Separatist... Strict... Particular... Primitive Baptist

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by tyndale1946, Jun 28, 2002.

  1. tyndale1946

    tyndale1946
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    6,179
    Likes Received:
    226
    I want to know what was the difference in these Baptist brethren?... If there were differences were they in practice or doctrine or both? I am Primitive Baptist and I understand that these other brethren were similar but how similar in like precious faith were they? Were there also Baptist called Peculiar Baptist? Did these brethren lean more to the Calvinist side of belief? I believe if I'm not mistaken that the Dr. John Gill was among these brethren. Can these be taken as a whole... What I mean were they of the same belief but only changed their name as the doctrine and practice of each was the same? Can each of these brethren be studied as a whole or should we study them separately?... Well that's enough for now as this could be a lengthy study. Brother Clint and Brother Robert don't be bashful you all step in here and join the discussion. What is the difference in these brethren if any?... Brother Glen [​IMG]

    [ June 28, 2002, 07:20 PM: Message edited by: tyndale1946 ]
     
  2. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    5,144
    Likes Received:
    25
    Bro. Glen, there is an awful lot involved in your question, but I'll try to give a short answer for now. The terminology "Strict" and "Particular" had much more prominent use for Baptists in England than in America. The term "particular" derives from their position on the atonement - that is was particular or limited (as opposed to the General Baptists who believed in a "general" atonement). The term "strict" derives from their position on communion - they were strict because they required a profession of faith, baptism, and church membership for participation in the Lord's supper. Most of the English Particular Baptists were also Strict Baptists, although a few, like John Bunyan, were not. For some reason in America the use of the term "particular" was changed to "regular." The early Regular Baptists in America were Particular Baptists. In England, "separatist" most likely refers to those Independents who separated from the Anglican church, but does not necessarily refer to Baptists. In America, the "Separate" Baptists arose during the time of the Great Awakening. Many of the early Separate Baptists were people who left their denominational churches and united with the Baptists. They were similar in practice to the Regular Baptists and later united with them. But it seems for a while the Regular Baptists were skeptical of the enthusiasm found among the Separates. The difference between the Regulars and Separates was mostly of practice. The Regulars were more formal, more educated, less evangelistic and maybe more pragmatic than the Separates. The Separates had a zeal to recreate New Testament Christianity after having left their stale Protestant homes, and instituted several practices not generally found among the Regulars - feet washing, anointing with oil, right hand of fellowship, holy kiss, laying on of hands, etc.. Some Regulars did practice these things, but not with the consistency of the Separates. Another problem was that the Regulars found fault that the Separates had not adopted the Philadelphia Confession, and that the Separates found fault that the Regulars put too much stock in a man-made document. By around 1800, the Regulars and Separates had laid aside their differences in order to commune and fellowship together.

    I don't know that any group of Baptists has ever been called Peculiar Baptists, but a lot of us are "peculiar." [​IMG] Yes, John Gill was a Particular Baptist.

    I guess that to a large extent these must be studied separately, because one could be Particular but not Strict (and perhaps vice versa), and because the Separates had such an impact that they "changed" Baptist history. Their zeal help fill the south with Baptists. But their tolerance of "preaching that Christ tasted death for every man" probably set the stage for the division of Baptists from around 1830 and the years following.
     
  3. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
  4. tyndale1946

    tyndale1946
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    6,179
    Likes Received:
    226
    I found this link on the Separatist Baptist and thought Brother Robert may be particularly interested as there is a book that may be purchased on the development of Particular Baptist Hymnody in England to 1915... Brother Glen [​IMG]

    http://www.strictbaptisthistory.org.uk/
     
  5. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,650
    Likes Received:
    312
    Speaking of Regular Baptists, here is a thread concerning the founding of such a church in 1881. Given that the founders were of middle age (30-45), they would be the second generation of those described above as Regular Baptists.

    http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=000037

    Further, the term Regular Baptist still carried weight in the North in to the 1930s. The first organization of men seperating from the Northern (now American) Baptist Convention styles itself The General Association of Regular Churches. The GARBC was organized in the early 30s.

    [ July 02, 2002, 03:22 PM: Message edited by: The Squire ]
     

Share This Page

Loading...