Kentucky Baptists, Anti-Missions and Hyper-Calvinism

In 1885, Baptist historian J. H. Spencer penned what has become the definitive resource for early Baptist work in Kentucky.   Most of the earlier settlers in Kentucky came from Virginia and the Carolinas.  The first churches there were undoubtedly Episcopal and in a real sense, therefore, the religious climate in the bluegrass state leaned toward a state-sanctioned church  >>>

Baptists--most of whom at that time being Regular, Particular Baptists--were in Kentucky early, well before the end of the eighteenth century.  The Severns Valley Baptist Church, believed to be the first Kentucky Baptist church,  was constituted June 18, 1781.  In Elizabethtown, Severns Valley Church still remains very active today. 

Being ordained the same day the church constituted was the first Baptist Pastor in Kentucky, John Gerrard.  It would be a short relationship, however.  Less than a year passed, when Rev. Gerrard grabbed his trusty musket from over the fireplace, went into the woods to hunt for a meal but never returned.  Supposedly, he was killed by Indians who were hostile that the newcomers had invaded what was once their land.

In Spencer’s history, Chapter 31 (pp.472-484) is entitled “Baptist Operations from 1810 to 1820--Foreign Missions--Statistics.”  And, for our purposes here, I’d like to summarize Spencer’s work since there’s been much written, especially from our Founders brothers’ perspective, that the Baptist movement throughout the entire nineteenth century, and suggested by some, through the first quarter of the twentieth century, could be all but unanimously considered Calvinistically inclined.  From Spencer’s description of Kentucky Baptists in the early nineteenth century, I do not see how that historical conclusion could possibly be sustained.  Let me show you what I mean.

The old Triennial Convention (1814) was just getting started and foreign missions was the question of the day.  Spencer writes: “Previous to 1816, there was not an Anti-mission Baptist in Kentucky, so far as known. In every association, where a missionary enterprise was proposed, it met with universal favor.” (p.474ff). And when Luther Rice visited the Baptists in Kentucky, he was met with glee and joy.  In fact, “the contributions were larger than in any other States.” (Ibid).  Moreover, the historian records concerning Kentucky Baptists “It is abundantly evidenced by church and associational records, that the Baptists of Kentucky were imbued with the spirit of missions, from the beginning.”

Spencer then goes on to describe the gradual debate that began to take place so potent that the very life of Baptists in Kentucky was at stake. Here is his awful description: “Yet, even at this early period, there were germs of evil at work, which ultimately grew into a bitter opposition to missions and theological education.”  How could this take place when all Kentucky Baptists were missions oriented before 1816?

Citing two causes--or, in Spencer’s words, “germs of evil”--that led to the Anti-Missions movement--one being the character of preaching among the pioneers, the other, persecution they recalled at the hands of the Episcopal hierarchy, in Virginia and the Carolinas, before the Revolution-- Spencer then describes the earlier Baptists.  While the quote is lengthy, it needs to be recorded as is:

Most of the ministers among the Regular Baptists in Kentucky, at an early period, were what would now be called hypercalvinistic. They were men of  vigorous intellects, but of very limited education. They studied the English Bible very closely, but without much aid from Biblical literature. ‘Having [sic] but a limited knowledge of the structure and use of language in the English Scriptures, it is not remarkable that they should have construed some figurative passages literally, and misinterpreted others that were literal. 

In their theological system, Christ died to redeem the elect, “gave himself for the church.” His sacrifice was a literal payment of a debt for his people. Of course none but his people had any part in the sacrifice.

[Spencer now quoting at length Dr. J. M. Peck in Christian Review] “Sinners were ‘dead in trespasses and sins;’ therefore, they could no more help themselves than a dead man; and as it is the office-work of the Holy Spirit to quicken the dead, the mode of preaching the doctrine of regeneration as the work of the Almighty Spirit, was in such a form, and by such illustrations, as to leave the impression that the gospel was preached, not to convert sinners, but to comfort God’s people. It was at a much later period that these crude speculations exhibited their legitimate fruits in practical antinomianism.  “At a subsequent period, the hyper-Calvinistic doctrines were made more prominent, and speculations were taught, until antinomianism in spirit, theory, and practice prevailed to a ruinous extent among the churches in the Mississippi Valley.”

And, after speaking of some other bazaar doctrines that the Anti-Missions groups had embraced, Spencer goes on to offer a summary:

With men, holding these speculations as articles of faith, opposition to missions was natural, especially when they apprehended danger to their liberties from organized societies as mediums for carrying on missionary operations. If all God’s people were eternally justified, literally purchased, or have all their obligations met by the sacrifice of Christ, while there are no provisions made for the salvation of others, and they are quickened from the dead (in sin) by the Holy Spirit-regenerated before they can hear the gospel, the tidings of salvation could, at most, do no more than merely comfort such as were already saved; of course the gospel could be of no benefit to those for whom no provisions were made, and who, being dead, could not hear it. To attempt to lead men to salvation, therefore, would be not only useless, but sacrilegiously presumptuous, in as much as it would be an attempt to subvert God’s designs.

For me, much of Spencer’s concern bleeds over into our own day when we repeatedly hear calls for “reforming” Southern Baptist churches according to the Calvinism of the nineteenth century.  Surely, my Calvinistic brothers in the SBC will question any concerns that the doctrines they espouse are similar to the Anti-Missions group in Kentucky. 

Nevertheless, from my reading, Calvinists today have much in common with Spencer’s description. It seems obvious that Spencer is here suggesting that a view that Christ did not die for the race of humans but rather for the Elect alone is precisely the doctrine that the Anti-Missions group propounded and toward which Spencer concludes “opposition to missions was natural.” 

How many times I’ve had discussions over limited vs. unlimited atonement with my Calvinist brothers is hard to tell.  Yet, Founders informs us that limited atonement or “particular redemption” stood universally accepted among Baptists of the nineteenth century.

To the idea of the teaching of limited atonement and its negative impact on foreign missions, Spencer, writing in 1885, about the earlier Baptists of Kentucky, concludes: “To attempt to lead men to salvation, therefore, would be not only useless, but sacrilegiously presumptuous, in as much as it would be an attempt to subvert God’s designs.” All Southern Baptists five point Calvinists?  For me, that is somewhat of a stretch.

Also, the idea that regeneration precedes faith and repentance that the Founders community so often discusses appears to be in view when Spencer, quoting Peck says, “’Sinners were ‘dead in trespasses and sins;’ therefore, they could no more help themselves than a dead man...’” 

We are told repeatedly by SBC Calvinists that “dead in trespasses and sin” (Ephesians 2.1) means dead in the sense that absolutely nothing exists in the soul with which to believe is alive.  We cannot believe with repentant faith, responding to the Gospel because things that are dead cannot believe nor repent. 

Hence, God must “raise us from the dead” through a new birth resurrection.  Then we may produce faith.  “First, we are born again,” Calvinists boldly assert.  “Then, we will believe.”  Unfortunately, teachings like these seem to be the very things Spencer records as being both “Anti-Missions” and “hypercalvinistic.”

With that, I am...

Peter

Comments

[volfan007]

peter,

very interesting. very enlightening. very true.

david

[peter]

All,

Hope you experienced a delightful Lord's Day, yesterdasy. I will be away most of the day. Be nice.

With that, I am...

Peter

[selahV]

PETER: How thorough of you to search through my claim to Kentucky Baptists brotherhood and sisterhood. Oh, the evangelism and example that Severns Valley's history lends us. I truly believe they are the vital church they are today because of the 40-years under Dr. Kruschwitz's ministry, don't you?
Thanks again for the history lesson, my friend. You always satisfy a hunger I didn't know existed till I read you. SelahV

[SelahV]

Cornelius: HUH? selahV

[Roland]

PRAISE GOD!
Coming from an ex-Calvinist.
This is the major problem with Calvinisim. It robs you of joy. Joy in Christ. I was raised Mormon, and right at the time I was ready to prepare for my mission, BAM! I got saved! Born again! Born from above! The law was shown to me , I repented and believed (in the Jesus of the Bible) and the joy of the Lord became my strength. I served Christ for the next 3 to 4 years by sharing the Good News with how ever many people that crossed my path. Even my brother who was raised Nazerene by his father, he then rededicated his life to Christ after seeing the change in my life knowing I was raised Mormon.
And then I met a Calvinist pastor and attended his church for 7 years. I became a strict Calvinist and my life changed from sharing the Good News of Jesus Christ to non-believers to 'Calvinizing' non-Calvinists. My relationship with my brother went into the toilet because I looked at him as someone not saved because he did not see the 'light' of Calvinism. He and everyone else I knew. My Wife and I even made a special trip to California to our home town to tell everyone we knew about the 'good news' of Calvinism and that they needed it too. I even snuck books that my pastor had written in other church pastor's bibles when we visited their church. I will not tell you all the reasons now why I am not a Calvinist anymore but I will tell you this one. When I hear of Calvinists whine and or cry that they are being excluded and or persecuted for what they believe I SCREAM and cry in frustration! There are believers in other countries that don't even know the meaning of Calvinism and go to the grave in blood for their faith in Jesus Christ. Calvinist like Kelly David with these 'hurt feelings' are mistaken and his beliefs are unfounded, nor do they matter when Christians around the world are dying for their faith in Christ daily, I shed tears. I will not go by a book written by , John Calvin , Martin Luther, Chuck Smith , or Joseph Smith. The Word of God only, sola scriptura. Calvinists should be ashamed of themselves for their selfishness, period.
Thank you for this, sincerely Mr. Roland Faucett

[selahV]

Whew!!!! Roland. Praise the Lord for your passion. I think I would be amiss not to point out that a similar thing happened to me several years ago. Only it wasn't me preaching Calvin or the Southern Baptist faith, it was my Southern Baptist dad who shared Jesus with every soul he encountered in the jails where he was the jailer to the firemen where he was a volunteer. Every word my dad shared spoke of Jesus someway. Then he married a lady who belonged to a denomination other than Southern Baptist. All of a sudden Daddy was a changed man. Only it wasn't that he was born-again; it was like he died a slow death. No longer did he share Jesus...all he talked about was his church--The Church, how much money was taken into that Church, how many folks were added to that Church, how people could fall away from that Church and how anyone not baptized into that Church would die and go to hell. According to my dad who loved me beyond reason, my eternal fate rested no longer in the Jesus in Whom I believed, but the Church with which my father now belonged.

Through many many long years, my near-death father has clung to the fallacies he has been "lessoned" to death about. He lies in a nursing home bed, living in fear of meeting His Maker rather than embracing the belief that His Maker will give him rest eternal. I truly believe Jesus has never let go of my daddy. Even though Daddy was deceived with the lessons of this Church who lessoned his vibrant faith into a puddle of what Daddy once poured out on all who would listen.
Thanks for your testimony. SelahV

[Richard Coords]

Hello Roland,

I was a Baptist, and then became part of a Calvinist fellowship, and then later left it, after being convicted that what Calvinism taught, was unbiblical. I developed a website to present an answer to my Calvinist brothers for the reason why I left Calvinism.

First let me say that several of them are genuine soul-winners. Unfortunately, however, several others of them are stiff-necked, hyper-Calvinistic, Supra-Lapsarians. Many of them will flip-flop lapsarian systems when going from one verse to the next.

Unfortunately, Calvinists tend to filter every Bible verse through the lens of Deterministic Decrees, and hence, a multitude of verses are bent to conform to Calvinism.

To me, the greatest error of Calvinism is that it results in those of the alleged, eternal flock of the Father, being eternally mediated to the Father in His eternal secret counsel by sovereign grace, when yet Jesus says: "No one comes to the Father but by Me." Calvinism seems to have invented another way to the Father.

[Richard Coords]

In terms of Preemptive Regeneration, I think that the most important point is lost.

Consider this quote from Calvinist, James White: “When the time comes in God’s sovereign providence to bring to spiritual life each of those for whom Christ died, the Spirit of God will not only effectively accomplish that work of regeneration but that ***new creature in Christ will, unfailingly, believe in Jesus Christ*** (‘all that the Father gives Me will come to Me’).” (Debating Calvinism, p.191, emphasis mine)

Preemptive placement "in Christ" is the underlying foundation of Preemptive Regeneration, when yet Ephesians 1:13 tells us that we are not sealed in Christ until after we hear and believe in the Gospel.

http://examiningcalvinism.blogspot.com/2007/02/sealed-in-christ.html

It seems that my Calvinist brothers have successfully navigated my Blog to avoid commenting on that discussion.

Preemptive Placement in Christ is the foundation of Calvinistic Preemptive Regeneration. Calvinists rebut the Arminian view as "Decisional Regeneration." I find it interesting that Calvinists appear so unwilling to engage in a discussion on that verse. Dave Hunt used that verse in His debate book with James White, and White declined to comment on it.

[selahV]

Richard: That link you supplied with the picture of all the people inside the image of Jesus...that is a similar image that I was shown back in 1990 with an employer who made it mandatory for we employees to attend a conference. New Age. He believed we were all each other's imagination and every time we moved, the molecules we moved in the air would interact with others and cause things to happen in Spokane Washington or wherever. When we died our molecular makeup was simply dissolved back into this image of a god-form. I rebelled against the belief system because I was a Christian. I was fired. Weird thinkers in this world. (By the way, I worked for a dentist. he laughed at Christianity.) selahV

[Richard Coords]

SelahV,

It's ironic that a forced Christian conference would be deemed a "violation" of your rights, but being forced to a New Age conference is somehow ok. It's amazing.

The image of the body of Christ reminded me of Ephesians 1:13, but I would like for you to examine 1st Corinthians 6:16-17 and tell me what you think after reading that verse.

[Kelly]

Roland,
Let me begin by saying praise God that He called you out of darkness into His marvelous light. I have friends who God has also led out of Mormonism and it would be of benefit to those of us who have not had great dealings with the religion to learn from those, such as yourself, who have been indoctrinated into this belief but whom God has providentially and sovereignly drawn out unto Himself. Let me also say it saddens me that you were robbed of your joy by a pastor’s teachings and I pray that the fervor you once had for reaching the lost with the hope of the Gospel has returned and that God is using you to reach the lost around you.
I have to agree with you regarding some who embrace different teachings and their zealousness for new found teachings and in the throws of their eagerness to share, they miss the point of taking what they have learned and humbly embracing it as a morsel of truth from God. I also praise God that He corrects us and gets us back on track by reminding us of the urgency of the Gospel. It sounds as though God has been bringing you back to His Truth after having been led astray by this pastor.
I also have to agree with you regarding how we often trivialize the severity of the persecution of our brothers and sisters in places like China, across Africa, and India when we reflect on ourselves and the pains that we have experienced. It is selfishness on our part when we will focus on self rather than looking at others as more important than ourselves. I have been guilty of this myself and I have had to repent of my sinfulness.
I must say though that I am perplexed by your mention of my name and labeling me a “Calvinist”. I have to say, I am not a Calvinist; though I embrace the doctrines of Grace. As I said in a post back in October, “I embraced the doctrines of grace and not with the help of Calvin, Spurgeon, Gill, Piper or any other known “Calvinist”. Rather I embraced the doctrines of grace from an intense attempt to prove the Sovereignty of God in salvation as known to reformed teaching as being wrong. It was God’s election of Abram, Isaac, Jacob, Paul, Lydia, and the study of the Passover and the Pascal lamb in light of an extensive study in John’s Gospel and Genesis that God instrumented to bring me to a point where I submitted to this truth.”
I also concur that we must not follow men, Paul even warned of this in 1 Corinthians 1:11-13 when he said, “For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you. Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, ‘I am of Paul,’ and ‘I am of Apollos’, and ‘ I and ‘I am of Cephas,’ and ‘I am of Christ.’ Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” I am in full agreement, with Sola Scriptura! When we follow men we may as well be prepared to drink the purple Kool Aid per say because men will fail us because men are flesh.
With this in mind I do wish to point out that the pain suffered by fellow brothers and sisters in Christ at the hand of fellow professing believers is not a thing to be considered trivial. By reading your post, I see that you have been hurt by the misleading of a pastor who was over zealous about his beliefs and his zeal defeated your joy in the Lord. Scripture tells us, “By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another“ (John 13:35). Despite our differences, and though I have never met you, I love you my brother in Christ and rejoice with you in God‘s salvation.
Sincerely,

Kelly David
Sovereign Grace RBC
Olympia, WA

[Richard Coords]

Semantics. You're a Calvinist. :)

Seriously, every time I hear of a Calvinist describe their journey to Calvinism from an initial attempt to prove Calvinism wrong, I am reminded of Aniken Skywalker and his journey toward the darkside.

[Kelly]

Yes Richard, not unlike Lee Stroble's attempts to prove Christianity wrong only finding himself a convert. By the way, you say that it is semantics, my saying I am not a Calvinist. Let me say this, I am not a follower of John Calvin, I cannot agree with his position on baptism or church polity. Does that clarify what I meant when I said I am not a Calvinist?