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.
No comments:
Post a Comment