Philadelphia Baptists dealt with the eternal generation of the Son as early as 1736

The Baptist Church of Montgomery County¹ began June 20, 1719 and became a member of the Philadelphia Baptist Association. Its organizing Pastor was Abel Morgan who not only preached the inaugurating sermon, but remained a guiding light for the new congregation. Other pastors who served the Montgomery church included John James, David Evans, and Benjamin Griffith. In 1727, the church called Joseph Eaton as pastor who continued his service until his death in 1749.

During Eaton's tenure, a doctrinal dispute arose which threatened the Montgomery church's membership in the Philadelphia Association. The issue was the eternal generation of the Son. While the specific dispute is not mentioned by name, the doctrinal discord over the eternal generation of the Son may have surfaced in the association as early as 1736:²

In the year 1736, no queries appeared, nor any request made to this Association; nevertheless, the Association being informed of a discord and contention in the church at Montgomery, did nominate and appoint Mr. Jenkin Jones, and Mr. Owen Thomas, ministers, with any two other brethren that they might judge serviceable, to visit, and to endeavour to conciliate matters between them. And it was accordingly effected.

Though it's surprising that a doctrinal dispute over what early American Baptists viewed as a "fundamental" article of belief took several years to settle, we do know that the Philadelphia Association appears to have openly dealt with the issue in 1743. In conference, debate ensued over the question of the eternal generation of the Son resulting in Montgomery's pastor, Joseph Eaton, and another Montgomery elder, Simon Butler, recanting their statements that apparently skewed and/or denied what Philadelphia Baptists believed to be historic Christian orthodoxy on the Son of God's supposed eternal begottenness. Of Joseph Eaton, the minutes record:

After some time spent in debate thereon, brother Joseph Eaton stood up, and freely, to our apprehension, recanted, renounced, and condemned all expressions, which he heretofore had used, whereby his brethren at Montgomery, or any persons elsewhere, were made to believe that he departed from the literal sense and meaning of that fundamental article in our Confession of faith, concerning the eternal generation and Sonship of Jesus Christ our Lord; he acknowledged with grief his misconduct therein, whether by word or deed.

Similarly, the minutes record a written recantation from Simon Butler:

I freely confess that I have given too much cause for others to judge that I contradicted our Confession of faith, concerning the eternal generation of the Son of God, in some expressions contained in my paper, which I now with freedom condemn, and am sorry for my so doing, and for every other misconduct that I have been guilty of, from first to last, touching the said article, or any other matter.

It remains unclear, at least as far as the minutes are concerned, what either Eaton or Butler had specifically taught about the eternal generation of the Son they later recanted. Whatever they taught on the still controversial subject, it apparently stuck with the congregation despite their recantations and public repentance. A year later in 1744, Simon Butler requested a group from the association visit the Montgomery church to try and settle the doctrinal dispute among the people:

Upon a request made to the Association by Simon Butler, it was, agreed and appointed that our brethren, Nathaniel Jenkins, Owen: Thomas, Benjamin Stelle, and Thomas Jones, visit the church of Montgomery on Wednesday after the first Sunday in November next, in order to try to accommodate the difference amongst them.

According to the 1745 minutes, the committee reported to the association about its findings in the Montgomery church, findings approved as read but not inserted into the minutes because Butler disputed its claims:

The procedure of four messengers, sent by the Association the year before, was brought to the house by a report in writing, and read; and the question was put to the house, whether it was approved as reported. Resolved in the affirmative. The report itself is not inserted, because Simon Butler and his party did not acquiesce with the determination.

Butler's dissent apparently spawned a motion not to seat messengers from the Montgomery congregation, a motion that failed resulting in Montgomery's messengers being seated even though their seating was publicly disputed.

Nor did the controversy over the eternal generation of the Son quietly fade into the night; rather it apparently plagued the association for several years.

It wasn't until 1774 that what seems to be a definitive statement on the issue was recorded in a circular letter penned by Samuel Jones. In it he wrote,

4. It remains, then, that he was the only begotten Son of God by eternal generation, inconceivable and mysterious. He was his Son, John 5:18; 1 John 5:5; his own Son, Romans 8:3, 32; his only begotten Son, John 1:14, 18; 3:16; 1 John 4:9; was with him in the beginning, John 1:1; before his works of old, even from everlasting, Micah 5:2; Proverbs 8:22, 23. …

Concluding further:

When we conceive of the Father and the Son, there is a priority in the order of nature, but not in the order of time. As God's eternal decrees, the mind and thought, the sun and light; though these be prior and successive among themselves in the order of nature, yet not in point of time. The instant the sun existed, light did exist also, proceeding, from it, or, as it were, generated by it. So the instant there is a Father, there must be a Son; and as the Father exists a Father from eternity, so does the Son a Son.

Clearly Philadelphia Baptists in the late 18th century thoroughly debated the issue ultimately framing the doctrine in terms accepting the eternal generation of the Son as historic Christian doctrine.

What seems just as clear, however, is no rationale for believing eternal generation--at least within the confines of the Philadelphia Association--seems to have included implications modern complementarian theologians infer pertaining to either gender roles, human authority and relationships, or husband/wife submission.

Indeed it seems to me analogous arguments of behavior and role between the Relations of the Persons within the Divine Trinity and human relations between husband and wife remain unwise, unnecessary, and even theologically dangerous for any number of reasons. No sound biblical hermeneutical principle seems to warrant such an interpretative exercise.

Consider.

How exactly do Trinitarian relations between Three eternal Persons within One uncreated Being analogously apply to two separate persons who are two separate created beings? For me, it seems prima facie absurd to begin travelling down such an avenue since we know in advance it's a dead end street. After all, is not our Almighty, in the end, incomprehensible to us?

It seems much better to conclude with Philadelphia Baptists,

But let no one presume to think that he can, by searching, find out the Almighty to perfection, nor vainly inquire where the Lord has not revealed. 

In conclusion, Philadelphia Baptists' concerns appear strictly focused upon defending the Persons of the Trinity and the Deity and Humanity of Jesus absent any speculation upon how the eternal relations within our Triune God analogously reflect temporal relations between men and women.

 

1774 Circular Letter by Samuel Jones

 

¹Prior to September 1784, Montgomery County was a part of Philadelphia County.

²Minutes of the Philadelphia Association. A.D. Gillette, 1851.

Comments

[Scott Shaver]

No sound biblical hermeneutical principle indeed. Kudos Pete.

[peter lumpkins]

Thanks Scott. I do see in Scripture what could be called a male "headship" notion, and for that reason I would be considered a complementarian. But I absolutely defy the notion that we employ the Trinity to prove it. If I can't demonstrate it through an exegetical exercise, little desire in me wants to embrace it.

Frankly, I'm beginning to think complementarianism--at least the version of it being hawked today--stems more from a hermeneutical trajectory originating in strict Calvinism than any where else--a foundation built upon theological interpretation instead of exegetical interpretation.

[Scott Shaver]

I'm in 100 percent agreement with your theory on "hawked" complementarianism.

[Robert Vaughn]

"...complementarianism--at least the version of it being hawked today--stems more from a hermeneutical trajectory originating in strict Calvinism than any where else..."

Interesting theory. What are your ideas on why modern strict Calvinists would build this theological interpretation, but the apparently strict Calvinists of the Philadelphia Association did not?

Thanks.

[Stephen Garrett]

Thanks for the info.

Stephen Garrett

[Scott Shaver]

Robert Vaughn:

Are you talking about the difference between the modus operandai of contemporary SBC "reform calvinism" or the more general catgegory.

If you're talking about he mutant SBC version I would say that a perpetuation of their "women under foot" mentality holds sway.

[Lydia]

"Interesting theory. What are your ideas on why modern strict Calvinists would build this theological interpretation, but the apparently strict Calvinists of the Philadelphia Association did not?"

Because they were not threatened by masses of educated voting women who did not know their place in the late 1700's? :o)

[Scott Shaver]

Lydia nails the problem on the head.

They're afraid of women, afraid of racism (against blacks only) and afraid of anyone who doesn't buy into their shibboleths. The "Gospel" has very little to do with any of this "mindset".

They want to be treated in an even and fair-handed fashion by lesser evangelicals for the sake of "The Gospel then they need to quit corrupting the message and central feature of "The Gospel".

[peter lumpkins]

Robert,

Good question. Hermeneutics may account for some of it. On my bookself above my head, I'm looking at Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics by G. Goldsworthy, a popular text on biblical interpretation used in today's Baptist seminaries (I have others in my library reflecting this school of interpretation as well which also are used in our seminaries). The major thrust is theological interpretation of Scripture rather than the classic evangelical historical-grammatical approach used by evangelicals of all soteriological stripes, including Baptist Calvinists.

[eric]

Are folks here taking the position that the historic baptist complementarian view is wrong and the baptist church should moved towards an egalitarian view of church leadership?

Eric

[Tom]

What do you mean by historic baptist complementarian view?

[Lydia]

Eric, the word, complementarian, was coined in the 80's. Hardly historic. Before that, it was just plain old patriarchy. And many Christians, outside certain bubbles, think it is ok to agree to disagree on such matters. Unless you think it is part of the Gospel and salvation is comprised listening to a female speak of Christ from scripture as Piper does.

As for me, I think it is wise to stick with the 58 "one anothers" which appear to be gender blind. :o)

[Eric]

Hey,
I mean the historic baptist view that women are not to have leadership over men in church.
Women are not to be pastors. Etc.
You know.....

[Eric]

I would say it's clear that scripture is not gender blind. There are clearly different roles for men and women, with one called to submit to the other. And at the same time that other is to submit to another.

[Tom]

Eric said:"I would say it's clear that scripture is not gender blind. There are clearly different roles for men and women, with one called to submit to the other. And at the same time that other is to submit to another."

Eric, it is as clear as mud! You say the scriptures are gender blind, but many of us see them as blind. Who is right or wrong?

[Eric]

Tom
Of course I am right......just teasing.
I've had many conversations with my charismatic friends who have women leaders.,
I understand why they have come to that conclusion, though I disagree.

Our scriptures have many words which address women leadership. You know what they say, yet for some reason don't think they apply.

So, do you think the baptist church should change its current and historic position on women leadership in the church.
Eric

[Tom]

I think there should be room for both positions.

[Scott Shaver]

What is "the Baptist Church".

There are many baptists but I do not know of a centralized "baptist church".

As for it's "historic" position, views have obviously been varied on the role and utilization of women in Christian ministry.

Eric, in the clearly different biblical roles you see for men and women, doesn't it say that a man should provide for his household both materially and spiritually?

I've seen a lot a guys in seminary whose wives were bringing home the bacon and paying the bills. What's your assessment of "missing the mark" in cases like that?

[peter lumpkins]

"Are folks here taking the position that the historic baptist complementarian view is wrong and the baptist church should moved towards an egalitarian view of church leadership?"

The "folks here" are all over the map in Baptist life, Eric. As for this blog, I've been clear where I stand on the gender issue, even on the present thread.

But let's also be clear about something else. The "historic baptist complementarian view" you cite is much too greasy to be a useful description of where Baptists have stood throughout their rich heritage. What do we think Lottie Moon did in China, weave baskets to fulfill her call to missions? No, she preached the gospel. Does that make her a prime example for modern egalitarians contra complementarians? No, for the NT reason that while all Pastors are preachers (or should be) not all preachers are Pastors. Undoubtedly, Moon would have rejected an attempt to "ordain" her into the pastoral ministry, probably for similar, if not identical, reasons I would object.

What is more, 19th century Separate Baptists were notorious for allowing women to fill the pulpit, hardly a practice about which we "Trads" who boast of our Sandy Creek tradition would gleefully maintain (Separate Baptists had a few other practices that would spin our heads around at least a couple times!).

Tragically, today's gender complementarians have become so obsessed with "proving" their view to be the correct one, some of them have gone Tarzan bananas in their insistence over it. Moreover, to exploit the Eternal Divine Persons of the Holy Trinity in an attempt to prove their point is not only overkill, it's theologically dangerous to do so. I want no part of it.

[Robert Vaughn]

Thanks, Peter. I think you are right that a difference into hermeneutics accounts for some of the difference between certain modern strict Calvinistic Baptists and the Baptists of the Philadelphia Association on eternal generation and complementarianism. I guess I'm old enough or backward enough (or both!) to not know much about "Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics". I was schooled in the historical-grammatical approach. I think there may also be some of what Lydia alludes to. Because the complementarian view of some of these modern strict Calvinistic Baptists sticks out from the general societal expression of male-female relationships, they may feel compelled to find any and all extra support that they can.

To be clear to Eric and others, I take a complementarian view myself.

[Tom]

Robert: Sincere question when you say--" I take a complementarian view myself." What does that mean?

[peter lumpkins]

Another little secret few have been or are aware. One of the "founding" editors of Founders Journal, a theological journal of Founders Ministries, was none other than the late Dr. Roger Nicole (Nicole, though deceased, is still listed on the Founders site as editor of its journal). What's interesting is, Nicole happened also to be one of the founding theologians of Christians for Biblical Equality, the lifeblood of evangelical egalitarian thinking and reigning nemesis of the Council on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood. What an interesting time to be Baptist!

[Lydia]

I always forget about Nicole. Back when I was doing research on this sort of thing and looking at different approaches to scripture interpretation and historical context, I was shocked to see how many of the older scholars were from the reformed tradition

[eric]

Scott,
I would limit my discussion to the SBC. Only because that's what I'm a part of.

I don't see a biblical prohibition for the "women bringing home the bacon", I have friends that do, I'm not one of them. So I wouldn't say a man is missing the mark when it does happen. Listen, if my wife wants to climb to the top of the corporate chain...she has my support.

Nor do I know of a biblical prohibition for a woman having authority over a man in a job setting or more specifically outside of the home or church.

What I and everyone else here sees is the abundance of biblical text which addresses the subject of church leadership. I don't have the authority to change what God has written. (I'm not suggesting anyone here thinks they do)

[Robert Vaughn]

Tom, I made that statement mainly in reference to Eric's wondering what positions were being taken here. I have no interest in debating the topic. In short, to me complementarianism means that men and women have different roles in the church and in the home. Is there something more specific you'd like to know?

[Tom]

Robert: Thanks for the response. You answered my question.

[eric]

Lydia,
You wrote:
And many Christians, outside certain bubbles, think it is ok to agree to disagree on such matters. Unless you think it is part of the Gospel and salvation is comprised listening to a female speak of Christ from scripture as Piper does.

Did you mean "compromised"

That doesn't sound like something Piper would say.

Please provide your reference so i can look it up.

Thanks,

[Tom]

Eric:

Do you believe their is room for the Comp and Egal views in the SBC?

[Robert Vaughn]

Tom, you're welcome. BTW, complementarianism is not term we use in "real life" and probably most folks in our church would have to have it explained to them. I do use it on the internet as shorthand since it is in common use here.

[eric]

Tom,
Of all the reading I've done (long ago) from my Charismatic friends promoting women elders/pastors, I could not see any way around the words of our God who is the author of what is and isn't permitted.

It seems some on this site will use the heavy handed tactics of some leaders to counter the Biblical view of male headship.

When both men and women are living under the God given roles they have each been given, Yahtzee...peace and harmony.

NO, there isnt room for women elders in the church until God changes our roles.

[Tom]

Eric: You said:"NO, there isnt room for women elders in the church until God changes our roles."

Thanks for your honesty.

Do you believe in ESS?

[eric]

Tom,
I Think God has revealed that HE (father/son/spirit)is the same yesterday/today and tomorrow. He certainly has not revealed everything about himself and I don't think this side of heaven (if then) we even have the capacity to understand all that he is.

[Tom]

Eric:

Do you believe in the Eternal Subordination of the Son?

[eric]

Hey Tom,
That's what I answered.
I don't know that it matters.
Good folks from both sides disagree.

Except to say "God has revealed that HE (father/son/spirit)is the same yesterday/today and tomorrow".

Frankly, I'm not qualified (knowledgeable enough)to give a theological response one way or the other.

[Tom]

Eric:

you said:"I don't know that it matters.
Good folks from both sides disagree."

I think it does matter. Because what I understand about ESS the earthly roles of men and women continue in heaven.

I see no Biblical support for this.

[eric]

Well that really shows that I'm not qualified.
I didn't know that, seems a stretch.

Could be one of many misconceptions man has of the afterlife. I've never had an interest in conjecturing what that life will be, what roles men and women will play (if we even look at each other as a gender).Its pointless because we just don't know. Except to rejoice that we will no longer be sinners, that we will dwell with our great God.

[Scott Shaver]

Holy Cow:

If "the earthly roles of men and women continue in heaven"...these guys have converted to Mormonism.

Pete is absolutely correct. Want nothing to do with ESS.

[Lydia]

"Did you mean "compromised"

Yes, I did. Thanks for catching that

"That doesn't sound like something Piper would say.

Please provide your reference so i can look it up."

Piper has been prolific on this subject and it is no secret. At Bethleham, he did not even allow Women to read scripture aloud to the church. The pastor who took his place changed that rule, thankfully.

Piper has consistently promoted complementarian doctrine as part of the gospel. There is plenty of Piper out there to research yourself. After 16 years of it, I think the man is a bit looney and not going to do your homework for you. . Do you read his tweets? it could very well be that you just don't see it because you bring your own preconceived notion's to the table when it comes to piper and because of his fliwery verbosity, arm waving, voice inflection and overuse of adjectives, many young men miss it because they are focused on the passionate delivery. He is practically worshiped by a large segment of the Neo cal movement.

[peter lumpkins]

Lydia,

I agree with your reservation concerning the extreme, hard-line complementarianism into which, I think, both Piper & Grudem led the CBMW. Indeed I think it's the hard-line hermeneutic that created the need for ESS to ground its functional implications in the first place.

The truth is very few SBC churches follow hard-line complementarianism in actual practice. Both rural and county-seat First Baptist Churches historically and routinely allow and encourage women in leadership roles that would drive hard-line complementarian guys like Piper & Grudem to conclude they were heretics--or worse still, egalitarians!

Not that they believe in women as pastors nor would ordain them to do or be so.

Rather that they routinely allow women to pray publicly, address the congregation from the pulpit, offer personal testimonies, teach co-ed adult Sunday School classes, and in more rarer cases, allow women to lead congregational music. One reason they do so is because of the laziness of men. But moreso it's because they don't usually possess a hard-line complementarian hermeneutic.

[eric]

Lydia,
Not asking you to do my homework.

You said piper said the following.
Gospel and salvation is compromised listening to a female speak of Christ from scripture as Piper does.

I'm saying that doesn't sound like something he would say and simply want the source.

I think you made this up, he does promote female missionaries.

Anyway, there is plenty of fodder from what Piper actually says....don't have to make things up or take things out of context.

[Lydia]

Evidently I did not double check my words. For some reason my device is not excepting my Corrections. It is even capitalizing when I don't want it to. Can we just overlook the bad grammar? :o) I am an old fashioned gal who likes a keyboard I can type on.

Let's start over.

". Unless you think it is part of the Gospel and salvation is comprised listening to a female speak of Christ from scripture as Piper does."

It should read:

Unless you think the Gospel and salvation are compromised by listening to a female speak of Christ from the scripture as Piper does.

I will try to refrain from being in such a hurry next time.

[Lydia]

Pete, My 97 year old step dad, who has been SBC all his life and quite active as deacon and messenger, will tell anyone willing to listen, in his curmudgeonly way, that women have been the historic backbone of the SBC and especially in missions.

Things have really changed when a 97 year old man is more accepting of women functioning in the body than a 30 year old lead pastor. (Sad face)

[Lydia]

"For some reason my device is not excepting my Corrections."

I hate voice recognition and simply have to stop using it. That should be "accepting". Sheesh!

[Lydia]

"Indeed I think it's the hard-line hermeneutic that created the need for ESS to ground its functional implications in the first place."

I know variations of ESS have been around for a long time but the addition of roles in the Trinity mapped to marriage and pecking orders seems to have come from the Presbyterian theologian Geoge Knight III in a book he wrote in the late 70's that started making the rounds in theological academia.

It is interesting to map how such teaching makes its way to the pews. I really wish some of the young seminarians would do deeper digging instead of just excepting what they are taught. When ESS is coupled with Bruce Ware's teaching that women are not made in the direct image of God but are a derivative, much damage is done to the Body and it's less important members.

[peter lumpkins]

I hear you, Lydia. I agree 100%. And I'm only 63, not 97!

[Scott Shaver]

Agreement here as well on the hard line hermeneutic. Theology forcing round peg into square hole for the purpose of justifying a previously stated dogma.