As noted previously, Kenny Mann and I have researched the history of the Eastern District Association of Primitive Baptists. Due to the seeming less Calvinistic or Predestinarian characteristics of the Eastern Primitives, our attention as historians of the "Primitive Baptists" was stirred and we were curious to find the root historical causes of this "unusual" phenomenon, at least among the white or Caucasian "Primitive Baptist" churches. We discovered that the Eastern District Association of churches was formed in 1848 from churches that came out of the Mulberry Gap Association of United Baptists. This led us to research the history of the Mulberry Gap Association and to discover what led to the breach in 1848.
In looking at the articles of faith of the Mulberry Gap Association, and the original articles of the Eastern District Association, one cannot discern any major difference. What is certain, however, is that at the time of the division, and the constitution of the Eastern District Association, that differences regarding various organizations and practices associated with the "mission movement" were the cause. Why else would the Eastern District take the name "Primitive Baptist" in 1848? Surely it was to identify with other "Primitive Baptist" churches in their protestations and declarations of non fellowship against those who became styled as "Missionary Baptists."
But, the thing that must be kept in mind is that nearly all "Primitive Baptists" in 1848 still believed that the Gospel was the means that God employed in the eternal salvation of the elect, and that many of them still passionately preached to the unregenerate and called upon them to repent and believe the gospel. Many of them retained their evangelistic zeal in preaching and exhorting the lost. The loss of such belief and preaching among the Hardshells would not occur to after the Civil War.
The Eastern District churches seem to have fought going along with other PB churches, in the latter quarter of the nineteenth century, in rejecting means, and in losing their desire to preach evangelistically to lost sinners. As previously written about, the Alabaha Association of Primitive Baptists also did not go along with the other Hardshell churches who were changing their beliefs about means in the new birth, preaching to the lost, perseverance of the saints, and who were inventing a new doctrine called "time salvation."
As we will see from the following information about the founder of the Mulberry Gap Association, Elder James Gilbert, the Mulberry Gap were only mildly Calvinistic and Predestinarian, retaining more of their likeness to the Separate Baptists than to the Regular Baptists. In "Sketches Of Tennessee's Pioneer Baptist Preachers" (see here) we learn this about Gilbert. (emphasis mine)
"James Gilbert, son of Hiram Gilbert, was born on Walker's Creek, in Giles County, Virginia, in the year of our Lord 1787. The family moved to Lee County, Virginia, when James was quite a lad. In 1813 he was converted and united with the Thompson Settlement Church.
James Gilbert enjoyed few advantages of a school education, and never was a man of many books. But as a preacher of the old-school type he was mighty in the Scriptures, one of the ablest preachers of his day.
His ministry was largely in Virginia, where he was pastor of the Thompson Settlement Church, and did successful work as missionary and evangelist. In Tennessee, the larger part of his labors was in Hancock, Claiborne, Sullivan, and one or two other counties. Dr. I. B. Kimbrough, who as "secretary" and "agent" went almost everywhere, used to say that when he struck Powell's Valley and Lee County, Virginia, "where old Jimmy Gilbert preached," he found "nobody but Baptists." He was the founder and builder of the Mulberry Gap Church, and was pastor of Sneedville, Beech Grove, Little Sycamore, and other churches.
Of the Mulberry Gap Association he was moderator for sixteen years in succession: He presided over the conference or convention at the organization of the association (1835), and was for years the leading spirit, the "big preacher," of the association. He fought long and hard against the "anti-mission" heresy in the association: Frequently he would call some brother to occupy the moderator's chair while he went down into the arena, to "hew to pieces" the bold and defiant spirit of anti-Christ, which thus dared to lift its head among Baptists."
Notice that Gilbert was an opponent of "the anti-mission heresy" and that there were, in the early days of the Mulberry Gap Association, Hardshells or "Iron Jackets," people who opposed missionary work outside of the local church, theological education, etc. Further, the fight with those Hardshells was "long and hard." This fight no doubt went on till 1848 when the Hardshells finally split off from the Mulberry and formed the Eastern District Association. I am sure that Elder Gilbert won a lot of Hardshells over by his efforts. Yet, his efforts were not completely successful. Notice how the writer speaks of Gilbert's belief that the "spirit" that motivated the Hardshells was "of anti-Christ," and which had newly "lift its head among Baptists."
However, a look at the present belief and practice of the Eastern District Association shows how they are far less possessed of such a Hardshell anti-mission spirit as they were in 1848. If Elder Gilbert were alive today, he would no doubt be pleased about this.
This article continues:
"At other times he would turn the association into a protracted meeting: When the association met at Little Sycamore, he preached and called for penitents. The vast throng, as if moved by one impulse, came forward. Only two sinners in all the crowd were unmoved. On another occasion the association met at a private house. After the regular sermon, Brother Gilbert was called on to "conclude" the service, according to the custom of those days. The preacher arose and said, "I have a headache, brethren; and, what is worse, I have a cold heart" - but before he had talked ten minutes the fire had kindled and he was launching out on an exhortation. The audience was stirred. One woman, a "hard-shell," shouted. She had broken her iron jacket, and was shouting herself hoarse, as she came out from among the "antis" to join the "missionaries.""
I have no doubt that many of the first Hardshells also "preached and called for penitents." We have proven that such was the practice in the Kehukee Association long before the division over hardshellism occurred in 1827. The type of preaching and "exhortation" that characterized Gilbert's preaching at one time characterized the preaching of the first PBs. Elder John Watson spoke about the decline in this kind of preaching among the Hardshells at the time of the Civil War. He wrote this about it in his book "The Old Baptist Test":
"A gospel without exhortation; without a call on the sinner to repent and believe; a gospel which does not in word address itself to all; is not the gospel which Christ ordained subordinately for the bringing in of his "other sheep."" (page 86 - see here for more such citations from Watson on the subject)
Oh what a great joy to see the cold Hardshells come to see the truth as this old sister! To see them become on fire, as old Elder John Leland, with a burning desire to win souls for Christ! To see them throw off that "spirit" that refuses to believe that the gospel is the power of God to save!
The sketch about Gilbert continued:
"As a visitor to the Holston Association, when that body met with the Muddy Creek Church, Elder Gilbert was appointed to preach out of doors. His text was, "I have a message from God unto thee." In the midst of the sermon it began to rain. The preacher told his hearers they had better find shelter, but they said, "Go on!" The few umbrellas at hand were lifted. The preacher preached and the rain poured. Most of the audience were drenched, but still they listened. More than one offered to hold an umbrella over the preacher, but he said, "No; if you can listen in the rain, I can preach without a shelter."
What motivated such men? Was it not his belief that souls were stake in his preaching efforts?
The sketch continues:
"Brother Gilbert's special gift was that of an evangelist. His greatest work was in revival meetings. He was instrumental in the conversion of more than 2,000 souls, who were added to the Lord through his ministry."
When I think of how many souls many of the Hardshell preachers could have been instrumental in saving, had it not been for their anti mission, anti means, spirit, I weep. Men of the past, like elders C.H. Cayce, John R. Daily; And, men of the present, like Sonny Pyles, Lasserre Bradley Jr.; Oh how many souls they could have saved by preaching to the unregenerate and pleading with them!
The article continues:
"East Tennessee and the mountains have had few men, if any, who had greater power over an audience than James Gilbert. Under the lightning strokes of his fiery denunciations of sin hard-hearted sinners would quake and tremble -would sometimes fall to the floor, crying out, "Pray for me! I am a lost sinner!" A noted preacher and competent critic said of James Gilbert, that "when the spirit of exhortation, was upon him he was simply irresistible."
When the "Primitive Baptist" lost that "spirit of exhortation" that Watson spoke about, they died! You just do not see sinners coming to PB meetings! You don't see sinners trembling under Hardshell preaching! Why? Because they have no faith in their preaching! They have no faith in the gospel being the power of God to save. They have no desire to be used of God in saving sinners! Have they forgotten such verses as these?
"And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever." (Dan. 12: 3)
"The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life; and he that winneth souls is wise." (Prov. 11:30)
Elder Gilbert believed that he could, through preaching God's gospel, "turn many to righteousness," and that he could "win souls." But, our modern Hardshells do not believe that the gospel they preach will save anyone. Further, they don't want to be such a means! Thankfully the Eastern Association preachers of today have not imbibed such a belief and spirit! God bless them for that!
The sketch write up on Gilbert continued:
"In personal appearance, Elder Gilbert has been described by those who knew him as a man of "portly mien, tall and commanding, eyes dark and flashing, voice powerful and trumpet-like, as if given to awaken sinners and call them to judgment. His manner was grave and impressive. He had a fine delivery, and was a persuasive, melting preacher." He was also a great singer, and had a voice not only of great power but of wonderful melody and sweetness, both in preaching and singing the gospel.
Of all the things that I could wish said of me after I am gone, by either God or men, is that he was used by God to awaken sinners! That God used him to save sinners! That would be far more desirable than having been used in correction of erring saints or in fighting the heretics.
The article continues:
"January 21, 1858, this noble servant of God passed to his reward, at the age of 71. His brethren memorialized him in their Associational Minute as "an able minister of the gospel," and his death as removing "one of the few remaining ancient pillars of the sanctuary among the Baptists of East Tennessee."
Notice that Elder Gilbert labored in the Association about ten years after the time when the Eastern District formation in 1848. It is obvious that the Eastern District was formed by Hardshells within the Mulberry Association who opposed the preaching of Gilbert and of his efforts to support mission societies.
The sketch continues:
"Slightly smaller is the Eastern District Association of Primitive Baptists (over six thousand members), which was organized in 1848 and which is still found mainly in the Appalachian Mountains of Tennessee and Virginia. Though it allows musical instruments in worship and has a modified view of predestination, it holds to traditional Primitive Baptist attitudes towards camps, beneveloent institutions, foreign mission programs, and similar extra-congregation activities."
Let it be observed that 1) the Eastern District does not now oppose the same things she opposed when she was first formed, having been mostly cured of that "anti mission spirit," and 2) that she has not lost her belief in means and in evangelistic appeals to the unconverted. She does not now "hold to traditional Primitive Baptist attitudes" in many ways and she is to be praised for this.
Now let me cite from the famous Baptist Jeremiah Jeter, in his book on Virginia ministers, concerning James Gilbert. He wrote:
"For somethings like ten years Elder Gilbert engage with characteristic zeal and fidelity in preaching the gospel in the counties of Southeastern Virginia. Having exercised a blessed influence among the churches of this region, it was reserved for him to be still more useful in a new field. He removed to Mulberry Gap, Tennessee, in 1832, and here, in this new country, comparatively sparse in its population, he patiently toiled until it became his privilege to see numerous churches rising up mainly as the result of his instrumentality. In 1843 the Mulberry Gap Association was organized. Of this body he may be properly considered the father. It now contains thirty-two churches, some of which are large and flourishing. Up to the year 1853 he was regularly chosen the presiding officer of the Association, and, as such, commanded the respect of his brethren. The church at Mulberry Gap, of which he was the efficient pastor, rose to a condition of marked efficiency, being the largest in the Association."
"The subject of this sketch took a noble part in defence of the missionary enterprise at the time when some of the churches and ministers took ground against it. He entertained enlarged views of Christian duty. Because salvation is of grace he could not, therefore, conclude that the use of appropriate means in the sending out of Christ's gospel was wrong or unnecessary. He regarded such instrumentality as a solemn duty, and was unwilling to be found a loiterer in his Master's vineyard. He suffered much opposition and reproach from the anti-mission party on this account."
It was doubtless due to "opposition and reproach from the anti-mission party" that churches split off in 1848 and formed the Eastern District Association of Primitive Baptists. Would to God that all Hardshells today would "conclude" as did Gilbert "that the use of appropriate means in the sending out of Christ's gospel" was right and necessary! Thank God the Eastern District brethren feel this way!
Jeter continued:
"As a speaker," says one who knew something of his influence, "he was ardent and earnest, yet meek and calm. His speech, though plain, was always with grace, seasoned with salt. There was fire, holy fire in his eye and in his head, and much unction in his matter and manner. He was a true, God-made man. As a theologian he was neither a hard-shell nor a soft-shell, iron-jacket nor blue-jacket, high nor low-not lop-sided in any way, but a true gospel spiritualist." (see here)
The thing here said of Gilbert may well be said now of the Eastern District Association of Primitive Baptists - that they are neither Arminian nor Calvinist, neither Hardshell or Softshell!
Sunday, August 6, 2017
Hardshell Anti Faith Preaching
When I was a young Hardshell pastor, I had a Missionary Baptist laymen say to me while we were all gathered together in a home - "you (PBs) emphasize grace and we emphasize faith." My answer then was - "without grace there would be no faith. As the Scriptures say in Acts 'helped them much which had believed through grace." At this answer I recall the brother simply nodding in agreement, but with his judgment seemingly still intact about the PBs and their attitude and belief regarding "faith." Had I known then what I do now, however, I would have simply agreed with him. In fact, I would have even been more radical in my observation about the Hardshells and what they teach and say about faith, at least in this day and time.
I have read a great deal about what Hardshells of bygone years, as well as of present day, have said about faith. Oftentimes the tenor of their remarks on the subject is to decry it, to speak of what it cannot do, of what it is not a means, condition, or end unto. Many of them say that faith is a work! And, having come to believe such about "faith," they say "the bible says we are not saved by works and faith is a work." Their constant message is "we are not saved by faith." How ironic! The scriptures conversely repeat the message "by faith you are saved and not by works." So Paul wrote - "Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace." (Rom. 4: 16)
It seems clear that the writers of scripture, when talking about "faith," cannot exalt it enough. Simply read Hebrews chapter eleven as an example! And yet, ironically, the Hardshells cannot seem to stop belittling faith! They even back themselves into a corner in such denunciations regarding evangelical faith. They have so often insisted that faith plays no part in the eternal salvation of sinners that they find themselves unable to explain numerous scriptures that clearly show otherwise. So, what do they do? Do they not reinvent the definition of "faith"? When they are faced with a text that clearly links faith to eternal salvation, they then give to faith a weird and strange definition. Zach Guess, present day Hardshell apologist, for instance, affirmed that "faith" in these texts simply means "ability to have faith." Others do the same. But, this is all simply stupid, to be blunt. By this reasoning we may say that "repentance" also simply means, not actual repentance, but the "ability to repent." And, again, with other such words denoting things necessary for salvation.
Why should "faith" be decried when it is realized that God is the author of it? That those who believe do so by the "working of his mighty power"? (Eph. 1: 19)
"For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith." (I John 5:4)
"That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises." (Heb. 6: 12)
These verses, and others like them, certainly say things about faith that the Hardshells do not say.
Wrote Hardshell leader Elder Charles Waters
"I do believe that all who are regenerated will and do have faith, but deny that the "faith" -- that is, the believing response to God -- is in all cases "cognitive" or "informed" faith -- for cognitive faith necessarily depends on hearing the rational proclamation of the gospel..." (See my posting here)
He also in Zion's Advocate (June 1890) wrote:
"Every regenerate child of Adam is saved eternally, faith or no faith. Infants and idiots must be so saved; for they cannot believe, though they must be regenerated. Faith, therefore, is not necessary to eternal salvation."
Then he wrote later in the same periodical (June 1891):
"Spiritual and eternal life may exist, then, apart from a belief in Jesus, repentance toward God, or knowledge of spiritual things, all of which are consequent upon and follow after regeneration; and it may please the Lord to remove the subject of His grace from this time state ere he has developed this spiritual growth, and rear him up beyond the river." (See my posting here for more on this)
Why do the Hardshells not see the harm they are doing in telling sinners that they can be saved "faith or no faith"? Why do they not rather tell sinners "except you believe" that Christ is the Lord and Savior, the Messiah, "you shall die in your sins"? (John 8: 24) Why do they not warn them of the eternal consequences for disbelieving Christ?
Just as Hardshell errors led them to drastically alter their ideas as to the change that takes place in regeneration and the new birth, making it into a "hollow log" experience, a minor, as opposed to a radical change, so their errors in soteriology have led them into a "hollow" and meaningless idea about what constitutes true "faith." In Hardshellism both regeneration and faith lose all their biblical definitions and sense.
I have read a great deal about what Hardshells of bygone years, as well as of present day, have said about faith. Oftentimes the tenor of their remarks on the subject is to decry it, to speak of what it cannot do, of what it is not a means, condition, or end unto. Many of them say that faith is a work! And, having come to believe such about "faith," they say "the bible says we are not saved by works and faith is a work." Their constant message is "we are not saved by faith." How ironic! The scriptures conversely repeat the message "by faith you are saved and not by works." So Paul wrote - "Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace." (Rom. 4: 16)
It seems clear that the writers of scripture, when talking about "faith," cannot exalt it enough. Simply read Hebrews chapter eleven as an example! And yet, ironically, the Hardshells cannot seem to stop belittling faith! They even back themselves into a corner in such denunciations regarding evangelical faith. They have so often insisted that faith plays no part in the eternal salvation of sinners that they find themselves unable to explain numerous scriptures that clearly show otherwise. So, what do they do? Do they not reinvent the definition of "faith"? When they are faced with a text that clearly links faith to eternal salvation, they then give to faith a weird and strange definition. Zach Guess, present day Hardshell apologist, for instance, affirmed that "faith" in these texts simply means "ability to have faith." Others do the same. But, this is all simply stupid, to be blunt. By this reasoning we may say that "repentance" also simply means, not actual repentance, but the "ability to repent." And, again, with other such words denoting things necessary for salvation.
Why should "faith" be decried when it is realized that God is the author of it? That those who believe do so by the "working of his mighty power"? (Eph. 1: 19)
"For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith." (I John 5:4)
"That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises." (Heb. 6: 12)
These verses, and others like them, certainly say things about faith that the Hardshells do not say.
Wrote Hardshell leader Elder Charles Waters
"I do believe that all who are regenerated will and do have faith, but deny that the "faith" -- that is, the believing response to God -- is in all cases "cognitive" or "informed" faith -- for cognitive faith necessarily depends on hearing the rational proclamation of the gospel..." (See my posting here)
He also in Zion's Advocate (June 1890) wrote:
"Every regenerate child of Adam is saved eternally, faith or no faith. Infants and idiots must be so saved; for they cannot believe, though they must be regenerated. Faith, therefore, is not necessary to eternal salvation."
Then he wrote later in the same periodical (June 1891):
"Spiritual and eternal life may exist, then, apart from a belief in Jesus, repentance toward God, or knowledge of spiritual things, all of which are consequent upon and follow after regeneration; and it may please the Lord to remove the subject of His grace from this time state ere he has developed this spiritual growth, and rear him up beyond the river." (See my posting here for more on this)
Why do the Hardshells not see the harm they are doing in telling sinners that they can be saved "faith or no faith"? Why do they not rather tell sinners "except you believe" that Christ is the Lord and Savior, the Messiah, "you shall die in your sins"? (John 8: 24) Why do they not warn them of the eternal consequences for disbelieving Christ?
Just as Hardshell errors led them to drastically alter their ideas as to the change that takes place in regeneration and the new birth, making it into a "hollow log" experience, a minor, as opposed to a radical change, so their errors in soteriology have led them into a "hollow" and meaningless idea about what constitutes true "faith." In Hardshellism both regeneration and faith lose all their biblical definitions and sense.
Friday, August 4, 2017
Romans 16:7 & Hyper Calvinism
"Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me." (Romans 16: 7 kjv)
This verse is a death blow to several opinions of the Hyper Calvinists.
First, it is against the notion that all the elect were "in Christ" before the world began, or from eternity. If all were in Christ from eternity, then no one would be in Christ before another. All would be in Christ from the same point of time.
Second, it is against those, like the Hardshells, who suppose that regeneration, which places one in Christ, in vital union with Christ, is something done long before there is any evidence of it, on the subconscious level. In this scheme it is practically unknowable when a person came to be "in Christ." Most Hardshells claim that they, and nearly all who are regenerated, do not know exactly when they were "regenerated" and put "in Christ."
Paul, in order to say of Andronicus and Junia, that they "were in Christ before me" would have to know two things: 1) when he himself came to be "in Christ," and 2) when Andronicus and Junia came to be "in Christ." And, the only way he could know this is to see that "regeneration" occurred when conversion occurred, and that they are the same. Paul certainly knew when he first believed and was converted. And, he also knew when Andronicus and Junia first believed and were converted. Ergo, Paul is saying that Andronicus and Junia believed and were converted before I was. Ergo, conversion is the time when one is regenerated and placed "in Christ."
Now, how is my reasoning wrong? How will the Hyper Calvinist respond? He might add to the words of the apostle and say that it really means "whose being in Christ was revealed before my being in Christ was revealed." But, this is to pervert what the apostle says. And, once one starts changing the words of a text of scripture in this manner, he will do it again, and again, and again, and it will become habit. It is a grave sin to twist the words of scripture. I could give other examples where such people will add a word to a text, saying that the word being added is implied. But, I will forego such examples.
When was I "in Christ"? It was when I first believed and received Christ as my Lord and Savior. That was now over forty five years ago!
This verse is a death blow to several opinions of the Hyper Calvinists.
First, it is against the notion that all the elect were "in Christ" before the world began, or from eternity. If all were in Christ from eternity, then no one would be in Christ before another. All would be in Christ from the same point of time.
Second, it is against those, like the Hardshells, who suppose that regeneration, which places one in Christ, in vital union with Christ, is something done long before there is any evidence of it, on the subconscious level. In this scheme it is practically unknowable when a person came to be "in Christ." Most Hardshells claim that they, and nearly all who are regenerated, do not know exactly when they were "regenerated" and put "in Christ."
Paul, in order to say of Andronicus and Junia, that they "were in Christ before me" would have to know two things: 1) when he himself came to be "in Christ," and 2) when Andronicus and Junia came to be "in Christ." And, the only way he could know this is to see that "regeneration" occurred when conversion occurred, and that they are the same. Paul certainly knew when he first believed and was converted. And, he also knew when Andronicus and Junia first believed and were converted. Ergo, Paul is saying that Andronicus and Junia believed and were converted before I was. Ergo, conversion is the time when one is regenerated and placed "in Christ."
Now, how is my reasoning wrong? How will the Hyper Calvinist respond? He might add to the words of the apostle and say that it really means "whose being in Christ was revealed before my being in Christ was revealed." But, this is to pervert what the apostle says. And, once one starts changing the words of a text of scripture in this manner, he will do it again, and again, and again, and it will become habit. It is a grave sin to twist the words of scripture. I could give other examples where such people will add a word to a text, saying that the word being added is implied. But, I will forego such examples.
When was I "in Christ"? It was when I first believed and received Christ as my Lord and Savior. That was now over forty five years ago!
Saturday, July 29, 2017
More On The Eastern District
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.
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.
Friday, July 28, 2017
My Advice To My Nephew
Elder John Davenport is my nephew. He took over the pastorship of the church my father started and pastored for about fifty years, the church in Franklin, Ohio called "The Thompson Memorial Primitive Baptist Church." John preached father's funeral. During the time I was in Ohio, staying with my sister, mother to John, and also a attendant of that church, I was able to talk to John a good bit. I had hoped that he and I would come to be close friends. Since then, we have had times where we spoke often, and times where we did not. During the time I was at my sister's house, I would talk to my sister and John about what the church needed in order to grow. I also witnessed to them about some of the errors that father taught them and which they would have to study and hopefully see that fact for themselves.
Since then I have been happy to learn that John, and the church I hope, has come to see that father was wrong on his not allowing women to vote. I also think they see that he was wrong on the adultery issue. One of the reasons I have written on these topics of late is in order to help them.
I have also thought that John was at times close to seeing that the Hardshell anti means doctrine was also an error. Whether that is true or not, and whether he eventually sees it, only time will tell. But, I told him before I left Ohio after father's funeral - "John, you need to imitate Spurgeon if you want the church to grow." I still believe that and hope he will listen. I also encouraged him, if he was intent on remaining with the "Primitive Baptists," to at least align himself with the "Progressives" or with those styled "Liberals." I recently encouraged him to seek out a friendship with Cincinnati Primitive Baptist Church and Elder Bradley. The church in Franklin is less than an hour drive away from the Cincinnati church. Further, it was Cincinnati church that originally baptized the first members of the Thompson Memorial church and re-constituted them. I don't know whether Elder Bradley and the Cincinnati church has come all the way back to the faith of their forefathers and embraced a belief in gospel means, but they are, it seems, going in that direction, in the right direction.
Let us keep such churches and elders in our prayers as they study and pray over the state of their churches and as they seek to learn the truth about their history and the teachings of the bible on these issues.
Since then I have been happy to learn that John, and the church I hope, has come to see that father was wrong on his not allowing women to vote. I also think they see that he was wrong on the adultery issue. One of the reasons I have written on these topics of late is in order to help them.
I have also thought that John was at times close to seeing that the Hardshell anti means doctrine was also an error. Whether that is true or not, and whether he eventually sees it, only time will tell. But, I told him before I left Ohio after father's funeral - "John, you need to imitate Spurgeon if you want the church to grow." I still believe that and hope he will listen. I also encouraged him, if he was intent on remaining with the "Primitive Baptists," to at least align himself with the "Progressives" or with those styled "Liberals." I recently encouraged him to seek out a friendship with Cincinnati Primitive Baptist Church and Elder Bradley. The church in Franklin is less than an hour drive away from the Cincinnati church. Further, it was Cincinnati church that originally baptized the first members of the Thompson Memorial church and re-constituted them. I don't know whether Elder Bradley and the Cincinnati church has come all the way back to the faith of their forefathers and embraced a belief in gospel means, but they are, it seems, going in that direction, in the right direction.
Let us keep such churches and elders in our prayers as they study and pray over the state of their churches and as they seek to learn the truth about their history and the teachings of the bible on these issues.
What About Those Eastern Association PBs?
This posting is a follow up to the excellent research that Kenny Mann has done on the Eastern District Association of Primitive Baptists. The above pictures are taken from the Eastern District's web page.
There is not a lot of information available on the Internet about this group of Primitive Baptists. However, I do want to cite from a couple books that do give information that is helpful to understanding the origins of this "unusual" group of PBs. First, let me cite from "Old Time" Baptists By Howard Dorgan of Appalachian State University (see here). He writes (emphasis mine):
"By the middle of the eighteenth century, Baptists had begun to settle the mountain valleys of what is now East Tennessee, and by 1786 their small churches were numerous enough to establish what became the second Baptist association west of the Alleghenies, the Holston Valley Association. However, these early Tennessee Baptists brought with them a doctrinal division that had flourished before and after the Great Awakening. "Regular Baptists" held an allegiance to the Philadelphia Association (established in 1707) and to that organization's creed, the Philadelphia Confession (adopted in 1742 as a heavily Calvinistic, limited atonement document). "Separate Baptists" had become non-credal, Arminian, general atonement Baptists. Although most of the larger Baptist churches of Tennessee now are affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention, there still are Regular and Separate congregations within the state, preserving many of their eighteenth- and nineteenth-century traditions."
First, let me say that it is not true that the Separate Baptists were uniformly in favor of the general atonement. Some of them did. Also, in the coming together of the Regulars and the Separates, the Separates agreed to accept the Philadelphia Confession as a basis of fellowship, with the stipulation that it was not to be made an ironclad rule nor put on a par with the scriptures. Second, from what I see in the Eastern District PBs they seem to show more signs of their Separate Baptist ancestry than of the Regular Baptists.
Dorgan continued:
""Old Time Baptists" or "Old Baptists" are informal titles employed by some in the Central Appalachians to indicate not only the Regulars and the Separates, but also a host of equally small denominations with titles such as Old Missionary Baptists, Old Regular Baptists, Regular Old School Baptists, Regular Primitive Baptists, and United Baptists. All are derivatives from either the Regulars, the Separates, or both, and share many of the same tenets such as the observance of such traditional practices as lined a cappella singing, rhythmically chanted impromptu preaching, congregational shouting, and warmly tactile worship behavior; strict adherence to "natural water" (also called "living water") baptisms and communion services that are followed by footwashings; the practice of such governance rules as Paulinian gender mandates, Paulinian directives for elders and deacons, and articles of decorum that date from the earliest history of colonial Baptists; and restrictions on divorce and "double marriage" (remarriage after divorce, while the original spouse still lives). A common liturgical format that, for example, makes the typical Regular Primitive service appear remarkably similar to those of Regular, Old Regular, and United Baptists includes--among other common liturgical elements--at least three sermons, and as many as seven or eight, depending on the nature of the service."
There are various practices and beliefs of the Eastern brethren that shows that they have come from the same source as other PB groups. Though there is a lot that is remarkably different about them, there is nevertheless much that they have in common.
Dorgan continued:
"In terms of doctrine, these "Old Baptists" are a mixed lot. With the exception of the Separates, each of these subdenominations believe in some version of "election." However, Primitives usually interpret election as meaning that before the beginning of time God chose who would become the beneficiaries of Christ's atonement, while Regular, Old Regulars, and Uniteds generally see election as a process by which God individually "calls" the sinner to regeneration and redemption. Separates have adopted a general atonement doctrine that grants to the individual the "free will" to choose or reject redemption. One unique Regular Primitive group found in Appalachia, the Primitive Baptist Universalists, believes Christ's atonement is for all, with the result that at the "Resurrection" all of humankind will be reunited with God and Christ in heaven."
Again, this all helps to explain the "unusual" nature of the Eastern branch of "Primitive Baptists."
Next, I want to cite from the "PRIMITIVE BAPTISTS IN TENNESSEE" by Albert W. Wardin Jr. (see here). Wardin wrote (emphasis mine) the following under the sub heading "Other Groups":
"In their shifts from their Primitive Baptist roots, three other bodies in Tennessee carry many of the features of the National Primitive Baptist Convention. They include the Progressive Primitive Baptists, the Eastern District Association of Primitive Baptists, and the Central Baptist Association, which may properly be labeled as progressive or transitional bodies. Although they began as traditional Primitive Baptists and still, by and large, practice foot washing, these bodies accept Sunday Schools and permit musical instruments in worship. In addition, the first and third bodies have dropped their opposition to institutions— whether educational, benevolent, or missionary. The second and third groups have also modified their strict predestinarianism." (pg. 44-45)
I think this is true. Although the elders from the Eastern Association that brother Kenny interviewed asserted that today's PBs departed from them, I don't think that is totally true. The fact is, there are some things about the mainline PBs of today that is more like the first PBs of the late 1820s and 1830s, while there are some things about the Eastern group that are more like the first Hardshells than the main-liners. For instance, the first Hardshells were believers in means and in perseverance. In this respect, the Eastern District is more like their forefathers. But, in respect to their views on election, predestination, and on the atonement, they are less like their forefathers and the main-liners are more like them.
Wardin continued:
"On an average, the churches of the transitional bodies are larger than the traditional ones. The Progressive Primitive Baptist body, primarily in Georgia, has seven churches and 371 members in East and Middle Tennessee. The Eastern District Association, primarily in Central Appalachia where Kentucky, Virginia, and Tennessee converge, has thirty churches with 3,648 members in East Tennessee. The Central Association, a division in 1956 from the Eastern District Association and located in the same territory as its parent body, numbers nine churches with 1,845 members in the state."
The thing not mentioned by Wardin is how the groups he mentions compares with the main-liners. The groups mentioned by Wardin are all doing far better in growth than are the main-liners, who have continued to dwindle and die. This information backs up my recent article on Garrett's Prescription for the survival of the main-liners.
Brother Kenny mentioned how the Eastern Association was begun in 1848 but that the Association did not have minutes or records from the period of 1848 through 1878. That is sad because I am sure that those records would reveal a lot about how the Eastern Association was being formed and shaped into what it is today. Further, in that period of time, there was beginning to be a battle among the Hardshells over the means question. It began with a few Hardshells and kept growing until the 1880s when a split finally began to occur. The means side was finally declared against by the anti means side. I suspect that the Eastern District was further shaped by this division. But, more on that shortly. Let me first cite from the book "The Roots of Appalachian Christianity: The Life and Legacy of Elder Shubal Stearns" by Elder John Sparks (emphasis mine).
"In the northeastern corner of Tennessee, though, one break-off group from the old Holston confederacy, first known as the Mulberry Gap Association of United Baptists, made no hard-line statements about predestination and was and is as evangelistic as its Separate Baptist ancestors. Having expanded northward to southwestern Virginia, eastern Kentucky, and, like all Applalachian Baptist subgroups, transplanted Appalachian communities in the industrial cities of the north, the Eastern District is possibly the largest Appalachian Primitive Baptist association extant." (pg. 246)
From what I have been able to ascertain, the Eastern District group was a branch off of the old Mulberry Gap Association. Keep in mind that the title "United Baptists" was the name given to the Baptists that were formed as a result of a uniting of the Separate and Regular Baptists. In many ways the Eastern Association reflects not only the Separate Baptist tradition, but also that of the United Baptists. As an aside, the great Hardshell leader, Elder Grigg Thompson, always considered himself more a "United Baptist" than a "Primitive Baptist," and before he died in the late 1800s actually left the Hardshells and joined himself with the United Baptists of Kentucky.
Sparks wrote:
"...and the Progressives, such as the Eastern District who are evangelical Separate-style mild Calvinists." (pg. 249)
Yes, the Eastern District churches may be in some sense classified as "Progressives," but not as fully as those who are actually part of the sub denomination. There are some differences between the Eastern brethren and the Progressives. For instance, the Progressives stress ministerial education while the Eastern brethren do not. They also stress supporting their pastors financially, promoting having full time pastors, while the Eastern brethren do not. For more information of the "Progressive Primitive Baptist Church" see here. Further, to my knowledge, the organized Progressive PB church retains a strong belief in the five points of Calvinism, unlike the Eastern District. Also, some of the formal Progressives still have elders and churches who reject the idea of means in the new birth. So, yes, the Eastern District is "progressive" in some respects, but not so in others.
Sparks continued:
"...the Primitives of all factions have received a deep bite from the Landmark bug, and of course the twist that native central Appalachian Baptist groups have always given to Landmarkism was undoubtedly the reference point by which they came to define themselves in the years of their development. Regular, Absolutes, Universalists, and to some extent eve the Progressives all claim that their doctrine and their ancestry is purely apostolic, calling each other and indeed all other denominations renegades who broke off from them and their pure belief at some point in time." (pg. 250-51)
"...the Primitives of all factions have received a deep bite from the Landmark bug." Boy, is that ever true! It seems however that perhaps the Eastern District has become less infected by the bite of that bug! That is good.
According to a leading main-line PB historian and web page, there was a division among the "Primitive Baptists" in the late 1800s. On that web page there is a list of the major divisions that have occurred in the history of the "Primitive Baptists." The division over the "means doctrine" is called "The Division Over the Gospel as Means of Regeneration, Caused by Burnam, Pence, Bradley, Lee, and others, 1882-1892" (referred to here). Under this heading we have these links (which seem to be broken at this time)
Divisions in Churches and Associations over the Means Doctrine
Trial and Decision of Mt. Carmel Church, Luray, Virginia
Resolution of Mt. Carmel Church, Luray, Virginia
Resolution of Chappawamsic Church, Chappawamsic, Virginia
Resolution of Bethel Church, Vienna, Fairfax County, Virginia
Resolution of Thumb Run Church, Marshall, Fauquier County, Virginia
Resolution of Greenwood Church, Minnieville, Prince William County, Virginia
One of the important moments in this division was "The Debate Between Elder Lemuel Potter and Elder W. T. Pence, over the Gospel As a Means of Regeneration, at Luray, Virginia," in 1890. Elder Pence, along with Elder E.H. Burnam, were leaders of the PBs who retained the original PB belief in means and Potter represented the growing faction of PBs who denied the use of means, and of evangelical faith and repentance, in being born again. Another event was the division in the Mt. Carmel Primitive or Regular Baptist church in Luray, Virginia in the late 1800s over the means doctrine, Sunday Schools, missions, etc. There was eventually a famous trial over the church property by both sides, in 1909. A book was published by the anti means faction titled "The Trial and Decision of Mount Carmel Church, Luray Virginia." I have cited from this book frequently in my writings on the history of the Primitive Baptists. In "A Loving Appeal to the Primitive Baptists," by Elder John R. Daily (1906) of the anti means faction, wrote this about the division:
"The effort made by Pence, Burnam and others to "lift the Old Baptists out of the old ruts," and place them on a higher plain of popularity, resulted in a separation from us of a faction..."
For several articles of mine on this division, occurring in the late 1800s, and continuing into the early 1900s, see here. In one of those articles I cite the words of Elder E.H. Burnam, a Primitive or Regular Baptist of the "means faction," who said:
"It was left to the last quarter of the 19th century to give birth among the Old Order of Baptists to the notion of regeneration without faith, or that it is not necessary that one should exercise repentance, faith, or any spiritual gift, in order to be saved, a heresy than which none more pernicious was ever put forth by any professing to be followers of Christ."
I have no doubt, from my research, that Burnam was correct. The original position of the first Primitive Baptists taught that evangelical faith was essential for being born again for being eternally saved. And, of course, "evangelical faith" requires that the gospel be preached for its production as Paul taught in Romans 10. It was also shown that the anti means faction, in denying the necessity of faith for salvation, also began denying the teaching of their forefathers on the subject of perseverance.
Now, keep in mind that the changes in doctrine and practice among the PBs was always in a state of flux, but that the period referred to by Burnam, the late 1800s, was a period that further splintered the PBs. I have no doubt that the Eastern District brotherhood is a resulting faction from that tumultuous period.
In our next posting we will look at the articles of faith of the Eastern District group and discuss them along with some of their other beliefs and practices.
Thursday, July 27, 2017
A Research into a Less Calvinistic PB Group
Brother Kenny Mann recently informed me that he had found, via Internet search, a group of "Primitive Baptists" who seem to be more like Southern Baptists, being less Calvinistic, known as the Eastern District Association Of Primitive Baptists. He immediately informed me about them and we both began to research them. We decided that one of us needed to make contact with them and find out more about them. Brother Kenny did this, having had two or three conversations with some of their leaders on the question of their beliefs and their history. Kenny and I have had several phone conversations about them as well as e-mails and the following write up by him gives us the substance of his research. I will be making a follow up posting to Kenny's posting as it relates to this group of "Primitive Baptists." You can check out the web page for the Eastern Association HERE. You can also find a lot of videos on Youtube that make a lot of their church services, associational meetings, and sermons available. Just type in "eastern association of primitive Baptists" in the Youtube search box to find them.
I appreciate brother Kenny sending this information to me as I am always interested in learning more about the history of those who call themselves "Primitive Baptists." In my years of study into this denomination, I have focused on the main group, those with the most adherents, which would be those who would be styled as the "Conditionalist" faction. I have not done much historical research into certain other factions, such as the "Primitive Baptist Universalist," or the black PB churches, nor have I written much against groups such as the "Progressives." I did know that there were some "Arminian leaning" groups that called themselves "Primitive Baptists," but did not research them.
The Eastern Association of Primitive Baptists
By Kenny Mann of Conyers, Ga.
I've discovered an "unusual" group of Primitive Baptists concentrated in the area where Tennessee, Virginia and Kentucky come together. They are known as the Eastern Association of Primitive Baptists. Their association started in 1848. Unfortunately, the minutes from the years 1848 to 1878 have been lost, but from 1878 til now, they can still be found.
The most unusual thing about them, is that they are the only group of PB's that I know of, that deny predestination when it comes to salvation. They strongly believe that ANYONE can be saved. One aspect of their worship includes an invitation for anyone who is lost, to know Jesus. They exhort sinners to call upon Christ and be saved. This is not the belief of most PB's that I've had contact with. In my talks with Elder Scott Tipton, the pastor of Willow Chapel Primitive Baptist Church and Elder Burnice Sieber of West View Primitive Baptist Church, I've discovered that I have much in common with them. They are very open to talking about their doctrine and history, and they strive to be Jesus followers. Although there are some differences between us, I consider them brothers and sisters in Christ, and would gladly labor with them them for the Gospel.
Here is a concise version of their history.
They were founded in 1848. According to these 2 elders, they still follow the original doctrines of their association. They have not "gone off course" like other PB's may accuse them of going. In fact, they believe that the OTHER PB's are the ones who left their original doctrines. They readily admit that many other PB's may have believed in predestination of the soul as part of their particular association's doctrines, but believe they "went off course" when they began to change their doctrines in the late 1800's to early 1900's. Some of these errors include "time salvation", not giving invitations to the lost, adoption of non-instrumentalism as a doctrine, and a hybrid form of hyper calvinism. The Eastern Association can prove that the doctrines they teach go back to at least 1878, the oldest record of minutes that they have.
Until around 1994 they had over 90 churches with over 10,000 members. Around that year there was a split among them, mainly over the issue of open and closed communion. About 30 churches left, believing communion should be open to anyone that wanted to participate, while those that remained believed it should be restricted to believers who were baptized by immersion, and who were known among the congregation to be walking in the truth. The group that left formed a new association called the Central Baptist Association. As you can see, they dropped the word "primitive" from their name. Some of these churches no longer exist, and some have joined the "missionary" associations around them.
Another split occurred around 2006 over the issue of ministers being divorced and remarried. A group of churches left the association when the vote to allow divorced elders was taken, the majority being in favor of allowing such ministers to be ordained. The group that split became known as the Southern District Association of Primitive Baptists. Doctrinally the Eastern and Southern association are identical except for the divorce issue.
Here are the issues that I have some disagreement with, but I do understand Eastern Association's view.
1) They reject missions. They do believe it is the responsibility of every believer to tell others about Christ, but they reject the use of mission boards and societies. I believe much of their objection comes from the fact that they believe it is difficult to oversee the doctrines that far away missionaries may teach, and the fact that much of the money is used to pay salaries, especially the salaries of people who only do "paperwork" or other non gospel functions.
2) They do not believe in a "rapture." They believe the second coming will occur at the end of the tribulation, and that the tribulation has no set number of years. They are Amillennial (while I differ from them on this, it isn't important as a test of fellowship for me).
3) They don't believe a minister "must" have a salary, or expect such, although they do support and give to their minsters in many ways. This has not been at the forefront of their thought, as their churches are small enough, that it isn't an issue, but I wonder if it would become an issue if some of their churches grew to the point of requiring a full time pastor. Only time will tell.
Here are some things I am in total agreement with them.
1) They believe the Gospel is for EVERYONE and ANYONE can be saved without exception. This is VERY rare among PB's. They don't really define themselves as believing in either a "general" or "limited" atonement. They are happy to simply say the Christ died for all who will come to Him. They would say that, because of God's foreknowledge, a certain number of people will be saved, and when the final one comes to Christ, then He will appear in His second coming. They reject the notion that God chooses some to salvation and other to be left in a lost state with no hope.
2) They believe in inviting sinners to be saved and to make sure of their calling and election.
3) They believe in Sunday schools, which most other Pb's reject.
4) They believe the use of instruments in worship is a matter of preference. Some churches have it and some don't. This is fine by me. It's not a matter of doctrine, and no church is frowned upon based on their preference.
5) While they are not "ecumenical" they are glad to call other Christian friends and brother in Christ, and most of their churches would welcome you to communion IF they knew who you were and knew of your testimony, and that you had been immersed in baptism. Most other PB's would have an issue with someone taking communion who was not exactly in line with their particular beliefs. All in all, I find them to be completely orthodox in their doctrine, and that they have a burden for lost souls, and that they are evangelistic in outreach. You would be welcomed in their churches. They have a Christ like spirit, they are loving and accepting, and desire to be Jesus followers.
Research and phone interviews by Kenny Mann and info shared with Brother Stephen Garrett, July 2017.
I appreciate brother Kenny sending this information to me as I am always interested in learning more about the history of those who call themselves "Primitive Baptists." In my years of study into this denomination, I have focused on the main group, those with the most adherents, which would be those who would be styled as the "Conditionalist" faction. I have not done much historical research into certain other factions, such as the "Primitive Baptist Universalist," or the black PB churches, nor have I written much against groups such as the "Progressives." I did know that there were some "Arminian leaning" groups that called themselves "Primitive Baptists," but did not research them.
The Eastern Association of Primitive Baptists
By Kenny Mann of Conyers, Ga.
I've discovered an "unusual" group of Primitive Baptists concentrated in the area where Tennessee, Virginia and Kentucky come together. They are known as the Eastern Association of Primitive Baptists. Their association started in 1848. Unfortunately, the minutes from the years 1848 to 1878 have been lost, but from 1878 til now, they can still be found.
The most unusual thing about them, is that they are the only group of PB's that I know of, that deny predestination when it comes to salvation. They strongly believe that ANYONE can be saved. One aspect of their worship includes an invitation for anyone who is lost, to know Jesus. They exhort sinners to call upon Christ and be saved. This is not the belief of most PB's that I've had contact with. In my talks with Elder Scott Tipton, the pastor of Willow Chapel Primitive Baptist Church and Elder Burnice Sieber of West View Primitive Baptist Church, I've discovered that I have much in common with them. They are very open to talking about their doctrine and history, and they strive to be Jesus followers. Although there are some differences between us, I consider them brothers and sisters in Christ, and would gladly labor with them them for the Gospel.
Here is a concise version of their history.
They were founded in 1848. According to these 2 elders, they still follow the original doctrines of their association. They have not "gone off course" like other PB's may accuse them of going. In fact, they believe that the OTHER PB's are the ones who left their original doctrines. They readily admit that many other PB's may have believed in predestination of the soul as part of their particular association's doctrines, but believe they "went off course" when they began to change their doctrines in the late 1800's to early 1900's. Some of these errors include "time salvation", not giving invitations to the lost, adoption of non-instrumentalism as a doctrine, and a hybrid form of hyper calvinism. The Eastern Association can prove that the doctrines they teach go back to at least 1878, the oldest record of minutes that they have.
Until around 1994 they had over 90 churches with over 10,000 members. Around that year there was a split among them, mainly over the issue of open and closed communion. About 30 churches left, believing communion should be open to anyone that wanted to participate, while those that remained believed it should be restricted to believers who were baptized by immersion, and who were known among the congregation to be walking in the truth. The group that left formed a new association called the Central Baptist Association. As you can see, they dropped the word "primitive" from their name. Some of these churches no longer exist, and some have joined the "missionary" associations around them.
Another split occurred around 2006 over the issue of ministers being divorced and remarried. A group of churches left the association when the vote to allow divorced elders was taken, the majority being in favor of allowing such ministers to be ordained. The group that split became known as the Southern District Association of Primitive Baptists. Doctrinally the Eastern and Southern association are identical except for the divorce issue.
Here are the issues that I have some disagreement with, but I do understand Eastern Association's view.
1) They reject missions. They do believe it is the responsibility of every believer to tell others about Christ, but they reject the use of mission boards and societies. I believe much of their objection comes from the fact that they believe it is difficult to oversee the doctrines that far away missionaries may teach, and the fact that much of the money is used to pay salaries, especially the salaries of people who only do "paperwork" or other non gospel functions.
2) They do not believe in a "rapture." They believe the second coming will occur at the end of the tribulation, and that the tribulation has no set number of years. They are Amillennial (while I differ from them on this, it isn't important as a test of fellowship for me).
3) They don't believe a minister "must" have a salary, or expect such, although they do support and give to their minsters in many ways. This has not been at the forefront of their thought, as their churches are small enough, that it isn't an issue, but I wonder if it would become an issue if some of their churches grew to the point of requiring a full time pastor. Only time will tell.
Here are some things I am in total agreement with them.
1) They believe the Gospel is for EVERYONE and ANYONE can be saved without exception. This is VERY rare among PB's. They don't really define themselves as believing in either a "general" or "limited" atonement. They are happy to simply say the Christ died for all who will come to Him. They would say that, because of God's foreknowledge, a certain number of people will be saved, and when the final one comes to Christ, then He will appear in His second coming. They reject the notion that God chooses some to salvation and other to be left in a lost state with no hope.
2) They believe in inviting sinners to be saved and to make sure of their calling and election.
3) They believe in Sunday schools, which most other Pb's reject.
4) They believe the use of instruments in worship is a matter of preference. Some churches have it and some don't. This is fine by me. It's not a matter of doctrine, and no church is frowned upon based on their preference.
5) While they are not "ecumenical" they are glad to call other Christian friends and brother in Christ, and most of their churches would welcome you to communion IF they knew who you were and knew of your testimony, and that you had been immersed in baptism. Most other PB's would have an issue with someone taking communion who was not exactly in line with their particular beliefs. All in all, I find them to be completely orthodox in their doctrine, and that they have a burden for lost souls, and that they are evangelistic in outreach. You would be welcomed in their churches. They have a Christ like spirit, they are loving and accepting, and desire to be Jesus followers.
Research and phone interviews by Kenny Mann and info shared with Brother Stephen Garrett, July 2017.
Sunday, July 23, 2017
Extempore & Sing Song Preaching
Many old timer groups of Baptists, including old Regular Baptists, Hardshell or "Primitive" Baptists, etc., especially in rural Appalachia, believe it is "taboo" to preach with notes, or from a pre-planned outline. These believe in complete extempore preaching. There is a philosophy of preaching behind this. It is the belief that a message that is God given will be impressed upon the preacher, or put into his mind somehow, once he begins reading a text or portion of scripture. Further, the evidence that a preacher is "blessed" to preach, given "liberty" to preach, will be judged to a large degree on how excited he becomes, or how fast he will preach, and whether he can get into that "sing song" mode of speaking, where there is some rhythm or cadence to the words spoken. Invariably, in this style of preaching, there is generally the rhythmic sucking of air and the "uhs" and "ahs" between breaths. Forgive me, but I just don't understand this thinking.
I understand that this idea goes way back. Daniel Parker, the notorious founder of several sects of Baptists, including the Hardshells, was known for believing that he was often "inspired" by God with his messages, and that God was the one who gave him his unction to speak to the uplifting of the emotions of the people.
Now, I am certainly not opposed to emotional preaching. Nor am I against speaking extemporaneously at times. But, I do not think preaching with notes must hinder that. Further, I don't think that all the responsibility for good preaching is on the Lord's shoulders. If it were, we could blame him if preaching was not edifying. A failed sermon could be because God didn't bless. That is the normal thinking that people have who have accepted this ideology about preaching. It seems to me that the success of preaching is to a large degree the responsibility of the preacher, and he is the one to be blamed when he fails to edify.
Further, I just don't see how people can be taught well in sing song type preaching. Oftentimes, among groups where such preaching is popular, the preacher reads the text, and then completely leaves it and begins to spew out from his mouth whatever thoughts he has about spiritual things.
Don't get me wrong. I enjoy lively singing. I enjoy seeing raised hands and hearing shouts of praise. I enjoy hearing the "amens" and "hallelujahs." I enjoy seeing the saints of God getting happy. But, I also like hearing good teachers give solid expositions of the word. I think there are ways to preach where we teach, given sound expositions, and lift the emotions. I don't think one has to exclude the other. But, to be too emotional is not good. Likewise, to be too stoic in giving expositions and teaching doctrine is also not good. Balance between these two needs is an art and a science. God give us preachers who are skilled to be balanced in this regard.
Hardshells need to quit thinking that a preacher preaching with outlines or notes is a bugaboo and a hindrance to teaching and preaching.
I understand that this idea goes way back. Daniel Parker, the notorious founder of several sects of Baptists, including the Hardshells, was known for believing that he was often "inspired" by God with his messages, and that God was the one who gave him his unction to speak to the uplifting of the emotions of the people.
Now, I am certainly not opposed to emotional preaching. Nor am I against speaking extemporaneously at times. But, I do not think preaching with notes must hinder that. Further, I don't think that all the responsibility for good preaching is on the Lord's shoulders. If it were, we could blame him if preaching was not edifying. A failed sermon could be because God didn't bless. That is the normal thinking that people have who have accepted this ideology about preaching. It seems to me that the success of preaching is to a large degree the responsibility of the preacher, and he is the one to be blamed when he fails to edify.
Further, I just don't see how people can be taught well in sing song type preaching. Oftentimes, among groups where such preaching is popular, the preacher reads the text, and then completely leaves it and begins to spew out from his mouth whatever thoughts he has about spiritual things.
Don't get me wrong. I enjoy lively singing. I enjoy seeing raised hands and hearing shouts of praise. I enjoy hearing the "amens" and "hallelujahs." I enjoy seeing the saints of God getting happy. But, I also like hearing good teachers give solid expositions of the word. I think there are ways to preach where we teach, given sound expositions, and lift the emotions. I don't think one has to exclude the other. But, to be too emotional is not good. Likewise, to be too stoic in giving expositions and teaching doctrine is also not good. Balance between these two needs is an art and a science. God give us preachers who are skilled to be balanced in this regard.
Hardshells need to quit thinking that a preacher preaching with outlines or notes is a bugaboo and a hindrance to teaching and preaching.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)