THE FULTON CONVENTION OF 1900...

Conditionalists have made much of the "National Convention of Primitive Baptists" held at Fulton, Kentucky in 1900 since it came together.


Should they? Far from being a "National" convention, it was a few representatives of the smaller group of Primitive Baptists then known as "Clark Baptists." These came into being after a division between the Ebenezer and Ketocton Associations of Virginia and the rest of the Primitive Baptists of the East. In reality, John Clark (from whom they got their name) was looking for reasons to separate the Primitive Baptists from Elder Samuel Trott and, since their doctrine was the same, Elder Gilbert Beebe. Perhaps Clark was jealous of the esteem in which Elder Trott was held by the Baptists of Virginia since he moved there in 1833. Perhaps there were other reasons, but whatever the real reason, he accused Trott, Beebe, and others of heresy and separated from them and all with them. He was joined by a few dissidents in the Midwest, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Clark soon set up a paper, "Zion's Advocate," which he edited until his death.

In 1900 there were Primitive Baptists in almost every state in the Union. Notice how many states were represented at Fulton: 11. Where were the Virginians, New Yorkers, and North Carolinians, to name just a few? Were they not invited, or did they choose not to participate? If they weren't invited, then why not? Could it be that the instigators of this "convention" did not want them there? They knew they could not get their watered-down doctrine approved by them. Why would they have chosen not to go if they were in agreement with those who called the convention? Was it not that they saw the unscripturalness of these things and wanted no part of them. They wanted nothing to do with either the doctrine or practice in Fulton. One thing which is surprising is there were none from Virginia, Clark's home state, and the beginning point for this division. One would think the editor of "Zion's Advocate" would want to at least put in an appearance, but he did not. We did not expect to see names from New York, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, or Maine for those Old School Baptists' shells were too hard to be taken in by these "soft shell" Primitive Baptists, but the lack of representatives from other states makes us wonder.

Did the Primitive Baptists need a "convention" in 1900? No, and they do not need one now either. What was (or would be) their purpose? Remember, one hallmark of the Old School Baptists since before they were called such is the independence of each Church. No man, group of men, Church, or group of Churches has any right to decide the faith and practice of any other Church. Instead of calling for a "convention" (national or otherwise), we should run as far away and as fast as we can from anyone who thinks one is good or necessary. All Primitive Baptists are quite capable of reading the Scriptures and making a prayerful examination of their teachings. "Peace Meetings" have usually been timed to cry "Peace, Peace where there is no peace," and make a fair show in the flesh of how humble the participants are as they try to reclaim their "erring brethren." When fellowship isn't based in the Gospel (Phil 1:2) it can be based on the same principles as the Grange or the Lion's Club.

What about those who signed the "Recommendations" of the Convention; what happened to them? We must thank the Conditionalists themselves for this information. One of their leading Elders and curator of a library posted this on his website, but the analysis is ours. There were 51 signers of this document. Of these 51 the later affiliation of 35 is documented. 42% of these were later with either the Missionary Baptists or the Progressive Primitive Baptists. Particularly interesting is the case of Elder Kirkland, pastor of the Fulton Church and one of the main movers for the convention. First, he stood with the most extreme party of the Means Primitive Baptists but then became more true to his principles and joined the Missionary Baptists. Another one of the Kirklands went straight to the Missionary Baptists and a third joined with the Progressive Primitive Baptists.

This is the fruit of this convention. It seems to still be bearing fruit among its children. "Progressive" thinking, which includes missions, is the watchword of these children. Though they don't call for National Conventions they have their preacher schools, their missions, and along with them, the means doctrine to support them. We wrote one of their leading elders more than 20 years ago urging him to remove the word "Primitive" off their sign and out of their name. They have been trying to be Missionary Baptists at least since a number of us came out of Babylon thinking we were come to Zion. They wanted to learn the methods we were leaving and give those methods a whitewash of Sovereign Grace (their version) and begin using them to increase their numbers. A wise old Elder once rightly said, "Like baptizes like." In trying to gain numbers they lost the distinctives which made Primitive Baptists throughout history. How true it is, a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.

Those who have read the Fulton Confession know it consists of 3 parts: an introduction, The London Confession of 1689 with footnotes by the Conventioneers, and an Appendix. Though it may seem backward we will begin with the Appendix. The reason for beginning this way is that the Appendix was actually written first. In September 1900, 2 months before the Fulton meeting, these resolutions printed in the appendix were adopted by the Patoka Association of Indiana. We are not told what led to this address. The only hint is that they "sincerely regret the division and strife that have been among us." We are left in the dark regarding who "us" represents. Is it ALL who go by the name "Primitive Baptist" or is it just the "about 100 congregations in Indiana and Illinois" represented at that meeting? If you recall above, we mentioned that John Clark of Virginia was the cause of the first strife and division among the Old School. Was this the cause of their regret or was their regret because they didn't have the majority of Primitive Baptists with them?

They recommend the London Confession of Faith as "an expression of Bible truth." By this confession, they mean what has gone by the name Second London or 1689 Confession. Rather than just a bare recommendation to let their readers judge for themselves what this old confession says, they then proceed to explain what those venerable old Particular Baptists meant, many times in contradiction to what they really said! Since all, we believe, of Patoka's "explanations" were incorporated into the footnotes the Fultonites added to the confession we shall begin here.

They begin with predestination; the main point Conditionalists deny. Their first sentence says it all: "We do not believe that God has unconditionally, unlimitedly, and equally predestinated righteousness and unrighteousness." We confess ourselves ignorant, but we cannot tell how anything could be conditionally and limitedly predestinated! If the word "predestine" means to determine beforehand, how could it be determined and yet be conditional? One or the other can be true, but not both. They might as well have said, "We don’t believe in God's predestination." What conditions would have moved God to predestine something? Did the Sovereign creator of all things need to look ahead to see how people, animals, or natural forces would act so He could then know how to predestinate? Scripture tells us, "He is in one mind, and who can turn him." Listen to the Fultonites' answer: CONDITIONS. What difference is there between their concept of God and the Arminians? Nothing! Both believe in a God who is not perfect in knowledge and must see if conditions are fulfilled to know how He should act. Is this predestination? There is nothing "destined" much less "predestined." We confess our ignorance of conditional predestination since our knowledge of the subject comes only from the Bible. Both the Old and New Testaments tell us the God who declared the end from the beginning and from ancient times the things not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand and I will do all my pleasure.

Job had to deal with the same attitude in his conditionalist friends. He asked them, "Who can give the Almighty knowledge?" Conditionalists tell us that circumstances dictate the actions of the Almighty. He needs some type of knowledge to make a decision whether or not to send blessings or chastisements your way. We hope none of our readers believe in such a limited God. Our God needs nothing from our hands to add anything to Him or His knowledge. Read the 50th Psalm and then tell us what God needs from you! You nor I can neither add nor take away from either His being or His knowledge. Just as Job knew more than all his friends, the poor child of Grace understands that God's knowledge is perfect. HE knows all things; there are no conditions we can perform to change His knowledge. "I am the Lord, I change not", "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today, forever." We hope our readers can see the fallacy of the conditional predestinarian position.

The next thing these Fultonites tell us is they do not believe in unlimited predestination. So, they must believe in limited predestination. We confess our ignorance of how some things could be certain and others uncertain. Could not those things which are uncertain negatively affect the certain things? Would they then change from certain to uncertain? We can see in our mind an unpredestined atom. Where is it going? It is under the control of nothing. Neither God nor man can stop or change its course. How much havoc will it wreak in the universe? Which of the part of life that is predestined would be changed by that wayward atom? "How foolish," you say, but is not that what could happen if the conditional system was correct.

We want nothing to do with these new things. We will stand with the Old School Baptists of 1832 who affirmed "the absolute predestination of all things." This was the second point in the "Prospectus of the Signs of the Times." Elder Gilbert Beebe put this forth in his printing of Elder Samuel Trott's Image of the Beast. This paper was recommended by the Black Rock Meeting to all lovers of the truth everywhere with no reservations. We cannot recall seeing any criticism of that article by any except Arminians. Indeed we still believe that only Arminians could deny the truth of that proposition.