In the Signs of the Times for April 15, 1881 (Vol. 49, No. 8) J. F. Johnson, a Two Seeder who highly esteemed Gilbert Beebe and T. P. Dudley, writes the following (pgs. 87-88; See here):
"The next trouble was the division of the church on the subject of "three persons in the Godhead." Myself and a few others could not conscientiously indorse the sentiment. There had previously been much controversy on that subject in the churches and associations in Ohio and in Indiana, and they had finally settled on an agreement that it should not be a test of fellowship. Finally a candidate presented himself to the church for reception, and the pastor of the church asked him if he indorsed that article. He replied that he could not fully indorse the idea that he understood those words to convey. He was then told that he could not be received into that church. I then arose and observed that that article had caused much contention among the Baptists, and they finally agreed that it should not be a bar to fellowship; that Lebanon church had through her pastor made it a bar; and if it must remain one, put it up against me, for I did not believe it. It raised a terrible storm over me, which continued to rage for about eighteen months. At first, I suppose, three-fourths of the church were opposed to me, mostly relatives or connections of the pastor. Finally, at the time of the division, out of over eighty members, twenty two went with them, and the others remained with us. There were then mutual exclusions on both sides; but in a few months they came back, made acknowledgments, and were received, not very cordially, however, by myself and some others. Not long after the means controversy came up, and the same ones, with one exception only, went off with that error."
I have written several articles through the years showing that Wilson Thompson, who is considered "the ablest Primitive Baptist preacher" (See this post for that citation: here) of the 19th century, denied the Trinity, being a Sabellian or Modalist. See these postings for proof of that (here, here, here, here, here). In those posts I showed that a large portion of the old Miami Association of Ohio followed Thompson in his denial of the Trinity and of the anathemas of Elder James Osbourn, another widely recognized leader of the anti mission Baptists, against the Miami Association for those heretical views. The above links will give you citations from Osbourn. Elder Samuel Trott was also a denier of the Trinity and Elder John Clark of Virginia opposed Trott on that subject and ended up starting his own paper called "Zion's Advocate" about 1854 to combat several prevailing errors of "Primitive Baptists" such as Arianism, Modalism, Two Seedism, and those who denied God used human means in the eternal salvation of sinners. Some of the argumentation of Clark and Trott towards each other was published in the "Signs of the Times."
The above citation from the Signs of the Times by Johnson gives information about how extensive was the denial of the Trinity among "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists, especially in the states of Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana, and in the Miami Association, in the area of Ohio where I was born and raised till I moved to North Carolina in 1976. What I find rather striking about that citation is that it shows that there was a large number of "Primitive Baptists" who in 1881 still denied the Trinity. What is even more striking, however, is the statement that both sides of the question had in previous years agreed to not make the issue a test of fellowship. Can you believe that? They declared against missions, Sunday schools, seminaries, revival meetings, salaried ministry, etc., but they tolerated Two Seedism and deniers of the Trinity? No wonder today's Hardshells want to run away from any discussion of their history!
If a denial of the Trinity is a heresy, then what do today's Hardshells say about the validity of the baptisms administered by Trinity deniers? And the Two Seeders? I am sure that such a question produces all kinds of cognitive dissonance and moves most of them to try to ignore such stubborn facts. The Landmarker views of the Hardshell Primitive Baptists force them to admit that if one administrator of baptism in their link of baptismal administrators was a heretic of an heretical church, then all succeeding baptisms are invalid. If you were baptized by an administrator who is descended from a chain of administrators that had one unqualified administrator, then you must admit that your baptism is invalid. (See my series on Landmarkism by using the search engine to find the months when I wrote it) Thankfully, Landmarkism is not true.
The citation also mentions the division over the "means" question. But, in many churches in the states mentioned above, where Wilson Thompson labored, there had already been divisions, going back to the 1840s. In 1846 there was a trial over church property by both sides, and the means side won the case and Thompson's side lost. (See here for that post) For many years, both the question of the Trinity and of means in salvation found people on both sides of the questions and yet did not divide. In the 1880s, however, a formal division began to occur on a wider scale. The same is true relative to the doctrine known as "the predestination of all things." Those who believed it (who came to be called "Absoluters") and those who did not were content to not divide over it, at least till the end of the 19th century.
No comments:
Post a Comment