Monday, August 19, 2024

SOMEBODY'S IN TROUBLE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




4 comments:

Stephen Garrett said...

Dear brother: you wrote "the statement "through sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the truth." This phrase seems to be the "code word" for general atonement beliefs." I don't believe that is true. The first Hardshells who believed in means (mediate regeneration) would often cite this verse but they believed that Christ died only for the elect. I think it is rather a code word against Hyper Calvinism and the no means view.

Ken Mann said...

You could be right, absolutely. However, I have not yet seen that phrase in any Regular articles of faith. All the "predestinarian" articles seem to say "We believe God chose a definite number of Adam's posterity for grace and glory..." if that "certain number" clause is missing, we must dig further. I do know that the Eastern brethren and the Original Tennessee brethren and Hiwassee brethren interpret the phrase "thru sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" as the "way" God decreed who will be in the elect, but not that he chose WHO would be the elect. I have yet to see that phrase in articles of a purely Calvinist association. That phrase seems to be most common in associations that were started between 1800 1840, the height of the United Baptist hey day. Many newer associations that broke away from a United association (such as the Eastern District Association) retained the article. In my research, the more Calvinistic associations used the word "converted" as in "All the elect will be called, converted, regenerated and sanctified..." which does, in essence mean the same thing. I'm just still baffled as to why there are no Uniteds still in existence that are strictly Calvinistic. I can only assume that they gradually adopted the name "Primitive" when the less Calvinistic Uniteds declared non fellowship with anyone preaching the no means doctrine.

Stephen Garrett said...

I think that the general atonement, Arminian element in the United Baptists probably had little toleration for the Calvinist element and did not allow them to preach their views too much. W.P. Throgmorton fellowshipped his Calvinist brethren as long as they did not push it too much. It could be also true that some of the stronger Calvinists could not long tolerate too much Arminian preaching. It seems that the United Baptist experiment did not work for very long for these two groups made strange bed fellows. It is the same with today's SBC'ers. At one time there were many Calvinists in it, but now about 10%. Some want to exclude all Calvinists from the SBC. Thus, same story.

Ken Mann said...

That is probably true Bro Stephen. I do know that the Uniteds officially declared non fellowship to the hardshell faction of PB's when the no means doctrine showed up. There are also small things that divide groups, such as when the Old Regulars and Uniteds attempted a fellowship on Kentucky about 30 years ago. The United refused to give up their "mourner's bench" to which the Old Regulars objected. This is making a mountain out of a mole hill. However, I do think there are some issues besides just Calvinism and Arminianism. The Separate Baptists had Calvinists, "Provisionists" and total Arminians, and they seemed to get along just fine, many even within the same association. As for the SBC, I think think the issues are not so much Calvinism, as it is "Reformed" Calvinism. The calvinistic Baptists of the past were not Reformed. They did not preach regeneration before faith (wIth few exceptions), nor did they hold to Covenant Theology, or sacramentalism. The so called Reformed Baptists are a hybrid creature at best. For better or worse, the Regulars held to Landmarkism, so they didn't attempt to link themselves with Presbyterians. I intend to write about my conversation with the Pastor of First Baptist of Charleston, SC (who is Calvinist) and we discussed such things. He affirms that faith precedes regeneration (as do you) and that a choice is made in conversion. As far as I know, any "calvinistic" Baptist pastor within the SBC only requires adherence to the Baptist Faith and Message, while the "Reformed" in the SBC requires full submission to the 1689, or some other confession. When they do that, they force all others out of fellowship, thus the back lash.