BaptistLife.Com Forums.

Lots of blending in those groups, and differences even among those who are referred to as "Regular Baptists." If you're referring to those descended from the New Salem association in Kentucky, I'd say they were influenced by the mergers they experienced that led to their being known as United Baptists. The Sovereign Grace Association also considers themselves to be "Old Regular Baptists" but less influenced by other groups.

I think that the nature of being a Baptist church, and congregational polity, leads to a fellowship among believers within individual congregations or groups that lends itself to discussion and change, depending on the open mindedness of a congregation's members. The only experience I've had with Regular Baptists, or Primitive Baptists, was years ago in Eastern Kentucky and Southern West Virginia, the "Old Ragalars" as they called themselves. They were neither open minded, nor tolerant of any view that wasn't already embedded in their own presuppositions. They also believed that only the King James Version was "the preserved Word of God in English," which may also be something that affects interpretation. I was back down in that area last summer, and I noticed that a lot of the Old Regular and Primitive Baptist church buildings are abandoned, and the congregations long since disbanded and gone.

Thanks, Sandy. I need to back up and do some clarification. This post has a background in a conversation that started on Facebook. I need to explain my use of "Regular Baptists". I am not speaking specifically of groups such as those in Appalachia who in the present denominate themselves "Regular Baptists" or "Old Regular Baptists," but further back -- the Particular Baptists who came from England and came to be known in America as Regular Baptists rather than Particular Baptists. Early representatives would be associations such as the Philadelphia and Charleston Associations. These associations were solidly Calvinistic (or seemingly so) and most adopted the Philadelphia Confession of Faith, which the Philadelphia Association adapted from the 2nd London Confession of 1689. Modern descendants of these do include the New Salem and Sovereign Grace Associations, and the Primitive Baptists -- but also the Southern Baptist Convention, American Baptist Churches, Baptist Missionary Association, General Association of Regular Baptist Churches, Cooperative Baptist Fellowship and so on. So I was meditating on how these churches rooted in the strong Calvinistic tradition of the London and Philadelphia Confessions (like the SBC & ABCUSA) had pretty much by the end of the 19th century shed the strongest points of their Calvinism -- especially unconditional election, particular atonement and effectual call (irresistible grace).

Hope this helps.

Well, that takes me back to Baptist History at Southwestern. Dr. Estep would credit the influence of Anabaptist theology on Baptists, which they brought to America with them. That, combined with the spirit of frontier revivalism, which greatly benefitted Baptist churches, and the way they were organized, with a high level of local church autonomy, and a natural aversion to authoritative ecclesiastical structures, along with a strong belief in the authority of scripture, would have been contributing factors to doctrinal development. The historical-literal way Baptists interpreted the scripture could also be a factor in drifting away from Calvinism.

Do you think New England Congregationalists played a role in influencing the Baptists? They had some pretty dynamic preachers. How many influential Baptist pastors and theologians got their training at Harvard? And I think there was a lot of trading of members of churches and perhaps even pastors and ministers going back and forth.

Timothy, I think that merger pretty well devastated the Free Baptists in the North, and may have motivated those in the South to get better organized. I think that merger suggests just how much the Northern Regular Baptist soteriology had changed by that time -- for both groups (for the most part) to be well satisfied with such a merger.