Jesse Mercer and the Separate Baptists

My last post concluded that Doctor Jesse Mercer stands one heck of a Baptist in not only Georgia history but also in Southern Baptist history.  We saw how Mercer's capable leadership handled potentially devastating circumstances when dealing with debates over Election and Predestination.  These debates were common  both prior to and after the Southern Baptist Convention was formed in 1845, an historical phenomenon our Founders brothers appear to ignore   >>>

History reveals for us that the first Baptist church in the state of Georgia was organized in 1771 (or 1772) when Daniel Marshall, several of his family and Church members, crossing the Savannah river, moved over into Georgia from South Carolina where he had been at Beaver Creek for some ten years.  There in what some historians believe to be the pre-Revolutionary village of Kiokee--near the present city of Appling--he organized the Kiokee Baptist Church, the oldest continuing Baptist Church in Georgia.

Marshall, of course, was a Separate Baptist, who along with Shubal Stearns, had been reared in the Congregational Church in New England but, under the powerful influence of George Whitefield, became "New Lights," eventually becoming convinced of Baptist ways. 

They both traveled southward, ending in Sandy Creek, North Carolina.  Sandy Creek became the Mother/Grandmother Church for hundreds of other churches and spawned several Associations.   And, even though both the General Baptist (Arminian) and Particular Baptist churches (Calvinist) preceded the Separates in North Carolina specifically and the south generally, one may surely conclude that no aggressive evangelism took place until the Separates came to town. Sandy Creek became the Separate Baptist capital of the South. 

One could ask, if they were all Baptist, why were they considered different?  In addition, given three streams of Baptist heritage, from which Baptist stream do Southern Baptists come?  Let me answer the latter quickly and move on to the former question which is really the focus for this particular post.  From my perspective, Southern Baptists draw from all three streams, not just one.  There are evidences of them all within the Southern Baptist movement beginning in 1845.

Not so, say others.  Indeed the way I read Founders Calvinists, my understanding is that they believe Southern Baptists rightly and exclusively belong to the tributary known as Particular Baptists--that is, the five point Calvinist heritage.  The other two heritages--especially the General Baptist heritage--is a deviant one. 

In addition, many Calvinists argue that Separate Baptists were fully as Calvinist as are they.  Hence, it was Separate-Five Point Calvinistic Baptists that evangelized the south by starting churches, forming associations and preaching the gospel.  It follows, then, that the first Baptist church in the state of Georgia may have been a Separate Baptist Church in the Sandy Creek tradition, but Separate Baptist churches in the Sandy Creek tradition were five point Calvinistic churches. 

This idea was driven home to me recently when Dr. Tom Nettles, Professor of Historical Theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary penned a letter to the editor of The Christian Index spanking the hands of all Georgia Baptists for abandoning their Calvinistic heritage.  He writes:   

Confessional infidelity began when non-Calvinist pastors took positions in confessionally Calvinistic churches. With names of Marshall, Mercer, Sherwood, Dagg, Mell, and Tucker, Georgia Baptists sparkled with a noble history of evangelical Calvinism – not an oxymoron...It seems to me that the burden of evidence shows that the non-Calvinist has departed from the faith of Georgia Baptists 

The first Baptist celebrity in Dr. Nettles' impressive list is Daniel Marshall, Separate Baptist.  And, the evangelical Calvinism Dr. Nettles laments is missing today is undoubtedly Five Point Calvinism.

Thus, Founders apparently insists they and Separate Baptists were born in the same litter of theological pups.  Given this, the following description by Doctor Jesse Mercer, whom Dr. Nettles rightly lists as a noble Baptist forefather, is pertinent as he was describing the Separate Baptists who moved into Georgia from South Carolina.  Doctor Mercer's description is particularly interesting because he would indeed be a forefather--at least in theology--of today's Founders' Calvinists.  Doctor Mercer writes:

"It seems to be taken for granted that all those venerable fathers, who founded the Baptist Denomination in this state [Georgia], were as stern calvinistic preachers as are the opposers of the new plans.  But this is altogether a mistake. Abraham Marshall [Son of Daniel] was never considered a predestinarian preacher. Some of them were so--seemed to be set for the defense of the gospel.  Of these, Silas Mercer and Jeptha Vining were the chief.  To use his own figure; he used to say, 'he was short legged  and could not wade in such deep water.'  He, with several others, was considered sound in the faith, though low Calvinists. Peter Smith and some others were thought rather Arminian; some quite so. 

But no division was thought of till Jeremiah Walker adopted and preached openly the doctrine of final apostasy.  Then a division ensued; but soon after the death of Mr. W., the breach was healed.  And here it may not be amiss to add, that the Baptists in the upper parts of South Carolina, in those days, comprehended mostly, it is believed, in the Bethel Association, were general provisionists. I think most of their ministers preached what is now called General Atonement.  But this was never thought of as a bar to correspondence, or even Christian communion." (Memoirs of Elder Jesse Mercer, C.D. Mallary, 1832, pp.201-2, quoted in A History of the Kiokee Baptist Church in Georgia, James Donovan Mosteller, MA., B.D., Th.D., First Printing, 1952, p.37, emphasis mine).

Well, Doctor Mercer seems to possess less assurance than we receive from our good Professor Nettles that Separate Baptists were five point Calvinists.  Would he settle for four?

In addition, Dr. Nettles mentions that Kiokee Church stood squarely upon a Five Point theological platform.  He writes:

'The confession of the Kiokee Baptist Church affirmed "the great doctrine of Election, effectual calling, particular redemption, Justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ alone . . . the saints absolute final perseverance in Grace.' 

That may well be true.  Nevertheless, either Doctor Mercer was horribly wrong in his assessment that Abraham Marshall--who served as Pastor of Kiokee Church for 35 years--was "never known as a 'predestinarian preacher'" as Mercer describes or Abraham Marshall was guilty of what Dr. Nettles dubs "confessional infidelity" for taking a position in a "confessionally Calvinistic church."  Personally, I believe neither of these.  Rather, I believe Kiokee Church, being in the Separate Baptist tradition, never stood strongly on any confession but the Bible.  Separate Baptist aversion to confessionalism screams loud and clear at Kiokee Church when one Abraham Marshall, son of Daniel Marshall, apparently was not a Five Point Calvinist.

Also, Doctor Mercer's assessment coincides nicely with the standard complaint against Separate Baptists by the Particular Baptists (Calvinists), who, by the way, dissed Separate Baptists, Stearns and Marshall, when they moved south to the Carolinas and Virginia to evangelize.  Baptist historian Robert B. Semple (1769-1831) writes:

"...the Regulars [Calvinists] complained that the Separates...kept within their communion many who were professed Arminians, etc. To these things it was answered by the Separates...that if there were some among them who leaned too much towards the Arminian system they were generally men of exemplary piety and great usefulness in the Redeemer’s kingdom, and they conceived it better to bear with some diversity of opinion in doctrines than to break with men whose Christian deportment rendered them amiable in the estimation of all true lovers of genuine godliness.

Indeed, that some of them had now become fathers in the Gospel, who previous to the bias which their minds had received had borne the brunt and heat of persecution, whose labors and sufferings God had blessed, and still blessed to the great advancement of His cause. To exclude such as these from their communion would be like tearing the limbs from the body." (History of the Baptists in Virginia, Robert Baylor Semple, First Published, 1810, pp 68-69 emphasis mine).

According to Semple, Separates had both Calvinists and nonCalvinists within their fellowship.  But not only so, when accosted by Particular Baptists (Calvinists) to rid themselves of their affiliation with these self-professed Arminians, who but the Calvinistic Separates defended the Arminian Separates and their fellowship in association together! 

Hence, we are now in a position to draw at least this one conclusion from our post:  we absolutely know for sure Separate Baptists are definitively not the ancestors of today's Baptist Calvinists.  For is there a Founders Calvinist among us standing to defend the nonCalvinist who freely drinks as do they from the spring of our deep Southern Baptist heritage? 

With that, I am...

Peter

Comments

[volfan007]

peter,

i am enjoying the fire out of your posts on this topic. i had dr. nettles for the history of christianity in seminary, and to hear him tell it....christianity down thru history revolves around five point, extreme calvinism.

thanks again for showing how some people can get so obsessed with a system that they cant see anything else. their glasses are fogged up.

volfan007

[perry mccall]

Great posts. I am especially enjoying them in light of some of the other blog subjects this past week. I have had to read this quickly and will need to digest it later. But an initial thought as I was reading Mercer's description of Marshal "not" being known as a "predestinarian" was how Andrew Fuller was considered by many in his day to not hold to the doctrines of grace. They charged him with this in spite of his affirmations of dreaded 5:) I am not challenging your conclusion at this point. I am pointing out a question that I would want to follow up with if I were doing the research. Thank goodness I am not doing the research!!! Again, I am loving the Mercer quotes.

Volfan,
How about that Peyton!! I might be at the "Identity" conference. I would love to meet you. I hope my sincerity in our exchange a few post ago came through.

[selahV]

Perry: Peyton? Who's Peyton? hee hee. Can you tell I'm a Patriot's fan? Go Bears! selahV

[perry mccall]

Oooooooh!! SelaV!!! I am so disappointed:)

[selahV]

Perry: Just kidding. It's gonna be a toughie for me. I've always like Manning. Just can't switch loyalties from the Brady-bunch. The Colts are the team of choice now in my family. But we have a dear dear friend in KY who is a Bears fan. So now my heart is torn. Whoever wins the Big Bowl will be okay with me. I'll be cheering both teams. I do that quite often. selahV

[AJR]

Joe,

Thank you for letting us know. I have a question for you. Are you related to Peter? A son-in-law perhaps? :) Just curious.

God bless,
AJR

[cb scott]

Peter,

Another post that "drinks" with refreshment. Thank you.

cb

[peter]

All,

Sorry I have been unable to respond to any comments. I was unavailable for some days.

I finished my first reading of "Sandy-Creek Revisited," the latest journal edition of Founders Ministries. Dr. Ascol gave us anticipation about some "ground-breaking" new information on Sandy-Creek.

Unfortunately, I did not notice anything new except...well, I plan to post on it next week.

Have a great day. With that, I am...

Peter

[selahV]

Peter: apology accepted. we really miss you when you're away. selahV

[Richard Coords]

Peter,

Are you here in J'ville for the Pastor's Conference?