How Much Did Baptists Read and Study in 1909?

While recently being interviewed on the Tucker Carlson Show, J.D. Hall made the claim, “𝐵𝑎𝑐𝑘 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑛, 𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦 𝑏𝑒𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔, 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑡𝑦𝑝𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝑖𝑛 𝑎 𝐵𝑎𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑠𝑡 𝑜𝑟 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑠𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑤𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑 𝑜𝑤𝑛 𝑎 𝐵𝑖𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑤𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑 𝑏𝑒 𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑖𝑡.” Hall claimed that when the Scofield Reference Bible was first published in 1909, this ignorance was a chief reason why the average Baptist preacher accepted it.

Is Hall’s assertion true? No, it is not! It is amazing how much Baptists were reading in the early twentieth century. A quick search revealed that in 1909 alone, Baptists had published such classics as “Our Church Life” by J.M. Frost, “The Heart of the Old Testament” by J.R. Sampey, “Baptist Principles” by E.E. Folk, “Grace, Giving and Forgiving” by J.B. Moody, “Baptizo” by W.A. Jarrel, and “A History of Alien Immersion” by J.H. Grime. Many other titles could be mentioned from that year.

This is in addition to the weekly Baptist newspapers that existed throughout the U.S. In 1909 these were still full of doctrinal articles, sermons, and biblical expositions. In Kentucky thousands of Baptists were reading the “Western Recorder,” edited by J.W. Porter, while multitudes more in Tennessee read the “Baptist and Reflector,” edited by E.E. Folk.

The fact is, in 1909, the average Baptist pastor was well-read. Books were plentiful and inexpensive. In the South, the Southern Baptist Sunday School Board and the Baptist Book Concern were publishing many excellent books that helped keep Baptists sound in the faith. Do not believe those who claim that 125 years ago Baptists were ignorant and uneducated with only a Bible in their library. The truth is otherwise.

What Sort of Books Were Baptists Reading in 1924?

This list of books published by the Southern Baptist Sunday School Board was printed in the Baptist and Reflector newspaper on August 28, 1924. So many classics are in this list – John T. Christian’s “History of the Baptists,” J.B. Gambrell’s “Baptists and Their Business,” J.G. Bow’s “Ella Rives,” W.D. Nowlin’s “Fundamentals of the Faith,” J.F. Love’s “The Baptist Position and Position for a Baptist,” T. T. Martin’s “Heaven, Hell, and Other Sermons,” etc., etc., etc.

Books like these are one of the key reasons Baptists were so strong in their doctrinal convictions a hundred years ago. Sadly, within twenty-five years most of these books became out of print and were largely replaced with a new generation of works tainted by theological liberalism.

With a little bit of research, you can find these books today on the secondary market. It will be well worth the effort. They will make you a better Christian and a stronger Baptist! 

“Howdy John, thank you John”

𝗔𝗻 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝗽𝗶𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗶𝗳𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗝𝗼𝗵𝗻 𝗔. 𝗕𝗿𝗼𝗮𝗱𝘂𝘀

On Friday, September 28, 1894, the Walnut Street Baptist Church in Louisville, Kentucky held an institute for young people. Pastor T. T. Eaton invited John A. Broadus, John T. Christian, E.C. Dargan, and John O. Rust to all speak. 67-year-old John Broadus shared the following story about himself with the youth that night.

Dr. Broadus said: “I suppose young people and old people too are hindered in revival work by timidity. We know that people know that we are such poor slips of Christians. We are so unworthy. What shall we do? If we are in earnest and ask the Holy Spirit’s aid it is wonderful what we can do. We can win a soul. I remember a poor schoolboy once who, shortly after being baptized, was in a revival, and his pastor urged that every church member should go speak to someone about salvation. The bashful boy looked all around and saw in a corner a half-witted man, ‘Sandy’ Jones. He went to him and said I wish you were a Christian – it is delightful to be one.’ Then he prayed that God would bless ‘Sandy’ Jones. When the invitation was given ‘Sandy’ went forward and made the good confession: he was joyfully converted. In all the years that came and went, whenever that boy visited the town ‘Sandy’ would hasten to see him and say, ‘Howdy John, thank you, John.’ Always these same words. I recall one rainy day when ‘Sandy’ came through the muddy streets to take both my hands and say, ‘Howdy John, thank you, John.’ And when the change comes and unworthy as I am I shall be called up. I am sure that ‘Sandy’ will come across those golden streets where there is no mud, take both my hands and say ‘Howdy, John, thank you, John.”

(In 1894 John Albert Broadus was the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. The story is taken from the Courier Journal newspaper on Saturday, September 29, 1894.)

Baptist Pastor Excommunicated for Practicing Open Communion!

In 1857 W.W. Allen was called to pastor the First Baptist Church of Keokuk, Iowa. While serving this church, he became convinced of the truthfulness of open communion. The Keokuk Baptist Church strongly disagreed with this practice, so Allen resigned as pastor, but kept his membership in the church. In 1859 Allen began preaching for the First Presbyterian Church of Keokuk and observed the Lord’s Supper with this congregation. The First Baptist Church of Keokuk was unsure what to do with one of their members practicing such a clear violation of scripture. They asked for advice from other area Baptist ministers.

In August 1857 a Council was held with Baptist pastors from throughout Iowa, as well as Cincinnati and Chicago. The Daily Gate newspaper of Keokuk reported. “The Council decided that such views and conduct were in violation of the fundamental principles of the Baptist Church. The Council, there, advised the Church to withdraw from ‘fellowship’ with Mr. Allen, and formally deposed him from his ministry in the Baptist denomination.” The vote of the Council was unanimous! As for Allen, he left the Baptists and began pastoring a Congregationalist (pedobaptist) Church.

This story demonstrates how strong Baptists in America were in their defense of restricted communion. Church members and even pastors were disfellowshipped for practicing open communion. Keep in mind this was not a Baptist church in the South. It was in Iowa and the Council was made up of Northern Baptist pastors. Today open communion is common among Baptists of all stripes. May we see a revival of and a return to our Baptist distinctives!

Note: The picture is taken from the Courier-Journal of Louisville, August 25, 1859.

The Importance of Preaching the Gospel

“I am reminded of the interview I had with Sam Jones when he came to Waco. He was sick and I called on him. The first thing he asked me was, “What do you think of me? What do you think of my gospel?”

“I think,” I said, “you are a thousand miles from the gospel. I would suggest that when you get back to that big congregation you preach a gospel sermon for variety, just to show what a different thing it is from what you are preaching. You are preaching pretty good morality. Not only are you not preaching the gospel, but you are creating a false impression on the public mind, that heeding what you preach they will be saved.”

He burst out laughing and said, “I like you. You come to hear me when I get well and I will preach a gospel sermon.”

He did preach a really great gospel sermon on the blood of Jesus Christ. But he stopped at that. In his next sermon he was picking his teeth before the audience and said: “Look here, the thing to do is to join the church and then get religion. Join the church whether you have any more religion than a horse.” Those were his exact words.

…I did not go back any more.” – B.H. Carroll

(B.H. Carroll {1843-1914} served as the pastor of the First Baptist Church of Waco, TX from 1870 until 1899. This story is from 1885 when Evangelist Sam Jones came to Waco for a city-wide crusade. Carroll combined a passion for biblical evangelism with a strong belief in Baptist distinctives as seen in his books “Baptists and Their Doctrines” and “Christ and His Church.”)

Why Are People Leaving the Baptists?

𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗔𝗿𝗲 𝗣𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗕𝗮𝗽𝘁𝗶𝘀𝘁𝘀?

Last week, Dr. Matthew Barrett, who served as a professor the past eight years at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, announced he was leaving the Baptists and becoming an Anglican. This is not a rare occurrence. A few years ago, Jared Longshore left a leading role with the Southern Baptist Founders Ministries to become a pedobaptist. It seems that the average Presbyterian, Anglican, or Orthodox congregation is full of former Baptist church members. Why are so many Baptists today leaving their denomination and abandoning their doctrinal beliefs? Baptist history gives us some insights into this issue and a solution to the problem.

From the forefront, we need to realize this is a new issue. Throughout the seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, and early twentieth centuries, untold multitudes joined the Baptists from other denominations. Former pedobaptists such as Adoniram Judson, Luther Rice, John Gano, N.M. Crawford, A.C. Dayton, and Stephen Ray became great leaders among the Baptists. During that same period, you can nearly count on one hand the significant Baptists who left for another denomination, it was so rare an occurrence.

Today things have flip-flopped. Large numbers of our members and even preachers are leaving the Baptists. This begs the question, what changed? What was present in earlier centuries that is missing today? Some have contended that pedobaptist theologians are better today than they were in the past. Yet this is not the case, as earlier days had Archibald Alexander, Robert L. Dabney, A.A. Hodge, Charles Hodge, J.H. Thornwell, B.B. Warfield, etc. No, the difference is not among the pedobaptists but among the Baptists.

This brings us to the root of the problem as well as the solution. Baptists are no longer teaching their doctrinal distinctives, nor are they aware of their spiritual heritage. Very little doctrinal preaching exists in our churches. Adding to this problem is the fact our own preachers no longer read old Baptist writers but instead devour the works of ancient and modern pedobaptists. This has been going on for several decades. It should not surprise us to see droves of Baptist church members leaving. We are reaping what we have sown.

So how can we fix the problem? First, we must begin teaching Baptist distinctives in our churches. Here the words of J.N. Hall, founder of the West Kentucky Baptist Association, are helpful: “Let every pastor see to it that a series of earnest, faithful doctrinal sermons is preached this year to his people. It is better for each pastor to preach the doctrines for himself, but if he cannot, or will not, then let someone else be invited to do the work. It will be strengthening to the cause.”

While this was done years ago through sermon series, Bible institutes, conferences, fifth Sunday services, discipleship training, etc., it has largely gone by the wayside. May it be revived today as we begin teaching our doctrinal distinctives plainly, regularly, and passionately in our Baptist churches!

Second, we must begin reading Baptist authors again. Too many people have never read another historic Baptist author besides Charles Spurgeon. This was not the case years ago. In 1860 the Tennessee Baptist declared, “Every minister, every missionary, and every private member should work diligently in disseminating Baptist papers, books, and tracts all over the State, and establishing Baptist Sabbath schools in every Baptist church and neighborhood.” The works of men such as John Broadus, B.H. Carroll, A.C. Dayton, J.M. Frost, Andrew Fuller, J.B. Gambrell, J.R. Graves, Joe T. Odle, J.B. Moody, and J.M. Pendleton need to be rediscovered today. Thankfully their materials are readily available in various formats.

These two simple things – a revival of doctrinal preaching and the reading of old Baptist books – can make a huge difference in stopping the exodus of people leaving our Baptist churches today. As we do the work of the ministry, let every Baptist pastor not forgot to “𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘰𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘴.” Jude 3

Written by Ben Stratton, Farmington, KY

Will Open Communion Help “Baptists Sweep the World?” – 1905

“It has frequently been said that if Baptists would only drop their close communion they would sweep the world, that their other principles, such as religious liberty, individualism, congregationalism, regeneration, and immersion are popular, but that their close communion is so narrow and bigoted as to repel people.  Well, in reply to this several things are to be said:

1. These other principles were not always popular.  As a matter of history, all of them have been very unpopular.  They have won their way only by the force of truth contained in them.  So it will be with close communion.  In fact, other denominations have now come to accept the Baptist position with regard to communion – that baptism comes before the Supper. 

2.  Even if, by dropping our close communion, “Baptist would sweep the world,” they could not drop it.  Back of this is the fundamental Baptist doctrine of loyalty to the Word of God.  Baptists have never sought popularity.  It is always with them principle first and popularity second. 

3. Really, though, it is to be doubted whether, if they should drop their close communion, they would “sweep the world.”  As a matter of act, experiments have been made in this direction.  For instance, the Free Will Baptists of this country are open communionists.  They have not swept the world.  One wing of the English Baptists practice open communion.  They have not swept the world.  On the contrary, the close communion Baptists of America and also the close communion Baptists of England largely predominate over their open communion brethren.  The same thing is true with reference to the Welsh Baptists, as shown by Rev. John Lewis, in a paper on “Life and Religion in Wales.  He says:

‘As was perfectly natural, he (Vavasor Powell) did not ally himself with the Baptists at once, but in 1656, after a visit to Wales by Henry Jessye, he also became a Baptist.  Though Mr. Powell never joined the strict communion party, headed by Mr. (John) Myles, yet the fact that a person of his influence and weight of character coincided with their views of the ordinances, when it became known, added not a little to the respectability of their cause in the estimation of the public.  A notable and instructive fact in connection with this is though Powell established open communion churches in Wales – there is a controversy about the exact number – not one of them can be found today as a Baptist church.  They either dwindled away, or, as was natural, became Pedo-baptist churches.  On the other hand, it is claimed that churches founded by Myles have flourished.’ 

These things all go to prove the falsity of the theory that open communion is so popular.  The truth is, the greatest popularity comes not when it is sought for its own sake, but from adherence to principle.”  – E.E. Folk

(Edgar Estes Folk {1856-1917} was editor of the “Baptist & Reflector” newspaper from 1888 until his death in 1917.  Like virtually all Southern Baptists of his day, Folk was a staunch opponent of open communion.  This article appeared in his newspaper on August 3, 1905.)

Why I Switched to Closed Communion

Why I Switched to Closed Communion 

By R.B. Ouellette

(Note: At one time virtually every Baptist church in the South practiced restricted communion. If your church currently practices open communion and you are wondering how to move it back to the more biblical practice of closed communion, Bro. R.B. Ouellette offers some wonderful advice in the below article. – editor)

Though I grew up in fundamental Baptist churches, I attended a non-denominational college (Bob Jones University) where the five points of Calvinism were far more likely to be taught than Baptist distinctives. As a result, I had some “catching up” to do when I graduated. Though I soon embraced the doctrine of the local church and discarded what I had been taught about the universal church, I never considered the matter of the Lord’s table. Since I knew that a person had to be right with God in order to partake of the Lord’s Supper, I would announce that all those who had been scripturally baptized and were in fellowship with the Lord were welcome to participate in the ordinance. When I became aware that there were those who had a different position, I began to inquire the reasons for it. Unfortunately, I received more logic and tradition than I did Scripture. After reading some material and studying the Scripture carefully, I concluded that I had to change in order to be obedient to the Word of God.  

First: THE POSITIONS. There are three basic positions regarding the Lord’s Supper. 

1) Open Communion. This position, seldom practiced by independent fundamental Baptists, allows any person who chooses to do so to partake of the elements. 

2) Close Communion. This position would require that an individual be saved, scripturally baptized, and in fellowship with the Lord to join in the observance of the Lord’s Supper. Those practicing close communion would allow a visitor from another church of like faith to join in the Lord’s Supper. 

3) Closed Communion. In this position, the Lord’s Supper is a local church ordinance, and open only to members in good standing. 

Second: THE PRINCIPLES. There are three biblical reasons that I felt it necessary to change to closed communion. 

1) The Principle of Consistency. All of us recognize that the Lord gave two ordinances to His church Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. All of us agree that baptism is an ordinance particular to the local church. You are baptized into an assembly of believers (Acts 2:41-47). Nearly all of us would object to a person having a conference to which he invited people from many churches, then baptizing people who had no intention of becoming part of that church where the meeting was held. The question becomes, why is one ordinance restricted to the church and another not? Now God could certainly have set it up any way He wanted to, but if we practice the ordinance of Baptism only for the church, it is incumbent upon us to explain why we practice the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper outside the local church. These ordinances were not given to believers to practice on their own or in small para-church settings. They were given to the local church. It is not consistent to practice the Lord’s Supper in a way different from that in which we practice Baptism. 

2) The Principle of Correction. In First Corinthians chapter five, the apostle Paul is moved by the Holy Spirit to deal with the matter of church discipline. He tells the church at Corinth in verse 11 not to keep company with people who are guilty of particular sins, and concludes the verse by saying, “…with such an one no not to eat.” Most Bible students agree that this phrase refers not to having a meal at McDonald’s, but to observing the Lord’s Supper. This is born-out by verse 13 where the Scripture says, “…Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.” In other words, the fact that we do not “eat” with them is a result of the fact that we have put them away from the fellowship of the local church. If a church practices close communion, there is no way to exclude a backslidden believer from observing the Lord’s Supper. Anyone can slip in at any time and observe the Lord’s Supper. The fact that God instructs us not to allow backslidden believers to participate in the Lord’s Supper requires that it be a local church ordinance. 

3) The Principle of Context. First Corinthians 11 is the chapter the Lord gives us to deal with both the practice and the abuses of the Lord’s table. All of us are familiar with verses 23 through the end of the chapter. However, in the preceding verses, the context makes it clear that the Lord’s Supper is an ordinance for the local church. In verse 17, we find the phrase, “…that ye come together…” In verse 18, the Scripture says, “…when ye  come together in the church…” And verse 20 says, “When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s Supper.” (Lest anyone be confused by the word “not,” the apostle Paul is moved by the Holy Spirit to tell the Corinthians that their abuse of the Lord’s Supper made it so that they were not really practicing the ordinance scripturally, though they thought they were.) The phrase “come together” then clearly refers to the coming together of the church. It could not refer to a building since churches had not built their own buildings at this point in history. It could only refer to a body. So the Scripture is clear that the Lord’s Supper is to be practiced in the local New Testament church as an ordinance to remember the death, burial, and resurrection of our Saviour. 

Third: THE PROCEDURE. Because I have pastored our church for nearly 35 years, it was not complicated for me to switch. In one of my rare meetings with the deacons, I explained what I believed the Scripture to teach, and discovered that at least three of them already believed as I did. Later, I took a few moments in a sermon to teach the people what I had learned and why we would be changing. Then the next time we observed the Lord’s Supper, I explained that we invited all those who were baptized members of our assembly and in fellowship with the Lord to join us in observing the Lord’s Supper. I recognize that not every situation is like mine, and so I offer a few suggestions for those who have inherited a situation contrary to Scripture. 1) Share the truth individually with key men who are committed to the Scripture. A good man will see the Word of God and want to obey it even if his practice has been different in the past. 2) Explain to a group of leaders the biblical position. It would be wise if the individuals to whom you have spoken earlier are in the group. This way, you have a few people who already understand and are on your side. 3) Teach the truth to the entire congregation. I am persuaded that the Lord’s Supper is just one of many areas in which we have been influenced by tradition rather than the Word of God. I am encouraged by the efforts of many who are drawing us back to New Testament practices, and hope this article will be some help in that effort.   

How John A. Broadus Defended the Bible

While the name John A. Broadus may not be familiar to most Baptists today, he was one of the greatest preachers of the 19^th century.  After his death Southern Baptists renamed their publishing division “Broadman Press” in his honor.  (Remember the old green “Broadman” hymnals?)  Years after his death, one of his students, T.T. Martin shared this interesting story from Broadus’ life.

In the 1890s, Broadus was invited to attend a meeting on Bible Criticism at the University of Chicago.  Some of the most famous liberals of the day spoke such as Charles Briggs of New York and William R. Harper of Chicago.  They particularly emphasized that modern scholars knew that Moses didn’t really write the first five books of the Old Testament.

When they were finished, the Bible believers in the congregation were greatly discouraged.  Then someone asked Broadus to address the crowd.  T.T. Martin relates what happened next:  

“Trembling all over, he raised his clenched right fist in the air, and shaking it, let fly a thunderbolt, ‘But beware, my brethren!’ and against raising the clenched fist over his head and shaking it, his eyes flashing, his face livid, he again shouted, ‘Beware my brethren!  Jesus said, ‘Moses wrote of me.’ (John 5:46) Jesus said, ‘Moses wrote of me.’ and turning, he left the platform.  The effect on the vast audience was electrical.  It looked as if everyone wanted to go and get a rope and hang Briggs and Harper.” 

Southern Baptists and Closed Communion

Closed Communion, a Hallmark of Southern Baptist Orthodoxy

On June 24, 1851, a group of Southern Baptists met at Cotton Grove, Tennessee and passed the Cotton Grove Resolutions.  These resolutions helped to begin the Landmark controversy among Southern Baptists.  On one side were men who held strongly to landmarkism such as J.R. Graves, J.M. Pendleton, and A.C. Dayton.  On the other hand, were men who strongly opposed the Landmark movement such as J.L. Dagg, R.B.C. Howell, and J.B. Jeter.   Yet what is interesting is that while these men disagreed on the validity of landmarkism, they were all in total agreement in their opposition to open communion.  This was virtually the unanimous position of Southern Baptists in the nineteenth and early twentieth century. 

To prove this we can back up nine years before the Southern Baptist Convention was formed to 1836.  That year the Baptist Union of England appointed two English Baptists to visit America and report on the condition of her Baptist churches.  In their published report, “The Baptists in America: a Narrative of the Deputation of the Baptist Union in England, to the United States and Canada.”  F.A. Cox and J. Hoby wrote, “The Baptists of America are almost universally strict communists, that is, they admit none to a participation with them in the Lord’s Supper, who have not been baptized or immersed.”  (page 462)  This report was published only nine years before the Southern Baptist Convention was organized in 1845.

One year after the Southern Baptist Convention was formed, R.B.C. Howell published the book “The Terms of Communion at the Lord’s Table.”   Howell was a very influential Southern Baptists, as he pastored the First Baptist Church of Nashville, TN for over twenty years and served as the second president of the SBC.   Howell strongly disagreed with open communion.  He wrote, “Is the immersion in water, of a believer, by a properly authorized minister, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the only baptism?  All Baptists reply in the affirmative.  Then Pedo-baptists are not baptized.  To commune with them, therefore, is to violate the law of Christ”.  (page 217)  Further Howell’s position was the standard for the day.  He wrote of the practice of closed communion among Southern Baptists, “no association, nor even a single church, respectable for either numbers or intelligence, has, within the compass of my information, seceded from the great body of the denomination upon this ground.”

The first writing theologian among Southern Baptists after the Convention was formed was John L. Dagg.  He authored “A Treatise on Church Order” in 1858.  In the book he spends twelve pages defending closed communion.  He says of the practice: “We are aware that the practice of strict communion is considered offensive by a large part of the Christian community.  We lament this fact . . . But we believe that purpose for which the observance was instituted, and the divine will by which it ought to be regulated, require the restrictions under which we act.”  (page 224)

During the early years of the Southern Baptist Convention, one of the most popular writers was J.B. Jeter.   He edited the “Religious Herald” Baptist paper in Virginia from 1865 until his death in 1880.  In 1876 he authored a series of articles on “Distinctive Baptist Principles” that were later republished in the book “Baptist Principles Reset” in 1902.  He wrote, “Open communion, on the part of Baptists, is not only unauthorized, but impolitic . . . We believe that it is substantially forbidden; but that if it were not, it would be impolitic for Baptists, with their responsibility and aims to practice it.  They believe that on them devolves the duty of restoring the ordinances of Christ to their primitive simplicity, design, and order, and of promoting the organization of churches according to the apostolic model.  This is their mission, and they should avoid whatever tends to defeat it. Open communion clearly leads in this direction.”  (Page 107)  Jeter considered open communion to not only be unscriptural, but also impolitic, which means not wise or expedient.

Quotes could also easily be supplied by such prominent Southern Baptists such as John A. Broadus, Basil Manly, James P. Boyce, Richard Fuller, P.H. Mell, E.C. Dargon, B.H. Carroll, J.B. Gambrell, George W. Truett, L.R. Scarborough, John R. Sampey, M.E. Dodd, and many, many more.  The fact is that all Southern Baptists, regardless of their opinion of Landmarkism, rejected open communion during the nineteenth and early twentieth century.   Those who claim that Southern Baptists have historically held a variety of opinions on open communion, do not understand Southern Baptist history.  For well over a century, closed communion was a hallmark of Southern Baptist orthodoxy.

But someone will ask, if this is true, how did so many Southern Baptist churches in the twentieth-first century come to practice open communion?  The answer lies in the liberalization of the Southern Baptist Convention during the decades surrounding World War II.  During this time many of the Southern Baptist seminaries began to employ professors who were very liberal in their understanding of Baptist theology.  One example is Dale Moody, who was perhaps the first Southern Baptist to boldly champion the cause of open communion.  Moody did not even believe in eternal security, much less restricted communion.  Through men such as Dale Moody and other like-minded professors, the seminaries influenced countless numbers of Southern Baptists pastors to change the practice of their churches from closed to open communion.   Thankfully many of the Southern Baptist seminaries are returning to their earlier beliefs and we are seeing a resurgence of Southern Baptist leaders championing restricted communion.  It is my prayer that this will continue.