Who were the Primative Baptists- and what did they really believe?

Quick note.

First, I would say Primitive Baptists "are" rather than were. Second, I would say it is debatable whether to properly call a church in 1812 a "Primitive" Baptist church. The name did not come into common use until after Baptists in the US split over mission boards, auxiliaries and other things. In Kentucky in 1812, more than likely it was called "United" Baptist, but that is just an "educated guess".

"Primitive" in this context does not mean backwards or crude, but rather original or primary.

Here's a couple of sites that should help with both doctrine and history:

Primitive Baptist Online
Primitive Baptist Library

 

My grandmother was a Primitive Baptist, and she was what we call a hyper-Calvinist. She believed that the elect would be eventually saved independently of means, independently of the gospel and independently of one's choice. If that's typical of Primitives, one can see that evangelism and missions would be unnecessary. Some Primitives also have no use for educated ministers and some do not use instruments in their worship. Are there variations of doctrine and practice among Primitives? My guess is that there are.

 

hyper-Calvinisim sounds scary....

 

I agree with rlvaughn. It sounds like your church came from a missionary minded United Baptist association. Is it still within an association?

Then again, there's always the possibility that the church was once part of the Primitive Baptists, but it would be an unusual situation.

David

 

Rhetorician; Good post.

 

Rehetorician:

I am Primitive Baptist, and I am Filipino, and I once supported in principle the 'work' being done in the Philippines.
No longer.
If you want to know why, just google and you'll see a lot of things written on the net. Try Old School Baptists.
Say I am always suspicious of things, especially when it involves the quick spread of the 'gospel' and the fast proliferation of a denomination.

Those who went out to the Philippines claim that in just three or four years, 130 Primitive Baptist churches sprang up.
These were Baptists from other orders that proselytized to Primitive Baptists (did I say that correctly in English ?).
That means at least 130 new elders being ordained both as elders and then as pastors. These were mostly pastors already of their churches when they were in their old orders.
Let's say that it's been four years since whoever went there arrived there, that would be 48 months.
130 divided by 48 equals at least 2.25 ordinations a month.
Now, consider that the Philippines is still underdeveloped so that one counts his travel time not by miles or by kilometers, but by bumps and humps on the road. Plus being an archipelago, the islands are separated by bodies of water.
Those Filipino 'Primitive Baptists' become suspect to me, at least, as to the question of 'quick ordinations'.
Paul told Timothy, 'lay hands suddenly on no man', which I take to mean, don't do quick ordinations of elders.
A fellow elder in the same church I used to pastor argued that quick ordinations are nothing new among PB's, but, just because it's nothing new does not change the fact that the Bible still says "lay hands suddenly on no man".
Primitive Baptists do not believe Tithing is a New Testament practice. We do not use musical instruments. We do not have Sunday Schools, neither do we have any order of worship save praying, singing, and preaching. No special numbers, no choirs.
Now, tell me how, if you were just one Primitive Baptist minister from the US of A, who went to the Philippines, tell me how you can possibly ordain in so short a time 130 ministers from Baptists of other orders who have for years been used to teaching tithing, to using musical instruments (at least evey one of those 130 are probably good guitar players), to having an 'order of worship' that includes choir presentations, special numbers, testimonies, the works if you will ?
Do you see what I'm driving at ?
Those doctrines and practices are already firmly implanted on a proselyte it will take more than 4 years to get them to 'pull it out' of their system, if one wishes to remain true to the Primitive Baptist doctrines and practices.
How can one man, minding a congregation of his own, supervise and monitor what is going on among the proselytes ?
I sure don't want to come home to my country one day, look for some church to worship with, see one with a sign that says Primitive Baptist, and find out that this Primitive Baptist church passes the collection plate around, has a salaried minister, and a Sunday School called a Bible Study, plus choir music albeit acapella.
I mean, hey, I'd rather go to the missionary baptists if I want to listen to a choir, or give tithes.
I am posting this to correct the impression that all Primitive Baptists support the current 'work' being done in the Philippines, or India, or elsewhere.
A big part of the PB's do not.
This is the same missionism and issues that came up and has been the subject of the Black Rock Address in the early 1800's.

 

Here is a link to one of the many sites that has the Black Rock Address: Minutes of proceedings at Black Rock, Maryland, Sept 1832

 

Also, Calvinism is creeping in among those who are involved in this missionism.
Calvinism while acknowledging the Doctrine of Grace and God's sovereignty in election, maintains that the elect must hear the gospel in order for the Holy Spirit to work His regenerative powers in them.
Primitive Baptists maintain that the Holy Spirit regenerates those who are His without the use of any agency, means, preacher, Bible, or man.
All who have been chosen in Christ, preserved in Christ, and accepted in Christ, will come to Christ and will be effectually called by God to union with Christ.
The preaching of the gospel does not result in one's eternal redemption. Neither is God dependent upon the preacher to reach His people.
Gospel instruction results in timely salvation of those in Christ.
I do not believe it was necessary for any Primitive Baptist to go to the Philippines, or India, if it was only for the purpose of establishing Primitive Baptist churches, or for the purpose of propagating Primitive Baptist doctrine and practices, or of spreading the Doctrine of Grace since one chosen in Christ from eternity past goes to heaven on the basis of God's mercy and on the basis of God accepting him in Christ, and not on the basis of one belonging to any order or church or holding on to any theology.
The glory of salvation belongs to God alone, not to any theological group, whether they be Primitive Baptists or Missionary Baptists.

 

The Primitive Baptist faith does not have a single founder or specific group responsible for organizing this Baptist tradition. There is, however, a generally-agreed upon timeline of events culminating in the split of the Old School Baptists from the Missionary Baptists. This occured when ten elders and ten brethren convened at Black Rock, Maryland on September 28, 1832. Elder Wm. Gilmore was chosen to moderate the proceedings and Gabriel Conklin presided as clerk for the writing of the Black Rock Address . Two elders, Wilson and Bowen, were not present at the meeting but authorized their identification on the address.

http://www.pb.org/pbdocs/blakrock.html

http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/primitive_baptists.html

 

This Primitive Baptist heartily endorses everything which Bro. pinoy has stated.

There is a big schism building amongst the ranks of Primitive Baptists. One which threatens to split us in two or three separate groups.

I happen to fall on the side, if there must be differing sides, which believes there can and should be a work going on in other places around the world, including the Philippines. However, from what I have seen, heard, and read from the individuals involved, the good work of several ministers and churches from the U.S. has basically become the ministry of one or a few men, setting up a "board", if you will, overseeing the churches in the Philippines.

This is already causing parting of fellowship between churches and ministers in the Philippines and their "handlers". I know that's a pretty harsh word to use, but I know for a fact that this is how many of the Filipino ministers are and were being treated.

Rhetorician, seeing that you are from Tennessee, I have a very good idea of whom you speak as being your friend. If it is who I am thinking of, I can only say that I have known the man personally my entire life. That said, even men we admire make mistakes from time to time. I believe endorsing what is occuring in the Philippines at this time is one of those mistakes.

Because the preachers endorsing the work overseas are the ones associated with Lassere Bradley and others, they are more vocal and better able to get their message across on the airwaves and such. Many from outside our group would be surprised to learn that at least half of the Primitive Baptists in this country do not endorse the work being done by those men.

I can tell you that in Texas, I can count on 2 hands the number of churches that I know for a fact do support the movement. That would leave some 95% of Texas PB churches, or somewhere along those lines, are against it in some form or fashion, some more vigorous than others.

It boils down to this.

Many of us believe that the gospel should be preached to whomever would hear it. We believe that people should be baptized and churches formed when the people being preached to are moved and see the truth of the doctrine held by Primitive Baptists. We believe that ministers should be set aside by their churches and ordained by a presbytery after they have been tried and preaching the gospel of truth long enough to demonstrate that they are truly called of God to preach. We believe that people here should be willing to support emotionally, and financially (if able), the newly formed congregations in getting started. The sticking point is here. We believe that once the work of establishing a church and minister in a particular place is done, then the "visiting preachers" should butt out of that church's affairs. We believe that these churches should be self-sufficient and self-reliant, not depending on donations from outside interests, being funneled through a man or board of men, in order to survive.

If these things were occuring, then there really wouldn't be the lines breaking and reforming as they are.

I must also add that many men...preachers...who were once endorsing the current work are beginning to see the inner workings for what they truly are, a missionary society, and coming over to the true Old Baptist side. It's sad that this is the state of things, but many times lines must be drawn in order to preserve our distinction as a true gospel church, following the NT path; the path of our forefathers.

I pray that things will change and the people integrated in the current work will stop looking at this as solely that which quells our anti-missions appearance, and will see that it has become exactly what the first "Primitive Baptists" were standing against.

 

There is a Primitive Baptist Church across the road from our IFB church. As far as I can tell, they only meet once a month (at the church) for worship services and they do foot washings. That's pretty much all I know about the Primitive Baptists.

 

Sometimes a Primitive Baptist church will meet once a month because in other Sundays they meet either at members' homes or at another church in another area to support that church, or sometimes it happens because the pastor also pastors the other church.

 

Also, I have been a Bible Baptist church member, and an Independent Baptist minister, but the Primitive Baptists are the sweetest people I have ever met all my 32 years as a church goer, whether they be missionists, or otherwise.