It is my firm conviction that those groups of churches that call themselves Primitive Baptists, or Hardshells, are by definition a cult. They teach “heresy” and are an “apostate” group of “Baptists.” This does not mean, however, that I believe they never preach the gospel or that all Hardshells are unregenerate. I do not doubt that many of them are sadly deceived and that others genuinely love the Lord Jesus Christ.
Hardshells are Christians by profession. They believe most fundamentals of the faith, being trinitarian, Baptistic (generally), Calvinistic (generally), and conservative. They are not a cult if we define cult as a group of those who deny the Deity of Jesus. But, I think the word cult also can be applied to groups who have proper views on the doctrine of Christ’s person, but nevertheless have certain other beliefs and practices that are fundamentally “heretical.” This is the case with the Hardshells.
Brother Ross said:
“A group becomes such a cult when it becomes so distinct from other sects within the Christianity cult that it has reason to reject all of the other sects as not being basically Christian. In other words, the group declares "exclusivity" for itself, and theoretically and practically separates as "an island unto itself."
“In declaring its own uniqueness from all other Christian sects, and from all other religions as such, it has "culticized" itself.” When does this happen? It happens when (1) no other sect is regarded as having any "true Christians" in that sect, and (2) no other sect is regarded as preaching the true Gospel which is capable of producing a "true Christian."
Thus, as Baptists and other Christians of the same basic Gospel faith and brotherhood, we do not unilaterally declare "who" is a cult by our own determinations; rather, the cult creates and declares its very own "culticization." The cult REJECTS US. It declares itself to be exclusive from others, and considers itself to be a distinct and unique entity from all other sects, a group wherein, they say, alone, may the truth of God be found, along with the legitimate adherents of that truth."
(From his article entitled "Cult" - emphasis mine)
In further clarifying what it means to be a Christian cult, I cite these helpful remarks.
“The ambiguity of the term ‘cult’ makes it necessary to determine in what sense the word is used. For instance, a sociological definition will differ from a religious one, and a Christian definition will differ from, say, the Mormon or Islamic view. Therefore, if and when you use the word ‘cult,’ you should qualify it.
Given the fact that there’s currently no universal definition of a cult, it seems best to ask simple questions whenever someone talks about cults: “Just what do you mean by the term ‘cult’?” You may not agree with the way the person uses the term, but at least you’ll know where he or she is coming from.
You may also want to ask yourself the same question before referring to any group as a cult. It may not be such a bad idea to begin by explaining what you mean by the term “cult” in order to avoid any potential misunderstanding.”
(A Cult Recipe?, in “Prophets of the Apocalypse,” by Kenneth Samples, Erwin de Castro, Richard Abanes, and Robert Lyle)
Another source adds this information and criteria.
“As if defining the term ‘cult’ weren’t already difficult enough, there is another distinction to be aware of: the term can be defined either sociologically or theologically.”
“Sociological definitions of the term ‘cult’...include consideration of such factors as authoritarian leadership patterns, loyalty and commitment mechanisms, lifestyle characteristics, and conformity patterns (including the use of various sanctions in connection with those members who deviate).”
(Ronald Enroth, “What Is A Cult?” in A Guide to Cults and New Religions, e.d. Ronald Enroth (Downers Grove, Ill., Intervarsity 1983), p. 14)
“Theological definitions of the term ‘cult’ make note of the reasons why a particular group’s beliefs and/or practices are considered unorthodox – that is, in conflict with the body of essential teachings of the movement the group compares itself to.”
“A religious group originating as a heretical sect and maintaining fervent commitment to heresy. Adj.: “cultic” (may be used with reference to tendencies as well as full cult status).”
(Robert Bowman, A Biblical Guide To Orthodoxy And Heresy)
“A cult of Christianity is a group of people, which claiming to be Christian, embraces a particular doctrine system taught by an individual leader, group of leaders, or organization, which (system) denies (either explicitly or implicitly) one or more of the central doctrines of the Christian Faith as taught in the sixty-six books of the Bible.”
(Alan Gomes, Unmasking The Cults, Zondervan, 1995)
Let it be clearly understood then that the word cult is not entirely evil or negative, but that the word itself can be used to describe the true "body of Christ". All believers are a cult. But, as in most debates, one must be careful to define terms. This is what I will do in charging the Hardshells with being a cult, with being heretics and apostates from "the Faith."
There are certain words that are called by speech and communications experts “motive” or “emotive.” These are words that speakers know will evoke certain feelings, thoughts, and emotions from a particular audience. For instance, a grand dragon leader of the KKK can stand before his hooded knights and say “Jew” or “Nigger”, knowing that it will evoke ill and angry feelings. Needless to say, words stand for concepts. What thoughts and emotions certain words stir in a person will be based upon that person’s definition and understanding of the concept behind the word.
Cult is such a motive word. It evokes certain thoughts and emotions, though not always the same ones, in various people, phenomenologically speaking. So, let me further define the word as I have used it of the Hardshells.
I believe cult has come to be recognized by the following characteristics.
1) A denial of some fundamental teaching of the Bible. Such a denial being unique to that group (i.e. their “hobby horse” or “unifying principle”).
2) Exclusiveness – the belief that this group consists of the “one and only ones,” the purest religion and the only true representatives of “the faith.” Involved here are bigotry, pride, and egotism.
3) Psychological Entrapment – wherein the individual members are “brainwashed” and “mesmerized.” The leaders manipulate and control the minds of the members. Escape from the group becomes rare. These folks are ruled by intimidation and the fear of man.
4) False Claims – wherein the cult expresses its extravagant view of itself. Many cults believe that they are “special,” yea, in the highest and most restrictive sense, the “chosen” or “favorites” of the Lord. For instance, a cult might claim that their members are the 144,000 of the Apocalypse. They also may claim to have “special revelation” that other groups do not have.
In each of these areas, the Hardshells “fit the bill.” They are by scriptural definition a “heresy”; that is, they are a “schism,” “sect,” “faction,” “party,” “division,” “split,” etc. They are “apostate” because they have “removed,” “departed,” “left,” and “changed positions” from the faith of the apostles, early church, and of the historic Baptists. They are anything but “primitive,” “original,” or “Old” Baptists.
Like brother Ross has so clearly shown, this is a “farcical” and “spurious” claim, to say the least. They have “apostasized” from the faith of the “Old Baptists” (as expressed in the London and Philadelphia Confessions) and yet continue to boldly claim to be the “Old” or “Original” Baptists!
That is like the fellow who claimed to have his great grandfather’s “old” and “original” pocket knife EVEN THOUGH HE HAD REPLACED NEARLY EVERY PART OF IT WITH NEW PARTS! It is almost laughable.
The question, “Who are the Primitive Baptists?” has been debated a few times by the Hardshells. The ones I have read (Potter-Throgmorton and Daily-Throgmorton) had this as a major issue, the proposition debated. Though Throgmorton could have done a better job, nonetheless, he demonstrated how the Hardshell "claim was a gross falsehood.
Today no Hardshell “elder” will come forward to publicly defend their many "claims." This is often another characteristic of a cult. Some tend to “go underground” and become secluded, especially when their false claims are being exposed.
Hardshells preach many sermons in which they extol their own peculiar virtues and characteristics while condemning the supposed evils of other churches and denominations. They are often making erroneous charges against the “Arminians,” “New School Baptists,” “Missionary Baptists,” “Means Baptists,” etc.
When asked to defend those charges and claims in public debate with those prepared for a rebuttal of their claims, today’s Hardshells have “tucked in the tail and run.”
However, brother Ross documented the history of the movement, which is itself a part of the history of the Baptists in general. He certainly shows that “Old Baptists” are men like Gill, Spurgeon, Kiffin, Keach, and the brethren of the old confessions.
Bob Ross has also shown that the “chief error” of the Hardshell cult is “regeneration” by the “Spirit Alone” without the Gospel or word of God as a “means.” He shows this to be a novel idea and recent invention among Baptists. He has also demonstrated in many ways how their errors are against the scriptures and the gospel and the true facts of history. I hope I can enlarge upon that in this work.
To some, the question as to who are today the true “Primitive” or “Original” Baptists is an all important one. The question is most important to “Landmarkers,” those who believe that the Baptist Church is the church that Jesus established and promised “perpetuity” (Matt. 16:18) These define “church” as being any group that adopts and follows their “credo” or “articles of faith.” Any group not accepting those tenets are not "recognized" as a “true church.”
These Hardshell Landmarkers believe that the “authority” to baptize, evangelize, eat the Lord’s Supper, etc., resides strictly with the “church” so defined. Therefore, only the work done by the “true church” is "valid."
This belief necessitates that a group have a proper “genealogy.” A church is “authorized” by another church. This led the Landmarkers into controversy on criteria for deciding if a “church” is really a “church.” The relative nature of the question as to who are in fact the true “Old Baptists” should be apparent.
All Landmarkers agree that the “true” church that Jesus set up has existed in visible form since the apostles. Having agreed that the “Baptists” of the Reformation and Dark Ages were the rightful descendants of the apostles, the question then is, who today, among the Baptist sects, are the present rightful heirs and descendants of those “Old” Baptists?
Having said all this, Let me say that the Hardshells boldly and constantly affirm that they only are the “true,” “old,” or “primitive” Baptists and that all other Baptist groups are “heretics” and “apostates.”
The Hardshells, being a cult, do not have an environment that fosters free thinking and exchange of views. “Tradition” reigns almost supreme in the Hardshell churches. Whatever has been the historic Hardshell theory or practice (in a given area) becomes the “Old Baptist position.” A quote from a Hardshell forefather and patriarch, like Daily, Cayce, or Hassell, is oftentimes more authoritative than the scriptures themselves. The foremost reason for their nick-name, Hardshell, is due to their stubbornness in refusing to listen carefully to the arguments contrary to their traditions. They are truly “set in their ways.”
The cultic nature of the Hardshell denomination is further seen in the fact that they like to place their meeting houses way out “in the sticks” and away from populated areas. Elder Mills expressed the prevailing attitude of them when he said, “give us our Bible and leave us alone.” This too was expressed by Hardshell fathers, C.B. and his son Sylvester Hassell, Hardshell authorities on their “history,” to say:
“Genuine Baptist churches are seldom found in cities, and when found in such localities, are apt to be in a sickly condition.” (History of the Church of God, pg. 836)
Well, this certainly would cast suspicion of many modern day Primitive Baptist Churches! Certainly of one of their leading churches, the Cincinnati Primitive Baptist Church! If you are a Hardshell church with your meeting house in any place other than the “back-woods,” then you are probably of “inferior grade,” “sickly,” or to be “declared in disorder” by the country or frontier churches.
Hassell also, on the same page, says that such "city-churches" follow the lead of the Missionaries (and Arminians) and meet more than once per month or week! Laughable.
Probably the largest congregation and meeting house that the Hardshells have is the one in Nashville, Tennessee, called Bethel Primitive Baptist Church.” This church is envied by some Hardshells who wish they were as prosperous. Others think that the “grandeur” of the meeting house, with its “cathedral” style and “pastor’s study,” is too much like the “Missionaries,” “Arminians,” and/or “denominational churches.” This would be the view of Hassell and Mills and many others who think Nashville, being a city, would not likely have a sound church.
Most Hardshells pride themselves on being “quaint” and “simple,” “small” and “few,” and believe that the more Hardshell a church is the smaller it will be. The most “prosperous” churches are those belonging to that faction called “Progressives.” These are Hardshells who are viewed as “heretical” because they have “Bible classes,” “Sunday Schools,” “Missions,” “Musical Instruments” and “Choirs,” etc.
To many Hardshells, a large membership, over 150, is a sign that something is amiss and that there are too many Missionary or Arminian "tendencies" and characteristics present, and probably they are too “loose” in discipline, doctrine, and practice.
Actually, the Hardshells, do just about everything they can to be unlike the Missionary Baptists. They work hard to oppose whatever the Missionaries and Arminians believe and do. It has gotten to be absurd and the source of much difficulty.
14 comments:
Very helpful and informative blog. My personal experience in the matter is that my wife is a hard-shell baptist; raised in that "tradition" from birth. My issue in the matter is that I have been called to ministry in service to EL-ELYON and my wife and I have diametrically opposed views as to the veracity of Primitive Baptism. This in itself disallows disunity to that degree in the home. My email is bigtrk65@yahoo.com I would certainly be interested in correspondence toward a solution. Sincerely Your brother in Messiah BillC
What a very demeaning and false writing you have posed here. I, being a Primitive Baptist, take extreme case with your motives here. I have heard numerous elders preach over the years and never once have they ever condeemed another group of Christians as being unacceptable or wrong in their doctorine. We are actually very diverse in our thinking in that we believe there will an inumerable amount of people who receive salvation throughout all of humanity and not just Primitive Baptists. I guess you could say in a way we are more inclusive than most other religions in that sense.
Having been raised a Missionary Baptist I now know the false doctorine I was taught. It didn't take me long to catch on and see the light once I started really learning the Primitive Baptist way. I have never in my life met a more sincere, nicer, and bibically proficient group of elders and memebers who seem to understand the bible in it's true meaning. I can assure you that we would never run a website such as yours that degrades another Christian faith. Maybe your energy should be used in another, more productive manner in the future.
Take care.
Interesting writing here and your disagreement has been made clear. However, in searching for false teaching you have included false statements that are easy to see among Primitive Baptists. Why would such a group ever condemn the preaching of the gospel as means to bringing the lost to Christ? There are primitive baptist missionaries and growth within many of these churches that proves the falsehood of your writing. Clearly you have had some negative experiences with the old school of the old school as I like to call them. And there are plenty of those with a false understanding and very traditionalist. However, do all churches, regardless of denomination, not have members and even elders who do not capture the true belief of its members? Of course they do!
It is understandable to disagree on theology, but to label an entire denomination as you have in this piece is clearly false and too encompassing of all.
Dear SK:
You do not know what you are talking about! I was an elder with the PBs for many years. My father has been an elder with them for nearly 50 years. What I have documented in this ongoing book is factual.
About PBs having missionaries. That is a latter day phenomenum and is not characteristic of their history for the past 180 years. Plus, they can hardly be called missions to the lost but proselyting. They do not go to people who are not already Christians, but to churches already established in order that they might make them members of their cult.
When you say - "why would such a group ever condemn the preacing of the gospel as means to bringing the lost to Christ" - you show that you know nothing about the PB church. They do not believe that the Gospel is a means of bringing the lost to Christ! They believe that a man does not have to hear or believe the Gospel to be saved! So, you show that you are not knowledgeable of the Hardshells. Yet, why would you defend them when you know nothing about them? Let me tell you that 99.9% of PBs believe that one does not have to be a Christian to be saved. So, what I have written in this book is true of the whole denomination. You should not make such comments without knowing what you are talking about. Can you cite writers today among PBs who believe that sinners are born again by hearing the Gospel?
I will be looking forward to your proof that refutes what I have written.
Blessings,
Stephen
That should be phenomenon.
Stephen
That should be they "go to people who are already Christisn."
Stephen
My father-in-law is a Hard Shell Baptist. He does not live a christian life, and he says that God chooses who will be saved. It will be a remnant within a remnant. He claims that we will find out who is saved when we die. He also makes remarks like God needed dope heads so he made them. His religious philosophy is "whatever will be will be" He is confused about the bible and doesn't mind taking God's name in vane with every other breath. I find this sort of undermined Christianity to be twisted. He is not right and if he is representative of Primitive Baptist, then I myself view the religion as a cult. I also read where there are about 50,000 Primitive Baptist members nationwide. That is a sign to me that they are a cult. Common sense should tell you that if out of a whole nation that only 50,000 believe like you then something is not right.
I know a primitive Baptist preacher. He calls himself a pastor but I would not allow him the privilege of calling him pastor. This man shows absolutely no compassion for anyone other than himself. He cheats on his wife with no remorse. He lies with no remorse. He too believes, as has stated, one does not need to be saved. He thinks God has chosen His elect. He has said, "if you have a love of God then you are of his elect". This is absolutely false teaching. He also says one does not need to be convicted and saved. The Bible teaches us that " faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God". The word also teaches us that God made a way in hopes that "all would come to repentance." This tells me that God gave man free will and provided a means for every person to come to know Christ as Savior. The Primitive Baptists are a cult , they do foster false teaching, and if the actions of a elder in the old North state are representative of this denomination then there is no way I would ever allow anyone in my family to sit and listen to them.
I personally know a primitive Baptist preacher. It is my experience he is the biggest liar, adulterer, manipulator, back stabber, cheating person know. He speaks horribly of women,hasnolove or charity in his heart goes single person,i s greedy , and really just a bad person. Do you know why? He is lost in his sin because he refuses to repent and humble himself to ask God for forgiveness. He claims he is the elect and "has no need because Christ died on the cross" while that is true Jesus still said you must be born again and renew testament example was clear with Philip and the Ethiopian eunach. He told him if he believed and repented he could be baptised. These so called hard shells may learn a hard lesson.
Idiot.
The True Gospel can only be preached by the spirit ! All children of God are born again by the spirit not the Gospel ! The Gospel however is at last good news and tiding to a regenerated person !
Well, Anon, that is simply not true. The gospel can be told by lost sinners. Such as Caiaphas the high priest who said "49 But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all. 50 Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish.”51 He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, 52 and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad." (John 11: 49-52)
"Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: the one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely..." (Phil. 1: 15)
I could give more examples, but if you reject these scriptural proofs, you will all others.
No, people are born "of" God and the Spirit but "by" or "through" the gospel (James 1:18; I Cor. 4: 15; I Peter 1: 23).
You seem to think that the gospel itself is not spirit. But, the word of God is the breath of God (inspiration). Further, in many texts, the gospel is used interchangeably with spirit.
It is good news to everyone. I saw it as good news before I ever embraced it or obeyed it. Both Saul (who became Paul) and Cornelius knew the gospel before they believed it. In fact, you cannot believe it before you hear it. (Romans 10)
p
Further, you seem to believe that regeneration does not include believing in Christ or in God. But, there is no such thing as a regenerated unbeliever as the Hardshells imagine. That is heresy.
Post a Comment