The Complicated Relationship Between Primitive Baptists and the 1689 Confession
For over two centuries, Primitive Baptists have honored the 1689 Confession, yet their ongoing debates reveal just how difficult that relationship has become.
The Early Adoption of the 1689 Confession by Primitive Baptists
Primitive Baptists trace their roots back to the Particular Baptist tradition, which historically held to the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith. In America, this confession became known as the Philadelphia Confession. By the late 1700s and early 1800s, many Baptist associations that would later be identified as Primitive Baptists had already embraced this confession as their doctrinal foundation.
Take the Redstone Association, for instance. Formed in 1776 in Pennsylvania, it noted that “the Philadelphia Confession of Faith … was adopted by perhaps all the churches of the Redstone association.” Disagreements didn’t arise until later when figures like Alexander Campbell began to challenge the confession.
Similarly, early Regular Baptist groups in the South, such as the Kehukee Association in North Carolina, also adopted the 1689 London Articles of Faith. These same articles served as the foundation for both the Philadelphia and Charleston Associations.
In short, Primitive Baptists began as part of the confessional stream of Particular or Regular Baptists. They held to the 1689 Confession, often adding just a few practical articles, like those on hymn-singing or the laying on of hands.
When the Primitive Baptist, or “Old School,” movement began separating from the “New School” or Missionary Baptists in the 1820s and 1830s, the split wasn’t really about doctrine in the 1689 Confession. Instead, the divide centered on newer practices like mission boards, theological seminaries, and other organizational changes that the Old School Baptists believed strayed from the simplicity of the early church.
The well-known Black Rock Address of 1832, written by a group calling themselves “Particular Baptists of the Old School,” didn’t reject the old confession at all. These Baptists continued to stand on the same Calvinistic foundation. What they were defending was the traditional way of doing church, holding firmly to biblical practices and resisting modern innovations.
So, in the early 19th century, Primitive Baptists generally saw the 1689 Confession as a faithful summary of biblical teaching that connected them with the faith of their forefathers. Most of their local church Articles of Faith were simply shortened versions of that same confession.
Even Alexander Campbell’s reform movement ran into tension over this. One historian notes that “trouble began to brew” when Campbell started objecting to the Philadelphia Confession of Faith, which was still widely embraced by churches in the area. That pushback highlights just how deeply committed the Old School or Primitive Baptists were to their confessional roots.
Growing Tensions over the 1689 Confession
As the 1800s moved along, Primitive Baptists began to wrestle with the role of formal confessions like the 1689. While they still cherished the doctrines of grace taught in the confession, many grew uneasy about treating any man-made document as a binding standard.
A key moment came in 1844, when Elder Gilbert Beebe, editor of the influential Signs of the Times periodical, was asked to review a newly drafted Baptist creed—the New Hampshire Confession of 1833. Beebe used the opportunity to express his broader concerns about written creeds and confessions. He argued that the New Testament alone is a sufficient standard for faith and practice. While he agreed that believers should understand one another’s doctrine, he said, “For ourself we are getting more and more out of favor with written creeds … Who shall dare to say that the New Testament is not a sufficient standard of faith and practice?” He even noted that although his paper had printed several confessions over the years, “with none of them are we so well pleased as with the Book which God has given us.”
Beebe’s words captured a growing “Bible-only” sentiment among Old School Baptists. Yet not everyone agreed with him. His 1844 editorial struck a nerve with several prominent ministers, especially in the South and West. These leaders worried that stepping away from historic confessions would weaken the church’s doctrinal foundations and open the door to error. In many western Old School churches, it was still common practice to read their Articles of Faith and Church Covenant—rooted in the 1689 Confession—during monthly meetings. These readings reinforced sound doctrine and set them apart from groups like the Campbellites, who had rejected historic creeds altogether.
Elder William Conrad of Kentucky wrote a response to Beebe, and others like Theodoric Boulware in Missouri and Thomas P. Dudley in Kentucky joined the conversation. They defended the use of confessions, emphasizing the importance of staying connected to a heritage of faith. In their view, the 1689 Confession stood as a stronghold of biblical truth that faithful Baptists should not lightly discard.
In the end, a kind of middle ground emerged. Primitive Baptists would continue to respect the 1689 Confession, but only as long as they believed it aligned with Scripture. Beebe remained firm in his view, even helping his local Warwick Association pass a resolution rejecting all creeds and confessions, choosing instead to fellowship only with those who accepted Scripture alone as their rule of faith and practice.
Still, most Primitive Baptist churches kept publishing brief Articles of Faith that reflected the core teachings of the 1689—God’s sovereignty in election, salvation by grace, believer’s baptism, and so on. Their doctrine hadn’t changed. What shifted was their attitude toward the confession’s authority. By the mid-1800s, Primitive Baptists were divided on creedalism. Most agreed with the theology of the 1689 Confession but didn’t want to be bound to it. Many believed the Bible alone should be their only creed.
As one modern Old School writer put it, simply aligning with an old creed “does precisely nothing to prove that one’s position is in keeping with the teachings of Scripture.” For them, only the Word of God had the final say.
Salvation, Predestination, and Disagreements with the 1689 Confession
By the late 1800s, Primitive Baptists found themselves in the middle of some serious theological debates, especially around how people are saved and how far God’s predestination extends. These discussions had a direct impact on their relationship with the 1689 Confession.
One major issue was the doctrine of “means” in salvation. The 1689 Confession, like the earlier Westminster Confession, taught that the Holy Spirit ordinarily uses the preaching of the gospel to call the elect to faith. Over time, though, many Primitive Baptists, especially those in the stricter “anti-means” or “ultraist” camp, rejected that idea. They believed the elect are regenerated directly by the Holy Spirit without any involvement of the gospel message. That put them at odds with the Confession on a key point.
As one historian noted, throughout the 19th century, the Primitive Baptists still claimed to be the heirs of the 1689 Confession. But as they moved away from its teaching on the use of means in salvation, that claim became more difficult to sustain. By around 1880, for many, staying true to the Confession’s wording had become “difficult, if not impossible.”
Primitive Baptist leaders responded in different ways. Some openly acknowledged that their views, like immediate Spirit regeneration without gospel means, were no longer in full agreement with the 1689 or Philadelphia Confession. Others tried to reinterpret the Confession’s language, arguing that when it spoke of effectual calling through the Word and Spirit, it didn’t actually mean God uses the gospel as an instrument of regeneration. In other words, they tried to read the Confession in a way that aligned with their current theology. These leaders still valued the Confession as a connection to their “Old Baptist” heritage, but they wanted that connection on their own terms.
Predestination was another flashpoint. The 1689 Confession states that God has foreordained “whatsoever comes to pass,” while still upholding human responsibility. But some Primitive Baptists—often called “Absoluters”—took that to mean that God had predestined absolutely everything, down to the smallest detail. Others, known as “Conditionalists,” argued that God predestined only the things he specifically promised in Scripture, not every event in history. Both groups tried to claim the Confession was on their side.
By the 1890s, these debates over gospel means and absolute predestination were causing real division among Primitive Baptists. It became clear that a decision had to be made. Would they continue to affirm the 1689 Confession, revise it, or let it go entirely?
This growing tension set the stage for the Fulton Convention in 1900.
Affirming and ‘Clarifying’ the Confession
In September of 1900, more than fifty Primitive Baptist elders from across several states gathered in Fulton, Kentucky to take a fresh look at the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith in light of their own beliefs. What came out of that meeting is known as the Fulton Confession of 1900. Essentially, it was the 1689 London Confession, but with added footnotes and an appendix to clarify certain teachings.
The elders at Fulton made their position clear. They embraced the 1689 Confession as a true and faithful summary of Primitive Baptist doctrine. In their appendix, they wrote:
We recommend the London Confession of Faith as an expression of Bible truth. The articles of faith of our churches are substantially in harmony with the doctrine and practice set forth in that instrument, and we do heartily recommend the London Confession to the household of faith everywhere.
In other words, they believed the confession reflected what most Primitive Baptist churches already held to be true.
At the same time, the Fulton elders claimed that language had changed over time and that some parts of the confession might not be immediately clear to a 20th-century reader. Their preface explained that “language through the lapse of many years undergoes variations in meaning, whereby certain clauses become more or less obscure.” So, wherever they thought a section might be misunderstood, they added footnotes to help clarify the intent.
The two main topics they addressed—no surprise—were the same ones that had stirred up controversy in the 1800s: the use of means in regeneration and the scope of God’s predestination. In the footnotes, the Fulton elders clarified that in their view, God’s effectual calling is direct and immediate by the Spirit, not dependent on gospel preaching. They also addressed the doctrine of predestination, carefully steering between extremes by rejecting the more radical “absoluter” position without denying God’s full sovereignty.
It’s important to note that the Fulton Confession wasn’t meant to replace Scripture or become a new creed. The assembly clearly stated that the confession was not to be regarded as a standard of faith and practice, but rather “an expression of our interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, which is the only rule of faith and practice.” Scripture remained supreme. But the confession, especially with the added notes, was seen as a valuable tool to promote unity and preserve sound doctrine.
In the end, the Fulton Confession was unanimously approved by the 51 ministers present. Together, they represented 335 churches and about 14,500 members, with indirect connections to over 100,000 Primitive Baptists nationwide. They affirmed that the 1689 Confession, rightly understood, had “stood unquestioned as an expression of the Primitive Baptists’ interpretation of the Bible from then till now.” The elders urged all Primitive Baptists to read and study it carefully, convinced that doing so would help heal many of the divisions that had troubled the church in recent years.
This action was widely welcomed among mainstream Primitive Baptists. In early 1901, Elder Sylvester Hassell, a well-respected historian and minister, wrote that the 1689 Confession reflected “the sentiments of nine-tenths of all the Primitive Baptists now living.” Hassell strongly endorsed the 1689, writing:
Every Primitive Baptist family ought to have and keep and read the London Baptist Confession of Faith, and, asking the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to search the Scriptures reverently and diligently to ascertain whether the doctrinal statements of the Confession are true or not, and having learned that these statements are scriptural and eternal truths, they should never, for any earthly consideration, deny or compromise them, nor be moved from them, in the least degree, by any member or minister or editor or author, whether Arminian or Predestinarian. … His Word and its momentous truths will endure forever; and for more than two hundred years the great body of the people of God on earth have been assured that those truths are set forth in the London Confession of Faith.
Coming from a tradition often wary of creeds, that was a powerful affirmation.
Ongoing Divergence and Selective Use of the 1689 Confession
After the Fulton Convention in 1900, the updated confession with its added footnotes quickly became a reference point in Primitive Baptist circles. It was published in church papers, attached to association minutes, and widely circulated. Still, it didn’t completely resolve every issue. Debates over “Conditional Time Salvation” (the idea that salvation has a temporal, daily aspect) and Absolute Predestination continued to stir division.
While many Primitive Baptist churches respected the Fulton Confession, not all formally adopted it in their church covenants. Even so, it was generally seen as a reliable summary of biblical doctrine. Elder Sylvester Hassell’s hopeful claim that 90% of Primitive Baptists supported the Fulton position may have been accurate at the time. But over the decades, the landscape shifted. Some groups, especially those in the more “ultra” or “anti-means” camp, moved into theological territory not clearly outlined in the 1689 Confession. For instance, some began teaching that a child of God might be regenerated and live their entire life without ever hearing the gospel—a belief that goes beyond and even contradicts what the original confession addressed.
As a result, some leaders felt a new statement of faith was needed. Elder S.T. Tolley, in 1971, called for a fresh articulation of Primitive Baptist beliefs, saying that while the 1689 Confession captured much of what they held, it didn’t reflect “our full and proper views on several points.” This reflected a growing awareness that Primitive Baptist theology had developed in directions the 17th-century authors had not anticipated, particularly around time salvation and the rejection of offering the gospel to the unregenerate.
At the same time, many Primitive Baptist churches continued their long-standing practice of using simple Articles of Faith—usually eight to fifteen brief statements—instead of adopting the entire 1689 Confession. These local summaries typically affirmed core doctrines like the Trinity, human depravity, unconditional election, particular redemption, effectual calling, justification by Christ alone, and believer’s baptism. These are all central teachings of the 1689 Confession, even if the full document wasn’t officially adopted. As one former Primitive Baptist minister noted while reflecting on his church’s statement of faith, “Glance at most any of your church’s Articles of Faith, and I still believe and preach every point on the list.” That comment speaks to how closely Primitive Baptist theology has remained aligned with the confession’s core doctrines despite its unwritten departures.
Today, Primitive Baptists hold a range of views on the 1689 Confession. Some value it highly as a faithful summary of biblical truth, even if they stop short of calling it an authoritative creed. A modern Progressive Primitive Baptist website puts it this way: “Though we historically have avoided creeds and confessions in light of the greater weight of the Scriptures, Primitive Baptists today agree with the 1689 London Confession of Faith with little if any changes.” Many also point out that the word “Primitive” itself means original, and they trace their roots back to the early Particular Baptists of the 1600s—the very group that produced the London Confession.
Some churches continue to adopt one of the historic confessions in their official documents. For example, Mount Zion Primitive Baptist Church in Illinois includes in its covenant: “We hereby receive and adopt the 1646 London Baptist Confession of Faith and the principles outlined in the Black Rock Address of 1832 as expressing our conviction of the Word of God.” While they reference the first London Confession, its teachings are largely in line with the 1689, showing their intent to stay grounded in historic Baptist belief.
Still, most Primitive Baptists today echo Elder Beebe’s cautious stance toward creeds. They often say, “The Bible is our only confession of faith.” One writer put it plainly: while historic confessions “contain much with which I would agree,” he couldn’t fully endorse any one of them because no human document can perfectly capture the truth of Scripture. He also questioned the idea that being a true “Old Baptist” requires conforming to something like a lightly revised Presbyterian statement, referring to the 1689 Confession, and reminded readers that faithful Baptists existed before 1689 without any formal creed at all.
Adoption, Adaptation, and Continuing Tension with the 1689 Confession
From the early 1800s to today, Primitive Baptists have related to the 1689 Second London Confession in a variety of evolving ways.
Adoption
In their early years, Primitive Baptists largely embraced the 1689 Confession, often through its American version, the Philadelphia Confession, and used it as a doctrinal foundation. Local Articles of Faith reflected its core teachings and many churches viewed it as a faithful summary of biblical truth, consistent with the beliefs handed down from the Particular Baptists of the 17th century.
Modification
As theological questions arose, especially about the use of gospel “means” in regeneration and the scope of God’s predestination, Primitive Baptists didn’t discard the confession. Instead, at the Fulton Convention in 1900, they added explanatory footnotes to incorporate their distinct views where their beliefs had developed beyond the original wording. This allowed them to stay rooted in their Baptist heritage while making space for their own convictions.
Rejection of Authority
At various points, many Primitive Baptists have pushed back against the idea of using any human confession as a binding standard. Leaders like Elder Gilbert Beebe in 1844 emphasized that “the Bible alone is our rule of faith and practice.” This perspective reflects a deep commitment to the sufficiency of Scripture and a concern that creeds, however helpful, should never replace the authority of God’s Word.
Respectful Engagement
Even when not formally adopted, the 1689 Confession has continued to be respected and studied. Influential voices like Elder Sylvester Hassell encouraged believers to read the confession alongside their Bibles, embracing its teachings if found scriptural. Today, some churches, especially in the so-called “progressive” wing of the movement, still incorporate the confession into their formal statements of faith. Others may not mention it explicitly but still teach its doctrines in substance.
Behind all these varying responses is a consistent set of values. Primitive Baptists have long emphasized that Scripture is the only infallible authority and that every confession must be tested by the Word of God. Many have also voiced concern that relying too heavily on formal creeds can lead to cold traditionalism or doctrinal compromise.
At the same time, others within the tradition have argued that the 1689 Confession provides a helpful tool to guard against doctrinal drift and to promote unity. The Fulton elders expressed this well when they said that careful study of the confession could “obviate many of the difficulties” that had caused confusion and division in their churches. For them, the confession was not a replacement for Scripture, but a trustworthy guide that reflected the theology of the “Old Baptists.”
In the end, Primitive Baptists have never simply ignored the 1689 Confession. They have adopted it, amended it, debated it, and in some cases, set it aside, always with an eye toward Scripture. As one modern Primitive Baptist summary puts it, they “hold intimately close” to the confession’s doctrines, even if they don’t universally require the document itself.
Today’s Primitive Baptists often find themselves caught between honoring a theological heritage they respect and distancing themselves from a confession they can no longer fully affirm. While they still teach most of its doctrines, they hesitate to formally align with it because of their theological distinctives—namely, immediate Spirit regeneration without gospel means and Conditional Time Salvation. This tension reflects a movement still grappling with how to balance respect for its past with faithfulness to its present convictions.