A History of the Rise and Progress of the Baptists in Virginia, originally written by Robert B. Semple and revised by G. W. Beale, was republished on June 11, 2008—more than a century after the original. Facts of interest were reviewed last week (3-30-14) on various matters; the focus of this article will be on doctrinal matters that were raised and usually settled in the book.
In the course of giving the establishment of various Baptist churches in the state of Virginia, it did not take long before “associations” were formed between the newly begun churches. Of course, such entities are not authorized in the New Testament—any more than any denomination, period, is authorized. Semple explains the reason for their existence.
A regional association (council or assembly) existed for the purpose of taking “into consideration the welfare of the churches, and to assist them by their counsel in the preservation and order and discipline among themselves” (62). One wonders how this description might be further defined. The way the system worked, each congregation would send a letter to the association which would say whom they had designated as delegates. The letter would also tell the state of that particular church—“their number, deaths, removals, additions and exclusions, etc.” (62). (Remember that exclusions refers to members from which they had withdrawn fellowship.)
Previously, the author stated that “the Association became the medium of propagating the Gospel in new and dark places” (19). The fellowship that the Baptists had with each other in these meetings “so inflamed the hearts of the ministers that they would leave the Association with a zeal and courage which no obstacle could impede” (19).
When these associations were begun, they were not designed to be a legislative body. The author affirms:
The Baptist churches are independent, and consequently the business of Associations is not authoritative; they may advise, and indeed urge their advice, but cannot compel (62).
Queries and Answers
How well do the associations keep to this platform? The Minutes of the First Separate Baptist Association reaffirms the principle: “It is unanimously agreed that the Association has no power or authority to impose anything upon the churches; but that we act as an advisory council” (71). Yet they state next that the Association has the right to withdraw themselves “from any church that may neglect to correspond” with them. This same group made the following determination.
Every ordained minister of the same faith, etc., being legally called upon by any church, may administer the sacraments among them, and with the help of their church, ordain elders or deacons if found qualified (71).
What a mixture of Scriptural and unscriptural language. The “same faith” is not Biblical; the Scriptures only teach about “the faith” (Acts 13:8). The New Testament does not use the word sacraments. However, elders and deacons have qualifications listed in 1 Timothy 3:1-13. Concerning the word ordained, the concept is Biblical, but denominations often have a specialized meaning for it.
A query from the Amelia Baptist Church asked what were “the terms of communion fixed in the Word of God?” The brief answer was: “Fellowship in the same faith and order” (72). Exactly where does the New Testament mention the same faith, as if there were more than one or something other than the faith? And what is meant by order? Most religious groups, more than two centuries later, still use this language of Ashdod.
Many of the queries and answers were brief. Some may not carry enough information, or they may just be too obvious. A few of these are found below.
Is it lawful to receive a member into fellowship who is married to his wife’s sister?
Answer: No (77).
Is it agreeable to Scripture for an unmarried man to take the pastoral care of a church?
Answer. Yes (77).
A query: Whether the doctrine of the non-eternity of hell-torments, ought to be deemed heretical, and what should be done with a member who held it was.
Answered: That the doctrine was heretical, and all persons holding it ought to be purged out of the churches (79).
…whether baptism was valid when administered by an unordained person.
That in cases where the ordinance had been administered in a solemn and religious manner, that it might be considered as valid, and that persons so baptized might be admitted as members of the church upon hearing and approving their experience (122-23).
[No query was recorded—just the answer.]
The purchase of lottery tickets was considered by this Association as a species of gaming, and not sufferable in members of churches (125).
How ought the religious education of children to be conducted?
Answer. By the use of catechisms; and we recommend for the present such as may be useful (127).
What is the opinion of the Association concerning the washing of the saints’ feet?
Answer: We do not consider the washing of feet an ordinance of the Gospel, but an act of entertainment, and being a servile act, appears to have been enjoined by Christ, to be observed by his [sic] disciples, as a token of his humility, and may include any other act usually performed by servants (128).
Has a minister of the Gospel any more power in the government of a church than an individual of the laity?
Answered in the negative (317).
These are a few samples of the questions that were being asked. One is impressed by the strong stand against gambling and also the quick response to use a catechism. Would today’s answers be the same?
Issues
Some of the issues of those days were not a wide-spread problem. Only twice is something mentioned about the Biblical doctrine of hell. It was quickly answered that hell is eternal and that anyone teaching anything to the contrary was a heretic to be purged out of the churches (see the section on Queries). One other mention involves “a preacher of very considerable talents.” Semple writes that he allowed “his brains to be addled by some unfortunate bias” and therefore “fell into the doctrine of hell redemption of the non-eternity of future punishment” (285). Of the man’s fate, the author’s only comment is: “He has since dragged on, rather a nuisance in the religious world.”
Add 200 years to the time this apostate Baptist lived, and the same things could be written of Edward Fudge, a one-time member of the church of Christ. He wrote a book called The Fire That Consumes in 1982 which has received a great deal of notoriety and acceptance in the denominational world (see this writer’s review in Profiles in Apostasy #1, the 2010 Contending for the Faith lectureship book, edited by David Brown, pages 51-87). Everything written of the Baptist preach-er (including addled brains and being a nuisance) could also be said of Fudge.
Another controversy arose regarding what is called the Christian Sabbath, by which is meant Sunday. For some reason, it was popular at this time to refer to Sunday as the Sabbath even though the New Testament never does so. In the Bible, the Sabbath always refers to the seventh day of the week. Christians from the beginning have referred to Sunday as the first day of the week or the Lord’s day. So it is interesting to observe the error which was commonly believed at that time, as in the following paragraph:
At this Association some debate arose as to the authenticity of the Christian Sabbath; but was at length unanimously determined in favor of its being observed as a sacred day. This subject had not been unfrequently taken up among the Virginia Baptists, both in public and private, and the divine authority of the Sabbath day disputed by some. In consequence of such debates, it has been thought that the Sabbath has not been as religiously observed in some places as duty would require (307).
Notice that no arguments are presented, and it is simply assumed that Sunday is the Sabbath of Christians. This is one of those doctrines that was formed—not from the New Testament—but by popular custom.
Support of Ministers
In the 21st century, most spiritual leaders are paid at least adequately, if not much more so. But it has not always been this way. The question concerning payment for preaching also arose in 1791, and one Association was outspoken in its response:
“We fear covetousness and want of reasonable support of the ministry is one great reason why we are so languid in vital religion. When our ministers ought to be out and working in God’s vineyard, behold they are forced to leave the flock, hungering for the bread of life, while they are struggling to provide necessaries for their families. When we consider the many pertinent publications on this subject, as well as the clear and obvious manner in which it is laid down in the Scriptures, it is somewhat astonishing that this duty is still so little attended to” (257).
Slavery
On this controversial subject, most of the news is good—but not all of it. One Association, for example advised “that no person of color should be allowed to preach, on the pain of excommunication” (146). As one might expect, there was rebellion against this idea, and some were excommunicated, but they persisted and in 1791 were officially recognized by the Association. Another Association took up the discussion of slavery and correctly concluded the following:
Resolved, That slavery is a violent deprivation of the rights of nature and inconsistent with a republican government, and therefore recommend it to our brethren to make use of every legal measure to extirpate this horrid evil from the land… (105).
One of the richest men in the state of Virginia, having between 600 and 800 slaves, wrote in a letter: “The toleration of slavery indicates great depravity of mind.” He gradually emancipated all that he possessed (178).
Arminianism
However, this same man came under the influence of “certain Arminian writings” and fully embraced their writings (178). The Baptists considered Arminanism as heresy because its founder contradicted the teachings of John Calvin. In one region, the “diversity of opinion was a source of great unhappiness among them. The Arminian party were most numerous.” Semple calls them “unsound in principle” (201). Probably the most information on this controversy comes toward the close of the book when two Arminians were having a great deal of success among the Baptists, but their doctrine eventually disappeared (448-449). What was this threat? According to Baker’s Dictionary of Theology (5th printing, 1972) some of the teachings of Arminius are:
- Sin consists in acts of the will.
- Pollution is inherited from Adam, but his guilt is not imputed to any of his descendants.
- Man has not lost the faculty of self-determina-tion nor the ability to incline his will toward good ends.
- The atonement is intended equally for all men and for every man, and it merely makes salvation possible. Salvation becomes effectual only when accepted by the repentant believer.
- As long as man lives he may fall away from grace and lose his salvation altogether (65).
As the reader probably realizes, these “heresies” are doctrines that we all believe—not that we would agree with everything that Arminius and his followers taught. Baptist doctrine, which draws heavily on Calvinism, teaches that we are so depraved that we cannot help but sin, which contradicts numbers 6 and 9. Calvin taught that we inherit far more than the consequences of Adam’s sin (a world in which sin dwells); he and the Baptists teach that all inherit the guilt of Adam’s sin (see #7). Calvin believed in limited atonement rather than it being available for all (#11), and of course, we frequently hear the Baptist mantra of, “Once Saved, Always Saved,” which neither Arminius nor (more importantly) the Scriptures teach (#19).
Even more than two centuries later, with abundant evidence to the contrary (and being soundly defeated by preachers in the Lord’s church in debate), Baptists still hold to the errors of John Calvin.
Baptism
Although baptism is mentioned several times in the book in connection with joining a Baptist Church, as a doctrine, it is seldom discussed. One Baptist preacher debated over the validity of sprinkling and was so successful that he wrote a treatise on the subject under the title, “David and Goliath.” In 1805 a question was asked of an Association with respect to membership. Could someone who had not been baptized be accepted into the communion? A large majority answered no (274). However, the reason for baptism was not for salvation but to become a member of a particular congregation.
Unity
Baptists did not allow anyone to teach what they considered false doctrine. Like any other religious group, they would occasionally have a split (215-17). But what is interesting is that they recognized a need for unity—among Baptists. One Association received this letter:
If we are all Christians, all Baptists—all New Lights—why are we divided? Must the little appellative names, Regular and Separate, break the golden bond of charity, and set the sons and daughters of Zion at variance. “Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity”; but how bad and how bitter it is for them to live asunder in discord (68).
Notice the plea is only for the unity of the General Baptists and the Separate Baptists—not all religious denominations. Nevertheless, a vote for union between the two groups narrowly failed. Unity is hard to come by because Satan has foisted upon the world so many false doctrines. The only solution is to abandon traditions and go solely by what the Scriptures teach.