What's the difference?

Primitive Baptist refers to an overall type of Baptist, under which umbrella exists several different kinds. Primitive and Missionary Baptists came into noticable existence between 1820-1835, when the main body of Baptists in the United States divided over the Baptist Board of Foreign Missions and some other issues. The "Missionaries" supported the Foreign Mission Board, and the "Primitives" opposed it.

First, the Primitive Baptists may be roughly divided into two ethnic groups - predominantly white churches and predominantly black churches. Then they may be subdivided under those two categories:

White Primitive Baptists </font>

• Absolute Predestinarian</font>
• Limited Predestinarian</font>
• Progessive</font>
• Universalist</font>

The Absolute Predestinarians hold the "absolute predestination of all things", while the Limited Predestinarians mainly hold the predestination of people to salvation (similar to Calvinism). The Progressive Primitives accept the use of musical instruments, Sunday Schools and other church auxiliaries which most Primitive Baptists do not allow. The Universalist Primitive Baptists are a very small group that have made a blend of election, predestination and universal salvation. The white Limited Predestinarians may be further subdivided into "Old Line" and "Progressive" (not to be confused with the other Progressives above), and are currently in the process of dividing along those lines formally. These new "Progressives" still do not have musical instruments and Sunday Schools, but have accepted some innovations that are unacceptable to those who are calling themselves the "Old Line" - meaning they have not changed.

Black Primitive Baptists </font>

• National Primitive Baptist Convention</font>
• Old School</font>

There are only two major subdivisions among the black Primitive Baptists. The National Primitive Baptists are roughly equivalent to the white Progressive Primitive Baptists in that they have accepted all types of church auxiliaries as useful tools. The very idea of a national convention is not standard Primitive Baptist belief or practice. The Old School black Primitive Baptists (MY terminology) are roughly equivalent to the Absolute & Limited Predestinarians among the white Primitives, since they never really divided over the issue of absolute predestination. But the Old School black associations, though they might seem the same to outsiders, have reasons that they do not all fellowship with one another.

Finally, there is one other body that is usually identified as Primitive Baptist - though most Primitives do not recognize them as such, and they do not call themselves Primitive Baptists - the Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit Predestinarian Baptists.

This may be much more than you wanted to know, but I believe this will provide the proper context to understand who the Old Line Primitive Baptists are in relation to Primitive Baptists as a whole. I think the reason for "Old Line" being used so much today, is that certain churches want to be known as opposed to certain innovations that are coming into the Limited Predestinarian group.

 

BTW, the link above, listed as Primitive Baptist, is from people and churches probably considered as part of the progressive Limited Predestinarians, at least by the "Old Lines".

The Baptist Bible Hour site would also be considered among that type of progressive. - Baptist Bible Hour Homepage

 

Yeah, what he said.

Seriously though, I am part of what would be best classified as the Old Line Old School Primitive Baptist. Pretty much the same thing described above, but with the names we typically use for ourselves.

Sub groups

Primitive Baptists - as a whole.
Old School Primitive Baptist - no instruments, no Sunday School, no Salaried Ministers etc.
New School Primitive Baptist - musical instruments, Sunday School, Salaried Ministers, etc.
Old Line Old School Primitive Baptist - same as Old School Primitives of olden times...still of the old line faith of Primitives.
New Line Old School Primitive Baptist - Same as we until roughly 15 years ago. Bringing in Calvinism, perseverance, mission movements, etc.

All in all, there is not too much difference bewteen the Old Line and New Line factions, some even fellowship each other...we do occassionally, though it's getting harder and harder to.

Every church in the Houston and surrounding areas is Old Line Old School, so we really don't have to deal with it all that much.

Any more questions, feel free to ask. I'm a Primitive Baptist Encyclopedia.

Bro. James

 

The Primitive Baptist link is not necessarily of the Progressive wing. I used to post on the discussion forum until it shut down (indefinitely) for new programming.

Elder David Montgomery, the preacher who runs it, leans a little more to the Old Liner side than the New Line, though he quite often straddles the fence. This is probably due to the uneasiness about causing schisms within our churches again.

In case you didn't know, the Primitives were split for about 100 years, beginning in late 19th Century, over pithy matters. Most people remember how bad it was then, not being able to fellowship people who believed the same as you, so no one wants to act too quickly in condemning others of our faith. However, there are those on both sides who are staunchly against the other side and they're making the rest of us "take sides or else", if you know what I mean.

That's the one thing in common among we Primitives and the majority of Baptists in America. We're always squabbling about something and forming new factions.

Oh well. Ever since Christ left man in charge of His church, we have been running it down the drain. We remain hopeful that He will come and take us to where He does the preaching every Sunday and keeps us truly in line.

Bro. James

 

James, didn't mean to imply that Bro. Montgomery is all that "progressive", but I think the STAUNCH old liners I know, who are in favor of splitting, tend to look at those in the middle as on the other side. He is a good man who I have personally met and wouldn't find much at all to fall out with him over. He's quite level headed, a thing that some of the more radical on each side could use a dose of, IMO. Well, that's kind of off topic.

I think on the "New School" Primitive Baptists, that is mostly a terminology the Old School uses for them, isn't it? Most of them I know, even in their church names, are "Progressive Primitive Baptist".

 

You are right. I've heard Brother David preach many times and I find he is as good a man as he is a preacher. The same goes for his brothers and his dad.

You are also correct about the New School PBs. They don't necessarily call themselves that, but they do refer to us as the Old School, as do we ourselves, so it stands to reason that where there is an "old" there is a "new". Honestly though, I can't think of any PB churches, Progressive or otherwise, that actually use Progressive in their name.

Calling themselves Progressive Primitive Baptists is like saying they're new AND old. Just a tad confusing if you ask me. Most are so far from what Primitive Baptists have historically believed that they would do better to become Missionary, Southern, or some other kind of Baptists. Nowadays, Primitive is just a name on the sign.

What's really sad about the whole mess happening now in our sect is that those of us who see points from both sides are being forced to pick one side over the other or face being black-balled. I suppose the devil is always working in our midst to cause problems. He tempted Jesus, and tempts His church today.

BTW, I was not even aware of the existence of the olpbc.com website until I read this post. Seems like there are PB sites popping up all over the place lately.

 

peteyo69, there is (or was) a small group of Baptists in Ontario of similar faith and order with the Absolute Predestinarian Primitive Baptists, but operating under a different name. They have generally gone unnoticed, and, due to a recent conflict, may not even exist anymore. Try the link below for a little more info:
Covenanted Baptist Church of Canada

 

Bro. James I'm glad to run across your posting! Again, as last year, I must comment on this matter: Nothing in the name of our Church or its articles of faith define it is "Old Line" or "Old School" verses not such. I've never heard the term "New Line" until reading this posting. Only the assertions of a few ministers in the area have brought this about in our Church in the past year. They all seem to be blindly following one another and leading the congregations with them! It is accompanied by accusations of heresy, wolves among sheep, departure from the "old ways", profiteering from mission work, etc.

These assertions will result in divisions between members and churches to the detriment of the Lord's work. We are simply "Primitive Baptist" and we need to get back on that track and keep it that way! We should be able to have some differences among us that do not force us into divisions. If we'd focus more on the whole of God's word and less on the opinions of the preachers we'd be far better off.

We have too much to stand against together to be standing apart. But, like you, I believe that's getting harder to do because the lines are being drawn and open discussion is very difficult.

 

Unfortunately, I have to disagree with you. There are many who go by the name Primitive Baptist who just are not that! I agree we should allow for petty differences between our churches, but the line does have to be drawn somewhere, lest we fall into the trap of fellowshipping anyone and everyone. There are many PB churches out there who are not PB in doctrine and practice. Our Articles of Faith do state that those of our faith and practice are the only ones with whom we will fellowship.

Once a Primitive Baptist church has departed from either our faith, or our practice, they cease to be a recognizable Primitive Baptist church. In that case, we are no longer able to recognize them as such. It is unfortunate, but it is something that has to be done in order to keep purity within the true Primitive Baptist church.

If you look back to our original Articles of Faith, you will see that we were only to fellowship with Primitive Baptists of the Trumpet order. So, you see, this is not a new thing.

Our only hope is to stick by our beliefs and pray that God will work everything out in the end.

 

Not a problem! I figured you probably would! Disagreement isn't a bad thing!

Certainly, that's true! In fact, that can be expanded to include all Christians.

There is no mention of "fellowship" in our Articles of Faith that I can find. There is only one mention of "fellowship" in our Rules of Decorum and that relates to accepting members by relation.

Agreed! The problem comes about when a few ministers and members take it upon themselves to decide what issues constitute being or not being a Primitive Baptist church when these issues have no bearing on the matter. The problem is particularly bad when the differences develop between solidly established churches who, in fact, have the same fundamental faith and practice.

Further, if a major split does occur, then either can still claim the name of Primitive Baptist holding that their view is correct and the other is not. In the end, each church stands on its own and recognizes whatever other church it wants. However, I'm not convinced that those who proclaim they are the real Primitive Baptist actually are such!

There is no mention of "Trumpet order" in our Articles of Faith or Rules of Decorum that I can find!

Agreed! This is why I believe it is important to correct the errors that are creeping into the Primitive Baptist churches in the name of "old line" purity. At the same time, I also believe it is important to stand against those things that would alter the faith and practice to something outside the scriptural basis provided in the Word of God.

 

It would appear that this indeed one of the universalists congregations. As for the differences between the universalists and the other branches is principally that they hold that all of human kind will eventually be in heaven. The separation took place now 80 years ago, and no doubt there are other subtle differences.

I read some of the articles on the web site, but not all. Some I would agree with, some not, but that might be the same with the Old Line church down the road. We have no governing bodies to enforce orthodoxy.

As bit of background on the Universalits might be helpful to understand them a bit better. They would no doubt not entirely agree with the characterization below.

At any rate, about 1922 one of our beloved, and at the time elderly ministers had a son who was from all accounts evil personified. About that year, he was electrocuted in Prison, for murder. His father couldn't cope with it. He latched on to certain verses, such as, "Willing that no man should perish, etc." His idea was if God was not willing that any should perish, then they wouldn't. (Mind you I'm not agreeing with it, just stating their position). Howard Dorgan wrote a book about this group of people some years back entitled: Children of a Happy God Dorgan, a scholarly type interviewed many of these people, but when I spoke to him about his research they hadn't realated the above story, which is well known in these parts. The story, however, is generally attested as fact. This, however, would undermine their theology to a large degree. Of course most anyone can find something in the Bible to support just about any whacky idea one might come up with. (Not that all religious ideas are whacky, but will trust you understand without further elaboration).

 

Stephen, in common terms yes. The universalists, however, object to the term "no-hellers." It is their contention that hell is right here on earth. See disclaimer above.

 

Stephen,

It didn't bother me, just a nit, which I probably shouldn't have made.

Hope all is well in Okie land. (couldn't resist. )

 

peteyo69, as Bro. Jeff noted above, Harmony does appear to be a "universalist" congregation. Here is a quote from their web site:

I'm not sure about how to answer your question as to whether they are the equivalent of Old Line, New Line, or Progressive. As I would tend to categorize Primitive Baptists, they are a main division like Absoluters, Limiteds, and Progressives. These groups have no crossover or fellowship between one another (in general, I believe a few exceptions can be found). Most other Primitive Baptists would probably deny that the Universalists are any more than Primitive Baptist in name.

Stephen, while the "universalists" and "no-hellers" names are often used of the same group, also be aware that there are some Primitive Baptists that do not hold universalism who believe that there is no eternal hell fire punishment. The souls of the non-elect, in their view, either are destroyed or at least are mortal.

 

You are right. I apologize. It is in the Church Covenant, not the Articles of Faith.

"3. To maintainthe ordinances, doctrines and discipline of the church and of other Primitive Baptist churches of gospel order."

While the exact term "fellowship" is not present, the implied meaning of the term "churches of gospel order" denotes those churches with whom we are in fellowship.

While our Articles of Faith do not spell out every single aspect of our faith and practice, they do lay the ground work for what we all should know is a Primitive Baptist.

Let me remind you, simply because our Articles of Faith read similarly or even exactly as those of another church does not mean we are in fellowship with them. That would be like saying we use the Bible, therefore we are in fellowship with all who use the Bible. It simply will not work because there are so many interpretations and underlying beliefs that simply stating we will fellowship any similar church will not work.

It would be quite hard, if not impossible, to go down and make a list of every single thing that Primitive Baptists believe. Therefore, we just have to study and read from our fathers in the ministry to know what we believe and why we believe it.

I agree that we should allow for subtle differences, but none that would affect the truth. For example, right now there are difference among ministers regarding whether, while Jesus was on the cross, if God turned His face from Jesus or simplay withdrew His presence. Now, this is something not specified in scripture, so the difference of opinion is tolerable.

The above is quite different than say, having a Sunday School, which the PB church has ALWAYS stood against. Having full-time salaried ministers...another thing that the PB church has ALWAYS stood against. I heard one preacher preach on re-thinking timely salvation. There is NEVER ANYTHING which should be re-thought in the church!!! The church holds the truth. PERIOD. Anything else brought in is simply worldly illusions.

So, you see, while these things aren't specifically spelled out in our Articles of Faith, they have and forever will be entwined in the beliefs of the true Primitive Baptist church.

Bro. James