Fundamental vs Primitive

Discussion in 'Fundamental Baptist Forum' started by wfdfiremedic, Jul 30, 2009.

  1. wfdfiremedic

    wfdfiremedic
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    Messages:
    90
    Likes Received:
    0
    What are the differences between fundamental and primitive baptists. From what I have read, primitive baptists tend to follow the teaching of Calvin where one is predestined by God for salvation? Is this correct??

    Thanks for the insight,

    Chris
     
  2. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,621
    Likes Received:
    310
    Are you ready for a bit of Baptist history?

    First, by the 1650s, Baptists in England were firmly divided between the General and Particular Baptists. Both the Primitive and Fundamental Baptists trace their spiritual DNA back to the Particular Baptists of England. The Particulars were Calvinists (for varying values of Calvinist) while the General Baptists were Armenian in their soteriology. For many reasons, the Particulars came to be in the majority. Thus unless you're a Free Will Baptist, your main DNA comes from the Particulars.

    Fast forward to the mid 1700s, John Gill's Body of Divinity was pretty much the standard Particular Baptist systematic theology book. However, by 1786, Andrew Fuller had published his:
    The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation,
    or the Duty of Sinners to Believe in Jesus Christ,

    [With Corrections and Additions, to which is added an Appendix,
    on the Necessity of a Holy Disposition in order to Believing in Christ.]

    which can be found at:

    http://www.geocities.com/baptist_documents/fuller.gospel.worthy.indx.html

    Fuller's book gave the theological underpinnings for Wm Carey's missionary efforts. Until then the thinking was (due to Gill's influence) "if God wanted the heathen to come to salvation he would do so without our help."

    And so it went in the US until the early 1800s. With Luther Rice's organizing support for Adonriam Judson and other missionary efforts, a split developed between the Gillites and Fullerites. Mind you, the Gs and the Fs both considered themselves "Calvinists" (Spurgeon was a Fullerite). Also, the split occurred 60+ years before Fundamentalism saw the light of day.

    More later.
     
    #2 Squire Robertsson, Jul 30, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 30, 2009
  3. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    Squire- very interesting!
     
  4. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,621
    Likes Received:
    310
    Continuing on

    Going into the 1820s, the largest body of Baptists in America was the Triennial Baptist Convenion on Missions. It was in this period what we know today as the Primitive Baptist movement came into being. The PBs representing the heritage of John Gill and the Triennial Convention the influence of Andrew Fuller.
    The following comes from Francis Wayland's Notes on the Principles and Prcaices of Baptist Churches (pub. 1856)
    By the 1840s the Triennial Convention had split into the Southern Baptist Convention and the Northern Baptist movement (the North did not form a convention until 1901). The division occured on matters of ecclesiology and slavery not on soteriology.
     
  5. Tom Butler

    Tom Butler
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    9,031
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for the history lesson, Squire.

    Let me take a stab at differentiating between fundamentalists and Primitive Baptists.

    A large number of fundamentalists--particularly fundamentalist Baptists--are not Calvinists. Some are, of course. And although my knowledge is limited, I have never met a Fundamentalist Baptists who agrees with the Primitives.

    Briefly, Primitive Baptists are what we generally call Hyper-Calvinists. That is, they believe that when God elects someone to salvation, they will be saved whether they ever hear the gospel or not. In other words, the elect may be saved independently of the gospel. Calvinists do not believe that. Nor do those who would identify themselves as Fundamentalist.
     
  6. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,621
    Likes Received:
    310
    In using "Calvinist" when applied to Baptists, please remember the definition varies. To many of our Russian brethren, just believing in the Security of the Believer in Christ makes you a Calvinist. The line runs thinner in some groupings than in others. However, unless you're a Free Will Baptist, you're in the Particular/Calvinist family.
     
  7. Jerome

    Jerome
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    5,602
    Likes Received:
    44
    So . . . in 1826 the "Declaration of the Reformed Baptist Churches in the State of North Carolina" was issued, expressing the Primitive Baptists' characteristic rejection of missionary societies, seminaries, etc., and nonfellowship with Baptists who approved of such modern innovations.

    In another thread, the Primitive Baptist book History of the Church of God from the Creation to A.D. 1885 Including Especially the History of the Kehukee Primitive Baptist Association was discussed. Here is a quote from the book:

    "wherever Missionary Societies, Bible Societies, Tract Societies, Sunday Schools, . . . and Theological Seminaries in America prevail, there the doctrine of Phariseeism (modernly called Arminianism) prevails, there the doctrine of saving the souls of men from sin and from hell by works which men may do for themselves and for each other prevails. There the mark of the Beast and there persecution prevail." (pp. 747-748)
     
  8. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,545
    Likes Received:
    272
    Like a moth drawn to the flame, here's a 'primitive' for you 'fundamentals' to whup up on.

    Some would probably consider us 'hyper' because of our views on regeneration and gospel salvation. There's 'schisms' within the PBs, but mainstream is not what I would consider 'hyper' because we only apply predestination to God's choosing of a people for His own possession, and not to events in general.

    Also, there's been extremists and radicals from every sect of Christianity throughout history. Don't judge the many from the acts or ommissions of a few.

    Ask me questions, I'll tell you no lies.
     
  9. Tom Butler

    Tom Butler
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    9,031
    Likes Received:
    0
    During a mission trip to Romania, I also was surprised to learn that many Romanian Baptists did not hold to security of the believer. My pastor spent much of his time teaching pastors from churches in surrounding villages who came to the city. He spent almost an entire day exegeting Hebrews 6:4-6, to refute their arminian take on it.

    Your point is taken. My description of Hyper-Calvinists was based on experience with relatives who were PB. They espoused the view that I articulated.
     
  10. Jarthur001

    Jarthur001
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    5,701
    Likes Received:
    0
    Although 200 years later this would change, I would not call General Baptist Arminian in the early years. They believed just about word for word with their Calvinist brothers, on Calvinism but for one area. That is the atonement.

    They held to a general atonement, for which they got their name. But election and all the other doctrines were about the same.
     
  11. Dale-c

    Dale-c
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes it is interesting that now many calvinists are General Baptists today.

    I do think there seems to have been a greater understanding of what one actually believed then.
    Even church that were in doctrinal error did seem to spend more time on doctrine from what I can see.

    One of the deacons in my church told me about when he first came.
    He had been in an Assembly of God church before that and after a few weeks at our reformed baptist church some of his kids asked: "Did out old church believe ANYTHING"?

    My experience has been that most baptists today could not articulate the difference between a general atonement, universal atonement and limited atonement.
     
  12. wfdfiremedic

    wfdfiremedic
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    Messages:
    90
    Likes Received:
    0
    Interesting. Thanks for the information.
     
  13. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,123
    Likes Received:
    1

    It's nice to talk about somebody like he's not made his presence or availability known, you know.
    lol.:laugh:
     
  14. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,123
    Likes Received:
    1
    Just a little correction, if you please.
    From what I gather reading Primitive Baptist history and other Baptists' histories, there was no movement of the Primitive Baptists.
    In the Black Rock address, the fundamental issues that had started to divide most Baptists were addressed (Tracts, Missionary Societies, Sunday Schools, etc) and those who chose to separate themselves or not to fellowsip with those involved in these issues were called Primitives by those who adopted these modern systems.

    There was no movement of Primitive Baptists.

    Also, in reference to "salvation" and having all men "come to salvation", the problem lies in what or which "salvation" is being spoken of.

    If it is eternal salvation, then that one is purely a work of the great One in Three, planned in eternity past, agreed on in eternity past, done in principle in eternity past, typified, pictured, illustrated, represented in the Old Testament's rituals, laws, and sacrifices and finally finished in this plane called time at the cross at Calvary.

    That salvation is ALL OF THE LORD from start to finish, none of the elect, or the sinner, or the "whosoever", provided by the Lord for them requiring nothing, not one iota of works of righteousness (Titus 3:5), all by grace APART from faith, all of mercy, and all for the glory of God and His Son, Jesus Christ, His gift to the elect, and the elect His gift to Christ.

    The scope of that salvation covered every elect child of God, wherever they were, whenever they existed or will exist in this plane of time in this world.

    However, there IS a salvation spoken of many times, by Paul, Peter, and the writers of the New Testament (besides the gospels) which REQUIRED obedience, learning, faithfulness, faith, all with the consequences of blessing or cursing.

    We, the Primitives, call it Timely Salvation. Not ALL of God's elect will become beneficiaries of THIS salvation, because this salvation is a direct result of obedience to, and belief of, the gospel, and the gospel is to be preached by MEN, who are limited in their presence (not omnipresent) and hampered by their own depravity which results in different interpretations and deliverance of the message.

    Which is why to us, regeneration is a work of the Holy Spirit, INDEPENDENT of the preaching of the gospel, the minister, and all other means.

    FWIW (to the OP).
     
  15. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think Pinoybaptist has laid out a key difference, at least between most Baptists and Primitive Baptists, that of "eternal" vs. "timely" salvation. We would hold that the Bible does not make this distinction anywhere and that it cannot stand up under even modest scrutiny from the Scriptures. They, obviously,differ on that.
     
  16. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,123
    Likes Received:
    1
    I will be glad to discuss this with you, if you care to start a thread on it, and with others too, sans the sarcasm and innuendoes that drove me away from this board for a long time.
     
  17. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    We have discussed it before here (I don't recall if you were a part of those or not). I probably wouldn't involve myself in that discussion again for various reasons, among which are time, interest, previous discussions, and the sarcasm and innuendo of which you speak. I am not in favor of that at all, and don't really want to be a part of it.

    So if others want to learn more, they can certainly feel free to start a thread. I am sure there are those here who would interact on it.

    My only purpose here was to say that you have hit on a major difference.
     
  18. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,123
    Likes Received:
    1

    I understand.
    Thanks, and God bless you and yours.
     
  19. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0

    In Ky. at least a general union between 'regular' and general Baptists (resulting in United Baptists today) these unions were made possible by language in their articles stating that the preaching that 'Christ tasted death for every man' would not be a bar to fellowship.

    This then, at least I think, ultimately led to the "downgrade" of even Arminian teaching, which in its original form as best as I can tell differed to Calvinism primarily to a point that it did not hold to irresistable grace. Or at least the effectual nature of that grace.

    Where the Calvinist believes the sinner experiences regeneration in the preached gospel, iresistably according to the election of God; the Arminian believed in a general call that by the hearing of the word of God sinners were influenced (I don't know how strong their language was) but this influence gave them an opportunity to receive Christ, IF they did the Spirit abode with them in the continuing work of experience of the new creation, IF they did not receive Christ, the Spirit departed. This, I think is the primary difference between the Arminian and the Calvinist. Arminians believed all other points of the so-called TULIP. Then we come to the Primitive Baptist, who, inmho, being a Primitive Baptist myself, who were represented in KY. by the 'old' original regular baptists who in some cases did unite with the general baptists. These regular baptists believed in particular redemption which involved an atonement that was applied to the elect by the immediate operation of the Holy Spirit. In this, there may be NO conversion ever evidenced by or among men, however, the internal work remains the same, that of the new creation (See Ez. 36:27 and similar passages). The regular, then became the Primitive Baptist of the Black Rock era. The purpose then of preaching is for the 'conversion' of the regenerated elect of God. This is then believed a salvation in time, by our believing and obedience to the gospel, but this has no bearing on our eternal position in Christ, having been placed in Him before the foundation of the world, we are made accepted in Him by an operation of the Holy Spirit, despite our degree of knowledge or understanding.

    bro. Dallas
     
  20. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,071
    Likes Received:
    101
    I don't think this is quite accurate. The Generals were more Arminian than Arminius.

    From Thomas Helwys' Confession:

     

Share This Page

Loading...