RESPONSE TO MICHAEL SHULTZ ON THE HISTORY OF ANTIOCH and HAZEL CREEK Baptist Churches (KY)

This is in response to a Calvinist named Michael Shultz who became pastor of a historic Baptist church (Antioch in Logan County Kentucky). Shultz took their original articles of faith, convinced the church they were founded upon Calvinist principles, and either lied or with held pertinent information. Shultz claims to be a church historian, yet he knows nothing about Baptist terminology of the period. When he saw the word "presbytery" in the AoF, he claimed that meant a plurality of elders, or an elder ruled church. An elder ruled church most of the time, does away with congregational polity. If that is done, it ceases to be a Baptist church. That is NOT what a Baptist presbytery is now or 200 years ago. A "presbytery" is merely two or more elders coming together from OTHER CHURCHES in an association, to ordain someone to the ministry. 

Shultz also took the article on election which states "We believe in the doctrine of election, and that God chose his people in Christ before the foundation of the world", and "proved" it was a Calvinist statement. That article comes straight from Ephesians 1:4. It is pure scripture. What Christian doesn't believe that God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world? What Christian doesn't believe in the "doctrine of election"? I have already shown in multiple cases, that associations which have the same article denounced Calvinism, with many calling it heresy. Examples are here  and here and here . In Antioch's article five, it refers to man's inability to "recover himself from the fallen state he is in...". Even Arminian statements of faith say as much. The inability spoken of here does not refer to an inability which prevents man from seeing his condition, only that he cannot get himself out of that condition. In Antioch's article seven, it states " We believe God's elect shall be called, converted, regenerated, and sanctified by the Holy Spirit". The ordo salutis  here is wrong for the Calvinist. It clearly states belief before regeneration.  There is also no mention of "election of a definite number of Adam's race" or "particular election" which is seen in all Calvinist articles of faith.

I could forgive Shultz for the errors, except for him making much of his education and being a church historian. He is either not as educated as he purports to be, or he is lying. He is in a video with Keith Foskey on youtube with his "evidence". It's entitled "Calvinist History of a Baptist Church". It can be seen here. I attempted communication with Shultz, and at first he engaged. Once I sent him a dozen articles of faith, and asked if he could identify which were Calvinist and which were not, he went missing in action, and stopped responding. The following info and facts show without doubt that neither Hazel Creek, the mother church, nor Antioch which she founded, were Calvinist at their founding.

 Hazel Creek Baptist Church founded in 1797, founded the Antioch Baptist Church in 1818. At the time of Antioch's founding, Hazel Creek was a member of the Gasper River Assn.

 Elder Benjamin Tolbert (sometimes "Tolbart") founded Hazel Creek and was the first pastor.

Benjamin Tolbert and James Kiel  formed an "arm" of Hazel Creek which eventually led to the formation of Nelson Creek Baptist Church in 1803. In 1818, Hazel Creek formed an arm and established Antioch Baptist Church, in Logan County Kentucky. Tolbert became pastor of Beaver Dam Baptist Church in 1803.

James Kiel (or Keel) was an associate of Elder Tolbert, helping him to establish new Baptist churches. His biography is on pg 272 in "A HISTORY OF DAVIESS-McLEAN BAPTIST ASSOCIATION by Wendell Rone. Before coming to Kentucky, Elder Keel assisted in the formation of the Holston Assn., a Separate Baptist, Non Calvinist association. How do we know the Holston Assn. wasn't Calvinist? Baptist historian George Washington Paschal says the following of the Holston Assn.

  "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 [calvinist] Doctrine of Election, and were classed as Arminians and Free Willers.(George Washington Paschal, History of North Carolina Baptists (Raleigh: The General Board North Carolina Baptist State Convention, 1955), 2:426–27 emphasis mine

So it is very clear what Elder Keel believed. What was the theology of Elder Tolbert? On Page 281 in "A HISTORY OF DAVIESS-McLEAN BAPTIST ASSOCIATION" by Rev. Wendell Rone, it says of Elder Tolbert;

"Some ministers who envied him, or were suspicious of his orthodoxy on the subject of preaching the gospel to every creature, attended one of his appointments to advise a cessation of his tone. While they sat on the platform, Tolbert spoke to the people saying he would preach his doctrine even if the devil was at his back." 

What was the doctrine Elder Tolbert proclaimed, and refused to back down from?  Why was there "suspicion" of his orthodoxy? Because he believed in preaching the gospel to EVERY creature! I think it becomes quite clear, that since Elder Tolbert and Elder Keel were founding churches together, and it can be proved that Keel was from the Holston Assn. a known Separate Baptist Non Calvinist association, coupled with the criticism that Tolbert would preach the gospel to every creature "even if the devil was at his back" that Tolbert's and Keel's theology was identical. Furthermore, Tolbert was the first and founding pastor of Hazel Creek. Hazel Creek was NOT founded upon Calvinist principles, neither was Antioch which sprang from her, because the two men who founded both were not Calvinists. It seems hypocritical that Michael Shultz wants to use "history" as a ruse for turning Antioch into a Calvinist church, yet he ignores the Non Calvinist history of the Bethel Assn. to which Antioch now belongs.