Saturday, September 14, 2024
Beliefs about the Afterlife (LXXXIII)
Sunday, September 8, 2024
Marxist Sociological Theory Is Killing America
Saturday, September 7, 2024
Beliefs about the Afterlife (LXXXII)
Monday, September 2, 2024
UNITED BAPTISTS IN GEORGIA
Given my recent discovery and contact with United Baptists in northeast Alabama, it renewed my desire to see if could find any United Baptists in Georgia. The Towns Creek UB Association in Alabama had told me that they fellowshipped several churches in North Georgia that were similar in doctrine, that had descended from some United Baptists, but no longer used that name. As I was digging, I ran across the history of the Tugaloo Baptist Association in northeast Georgia. It is now part of the Georgia Baptist Convention and the SBC. However, it was founded as the Tugaloo Association of United Baptists. I have been searching for United Baptists (henceforth "UB's") for years, and wouldn't you know it, I found it right under my nose. The Tugaloo UB Association is the association that my grandmother's church is in, which is New Bethel, constituted in 1870 formed out of Nails Creek, constituted 1794.
This is also of great interest, because this association was definitely a Calvinist association, with some quirks. Let's looks at their original articles of faith that pertain to election and perseverance.
Article 3 states "We believe in the doctrine of eternal particular election." Article 7 states "We believe that God's elect shall be called, converted, regenerated and sanctified by the Holy Ghost." And article 8 "We believe the saints will persevere in grace and never fall finally away."
Here
we can see the litmus test I give to articles of faith to try and
discern how calvinistic a group may have been. Article 3 qualifies in my
book as the "certain number" clause, or limited atonement that I look
for in Calvinist articles because of the word particular, while article 7 is the calvinistic associations' equivalent to "through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth",
the article found in nearly all non Calvinist or Provisionist articles.
Article 7 would also rule out the regeneration before faith doctrine. In my opinion, this association was founded as a calvinistic one, and
lends further proof to my theory that United Baptist associations kept
their individual theologies in tact, and wasn't the "mixture" that many
historians say they were. Some associations however were a mixture of
both Calvinist and Non Calvinist ("Provisionists") and Arminians, as was
the Georgia Baptist Association, which was a Separate Baptist group and
never adopted the "United" name. However they were definitely United in
practice, so much so that they allowed all three types of Baptists into
the association. This has led me to wonder why there ever was a "United
Baptist" movement, as the Separate Baptists already tolerated a variety
of views.
So what about those quirks I mentioned in the Tugaloo Association? Here are some things recorded in their minutes, but not much explanation. In 1824, the Tugaloo Association received Jesse Mercer (Calvinist) and Adiel Sherwood (Provisionist) to seat, and both men took the "stand" and preached, along with a black elder, named Posey. Here we can see that they allowed Adiel, a non predestinarian elder to preach, from the Georgia Association. (See my article "A Short History of the Georgia Baptist Association."). It is strange though, that they allowed this, on several occasions, yet they declined to correspond with the Georgia Association year after year. Why?
The next "quirk" found among the queries to the Tugaloo UB Association, was also in 1824. The query asks "What is to be done with a preacher who declares himself to be Separate Baptist, and has no fellowship with those who hold the doctrine of election?" Answer "A minister making a public declaration of such principles should be dealt with according to the gospel, and should he not give satisfaction, excluded."
Why is there no explanation of how this came to be? The answer sounds more like a Regular Baptist response than a United one. Was said minister a Calvinist who turned non Calvinist? And why is the title "Separate" equated with general provisionist? Was he excluded for being a general provisionist, or because he refused to fellowship Calvinists? He obviously came from that very association. Did the Tugaloo fellowship non Calvinist associations yet strictly adhere to calvinist principles within the association itself? They obviously allowed non Calvinists to preach, as in Adiel Sherwood. Also why did they say the minister did not hold to the "doctrine of election" instead of saying "particular election" when every non Calvinist articles of faith clearly state they believe in election, yet interpret it differently?
Another
question that may be asked, is whether Parkerism or two seedism was
coming to light, since Daniel Parker was licensed to preach by a Tugaloo
association church, but not ordained. Parkers "Views on the Two Seeds"
was published just two years later in 1826. Was this a reason that
there began to be some defections from predestinarian distinctives? When
the mission controversy appeared, they lost very few churches. Also, it
can be proven that churches formed within the association after the
Civil War, were Provisionist or non Calvinist. Did the whole association
drift away from Calvinism, or did the SBC become the defacto union of
United Baptists, thus eliminating any need for individual articles of
faith by associations, with each church free to preach its own views?
About this time, many totally Arminian Baptists who had been Separates, formed their own United Baptist associations. In 1829 Elder Cyrus White published a pamphlet opposing unconditional election and limited atonement called "A Scriptural View of the Atonement", which also argued against unconditional election, and eternal security. Although he was never excluded from any association, as the Separates tolerated such views, many thought it best to organize the United Baptist Association and soon after in 1835 the Chattahoochee Association of United Baptists, which were free will or Arminian.. All these UB assocations were in the Georgia Baptist Convention. It wasn't until the Southern Baptist Convention was formed, that the Arminian, or Free Will Baptists declined to participate. It was then that they changed their name to "United Free Will Baptists", later forming their own state convention in 1890, called the Georgia State Convention of Liberal Baptists, and by 1900 had over ten associations. In the 1930's they joined the National Association of Free Will Baptists, their equivalent to the SBC.
All of this proves that there were many Arminan Baptists among both the Separates and Uniteds, that were not the result of the Free Will movement by either Benjamin Randall in New England or Paul Palmer in the South. The northern Randall line of Free Will Baptists merged with the Northern Baptist Convention in 1910 when they greatly softened the calvinistic doctrines they formerly held to in the Philadelphia Confession. The Palmer line remained its own entity and many Free Will churches from the north who refused to merge into the Northern Baptist Convention joined the southern line. As noted above, the Free Will United Baptists joined both those groups at the formation of the national Free Will Baptist Association.
The Tugaloo Association is the first UB association I have found that seems to have been completely Calvinist. Obviously there were more but what happened to them? Maybe a majority went with the Primitives. Maybe many who went into the SBC, dropped the exclusive articles of faith after joining, allowing each church to decide for itself what doctrine they believed. Maybe that is why the first SBC confession in 1925 was based on the New Hampshire Confession which was worded in such a way that many views could tolerate. However, the 1925 Baptist Faith and Message seems to have done away with unconditional election as it said salvation was "conditioned on faith." This may have been amenable to any Calvinist who believed faith precedes regeneration, but would have alienated those Calvinists that held to regeneration before faith. If any current United Baptists out there happen to read this article, please don't hesitate to contact me, I'd love to talk!Beliefs about the Afterlife (LXXXI)
Monday, August 26, 2024
THE OLDEST REGULAR BAPTIST CHURCH IN THE SOUTH
Recently I had the privilege of speaking with Marshall Blalock, pastor of the First Baptist Church in Charleston, SC. I had long been wanting to make contact with the church, both for it's history as a church, and because it was the founding member of the Charleston Baptist Association, which was the southern most association of the Regular Baptists. It was instrumental in the formation of the Southern Baptist Convention, along with the Sandy Creek Baptist Association, which was Separate Baptist.
We discussed the beginnings of the church, which was founded in September 1682 in Kittery Maine, under the sponsorship of First Baptist Church in Boston. In 1696, twenty eight members, along with the pastor, William Screven, left Maine for South Carolina. Why such a long move? During this time, Maine was part of Massachusetts, which was controlled by the Puritans. The Puritans were highly Reformed, and escorted Screven and some of his followers to the edge of town, and told to never return. The persecution of Baptists by the Reformed churches evidently did not stop when they left Europe.
Marshall and I discussed the differences between being "Reformed" and those who were Regular Baptists. Before I even asked his position, it was clear that he made a distinction between Baptists who were calvinistic and the Reformed Calvinism of the State Churches. He agreed with my assessment (without my even asking) that the notion of regeneration before faith, covenant theology and sacramentalism cannot in any meaningful sense, be hitched to the Baptists. Bro. Marshall is a Calvinist, yet it is not something he wears on his sleeves, and his church only requires adherence to the Baptist Faith and Message.
Marshall told me all about Oliver Hart, and how he went to preach at the Presbyterian Church. Hart preached against infant baptism and their mode of sprinkling. The Presbyterians evidently did not like it, and told him to never come back, and Marshall and I both laughed. I told him how I had helped a Methodist church pulling out of the United Methodists, and of baptizing them before I could celebrate the Lord's Supper with them, and he jokingly sent me the "Oliver Hart Achievement Award".
It is interesting to note that FBC Charleston was sending out
evangelists and missionaries long before the Anti Mission controversy of
the 1830's, as well as participating in the Triennial Convention of
1814 without so much as a peep from detractors. Why was there no
opposition and why the opposition years later?
What a refreshing time I had speaking with Marshall! He is a humble man, doing great things. The church recently bought 70 acres outside of town in order for their Christian school to grow, as First Baptist is landlocked in the Old Town of Charleston.
Though we disagreed on some things, it was definitely refreshing to have a conversation with a Baptist who was calvinistic, who understands the difference between being Reformed and Baptist. Marshall's story of Oliver Hart proves that calvinistic Baptists of the past had no qualms about challenging the "Reformed" churches, nor did they prefer an affinity to Presbyterians over other Baptists. We would do well, if such were the case today.

:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/conflict-theory-Final-66da57019fd84b9e906d0a6114cb79a8.png)


