Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Chapter 1 - The Primitive Baptist Church

The Hardshell Cult - By Stephen M. Garrett

This is the general name of a denomination or sect of Baptists that owes its origin to the anti missionary spirit among Baptists in the early 1800's in America. They are also known by other names, such as Old School Baptists, or as Hardshells. They are primarily based in the South, both presently and historically.

"Primitive Baptists" are a group of Baptists that sprang out of the missionary controversy that split American Baptists in the first part of the 19th century.

Those today who call themselves "Primitive Baptists" are descendants of churches and ministers that opposed the Baptist Board of Foreign Missions (organized in 1814), and who also opposed other "innovations" such as seminaries, tract societies, missions, temperance societies, and a host of other things.

Early leaders and founding fathers include Joshua Lawrence, John Leland, Daniel Parker, Samuel Trott, John Taylor, Thomas P. Dudley, Wilson Thompson, James Osbourn, Dr. John Watson, Gilbert Beebe, John Clark, Stephen Gard, C. B. Hassell, Richard Newport, Joel Hume, and several others of lessor import.

Other names by which "Primitive Baptists" are generally known are Predestinarian Baptists, Old School Baptists, Regular Baptists, Particular Baptists and Hardshells, besides other names, as "Old Ironsides," and "Do-Nothings," and "Ignoramuses," and "Anti Effort Baptists," and "feet washing Baptists," etc.

The word “Primitive” does not mean “backward,” but “original,” for it was the claim of the first Hardshells that they, and they alone, were holding to the original and historic Baptist teaching by their opposing the things enumerated above, and that the other churches, adopting them, were apostates from the bible and historic Baptist teaching.

The first Hardshells saw themselves as both "restorers" and "preservers" of the "true faith." They were dedicated Landmarkers, and they believed that they alone had proper right to the title of "church of Christ."

They attempted to retain and/or restore "primitive" (or original) "patterns" of the church, such as unsalaried ministers, a capella singing, and feet washing.

Their history cannot be fully understood without also understanding the history of Alexander Campbell and of his movement, called the "Restoration Movement," and which culminated in his leaving the Baptists and founding a new denomination, with the help of others.

Campell has rightly been noted as one of the leading opponents, with the Hardshells, of missions, salaried ministry, seminaries, and such like, although he was opposed to the Calvinism, yea, the Hyper Calvinism, of the Harshell segment of the "Anti Mission Movement." In fact, as we shall see in future chapters, Campbellism and Hardshellism are "twin brothers."

The Primitive Baptists can be sub-divided into four main groups:

1)Absolute Predestinarians (known as "Absoluters")

2) Limited Predestinarians (known as "Conditionalists")

3) Progressive (known as "Progressives")

(4) Universalists. This last group is the smallest and consists of 5 or 6 small associations in Appalachia that adapted the theory of universal atonement to the doctrines of Primitive Baptists.

The Progressive Primitive Baptists separated from the main body around the turn of the 20th century, adopting such practices as Sunday School, instrumental music, seminaries, missions, etc.

The division of “Primitive Baptists” and “Missionary Baptists” cannot be recognized as occurring at any one particular time. The Baptists of the early 19th century were separated by distance and lack of communication, and each congregation was independent and autonomous.

The declaration now known as the "Black Rock Address" (1832) delineated the issues and marked the time of official separation of the two different factions.

The Primitive Baptist Church has had an interesting history. I am familiar with it, having been an ordained minister and pastor in that denomination from 1974-1982. My father is still a leading elder in that denomination. I have read most of their literature, know most of their leading ministers, both present and past, and am familiar with their theology and peculiarities.

The PB Church is a cult, a Baptist cult, a rare thing. What it is that constitutes them a cult will be the substance of this book. There are several key essential elements necessary to constitute one a cult and thus a serious danger to religious souls. One of those elements is what the Bible calls heresy.

All error in Bible doctrine and interpretation is not heresy and worthy of anathemas. It has been said – “In Essentials, Unity; in Non-essentials, Liberty; in All Things, Charity.” Heresy concerns essential teachings of the Bible, the very bedrock of fundamental truth. To be a heretic is to be guilty of believing and teaching contrary to the essentials of the faith.

The PB Church, or “Hardshells,” are heretics on several matters relative to essential articles of faith of the Bible and of the real Old Baptists. This will become clear from the evidence presented in this volume.

Not only will I show evidence from the Scriptures that the Hardshells are heretics on essential Bible teaching, answering all their arguments in support of their heresies, and also correcting all their false statements regarding their own and Baptist history, but will also show that the Hardshells are infamous for their distortions, both of the sacred record of Scripture and of the records of Baptist history.

I will also record my personal experiences among them, noting their peculiarities, sociologically and psychologically, and of their other characteristics as a cult and heresy.

The Hardshells are indeed an odd sort, having their own peculiar social mentality, as a group; for instance, they view themselves as peculiarly favored above all other Christians, being a veritable “elect within the elect,” or super elect. This too is characteristic of a cult; cult followers view themselves as the elite of the elite, the “we be Abraham’s seed” or “we be the only ones” self view (or self portrait).

The Hardshells, as a cult group, are egocentric and a certain fleshly pride is often pervasive in cults and heresies. Some cult groups will seek to identify the exclusivity of the cult by labeling them or otherwise identifying the group with a special group in the Bible, like the “144,000" of the Book of Revelation.

The Hardshells are Calvinists of a sort, or believers in the Doctrines of Grace. Some are High Calvinists (“Absoluters”), others Low Calvinists (“Conditionalists” or believers in “time salvation”), but all factions are Hyper (or Hybrid) Calvinists. What is a Hyper Calvinist?

In my studies in theology and its history, including systems commonly and traditionally known as Calvinism and Arminianism, I accept these definitions regarding variants of Calvinism.

High Calvinism - the belief in absolute predestination of all things, the belief that everything that exists or comes to pass does so due to the will and decree of God. High Calvinists are often known as supralapsarians, and some supralapsarians are Hyper Calvinists, but not all. I am a supralapsarian Calvinist, like other great Baptists theologians, as John Gill and A.W. Pink, and I believe in the proclamation of the gospel to all men and that Christ invites, yea, commands all men to receive him and to acknowledge him and his salvation.

Low Calvinism - the belief in either conditional or limited predestination or the absolute predestination of some things only, certainly not of all things. Low Calvinists are always infralapsarians.

Hyper (or Hybrid) Calvinism - The belief that God works independently of human means in the saving of sinners, the belief that regeneration precedes faith in Christ, that faith in Christ or conversion to the Christian religion are not necessary for regeneration.

Hardshells have a sect that are High Calvinists (Absoluters) and a sect that are Low Calvinists. But, they all are Hyper Calvinists.

PB’s or Hardshell Baptists believe that the gospel is not a means used by God to regenerate, birth or save his elect. They believe that regeneration is something that happens to men on the “sub-conscious level.” Men are regenerated, born again, according to Hardshellism, who are heathen and pagan worshipers and who have no knowledge of, or allegiance to, the God of Abraham or to the Lord Jesus Christ.

It is a fantastic idea, and one that has no foundation is holy scripture, nor in true primitive Baptist history. They are, therefore, appropriately known as Anti-Mission and Anti-Means Baptists.

I will deal with these things in greater detail in later chapters, going into a deeper discussion of their peculiar beliefs and practices, the things that are distinctive about them and which constitutes them as an heretical cult.

I will take notice of their leading figures, their founding fathers and leading apologists, as well as their outlandish claims and unfounded assertions relative to their heresies and their history. In doing so I will be judging their claim to being the truly Primitive or Original Baptists, and whether they are in line with the Old Baptist Confessions of Faith.

In other words, Who are the REAL Primitive Baptists? Also, how did the “primitives” get the nickname of “Hardshells”? And, what is meant by the terms “Old School” or “New School” in relation to Baptist history and theology?

I too will show, thanks to B.H. Carroll, and Brother Bob Ross, that Hardshellism is but the “Twin Brother” of Campbellism and that their descendants, religiously speaking, are of the same mold as their theological parents, namely, Daniel Parker and Alexander Campbell.

Brother Bob Ross and I have issued challenges to the PB’s to come forth and debate these issues. Some of their forefathers did it (far more with the Campbellites than with those Baptists who remain believers in the Old Confessions, which is an interesting fact in itself, very revealing). Will any of them stand up today and defend their positions on their novel, heretical views?

Will any of them come forth and debate the question, “Who are the real Primitive Baptists?” As Hardshell forefathers John Daily and Lemuel Potter were willing to do? It is hoped and believed, nevertheless, that many of the Hardshells will read what Brother Ross and I have written and make an attempt to “face the music.”

Definition of the word “cult.”

“In Religion and Sociology a cult is a cohesive group of people (often a relatively small and recently founded religious movement) devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture or society considers to be far outside the mainstream. Its separate status may come about either due to its novel belief system, because of its idiosyncratic practices or because it opposes the interests of the mainstream culture. Other non-religious groups may also display cult-like characteristics. In common usage, "cult" has a negative connotation, and is generally applied to a group by its opponents, for a variety of reasons.” (Ibid)

An internet web site by a Hardshell seeks to answer the question, “WHAT IS MEANT BY "OLD SCHOOL BAPTISTS" OR "HARDSHELLS"?” The Elder Writes:

“These terms were given to Primitive Baptists after the division among Baptists in 1832. The term Old School does not refer to a college or university, but to a school of thought or belief. The missionary Baptists were referred to as New School because of their new beliefs. The term Hardshell is a colloquial expression given to Primitive Baptists in certain sections. Ideas about the origin of this term vary. Some believe it is derived from the emphasis that Primitive Baptist preachers placed on the "shalls" of the Bible. They emphasized greatly the word shall as in "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me" (John 6:37). Eventually the expression hard shall changed to the term Hardshells.”

And again:

“At one time only one group of Baptists was in existence, with all Baptists holding similar beliefs concerning the basic doctrine of the Bible, especially those Bible teachings relating to the salvation of sinners. About 1832 the first division of Baptists occurred with one group becoming known as "Primitive Baptists" and the other as "Missionary Baptists." Since that time the Primitive Baptists have held to the original beliefs of Baptists while other Baptist groups have divided many times until a great many different Baptist factions are now in existence.”

(www.grace-through-faith.com)

Of course this Elder makes numerous false assertions, parroting what he has been told by his Hardshell forefathers and Hardshell “historians”. I will deal with these falsities and the “revisionist histories” put forth by the Hardshells in detail in the appropriate sections of this book. But, now I want to call attention to how many Hardshells view their nickname of “HARDSHELL.”

Is it true, regarding this nickname, that “ideas about the origin of this term vary,” as the Elder says? He offers one explanation that I have heard some Hardshells spout. It is a cute twist.

Hardshells are such because they emphasize, in their preaching, the “shalls” of the Bible?! I can, of course, think about several “shalls” in the New Testament dealing with preaching the gospel to all men, but these “shalls” the Hardshells emphasize not at all!

Where did this Elder get any proof at all for his vain assertion that “eventually the expression hard shall changed to the term Hardshells”? Did he cite any works on word etymology? Actually, as will become more evident, this is the same type of bold unfounded assertions that Hardshells make about many things relative to history.

I have heard other Hardshells argue that the term denotes someone who is “stedfast, unmoveable, and unwavering” in his views on Bible doctrine. I even remember reading a defense of the term (a virtual proud acceptance of the nickname) by Elder S. T. Tolley (to be referred to again in this book and also referred to by Brother Ross in his book on the “History and Heresies of Hardshellism”) where he equated the term “Hardshell” with stedfastness in the faith. He cited Paul’s command, “be you stedfast, unmoveable,” as being all the same as saying, Be you Hardshell.”

My dad even published a periodical for years called “The Hardshell Baptist.” Not all PB’s are so fond of the nickname and therefore do not like to be called Hardshells. These few view the use of the term in the same way the followers of Alexander Campbell don’t like the term Campbellites.

I rather think that the term was given to the anti mission Baptists to signify their stubbornness and hardheadedness, their unwillingness to listen to reason.

I think it is also connected with a kind of ignorance and false humility, willing or not, and a cantankerousness that is often seen in those who, though having little real knowledge of truth and things, nevertheless boast great things. Truly, with the Hardshells, as a cult, “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.”

On the term “Hard-shell” (hyphenated) Webster says:

Adjective

“Unyielding; insensible to argument; uncompromising; strict.” Some of the Synonyms given for the adjective are:

“severe, strict, hard, harsh, dour, rigid, stiff, stern, rigorous, uncompromising, exacting, exigent, inexorable, inflexible, obdurate, austere, hard-headed, hard-nosed, hard-shell, relentless, Spartan, Draconian, stringent, strait-laced, searching, unsparing, iron-handed, peremptory, absolute, positive, arbitrary, imperative; coercive; tyrannical, extortionate, grinding, withering, oppressive, inquisitorial; inclement; (ruthless) a; cruel; (malevolent); haughty, arrogant...”


I affirm, by both personal experience within the cult, and by a thorough examination of the beliefs and practices of this sect, that they fit these words.

Such a people will naturally draw a circle around themselves and have inflated views of themselves. With such it will always be a question of us versus them. Cults practice exclusivity to a very high degree and this is true of the Hardshells. They also use methods of intimidation and mind control over each other to keep the group cohesive and secretive.

One of the famous mottos of the Hardshells has been – “Give us our Bible and leave us alone.” They practice it too, putting their churches as far away from communities as possible, often locating in some backwoods hollow.

Rather than following the example of the truly Old Sovereign Grace Missionary Baptists, of the pre-Hardshell period, who took the Bible to heathen peoples who did not have it, the Hardshells want to keep it to themselves!

Not all of the original Hardshell forefathers, in the late 1700's and early 1800's, objected to the mission movement, then sweeping the Baptists with great fervor, for doctrinal reasons, or because they believed in “Spirit Alone Regeneration,” or “Pre-Faith Regeneration,” (that would become a later novel idea, intended to justify the movement, by mostly second generation Hardshells), but rather, as Brother Bob Ross has pointed out, was mainly due to “mission methodology”.

Brother Ross stated it very clearly when he said,

“The ORIGINAL issue in the Anti-Missionism Movement was METHODOLOGY, NOT THEOLOGY”.

He also was correct in saying that the “Hardshell "Spirit Alone" Regeneration Theory Was of Later Development”.


As I will show also, this novel idea, with others to follow, were reactionary views created to justify opposition to some of the methods being practiced by some Baptists in the area of missions.

Brother Ross states further:

“The very heart of the PRIMITIVE BAPTIST religious denomination is its opposition to the Gospel's being preached to the unregenerate as a means providentially and sovereignly used by the Holy Spirit in bringing lost souls to Christ for salvation. The Hardshells contend that regeneration, or the New Birth, is a work performed by the Holy Spirit apart from and without the necessary use of any means whatsoever.”

And further:

“Originally, at the rise of "anti-missionism" in the early 1800's, this does not appear to have been the case. If the Baptist histories can be relied upon, the original issues in the anti-missionism schism focused upon MISSION METHODOLOGY. The Kehukee Declaration, set forth by the Kehukee Association (North Carolina) in October 1827, objected to "the modern missionary movement and other institutions of men," and it specified "Missionary Societies, Bible Societies, Tract Societies, Sunday Schools, Dorcas Societies, Mite Societies, Religious Fairs and Festivals, Temperance Societies, Sectarian Schools and Theological Seminaries" as the objects of their repudiation.”

“Likewise, the Black Rock Address, put together by GILBERT BEEBE (1800-1881), and set forth at Black Rock meeting-house, Baltimore, Maryland, September 1832, focused on similar mission methods, and not the particular theory of regeneration which later became the central issue with Hardshellism. All references to regeneration, or the new birth, in both the Kehukee Declaration and the Black Rock Address, appear perfectly consistent with the Baptist position set forth on Effectual Calling "by His Word and Spirit" in the London Confession of Faith. For example, note this statement:

"The plans of these [protracted or 'revival'] meetings are equally as objectionable; for, in the first place, all doctrinal preaching, or in other words, all illustrations of God's plan of salvation, are excluded from these meetings. Hence they would make believers of their converts without presenting any fixed TRUTHS to their minds to believe. Whereas God has chosen his people to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the TRUTH.--2 Thess. 2:13." (Black Rock Address, pp. 35, 36, Primitive Publications' reprint).

This objection sounds more like a Calvinist objection to Hardshellism than vice versa. It emphasizes the importance of "truth" in God's saving of His people.

The "means" to which the original anti-mission Baptists objected was not the Gospel as such, but to the METHODS which were being devised and used in various mission efforts. The objectors do not focus their opposition upon the Gospel as a "means" as presented in the London Confession which affirms that the elect are effectually called out of their state of sin and death "by His Word and Spirit" (London Confession, chapter 10, para. 1).”


(Chapter 3 in “History and Heresies of Hardshellism” - emphasis mine)

Brother Ross makes some very important points here; points, I might add, that no Hardshell has come forward to dispute. Why did the first anti mission Baptists, or Hardshells, not oppose the mission enterprises based upon a doctrinal departure on the subject of regeneration? Because it was not a departure at all but was rather the faith of the Baptists generally, except for some few closet Hyper Calvinists, prior to what B.H. Carroll, Jr. called the “rise of the Hardshells.”

Further, it was the stated belief of all the Old Baptist confessions. I have asked my dad to produce one Hardshell article of faith, from one leading Baptist preacher or church, prior to the 1800's, who espoused Hardshell views on regeneration. Not one document or historical record has been produced to show that any preacher, prior to Gilbert Beebe, taught “Pre-Faith Regeneration” or “Spirit Alone Regeneration.”

This book, along with Brother Ross’s book, will go forth and hopefully many Hardshells will read it. Will one of them produce the evidence that all Baptists prior to the 1800's believed that regeneration occurred without the gospel as a means, without a person being converted and coming to faith in Christ Jesus? They can no more do it than can the Campbellites find a “Church of Christ” prior to the rise of Alexander Campbell.

Brother Ross writes further:

“In the Potter-Throgmorton Debate, held at Fulton, Kentucky in 1887, Elder Lemuel Potter of the Primitive Baptists insisted upon the fact it was over the missionary methods, such as boards, and such things as Sunday Schools, that the "split" occurred in the year 1832 between the anti-missionaries and the missionaries. He says:

"I wish to notice some things in the speech we have just listened to. The first thing Mr. Throgmorton does is to say that he is not bound to show that the Baptists had Sunday Schools, missionary boards, etc., during all the ages. He is under no obligation to show that they always had them. He admits that. He is begging the question. I challenge him to tell what divided us except these very things. It was after the introduction of these things among us that we divided. If we never had them we would not have been divided yet." (Potter-Throgmorton Debate, page 86; published in 1888 in St. Louis by J. N. Hall and J. H. Milburn, representing Missionary Baptists, and by H. C. Roberts and S. F. Cayce, representing the Primitive Baptists).”

In addition to objecting to "mission methods," the anti-mission people focused their attacks upon the MOTIVES of those who favored missions. Greed, avarice, and other such carnal, worldly, and money-centered motives were the motivation of the "means Baptists," according to the anti-mission leaders and magazines.

However, this ad hominem charge evidently began to "wear thin;" in time, the common Baptist membership did not generally respond to character assassination and unsubstantiated broadside incriminations of Baptists who promoted missions. The Hardshells wanted people to believe the worst about the missionary leaders, even applying prophetic Scriptures on the "apostasy" and the "Man of Sin." There just were not enough gullible people among the Baptists for such extremism to continuously find much acceptance.

As time passed, and the Hardshells found it more difficult to defend anti missionism by harping against methodology and motives, they eventually developed their "Spirit alone" regeneration theory, a more doctrinal approach than the original pure negativism. This, too, was very similar to the type of evolutionary development of theology in their anti-missions "brother," the Campbellite movement.

Campbellism, at the first, ridiculed the "hireling clergy," "aspiring priesthood," "missionary schemes," and other victims of Alexander Campbell's choosing, which were featured in his magazines [The Christian Baptist in the 1820's and The Millennial Harbinger from 1830]. But Campbellism, also, had to have something other than pure negativism with which to beguile the naive and gullible, and they developed the baptismal remission of sins hobby-horse. Around this "Kaaba" they have marched ever since.”


(From HISTORY AND HERESIES OF HARDSHELLISM, #3 [04/27--2006])

Brother Ross certainly gave a truthful and well written analysis concerning the birth of the Hardshells, or Primitive Baptist Denomination. I consider Brother Ross’s remarks to be in the tradition of the remarks made by the late B.H. Carroll, Jr. who wrote about anti missionism among the Baptists and even had a chapter on “The Rise of the Hardshells.”

19 comments:

Joe said...

Your writings prove what you know about Primitive Baptist.Only God can show a person the truth. Reading the Bible alone has seldom changed a man's belief. It usually proves whatever he already believes. We do not usually read to prove ourselves wrong and when we do, we prove ourselves right.

Joe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
circus 24/7 said...

I was raised in the hardshell churches in East Texas, and was just looking around to see what was on the internet. Interesting, and I will probably stop by and read some more.

Stephen Garrett said...

Dear circus:

Thanks for visiting.

Please visit these other blogs of mine that deal with the Hardshells.

http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/

http://www.baptistgadfly.blogspot.com/

Blessings,

Stephen Garrett

RobertA said...

If you are going to use John Gill, you could at least label him correctly. In his body of divinity, Gill states that regeneration can take place independant of the preached word. That places him in the hyper-calvinist camp according to your definition and in the same category as Primitive Baptists. Many people erroneously believe that Gill believed and taught gospel regeneration. This is a common error, even amongst PBs. It results from a shallow reading of Gill. Most people read Gill shallowly, as they do various older Baptist authors, and mistakenly label them as believers in gospel regeneration. I'm kind of surprised you made this error, seeing as you talk about your vast familiarity of old baptist writings. Perhaps, before you try to persuade people that the Old Baptists are just a cult and don't properly represent ancient baptist beliefs, you should become more perfectly familiar with what they actually believed and taught.

Stephen Garrett said...

Dear Robert:

It is you who are wrong about Gill. You need to read the chapters on "Gill and the Hardshells" before you make such false statements.

Stephen

Anonymous said...

You rail against your dad, and justly so. And then you display your ignorance of the doctrine and practice of the Absoluters: among other things you are far from being correct in history and doctrine in general. Regeneration and the Spiritual birth are not the same. Regeneration, as it appears 2 times in the N.T. applies only to Christ; while the new birth applies to a child of GOD while they live upon this earth. Christ told Nicodemus, "Ye must be born again". How in the name of thunder can you and many others not see the significance of the process of birth. Certainly, the natural baby had nothing to do with its natural birth; and likewise the child of GOD has nothing to do with its Spiritual birth. There is no human means involved in the Spiritual birth of a child of GOD. In the natural birth we find 3 majors: conception, gestation and birth(or as the old docs said: a delivery). In parallel with the Spiritual, it is the Holy Spirit that implants the Spirit of Christ within a child of GOD without any "means" help. Then the individual wonders and wanders as to what has happened to them because they no longer desire to go to the sinful endeavours as they once did, and it is in this state of darkness that they thrash and kick about in puzzlement. Then at GOD's appointed time they are delivered from this darkness of not knowing: The Gospel brings life and immortality to light. This does not mean that the preaching of the Gospel is what borns one again; the Gospel, irrespective of how it reaches the individual, flows from breast to breast making known to the individual that it is Christ within, the hope of Glory. Also see Hosea 9:11 to confirm that Spiritually there is a conception, gestation and birth.
You also distort history by lumping PB in one grazing field. Take for instance concerning the 1832 Black Rock Address: You failed to know that there was not one missionary or conditionalist PB who signed (they were not there).
There plenty more that you miss by you prejudiced and preconceived human notions, but it would not change your mind if the truth was delivered to you on a silver platter.

You cant crack them Hardshells said...

He doesn't know Jack about primitive Baptist and in a debate with someone like elder Sonny Pyles would skin him alive in a debate or even his son David Pyles.I been a pb. Over 40 years he knows nothing about us.

Joe Taylor said...

The term cult is applied to a group slavishly devoted to some man. There is no such thing among Primitive Baptists. Joe Taylor, son of a Primitive Baptist minister,brother of a PB minister, and uncle to one.

Joe Taylor said...

The term "cult" should be applied to a group of people who slavishly follow a man. There is no such thing among Primitive Baptists. There are three PB ministers in my family. I am acquainted with PBs from coast to coast.

Anonymous said...

Brother Garrett, You are correct in your assertion that the Baptist division of the early 1800's centered around "methodology not theology". You are also correct with regard to the method of regeneration set forth in the London Confession of Faith. You then conclude that those who advocate a different method of regeneration have departed from original Baptist doctrine. If I have misrepresented your views please correct me.

For your consideration, I offer the following. The 1689 London Confession of Faith was copied almost verbatim from the 1648 Westminister Confession of Faith which was written by 121 clergymen that were selected for the Westminister Assembly to represent four separate groups: Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and Erastians. It was not originally a Baptist confession of faith. The 1655 Midland Confession of Faith was written by delegates from 7 baptist churches in England and the 8th article teaches the same doctrine concerning regeneration that Primitive Baptists believe today.

I'm sorry that you view the Primitive Baptist Church as a cult. I readily acknowledge that we have done much to harm ourselves in reaction to the 1832 Baptist division. However, there has been a lot of positive change with regard to the attitude we exhibit toward denominational churches. The churches in our area manifest charity not only among themselves but also toward those who are not Primitive Baptists. Consequently, the great majority of our members do not have Primitive Baptist backgrounds. To God be the glory! - Elder Buddy Abernathy


ezflex said...

Your article brought back a flood of memories from my childhood, some good, others bad. I was raised in the Primitive Baptist Church, Ramah, in Wilkinson County, Georgia. Women were to cook meals for our services and not to speak about anything to do with the church otherwise; only elders come speak about church matters. Children were to sit still during the entire service which included red faced preachers who would become so passionate that they would hit the pulpit with their fists during the delivery of their messages. Members of the congregation would partake in unleavened bread and drink a sip of wine once per year around Passover. There was no music allowed in the church and our male members washed each other's feet. A couple of the pastors placed their hands inappropriately on women's bodies over time and nobody dared to say a word about it. This experience put me off from worship of a deity, pushed me in a better direction I believe. I love animals and therefore don't eat them, respect the only home we have, Earth. I don't believe in harming other people and never invade their space by placing my hands where they aren't wanted. Children are to be cherished and will be respectful to others if taught so, not from having to sit still and quiet for hours at a church service. As a woman, I am just as important as any man. If we are to believe that we come from a creator, how can I be less than a man? Yes, the Primitive Baptist church of my youth taught me many things.

Unknown said...

Agree.He sounds like a very bitter old man who got his feelings hurt. Maybe he thought he should have been paid mire money for preaching

TxGomeric said...

I have read your article, and having been raised in the Blue Ridge Mountains of VA. and the Primitive Baptist Church my experiences are so different from what you have described. I first thought from your article was why are you spending so much time in trying to label and prove that PB's are a cult. All I experienced was a group of simple people, a lot of them my own kin, going to church to praise God and demonstrate their love for one another and Christ. I have memories of humble people. Of an Elder that drove an hour and half on our Sunday in our association since we didn't have one, for no money or pay only his love for our congregation. People that love God more than themselves and hope and pray their life away hoping to spend eternity in his presence, not for fear of burning in Hell but rather from being separated from him. I was never told or was ever even suggested that we were the only ones going to Heaven or that we were better than any other person. If we believe that we do not even know this ourselves, (not being able to view the lambs book of life) then how in the world can we judge someone else and say I don't know if I will be emitted, but I am sure everyone else but us are not going to be. That doesn't even make common sense. Maybe the very nature of PB's beliefs is why they do not debate you, seeing as you have already pointed out which is true that we do not missionary, because we believe man does not and can not bring anyone to God, he does that himself even though he may use a man to further his will, not the man himself. I have friends of every denomination, and my wife is even Catholic and I pray for them all and Love them equally. What would I say as a PB to everyone reading this. Read your bible, pray for understanding, pray to God as your creator, and Jesus as your savior, stop worrying about other denominations and live as Jesus taught, and it is my sincerest hope I see all of you in Heaven so we can kneel side by side and attempt to out shout the angels saying Glory to God, Glory to God, all Glory to God!...That will be a glorious, glorious day.
From a Cultist in Texas.

Henry Barrick said...

The eighth article of the Midland confession affirms that God quickens people so that they can believe for salvation. This is in total agreement with the 1689 and more importantly the bible. Do you believe this?

Stephen Garrett said...

Dear Henry:

The article reads:

"That all men until they be quickened by Christ are dead in trespasses—Ephesians ii.1; and therefore have no power of themselves to believe savingly—John xv.5. But faith is the free gift of God, and the mighty work of God in the soul, even like the rising of Christ from the dead—Ephesians 1.19. Therefore consent not with those who hold that God hath given power to all men to believe to salvation."

It seems clear to me that the article equates coming to life with coming to faith. Don't you see? Notice "believe savingly." Faith is the requirement for salvation. Where there is no life, there is no faith. Likewise, where there is no faith, there is no life. Life and faith go together. The article equates the work of God in producing faith (Eph. 1:9) with his work in producing life.

Thanks for your comment.

Blessings,

Stephen

Henry Barrick said...

Stephen:
I should have been more specific,especially with this topic. My original reply was Elder Buddy Abernathy's claim that "the 8th article teaches the same doctrine concerning regeneration that Primitive Baptists believe today." I was trying to convey the idea that the Midland confession sees faith in Christ as a means of aquiring eternal salvation. This I would highly doubt the elder would affirm.

My mistake in my original reply was that I failed to make a clear distinction between "the working of His mighty power" and actual regenerated life. There is an important difference as holding to a strict "regeneration before faith" concept will put one in contradiction with many scriptures and swing the door open for "regenerate yet unconverted elect" type distortions. Ive heard some that are more reasonable use this phrase..."regeneration logically precedes faith but regeneration happens actually at faith". This to me is closer to the truth but somewhat obscure. I think the Midland confession makes good use of words and scripture to narrow down God's method of salvation...(all capitals emphesise the sum of thier statement)..."Therefore consent not with those who hold that GOD HATH GIVEN POWER TO all MEN TO BELIEVE TO SALVATION."

So the difference I am stating would be between "regeneration" as opposed to "power given" to believe.

Stephen Garrett said...

Thanks for that clarification, brother Henry.

Blessings,

Stephen

Melody Mae Vardeman said...

I don't know if it is a cult r not but my grandparents were members here in Texas and as a kid I would go with them I loved my grandparents very much and I hope to see them heaven