Fundamental vs Primitive

Squire- very interesting!

 

Thanks for the history lesson, Squire.

Let me take a stab at differentiating between fundamentalists and Primitive Baptists.

A large number of fundamentalists--particularly fundamentalist Baptists--are not Calvinists. Some are, of course. And although my knowledge is limited, I have never met a Fundamentalist Baptists who agrees with the Primitives.

Briefly, Primitive Baptists are what we generally call Hyper-Calvinists. That is, they believe that when God elects someone to salvation, they will be saved whether they ever hear the gospel or not. In other words, the elect may be saved independently of the gospel. Calvinists do not believe that. Nor do those who would identify themselves as Fundamentalist.

 

So . . . in 1826 the "Declaration of the Reformed Baptist Churches in the State of North Carolina" was issued, expressing the Primitive Baptists' characteristic rejection of missionary societies, seminaries, etc., and nonfellowship with Baptists who approved of such modern innovations.

In another thread, the Primitive Baptist book History of the Church of God from the Creation to A.D. 1885 Including Especially the History of the Kehukee Primitive Baptist Association was discussed. Here is a quote from the book:

"wherever Missionary Societies, Bible Societies, Tract Societies, Sunday Schools, . . . and Theological Seminaries in America prevail, there the doctrine of Phariseeism (modernly called Arminianism) prevails, there the doctrine of saving the souls of men from sin and from hell by works which men may do for themselves and for each other prevails. There the mark of the Beast and there persecution prevail." (pp. 747-748)

 

Like a moth drawn to the flame, here's a 'primitive' for you 'fundamentals' to whup up on.

Some would probably consider us 'hyper' because of our views on regeneration and gospel salvation. There's 'schisms' within the PBs, but mainstream is not what I would consider 'hyper' because we only apply predestination to God's choosing of a people for His own possession, and not to events in general.

Also, there's been extremists and radicals from every sect of Christianity throughout history. Don't judge the many from the acts or ommissions of a few.

Ask me questions, I'll tell you no lies.

 

During a mission trip to Romania, I also was surprised to learn that many Romanian Baptists did not hold to security of the believer. My pastor spent much of his time teaching pastors from churches in surrounding villages who came to the city. He spent almost an entire day exegeting Hebrews 6:4-6, to refute their arminian take on it.

Your point is taken. My description of Hyper-Calvinists was based on experience with relatives who were PB. They espoused the view that I articulated.

 

Although 200 years later this would change, I would not call General Baptist Arminian in the early years. They believed just about word for word with their Calvinist brothers, on Calvinism but for one area. That is the atonement.

They held to a general atonement, for which they got their name. But election and all the other doctrines were about the same.

 

Yes it is interesting that now many calvinists are General Baptists today.

I do think there seems to have been a greater understanding of what one actually believed then.
Even church that were in doctrinal error did seem to spend more time on doctrine from what I can see.

One of the deacons in my church told me about when he first came.
He had been in an Assembly of God church before that and after a few weeks at our reformed baptist church some of his kids asked: "Did out old church believe ANYTHING"?

My experience has been that most baptists today could not articulate the difference between a general atonement, universal atonement and limited atonement.

 

It's nice to talk about somebody like he's not made his presence or availability known, you know.
lol.:laugh:

 

Just a little correction, if you please.
From what I gather reading Primitive Baptist history and other Baptists' histories, there was no movement of the Primitive Baptists.
In the Black Rock address, the fundamental issues that had started to divide most Baptists were addressed (Tracts, Missionary Societies, Sunday Schools, etc) and those who chose to separate themselves or not to fellowsip with those involved in these issues were called Primitives by those who adopted these modern systems.

There was no movement of Primitive Baptists.

Also, in reference to "salvation" and having all men "come to salvation", the problem lies in what or which "salvation" is being spoken of.

If it is eternal salvation, then that one is purely a work of the great One in Three, planned in eternity past, agreed on in eternity past, done in principle in eternity past, typified, pictured, illustrated, represented in the Old Testament's rituals, laws, and sacrifices and finally finished in this plane called time at the cross at Calvary.

That salvation is ALL OF THE LORD from start to finish, none of the elect, or the sinner, or the "whosoever", provided by the Lord for them requiring nothing, not one iota of works of righteousness (Titus 3:5), all by grace APART from faith, all of mercy, and all for the glory of God and His Son, Jesus Christ, His gift to the elect, and the elect His gift to Christ.

The scope of that salvation covered every elect child of God, wherever they were, whenever they existed or will exist in this plane of time in this world.

However, there IS a salvation spoken of many times, by Paul, Peter, and the writers of the New Testament (besides the gospels) which REQUIRED obedience, learning, faithfulness, faith, all with the consequences of blessing or cursing.

We, the Primitives, call it Timely Salvation. Not ALL of God's elect will become beneficiaries of THIS salvation, because this salvation is a direct result of obedience to, and belief of, the gospel, and the gospel is to be preached by MEN, who are limited in their presence (not omnipresent) and hampered by their own depravity which results in different interpretations and deliverance of the message.

Which is why to us, regeneration is a work of the Holy Spirit, INDEPENDENT of the preaching of the gospel, the minister, and all other means.

FWIW (to the OP).

 

I think Pinoybaptist has laid out a key difference, at least between most Baptists and Primitive Baptists, that of "eternal" vs. "timely" salvation. We would hold that the Bible does not make this distinction anywhere and that it cannot stand up under even modest scrutiny from the Scriptures. They, obviously,differ on that.

 

I will be glad to discuss this with you, if you care to start a thread on it, and with others too, sans the sarcasm and innuendoes that drove me away from this board for a long time.

 

We have discussed it before here (I don't recall if you were a part of those or not). I probably wouldn't involve myself in that discussion again for various reasons, among which are time, interest, previous discussions, and the sarcasm and innuendo of which you speak. I am not in favor of that at all, and don't really want to be a part of it.

So if others want to learn more, they can certainly feel free to start a thread. I am sure there are those here who would interact on it.

My only purpose here was to say that you have hit on a major difference.

 

I understand.
Thanks, and God bless you and yours.

 

In Ky. at least a general union between 'regular' and general Baptists (resulting in United Baptists today) these unions were made possible by language in their articles stating that the preaching that 'Christ tasted death for every man' would not be a bar to fellowship.

This then, at least I think, ultimately led to the "downgrade" of even Arminian teaching, which in its original form as best as I can tell differed to Calvinism primarily to a point that it did not hold to irresistable grace. Or at least the effectual nature of that grace.

Where the Calvinist believes the sinner experiences regeneration in the preached gospel, iresistably according to the election of God; the Arminian believed in a general call that by the hearing of the word of God sinners were influenced (I don't know how strong their language was) but this influence gave them an opportunity to receive Christ, IF they did the Spirit abode with them in the continuing work of experience of the new creation, IF they did not receive Christ, the Spirit departed. This, I think is the primary difference between the Arminian and the Calvinist. Arminians believed all other points of the so-called TULIP. Then we come to the Primitive Baptist, who, inmho, being a Primitive Baptist myself, who were represented in KY. by the 'old' original regular baptists who in some cases did unite with the general baptists. These regular baptists believed in particular redemption which involved an atonement that was applied to the elect by the immediate operation of the Holy Spirit. In this, there may be NO conversion ever evidenced by or among men, however, the internal work remains the same, that of the new creation (See Ez. 36:27 and similar passages). The regular, then became the Primitive Baptist of the Black Rock era. The purpose then of preaching is for the 'conversion' of the regenerated elect of God. This is then believed a salvation in time, by our believing and obedience to the gospel, but this has no bearing on our eternal position in Christ, having been placed in Him before the foundation of the world, we are made accepted in Him by an operation of the Holy Spirit, despite our degree of knowledge or understanding.

bro. Dallas