# Primitive/Hardshell Baptist



## Tim L (Aug 13, 2010)

Growing up there was a small Primitive Baptist Church (Antioch) about a mile from our house.  From what I remember they only met once a month and mainly (and this was more than 40 years ago); most that did attend were elderly.  Even now, most all of the Primitive Baptist Churches I'm aware meet less than once a week and meet in small, old church buildings...

But enough about all that....what are the core beliefs of a Primitive or hardshell Baptist Church and how do they differ from other mainstream Baptist Churches.....Just curious and looking for information; not looking for someones opinion on whether or not their right or wrong or rants.


----------



## Keebs (Aug 13, 2010)

I'm Primitive Baptist............. not "old line" or Hardshell as you called it............. the main difference between the two is old line doesn't believe in musical instruments in the church (if I recall correctly).
I remember the days when we met 1st-3rd & 5th Sundays, but we have been full time for many, many years now.
I am not one to be able to give you our Articles of Faith word for word, by no means, but the main difference I have been able to ascertain through the years is that we believe in pre-destination........... if your name is in the Lamb's Book of Life, you're there already, you are pre-destined to go to Heaven.
Yes, we still wash feet and partake of real wine & eat unleavened bread (made it myself a couple of times with my Mama) for our passover ceremony.  Unless you have humbled yourself to get down on your knees & wash another sister's/brother's feet, then don't dare bother replying to this post in the negative.


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 13, 2010)

They are also much more literal in their translation of certain scriptures...such as headcoverings, make-up and jewelery.


----------



## Keebs (Aug 13, 2010)

rjcruiser said:


> They are also much more literal in their translation of certain scriptures...such as headcoverings, make-up and jewelery.



old line? not the ones I know.


----------



## Jeffriesw (Aug 13, 2010)

If I remember correctly I have also heard or read of them referred to as "Particular Baptist"
Particular Baptist ie. Particular Atonement being what most "Modern" people would term as Limited Atonement (Predestination).

What is part of the theology known as Calvinism, A lot of Baptist and there theology are a direct result of calvinism as it came over here from across the pond after the reformation.

Here is something I found on the web just now that explains a bit about it (I don't know how accurate the info is, although it sounds right as far as what I read a while back elsewhere)

http://www.newrivernotes.com/nrv/primitiv.htm

I think the book I read was a History of Calvinism and Southern Baptist Convention (don't remember the exact title)

Hope this helps Keebs.


----------



## Keebs (Aug 13, 2010)

Swamp Runner said:


> If I remember correctly I have also heard or read of them referred to as "Particular Baptist"
> Particular Baptist ie. Particular Atonement being what most "Modern" people would term as Limited Atonement (Predestination).
> 
> What is part of the theology known as Calvinism, A lot of Baptist and there theology are a direct result of calvinism as it came over here from across the pond after the reformation.
> ...




Thanks, but I'm the one that _is_ Primitive Baptist, Rouster was the one wanting info........... but I did go to the site you put up,,,,,,,,,, some is like my church, some are not.  The reason I can't tell you much of the differences is because I only know mine, not others............ ask particular questions, I probably can answer but to just "spout off" all the differences, I wouldn't even try.


----------



## Tim L (Aug 13, 2010)

Keebs said:


> I'm Primitive Baptist............. not "old line" or Hardshell as you called it............. the main difference between the two is old line doesn't believe in musical instruments in the church (if I recall correctly).
> I remember the days when we met 1st-3rd & 5th Sundays, but we have been full time for many, many years now.
> I am not one to be able to give you our Articles of Faith word for word, by no means, but the main difference I have been able to ascertain through the years is that we believe in pre-destination........... if your name is in the Lamb's Book of Life, you're there already, you are pre-destined to go to Heaven.
> Yes, we still wash feet and partake of real wine & eat unleavened bread (made it myself a couple of times with my Mama) for our passover ceremony.  Unless you have humbled yourself to get down on your knees & wash another sister's/brother's feet, then don't dare bother replying to this post in the negative.



So Primitive Baptist isn't just another name for hardshell baptist..It seems like (and I'm going back a long time) the men sat on one side of the church and the women the other side, this that still true?


----------



## Jeffriesw (Aug 13, 2010)

Keebs said:


> Thanks, but I'm the one that _is_ Primitive Baptist, Rouster was the one wanting info........... but I did go to the site you put up,,,,,,,,,, some is like my church, some are not.  The reason I can't tell you much of the differences is because I only know mine, not others............ ask particular questions, I probably can answer but to just "spout off" all the differences, I wouldn't even try.



Well, I guess I ain't the sharpest knife in the drawer


----------



## Keebs (Aug 13, 2010)

Rouster said:


> So Primitive Baptist isn't just another name for hardshell baptist..It seems like (and I'm going back a long time) the men sat on one side of the church and the women the other side, this that still true?


Nope, another sign of the times............ 



Swamp Runner said:


> Wll, I guess I ain't the sharpest knife in the drawer



 that's ok, I ain't either...............


----------



## horse2292 (Aug 13, 2010)

Keebs said:


> I'm Primitive Baptist............. not "old line" or Hardshell as you called it............. the main difference between the two is old line doesn't believe in musical instruments in the church (if I recall correctly).
> I remember the days when we met 1st-3rd & 5th Sundays, but we have been full time for many, many years now.
> I am not one to be able to give you our Articles of Faith word for word, by no means, but the main difference I have been able to ascertain through the years is that we believe in pre-destination........... if your name is in the Lamb's Book of Life, you're there already, you are pre-destined to go to Heaven.
> Yes, we still wash feet and partake of real wine & eat unleavened bread (made it myself a couple of times with my Mama) for our passover ceremony.  Unless you have humbled yourself to get down on your knees & wash another sister's/brother's feet, then don't dare bother replying to this post in the negative.



I grew up in a Primitive Baptist Church. The others yall refer to are  also called Old Line churches. They are still around. I am actually planning to attend my first churches 100th Reunion in October. Lake Chapel Primitive Baptist Church in Screven Ga.


----------



## possum steak (Aug 13, 2010)

There's a Primitive Baptist church right down the road from me here in Buford.

They agree with much of what the mainline Baptists believe, but one fundamental belief is they do not believe in foreign missions effort.

Baptists in general are NOT Calvinistic but one aspect of Calvinism is the doctrine of "one saved always saved" to which all Baptists adhere to.

The Primitive believe that since God has already predestined  the elect, then there is no use in the missions effort since they will be saved anyhow.

Word search this for further reading.


----------



## Keebs (Aug 14, 2010)

Rouster said:


> So Primitive Baptist isn't just another name for hardshell baptist..It seems like (and I'm going back a long time) the men sat on one side of the church and the women the other side, this that still true?



One correction, the only time we "separate" is for the foot washing ceremony, the sister's wash the sister's & the brother's wash the brother's, during regular services, I still sit towards the back......................


----------



## Jeffriesw (Aug 14, 2010)

http://www.reformedreader.org/history/350years.htm

(it is a reformed site, so some skew or bias may be found in their "history' info)


350 YEARS OF BAPTIST HISTORY
by Pastor G. Holmes Moore
Bible Baptist Church of St. Louis, MO

1988 marked 350 years of continuous Baptist history in America! The first Baptist churches were established in 1638 in the colony of Rhode Island. One was established in Providence by Roger Williams, and the other in Newport by John Clarke. Williams was only a Baptist for a brief period and his church was not long lived, so Baptist history is better traced through Clarke and the Newport church.

Our church was founded in 1954 as an independent Baptist church. We have never been a Denominational church in the sense of belonging to some Convention or Association. However, we are Baptists by conviction and hold, in doctrine and polity, to the historic and regular Baptist position, believing that to be the Biblical position.

Be sure to read the following article that points out the Calvinistic bent of Baptists in this country from the earliest times. Most Baptists know little of this history, particularly as it relates to doctrine.



THREE HUNDRED FIFTY YEARS OF CONTINUOUS BAPTIST HISTORY IN AMERICA

"Thus saith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein." (Jer. 6:16)

It should be made perfectly clear that when we speak of Baptists, we are not referring to any particular Denomination, Convention, Fellowship, or Association as an outward, visible organization of churches. We intend a people, traced by their vital principles and gospel practices. History is appealed to, not as necessary to legitimacy as a church or authoritative, but merely as a demonstration of the fact that OUR DOCTRINE IS NOT NEW. Only conformity to biblical principles can constitute any assembly as a TRUE CHURCH OF CHRIST. We do not need, nor do we seek, an historical succession to grant validity to our church and its doctrine. The Bible is sufficient to do that for us, or any other church.

However, the testimony of history, rightly viewed, is important and useful. We feel that it is in the interest of all Christians to have a general knowledge of Church History, particularly as it traces "the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." We do not believe that Baptists have any corner on God or history, but we do believe that Baptists have, under God, had an important part in maintaining the testimony of Christ in this world from the earliest times down to the present. Perhaps what follows will prove of interest and benefit to all of God's people.



THE FIRST AMERICAN BAPTIST WERE CALVINISTS

The first Baptists in America, whether at Newport or Providence, were distinctly Calvinistic in their doctrine rather than Arminian. Both Roger Williams and John Clarke were Puritan Separatists. Williams was a graduate of Cambridge, famous at that time for its Puritanical Calvinism, (The Christian in Complete Armour, Gurnall, from the Introduction by J. C. Ryle, p. xix) Some of the most renown of the Puritan writers were graduated during that same period, such as Jeremiah Burroughs, Thomas Hooker, John Cotton, Matthew Poole, Thomas Watson, and Stephen Charnock, just to name a few. Of course, it is common knowledge that seventeenth century Cambridge was a staunch ally to Cromwell and the Long Parliament, and produced many of the divines of the famous Westminster Assembly. The worthy Westminster Confession greatly influenced the London Confession of the English Baptists, which was one with it in soteriology. (Baptist Confessions of Faith, Lumpkin, pp. 236-240)

Although we don't have exact information of Clarke's education, he exhibited such "a knowledge of Greek and Hebrew such as men seldom gained in England outside of the universities". (A Short History of Baptists, p. 293, Vedder) Concerning William's church, Vedder says, "The original members were of Puritan antecedents and Calvinists;...". (Ibid, p. 292) Of Clarke's church, the same historian gives an account of a split that occurred in 1654 or 1656, brought on by an Arminian, "Six-principle" group, the like of which had earlier caused division in William's old church. (Ibid, pp. 293, 295) A successor of Clarke as pastor, Comer, said of the original body under Clarke that they maintained "the doctrine of efficacious grace, and professed the baptizing of only visible believers upon personal profession by total immersion in water...". (The History of the Baptists, Armitage, p. 671) Efficacious grace is, of course, irresistible grace, the heart of Calvinistic teaching touching regeneration. It implies the other "four points".



ARMINIAN BAPTISTS NEVER PREVAILED BEFORE THE PRESENT ERA

True enough, the Arminian faction among Baptists made their influence felt in early Baptist history, but never became the dominant force. The strict Calvinists gained and maintained the formative influence in New England, the Middle Atlantic, and also the South, and that from the earliest periods. This came to pass much by the formation of the Philadelphia Association. This group of Baptists are traceable back to at least 1684, and in 1688 a church was formed with its first pastor being Elias Keach, son of the famous Baptist minister of London, Benjamin Keach. Of its later published Confession of Faith, McGlothlin states, "It is an exact reprint of the Assembly Confession of 1689, with the addition of the following articles, taken verbatim from Keach's Confession." (Baptist Confessions of Faith, McGlothlin, p. 279) Its Calvinism was unchanged. Concerning the tremendous influence of the Philadelphia Association, Vedder says, "From the first the New Jersey churches were members, and as the body increased in age and strength it attracted to itself all the Baptist churches within traveling distance of it, having as members churches in southern New York and Virginia. Its adoption of a strongly Calvinistic Confession in 1742 (or possibly earlier) was a turning-point in the history of American Baptists, as it ensured the prevalence of that type of theology." (Ibid, p. 306) The same author goes so far as to say, "The Association speedily became the leading body among American Baptists -- a position it has not wholly lost to this day. Pretty much everything good in our history, from 1700 to 1850, may be traced to its initiative or active co-operation." (Ibid, p. 306) Vedder wrote in 1907, and nobody would dare call him a Calvinistic partisan.

Kenneth Good, in his book, Are Baptists Calvinists?, does a good job of tracing the Calvinistic influence that Vedder speaks of to the Baptist Bible Union and the General Association of Regular Baptists. (pp.188-216) All the various Fundamental Baptist groups have their roots back to this same source. Whether Fundamental or Southern, most Baptist churches of our day have for their Articles of Faith but a version of the New Hampshire Confession of 1833, with certain modifications. Although The New Hampshire Confession is more moderate in tone than the Philadelphia Confession, it was drawn up precisely to combat the message of the Free Will Baptists which was becoming popular at the time in that area. (Baptist Confessions of Faith, Lumpkin, p. 360) Therefore it still retained its distinctly Calvinistic theology purposely, and that for polemical reasons. It has always puzzled me why the longest single section of that confession has always been omitted by modern day Baptists. It is article ix, "Of God's Purpose of Grace."

"We believe that Election is the gracious purpose of God, according to which he graciously regenerates, sanctifies, and saves sinners; that being perfectly consistent with the free agency of man, it comprehends all the means in connection with the end; that it is a most glorious display of God's sovereign goodness, being infinitely free, wise, holy, and unchangeable; that it utterly excludes boasting, and promotes humility, love, prayer, praise, trust in God, and active imitation of his free mercy; that it encourages the use of means in the highest degree; that it is ascertained by its effects in all who truly believe the gospel; that it is the foundation of Christian assurance; and that to ascertain it with regard to ourselves, demands and deserves our utmost diligence." (Ibid, p. 364)

It has always seemed to me that any Baptist group, wishing to stand with the mainstream of the venerable Baptist past and desiring to be true to the gospel, would be proud to include such a biblical and Baptistic statement in its Articles of Faith. In fact, if purposely done, it seems to me to be historically dishonest to have omitted it, particularly when such Articles were and are set forth as representing the historic Baptist position.

Reprinted from Grace Baptist Church


----------



## Jeffriesw (Aug 14, 2010)

Lot of good info at this site also

http://www.yellowstone.net/baptist/history.htm

The Reformed Debate

In addition to the long-running debate over Baptist origins, a new debate is now prominent in Baptist life:  the question over whether or not Baptists (and particularly Southern Baptists) are historically Calvinistic.   The Founders Journal (see below), along with Dr. Albert Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, champions the view that Southern Baptists have always been strict (5 point) Calvinists. While it is true that Southern Baptists have long been influenced by Calvinism, they have also been much influenced by Arminianism, which historically served to moderate Calvinism and produce a warmly evangelistic theology that existed at the formation of the SBC in 1845. Most Baptists today hold beliefs from both Calvinistic and Arminian schools of thought. The current Calvinistic debate regarding Baptist history has reached the point of directly impacting many Baptist churches throughout America. Many of the online Baptist history resources listed below are from the Reformed (or Calvinist) perspective.  Also, within the past few years, some Reformed (or Calvinist) Baptists have shifted to using the milder-sounding terminology of "doctrines of grace" rather than "Calvinism" (this is reflected in many of the referenced web sites).


----------



## thedeacon (Aug 15, 2010)

Keebs said:


> I'm Primitive Baptist............. not "old line" or Hardshell as you called it............. the main difference between the two is old line doesn't believe in musical instruments in the church (if I recall correctly).
> I remember the days when we met 1st-3rd & 5th Sundays, but we have been full time for many, many years now.
> I am not one to be able to give you our Articles of Faith word for word, by no means, but the main difference I have been able to ascertain through the years is that we believe in pre-destination........... if your name is in the Lamb's Book of Life, you're there already, you are pre-destined to go to Heaven.
> Yes, we still wash feet and partake of real wine & eat unleavened bread (made it myself a couple of times with my Mama) for our passover ceremony.  Unless you have humbled yourself to get down on your knees & wash another sister's/brother's feet, then don't dare bother replying to this post in the negative.



I used to go to their Sacred Harps sings to.


----------



## emtguy (Aug 15, 2010)

possum steak said:


> There's a Primitive Baptist church right down the road from me here in Buford.
> 
> They agree with much of what the mainline Baptists believe, but one fundamental belief is they do not believe in foreign missions effort.
> 
> ...



thats what i thought to


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 16, 2010)

Keebs said:


> Thanks, but I'm the one that _is_ Primitive Baptist,



Wow....a little sensitive..eh?

Just because we might not be _________, doesn't mean we don't know about _________.


----------



## Jeffriesw (Aug 17, 2010)

rjcruiser said:


> Wow....a little sensitive..eh?
> 
> Just because we might not be _________, doesn't mean we don't know about _________.



Nah, It's all good. Keebs was just pointing out that I responded to the wrong person. I responded to Keebs, when It was rouster who asked the question.


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 17, 2010)

Swamp Runner said:


> Nah, It's all good. Keebs was just pointing out that I responded to the wrong person. I responded to Keebs, when It was rouster who asked the question.



Ah...I see.  I guess I shouldn't be online past my bed time   Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## Tim L (Aug 17, 2010)

Are Primitive Baptist like the Church of Christ in that they do not allow music during the service?


----------



## Randy (Aug 17, 2010)

Rouster, I believe the "primitive baptists" of today are not the same as the "primitive baptists" of your youth.  The have changed over time just as have most other denominations.  When you study different religions and the denominations within those religions, many actually most have changed a lot with time.


----------



## hayseed_theology (Aug 18, 2010)

It was my understanding that the Primitive Baptist came out of the "Anti-mission society" movement.  IIRC, a lot of the original debate went down in Texas.  And the debate was not whether or not we should do missions, but whether or not a "mission society" or the church should be responsible for doing missions.  The Missionary Baptist churches supported the use of missions societies; the Primitive Baptist opposed the mission societies.   So at their beginning, "Primitive Baptists" believed in doing missions, they just opposed the use of a "soceity" to do the work.  Eventually, it seems that many of the churches lost sight of this and just became anti-missions.  Typically, churches that do not believe in the need to do missions work are labeled "Hyper-Calvinist."  Calvinists have traditionally been missions and evangelism minded.


----------



## hayseed_theology (Aug 18, 2010)

possum steak said:


> Baptists in general are NOT Calvinistic but one aspect of Calvinism is the doctrine of "one saved always saved" to which all Baptists adhere to.



While most Baptists today are not Calvinist.  As swamp runner has pointed out, the majority of Baptists in the past were Calvinist.

Baptists often say "once saved, always saved," but Calvinists do not typically say that.  Rather, they hold to perseverance of the saints.  Both ideas articulate eternal security, but they are slightly different.  

"Once saved, always saved" is often used to refer to someone who prayed a prayer but has lived their lives in obvious rebellion and immorality.  Perseverance of the saints says that only those who persevere in faith will be saved, and those who persevere do so because God keeps them.


----------



## hayseed_theology (Aug 18, 2010)

Swamp Runner said:


> While it is true that Southern Baptists have long been influenced by Calvinism, they have also been much influenced by Arminianism, which historically served to moderate Calvinism and produce a warmly evangelistic theology that existed at the formation of the SBC in 1845.



Is there any documentation of this?  To my knowledge, all 293 delegates at the first SBC meeting in Augusta in 1845 came from a church or association with a Calvinist confession of faith.

At that time, the Arminian(General) Baptists had almost died out in the states.  It was the Calvinist (Particular, Separate, and Regular) Baptist churches that were growing and evangelizing.  That statement also functions on the false assumption that Calvinist are not warmly evangelistic on their own.


----------



## gilbertbeebe (Aug 18, 2010)

I am Jamey Tucker and serve as the pastor of Eureka Primitive Baptist Church near Tifton, GA. PBs were known as Particular and Regular Baptists in the 1700 and early 1800s in America. They trace their history as Baptists to the Particular Baptists of England. They were referred to as Particular Baptists because they believed in particular redemption in opposition to the General Baptists who believed in the general atonement. Many Baptists were Calvinistic at this time as witnessed by the oldest Baptist association in America, The Philadelphia Association, that adhered to the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith. 

In, and around 1832, there were major splits in the Baptist family in England and America on account of missionary boards. PBs felt that ministers and evangelism were to be under the authority of the local church instead of embracing the system under the direction of missionary boards that were springing up at this time. It is true that PBs began to fight against missionary work on account of the stance they took against missionary boards. Along about this time they came to be known as Old School Baptist and Primitive Baptist. In regard to the "new innovations, auxiliaries, boards, Sunday Schools, musical instruments in public worship, salaried ministers, seminaries, etc.," Primitive Baptists often went into "the other side of the ditch" in opposing what they were convinced were unscriptural practices. The PBs have experienced a great decline during the last 100 years, often as a result of "being in the other side of the ditch." The PBs did not financially support their ministers, did not teach their children, were not burdened to spread the gospel, the ministers were not educated, etc.  

Today, however, there are PBs that are evangelistic; churches that meet every Sunday; ministers who are supported by the local church; churches that do have young people (and where you find young people among them they are dedicated to the word and zealous).  Eureka has been blessed to support a pastor full-time, assemble three times each week, support orphanages in India, Philippines, and Cambodia and help plant churches in the Philippines, India, Africa, and Cambodia and support other outreaches to Malaysia, Vietnam, and Russia. The Lord willing, I am leaving next month to hold two ministers’ conferences in Cambodia and to check on the orphanage (purereligionministries.com). In spite of our many failures as a denomination God has been merciful to us to allow us to know and preach His glorious gospel. I invite you to come and worship with us when you can. Below are our Articles of Faith:

Eureka’s Articles of Faith 
1. We believe in the one true and living God, and that there are three persons in the God-head: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost 1 John 5:7). 
2. We believe the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the inspired written Word of God and the only rule of faith, and that the New Testament is the rule of practice for the Church of the living God (2 Timothy 3:16). 
3. We believe in the doctrine of eternal and particular redemption (Ephesians 1:4-5; 2 Thessalonians 2:13). 
4.We believe in the doctrine of original sin (Romans 3:10-19). 
5. We believe in man’s impotency to recover himself from the state he is in by his own free will and ability (Jeremiah 13:23; John 6:44; Romans 9:16).) 
6. We believe sinners are justified in the sight of God only by the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ (Romans 3:24-26; 2 Corinthians 5:21). 
7. We believe God’s elect shall be called, converted, and sanctified by the Holy Ghost (John 3:8; 5:25; 6:37-40; 1 Corinthians 1:9). 
8. We believe the saints shall be preserved in grace and never finally fall away (Jeremiah 32:40; Philippians 1:6; 1 Peter 1:5). 
9. We believe baptism and the Lord’s supper are ordinances and washing of the saint’s feet is an example of Jesus Christ; that true believers are the only subjects of ordinances and examples and that they should observe them; that the only mode of baptism is immersion (Matthew 28:19; 1 Corinthians 11:23-34; John 13:4-17; Acts 8:36-39). 
10. We believe in the resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust. The dead in Christ shall rise first. We which are alive and remain shall be changed and caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air (Acts 24:15; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18). 
11. We believe the punishment of the wicked will be everlasting and the joys of the righteous will be eternal (Matthew 25:46; 2 Thessalonians 1:8-10). 
12. We believe no minister has the right to administer the ordinances of baptism or the Lord’s supper who has not been regularly (orderly) called and come under the imposition of hands by a regularly constituted presbytery (1 Timothy 4:14; 2 Timothy 1:6)


----------



## Jeffriesw (Aug 18, 2010)

hayseed_theology said:


> Is there any documentation of this?[/U]  To my knowledge, all 293 delegates at the first SBC meeting in Augusta in 1845 came from a church or association with a Calvinist confession of faith.
> 
> At that time, the Arminian(General) Baptists had almost died out in the states.  It was the Calvinist (Particular, Separate, and Regular) Baptist churches that were growing and evangelizing.  That statement also functions on the false assumption that Calvinist are not warmly evangelistic on their own.




To be honest with you, I am not sure. My post was a copy and paste from the the first 2 sources I found on the net when searching for the term "Hardshell Baptist"

That is what I have read in that book I referred to in my other post and couldn't remember the name of.

I have since remembered the name and hunted down a copy and wil start re reading it tonight.
It is called "Southern Baptist and the Doctrine of Election" by Robert Selph.

here is a link to it.

http://www.bookfinder.com/dir/i/Southern_Baptists_and_the_Doctrine_of_Election/0873779487/





gilbertbeebe said:


> I am Jamey Tucker and serve as the pastor of Eureka Primitive Baptist Church near Tifton, GA. PBs were known as Particular and Regular Baptists in the 1700 and early 1800s in America. They trace their history as Baptists to the Particular Baptists of England. They were referred to as Particular Baptists because they believed in particular redemption in opposition to the General Baptists who believed in the general atonement. Many Baptists were Calvinistic at this time as witnessed by the oldest Baptist association in America, The Philadelphia Association, that adhered to the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith.
> 
> In, and around 1832, there were major splits in the Baptist family in England and America on account of missionary boards. PBs felt that ministers and evangelism were to be under the authority of the local church instead of embracing the system under the direction of missionary boards that were springing up at this time. It is true that PBs began to fight against missionary work on account of the stance they took against missionary boards. Along about this time they came to be known as Old School Baptist and Primitive Baptist. In regard to the "new innovations, auxiliaries, boards, Sunday Schools, musical instruments in public worship, salaried ministers, seminaries, etc.," Primitive Baptists often went into "the other side of the ditch" in opposing what they were convinced were unscriptural practices. The PBs have experienced a great decline during the last 100 years, often as a result of "being in the other side of the ditch." The PBs did not financially support their ministers, did not teach their children, were not burdened to spread the gospel, the ministers were not educated, etc.
> 
> ...






Welcome Jamey Tucker


----------



## gilbertbeebe (Aug 18, 2010)

The Old School or Primitive Baptist's stance was too a large part defined in the Black Rock Address. The BR Address was drafted by the PB in 1832 in Black Rock, Maryland and stated their objections to "modern inventions." The modern inventions included Tract Societies, Sunday Schools, Bible Society, Missions, Theological Schools, and Protracted Meetings. The conclusion was:

Brethren, we have thus laid before you some of our objections to the popular schemes in religion, and the reasons why we cannot fellowship them. Ponder these things well. Weigh them in the balances of the sanctuary; and then say if they are not such as justify us in standing aloof from those plans of men, and those would-be religious societies, which are bound together, not by the fellowship of the gospel, but by certain money payments. If you cannot for yourselves meet the reproach by separating yourselves from those things which the word of God does not warrant, still allow us the privilege to obey God rather than man. 

There is, brethren, one radical difference between us and those who advocate these various institutions which we have noticed to which we wish to call your attention. It is this: they declare the gospel to be a system of means; these means it appears they believe to be of human contrivance; and they act accordingly. But we believe the gospel dispensation to embrace a system of faith and obedience, and we would act according to our belief. We believe, for instance, that the seasons of declension, of darkness, of persecutions, &c., to which the church of Christ is at times subject, are designed by the wise Disposer of all events; not for calling forth the inventive geniuses of men to remove the difficulties, but for trying the faith of God's people in his wisdom, power and faithfulness to sustain his church. On him, therefore, would we repose our trust, and wait his hour of deliverance, rather than rely upon an arm of flesh. Are we called to the ministry, although we may feel our own insufficiency for the work as sensibly as do others, yet we would go forward in the path of duty marked out, believing that God is able to accomplish his purpose by such instruments as he chooses; that he hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise, and the weak things of the world to confound the things that are mighty; and base things, &c., hath God chosen, that no flesh should glory in his presence. Though we may not enjoy the satisfaction of seeing multitudes flocking to Jesus under our ministry, yet instead of going in to Hagar to accomplish the promises of God, or of resorting to any of the contrivances of men to make up the deficiency, we would still be content to preach the word, and would be instant in season and out of season; knowing it has pleased God, not by the wisdom of men, but by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. And that his word will not return unto him void, but it shall accomplish that which he please, and prosper in the thing whereunto he sends it. Faith in God, instead of leading us to contrive ways to help him accomplish his purposes, leads us to inquire what he hath required at our hands, and to be satisfied with doing that as we find it pointed out in his word; for we know that his purposes shall stand, and he will do all his pleasure. Jesus says, ye believe in God, believe also in me. Ye believe in the power of God to accomplish his purposes, however contrary things may appear to work to your expectations. So believe in my power to accomplish the great work of saving my people. In a word, as the dispensation of God by the hand of Moses, in bringing Israel out of Egypt, and leading them through the wilderness, was from first to last calculated to try Israel's faith in God, so is the dispensation of God by his Son, in bringing his spiritual Israel to be a people to himself. 

There being, then, this radical difference between us and the patrons of these modern institutions, the question which has long since been put forth, presents itself afresh for our consideration in all its force. "Can two walk together except they be agreed?" We believe that many who love our Lord Jesus Christ, are engaged in promoting those institutions which they acknowledge to be of modern origin; and they are promoting them too as religious institutions; whereas if they would reflect a little on the origin and nature of the Christian religion, they must be, like us, convinced that this religion must remain unchangeably the same at this day, as we find it delivered in the New Testament. Hence that anything, however highly esteemed it may be among men, which is not found in the New Testament, has no just claim to be acknowledged as belonging to the religion or the religious institutions of Christ. 

With all who love our Lord Jesus Christ, in truth, and walk according to apostolic traditions, to gospel order, we would gladly meet in church relation and engage with them in the worship and service of God, as he himself has ordered them. But if they will persist in bringing those institutions for which they can show us no example in the New Testament, into the churches or associations, and in making them the order thereof we shall for conscience sake, be compelled to withdraw from the disorderly walk of such churches, associations, or individuals, that we may not suffer our names to pass as sanctioning those things for which we have no fellowship. And if persons who would pass for preachers, will come to us, bringing the messages of men, &c., a gospel which they have learned in the schools, instead of that gospel which Christ himself commits unto his servants, and which is not learned of men, they must not be surprised that we cannot acknowledge them as ministers of Christ. 

Now, brethren, addressing ourselves to you who profess to be in principle, Particular Baptists, of the "Old School," but who are practicing such things as you have learned only from a New School, it is for you to say, not us, whether we can longer walk in union with you. We regret, as so do you, to see brethren professing the same faith, serving apart. But if you will compel us either to sanction the traditions and inventions of men, as of religious obligation, or to separate from you, the sin lieth at your door. If you meet us in churches to attend only to the order of Christ's house as laid down by himself; and in associations, upon the ancient principles of Baptist Association, i.e., as an associating of the churches for keeping up a brotherly correspondence one with another, that they may strengthen each other in the good ways of the Lord; instead of turning the associations into a kind of legislative body, formed for the purpose of contriving plans to help along the work of Christ, and for imposing those contrivances as burdens upon the churches, by resolutions, &c., as is the manner of some, we can still go on with you in peace and fellowship. 

Thus, brethren, our appeal is before you. Treat it with contempt if you can despise the cause for which we contend, i.e., conformity to the word of God. But indulge us, we beseech you, so far at least, as at our request to sit down and carefully count the cost on both sides; and see whether this shunning reproach by conforming to men's notions will not in the end be a much more expensive course than to meet reproach at once, by honoring Jesus as your only King, choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season. And rebellion, you know, is as the sin of witchcraft. 

May the Lord lead you to judge and act upon this subject as you will wish you had done when you come to see the mass of human inventions in connection with the Man of sin, driven away like the chaff of the summer threshing floor, and that stone which was cut out without hands alone filling the earth. We subscribe ourselves your servants for Jesus sake.


----------



## Keebs (Aug 18, 2010)

rjcruiser said:


> Wow....a little sensitive..eh?
> Just because we might not be _________, doesn't mean we don't know about _________.





Swamp Runner said:


> Nah, It's all good. Keebs was just pointing out that I responded to the wrong person. I responded to Keebs, when It was rouster who asked the question.





rjcruiser said:


> Ah...I see.  I guess I shouldn't be online past my bed time   Thanks for the clarification.



*whew* glad THAT got cleared up!! 
Thanks SwampRunner! 
Thanks Jamey for joining the discussion & pointing out what I couldn't, my sis & b-i-l have attended your church numerous times(don't know if you were the preacher then or not)!


----------

