DAVID BENEDICT'S HISTORY - ANOTHER VIEW

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

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

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

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

   Now on to another view of Benedict's History.

Said Benedict:

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

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

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

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

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

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

17; Acts 4:12 "

 

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

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

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

Said Benedict:

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

 

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

Said Stephen:

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

 

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

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

 

 

Said Benedict:

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

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

Stephen said:

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

 

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

Said Benedict:

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

 

“Then fill up the glass, 

and count him an ass 

Who preaches up predestination.”

 

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

Said Benedict:

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

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

Said Benedict:

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

 

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

Said Benedict:

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

 

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

 

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