Primitive baptist

Jeff,

What does that church in Topeka believe?

 

Jeff,

Here is something I wrote to Glen on another thread after he had invited me to consider joining the Primitive baptists; I'd like to get your response.

"There are things about the Primitive Baptists that attract me: pastors who aren't "hired"; not using clerical titles such as "Reverend"; belief that someone who hasn't heard the gospel may still be saved; no missionary ("monied") societies; real belief and practice of the absolute autonomy of the local church.

However, here are some things which *might* keep me from being a member of Primitive Baptists: closed communion, rebaptism, no women ministers, no musical instruments in church, five-point Calvinism.

What do you think?"

 

Michael

I don't even want to talk about those folks. Basically they are violently anti-homosexual. Now, before anyone gets upset, I think homosexual activity is a sin, but then again we are all sinners. But violence against other humans, who have done you no harm, is sin as well. And sometimes violence against those who have done you harm is a sin as well, depends on the type of harm.

 

Michael

I saw that one another place, and am not sure I have an answer.

Of this I am sure, I am sure you would be welcome to visit, no matter what you believe. On your becoming a member, that might be difficult for you, as the church isn't likely to change, and if they did, their sister churches would "drop fellowship" with them, which would be painful for those that are already there.

As you and I, and probably most anyone who has been a Baptist for very long, knows of the "long and bloody Baptist wars" over everything from whether there is a hell to some very trivial points. [An aside, Bishop Spong in his book "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism" has a funny, but still true comment, about visiting a very small Tennessee town with two Baptist Churches. He inquired about why there were two, and the answer was returned, that one said there was no hell, and the other said the hell there ain't. Apologies for offending anyone there, but it is very true--I know where the town is, and been there several times.]

Primitive Baptists went through their own internal divisions over this and that, and there were little groups here and there with minor differences over these disputed points, and we were destroying ourselves. In 1992, most Primitive Baptists decided enough was enough, and to forget it and go back together. And I think that is our primary focus right now, keeping the peace within our churches. So, if you can accept us as we are, and think you can be happy with us, by all means join. If you can't, then your journey isn't over yet. I do pray that you can find a place that gives your soul rest. All of God's children deserve that, no matter what sign says over the door. From what you have said on the Board, and in our notes, I think you would probably fit best with the Separate Baptists, but I don't know of a church close to you. I don't think there is one on the Board -- they are a very small denomination, there are only about 8,000 of them. There is only one point, from your question, I think you would be in disagreement with them on, and that is missionary socieities, they have one.

I don't know if they have any active women ministers, but they have had them in times past, and may now. I have heard them. Some of their churches have musical instruments, some, maybe most, don't. They are also very Arminian in their theology. But they can be, not always, very hostile to non-Separate Baptists. But some of them can be very gracious. I have personally received both reactions from them. Maybe one was having an exceptionally bad day, and the other an exceptionally good one. And I would agree with them on very little except baptism.

Hope it helps.

J.

 

Jeff,

LOL!! I love the tale about the Tennessee churches, and what you said about those two Separate Baptists.

Speaking of the Separate Baptists, can you give me some more detailed information on them and their beliefs, or maybe a link to a website? I think I read something about them one time, but I can't remember where or what.

As far as being a member of Primitive Baptists, I wouldn't want anyone to change to accommodate me, and I wouldn't want to stir up controversy; I would just hope I would be allowed to hold the beliefs I hold. Do you think that would be possible? Of course, if I wanted to try to fulfill my calling as a pastor in the Primitive Baptist church, I realize that might be much tougher than just being a member, considering some of my beliefs.

I really appreciate all the time and effort yuo have taken in discussing these matters with me.

 

Michael, I have a link to the General Association of Separate Baptists on my "Denominational Sites" post. This is their official website. There are at least two local associations of Separate Baptists that do not affiliate with the General Association.

As far as the Topeka bunch is concerned, it's not so much what they believe that is a problem, but what they practice. They seem to exist mainly to hate homosexuals. I agree with their belief on homosexuality, but not their practices - such as picketing funerals of homosexuals. They have a website. I have debated on whether to link it. Perhaps it is best for anyone who wants to look at it to do a Yahoo Search and type in 'Westboro Baptist Church Topeka Kansas'. You will find it. Jeff, correct me it I'm wrong; I think that the pastor and church have no actual historical connection to Primitive Baptists, but just choose to use the name. They really seem to fit in as more of a radical fundamentalist type.

 

Very Interesting conversation. I pastor a lady who was raised up in a Primitive Baptist work. Jeff, have you ever received flak for being identified with the "Two Seed in the Spirit Predestinarian Baptists" (Long name . I know that Primitives have often been wrongly accused of affiating with this group that I'm not sure they exist anymore but were a problem for all Baptists because they held to an extremist, extremist view of hyperCalvinism.

rlvaughn,

Could you give me a link to your website? Thanks

 

MW wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Jeff,
LOL!! I love the tale about the Tennessee churches, and what you said about those two Separate Baptists.

Speaking of the Separate Baptists, can you give me some more detailed information on them and their beliefs, or maybe a link to a website? I think I read something about them one time, but I can't remember where or what.

As far as being a member of Primitive Baptists, I wouldn't want anyone to change to accommodate me, and I wouldn't want to stir up controversy; I would just hope I would be allowed to hold the beliefs I hold. Do you think that would be possible? Of course, if I wanted to try to fulfill my calling as a pastor in the Primitive Baptist church, I realize that might be much tougher than just being a member, considering some of my beliefs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lots of questions.

Here is the Separate Baptist Web site. http://www.separatebaptist.org/
One of their associations, the Christian Unity Baptist Association was located in the area where I grew up. My sister-in-law is one. Lots of other connections with them, but that is trivial. I will let you ask them directly what they believe, because I wouldn't want to misrepresent it.

As for belonging to a Primitive Baptist church and holding views that you do, I suppose it is possible, but I think it would be uncomfortable for you and the church. So I wouldn't recommend it, but wouldn't rule it out either.

Hope it helps.

 

RLV Wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As far as the Topeka bunch is concerned, it's not so much what they believe that is a problem, but what they practice. They seem to exist mainly to hate homosexuals. I agree with their belief on homosexuality, but not their practices - such as picketing funerals of homosexuals. They have a website. I have debated on whether to link it. Perhaps it is best for anyone who wants to look at it to do a Yahoo Search and type in 'Westboro Baptist Church Topeka Kansas'. You will find it. Jeff, correct me it I'm wrong; I think that the pastor and church have no actual historical connection to Primitive Baptists, but just choose to use the name. They really seem to fit in as more of a radical fundamentalist type. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bro. Robert, I completely agree with your assessment of the Westboro church. I am not sure of what they believe, other than hating homosexuals, but their practice is a travisty. And they have no historical connection to other Primitive Baptists. Elder Thomas Mann recently did an article for the Roanoke Times about them, and clearly pointed out the general Primitive Baptist position regarding their activities. Elder Mann did this because of some hate crimes against homosexuals in the Roanoke, Virginia area.

 

Kiffin wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Very Interesting conversation. I pastor a lady who was raised up in a Primitive Baptist work. Jeff, have you ever received flak for being identified with the "Two Seed in the Spirit Predestinarian Baptists" (Long name . I know that Primitives have often been wrongly accused of affiating with this group that I'm not sure they exist anymore but were a problem for all Baptists because they held to an extremist, extremist view of hyperCalvinism.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the note. I hope it has been an interesting conversation, but hard to tell whether or not it matters much or not.

At any rate, to answer the question, I never get asked about the Two-Seed question. I don't know as much about them as I would like. David Montgomery has this on the PrimitiveBaptist.org web site:
http://www.primitivebaptist.org/writers/parker_d/

As you know We Primitive Baptists of what ever stripe are generally called hyper-Calvinists now. We tend to reject the term Calvinist at all. And whether one agrees with us or not, we have a valid scriptural agrument for holding what hold. We do believe the London Confession of 1689 is a valid expression of our faith, and for most of the last two centuries, we were perhaps the only Baptist group that did. I have heard it said that we live in a time-warp, and we should moderize, to go with the flow, get with the times, etc. But I/we see no need to do that. We see the resurgence of folks who accept the 1689 London Confession as a valid expression of their faith, and are a bit shocked that some of them verbally attack us, but we are heartened to know that we are no longer alone in that faith. I think this is why many Primitive Baptists feel more of a spiritual kinship with Westminster Confession Presbyterians than other Baptist groups. (This was certainly the case in the community I grew up in, whether it is everywhere I don't know, but suspect that it is generally true.)

I hope I haven't bored you too much, or strayed too far from the question.

J.

 

Kiffin, to which website do you refer? I do not have a personal one. Is it something else to which I referred?

As far as the Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit Predestinarian Baptists, I have this much information. There are three known churches left - 1 in Texas, 1 in Illinois, and 1 in Tennessee. In "Viewpoints", the magazine of the Georgia Baptist Historical Society, it has been related that there are some "closet" two-seeders among the Primitive Baptists of wiregrass Georgia. The one "two-seeder" with whom I have corresponded does not recognize their churches as being part of the Primitive Baptist movement. Their origin does go back to Elder Daniel Parker, a very influential Primitive Baptist minister of yesteryear. It is my opinion that he was the one most influential minister for eastern Texas - not only among Primitive Baptists, but also missionary Baptists. Many of the early missionary Baptist preachers came out of Parker's Old Pilgrim church near Elkhart, TX. Also some of the early missionary Baptist preachers were Parker relatives. Eld. Parker travelled more miles, preached more sermons, and organized more churches than any other preacher of his time. Eld. J. M. Carroll, in his Centennial History of Texas Baptists, indicated that he felt Parker's beliefs and practices were in contradiction. But maybe in part this is beause so many outsiders misunderstand Primitive Baptists. Probably even the "two-seed" ideas of Parker were misunderstood by both missionary and Primitive Baptists. By the way, the Old Pilgrim church (which Parker brought to Texas from Illinois) is not identified with the "Two-Seed" group, but with Primitive Baptists. In spite of all his influence, his own church evidently did not continue to follow his "two-seed" ideas. Parker's address to the missionary society (circa 1820, I can't remember the correct title) is still available form the Primitive Baptist Library in Carthage, IL.

[ October 19, 2001: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Weaver:
We do believe the London Confession of 1689 is a valid expression of our faith, and for most of the last two centuries, we were perhaps the only Baptist group that did.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I find this statement a bit confusing. The London Confession of 1677/1688/1689 is essentially the same as the Philadelphia Confession of 1782, is it not?

I believe most of the London/Philadelphia confession, with the exception of the first article, which deals with the Protestant concept of a "universal, catholic" church. In that area I believe the New Hampshire Confession of 1833 is more biblical and accurate.

Now, I agree that all too many so-called "baptists" today, and even historically, starting with the "General" Baptists of England, accept the Confesion of the Free Will Baptists of 1834/1868, but suspect those are still the minority of Baptists.

It seems to me that most Baptists historically, and even today, would hold to the London/Philadelphia confession, perhaps with slight modification regarding the nature of the church as outlined in the New Hampshire confession.

How would your understanding differ from mine?

 

Jeff,

Thanks for the info. I feel that Primitive Baptists have at times goten a raw deal by Baptist historians who sometimes misrepresent them. I notice also that many Primitives use the 1655 Midland Confession. My Church which is a Reformed Baptist Church that affiliates with the SBC is considering making this our official doctrinal statement

 

Dr. Cassidy

I am sorry for being slow in answering. I was out of town over the weekend, and forgot I owed you an answer.

You may be right on the universal church article in particular, but the language in the London Confession doesn't bother me. I do believe that all of the family of God could be called a universal church (Bride of Christ), and that is what I believe the London Confession is saying. BTW, the universal church article is #26, and only briefly alluded to in article 1.

As for the New Hampshire Confession, I have major problems with portions of it, specifically articles 6-9. The whole Calvinism-Arminian horse has been beaten to death, so I won't rehash it again. From my perspective, I would think that the ideals expressed in the New Hampshire Confession are more wide-spread than those of the London Confession. I am not aware of any poll lead me to that conclusion, just personal observation. And if a poll were taken of 1000 Baptists nationwide, I doubt that many would know the difference. And I have never read the SBC BF&M, so I can't say I would be competent to answer about all Baptist Confessions/Creeds either.

Maybe we could do a poll here about which Confession folks subscribe to as being closest to their personal faith, realizing of course that probably no individual would be in 100% agreement with any of them. What do you think?


Hope it helps.


Jeff

 

Kiffin wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Thanks for the info. I feel that Primitive Baptists have at times goten a raw deal by Baptist historians who sometimes misrepresent them. I notice also that many Primitives use the 1655 Midland Confession. My Church which is a Reformed Baptist Church that affiliates with the SBC is considering making this our official doctrinal statement <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the note. Some of the PBCs use the Midland, but I think more use the London. The mother PBC church here in the east is Welsh Tract, which was formed in Wales in 1701, and emmigrated to America in 1703, and it subscribed to the London when it was formed, and thus the daughter churches here use it as well.

I don't keep up with all the goings and comings of the SBC, but I see a major division developing there over these issues. (I do take the Founders Journal thingy online).

Some folks (anthropologists) have said that Primitive Baptists have had an influence way out of proportion to their numbers, which is probably true. (We Primitive Baptists have been the object of several decent antropological studies). One I would recommend if you can find it is Pilgrim's of Paradox published by Smithsonian Institution Press, by Jim Patterson and Ruel Tyson, both Professors at the University of North Carolina--Chapel Hill. Course I am prejudiced--they said nice things about me in it.

Jeff

 

bump

 

bump