PRIMITIVE BAPTIST HISTORYWITHIN
Compiled by: Hoyt D. F. Sparks
486 Choate Dairy Road
Sparta, NC28675
Special Note: All material herein does not havea copyright. It may be reproduced and distributed without permission or charge.
ETERNAL VITAL UNION EXPLAINED
AND
THE HISTORY AND REFUTATION OF
CONDITIONAL TIME SALVATION
Prior to the American Revolutionary War the Baptists in the American Colonies were mostly of one accord, even though they did not have a central head or hierarchy. They were severely persecuted and prosecuted by the Puritans, and especially the Episcopalian church which was the official state-supported religion under the British rule. During this time period the Baptists may not have been in total agreement with each other on all points of doctrine and practice, but for the most part there was not any major cause for strife and divisions.
After the American Revolutionary War various new, man-made doctrines and practices came in among the Baptists that would later cause much strife and divisions. These new introductions consisted of collecting large amounts of money to pay preachers to go on missions and preach to the heathens in order for the heathens to be saved from eternal damnation, establishment of Sunday schools to teach the young how to become Christians, auxiliary church societies, schools of higher learning to teach men how to preach the gospel of Christ, etc. These new introductions into the Baptists congregations and associations were tolerated or ignored by the Baptists during the latter part of the 1700s and into the early part of the 1800s. Early in the 1800s there came about a concerted resistance to these newly introduced doctrines and practices, and in 1832 a meeting was held at the Black Rock Meeting House in Maryland by those who opposed these new introductions. Out of that meeting a manifesto was presented in which declaration was made against such new introductions, and this declaration was labeled the Black Rock Address.
Those who advocated against all these newly introduced doctrines and practices were identified as Old School or Primitive Baptist, and those who held to the newly introduced doctrines and practices were labeled as New Order of Baptists and Missionary Baptists. Since the 1832 Black Rock Address this split was definitive and identifiable.
After the split between the old and new order of Baptists in 1832, Elder Gilbert Beebe started a periodical which declared for the order and doctrines of the Old School or Primitive Baptists, and was labeled THE SIGNS OF THE TIMES (SOT). Elder Beebe was the editor and publisher, with others contributing writings for publication in the SOT.
After the establishment of the SOT in 1832 there were several years of apparent harmony and fellowship within the ranks of those who held to the old paths in support of the Old School or Primitive Baptists doctrines and practices. Following these several years of apparent peace and harmony, there arose discord within the ranks of the Old School or Primitive Baptists. In the early 1850s Elder John Clark, who was one of the original contributing editors to the SOT, took issue with some writings by Elder Gilbert Beebe and Elder Samuel Trott in the SOT, who was also one of the original contributing editors, over the issue of Eternal Vital Union (EVU) of Christ with the members of His body, the Church. (It is not necessary to go into detail at this point on the points of doctrine and practice that arose over EVU, but thoroughness is documented in the writings that are included herein and given in completeness below.) Some of the major writings that document this controversy and split are contained in the following five (5): (1) Exposure of Heresies, (2) Calm Reply, (3) Contest of 1886---1889, (4) Conditional Time Salvation, and (5) “The Big IF” of Conditional Time Salvation.
Even though the initial breach was over EVU, other bones of contention soon came in which were introduced by Elder John Clark or his followers. Other issues introduced by them to widen the breach consisted of things such as the “Means Doctrine” and “Conditional Time Salvation”.
A brief on each of the five (5) below writings follows:
#1. Exposure of Heresies. This was written by Elder John Clark, and purports to upset the writings by Elders Beebe and Trott primarily over EVU, and is the first writing to document the differences between Elder John Clark and Elders Trott and Beebe.
#2. Calm Reply. This was written by Elder Samuel Trott in reply to the initial writing by Elder John Clark.
#3. Contest of 1886---1889. This was written by Elder William Smoot and documents an attempt by some Old School or Primitive Baptists to once again unite all Old School or Primitive Baptists under one umbrella. Elder Smoot was involved with this controversy and realized that those preaching the Sovereignty of GOD, who were identified as Predestinarian Primitive Baptists or “Absoluters”, would be required to abandon or at least greatly compromise the doctrines and practices they held in order to become reunited with those who followed Elder John Clark in the split which took place starting in the early 1850s. Some have indicated that this controversy of the late 1880s was just an extension of the troubles which began in the early 1850s.
#4. Conditional Time Salvation. This was written by Elder R. H. Boaz and goes into great detail in exposing and refuting the contention of a Conditional Time Salvation (CTS), which was and is practiced by those who sympathized with the sentiments of Elder John Clark.
#5. “The Big IF”: This was written by Elder C. C. Morris in rebuttal to those who believe that the appearance of an “if” in the Bible is invariably “conditional”, indicating that a Spiritually Born child of GOD must perform good deeds in order that GOD will bless them, thereby bringing GOD under obligation to bless or reward them.
There are many more writings besides the below five (5) that treat on the subjects of EVU, Means Doctrine, CTS, etc. Of all the contentious points of doctrine and practice brought up by Elder John Clark and his followers, the issue of CTS has stood in prominence and has survived into today’s time and is the one brought up mostly that causes discord among the Old School or Primitive Baptists.
Serious Bible students ought to study the history of the Baptists, as well as doctrines and practices, in order to know fully the cause and substance, or lack thereof, that has been wrestled with in times past and continues to be wrestled with in the present time among the Baptists, especially the Old School or Primitive Baptists.
May it be that those of HIS who have been Spiritually Born, S-T-U-D-Y to show themselves approved unto GOD, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth, 2 Timothy 2:15.
Peace of Christ to all,
Hoyt D. F. Sparks
November 12, 2008
DISCLAIMER
I do not endorse this article by any means. I have it here only for the reason of understanding what Elder Samuel Trott was responding to and because of its historical value. Elder Smoot in his book entitled "The Contest of 1886------89" referred to it as "A So-Called Exposure of Heresies," to which I agree.
– Tom Adams.
In the above disclaimer note by Tom Adams, he indicates that he does not endorse this writing by Elder Clark, and neither do I.
Hoyt D. F. Sparks
October 12, 2008.
**************************
EXPOSURE OF HERESIES
PROPAGATED BY SOME
“OLD SCHOOL BAPTISTS.”
INDEX:
Introduction
First Chapter:------To The Brethren, etc.
Second Chapter:------Arianism – What is it?
Third Chapter:------Documentary Evidence.
Fourth Chapter:------History of the Schism in Va., Report of Committee of Ketoctan Association, 1853
Fifth Chapter:------Jesus is Jehovah, the Creator
Sixth Chapter:------Regeneration
Seventh Chapter:------Regeneration of the Soul
Eighth Chapter:------Conclusion
1
INTRODUCTION
To the Christian Reader:
The following work was not written to gratify any personal pique, for the author cherishes no animosity against any, but for the defense of the Gospel of Christ, and, (if the will of God be so;) for the deliverance of any of the Lord's Spiritual Israel who may be entangled in the anti-Christian web of those who propagate the errors herein exposed, and are under their yoke of bondage, so that they may not be partakers of their sins, and ultimately receive of their plagues.
The author is not insensible to the natural feelings which arise under the repeated accusations which have been preferred against him and his brethren, of being false accusers, and of slanderously reporting of them that they have published doctrines which they affirm they never held; but he desires that God may keep him from their influence, and that he may be enabled, by the grace of God, and, in the fear of the Lord, to bear a faithful testimony to the truth of God, - THE TRUTH AS IT IS IN JESUS, - and to set down nothing against them, as diverse from that truth only what they have openly avowed, and published to the world as their sentiments.
To this no Christian, or reasonable man, can take any exception, as it is giving them credit for the undisguised expression of their views; and the desire is, above all else, that the cause of Christ may be promoted, and that God, in all things may be glorified.
If these results are accomplished, the author will be amply compensated for the unpleasant labor, which a sense of duty to Christ and his Church, devolved upon him.
CHAPTER FIRST
TO THE SAINTS AND FAITHFUL
BRETHREN IN CHRIST;
GRACE BE WITH YOU,
AND PEACE FROM GOD OUR FATHER,
AND FROM THE LORD JESUS CHRIST.
In the prosecution of the work indicated in the title page, and in the introduction, we deem it proper, as preliminary to that end, to frame the bill of indictment against them, and then proceed to the proof.
We have charged them with propagating sentiments in relation to the Son of God, which are substantially those held by Arius and his followers; and also with unscriptural and heretical views concerning the Church of God, and the salvation of sinners.
First – That the Son of God, as such, the Life and Head of the Church, is a creature; that he is inferior to the Father, as the Father made him, or created him first of all his works, and created all other things by him as Solomon made the temple by Hiram. That there are three natures or existences in Christ, and that the mediatorial existence is a creation.
Second – That the sacrifice of Christ, as the son of Mary, as the man Christ Jesus, could avail no more than the sacrifice of Mary herself, as she was not capable of producing a nature any better than her own, and hence if Christ's human nature, or body, was a sacrifice for sin, Mary's body would have answered as well.
Third – That the Son of God, is not equal to and one with the Father, as there is a priority of existence with the Father.
Fourth – That Christ, the Head and Life of the Church and Mediator, was neither human nor divine, but a created existence.
Fifth – That when Christ, the Son of God and Head of the Church, was put to death, all the members were dead – there was not a living saint during the time he lay in the tomb.
Sixth – That sinners are not regenerated, or quickened by the Holy Ghost, but by a created, quickening spirit; and that there is no change in man in soul, body or spirit, in regeneration.
Seventh – That the Church was created in and simultaneous with Christ in eternity, which relationship of Christ and the Church is illustrated by the creation of Adam and his seed in him and that, consequently, the Church of Christ is not composed or made up of Adam's sinful posterity, for Christ no more came to earth after his seed than Adam went to heaven after his. And that Christ will not come the second time to this earth.
CHAPTER SECOND
The root or basis of all the errors embraced in the indictment is Arianism, and it will, consequently, be necessary, first, to show what that ism is, or what Arius believed and propagated, and which we give from the best authority.
ARIANISM – WHAT IS IT?
The wise man has justly said, “There are many devices in a man's heart” (Prov. 19:21); and a greater than Solomon has said, that, “Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh” (Matt. 12:34). So in ever age and dispensation, men of corrupt minds, and reprobate concerning the faith, have introduced and propagated theories in religion – mere human devices – mixed up in the general way with some truth, and the more of that the more readily they deceive and entrap the unwary. And those who have obtained a celebrity in history, as founders of sects, and leaders of parties, have their creeds named after them, and, of course, all who adopt their sentiments are considered there followers, and are called after them. Hence we have Arminians, from Arminius, who arose in the 16th century;Arians, from Arius, who flourished in the close of the 3d and beginning of 4th centuries;Sabellians, from Sabellius, who appeared in the 3d century;Socians, from Socinius, who arose in the 16th century, etc. We must not suppose, however, that the elements of these isms originated with these men; but, on the contrary, they have existed in some shape or form from time immemorial. They are all advertised in the scriptures; and from mere circumstances particular persons, occupying prominent positions in society, have concentrated and embodied the elementary principles which are coeval with the existence of man as a sinner. In the heart of man, is a fallen sinner, exists in embryo every error and ism that is in existence, and the profession of religion, without the root of the matter, but places him in a situation the more effectually to develop the innate principles of his depraved nature. There is, in every system, or ism, known in ecclesiastical history, something which may be called its distinctive feature or element, and imbibing that, however we may differ from the party in other respects identifies us with the ism, fully and distinctly. It is not necessary that we should hold every sentiment in detail that Arminius held, in order to constitute us Arminians; nor that we should maintain all the points of the Arian creed to make us Arians.
There are Arminians of every denomination, and we not infrequently find Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Lutherans, etc., engaged in battle array against each other, and yet are all Arminians. We will present in detail the constituent parts, or elementary principles, of each of the four isms named in the foregoing, and enlarge upon Arianism, in conclusion, as that is more immediately in our way at present than any of the others.
The root of Arminianism is conditional salvation, comprising, of course, general atonement, and the free will of man in receiving or rejecting the salvation. No matter what differences may exist among them as to the condition - whether they are many or few, hard or easy to perform, they exist in the system as its life. The root of Arianism is an error as to the character of Christ. It is that He, in his person and character as the Son of God, had a beginning - was made, or created - and that, consequently, he is not coeternal with, and equal to the Father. For his Father existed before him, and his sonship, therefore, as the Son of God, is not placed in his divinity or Godhead.
The root of Sabellianism is an error both as to Christ and the Holy Ghost. It is that there is but one Person in the Godhead, and that the Word, or Christ, and the Holy Spirit, are but emanations from God. Socinianism is near akin to Arianism, though it has coalesced with Unitarianism. Indeed these three isms could very well keep house together, as their radical principles are the same. Its root is, that Christ was a mere man, and had no existence until he was born of Mary; that the Holy Ghost is not a distinct person, but that the Father is properly God.
The brethren will see from the creeds of these several parties, thus epitomized, that the difference between them, especially the three last named, is scarcely worth contending about, and that they could very consistently cast in their lots together and have one purse (Prov. 10:14); and this they generally do, whenever an onset is to be made upon the citadel of truth, as Herod and Pilate did on a memorable occasion (Luke 23:12). Indeed, we have witnessed attempts made by some in modern times to combine the constituent parts of these creeds, and introduce one which they claim to be original, and of others attempting to graft on to the old stock and root of Arianism, and claiming the paternity of their nondescripts, when, in fact, it is, in either case, but a garment of many colors, and very pertinently described by the historian in the words following: “Thus it appears that heresies are revived, from age to age, with new names, and under new dresses, carrying the appearance of something original, and not allowed to be the same things which had long ago been exploded and refuted.” As often, therefore, as Arianism has been explored and refuted, it is still alive, and revived among us; and we will conclude these remarks by presenting more of its features in detail.