History of the Georgia Baptist Association

 The following is not meant to be a story that "flows". It is the collective facts, thoughts and documentation of the earliest Baptists of Georgia. I have tried to be clear when something is my opinion or personal thoughts. Historical writings that are the most popular, tend to concentrate on Baptists in New England, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Kentucky. As Baptists moved south and west, the American Revolution was imminent, and I suppose historians concentrated on that, then writing about Baptist history picks up again in earnest after the Revolution. Georgia Baptist history is unique, in that we get to see some of how the second generation Baptist sons carried on the work of their fathers in faith, while still seeing the fathers alive. It is us getting to see the passing of the torch between generations. These Baptist sons would be the equivalent of the "Apostolic Fathers" of the first century church, among American Baptists in historical terms. Those like Abraham Marshall, Peter Smith and Adiel Sherwood, and Samuel Cartledge, were all taught directly by those involved in the early expansion of Baptists and were instrumental in promulgating the Baptist faith, not only pastored the churches their fathers/mentors founded, but saw the beginning of a God ordained missionary movement, the largest the world has ever known. The Georgia Baptist Convention, was the first Convention of any state, which united Baptists beyond the associational level.

Organized 1784 by Kiokee, Fishing Creek, Upton Creek (now Greenwood), Red's Creek (now Abilene), and Little Brier Creek churches. Fathers of the association include Daniel Marshall, Abraham Marshall and Silas Mercer. The New Georgia Encyclopedia says this about Daniel Marshall;

Of the 104 known Baptist churches organized in Georgia during the eighteenth century, a large number of them trace their origins to Marshall or to one of his junior colleagues. He (Daniel Marshall) was succeeded as pastor of Kiokee by his son Abraham and later by a grandson, Jabez. Thus he founded a sixty-one-year ministerial dynasty, an occurrence rare in Baptist circles. He apparently owned at least 400 acres of land in Georgia (but no slaves) and left an estate “of considerable value.” To his contemporaries Marshall was a man of holy zeal, meekness, and patience, but his gifts, in the words of his son Abraham, “were by no means above mediocrity.” One honest friend, Morgan Edwards, described him as “a weak man, a stammerer, and no scholar,” and admitted that Marshall’s success was “surprising when we consider that he is a man of no bright parts, nor eloquence nor learning. Piety, earnestness and honesty are all he can boast of.” It almost sounds like the description of Moses does it not? Perhaps the Savannah River is the Baptist "Red Sea" he crossed to get into Georgia. Those Hardshells in Georgia that insist Kiokee Church was "staunchly predestinarian" either do not know the history, or are repeating falsehoods. We will see what type of preachers Daniel, Abraham, and Jabez Marshall were by reading Jesse Mercer's memoirs quoted further along in the article. These three pastored Kiokee Chruch for the first 65 years of it's existence. The Hardshells in eastern Georgia have claimed Kiokee Church has "revised" it's history to delete their earliest theology. However, as the record will surely show it is the Hardshells who have "revised" their history.

This association was instrumental in forming the Georgia Baptist Convention. The first missionary conference, known as the Powellton Conference, occurred May 1, 1801 "to evangelize the heathen in idolatrous lands", and included a representative from the Hephzibah Association, Francis Ross, at the Powellton Baptist Church of Christ. The Georgia Association's "third child", the Ocmulgee, turned its back on its missionary heritage in 1833, and faded away. First Baptist Church, Washington, Ga, was the first church of any denomination to conduct Vacation Bible School. Another interesting fact, which may be  considered evidence that Georgia Baptists sprang from Separate Baptist roots, is this association (as well as most modern day Georgia Baptists) practiced certain "ordinances" that Regular Baptists did not practice, such as the laying on of hands, anointing the sick, the right hand of fellowship, and dedication of children. These, along with Communion, and baptism were considered ordinances of the church.  While these are no longer considered "ordinances", they are still practiced as signs. There was also foot washing (still practiced by some but not all Georgia Baptists) and the kiss of charity, no longer practiced. ( I believe the "anointing of the sick" and the dedication of children" denotes that the Separates viewed determinism  in a different light than the Regulars. However, this has positive implications for both groups. The Regular Baptists did not "dedicate children" probably on the grounds that they were distancing themselves from Reformed theology, and did not presume that their own children were in the covenant of grace until they made a profession of faith for themselves. The Separates, on the other hand, were adamant that "giving" their children to God at an early age, would ensure that when God called them to a purpose, they had already been affirmed and taught by their parent and elders, to follow His voice.)

 One significant aspect of the Georgia Baptist Association is that it may be the first instance in which Baptists actually took the lead in holding an inter-denominational
gathering. In 1803-1804, the Georgia Baptist Association held meetings at six different
churches throughout the Association to promote an association-wide revival. The
meetings were held on Fridays, one to three months apart. To these gatherings, the
leaders of the Association invited “orderly” non-Baptist ministers who “may expect to be
treated with respect, provided they make themselves known."

For the first decade, the Association didn't even bother to adopt articles of faith. Once they did, they simply took articles from other associations, modified them to their own theology, and did not refer to them much at all. Once again though, as I have explained in other articles, the phraseology of the articles may sound very calvinistic to today's hearer. "We believe in election according to the foreknowledge of God" will cause a casual historian to place them into the strict Calvinist camp, just as happened with the Eastern District PB, Original Tennessee PB, Beulah PB, Hiwassee PB and Oak Grove PB Associations, all of which have an almost identical article. However, when reading Jesse Mercer's memoirs, quoted further along in this article, we see a truer picture. Insight into their theology comes from a statement made by  Adiel Sherwood, pastor of the Eatonton Church, Eatonton Ga, who established the first Sunday School in Georgia, who said “I am aware that there are staunch professors to be found, who would smite me on one cheek, for displacing a fold of Mr. Wesley’s prunella gown—and others, who would smite me on the other cheek, for disturbing a curl of Doctor Gill’s wig. But I trust that the truth is found between the extremes.”  This "between the extremes" theology, is believed by the vast majority of Georgia Baptists today, and is perhaps, the reason Georgia Baptists held out the hands of cooperation to both Methodists and Presbyterians. As the "Campmeeting" tradition took root in Georgia, they almost always involved preachers and leaders from all three denominations, and they agreed to not concentrate on what divided them. One preacher who preached at my church growing up, would say this, about when he was saved; "I got saved under the preaching of a Methodist preacher, and joined the Baptist church, at a Presbyterian campground." The Presbyterians in this part of Georgia were not the typical "Princeton Presbyterians" found further north, and quite often issued "invitations". The Smyrna Presbyterian Campground/Campmeeting founded in 1846 right down the road from me, still meets every July, with a mixture of Baptist, Presbyterian and Methodist preachers. The same for Salem Methodist Campground just a few miles from me, that my Dad's family attended every year even as staunch Baptists.

Sherwood goes on to draw a distinction between human conjectures about God’s plan which he called “philosophizing” and the duty to obey God’s decrees regardless of the relationship between divine sovereignty, and human freedom. To illustrate this distinction, Sherwood presents a number of conclusions that he believes arise out of such“philosophizing.” He states, “Man is totally depraved; is unable to turn himself to God; and it requires the sovereign agency of divine grace to affect the work.”  Sherwood goes on to say, "But those using such notions of depravity conclude, [that] our attempts to
inculcate religion on the minds of our children, are of little or no consequence. When God undertakes the work, it will be affected.” Such conclusions, Sherwood believed, arise out of human deduction, not biblical truth. Another “conclusion” addressed by Sherwood is that some Calvinists (what we would call hypers) said “They say God, in his sovereign pleasure, has decreed the salvation of all[who] are to be saved; the rest, through the sinful propensity of their dispositions, will go on in sin, and of course . . . sink to final destruction. Some conclude that “all our efforts with a view to salvation . . . must be useless.” Again, however, such conclusions are based on human conjecture and ignore the duty of believers, decreed by God, to expend all possible efforts in sharing the Gospel. Sherwood states “whatever our various sentiments may be with respect to divine predestination, let none of us suffer these sentiments to paralyze our efforts . . . We use the means, and leave the issue with God." Notice how some would use Sherwood's use of the phrase "totally depraved"  as proof of him being staunchly Calvinist. They neglect to see that he is speaking as a 5 pointer would speak, not as he would speak, and they ignore his statement that "the truth is found between the extremes" which shows he did not believe humanity is a bunch of robots, that could not be taught the truth, even in an unsaved state. He obviously believed all children are affected by teaching them the precepts of God. He is accusing his strict Calvinist brothers of using "reasoning" to "conclude" things, when they are the ones who railed against the use of "reason". Notice how he said "those using such notions of depravity" which implies he did not hold those views. At least three strict Calvinist pastors from other associations, had a change of mind, took his words to heart, and began earnestly praying for the salvation of sinners, exhorting sinners, and pleading with them to come to Christ, which they had never done before.

The theology of the early Georgia Baptists was very similar to the way Baptist historian George Washington Paschal said of the Holston Baptists, when he stated "In the Broad River several of the leading Baptist ministers were ardent Calvinists and champions of the Doctrine of Election, and in general were Regular Baptists, accepting in full the Philadelphia Confession and Articles of Faith based upon it; on the other hand, the churches that came to the French Broad from the Holston Association and their ministers had a Separate Baptist heritage, and like Shubal Stearns thought the New Testament a sufficient confession of faith, and like him, refused to accept Higher Calvinism and the Doctrine of Election, and were classed as Arminians and Free Willers. Probably, it was among the ministers and leaders rather than among the members generally that this difference was most pronounced, and it was less marked in some churches than in others. . . . All of the leading spirits were Calvinistic, but there were many minds that revolted at the sterner aspects of Calvinism. Men generally held to the idea of moral free agency." The Holston Baptist Association was comprised of churches formerly associated with the Sandy Creek Association, and was the first association in Tennessee. This would be an association theologically similar to the Georgia Association, as it too was founded by those from Sandy Creek. On a side note, there were Separate Baptists who taught final apostasy possible, even before the advent of the Free Will Baptists. Some of those who were descended from the Arminian Separate Baptists, who disagreed with the exclusivity of landmarkism, later broke away from the Baptist family, forming what would become the Church of God in the 1880's through the work of Baptist ministers Richard Spurling and William F. Bryant. Although the practice of speaking in tongues did not begin until around 1908, the "holiness" and spirited style of worship was inherited from the Separate Baptists. Had they not adopted a hierarchical form of church gov't, they could have still been considered part of the Baptist family. I find it ironic that most Baptists today use the Church of God hymnal, known as the Red Back Hymnal.

   The majority of churches in the Georgia Association claim they have never been "predestinarian" although they never rejected  the label "Calvinist" until they refused "to fellowship any who are so extreme in their predestinarian doctrine" came to light, when in 1833 they "exposed their true nature". Does this statement refer to hardshell hyperism, or was this statement merely an accusation because some churches rejected "mission societies"? We will never know for sure. One thing is for sure though, after the split between Mission and Anti Mission Baptists, a preacher from the Georgia Association, when traveling through North Carolina where there were many Free Will Baptists, was asked by another Baptist preacher there, "Are you a Calvinist or Free Will?", to which he replied "I am a Baptist". It is thought by some, that the saying "Neither Calvinist nor Arminian, but Baptist" comes from this incident. This rings loud to me the sentiment that Separate Baptists had about labels. They didn't really care what you called them. Whenever they were called "Calvinists" they had no remarks, and when they were called "Arminians", they offered no correction. Also during this period, the Anti Missions Baptists had coalesced in Georgia, taking with them a large number of Calvinistic Baptists, in the same way the Campbellite movement took away many Arminian leaning Baptists. With those two movements taking away the extremes as both ends, this left the majority of Baptists somewhere in the middle. Remarks made by some ministers in the Georgia Association, when asked if they were concerned about the divisions, said "Perhaps God is pruning the tree". In one sense, that statement is absolutely true, for both extremes frowned upon missions. This paved the way for full fledged missions support among Georgia Baptists, with dissenters all but gone. 

* Note; There were some General Atonement Georgia Baptists who also became "Primitive Baptists", but they all eventually rejoined their original associations, much the same as happened in Tennessee. None remained in the PB camp as some did in Tn and Va. The last general atonement PB churches in Georgia, which straddled the Georgia-Florida line in the Beulah PB Association, dropped the PB name in the early 1900's, becoming Independent Baptists who now support missions through direct giving to missionaries, and are still opposed to "societies" or mission boards. Ironically, I found this group through J.G. Crowley, who says of himself in an email to me,  " I am an Absoluter so rank that I consider "Antinomian fatalist" a compliment, and despise "progressive sanctification" only slightly less than I do Arminianism and Arianism". He is a history professor at Valdosta State University in Georgia.  He alerted me to several PB associations that were General Atonement, so as "rank" as he may be, at least he is honest, as most PB's would deny that any PB association rejected limited atonement or were not predestinarian. He belongs to a group known as the Wiregrass PB's, who are so strict that they refuse to even paint their churches, the Alabaha PB Association in Georgia that officially still believes in "means", but that evangelism must occur "only when God directly sends a man, and for whatever reason, God has not directed such in a long time" according to Crowley. Though the Alabaha Association never denounced "means" I believe they became so influenced by other hardshell PB's that they developed an unbiblical doctrine that asserts God must "directly" send someone to evangelize. In my view, God  has already "directly" commanded us to go evangelize in the written word of Scripture. Numerically, Primitive Baptists in Georgia were never as numerous as in the states north of it, and even fewer were found in Louisiana and Florida. Even many who were here, tended to be more "liberal" than those in North Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia. In Georgia, we see many PB's adopting Sunday Schools as early as the 1860's, along with instruments. I am not however denying that there were hardshells present, and still are. In Georgia however, there are many counties who never had a single PB church of any stripe.

 It is in Georgia where the Progressive Primitive Baptist movement began, which saw them adopting Sunday School, musical instruments, paid pastors, Christian flags in churches etc. Also, there was a fairly large defection of PB churches in Georgia to the SBC in the early 1900's. One church, Gum Branch Baptist Church  was founded as a PB church in 1833, but by the 1860's had already begun a Sunday School. By the early 1900's they were a member of two different Missionary Baptist Associations, one was an SBC and the other independent of the SBC. A division in the church came when the majority voted to officially affiliate with the SBC, the minority forming Liberty Missionary Baptist Church. Gum Branch supports the SBC missions, and Liberty supports independent missionaries. The churches are directly across the street from each other and still share the same cemetery. Gum Branch was formed as an arm of Beards Creek, which is still a PB Church among the Progressives. Gum Branch offers 5 different Confessions that they will allow members to subscribe to. Liberty has no trace of Calvinism left in it, and in true Independent Baptist form has no "confession" other than the Bible. Just another example, I believe, that supports my theory that even the Primitives in Georgia retained much of the Separate Baptist heritage, which had a more liberal mind that lead to the formation of the Progressives, as well as allowing a diversity of opinion in theology, as Gum Branch does, as well as the  "Bible Alone" confessionalism of Liberty. In talking with hardshell PB's in Georgia, they deny that they came from Separate Baptist heritage, but they cannot give me an answer as to why many of their churches never adopted a purely 5 point Calvinist articles of faith until after the Civil War. Many of their earliest articles of faith seem to be worded in a way that both limited and general atonement believers could accept. Of course I had to spend hours digging them up on my own, because today's Hardshells have no idea that they once had them, or are covering them up. (More on that in another article). They also cannot produce any proof they ever belonged to  Regular Baptist association, though they now lay claim to the Philadelphia/London Confessions, albeit with the many footnotes contained in the Fulton Confession. The earliest mention of the Philadelphia Confession among Georgia's PB's does not appear until 1871. So it appears to me that they were wrestling with theology because of the increasing entrenchment of hardshellism which culminated in the Fulton Confession. However, I may be wrong. It is indisputable though, that the Progressive PB's are by far the largest faction in Georgia.

  The Powellton Baptist Church (Baptist Church of Christ at Powellton) in 1793 excommunicated some members "for having broken communion with the General Baptist". What does "General Baptist" refer to?? There are no details, so I cannot discern if a break occurred between general atonement Baptists and calvinistic ones that may have been in the same church, or if it refers to some type of preaching against a general atonement view. Since I do not know the facts, I cannot say whether this refers to doctrine or not, but would love to know. Some historians say that it refers to the General Missionary Committee or the General Association of Georgia Baptists, the first name of the Georgia Baptist Convention. However, those historians who espouse this view evidently did not do their homework, as these organizations did not come into existence until 1802 and 1822 respectively. So any excommunications that took place in 1793 did not involve those organizations.

   When searching old records and histories of Georgia Baptist churches, 90% of them were originally named "so and so Baptist Church of Christ". Did the Regular Baptists ever style their churches as "Baptist Church of Christ" or was this a Separate Baptist tradition? If anyone has info on that, I'd love to see it.

   Jesse Mercer, son of Silas, who was much more calvinistic than his father, an SBC forefather and namesake of Mercer University when writing about the division of Missionary and Anti Missionary Baptists wrote ;

   It seems to be taken for granted that all those venerable fathers, who founded the Baptist Denomination in this state [Georgia], were as stern calvinistic preachers as are the opposers of the new plans.  But this is altogether a mistake. Abraham Marshall [Son of Daniel] was never considered a predestinarian preacher. Some of them were so--seemed to be set for the defense of the gospel.  Of these, Silas Mercer and Jeptha Vining were the chief.  To use his own figure; he used to say, 'he was short legged  and could not wade in such deep water.'  He, with several others, was considered sound in the faith, though low Calvinists. Peter Smith and some others were thought rather Arminian; some quite so. 

But no division was thought of till Jeremiah Walker adopted and preached openly the doctrine of final apostasy.  Then a division ensued; but soon after the death of Mr. W., the breach was healed.  And here it may not be amiss to add, that the Baptists in the upper parts of South Carolina, in those days, comprehended mostly, it is believed, in the Bethel Association, were general provisionists. I think most of their ministers preached what is now called General Atonement.  But this was never thought of as a bar to correspondence, or even Christian communion." (Memoirs of Elder Jesse Mercer, C.D. Mallary, 1832, pp.201-2, quoted in A History of the Kiokee Baptist Church in Georgia, James Donovan Mosteller, MA., B.D., Th.D., First Printing, 1952, p.37, emphasis mine).

Here we can see that non predestinarian preachers were still considered "Calvinists" though "low" ones. Abraham Marshall pastored Kiokee Church for 35 years. Those who say Kiokee Church was "sternly calvinistic" evidently do not believe the testimony of Jesse Mercer, who was himself a staunch Calvinist, more so than his father, Silas. This also shows that evidently some were even further along towards Arminianism than the "low" Calvinists. It appears to be that the line of no return, or line in the sand, was the teaching of the possibility of final apostasy. You may ask "how can one get any closer to Arminianism than believing general atonement and that any person may freely choose or reject Christ, unless he believes that final apostasy is possible? This would take several paragraphs to explain, but in short, those who would have been "quite so" as Dr. Mercer said, would say that if a person stayed too long in sin, the removal of God's blessing from them might lead them to doubt their salvation, without actually losing it. This doctrine is prevalent among most Old Regular Baptists. When they speak of "questioning to see if you be in the faith", they are expressing a doubt. Many Old Regulars would say that if doubt never occurs, then you are not saved. For how can you doubt that which you never possessed? To say this in a comical way, it would be the equivalent of a parent, who frustrated with the disobedience of their young child saying, "you can't be MY child, for MY child would never act this way". When a child is very young, such a statement may cause very real anxiety. So too does God say this to His disobedient children, they say. Although I cannot prove it, I believe many Primitive Baptists took this doctrine and applied it to eternal election. For they say "The one who is worried about attaining salvation, already possesses it, for how can an unregenerate man even want it?" Just another example (if I am correct) of two groups sharing the same doctrine, with two opposite interpretations. In one, the doubt forces you to search to see if you were ever saved in the first place, and in the other to see that it has been guaranteed from eternity past. Also, in 1794, four churches of the Georgia Association that lay across the border in South Carolina, were given letters of dismissal so they could join the Bethel Association in that state. According to Jesse Mercer, the Bethel Association were general atonement believers, so this further shows that Georgia and South Carolina Baptists held more than a few of what would now be called "Non Calvinists". (The History of the Baptist Denomination in Georgia, Samuel Boykin, volume 8, page 34, published 1881)

As an example of widely held beliefs about salvation among the Georgia Association, read article 6 of Bethlehem Church from 1828. "We believe that eternal salvation is the free gift of God, entirely apart from man's works, and is possessed by any and all who have faith in and receive Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior. This is the elective grace of God, in that He did predestine us to be conformed to the image of his Son, to be called, justified, and glorified, that none should perish but have eternal life." This may sound calvinistic to the casual reader but pay close attention to the language. There is no mention of a "certain number", it clearly states the condition of faith and "receiving". This is their explanation of conversion, and THEN the predestination begins. Notice also that it is in present tense (have faith, receive). The predestination spoken of here refers not to who will be saved, but to what happens to those already saved. Also note the order. "Calling" in this article refers not to the gospel call, but to service after belief in Christ. To "receive Jesus Christ" makes clear that one must consciously affirm the Gospel or be converted, and then "elective grace" the call to service, or spiritual gifts, justification and glorification, all of which combine to conform us to the image of the Son. The "gift of God" is salvific grace and the rest is "elective grace". This is why some confessions, such as the New Hampshire Confession, uses the word "graces" plural. General grace is offered to all persons, and once they believe, elective grace begins. This is another example of why some erroneously confuse this view, with the "general grace" taught by 4 point Calvinists.

Georgia's Baptists who were calvinistic, were more like the Ketocton Regulars in Virginia, who were more independent minded than the Philadelphia Regulars. For example, in Robert Boyle C. Howell’s 1857 history of early Baptists in Virginia" he records that as early as 1769 the "Ketocton, a Regular, or Calvinistic Association in Northern Virginia, addressed the Sandy Creek, a Separate, or Arminian Association" in Southern Virginia and North Carolina about a possible union. (Robert Boyle C. Howell, The Early Baptists of Virginia (Philadelphia: The Bible and Publication Society, 1857), 45-46. I have written about the Ketocton Association, who withdrew from the Philadelphia Association after only three years, and adopted Articles of Faith that left out the "certain number" clause found in other Regular articles of faith. While maintaining that they were Calvinists, they were much more mild in their calvinism. They withdrew from the Philadelphia Association, because they disagreed with Particular Atonement, and thought it presumption  that any person "was without hope". It is no surprise that they were open to a union with Sandy Creek, and even while calling them Arminian, there was enough common ground to open talks with the Sandy Creekers. This should remove all doubt that many Regulars considered Sandy Creek as "Arminian", as well as showing some among the Regulars to be less calvinistic than some historians want to admit. Remember, there were only two "options" to label yourself at that time. Georgia Baptists are direct descendants of Daniel Marshall and Sandy Creek.

Hosea Holcomb (1780-1841), an Alabama Baptist preacher and later historian, once wrote to fellow  Calvinists in Georgia, assuming they would be just as concerned as he because many Georgia Baptist fathers were not strict predestinarians. He was lamenting the fact that a "considerable number of preachers (in Alabama) were "departing from the old Baptist foundation" and that many young preachers "dreaded the doctrine of predestination and election". One who responded stated "Let them alone, for they have the Separates Spirit, and are not departing from old Baptists, they are just as old as we, and unless your churches earnestly tend to the Commission of Christ as furious as they, you haven't right to bring charge against them". This seems to show that those Calvinists in Georgia either were used to the diversity that the Separates afforded, or knew that the majority of the Georgia Baptist Association were not predestinarian and the founding of non predestinarian churches were outpacing the more strict Calvinist ones.

* Note. I am not sure that the Separates could be considered as old as the Regulars, unless he is referring to those Baptists who held to a general atonement. If that is what he  referred to, then yes they are "just as old". The First Baptist Church in America (Providence R.I.) was definitely a General Six Principle Baptist Church in 1652. The First Baptist Church of Rhode Island (Newport) was a General Baptist Church, and from them sprang the American Seventh day Baptists, who were mostly general atonement believers. The First Baptist Church of Charleston began as a mixture of  Arminian and Calvinist members. Richard Furman and Shubal Stearns were both baptized by a General Baptist. Stearns was discipled and ordained by Wait Palmer, a general atonement Separate Baptist, so if "lineage"defines who a preacher is, then Stearns would fall into the General Baptist camp, as he was never baptized nor ordained by any other.

So at least in Georgia, the State Convention seemed to be composed of Calvinists, Non Calvinists and Arminian leaning Baptists. There is some evidence that talks with Free Will Baptists were taking place, but they declined to join. One reason given for their rejection of the SBC could explain why the Free Will Baptists declined, as their request that Calvinists stop using the phrase "doctrines of grace" to refer to Calvinism was implying that those who were not Calvinist did not possess the "doctrines of grace". This also shows it probable that most Georgia Baptists were never in the "Regular Baptist" camp. As a historian, I have searched for years for signs of a Regular Baptist presence in Georgia, and while I have definitely found Calvinistic Baptists, I have to date found no association who used the word "Regular" except for two, and it referred not to Calvinism but to a distinction between them and Free Will Baptists and Primitive Baptists. In other words they said "we are not Primitive nor Free Will, but regular Baptists". Sometimes the word "regular" can also refer to the Regulative Principle of worship and not necessarily to doctrine. Using that definition, the Campbellites could be called "regular".

Robert Semple, a Baptist historian wrote:

"...the Regulars [Calvinists] complained that the Separates...kept within their communion many who were professed Arminians, etc. To these things it was answered by the Separates...that if there were some among them who leaned too much towards the Arminian system they were generally men of exemplary piety and great usefulness in the Redeemer’s kingdom, and they conceived it better to bear with some diversity of opinion in doctrines than to break with men whose Christian deportment rendered them amiable in the estimation of all true lovers of genuine godliness.

Indeed, that some of them had now become fathers in the Gospel, who previous to the bias which their minds had received had borne the brunt and heat of persecution, whose labors and sufferings God had blessed, and still blessed to the great advancement of His cause. To exclude such as these from their communion would be like tearing the limbs from the body." (History of the Baptists in Virginia, Robert Baylor Semple, First Published, 1810, pp 68-69 emphasis mine).

Since Semple wrote this before 1810, this should remove any doubt that many Separates considered themselves "professed Arminians". Did "leaned too much towards the Arminian system" mean TOTAL Arminianism, or did it mean FURTHER towards it than the majority of Separates? In any event, it seems some Separates were not afraid of the Arminian label. It seems to be another case of the  majority Separates being considered "Calvinist" by many historians, because most believed final apostasy  not possible, as noted above by Dr. Mercer, when Jeremiah Walker started to openly preach such. This attitude of the Separates of refusing to disavow those self professed "Arminians" was pretty much the norm in Georgia. (I highly doubt a self professed "Arminian" in the Separate camp that Semple speaks of  meant classical Arminianism, but probably referred to their belief that the atonement was general and provisionist in nature, just as it is doubtful that every time others called them "Calvinists", it meant a five pointer. However, it is true that there were some Separates who did believe final apostasy was possible, and there are a few United Baptists today who believe this. The Uniteds who believe this today, are probably descended from Separates that joined the Regulars in forming United Baptists, thus they retained the name "United")

One church from the Ocmulgee Association, which was very much Calvinist, asked for admission to the Georgia Association  because "the churches in our current Association have reared the ugly head of an anti Gospel in refusing the command of Christ to send the Gospel to heathen lands, and we rather be counted among the liberal Gospel preachers than among the nones." ("Liberal" in this sense meant those who "liberally spread the seed of the Gospel". I presume that the "nones" means that those who do not preach to the lost, have no gospel at all) Several times in my studies, I have run across the term "liberal Gospel preachers", and when taken in context, usually means those who are "general provisionists" or general atonement preachers. "Liberal" did not have a negative connotation as it does today, and did not imply a rejection of the inerrancy of Scripture.

In closing, my goal here was to quote as many contemporary persons as possible, so we could get a truer glimpse of old Baptist sentiment. During the writing of this article I spoke with a Baptist history professor, who had no idea that there was a such thing as general atonement Primitive Baptists. How can one teach Baptist history and not know these things? Too many times a modern historian portrays only what he wishes to highlight. That is one reason why I sometimes use the word "predestinarian" to convey a theological concept, rather than "Calvinist". However, even that term has problems, because all Christians are "predestinarian" in some sense. For now though, the word is usually associated with a very narrow part of a belief soteriologically. One hundred years from now, a historian may see that word used by a Free Will Baptist in his writing, and be sloppy enough to say he believed in something  that is not true of him.  I hope I have given a clearer picture of the variances of Baptists, at least in Georgia, how they coalesced and became who they are today. But most of all, no matter what your leanings, we must know that "labels" used in the early days of Baptists in America, were used with much more variance than they are today. One label or one word, cannot adequately describe a group of Baptists from that era. I too learned this the hard way when I discovered the Eastern District Association of Primitive Baptists. Before I spoke directly with some of them, I spoke with a Primitive Baptist from another association who told me "they are complete and total Arminians". I did not know any  better, so I assumed they must be classical Arminians, because of one person's dissatisfaction with them. I remember thinking "something is wrong here", as I could not imagine a PB being a "complete Arminian". From that point on, I learned to research further than a mere "label" that another person may give to a group. The Eastern District PB's have a Separate Baptist heritage, while the Old Regulars have a Regular Baptist heritage, yet their doctrines are indistinguishable from each other for the most part. Some claim the Old Regulars are predestinarian because they cling to the title "Regular", and they readily admit they are descended form those who adhered to the Philadelphia Confession. What has been left out though, is that they took the confession and modified to such a degree, that they cannot be called predestinarian by today's normal use of the word. We must, as much as possible, speak directly to a group, or read contemporary accounts. Some Separate Baptists have been "smitten on one cheek" and some "on the other"as Adiel Sherwood described. Some on both. I am proud to label myself as a" shouting, invitation giving, crying, hand raising, hell chasing, Holy Ghost filled, Word proclaiming, sinner inviting, prophet of warning, people loving Baptist, who proclaims to a lost world "Jesus saves, Jesus Saves!". How's that for a label?