to speak to the uplifting of the emotions of the people.

Now, I am certainly not opposed to emotional preaching. Nor am I against speaking extemporaneously at times. But, I do not think preaching with notes must hinder that. Further, I don't think that all the responsibility for good preaching is on the Lord's shoulders. If it were, we could blame him if preaching was not edifying. A failed sermon could be because God didn't bless. That is the normal thinking that people have who have accepted this ideology about preaching. It seems to me that the success of preaching is to a large degree the responsibility of the preacher, and he is the one to be blamed when he fails to edify.

Further, I just don't see how people can be taught well in sing song type preaching. Oftentimes, among groups where such preaching is popular, the preacher reads the text, and then completely leaves it and begins to spew out from his mouth whatever thoughts he has about spiritual things.

Don't get me wrong. I enjoy lively singing. I enjoy seeing raised hands and hearing shouts of praise. I enjoy hearing the "amens" and "hallelujahs." I enjoy seeing the saints of God getting happy. But, I also like hearing good teachers give solid expositions of the word. I think there are ways to preach where we teach, given sound expositions, and lift the emotions. I don't think one has to exclude the other. But, to be too emotional is not good. Likewise, to be too stoic in giving expositions and teaching doctrine is also not good. Balance between these two needs is an art and a science. God give us preachers who are skilled to be balanced in this regard.

Hardshells need to quit thinking that a preacher preaching with outlines or notes is a bugaboo and a hindrance to teaching and preaching.

Elder Joshua Lawrence on Calling

In this entry I want to cite from "The Primitive Baptist" periodical for March 11, 1837 (see here), from the words of Elder Joshua Lawrence, one of the foremost leaders of the Hardshells at the time of the split with the general Baptist family. I have in previous postings already showed that Elder Lawrence believed in things that today's Hardshells do not believe, such as in gospel means and in perseverance. (see here)

Wrote Lawrence (emphasis mine):

4th. That of an effectual calling of the elect from darkness to light, and from the power of sin and satan unto God, to be a partaker of eternal salvation, is also an apostolic doctrine. First, the foreknown and the predestinated to a conformity to his Son, are also predestinated to be called. Romans 8:30. And here are two verses that show who are called, and the design of calling. Romans 9:23: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory. Verse 24: Even us whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles. And also who he calls, the vessels of his mercy, afore prepared unto glory. And here you see the design of God is, to make known the riches of his glory on these vessels of mercy. I Cor. 7:17: As the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. It is a calling of God's grace. Gal. 1:15: It pleased God, who called me by his grace. I Thess. 2:12: Who called you to his kingdom and glory. 4:7: For God hath not called us to uncleanness. 2 Thess. 2:14: Whereunto God called you by his gospel. I Peter 5: 10: The God of all grace who hath called us. Now all these texts prove that the calling of a sinner is the act of God by his grace, and Romans 11:19 prove that the gifts and callings of God are without repentance. Philippians 3:14: For the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. 2 Timothy 1:0: An holy calling. Heb. The heavenly calling. I need not multiply texts further on this doctrine, for it would be almost to transcribe the scriptures, it is so full of proof that the elect shall be called of God."

Notice how Lawrence believes, like all his brethren in the 1830s, that the calling to life and salvation, to which the elect are predestined, is "by the gospel" and cites II Thess. 2: 14, just as did his forefathers in the 1689 London Confession.

Lawrence continued:

6th. But those thus foreknown, beloved, elected, called, and justified, shall persevere by the sufficient grace of God given them, through all temptations, trials, and difficulties, and come forth and be glorified in heaven, is clear from all God's absolute promises made sure to them. Such as: He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but have passed from death to life--I give them eternal life and they shall never perish. With a thousand others of like import. The oath of God to these heirs of promise, secures their perseverance to the kingdom prepared for them."

That is Old Baptist doctrine! Come back to it my Hardshell brethren!

Oh The Irony!

Recently when I had my three hour long chat with brother Kenny Mann, we were talking about how the Hardshells are so schismatic and have divided over so many things, often over minor issues. I mentioned to him about the Hardshells declaring non-fellowship with members who are involved in "secret societies," such as the Freemasons. In response he said "The PBs are a secret society! They put their church buildings way out in the country, making them hard to find. You have to go down this road, to this dirt road, to that small road." (paraphrase) Well, I laughed so hard! "The PBs are a secret society"! lol It reminded me of the days I spent in Texas in 1993 with brother Bob Ross (when we did those videos on the Hardshells). We were laughing all the time at such things about the Hardshells. The numerous instances of irony, false logic, and just plain funny things about them as a group, kept us in stitches! Of course, after laughing with Kenny over his statement, we both agreed that it was really sad, though funny. Sad, because their idiosyncrasies and oddball characteristics, though at times funny, are nevertheless also occasions to be sad over their condition as a denomination.

Brother Kenny on "Altar Calls"

Brother Kenny Mann, who I mentioned in a previous posting, sent me this small article of his and I asked him to let me publish it here with some of my own comments on the subject.

"THE ALTAR CALL"
by Kenny Mann (guest writer)

The church I grew up in always gave an “altar call” at the end of the service. Sometimes it was called, the “invitation.” It’s a time at the end of the service where the pastor asks anyone who wants to receive Christ, or pray about something, to come forward to pray. Some churches don’t have this practice, and simply end the service with a hymn and prayer.

Some people in evangelical circles object to having an altar call, while others insist on it. In my experience, it’s usually the more “Calvinistic” people who object. Why? They say because the altar call can involve a lot of emotionalism, and saying the “Sinner’s Prayer” cannot save you. They believe the pastor manipulates people into saying a prayer, and POOF, they are “saved.” On the other side, the less calvinistic people would say that they are encouraging people who come, to confess with their mouth in front of witnesses, that they accept Christ. The debate is rooted in how you see the Gospel. If you read my article entitled “DOES GOD FIND US, OR DO WE FIND GOD”, it will help you understand more about the theology of this question.

When I was doing some soul searching about these issues, I knew there was some truth to both sides. Too many times we get caught up in the numbers game, and think if we can get someone to repeat a prayer, that they are saved. On the other hand, admitting you’re a sinner and in need of saving needs to be expressed in some way. But repeating a prayer after someone does not save you, I don’t believe. The action that has taken place in the heart of one who has had their eyes opened to how much God loves them, and feels broken and sorrowful that they caused the Son of God to be crucified on their behalf is what saved them. They may make a public confession of faith right then, or it may not come til much later. Both sides in this debate have a point. On the one hand, too many times we work up emotions to get a response. On the other hand though, if someone truly has the light turned on about what Jesus did for them, it HAS to be an emotional event. So I am going to lean in favor of the altar call. I am also going to say that saying the “Sinner’s Prayer” is fine—as long as it’s explained that saying those word will not save you, any more than any other “good” work.

As I was pondering this issue several years ago, I would lay in the bed imagining an altar call. It gradually grew in scope to to include the story of the Prodigal Son. (Luke 15:11-32) When was the son forgiven? Well he was forgiven before he even left the foreign land he was living in, the "pigsty." When did that forgiveness change him? It changed him the moment he got up to GO home. His father had issued the “invitation” before the son ever came back—the scripture says the father “looked for him afar off.” That means the father was looking for him with anticipation and with expectancy.

As I envisioned this story, I thought about what I would do if I were giving an altar call. I imagined it was MY son walking down the aisle. As he got near to me, tears were streaming down his face. The question he asked would be the best sinner’s prayer that could be said. He looked at me and said,  Do you think God will take somebody like me?” My response was “He already has.”

My Comments

This has been a topic that my dear friend, Bob L. Ross of Pilgrim Publications, has been interested in for many years. Though Calvinistic in doctrine, he has fought those Calvinists who have gone overboard in their denunciations of the "altar call." He has a good defense of the practice in an Internet article titled "The Altar Call - CONVERTS FREQUENTLY MADE IN RELATION TO PUBLIC INVITATIONS." (see here) Here are some excerpts from that article:

Perhaps the most popular "whipping boy" of the Reformed Hybrid Calvinist camp of theology is the "altar call" or the "public invitation."

The "Pryomaniacs" website has opened up for its readership to suggest a "better idea," and that despite the fact that it might safely be presumed that 9 of every 10 who comment on that blog were probably converted in relation to an altar call or public invitation.

I have often read items critical of public invitations and in most cases they were written by persons whose own conversions were related to public invitations. Some, after their "indoctrination" into the Hybrid Calvinism of the Reformed camp, later say they were saved "despite" the invitation.

Oh, well, it is no marvel that it has been observed that a number of the anti-invitation churches fail to evangelize by any method and thus fail to make converts, their memberships dwindled, and some of them have even closed their doors. They didn't seem to have a "better idea" on how to invite lost men and women to come to Christ and confess Him as Lord and Saviour.

Some have utilized other methodology in soliciting professions of faith, such as the "Invitation to the Pastor's Office," which was the practice of the late Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones at Westminster Chapel in London.

I have written several articles in which I think I have just about replied to every conceivable objection to public invitations, and you can find a number of these articles at this link:

Select Writings of Bob L. Ross (HERE)

Among my writings are some articles in reply to Pedobaptist Ian Murray, who has written against the use of public invitations, and is responsible for much of the anti-invitation palabber of the current age. Others basically simply repeat Murray's objections.

I also wrote a reply to Flounders' Founder Ernest Reisinger's criticisms. Ernest himself is said to have prayed "The Sinner's Prayer" and afterwards professed faith during an invitation in an "Arminian" Salvation Army meeting. His experience is somewhat typical of how many, if not most, of the anti-invitationists were converted. It seems that most of our current crop of alleged "Calvinists," like Reisinger, were brought to Christ under alleged "Arminian ministries" which used "Arminian methods," and afterwards they adopted the "Reformed" theology which made it necessary for them to somehow "explain" why those methods were wrong and they "got saved in spite" of the "Arminian methods."

If it weren't for the alleged "Arminians" bringing in the "elect," we wonder how they would be brought into the fold. It has been my observation for over 50 years that most of the "Calvinists" I have known testify that they were evangelized and brought to profess faith by those whom they were later pleased to identify as "Arminian."

Also, see brother Ross's other article "Are Altar Calls Justified by Founders' Founder, Ernest Reisinger?" (see here) He also has some good articles on this topic at his web site referred to above.

I have written on this subject extensively myself. For instance, see the posting "Hardshells & Mission Opposition IV" (see here) See also the posting "Old Baptist Evangelistic Methods" (see here) in which I show how the first old Baptists of the Kehukee Association practiced the altar call.

So, I agree with what brother Kenny has written. There are extremes on most sides of an issue. Today's Hardshells give only one kind of invitation. At the end of the sermon they say something like "the doors of the church are open for the reception of members." That's it! Further, when a person responds, they rarely question the person about their experience, something that makes them different from their forefathers. Yes, some like the famous Finney, use salesman type tactics, "high pressure" methods. These are extremes. My own advice is to follow my man Spurgeon!

Garrett's Prescription For The PBs

In this posting I want to give my prescription for the salvation of the "Primitive Baptist Church." One of the top ten postings of this blog is the one titled "Elder Hildreth on Hardshell Decline" (see here). In that posting I gave Hildreth's prescription for saving the Hardshells from certain death. He acknowledges that their churches continue to dwindle and die. I made some comments on that prescription. In this posting I want to enlarge upon the comments I made in that posting (underneath those made by Hildreth).

1. Retrace your steps to the place where you, as a denomination, departed from the path of truth, from what you all affectionately call "the old paths." You are not on the "old path," but on a new path. I have proven such in this blog. Your forefathers did not hold to your aberrant views. You hold new doctrines that your forefathers did not believe. You must throw away those new teachings and come back to the historic old Baptist doctrine. That doctrine is expressed in the 1689 London Confession. It is the confession all your forefathers endorsed (many times through the Philadelphia Confession). The "Fulton Confession" acknowledges that the 1689 Confession is the historic confession of the PBs. You must acknowledge that the "footnotes" that were attached by your leaders at the time (1900) to that old confession were distortions of what the old confession really taught, and that those who signed the Fulton document were being deceitful and were changing the faith of your forefathers.

2. Once you have returned to an adherence to the 1689 confession, you will discover that there are lots of Baptists who adhere to the old confession and your circle of fellowship with be greatly enhanced thereby; And this cannot but help you to grow and prosper. You will need, of course, to become more open to fellowship and quit trying to restrict your fellowship so narrowly. You need to learn to be more forbearing and let each local church be independent. Simply put, you need to be less strict in your terms of fellowship. It will help you, not hurt you. There are many good churches and preachers outside of your group and your shutting yourself off from their fellowship has not been good for you.

3. You must throw away your novel doctrines. You must quit believing that God does not use his word to beget faith and to save his elect. You must become like Spurgeon. You can still preach the doctrines of grace and be evangelistic. John Leland did it. All your forefathers did it. They preached to the lost and called upon them to believe and repent and warned them of the consequences for not doing so.

4. You have got to see that there is nothing wrong with Sunday schools, theological schools, musical instruments, and missions. You need to follow the lead of the Progressive PBs in this regard. They are the ones growing, or at least holding their own, while you "old liners" are almost dead.

5. Change your name. With all the things attached to the name "Primitive Baptist" today, there is just too much baggage with it. Why not call yourselves "Old Baptist Church"?

It is really that simple! Spurgeon showed the way. He preached to thousands each week. He could preach sovereign grace better than anyone and yet he could still address the lost, still involve himself in missions to reach sinners. "Go thou and do likewise." That is my prescription for you my Hardshell brethren. Take it or not. I hope you will take it.

My Good Talk With Baptist Historian

Kenny Mann of Conyers, Georgia contacted me a couple days ago. He wrote in his e-mail:

hello Bro. Stephen. ran across your blog and found it very interesting. i am a life long student of baptist history, and am currently digging into primitive baptists. ive never met someone who used to be PB but is no longer one. i realize youre a busy guy, but if you could find a few minutes to chat id really appreciate it. my name is Kenny Mann, from Conyers ga. my number is *****. feel free to leave a msg if im not in, ill def call you back and schedule a time to chat. thanks so much!

I did call this dear brother last evening and we talked for about three hours! He is a Southern Baptist, and one who is not a five pointer as I am, but that did not keep us from having an enjoyable discussion. We talked doctrine, history, but mostly about the "Primitive Baptists." He is an avid history researcher as I am. He is affiliated with Historical Rural Churches of Georgian (http://hrcga.org/home/) (see here).

He is a man in his 50s who, though not a pastor, nevertheless teaches and evangelizes much. After I wrote him today and telling him how much I enjoyed talking to him, we have exchanged several e-mails. In one of them he wrote:

hey Stephen yes it was great to ramble thru all that history with you. most baptists dont know squat about their history or about the other types of baptists that exist. i am not a pastor but i was a youth pastor for years. i currently have a bible study in peoples homes, and its been formed from people who have contacted me because of the devotions ive written, some of which deal with how to live with different views about theology and still work together for the gospel. as you know many denominations are splitting apart over different issues like the methodist church and episcopal church, ranging from homosexuality to biblical innerency, so there are many christians who are now seeing that they have more in common with a bible believing baptist, than they do members of their own denominations---thus our topic that last few months has been delving into baptist history. the interesting thing is that most in the group arent even baptists! we have methodists, a lutheran, a presbyterian, a few charismatics and a few baptists. i told them all up front that i would teach only what i believed to be the truth, and that would mean "baptist" theology. a couple of them googled stuff on their own and found out that there a a hundred different kinds of baptists lol, so they asked if i would delve into all that, so thats what we are doing. i am 54 yrs old and feel every bit of it lol! i dont do facebook, tho i probably should. blessing to you and YES, please keep in touch!

I have been blessed over the years to have had many calls from such folks and I tell you, it cheers my heart to know that our writings are read by such men. I feel very humbled and thankful to know that our labors have not been in vain.

Anyone in the Conyers area should definitely contact this brother! You can e-mail him at "jayhawkmann@yahoo.com"

Perhaps this brother will consider posting some articles for us here or on my Baptist Gadfly blog. I hope so. It is good that historians share the results of their research with other historians.

God bless you brother Kenny!

An Excellent Critique Of Hardshellism

I have been reading from an Internet web page called "Coming In The Clouds" which professes to be a A "Worldwide Internet Christian Discipleship Ministry." This is because I have noticed how folks from this web page have been reading our writings here on this blog. Recently there was a post titled "Primitive Baptists – True Hyper-Calvinists" (see here). It was published March 13 of this year. I want to share some of the things said in this article about the Hardshells by one who only recently discovered them, and who was an object of proselyting efforts by the Hardshells.

The article begins with these words (emphasis mine):

"This article is the result of several months of dialog with Primitive Baptists (also known as Hardshell Baptists) and a good deal of time spent reading their literature. The dialog primarily consisted of email correspondence with a particularly outspoken apologist for that sect along with some interaction with several people on a Facebook Primitive Baptist discussion forum. I read articles by Primitive Baptists and former Primitive Baptists and I listened to a number of Primitive Baptist audio messages."

After reading this, any person should be interested in the results of such an investigation into the beliefs of those who call themselves "Primitive Baptists." I know I was! I wish that everyone who first confronts Hardshellism would be as noble as was this person in his investigation! Noble Bereans!

The author of the article next writes:

"What I discovered was several things, namely that this group holds to a heretical doctrine regarding evangelism: they genuinely believe that there is no point to conventional evangelism – preaching to the lost as a “means” of salvation. They believe that salvation only involves the Holy Spirit without any assistance from preachers or evangelists or other persons preaching the word of God to effect salvation in unsaved sinners. They mistakenly believe that these two scripture passages:

“salvation is of the Lord” (Jonah 2:9) and
“not of works” (Eph 2:9)

are saying that salvation does not even involve the efforts of an evangelist preaching the law of God to bring conviction of sin to the unregenerated."

Well, amen to that! The Hardshells have no scripture to support their presuppositions and attempt to rely solely on logic, inferences, suppositions, etc. I have written about this numerous times! Such as in Demolishing Hardshell Reasoning and Hardshell Presuppositions and in many other such postings.

The author next writes:

"Determining that these folks were teaching heresy regarding evangelism took a while to figure out for a couple of reasons. I sort of fell into a trap, following a trail of crumbs they laid out before me that led me down the Primitive Baptist path of redefined words and reinterpreted scriptures…Yes, they look at words like regeneration and conversion differently than most Christians. And this causes them to interpret certain Bible verses differently than most Christians. So, what should have been obvious to me early on in my investigation, became obscured by my own tunnel vision as I followed that trail of crumbs."

What an excellent review of Hardshell literature and proselyting methods!

The author continues:

"Primitive Baptists apparently MISS two important things when they read the Bible, perhaps because they have already adopted their own definitions of things and perhaps because they are missing the overall picture of what was going on in the New Testament Church. These two important things are the 2 distinctions in the types of preaching documented in the Bible, as being engaged in by the early Church…

Preaching type 1: The early church was evangelizing the unsaved, (unbelievers/unregenerated) as can see by the biblical accounts of Paul preaching at Mars Hill and in the synagogues, Peter preaching at Pentecost, and Stephen preaching to the Sanhedrin. In fact, it is beyond obvious that they were preoccupied with this mission.

Preaching type 2: The early church leaders were teaching the saints (believers/regenerated) through the letters to the churches (along with direct, in person teaching of course). And one of the primary things they were teaching was the need to evangelize the lost, by their example and by their epistles. And yes, the early church leaders also spent time teaching about the importance of godly (Christlike) living."

This is all "right on"! The really Old Baptists, such as those who wrote the 1644 and 1689 London Confessions, and John Clark, the oldest Baptist in America, all talked about how their ministry was twofold. One was a "begetting" ministry, aimed at the unregenerate, with the intent of bringing about their regeneration, and the second was a "feeding ministry" aimed at those already saved, with the purpose of aiding them in their perseverance towards final salvation. See my posting John Clark & Obadiah Holmes Hardshells?

Next, the author of this excellent article writes the following under the sub heading "They Become Focused On Their Uniqueness" and says:

"And as much as Primitive Baptists may try to focus on Christ, what they end up doing is focusing on the uniqueness of their group, perhaps inadvertently, but never-the-less that’s how it looked to me as an outsider. I admire their desire to thoroughly examine Biblical issues. However, I believe Primitive Baptists have locked themselves into a compartment of doctrine with the words they have redefined and with the teachers and elders they put so much faith in, preventing them from any positive changes away from their erroneous soteriological doctrine."

So well said! Needs little comment! I just wish, hope, and pray that the Hardshells could get outside of themselves and see themselves clearly. As long as they see themselves through those cult spectacles, there is little chance that they are going to see things as they really are.

Next, under the sub heading "Why Would A New Believer Be Concerned About The Lost?" our author writes:

"Looking at my own change of heart upon regeneration, I can strongly testify, by way of the Spirit within me, that a genuine believer will have a burden to evangelize the lost. One must question their salvation if they do not have such a burden. Also, any doctrine that teaches and encourages Christians to not evangelize the lost (and to look for scriptural justification for that stance that involves redefining theological terms) is simply not of God and is of the evil one."

Again, "right on." Sadly, they don't see how they have descended from Baptists who had such a heart for the lost! Even Wilson Thompson, when he was baptized, confessed that he came out of the water with a desire to win the lost to Christ! Today's Hardshells may claim men like John Leland, but they do not have the heart for the lost that old Leland had! Concerning Leland and others who helped to begin the Hardshell denomination, see my posting Hardshells & Gospel Invitations.

Next our author writes:

"The central point that shows the error of Primitive Baptist doctrine regarding salvation (“no gospel means” as they refer to it) is regarding the biblical patterns for the 2 types of preaching in the New Testament. Those patterns don’t go away, no matter how they define things. Whether they believe that regeneration is separate from conversion (which they do) or whether they believe in “time salvation” or not. They believe in the idea that conversion takes place over time and does not necessarily coincide with regeneration. They also believe that you can be saved and not know it until some time after regeneration, at some time down the road, at which someone explains salvation to you from the Bible."

Again, all we can say is "amen." These things the Hardshells believe are foreign to the teachings of the scriptures.

Next under the sub heading "The New Testament Church Was Preoccupied With Evangelism" the author of this excellent article writes:

"The very thing that Primitive Baptists don’t believe in is the very thing that the early Church was preoccupied with. Primitive Baptists apparently don’t seem to understand just how much the New Testament church was actively involved in preaching to the lost. They were as mission-minded as you can get. They supported Paul in his missionary journeys. In addition, the Bible is chock full of examples of God sending messengers to preach to the unconverted. This is the way God does things historically. He sends His messengers out into the world to preach to the converted and unconverted a like. Just do a word search on the word “hearken” in the OT starting with Jeremiah and this fact becomes painfully obvious."

It is because the Hardshells are not evangelical, having no heart to win souls, and believing that God cannot and will not use them to that end, that they are dying, dying, dying! It is also why they can do nothing but fight, fight, fight! They divide, and "bite and devour" one another. I wrote a long series of articles on this very point, called "Addresses to the Lost." If they would just read those articles, they cannot but come away realizing their error. Sadly, most of them won't even give them a reading! They are so "set in their ways" and "hard headed" and "stubborn," characteristics of what it means to be "Hardshell."

Next, under the sub heading "Trying To Make A Case Based Upon A False Premise" our author writes:

"Primitive Baptists try to blend together the works of the lost sinner with the work of the ministry of the Gospel in an effort to build a case for not preaching to the lost. That blending is obvious in this Primitive Baptist article http://pbgrace.org/means.htm. But when you read that brief article, you can see that the author is presenting what is called a “straw man” argument…stating a false premise and then attacking it."

It is ironic how the Hardshells, though basing nearly all of their apologetic arguments on "logic," yet are guilty of the most illogical of reasonings! Yes, they use the proverbial "straw man" argument all the time! They use many other fallacious reasonings also, such as ad hominem, red herrings, begging the question, etc.

Next the author writes:

"The false premise of the Primitive Baptists can be stated this way: Since “evangelism” is a “work” of man, and knowing that the Bible states that salvation is “not of works”, God therefore cannot use evangelism as a “means” of saving someone. Who, other than a Primitive Baptist, would ever jump to the conclusion that Ephesians 2:9 is referring to both the sinner being preached to and the person doing the preaching?"

"False premises"? Yes, the Hardshells have many! They are premises (propositions and presuppositions) that they did not get from scripture, but which they take to scripture, and sadly attempt to make the scriptures to conform to them. Notice how this author sees through the faulty reasoning! Basically, this brother is saying, as I have said, that the Hardshells are a group of "oddballs." I don't say that to be purposefully offensive, but it is simply the truth. Actually, it is the nature of cults to be this way.

Next our author writes:

"The rest of the Church (those outside the Primitive Baptist camp) who believe in the sovereignty of God in salvation, would never deny that the sinner is dead in sin and cannot possibly reach out to God for salvation, cannot choose Christ, cannot accept Jesus as their savior. But they would not deny that God uses “means” – sends His laborers – into the fields to participate in the harvest. God is not ashamed to use mere vessels of clay as his messengers and as his laborers in the fields. But Primitive Baptists seem to think He should be ashamed. They claim that not only is the free-will gospel robbing God of His glory but that the evangelist is robbing God of His glory."

Again, notice how this author sees how the Hardshells try to rely on "logic" to uphold their aberrant views, rather than upon express statements of scripture! Is it logical to go preach to the dead? No. But, is it scriptural? Yes. God told Ezekiel to go preach to dry dead bones!

Next, this author writes:

"I guess if Paul had had some Primitive Baptists to “straighten him out” by telling him to not bother preaching to the lost as a means of salvation, he could have saved himself a whole lot of trouble..."

A little sarcasm there! But, it is sometimes apropos, yes? God and the bible writers sometimes speak in this manner when dealing with the stubborn, obstinate, and stiffnecked. When Bob Ross and I spent days together back in 1993 doing videos on Hardshellism with Larry Wessels (available on You-tube), he and I would often make such comments to each other about the Hardshells and their "logic" and how what they say indicts Jesus and the apostles!

Next, under the sub heading "Primitive Baptists’ Cult-Like Attributes" this able author writes:

"This very small, exclusive group of Christians who call themselves Primitive Baptists, seem to exhibit some characteristics of a Christian-like cult."

Yes, and thankfully, our writings have helped to keep some from becoming a cult member, and have helped to bring some out of it. Praise God that this brother was not "sucked in" by them and that God blessed him to see through all the smoke and see them for what they really are! Next he gives their cult characteristics, saying:

1. They have cult-like “gatekeepers” who guard the truth “as they see” it for their organization. These are a few individuals who write the stuff that everyone else is expected to subscribe to, like a creed or confession would have been used by protestant denominations of years gone by and similar to how the Jehovahs Witnesses use their Watchtower Society to print and promulgate Witnesses dogma. So Primitive Baptists have their teachers and spokespersons who write books and post teachings in online blogs and forums. Yes, it is true that many legitimate groups do this also.

2. They exhibit extreme exclusivity: They claim to be the ONLY group currently around that represents the truest and purest form of Christianity today, the most biblically accurate branch of the true Christian Church.

3. They claim to be able to trace their roots back to the first century church, a totally unverifiable claim that they never-the-less use, as a means of attempting to add validity to their group, a validity that no one can either prove or disprove…but the claim sure sounds impressive.

4. They have a unique view of certain passages of scripture that enables them to support their totally unorthodox doctrines."

Again, "amen" and "amen." I hope my Hardshell brethren who read this will read it with an honest and sincere heart! Next, under the sub heading "Obvious "Gospel Means" Passages In Scripture" our author says:

"There are plenty of passages in the Bible that indicate rather clearly, that preaching the gospel is the “means” by which God uses His messengers to effect salvation in the sinners He intends to save – in conjunction with the work of the Holy Spirit of course."

Yes, and everyone who reads the scriptures has to wonder how in the world could someone ever accept the no means view as do the Hardshells!

Under the sub heading "How Did Primitive Baptists End Up With Their Unbiblical Ideas?" our good author next writes:

"As convincing as Primitive Baptists can be, I could find no solid evidence that traces their beliefs back to the early church as they claim, nor do I think that they can convincingly deny that the beliefs they have, simply originated with a certain group of Baptists who splintered off from the “Missionary Baptists” in the 1800s. And then, over the years, their group developed this anti-missionary and anti-evangelism theology with corresponding new word definitions regarding the gospel, to suit their original position against missionary societies. And now that so much time has passed, they no longer realize the occurrence of that transition themselves, that such a theological metamorphosis has taken place in their denomination."

I am sure that my writings on the history of the Hardshells have helped this brother to see these things and for this I am thankful! It is true that today's Hardshells do not realize how they have changed so much and do not now believe what their forefathers believed! Further, they do not realize how this is all detrimental to their claim of having remained unchanged in doctrine over the centuries!

Next, the author says:

"I personally have not found the Primitive Baptist brand of Christianity showing up in the preaching and teaching of men of God who are I’ve grown to trust and whom so many other Christians have grown to trust over the centuries. That observation of mine in and of itself is not a “rock solid” case against the Primitive Baptist “no gospel means” doctrine. But it is noteworthy when taken into consideration with the points I mentioned above about the two types of New Testament preaching and teaching. Some PBs will say “Well what about John Gill? He shared our views regarding “no gospel means” in salvation.”. To that all I can say is that John Gill seems to be on both sides of the fence. Some of his commentary seems to lean on the Primitive Baptist “no gospel means” side and some commentary seems to lean more towards the traditional, historical, orthodox “gospel means” side."

What about John Gill? I have written so exhaustively on this point! Gill NEVER denied the use of means in regeneration! The Hardshells who say that Gill denied means are simply telling lies on the good doctor! They twist the learned doctor's words just like they did the 1689 confession via their "Fulton Confession."

Next, our author says:

"Primitive Baptists are in a very narrow camp, dangerously narrow. Which is a mark that other groups have, groups who claim to be the exclusive purveyors of the truth. Granted, narrowness does not necessarily negate the possibility of truth. But, it is a pretty common characteristic of a cult or unbiblical Christian sect."

Exactly!

Next he writes:

"Believe me, I have had to sort out many unusual ideas and doctrines since God saved me 31 years ago. (And I also! SG) Like with many cults and unorthodox sects, a lot of what Primitive Baptists teach seems to make a lot of sense and sounds biblical, and on many points even is biblical, especially regarding the sovereignty of God in salvation. But then there is a little bit of leaven that leavens the whole lump. Meaning something snuck in there that does not belong, and so certain words had to be re-defined to accommodate the unorthodox and unbiblical beliefs that are being promulgated by Primitive Baptists."

Such keen observations by this brother! And, he did not come to such conclusions quickly! But, he read Hardshell literature, studied, researched, and came to sound conclusions. Would to God others would follow his example!

Next he writes:

"To see things the Primitive Baptist way, you have to put on a certain special pair of “glasses” … you have to use “the Primitive Baptist dictionary” if you will, before their views make sense. And for me personally, I would have to throw away the heart of God that I’ve had for the 31 years since my new birth…a heart for lost souls to come to Christ, a burden to warn the lost to flee the wrath of God. The very thing representing the greatest change in me since my conversion (and I us the word ‘conversion’ in the traditional sense, not the Primitive Baptist sense), is the thing that Primitive Baptists say we should not even be doing, sharing God’s Word that souls might be saved….sharing God’s Word that the Lord of the harvest might see fit to convict and convert the Elect among those being preached to – that the Spirit of the living God would “give ears to hear” to some in the field where the Word is being sown. Just as God used Noah to bring salvation from the Flood to that small elect group of eight individuals, so God uses mere mortals to bring salvation to a lost and dying world."

Again, amen! So well stated that it needs little comment! These are things that I have been saying a long time. They are things that others have been saying about the Hardshells for decades!

Finally our good author writes:

"If Primitive Baptists are wrong on gospel “means”, which I believe they are, then there is no other conclusion that they have a doctrine that is the one doctrine that the Devil himself wishes all Christians would have, a doctrine that tells them they should not be doing the very thing that God commands them to do to: bring salvation to lost souls."

Good summation to a well written critique of the "Primitive Baptist" cult! Why do I bother with this sect? Many reasons, but chiefly for the reason stated here in the conclusion!

At the bottom of this good article the author lists many of our writings for those doing further research along with that of others. Here is the list.

Online Book About Hardshell Baptists by Stephen Garrett
BaptistGadfly Blog
Old Baptist – Where the real primitive or old Baptist faith is defended
Responding to Hardshell Comments
History and Heresies of Hardshell Baptists
Why We Are Not Primitive Baptists
The Killing Effects of Hyper-Calvinism by Bob Ross
Spurgeon versus Hyperism by Bob L. Ross & Ian D. Elsasser
Cultic Hyper-Calvinistic Doctrines of the Primitive Baptist Church Part #1
Cultic Hyper-Calvinistic Doctrines of the Primitive Baptist Church Part #2
Cultic Hyper-Calvinistic Doctrines of the Primitive Baptist Church Part #3

I encourage all to visit this good brother's web page and write to him and let him know how much you appreciate his good review.

From The 1689 London Confession

Chapter 3: Of God's Decree

6._____ As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so he hath, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means thereunto; wherefore they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ, by his Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by his power through faith unto salvation; neither are any other redeemed by Christ, or effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.

( 1 Peter 1:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Thessalonians 5:9, 10; Romans 8:30; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Peter 1:5; John 10:26; John 17:9; John 6:64 )

Notice the scriptures cited in support of this statement, particularly II Thess. 2: 13, which reads as follows:

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ." (vs. 14 included)

This is the confession that the churches that first formed the "Primitive Baptist Church" endorsed, because it was the confession of their forefathers. Notice how the confession says that God in his decree "foreordained all the means thereunto." What "means"? Simply that which is stated in II Thess. 2:13-14! It is "the truth" and the "gospel"! Notice also that this statement in the confession says that all the elect, by God's decree, are "effectually called unto faith in Christ" and "kept by his power through faith unto salvation." Faith, evangelical faith, the kind produced by the preaching of the gospel, is the "means." Notice also that the "faith" that is made essential for eternal salvation is "faith in Christ," not some kind of faith that the heathen have!

Chapter 10: Of Effectual Calling

1._____ Those whom God hath predestinated unto life, he is pleased in his appointed, and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.

(Romans 8:30; Romans 11:7; Ephesians 1:10, 11; 2 Thessalonians 2:13, 14; Ephesians 2:1-6; Acts 26:18; Ephesians 1:17, 18; Ezekiel 36:26; Deuteronomy 30:6; Ezekiel 36:27; Ephesians 1:19; Psalm 110:3; Song of Solomon 1:4)

Again, notice how in this section the confession once again refers to II Thess. 2: 13-14! Notice that the effectual call is "by his Word and Spirit." It is not by the Spirit alone as today's Hardshells teach. Notice also that in being effectually called, one is "enlightened" so that they "savingly understand the things of God," and that they are drawn "to Jesus Christ," and that "they come" to this Jesus "most freely." Thus, it is clear, that these Old Baptists made conversion via the gospel and via evangelical faith, to be the result of being effectually called. They did not separate conversion from either regeneration or from the new birth.

Today's so-called "Primitive Baptists" need to come back to the belief of their forefathers!

Hardshells & The Adultery Question

With this posting I will begin a series of articles discussing an issue that has troubled the "Primitive Baptists" for many years. It is the issue of accepting members into the church who are judged to be "living in adultery" because their present marriage is judged to have been unscriptural. The Hardshells are not united on this issue. Some, like my beloved father, are very strict on the issue. He believed that if a person divorced and remarried, without a just cause, then that person was judged to be "living in adultery" and had, by this situation, committed the "sin unto death," i.e. was "dead" to church life and membership. Of course, he, like other Hardshells, would accept the idea that such a person could divorce his or her unlawful spouse, go back to his or her lawful spouse, and then be allowed to become members of the church. Sometimes advising prospective members to do this was no simple thing, since many of them had been married for years to their unlawful spouses, even having children by them! Also, the spouses that had been illegitimately put away, had oftentimes remarried themselves. So, going back to that spouse became even more impractical. Yet, it was insisted, this was the only way to stop "living in adultery."

Further complicating this issue is the fact that Hardshells cannot separate baptism from church membership, and so the fact that a person is judged to be in an unscriptural marriage not only bars one from membership in the Lord's church but from baptism also. Further, since persons must repent before baptism, persons must renounce their illegitimate marriage, and dissolve it, before they can be baptized and become members of the church. In other words, no person is judged to be worthy of membership in the church if they are in a marriage that was begun as a result of previous unjust divorce.

As I said, this was a big issue with father. I recall a loving brother, "brother Myers," who was a faithful supporter of the church. He could not be a member of the church because he and his first wife had divorced years ago when he was a young man, and before he became a Christian. Now, it is possible that brother Myers, in spite of this illegitimate divorce, had a legitimate marriage to his second wife. How? Perhaps his first wife married first! Which, in such a case, she "committed adultery" and thus this would have given him the right to remarry. But, the problem was, brother Myers did not know anything about his first wife's whereabouts, nor that she had remarried, or if she had, whether she had remarried before he did. Thus, not being able to know this, father and the church he pastored (and where I was a member at the time) would not baptize him or take him into church membership.

To this day I think of the faithfulness of brother Myers. He was as good a member, without actually being a member, as one could be. I weep when I think about his case. I don't believe he should have been kept from baptism and church membership. It was, I believe, an error in understanding this issue that led father to take the actions he did. I use to talk to father about this issue, years later, but to no avail.

Father was so strict on this issue that he was often confronting fellow ministers about it. This was because not all PB ministers agreed with him on it. And, of course, father would attempt to straighten them out on it. He would often remark about another church - "they take adulterers into the church." And, with father, a church with lax discipline was not a church in good order. To my knowledge, I would guess that father's view represents the majority view, unless things have changed since I was with them in the 1970s and early 80s.

Among the Hardshells this issue was often discussed under this question - "does regeneration take one out of adultery?" The issue was whether an illegitimate divorce, effected when a person was not regenerated, allowed the person to become a member? Some argued that it did, some that it did not. Father was of the latter opinion.

In closing out this first posting on this issue, I want to first state my own views, then, in upcoming postings, lay out the scriptural reasons for my view. In stating my own views, I want to quote from Dr. Phil Johnson (see here), for he expresses my views perfectly. Johnson is associated with Dr. John MacArthur and is a well known lecturer, one I have followed for many years.

Wrote Johnson (emphasis mine):

"Are people who remarry after a divorce on grounds less than sexual infidelity or abandonment living in adultery? The answer seems to be no. The words of Christ— “Anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery” (Matthew 5:32)—are in the aorist tense, indicating action specific in time, completed when it occurs. A couple divorced on less than biblical grounds commit adultery when they remarry, but their new marriage is valid.

The New Testament never instructs divorced and remarried people who become Christians to break up their latest marriage, something we might expect if people who remarry after a divorce are considered to be living in a state of perpetual adultery. In fact, Paul definitely instructed married Christians to remain in their present state if at all possible (1 Corinthians 7:15-24). Jesus acknowledged that the Samaritan woman had lived with five husbands, recognizing each marriage contract as a bona fide union (John 4).

Christians commit the sin of adultery when they remarry after a divorce that’s not based on infidelity, but once a new marriage begins they do not live in a continuing state of adultery.

Jesus is saying that the act of remarriage is an act of adultery. He is not teaching that the ongoing conjugal relationship with the new spouse is a state of “perpetual adultery”--as if God refused to recognize the remarriages legitimate in any sense.

If that were the case--if the ongoing physical relationship between the remarried couple constituted one long, continuous, adulterous affair—the proper remedy, and the only way to end the chain of adultery, would be to dissolve the second marriage and insist that everyone return to his or her original spouse. On the contrary, Scripture teaches that the new marriage is now binding. In order to avoid further acts of adultery, the remarried person needs to remain faithful to the new spouse.

As a matter of fact, in the same passage where Moses permitted husbands to issue a certificate of divorce, the law added this restriction: “When she has departed from his house, and goes and becomes another man’s wife, if the latter husband detests her and writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her as his wife, then her former husband who divorced her must not take her back to be his wife after she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD” (Deuteronomy 24:2-4, emphasis added).

Clearly, the second marriage—whether biblically justified or not—becomes as binding as the original marriage was supposed to be. A return to the original spouse is strictly forbidden.

So Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:32 (and Mark 10:11-12) mean simply that entering into an illegitimate remarriage is an adulterous act. Nevertheless, once that new marriage covenant is sealed, the remarried couple needs to remain married and be faithful to one another. Their ongoing physical relationship is not to bethought of as “perpetual adultery.”

On the other hand, as long as they remain unrepentant about the illegitimate remarriage, they cannot expect God’s blessing on their marriage. Like all sins, that unauthorized remarriage must be confessed and repented of.

Because marriage entails a covenant that God deems holy, any remarriage (even remarriage after an unbiblical divorce) cannot be—and should not be—forsaken as we would forsake virtually any other sin. But people who have entered into such a relationship do need to seek God’s forgiveness with sincere repentance.

Again, these views are in accordance with the scriptures.