What is the Primitive Baptist Church?

Dear Brethren,
I have been looking at the Black Rock Address this afternoon, here is the introduction:

Black Rock Address
Introduction
To the Particular Baptist Churches of the "Old School" in the United States:
Brethren, It constitutes a new era in the history of the Baptists, when those who would follow the Lord fully, and who therefore manifest a solicitude to be, in all things pertaining to religion, conformed to the Pattern showed in the mount, are by Baptists charged with antinomianism, inertness, stupidity, &c., for refusing to go beyond the word of God; but such is the case with us.
Brethren, we would not shun reproach, nor seek an exemption from persecution; but we would affectionately entreat those Baptists who revile us themselves, or who side with such as do, to pause and consider how far they have departed from the ancient principles of the Baptists, and how that in reproaching us they stigmatize the memory of those whom they have been used to honor as eminent and useful servants, of Christ; and of those who have borne the brunt of the persecutions leveled against the Baptists in former ages. For it is a well-known fact that it was in ages past a uniform and distinguishing trait in the character of the Baptists, that they required a "Thus saith the Lord," that is, direct authority from the word of God for the order and practice, as well as the doctrine, they received in religion.
It is true that many things to which we object as departures from the order established by the great Head of the church, through the ministry of his apostles, are by others considered to be connected with the very essence of religion, and absolutely necessary to the prosperity of Christ's kingdom. They attach great value to them, because human wisdom suggests their importance. We allow the Head of the church alone to judge for us; we therefore esteem those things to be of no use to the cause of Christ, which he has not himself instituted.
We will notice severally the claims of the principal of these modern inventions, and state some of our objections to them for your candid consideration.

I see nothing in this refuting the use the preaching of the gospel as instrumental to calling the elect to eternal life. This is however, only the introductory note to the Black Rock Address.

From the above statement I would understand that the preaching of the gospel was believed to have been instrumental in calling the elect.

Bro. Dallas

 

The people who wrote the Black Rock address aren't around to explain themselves so we have to read the document and try to understand what they were communicating. We can fully expect different people to read the same thing and understand it differently. So, of course, it matters what we understand! An example is the misunderstanding that the document proclaims a complete absolute opposition to missions as evidenced by some Primitive Baptists proclaiming today that we don't "believe in" missionary work.

What I understand this position to mean is that if another Primitive Baptist church doesn't endorse all the same doctrine and practice as this one small group of people did then that church is not "sound" or not a "Primitive Baptist" church. It's obvious from the on-going debates among Primitive Baptists concerning missions and other subjects that they don't all understand things the same way. We know there are some serious divisions today and in past times as well. Both sides will claim they're right and the other is wrong according to God's word. I suspect they didn't fully agree in 1832 either!

Somehow I think many of these disagreements have less to do with God and His word and more to do with man and his pride.

Just on the subject of Sunday school, I can say from my own childhood experiences that such an activity can be a very good thing. Both my Father and Grandfather taught Sunday school. Neither were ordained ministers but both were "teachers" and, I believe, blessed with that gift from the Holy Spirit. They both had a deep understanding of the scriptures and were always eager to serve the Lord by teaching others. No man will ever convince me what they did was wrong! I would gladly have them teach me today.

The matter of something not being in the scripture can be misused just as much as something being in the scripture. The Holy Bible contains all the information we need and the Holy Spirit gives us all the guidance we need to be Christians. However, the Holy Bible is not written, as we all know, like a codified book of instructions. There's not a clearly written completely inclusive section covering everything to do with church organization for example. Some things are covered in depth and others are not. Some things have to be put together from a number of sources. Some things have to be deduced from the guidance provided.

We are prohibited from adding to the scripture and from taking away from the scripture. We have no choice but to read and interpret the scripture and to apply it to our lives for the infinite variety of situations that arise not specifically addressed. The issues are the same but the venue has certainly changed a lot in history. The argument that if something's "not in the Bible" it doesn't apply can not always be the right answer. If the intent is there then it is applicable. Determining what is the intent and real meaning becomes the challenge and the source of debate.

It is incredible that some Primitive Baptists use this argument to validate "singing school" while putting down similar activities of other orders! The churches send money to finance the schools. The churches advertise the schools from their pulpits. How can a person claim the activity is not "sanctioned" by the church? Of course it is! It is a church activity. It's also a perfectly good and acceptable activity. It's certainly not a secular activity like a sports camp for example! From the description of activities, it seems a lot like the "church camps" I went too as a youngster.

If this document defines the beginning of the Primitive Baptist church then it must follow that it did not exist before. Yet, I've heard people profess that the church's lineage extends to the time of Christ when the Church was first founded by Him. I'd rather say we have some things in common with respect to doctrine and practice with the folks who signed the Black Rock address but I'd rather not be bound to some blind allegiance to it and especially one misunderstood in today's venue. We are set apart from the world by Christ not by the authors of the Black Rock address. It is not a sacred document! It is an important, interesting, and relevant document but it is not "the definition" of our church.

This "founding document" contains very few scriptural references to support the positions taken. The typical Articles of Faith and other documents are far better definitions a church's particular doctrine and practice because they connect more completely to scriptural references. The Black Rock address is more of a declaration of separation between people on activities one group didn't want to support and others did.

Personally, I lean much more towards not having a lot of "programs" and "activities" because I believe they can detract from worship and study. I don't believe churches should be operated like businesses. I'm very conservative in nearly all matters. However, I don't believe the Holy Bible contains any scripture that prohibits things like Sunday school, missionary organizations, tract societies, seminaries (or "preacher schools" as they're affectionately called by those who haven't attended), or similar activities. I think it's fine for a church to state they don't want these things because they don't. I think it's a big stretch to suggest it's all supportable by scripture and others who believe differently are wrong and standing against the "truth".

Folks that stand up boasting they have the "truth" on these matters and ready to rip anyone apart who disagrees usually end up having little crediblity with me. I'm particularly "turned off" by comments from those who think they have it right just because they "came up" in the Primitive Baptist church and the rest of us just don't understand anything because, after all, we must have just become Christians since knowing them. I can, on the other hand, understand the value of knowledge passed down and do respect those far wiser than me.

Being a Christian is not dependent on being a Primitive Baptist. I think some really good folks get that really mixed up! I find it very disgusting when a preacher proclaims how right we are and how wrong other Christians are. Somehow, I think we'd be better off taking a harder look at what we do and don't do. My Christian life did not begin with membership in the Primitive Baptist church and it wouldn't end if I were to leave it. Likewise, I don't expect the Lord to inquire as to my particular affiliation whenever I get to Heaven.

Being a Primitive Baptist does not require endorsement of the Black Rock address but rather the particular Articles of Faith of the church to which one belongs. The address is historically significant but it is not binding on any of us.

I can certainly understand the need to remain conservative in our thinking and not endorse every new "modern" idea that comes along. I don't like very much of what I've seen that respect. On the other hand, I think we can get hopelessly rooted in misunderstandings of issues of another time and place that aren't the same today. God is still the same. Mankind is still the same. God's rules are still the same and He's still in control. The condemnation of sin is still in effect. The saving grace of God through Jesus Christ is still the only way out. But times have changed a lot and daily activities, particularly relative to time and distance, are very different. We don't need to be trapped by the past, or the present, or the future.

I wouldn't want to change anything particular about the practices of our local Primitive Baptist church but I sure wouldn't want to be held forever to what some folks in Maryland decided in 1832. "If it ain't broke it don't need fix'in!" has to be balanced against "Fix it before it breaks!" and that's a continual struggle. Some times the "fix'in" is more about getting things back to the way they really were intended to be in the beginning.

 

Brother, I really don't know what to say. I think to argue would be futile on both of our parts. All I will say is that I disagree with you. You aren't going to agree with me, and I am not going to agree with you.

Oh, I will also say that,

"The Black Rock Address is the founding document that set our modern-day churches apart from the world."

does not equate with,

"If this document defines the beginning of the Primitive Baptist church then it must follow that it did not exist before."

The church was not founded by the document. As I said, our "modern-day" churches of the Primitive name were founded on the document. The Primitive church existed before the document, but the document pulled together those churches which wished to stand for the old paths and set them apart from other Baptists. So, while it did indeed found the Primitive Baptists, it did not found the church.

One other point, I did not say Primitive Baptists are the only Christians. I was making an example by saying that being a Primitive Baptist who doesn't believe in the accuracy of the Black Rock Address is LIKE being a Christian who doesn not believe in Christ. All Primitive churches were formed from the Black Rock Address just as all Christians were formed from Christ.

I could just as easily have said that it is like an SBC church that doesn't recognize the SBC Articles of Faith. If such is the case, then they aren't really an SBC church, are they?

 

You're probably correct that we'll never agree on some points but I'll bet we do agree on a lot of things. I suppose disagreeing is just more fun!

The Black Rock Address isn't included, word for word, in the documents organizing every Primitive Baptist church! You'd never get them all to accept it, word for word, because there are differences in how each church believes its doctrine and practice should be defined! It was a defining point in church history at which time one group of Baptists clearly broke away from the majority to pursue a different course but it doesn't absolutely or completely define every Primitive Baptist church today. It doesn't really address matters of "belief" as much as it does "practice".

The statement that "All Primitive [Baptist] churches were formed from the Black Rock Address just as all Christians were formed from Christ" seems like a rather strange and exaggerated comparison of a man made document to Jesus Christ! I can't agree on that one!

A similar thing can be said about the relatively recent Pitts Resolution which some Primitive Baptists want all others to accept as if it were taken directly from the Holy Bible! It wasn't and each church has to decide on their own whether they want to agree, disagree, or just not take a stand on it. There will probably be more documents in times to come like the Black Rock Address and the Pitts Resolution. By the way, I give the Black Rock Address infinitely more credibility than the Pitts Resolution not only on content but on the measure of hidden agenda as well.

Some other Christian churches that belong to denominations with centralized control may not have the same degree of freedom that independent churches have. I can agree, for example, that a Southern Baptist Conference church that doesn't accept the "standard" doctrine and practice determined by the Conference may not be able to call itself a part of it. However, independent churches, like Primitive Baptists, with no central organization are free to do what they want and recognize whatever other churches they want. No one Primitive Baptist church, or affiliation of such churches, has a "copyright" on the name!

Certain things broadcast as "truths" in one circle don't enjoy that status in another. Fortunately, there's enough common ground in the actual scriptures, as opposed to all the personalized deductions, that, for most, folks it doesn't matter all that much. The differences seem to be more of a concern for the ministers. There's that potential for the "pride factor" again! Their differences seem to often be about folks far away that we've never actually met or spoken with. How easily the word "heresy" flows from the mouths of those intent on gaining favor among their peers at the expense of others who's reputations that care not about.

 

ok, ok, ok,...I am beginning to feel like Joe Peschi in 'Lethal Weapon VI and 1/2'

I am just like bugs bunny, I know when to shut up, and I don't have to be told to shut up like some people, when I see it is time to shut up, I just shut up....

God Bless
Brethren
Bro. Dallas

 

"By the way, I give the Black Rock Address infinitely more credibility than the Pitts Resolution not only on content but on the measure of hidden agenda as well."

Well, I think we finally found some common ground on which we can agree!!!

Is arguing more fun? You betcha, otherwise I wouldn't do it.

I've got a brother 6 years old than me...all we ever did was argue. It's my second nature.

I have actually argued with our Pastor about Esau not going to hell, just to get a reaction from him. I guess I'm just bad!!!

If I couldn't argue, I don't know what I'd do. I do know that I'd be a far less interesting person. Of course, If anyone would rather not argue about religion, well, there's always politics.

 

Question:

Do the Primitive Baptists associate with Regular Primitive? Is there a distinction?

 

Sorry to jump back in here so late, but earlier, I said:
"How are scriptures to be produced and given out? Would you rather pay top dollar for copies from a commercial publisher, or get copies for a reasonable price to give away from the American Bible Society? I think the latter is a better use of the Lord's money."

And the reply, in part, was this:

Doesn't sound to me like a reply to the statement at all. I didn't mean making money, I meant stewardship. And a Bible Society, for example, USES resources better. We should buy copies of scriptures from a secular publisher at $10.00 each to give out, rather than $3.00 each from a Bible Society, simply because God didn't say "Go and set up Bible Societies" in the Bible??????
Perhaps we should hand write the copies?

 

Dear Debbie in Philly,
Since your question is now a reply to my post, I will try to reply to you. Keep in mind that I am not a Primitive Baptist, but that I agree with much of what the Primitive Baptist basically believes.

In consideration of your question, I guess you are correct. It is a better use of the resources we have been blessed with to give the least price available for Bibles.

The problem with Bible Societies (and this is not a blanket problem, so I am not generalizing nor stereotyping here) is that many will not 'approve' the printed Bibles except they possess margin notes etc. which place their particular interpretation upon scripture.

The KJV Study Bible is one that I have which I have seen draws heavily upon the Scofield Bible, but yet many people who have a KJV study Bible will not use a Scofield Bible

In my understanding of the work of the Gideons, they have consistently placed Bibles free of charge in any place open to them.

It seems to me in our present day and time there are few languages in which the Bible has not been translated, maybe some dialects of specific languages, but whole language families I am not aware of.

I have looked at this question in regards to the romanization of the Dzhongka language in Bhutan. The effort to 'romanize' that language is complete now, but in the process discovered more than 19 different Sino-Tibetan dialects created due to villages being separated by the himalayan mtns.

The short answer is that the general languages found in Asia can be understood, but the dialectic (is that a word) ranges in these languages vary. The use of Bible Societies to facilitate this work is not evil in and of itself, if the Bible is translated without added notations from any denominational slant, Baptist included.

With the introduction of Bible Societies, some, though not all have also been interdenominational in their 'support' and this adds even greater confusion to the word of God.

So you are correct, it is not inherently a question of money or profit, but of denominational bickering. Where ever the Bible translation into any language is limited to translation and not interpretational notes, I too would support that work.

Bro. Dallas Eaton

 

Bethelassoc noted:

Short answer is there is no difference. Long answer is there are minor variations in practice. I am a member of a church which denominates itself officially as "Regular Primitive" but that term is never used in conversation, only in printed materials, such as associational minutes.

All of the name things go back to the schism of the 1830s. People in this area (Appalachia) never adopted the appelation of "Primitive" at that time, and the records show the use of the name "Regular" until after the Civil War. During and immediately after the Civil War, the churches in this area divided over politics. Democrats on one side, Republicans on the other. The Unionists, (Republicans) accepted members who belonged to secret socities, specifically a group known as the "Heroes of America" which was the Unionist underground in the south. So, when the war was over, politics again got heated, and churches divided right and left over this issue. Both sides still using the name Regular. By the 1870s, most of the Democrats had adopted the term Regular Primitive Baptist for their names. The Regulars used one of two names, "Old Regulars" or "Union Baptists." Union Baptists being more "liberal" than Old Regulars. Liberal being a relative term here. And that is the way it was and pretty much still is. Around here, if some one tells you he is a Primitive Baptist, pretty much guarantee he is a democrat, and a Regular Baptist is most likely a Republican.

As for the whole name thing, "Primitive Baptists" don't exclusively use that name, yet would still be recognized as a Primitive Baptist, at least in this part of the world. For example, some use the name "Old School Baptist", others "Particular Baptist", "Strict Baptists" or "Predestinarian Baptist." Each group has some historic reason for retaining their official name, but would be generally recognized as belonging to the "Primitive Baptist" Family. They might or might not be recognized as being orthodox, but that would be left to each church to determine. For example, my church recognizes as orthodox other bodies using each of the names listed above, but would not recognize every church that uses the "Primitive Baptist" name as being orthodox. Specifically the group known as Progressive Primitive Baptists in the vernacular, are officially called "Primitive Baptists" as well.

Clear as mud, I hope.

 

It is, the mud gets stirred in trying to find the 'real' progressive primitive.

There are only fingers pointing and None will own the name

That is ok, I guess, but that is where the water gets muddy for me, and I can't see in muddy water.

Bro. Dallas

 

The logic used here by these folks, then, would seem to be unfortunate, so as to leave a lot of good work, like you mention, undone. It's a wonder that it doesn't lead to ideas like shunning modern convienences like electricity and plumbing since they are not mentioned in the Bible.

My own view of legalism seems to fit here just a bit. My view is that legalists and those of the world are two sides of the same logic, a path to an easy philosophy.
To the legalist, nothing is permissable, so not much thought is required when faced with a choice.
To the world, everything is permissable, so not much thought is required there either.
Ah, but to those in the middle, the Word of God, the Holy Spirit, and the brains God gave us must be employed whenever a choice is to be made. So working together requires some care and handling, to insure that all is done in order and correctness.

 

Brother Jeff, you got my head a-spinnin' so fast my eyes are so crossed my wife thinks I'm possessed or somethin'. I'm goin' to bed. G'night, ya'll.

 

Jeff:

Thanks for clearing it up.

Would the "Two Seed" be included (since you mentioned Predestinarian)?

In my research, I've found that I have to be careful with discrepancies. I picked up a minute book from an association that at one time went by "United Primitive" but now are "United Baptist of the Primitive Faith and Order". But, I've have another minute of an association with the same stylized title (UB/PFO), but they were never United Baptist, but Primitive Baptist.

Outside of the PB realm, I've found this kind of variance among other associations that go or went by "Regular United" or "United Regular", in regard to the Old Regular Baptists/United Baptists. I guess it's just like Primitive or Regular Primitive, etc.

Well, it's still kinda muddy, I guess.