A Baptist History Question

Jim

I concur with all your assessments.

I hadn't heard of the Heart's Harbor Tabernacle till you mentioned it. I did a google search and came up with a couple of articles, but neither by T. T. Martin. Other than that I know nothing. The one article that was doctrinal that I found would suggest that they were of a baptistic/calvinistic bent.

I did an abebook search on the Martin title you mentioned. It would seem to have been published in Nashville, Tennessee in 1923. Two copies I found listed were priced in the $20-25 (US) range.

Jeff.

[ January 01, 2003, 06:23 PM: Message edited by: Jeff Weaver ]

 

Thanks Jeff,,,,,,,Would you believe the price posted on my copy is $1.25. There is no date, but it has my signature on the front page: pastor James S.......So, I must have picked it up in the early fifties.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Bro. Jim, Thomas Theodore Martin was a Southern Baptist preacher and evangelist in the late 1800's/early 1900's. If memory serves, he was a landmarker in principle. I would think he tended toward Calvinism also, as his father and most early Mississippi Baptists were strongly so. According to the Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists, his writings include "God's Plan with Men (1912), Redemption and the New Birth (1913), The New Testament Church (1917), Heaven, Hell, and Other Sermons (1923), and Hell in the High Schools (1923)." Here's a link: http://www.cantonbaptist.org/halloffame/martin.htm

The term Martinism, a religious controversy in the deep south (especially in Mississippi) comes from the doctrinal views of T. T.'s father, Matthew Thomas Martin. The core of the view was that a regenerated Christian had the witness of full assurance of salvation, and one who doubted his experience of salvation was still in sin. It's a lot more complicated than that and makes an interesting study.
http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=16&t=000190

[ January 01, 2003, 07:01 PM: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]

 

Thank you, Bob and Jeff,,you lads are a treasure trove of information. Now,,,glancing over my library, there are these books.........just kidding, but it is nice to know something about some authors.

I probably had some connection when I bought them, but long forgot.

Maybe I do have Primitive Baptist shadows in the background,,,,,,I was saved in a PB Gospel Hall,,,,oh, that was Plymouth Brethren in East London.....

Cheers,

Jim

 

Jim, this may interest you also. I found it while searching for anything to link on T. T. Martin.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/hellandhighschool.html

 

Thank you, Bob,

Those preachers didn't mince words, did they?

Cheers,

Jim

 

Brother Glen,

Do you mean the Plymouth Brethren? I will give more information another time. Do let me know though.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Hi Brother Glen -

There are several groups of Bretheren affiliations now. They are very similar to us doctrinally, especially to the Primitives, from what I have read. I believe they have more directly traceable ties to the early Anabaptist sects.

http://www.brethren.org/

http://www.cob-net.org/

http://www.cob-net.org/docs/groups.htm

 

Bro. Jeff, you mentioned that Eld. Mike Ivey's book was more like "historiacal fiction".

Can you explain your reasoning for this?

 

Bro. James and Bro. Glen

This link Review of Welsh Succession of Primitive Baptists though written by someone else (another Primitive Baptists by the way) would echo my sentiments on the book.

I suppose I may be too hard on him. History is my vocation. Any book that makes such a radical claim needs to be documented, and he has not done that.

I don't know Elder Ivey, and I am sure he means well, but he took some incredible leaps of faith in this book. When one does this kind of work, you need detailed footnotes as to where the material came from, and the reasoning process for arriving at the conclusions presented. He does neither.

Sylvester Hassell's work, though not well footnoted, can be verified for the most part independent of the book itself, and has stood the test of time. Hassell's work has some flaws as well, as would any work of the type, and Hassell admits as much in his preface. When you need an internal Primitive Baptist history, Hassell's is still the place to go.

Hope it helps.
Jeff.

[ January 02, 2003, 10:51 PM: Message edited by: Jeff Weaver ]

 

CLint wrote:

Clint

Jim was talking about Plymouth Brethren, not the CHurch of the Brethern, they are two distinct groups with origins that have little, if anything to do with the other. Anabaptists/Church of the Brethern have European Continental roots, while the Plymouth Brethern originated in England/Ireland in the early part of the 19th century. One of the early leaders of the Plymouth Brethren immigrated to New York and established them in the United States.

And in the for what it is worth category, there are many, many factions of the Church of the Brethren (those with Continental European roots). A good many would be considered down-right liberal these days.

That all said, Primitive Baptists do share some things in common with some Germanic cousins of the Church of the Brethern -- the Amish and Mennonites. There are, of course, some significant differences as well.

Hope it helps.

Jeff.

 

I stand corrected.

 

Here are a couple of web sites about the Plymouth Brethren.

1. Plymouth Brethren dot com

2. A Brief History of the Plymouth Brethren.

3. Plymouth Brethren Roots

4. Plymouth Brethren FAQ

Maybe that's enough for now.

Jeff.

 

Bro. Glen.

Elder Ivey's book is online, if you want to read it. Here is the URL: http://www.reformedreader.org/history/ivey/welsh.htm

The parts that are particularly objectionable from an academic historian's point of view are chapters IV and V.

Additionally, he used only secondary source materials for reference (see his Bibliography).

Jeff

[ January 02, 2003, 11:55 PM: Message edited by: Jeff Weaver ]

 

Bro. Glen wrote:

Bro. Glen

A very valid question. One that has volumes of material in the academic world, so I hope I can bring out the highlights in a short post. The question is valid for non-Biblical/church history as well. As has been noted many times the victors get to write the history (for the most part). And there is always some danger in accepting the majority position on any subject.

History should be, and is properly defined as Who, What, Where, When, Why and How. In most histories the Why and the How are the more difficult questions. In Church/Biblical History in addition to Why and How, What also becomes very important.

In other words, Who were the people under discussion, What did they believe, What did they understand, where were they located, when did the events under discussion take place, How did the group accomplish their purpose, how did they get to that point in space and time, how did they interact with those external to their group, how, how, how??? Why did they take their positions, why were these positions different/unique from those they were in conflict with? Why, Why, Why? There are lots of variants on the how and why questions, which can be unique to the study of the particular topic.

To be a valid history, the questions must be properly framed. In addition the historical writer, must present cogent answers to those questions, with valid source materials for coming to those answers. Valid source materials are considered as primary source materials. Primary source materials are defined as documents produced at the time of the historical inquiry by members of the group under study, those who had first had observation of them, or their opponents. Interviews would qualify as primary source material if the subject of the study are still active/living. (These are the difficulties with Ivey's book). Secondary source materials may be used to reinforce the theories/conclusions advanced, but should never, never, ever, be the sole basis for a proper history.

As for the question of historical truth. There are absolutes there, just as there is in scripture. The problem is discovering what those absolutes are. For ancient groups it is exceedingly difficult. Isolation of source materials, difficulties in understanding archealogical method, linguistic problems, etc., etc. The problems with ancient historical inquiry are probably best left to those who have access to original source materials. (Another problem with the Ivey book. Hassell had the linquistic abilities to overcome some of Ivey's shortcomings in this area, and one reason Hassell is still to be esteemed higher). When I was in college, I had courses on the identification of historical source material, and how to determine which was vallid, and which was not.

Another problem with historical works are the prejudices of the historical writer. In an ideal world these prejudices should be put aside. It is an exceedingly difficult thing to do. You know I write Civil War histories, but I wont write about a unit or engagement that I had an ancestor in. It colors my judgment about the event or group.

At any rate, hopefully this will give some insights on how academic historians work.