• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

A Baptist theological shift

R

rlvaughn

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
This morning I posted on my blog Baptist moving: considering two theological shifts.

One of the shifts I considered is what specifically was at work on the majority of U. S. Baptists, the Regular Baptists, to move away from the doctrines of predestination toward libertarian free will? I suggested these possibilities:
  • The possibility that some of these Regular Baptists nominally held the doctrines of grace, but were not consistent, clear and firm in their teaching of them.
  • The anti-creedalism of the Separate Baptists, who merged with these Regular Baptists toward the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th centuries. Though they were generally predestinarians like the Regular Baptists, they would not commit to “man-made” confessions like the Second London or Philadelphia Confessions.
  • The influence of the evangelism of revivalists like Finney and Moody on these Regular Baptists. Probably the Frontier Revivalism of the early 1800s should also be included. Those who came into Baptist churches from these revivals might be predisposed to favor such methods and find them more compatible with a “free will” theology.
  • The removal from these Regular Baptists of an aggregation of doctrinally strong predestinarian churches in the so-called missions/anti-missions schism.
  • The “Spirit” of the American experiment, emphasizing freedom and individualism, seemed to fit better into a system of free will than unconditional election – influencing some of these Regular Baptists either directly (causing change) or indirectly (causing re-evaluation).
I did not include “changing views due to the study of the Bible/New Testament.” I do not exclude the fact that people changed from a view they thought the Bible did not teach to a view they thought the Bible did teach. Most would earnestly profess that to be their case. But in the above list I am thinking of outside means that may have been at work with, without or in addition to this factor.
 
Squire Robertsson

Squire Robertsson

Administrator
Administrator
For some of the factors in this shift, I would direct you to Francis Wayland's Principles and Practices of Baptist Churches. There is the adoption of the views of Andrew Fuller as contrasted of those of John Gill.
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
rlvaughn said:
This morning I posted on my blog Baptist moving: considering two theological shifts.

One of the shifts I considered is what specifically was at work on the majority of U. S. Baptists, the Regular Baptists, to move away from the doctrines of predestination toward libertarian free will? I suggested these possibilities:
  • The possibility that some of these Regular Baptists nominally held the doctrines of grace, but were not consistent, clear and firm in their teaching of them.
  • The anti-creedalism of the Separate Baptists, who merged with these Regular Baptists toward the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th centuries. Though they were generally predestinarians like the Regular Baptists, they would not commit to “man-made” confessions like the Second London or Philadelphia Confessions.
  • The influence of the evangelism of revivalists like Finney and Moody on these Regular Baptists. Probably the Frontier Revivalism of the early 1800s should also be included. Those who came into Baptist churches from these revivals might be predisposed to favor such methods and find them more compatible with a “free will” theology.
  • The removal from these Regular Baptists of an aggregation of doctrinally strong predestinarian churches in the so-called missions/anti-missions schism.
  • The “Spirit” of the American experiment, emphasizing freedom and individualism, seemed to fit better into a system of free will than unconditional election – influencing some of these Regular Baptists either directly (causing change) or indirectly (causing re-evaluation).
I did not include “changing views due to the study of the Bible/New Testament.” I do not exclude the fact that people changed from a view they thought the Bible did not teach to a view they thought the Bible did teach. Most would earnestly profess that to be their case. But in the above list I am thinking of outside means that may have been at work with, without or in addition to this factor.
Click to expand...
Good posting, and also think that bottom line was is that many just could not accept that salvation is of God fully, that we did not have to do "something" to merit it!
 
R

rlvaughn

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Squire Robertsson said:
For some of the factors in this shift, I would direct you to Francis Wayland's Principles and Practices of Baptist Churches. There is the adoption of the views of Andrew Fuller as contrasted of those of John Gill.
Click to expand...
What factors do you think Wayland highlights?

Any thoughts on why Baptists moved any from Gill and toward Fuller?
 
Squire Robertsson

Squire Robertsson

Administrator
Administrator
Wayland is a first-hand witness of the changes taking place in the period 1815-1855. The G\F change was the shift towards the free proclamation of the Gospel ala Spurgeon and Carey.
 
Rhetorician

Rhetorician

Administrator
Administrator
This is a shameless self promotion and I know it, and I am glad that you brought up William Carey. I have finished four missionary conference papers on William Carey that would run about one hour each when presented. They are on "The Four Calls of William Carey;" "The Call to Salvation," "The Call to Missions," "The Call to India," and "The Call to Persevere." I have been invited to have a bound copy of them sent to The William Carey Center of the William Carey University to be archived. And I have been in talks with two publishers in the last week about getting them published.

I would gladly come to your church or missions group and do any or all of them as presentations.

PM me for details or questions.

Remember this is "shameless self promotion."

rd
 
R

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yeshua1 said:
Not trying to sound offensive, but the Baptist on the whole did swing from holding to particular salvation view to a general one!
Click to expand...

Sigh, there have always been both particular baptists and general baptists. Over the years it has grown away from the particular view to where there is less and less to be sure.
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Revmitchell said:
Sigh, there have always been both particular baptists and general baptists. Over the years it has grown away from the particular view to where there is less and less to be sure.
Click to expand...
There was a much bigger aize though early on in US, and this sebtury saw the other side hold sway, but there are such as Dr Mohler trying to get back to its Calvinistic roots!
 
Jerome

Jerome

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yeshua1 said:
There was a much bigger aize though early on in US, and this sebtury saw the other side hold sway, but there are such as Dr Mohler trying to get back to its Calvinistic roots!
Click to expand...

What century are you talking about?
 
R

rlvaughn

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
This post has a background in a conversation that started on Facebook. I need to explain my use of "Regular Baptists" in the OP. I mean the Particular Baptists who came from England and came to be known in America as Regular Baptists rather than Particular Baptists. Early representatives would be associations such as the Philadelphia and Charleston Associations. These associations were solidly Calvinistic (or seemingly so) and most adopted the Philadelphia Confession of Faith, which the Philadelphia Association adapted from the 2nd London Confession of 1689.

Modern descendants of these include the Southern Baptist Convention, American Baptist Churches, Baptist Missionary Association, General Association of Regular Baptist Churches, Cooperative Baptist Fellowship and so on (but Primitive Baptists as well). So I was considering how these churches rooted in a strong Calvinistic tradition of the London and Philadelphia Confessions (like the SBC & ABCUSA) had pretty much by the end of the 19th century shed the strongest points of their Calvinism -- especially unconditional election, particular atonement and effectual call (irresistible grace).

I am considering this from an historical view, regardless of what one thinks of either position.
 
Jerome

Jerome

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yeshua1 said:
There was a much bigger aize though early on in US, and this sebtury saw the other side hold sway, but there are such as Dr Mohler trying to get back to its Calvinistic roots!
Click to expand...

What side are you talking about?
 
R

rlvaughn

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Here's one quote from Wayland, page 18:

"The extent of the atonement has been and still is a matter of honest but not unkind difference. Within the last fifty years a change has gradually taken place in the views of a large portion of our brethren. At the commencement of that period Gill's Divinity was a sort of standard, and Baptists imbibing his opinions were what may be called almost hyper-Calvinistic. A change commenced upon the publication of the writings of Andrew Fuller, especially his Gospel Worthy of all Acceptation, which, in the northern and eastern States, has become almost universal. The old view still prevails, if I mistake not, in our southern and western States."

Note, in Wayland's opinion the strict Calvinism had been mostly replaced in the North (the "Fullerism" view is "almost universal," he says) by the time he is writing circa 1856, and the change has taken place "within the last fifty years." On the other hand, he is of the opinion that the John Gill type of Calvinism still prevailed in the South.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top