Do Conditionalists Have A Logical Right To Call Themselves Old School Baptists? (Santmaria)

[This is an excerpt
from a new eBook titled, Fulton Confession of Faith Examined - ed]

This is a deeply theological and ecclesiological question, and how one answers it depends on what is meant by being "Primitive Baptist" and the role of Signs of the Times in defining that identity.

Here’s a structured look at the issue:

---

🔹 1. What Is a Primitive Baptist?

Historically, Primitive Baptists identified themselves by:

• A return to apostolic and pre-missionary Baptist practice (rejecting mission boards, Sunday Schools, etc.)
• Embracing absolute predestination or at least strict sovereign grace
• Maintaining a regenerate church membership, non-institutional worship, and experiential Calvinism
• Upholding associational correspondence, not centralized hierarchy

But Primitive Baptists were never governed by a creed, confession, or publication—even Signs of the Times, influential as it was.

---

🔹 2. Role of Signs of the Times

Founded in 1832 by Elder Gilbert Beebe, Signs of the Times became the de facto doctrinal voice of the Old School/Primitive Baptist movement for decades.

• It published defenses of absolute predestination, eternal vital union, regeneration without means, and critiques of Fullerism, duty-faith, and conditionalism.
• It became a standard-bearer for what many considered “orthodox” Primitive Baptist teaching.

So for many, departing from the theology of Signs is synonymous with departing from historical Primitive Baptist identity.

---

🔹 3. Do Departures Disqualify the Label?

➤ YES, if…

One believes that the Primitive Baptist identity is doctrinal, then:

• To deny absolute predestination, regeneration without means, or eternal security,
• Or to embrace conditional time salvation or the gospel means in the new birth,
• Would be to reject core Primitive Baptist doctrines as taught by Beebe, Trott, and Durand.

In this case, using the name "Primitive Baptist" while rejecting Signs of the Times-style theology would be inconsistent or misleading.

➤ NO, if…

One sees "Primitive Baptist" as a label tied to historical practice, not doctrinal uniformity, then:

• Variants like Conditionalists or Progressive Primitive Baptists might still use the term,
• While differing from Signs on key points (like time, salvation, or church order).

In this view, Primitive Baptist is a broad historical family, not a doctrinal monolith.

---

🔹 4. Historical Example: The Fulton Convention (1900)

The Fulton Confession tried to codify Primitive Baptist doctrine using the 1689 Confession and explanatory footnotes, many of which aligned with Signs of the Times theology. Yet even that did not create a binding creed.

Churches that later departed from these interpretations (especially in conditionalism) still called themselves Primitive Baptists, but were often excluded from fellowship by Old Line or Absoluter churches.

---

Conclusion

Question	Considerations
Do those who reject Signs of the Times have a right to the name “Primitive Baptist”?	Historically? No—Signs theology reflects the core of 19th-century Primitive Baptist belief. Sociologically? Yes — many churches use the name while disagreeing with Beebe and Trott. Ecclesiastically? Depends on whether you're in the Absoluter, Old Line, or Conditionalist camp.