In his history of Baptists, Thomas Armitage wrote: "So common was it for the Churches to content themselves with one sermon a month, that these came to be known as 'Thirty-day Baptists,' and so ignorant or mean, or both, were many of them, that they thought it the absolute duty of their pastors to support themselves by a profession, by farming, or some other form of manual labor, and then prove their Apostolic calling by preaching for nothing. This class of Baptists took the greatest possible comfort in the thought that while the 'starched gentry' of the Standing Order peeled them by taxation, their pastors were strangers to 'filthy lucre'" (A History of the Baptists, Vol. II, p. 776).
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
"Thirty-day Baptists"
- Thread starter Logos1560
- Start date
Ben1445
Well-Known Member
very interesting. I hadn’t heard about them as far as I can remember.
I take comfort in knowing that the Righteous Judge has promised to recompense anything given up for his work.
Matthew 19:29
And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
Praise the Lord for the pastors of the day who preached in spite of their congregations.
It is too bad that they only cared for God’s word once in a month.
Once-a-month church seems really a lot compared to the flower crowd (lilies, poinsettias) that surround me and so many only go to church twice a year!
Cannot imagine there were Baptists that did this intentionally. I could see this as an accommodation if in colonial areas where preachers had a "circuit" to cover the frontier. But to force a preacher to have full secular employment so they could save money NOT supporting him as typical pastor shows much of the character of these early church people.
Cannot imagine there were Baptists that did this intentionally. I could see this as an accommodation if in colonial areas where preachers had a "circuit" to cover the frontier. But to force a preacher to have full secular employment so they could save money NOT supporting him as typical pastor shows much of the character of these early church people.
Years ago, when I was a youth at my earthly father's side, I listened to an "evangelist" give a rip roaring message one Sunday Night. The only line I remember was this, "The Baptist's say the loudest Amen, but drop in the thinnest dimes!"
Ben1445
Well-Known Member
It is hard for me to believe even having heard it in my own ears. I was once confronted by a person who suggested that the church was headed in the wrong direction by taking on a full time pastor. That the church had obviously not done well under pastors in the past and that maybe a new approach to pastors pay was a better idea. Ironically, the church in question, since 1840, had never supported a pastor and until recently, never intended to.
People are still people no matter what century they live in.
Somehow the people who feel like they don’t need churches and pastors and don’t feel like they should have to pay for the Bible, always skip the Bible teachings that direct them to care for those that labor in the Word.
It’s the goodness of God that pastors are cared for.
I know there are lots of bi-vocational pastors. But I would say from my own experience, if you can rely on God to meet your needs, your church will be better served by the extra time you will put into your people. They will learn to appreciate you more when you are able to be there at their homes and in the hospitals. It comes at a cost. It tries the faith and brings meaning to the words “give us this day our daily bread.” But it is far better than serving two masters.
People are still people no matter what century they live in.
Somehow the people who feel like they don’t need churches and pastors and don’t feel like they should have to pay for the Bible, always skip the Bible teachings that direct them to care for those that labor in the Word.
It’s the goodness of God that pastors are cared for.
I know there are lots of bi-vocational pastors. But I would say from my own experience, if you can rely on God to meet your needs, your church will be better served by the extra time you will put into your people. They will learn to appreciate you more when you are able to be there at their homes and in the hospitals. It comes at a cost. It tries the faith and brings meaning to the words “give us this day our daily bread.” But it is far better than serving two masters.
Think there is a Scottish church group that takes Communion just once a year?
Knew an independent baptist Pastor that worked at GM full time, and he was glad to be able to not charge his salary to the small church, but had them pay him a salary, but he turned it right back into tithes and offerings plate
Ben1445
Well-Known Member
They use real wine and bread, so saves on church budget for communion items
unprofitable
Active Member
Something we agree 100 percent on. I Tim 5:18: For the scripture saith, thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn, and the labourer is worth of his hire. 1 Cor 9:6:11
Ascetic X
Well-Known Member
The Seventh Day Baptists were first known as Sabbatarians, but the term Seventh Day Baptists was adopted by them in England soon after the Reformation.
The Seventh Day Baptists do not claim an unbroken succession in the matter of church organization before the Reformation. At that time a number forsook Sunday observance and accepted the seventh day as the Sabbath.
Among early advocates of the seventh day were John Trask, Theophilus Brabourne, Philip Tandy, and James Ockford. No regular churches were organized until about 1650 because of oppression. Within fifty years of that date there were eleven Sabbatarian churches in England, besides matiy scattered Sabbathkeepers. Eight of these churches are now extinct.
From an early period it was the practice of the Sabbatarian preachers and pastors to accept pastoral care of churches observing the first day, as well as the Seventh Day Baptist churches. This might be the cause of the decline of the early Seventh Day Baptist churches in England.
Seventh Day Baptist churches in America are the immediate outgrowth of similar societies existing in England during the last half of the seventeenth century. In 1664 Stephen Mumford, a Sabbath-keeper, emigrated from London to Newport, Rhode Island, escaping from the persecution which was being inflicted upon leading observers of the Bible Sabbath in Great Britain.
Mr. Mumford held "that the Ten Commandments, as they were delivered from Mount Sinai, were moral and immutable," and that the seventh day of the week is the only Sabbath of the Lord. He believed it was an antichristian power which changed the day of observance. Shortly after his arrival he convinced several members of the First Baptist Church of Newport that his opinions were supported by the teachings of the Word of God. On December 23, 1671, the first Seventh Day Baptist church was organized at Newport, composed of seven members.
For more than thirty years after its organization the Newport church included nearly all the persons observing the seventh day in the States of Rhode Island and Connecticut. The Seventh Day Baptists in Rhode Island were co-laborers with Roger Williams and Dr. John Clark in establishing the colony on the principles of civil and religious liberty. Seventh Day Baptists also joined with the Baptists in founding and supporting Brown University.
The Seventh Day Baptists do not claim an unbroken succession in the matter of church organization before the Reformation. At that time a number forsook Sunday observance and accepted the seventh day as the Sabbath.
Among early advocates of the seventh day were John Trask, Theophilus Brabourne, Philip Tandy, and James Ockford. No regular churches were organized until about 1650 because of oppression. Within fifty years of that date there were eleven Sabbatarian churches in England, besides matiy scattered Sabbathkeepers. Eight of these churches are now extinct.
From an early period it was the practice of the Sabbatarian preachers and pastors to accept pastoral care of churches observing the first day, as well as the Seventh Day Baptist churches. This might be the cause of the decline of the early Seventh Day Baptist churches in England.
Seventh Day Baptist churches in America are the immediate outgrowth of similar societies existing in England during the last half of the seventeenth century. In 1664 Stephen Mumford, a Sabbath-keeper, emigrated from London to Newport, Rhode Island, escaping from the persecution which was being inflicted upon leading observers of the Bible Sabbath in Great Britain.
Mr. Mumford held "that the Ten Commandments, as they were delivered from Mount Sinai, were moral and immutable," and that the seventh day of the week is the only Sabbath of the Lord. He believed it was an antichristian power which changed the day of observance. Shortly after his arrival he convinced several members of the First Baptist Church of Newport that his opinions were supported by the teachings of the Word of God. On December 23, 1671, the first Seventh Day Baptist church was organized at Newport, composed of seven members.
For more than thirty years after its organization the Newport church included nearly all the persons observing the seventh day in the States of Rhode Island and Connecticut. The Seventh Day Baptists in Rhode Island were co-laborers with Roger Williams and Dr. John Clark in establishing the colony on the principles of civil and religious liberty. Seventh Day Baptists also joined with the Baptists in founding and supporting Brown University.
It is, or was, the custom for Scottish Presbyterian church to have only one or two 'Communion seasons' each year.
During the famous 'Cambuslang awakening' of 1742, a decision was taken to have an extra communion. A well-known minister, James Robe of Kilsyth wrote: ‘It hath not been known in Scotland that the Lord’s Supper hath been given twice in a summer in any congregation before this revival’.
For more details of the revival, read:
The Church of Scotland is now one of the most liberal denominations in Britain. I think the Free Church of Scotland and/or the Free Church of Scotland (continuing) may still have communion quite rarely, but I'm not certain.
Last edited:
Ben1445
Well-Known Member
The Lord’s Supper that the Lord took part in was a Passover meal. This is a once a year occurrence.It is, or was, the custom for Scottish Presbyterian church to have only one or two 'Communion seasons' each year.
During the famous 'Cambuslang awakening' of 1742, a decision was taken to have an extra communion. A well-known minister, James Robe of Kilsyth wrote: ‘It hath not been known in Scotland that the Lord’s Supper hath been given twice in a summer in any congregation before this revival’.
For more details of the revival, read:
The Church of Scotland is now one of the most liberal denominations in Britain. I think the Free Church of Scotland and/or the Free Church of Scotland (continuing) may still have communion quite rarely, but I'm not certain.
There is no requirement for the church to do it more or less often or even the same once a year observance. We do not, after all, observe times and feasts as for redemption.
What Jesus said was that they were to remember Him from that point on and not be as focused on the exodus of Egypt. So the Scots are not wrong for once or twice a year and others are not more right for monthly or weekly observation.
We do not celebrate Passover. We are not remembering Israel's exodus, but our Lord's death on the cross. "Do this in remembrance of Me.'
I realise that you did not say otherwise.
Just so. "As often as you eat this bread or drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.' There are those who argue strongly for a weekly observance, but I am not among them. My church celebrates twice a month.
Last edited:
Ben1445
Well-Known Member
When I read it, I can hear an implied thought. You did remember the night that Israel left Egypt. Now you need to remember the reason Israel left Egypt.
Israel was commanded to remember the Passover event.
Exodus 13:3
And Moses said unto the people, Remember this day, in which ye came out from Egypt, out of the house of bondage; for by strength of hand the LORD brought you out from this place: there shall no leavened bread be eaten.
Deuteronomy 16:3
Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it; seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread therewith, even the bread of affliction; for thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt in haste: that thou mayest remember the day when thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt all the days of thy life.
Deuteronomy 16:12
And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in Egypt: and thou shalt observe and do these statutes.
And now Jesus tells us to take the unleavened bread, not for the remembrance of the Exodus, but for His sake who brings us out of the world.
The cup, which has a special significance in the Passover meal 4 times taken and a fifth cup poured but not drunken for it’s significance.
There is a future for Christ where we wait to take the cup with Him.
Luke 22:18
For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.
This is an observance along with the afikomen that the Jews may observe without understanding the meaning of what they are doing.
Ben1445
Well-Known Member
Also I found this interesting bit which brings a new meaning to “as often.”
Third Seder
I hadn’t ever heard of this and it caught my attention because of this discussion.
Third Seder
I hadn’t ever heard of this and it caught my attention because of this discussion.