Baptist Hall Of Shame

Originally posted by rlvaughn:
We know from whence we came. American Baptists such as Clarke, Backus, Leland, Edwards, Stearns, Graves and their churches were our forefathers in the faith. And they were Calvinists.

Click to expand...

Brother Vaughn,

To start with, I have no idea whether these men were associated with any church from which the churches of which I have been part sprang. But, assuming they were, what does that prove about their character?

We know for a fact, from the book of Galatians as well as Jesus' seven church letters, that the churches of Asia had resident heretics who were teachers among them.

Suppose the church at Pergamos had started a church in Italy which in turn started a church in Germany which in turn started a church in England which in turn started a church in New England which in turn started a church in Arkansas in which I was saved and baptized. It could then just as easily be said, by your reasoning, that the Balaamites at Pergamos "were our forefathers in the faith".

My point is, the presence of some heretics in a church neither mititages the shamefulness of their heresy nor illegtimizes the church - assuming that it is a bona fide church. In fact, the Lord even said He gave Jezebel, a teacher of fornication and idolatry in the church at Thyatira, space to repent, as gross as her heresy was and in spite of the fact that she was poisioning the minds of His servants.

So if there have been Calvinists among the Lord's churches - which I think we are safe to say is the case - all that proves is what the Bible prophesied, which is that grevious wolves would enter in not sparing the flock.

And while I might consent that their have been Calvinists among the Lord's churches, I will never consent that they are my forefathers in the faith, because they do not preach the same faith that I preach.

Mark Osgatharp

Your Pergamos argument is not parallel, because I am not just talking "some" heretics in "a" church. I am talking about several entire generations of Baptists in the United States (and before them in England).

But, Brother Mark, since you are unwilling to claim the American Regular Baptists from whence most assuredly you sprang, I must assume that your spiritual forefathers are the other group of American Baptists, the freewill open-communionists that descend from Joseph Parker, Benjamin Randall, Paul Palmer, et al. Or there are a few other minor ones - such as the Six-Principle Baptists and the Seventh Day Baptists.

Brother Vaughn,

Even if we were to go on the written history we have, I would not be compelled to say that the American "Regular" Baptists were, categorically speaking, Calvinists. That they were infected and afflicted by Calvinism I don't think there can be any doubt. That some churches were strictly Calvinist I don't think there can be any doubt.

All of that not withstanding, I know enough about history to know that the case is not so cut and dried as you present it. To start with, all the Baptist historians assert that the original American Baptists were General Baptists (which, in spite of popular opinion, does not necessarily equate with freewillism).

Obadiah Holmes, for example, while reproving one of his impenitent sons, told him that Christ died for him. Now what Calvinist would tell someone that "Christ died for you"? Would they not rather wrap their exhortations in some duplicity as that "Christ died for the sinner"?

Much of the "mission work" of the Philadelphia Association was to send out men to Calvinize already existing Baptist churches, just as the Judaizers went in behind Paul.

You will also find that among the "regular" Baptists of Virginia some, for a time, advocated the office of "apostle" which was a peculiarity of the English General Baptists, not the Particular Baptists.

For that matter, I can show you records from the Welsh Particular Baptists to the effect that they taught Christ died "for each and every man" - hardly a tenet of Calvinism.

Another thing you will notice is that the Calvinists in Baptist history are always lamenting the fact that the Baptists had fallen away from the Calvinist doctrines. One of the Mulkeys, if my memory serves me correctly, complained that most of the Baptist preachers of his day (early 1800s) sounded like Arminians except when they were ranting about baptism. Little facts like these speak volumes to the situation as it really was.

After deliniating between the Generals and Particulars, Crosby makes the statement that there were many (in England) who just accepted what they thought the Bible to teach without regard to the systems of man. Benedict makes a similar statement on the same subject and says that many would go no further than to assert that, "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

And speaking of Benedict, he tells of a church in upper Pennsylvania which he specifically says taught "perseverance" but was in all other points like the "Arminians". The man's name escapes me now, but if you would care to look it up you will find he founded several churches in the upper Susquehanna valley of New York and Pennsylvania.

I read just recently of a preacher in east Tennessee who it is said founded 22 churches who, being called on unexpectedly to preach at the association meeting, got up and declared that they - the Calvinists - had defamed his God and that he intended to vindicate Him.

And then there are the Green River and Barren River associations in Kentucky which issued decidedly non-Calvinist statements of faith before the New Hampshire confession was ever written.

You spoke of Leland. I have not read much of his writings, but did read once that he said he had three grains of Arminianism and two of Calvinism (or vica versa). Why, I even read the statement somewhere that Jacob Arminus was a "moderate Calvinist." Which goes to show that the term "Calvinist" itself means different things to different people.

Mark Osgatharp

Originally posted by rlvaughn:
John, there is no doubt that John Ryland, Sr. was a strong Calvinist. But in the interest of historical accuracy, we probably should write "allegedly saying". A quote like this gets a lot of press, but there are some historians who call this account into question. See, for example, The Missionary Movement in Christian History: Studies in Transmission of Faith, by Andrew F. Walls (Orbis, 1996).

Click to expand...

God bless.

Okay, rlvaughn. I'll withdraw my nomination of Ryland on your word. McBeth (The Baptist Heritage) has "The revered Dr. Rylands, Sr., was said to have retorted...." So perhaps there is some doubt. Thanks for the input.

I'd love to have The Missionary Movement in Christian History. I'll keep my eyes open for it.

Originally posted by guitarpreacher:
Come on guys - you've hijack the thread. Debate Calvinism somewhere else. If you keep this up I'll never make the list!!!!

Click to expand...

Sorry, guitarpreacher. Didn't mean to contribute to the delinquincy.

Brother Osgatharp, I have kind of chopped up your post in order to make some introductory remarks, and later take your points in order. I have time for only the first couple right now.

Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:
Why, I even read the statement somewhere that Jacob Arminus was a "moderate Calvinist." Which goes to show that the term "Calvinist" itself means different things to different people.

Click to expand...

Bro. Mark, this is a good point you make, as we are throwing around a general term that has different meanings to different people. And yes, I think that Arminius was a Calvinist (who had a different interpretation of Calvinism) and was not an Arminian in the general modern usage of the term. But what I am talking about concerning these Baptists is that they believed in particular redemption - that Christ died to redeem a particular chosen people. So when I'm talking about these Baptists as Calvinists, that is what I have in mind.

I don't mean to say that history is always accurate, or that we have access to all of our history. But I do think most of what we have on Baptists on this soil is basically accurate and fairly complete. It is likely there were some Baptists that flew completely "under the radar". There are Baptists today that folks living right down the road don't seem to know exist. But I don't think that the origins of the churches of make up the American Baptist Association are all that elusive. To your points.

All of that not withstanding, I know enough about history to know that the case is not so cut and dried as you present it. To start with, all the Baptist historians assert that the original American Baptists were General Baptists (which, in spite of popular opinion, does not necessarily equate with freewillism).

Obadiah Holmes, for example, while reproving one of his impenitent sons, told him that Christ died for him. Now what Calvinist would tell someone that "Christ died for you"? Would they not rather wrap their exhortations in some duplicity as that "Christ died for the sinner"?

Click to expand...

Yes, I think they are correct to assert that the first American Baptists were General Baptists. These same historians who assert this, as far as I know, also assert that they disappeared, don't they? But Davidson's history on the early Freewill Baptists makes a pretty good argument that Paul Palmer's free will group rose out of the remnant of these.

Odabiah Holmes is an interesting case. He definitely has some statements that sound like he wasn't a Calvinist. Probably the best way to interpret his words is with an eye to the totality of what he said, while comparing the theology of his church and co-pastor, John Clarke. In his book, Baptist Piety, Edwin S. Gaustad concludes that Holmes was a Calvinist, saying that his faith stands "unmistakably in the Calvinist tradition", but adding that Holmes does not just mimic the words others wrote. His testimony of his faith is "his faith and his voice".

Holmes wrote, "The hope that I have is grounded only upon the decreed purpose and counsel of God before man was. God alone appointed and determined what should come to pass in His appointed time."

"I was by nature a child of wrath as much as others...but God had mercy for me in store when I neither deserved it nor desired it. For He knows who are His and the elect shall obtain it forever."

"Now in this faith or belief I stand, not doubting but it is the faith of God's elect...First, I believe there is one essence or being, even one God who made heaven and earth, the waters and all things therein contained, who by His own divine power governs all things by the same word of His power, and has appointed life and death to men and bounded their habitations, whose Providence extends to the least creature and actions...
"8. I believe that God in His Son made a new covenant, a sure everlasting covenant, not like He had made with Israel; but a covenant of grace and peace through His only Son, that whosoever believed in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
"9. I believe that all those that are in this covenant of grace shall never fall away nor perish, but shall have life in the Prince of life: the Lord Jesus Christ.
"10. I believe that no man can come to the Son but they that are drawn by the Father to Him, and they that come He will in no wise cast out...
"14. I believe that God has laid the iniquity of all His elect and called ones upon Him."

There is some language in Holmes' writing that might be taken one way or another, but it seems that taken as a whole, Holmes stands firmly in the Particular Baptist tradition. (The quotes are from Baptist Piety, pages 83-92)

Another book along this line is Louis F. Asher's John Clarke: Pioneer in American Medicine, Democratic Ideals, and Champion of Religious Liberty (Pittsburgh: Dorrance Publishing, 1997).

Obadiah Holmes, for example, while reproving one of his impenitent sons, told him that Christ died for him. Now what Calvinist would tell someone that "Christ died for you"?

Click to expand...

Actually I am a 5 point Calvinist and I would and DO it does not contradict Particular Redemption. One of the things that should be remembered is that Non Calvinist assume Calvinists are always a monolithic group. Christ will save anyone who embraces Him from a practical standpoint. I can say to anyone "Christ died for them" in that Christ death is for people of all races.

Thomas Boston a 5 point Calvinist declared
Our Lord Jesus Christ is the official Savior, not of the elect only, but of the world of mankind indefinitely. ... Any of them all may come to Him as Savior, without money or price, and be saved by Him as their own Savior appointed to that office by the Father. ...Christ invites sinners with an enlarged heart. Joy enlarges it. His heart is open to you, his arms are stretched wide. You often see him with sorrow and anger in his face, and this works with you that you will not come. Behold him smiling and inviting you now to himself, sending love looks to lost sinners, from a joyful heart within!

Some Calvinists accused Boston of denying Limited Atonement but Boston was a staunch limited atonement man. His statements must be understood I think as appealing to human responsibilty and also he like Calvin believed there was a tension between Predestination and Whosover Will may Come. In other words both are true and both must be preached. Trying to rationalize such truths are beyound human understanding.

Too often today both Non Calvinists and Calvinists try to rationalize what I believe Luther and Calvin understood to be a mystery.

Kiffen,

All that proves is that Calvinists speak with duplicity so they can deceive the simple and creep in unawares. They are, like an old pastor of mine said, "stereo Baptists" - they speak out of both sides of their mouth.

Mark Osgatharp

Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:
To start with, all the Baptist historians assert that the original American Baptists were General Baptists (which, in spite of popular opinion, does not necessarily equate with freewillism).

Click to expand...

While there may be some exceptions, General Baptist confessions from Helwys (That men may fall away from the grace of God, and from the truth, which they have received and acknowledged, after they have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted of the good word of God, and of the powers of the world to come. And after they have escaped from the filthiness of the World, may be tangled again therein and overcome. That a righteous man may forsake his righteousness and perish) to the 1660 Standard Confession (That such who are true Believers, even Branches in Christ the Vine, or such who have charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of Faith unfeigned, may nevertheless for want of watchfulness, swerve and turn aside from the same, and become as withered Branches, cast into the fire and burned. But such who add unto their Faith Virtue, and unto Virtue Knowledge, and unto Knowledge Temperance, &c. such shall never fall, 'tis impossible for all the false Christ's, and false Prophets, that are, and are to come, to deceive such, for they are kept by the power of God, through Faith unto Salvation) to the Short Confession of 1691 (Concerning perseverance we believe, That it is absolutely necessary, in order to the obtaining of the end - namely salvation with eternal glory - for believers to cleave to the Lord, and to keep close to him in the way of duty) to the present day Free Will Baptists all seem to consistently hold general provision in combination with falling from grace (and usually open communion).
http://generalbaptist.net/confessions/

Much of the "mission work" of the Philadelphia Association was to send out men to Calvinize already existing Baptist churches, just as the Judaizers went in behind Paul.

Click to expand...

There is no question that the Philadelphia Association was successful in converting General Baptist churches to their position. For example, John Gano's visit to several churches in Virginia is documented in many Baptist histories.

You will also find that among the "regular" Baptists of Virginia some, for a time, advocated the office of "apostle" which was a peculiarity of the English General Baptists, not the Particular Baptists.

Click to expand...

I think it more likely that this idea came into the Regular Baptists via the Separate Baptists rather than the General Baptists. Some Separate Baptists held to the office of "apostle". Among others, Benedict mentions this in connection with the Separates. It is also my opinion that these Separate Baptists, rather than the descendants of English General Baptists, were chiefly responsible for modifying the particular atonement of the Regulars toward the position held today by the majority of American Baptists of southern extraction.
http://www.ls.net/~newriver/va/vabap.htm

For that matter, I can show you records from the Welsh Particular Baptists to the effect that they taught Christ died "for each and every man" - hardly a tenet of Calvinism.

Click to expand...

I don't know about this. In what time period are you speaking? Why were they called "Particular" Baptists if they held a general provision? Is this a case of those who were Particulars but had since modified their views? I'd be glad for the reference. Is it is Davis' book?

One of the Mulkeys, if my memory serves me correctly, complained that most of the Baptist preachers of his day (early 1800s) sounded like Arminians except when they were ranting about baptism. Little facts like these speak volumes to the situation as it really was.

Click to expand...

If one of the Mulkeys, it must have been the father, Jonathan. He might have much reason to complain - at least two of his sons were preachers who went over to the Campbellites.

After deliniating between the Generals and Particulars, Crosby makes the statement that there were many (in England) who just accepted what they thought the Bible to teach without regard to the systems of man.

Click to expand...

This is certainly a commendable trait.

Benedict makes a similar statement on the same subject and says that many would go no further than to assert that, "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Click to expand...

This thought process was especially popular among the Separate Baptists, who generally rejected the idea of adopting Baptist confessions of faith.

And speaking of Benedict, he tells of a church in upper Pennsylvania which he specifically says taught "perseverance" but was in all other points like the "Arminians". The man's name escapes me now, but if you would care to look it up you will find he founded several churches in the upper Susquehanna valley of New York and Pennsylvania.

I read just recently of a preacher in east Tennessee who it is said founded 22 churches who, being called on unexpectedly to preach at the association meeting, got up and declared that they - the Calvinists - had defamed his God and that he intended to vindicate Him.

And then there are the Green River and Barren River associations in Kentucky which issued decidedly non-Calvinist statements of faith before the New Hampshire confession was ever written.

Click to expand...

What time frame is all this? This sounds again like the influence of the Separate Baptists.

You spoke of Leland. I have not read much of his writings, but did read once that he said he had three grains of Arminianism and two of Calvinism (or vica versa).

Click to expand...

I found this quote online from Armitage - "He [Leland] had many struggles of mind as to the most successful way of addressing sinners and of leading them to repentance; he was a Calvinist, but would not be bound by the methods of Gill; neither did Wesley or Andrew Fuller suit him; and for practical purposes he thought that two grains of Arminianism with three of Calvinism made a good proportion in preaching."
http://www.reformedreader.org/history/armitage/ch11.htm
And this site is supposed to quote Benedict: "John Leland, although a Calvinist, was not one of the strictest class. Two grains of Arminianism, with three of Calvinism, he thought, would make a tolerably good compound."
http://www.learnthebible.org/thoughts_meditations.htm

A word might be in order here concerning the Separate Baptists. I believe the first recognizable Separate Baptist church is found in Boston in the early 1740s, having separated from the First Baptist Church over differences concerning the revival excitement of the Great Awakening. I know of no credible source that would indicate these earliest Separate Baptists were anything but Calvinists. That would remain to develop in the south and west. Churches spawned by the revivalistic and evangelistic efforts of Stearns, Marshall, and others would develop along different lines from the Regulars. One thing was that there were those among them that held general provision (though the majority would be correctly considered Calvinists, holding to particular redemption). When the Regulars and Separates united in Virginia in 1787 and Kentucky in 1801, we see the general provision compromise. The Virginia Separates were accepted on a "general" adoption of the Philadelphia Confession - not necessarily agreeing to all points. The Kentucky churches united with the specific provision that "preaching Christ tasted death for every man shall be no bar to communion" (Christian, p. 295). I suppose the wording indicates this was a healthy minority opinion. The union of Separates and Regulars might be considered unsuccessful. In not too many years Baptists were dividing again. But the Separates left their peculiar stamp on all kinds of Baptists that exist today - Landmarkers, Southerns, Primitives, United, and even a few that still maintain the name Separate Baptist today.

Brother Mark - another (hopefully final) post regarding your disagreement with my assertion that "it is an historical fact that most of our American Baptist forebears were Calvinists."

I found relaxing on my shelf from a long respite of being opened, The Annual Register of the Baptist Denomination in North-America to the First of November, 1790 by John Asplund. Asplund said that he traveled 7000 miles, chiefly on foot, over a period of 18 months to try to gather information on all the Baptist churches, which information he thought "may safely be depended upon in general", though "a few Churches and Ministers may be omitted." It is my opinion that Asplund gives us a snapshot of what the Baptists looked like in the United States in 1790. And they were by a large majority Regular or Particular Baptists. Finding a few exceptions here and there does not change that fact.

His breakdown in the back of the book follows thusly:
</font>

• Six principle Baptists 18 churches, 1599 members</font>
• Open communion Baptists 15 churches, 1714 members</font>
• General Provision Baptists 30 churches, 1948 members</font>
• Seventh Day Baptists 10 churches, 887 members</font>
• Regular or particular Baptists 795 churches, 58398 members</font>

Viewed on a percentage basis, 795 of 868 churches (91.5%) were Regular (Calvinistic) Baptists. Within this 795, there were some members and ministers that held a general provision sentiment. This is mainly in Virginia and Kentucky, and after nearly 50 years of Separate Baptist influence.

Concerning associations Asplund lists 34, plus the General Committee in Virginia and the Seventh Day Baptists, who had no association. Of these 36, seventeen held the Philadelphia Confession, and eight more held Calvinistic principles but had not adopted the confession. The 7th-Day Baptists are identified as being Regular Baptist except for the issue of the Sabbath. Six others had not adopted the confession because some of their churches held general provision. Viewed associationally, 32 of 36 associations (nearly 90%) were Calvinistic or mostly so.

I think this snapshot gives great indication that the majority of early American Baptists were "Calvinists". This is not a picture of some churches infected by Calvinism, but of the vast majority holding themselves up as "Particular" Baptists.

If any of you brethren think your own church ancestry is so "pure" that it snakes around this Calvinism back to the cross, then I suppose beyond these posts, I'll be content to leave you to think what you wish. I don't have time to do the genealogy for you.

For myself, I have no problem identifying Obadiah Holmes as one of my forefathers in the faith.

Thanks. That was some interesting history you brought up.

Brother Vaughn,

1. The reference I made to the Baptists of Wales was actually the particular Baptists of the West Country in England. It is found in "The Association Records Of The Particular Baptists Of England, Wales and Ireland to 1660" on page 61 of volume one. The question was raised at the assocatiion meeting in the year 1655,

"Whether Christ Jesus our Lord dyed for all and every man or for the elect only, and if for all, then how far?"

The answer given was:

"our Lord Christ dyed for all and every man, Heb. 2:9, first, to reconcile all to God so as to have their being continued by him, Col. 1.20. Secondly, and that repentance and remission of sins might be preacht in his name to all men, Luke 24.47, Mark 16.15f. Thirdly, that so he might be Lord of all, Rom. 14.9, Phil. 2.8f. Fourthly, that he might raise all from the dead in the order and times appointed by the father, I Cor. 15.21ff. Yet he died not intentionally alike for all, Jn. 17.12, I. Tim. 4.10, Heb. 2.10, Is. 53.11."

If I read this correctly, they held to general provision and limited application. I can say a hardy "Amen" to that!

2. The reference I made to the Green River associations in Kentucky is from the year 1800 and the Barren River in 1830. There is also the Stockton Valley (1805) and the Russell Creek (1804) and the Gasper River (1812). These are associations of United Baptists.

You can find their statements of faith in the "Pioneer Baptist Church Records of South-Central Kentucky And The Upper Cumberland Of Tennessee: 1799-1899."

3. I think you underestimate the significance of the lattitude with which the term "Calvinist" is used by historians. You say yourself that even Arminus was a Calvinist, and he said that he found even eternal security to be doubtful.

With that sort of manipulation of the term "Calvinist" we can get about anyone under the umbrella - and that is pretty much what historians have done, whether willfully or not the Lord only knows.

4. I think you also underestimate the significance of the fact that comparitively few Baptists who lived left any record at all of what they believed. There have been literally thousands of Baptist pastors and churches and millions of Baptist people who have no place whatsoever in the annals of history.

I might add to that that confessions of faith do not necessarily represent what the masses of people believed. For example, many Baptist churches adopt the New Hampshire Confesson of faith, but how many Baptist people, or even Baptist pastors, do you think have any idea what it actually says?

5. Again I say - and this is the only part of this discussion that has any real merit anyway - if Calvinism is not the truth then it is a lie and therefore shameful, and therefore those who spread it are shameful. And could it be proven that every Baptist church in existence today sprang from the Calvinist fountain, it would not mitigate the shamefulness of the Calvnist heresy one iota.

Mark Osgatharp

Kiffen,

All that proves is that Calvinists speak with duplicity so they can deceive the simple and creep in unawares. They are, like an old pastor of mine said, "stereo Baptists" - they speak out of both sides of their mouth.

Click to expand...

Nope Mark all it proves that too many people try to interpret the Bible on a rational basis and understand the mind of God. There are many mysteries of the Bible that cannot be explained in rational terms such as the Trinity, Incarnation, Christ Two natures, Unconditional Predestination/Whosover Will. They however are all true regardless of whether you are I understand it.

That is why Calvinists affirm Unconditional Predestination/Whosover Will to be dual truths that do not contradict but compliment one another. Most Non Calvinists, Arminians, hyper Calvinists and even some Calvinists make the mistake of rationalizing such truth rather than affirming both as true.

The problem with many Landmark Baptists (Not all however) too often is that reject the Heritage they think they are protecting when they condemn the majority of their Baptist ancestors as heretics and then have to resort to reinventing Baptist history to fit their own theology.

Could you rephrase and clarify your last paragraph? I think you're missing some words in the ". . . that reject the Heritage they think. . ." section.

Thanks Squire.

It should read,

"that they reject the Heritage "

I can only speak for my church. When the church was founded on August 5, 1826 the following Articles of Faith were signed by all present.

Articles of Faith of the Baptist Church Called Providence

Article 1st - We believe one only true and Living God, the Father, the Word and Holy Ghost.

Article 2nd - We believe that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the Word of God and the only rule of Faith and Practice.

Article 3rd - We believe in the doctrine of original Sin.

Article 4th - We believe in the doctrine of Election and that God chose his people in Christ before the Foundation of the world.

Article 5th - We believe in man’s impotency to recover himself from the State he is in by nature of his own free will and ability.

Article 6th - We believe that Sinners are Justified in the Sight of God only by the imputed Righteousness of Christ.

Article 7th - We believe that God’s Elect Shall be Called, Converted, Regenerated, and Sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

Article 8th - We believe the Saints Shall persevere in Grace and never fall finally away.

Article 9th - We believe that Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are ordinances of Jesus Christ and that true believers are the Subjects and that the true mode of Baptism is by going down into the water and being buried with Christ in Baptism.

Article 10 - We believe in the Resurrection of the Dead and a general Judgment.

Article 11 - We believe that the punishment of the wicked and the Joys of the Righteous will be Eternal.

Article 12 - We believe that no Minister has a right to the administration of the ordinances only such as are Regularly Baptized, Called and authorized by the Church.

Now we have in our possession the original minutes of the Church with the signatures of all 20 charter members who signed.

I believe it's safe to say that these folks were all Calvinistic.

It's also interesting that it was in our church that the Missouri Baptist Convention was born in August of 1834.

At that meeting a Staunch Calvinist named William Hurley preached along with more moderate Calvinists. The pastor of the host church, James Suggett and the first moderator of the convention, Jeremiah Vardeman saw a combined total of 11,000 converts during their ministerial careers in Kentucky and Missouri.

Our Church has a 179 year old history and we began with a Calvinistic Pastor and we have one today.

I guess you should add us to your Hall of Shame.

rlvaughn,

Thank you for your thoughtful posts.

Brother Vaughn,

I stated in a previous post that Mulkey - "if my memory serves me correctly" - was the one who complained that many Baptist preachers of his day preached like Arminians. Well, I went back and looked it up and my memory did not serve me correctly. It was not Mulkey, but a Mr. Hillsman, a Baptist pastor from east Tennessee, writing in the December 1855 issue of the "Baptist Watchman" paper published in Knoxville. Here is the quote:

"I hold - and I think I have irrefutably sustained my positions - to the doctrine of unconditional, personal, and eternal election. - There are MANY OF OUR BRETHREN THIS DAY who, as seriously as myself, deplore the Arminian tendency of many of our preachers and churches. Well do they remember the former temple in the days of a Mulkey and his faithful coadjutors; and when they compare the present milk-and-cider theology with theirs, they are like the ancient Jews at the remembrance of their former temple - weep bitterly. Alas! Alas! how has the fine gold become dim in many places of our hill-country! so that it is difficult to tell when a Baptist minister preaches, except he gets to ranting about Baptism. I say this with no disrespect to Baptism: it is a doctrine of the Bible, and ought to be preached; but we should not forget, at the same time, that our people need indoctrinating upon more subjects than baptism."

Mark Osgatharp

Thanks, Brother Mark, for the information, especially about the "Association Records of the Particular Baptists of England, Wales and Ireland to 1660". I googled and found that the UK Baptist Historical Society has the 3 volume set for 5.25 pounds. Sounds cheap enough - anyone know how much this is in U.S. dollars?

As to the bulk of what you presented, I found nothing that presents any differ picture of the early American Regular Baptists than what I had - an early particularly strong belief in Particular Redemption, this later being modified by the growth of the Separate Baptists, with much looser organization, more varied doctrine and strong evangelistic efforts.

If I "underestimate the significance of the latitude with which the term 'Calvinist' is used by historians", perhaps you overestimate it, especially in seeming to be saying that all their bias would be "in favor of" the Calvinists and not against them. And if I "underestimate the significance of the fact that comparitively few Baptists who lived left any record at all of what they believed", perhaps you overestimate it, in the sense that you intimate that all of the unavailable records prove your point rather than mine.

Originally posted by Gregory Perry Sr.:
Which Bob Gray are you referring to? The Tyrant in Texas?...or that faithful man of God who labored in Jacksonville Fla. and then moved on to the mission field in Germany?I had the pleasure and blessing of sitting under his ministry and preaching for two years back in the 80's.

Greg Sr.

Click to expand...

sadly, even this situation's changed.

http://www.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=2140