WAS THE SANDY CREEK ASSOCIATION CALVINIST

 The Sandy Creek Baptist Association, which still exists, was founded 1758 as a Separate Baptist association, by Shubal Stearns, and is the fourth oldest association in America. Modern day Calvinists are convinced they were ardent Calvinists. They NEED this to be so, as Sandy Creek was one of the two "streams" that formed the SBC, the other being the Charleston. As a side note, The Baptist Church of Charleston (now First Baptist) was founded as a JOINT effort of Arminian and Calvinist Baptists. I will write more on that at a later date.

Separate Baptists had a small minority of Calvinists, who refused to unite with Regular Baptists who were mostly Calvinists, Why? Calvinists within the Separate Baptist movement denied determinism, and rejected the notion that regeneration preceded faith. My research has led me to believe that no more than 10-15% of Separates could be labeled Calvinist by today's meaning of the term. Another 10-15% could be labeled Arminian or Free Will. Just as the Separate Baptist Calvinists remained aloof from the Regular Baptists, the Arminian Separates remained aloof from the Free Will movement. This means 70-80% of Separate Baptists were neither Calvinist, nor Arminian, and would fall under the "Provisionist" label today. The Sandy Creek Association, the mother of all Separate Baptists, and the majority of Southern Baptists today would fall under the Provisionist label.

The proof offered by Calvinists that Sandy Creek was calvinistic lies in their interpretation of Sandy Creek's first  "Principals of Faith" which is listed below.

 I. We believe that there is only one true and living God; the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,
equal in essence, power and glory; and yet there are not three Gods but one God.
II. That Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the word of God, and only rule of
faith and practice.
III. That Adam fell from his original state of purity, and that his sin is imputed to his
posterity; that human nature is corrupt, and that man, of his own free will and ability, is
impotent to regain the state in which he was primarily placed.
IV. We believe in election from eternity, effectual calling by the Holy Spirit of God, and
justification in his sight only by the imputation of Christ's righteousness. And we believe
that they who are thus elected, effectually called, and justified, will persevere through
grace to the end, that none of them be lost.
V. We believe that there will be a resurrection from the dead, and a general or universal
judgment, and that the happiness of the righteous and punishment of the wicked will be
eternal.
VI. The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful persons, who have obtained
fellowship with each other, and have given themselves up to the Lord and one another;
having agreed to keep up a godly discipline, according to the rules of the Gospel.
VII. That Jesus Christ is the great head of the church, and that the government thereof is
with the body.
VIII. That baptism and the Lord's Supper are ordinances of the Lord, and to be continued
by his church until his second coming.
IX. That true believers are the only fit subjects of baptism;, and that immersion is the
only mode.
X. That the church has no right to admit any but regular baptized church members to
communion at the Lord's table.
[From George W. Purefoy, A History of the Sandy Creek Baptist Association (New York:
Sheldon & Co., Publishers, 1859), pp. 104–105.]

To start let's state some facts for the record, 

1. Stearns was baptized and ordained by General Baptists, Elders Wait Palmer and Joshua Morse, in Tolland, Ct. and not by Regular (Calvinist) Baptists. 

2. Stearns allowed women to "exhort" and pray aloud, a practice Regular Baptists would forbid. Separates were "rowdy" in worship, shouting, crying and the altar call lasted as long as the sermon. This would never happen in a Regular Baptist church.

3. Daniel Marshall was Stearn's brother in law and associate pastor of the Sandy Creek Church, as well as the founder of the first Baptist church in Georgia (Kiokee) Famous Calvinists such as Jesse Mercer reported that Marshall and his sons were NOT considered "predestinarian" preachers. Mercer said 

 "It seems to be taken for granted that all those venerable fathers, who founded the Baptist Denomination in this state [Georgia], were as stern calvinistic preachers as are the opposers of the new plans.  But this is altogether a mistake. Abraham Marshall [Son of Daniel] was never considered a predestinarian preacher.  To use his own figure; he used to say, 'he was short legged  and could not wade in such deep water.'  He, with several others, was considered sound in the faith, though low Calvinists. Peter Smith and some others were thought rather Arminian; some quite so....And here it may not be amiss to add, that the Baptists in the upper parts of South Carolina, in those days, comprehended mostly, it is believed, in the Bethel Association, were general provisionists. I think most of their ministers preached what is now called General Atonement. " (Memoirs of Elder Jesse Mercer, C.D. Mallary, 1832, pp.201-2, quoted in A History of the Kiokee Baptist Church in Georgia, James Donovan Mosteller, MA., B.D., Th.D., First Printing, 1952, p.37, emphasis mine)."

 Notice how the Marshalls were called "low Calvinists" yet they were not "predestinarian". Notice how some founders of Georgia Baptists were "rather Arminian". Mercer is speaking of the FOUNDERS of the Baptist denomination in Georgia. So much for us being "founded" on Calvinism. So at the very least, the co-pastor of Sandy Creek and his sons, did not preach calvinistic predestination. It is also important to note, that the Bethel Association Mercer speaks of, covered half the state of South Carolina, which means a very large portion of Baptists in that state were Non Calvinist.

4. What did other Calvinists of the 19th century say of Sandy Creek?

  In Robert Boyle C. Howell’s 1857 history of early Baptists in Virginia" he records that as early as 1769 the "Ketocton, a Regular, or Calvinistic Association in Northern Virginia, addressed the Sandy Creek, a Separate, or Arminian Association" in Southern Virginia and North Carolina about a possible union. (Robert Boyle C. Howell, The Early Baptists of Virginia (Philadelphia: The Bible and Publication Society, 1857), 45-46. HUH?  Howell was the second president of the SBC, certainly claimed by Calvinists as one of their own. He may not have been as Calvinist as they think, but I will write about that at a later time. Another Calvinist historian, George Washington Paschal said this of the Separate Baptists;

  "The three churches that came to the French Broad from the Holston Association and their ministers had a Separate Baptist heritage, and like Shubal Stearns thought the New Testament a sufficient confession of faith, and like him, REFUSED to accept Higher Calvinism and the Doctrine of Election, and were classed as Arminians and Free Willers. Probably, it was among the ministers and leaders rather than among the members generally that this difference was most pronounced, and it was less marked in some churches than in others. . . . All of the leading spirits were Calvinistic, but there were many minds that revolted at the sterner aspects of Calvinism. Men generally held to the idea of moral free agency." (George Washington Paschal, History of North Carolina Baptists (Raleigh: The General Board North Carolina Baptist State Convention, 1955), 2:426–27 emphasis mine)  

Another clue that the Separate Baptists were mostly Non Calvinist, is this query from the Tugaloo Association, which was definitely Calvinist, as article 3 of the Articles of Faith state "We believe in the doctrine of eternal particular election". The 1824 query states "What is to be done with a preacher who declares himself to be  Separate Baptist, and has no fellowship with those who hold the doctrine of election?" Answer "A minister making a public declaration of such principles should be dealt with according to the gospel, and should he not give satisfaction, excluded." Here we can see that they equated "Separate Baptist" with Non Calvinist doctrines.  If today's Calvinists can't trust "fellow Calvinists" as to what Sandy Creek was, then how can they trust a Calvinist today to determine it? So here we have FOUR Calvinist sources, who clearly state Sandy Creek and the Separates were regarded as general atonement Non Calvinists.

What about the Ketocton Regular Baptist Association, which Howell calls calvinistic? Why would they seek a union with the Sandy Creek Separates? The Ketocton churches were in the Philadelphia Association for three years, but pulled out and formed their own association, because they rejected limited atonement. They deleted the articles on eternal and particular election and in its place put "We believe God from the beginning or in eternity, chose His people in Christ unto salvation, through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ; all of which are set forth and affected through the Gospel". As stated in previous articles, any time you see the phrase "through sanctification and belief of the truth", they are rejecting regeneration before faith and unconditional election.That being the case, they would have a great deal in common with Sandy Creek.

Another clue as to what Sandy Creek believe is what was said of Elder Tidence Lane, ordained at Sandt Creek, and the first Baptist preacher in Tennessee. In "First Minister to Preach Regularly to a Tennessee Congregation" by J. J. Burnett, 1919 it says "To use Benedict's language, he was a preacher "of reputation and success.  He was much sought in counsel by the churches He was not so hard in doctrine as some of his brethren, his doctrinal belief being a modified Calvanism".

So what to make of the Sandy Creek Principles of Faith? Why do they sound so calvinistic? First, that statement was not adopted until 1816, 58 years after its founding. The United Baptist movement had come into existence where Non Calvinist Baptists made an attempt to get along with Calvinist Baptists. The Separate Baptists were not afraid of biblical words like election, calling, chosen etc. They simply defined them based on their biblical interpretations. "Election" to them simply meant "the purpose of God", and that is echoed in the New Hampshire Confession. "Effectual calling" simply referred to those who heeded the conviction of the Spirit, as in "many are called but few are chosen". Reformed Reader, a Calvinist web site, admits such when they say of these Principles "They were careful to pen a confession which identified their doctrine but left the reader some degree of liberty to define it. Their Principles of Faith Confession was intended to identify, NOT TO DEFINE, their beliefs."

In 1846, Sandy Creek adopted a slightly modified version of the New Hampshire Confession. When they did so, it was said "Our older Principles have been used to falsely identify us by our detractors". Can't imagine anyone doing that can you?