Featured A Baptist theological shift

It is probably best to understand those who made these kinds of statements were reflecting what they knew and were also limited in what they knew, as we are today when we make general statements about what Baptists believe.

I think it is fair to assume that Wayland would be quite familiar with Baptists in the North, but less familiar with Baptists in the South. His view is probably based on the views of the Baptists in the South with whom he was the most familiar, and susceptible to considerable gaps in his knowledge of them.

I am not as familiar with Taylor, or how extensive his knowledge was of the Baptists in the South outside of Virginia. It is likely that the Baptists in Virginia held general provision earlier and to a greater degree that some of the other Baptists in the South. In Asplund's list of Associations in his 1790 Annual Register, he describes the General Committee in Virginia as, IIRC, not adopting the Philadelphia Confession and having churches that held general provision (that is, on the extent of the atonement).

The Ten Letters Addressed to the Rev. Cyrus White, by Jesse Mercer in Georgia, demonstrate well Mercer’s allegiance to the doctrines of predestination, unconditional election, and the limited atonement. This would have been about 20-25 years before Wayland and Taylor were writing (1830).

 

The anti-missions/missions split was an ecclesiological/methodological schism. Daniel Parker’s A Public Address to the Baptist Society (1820) is good evidence of this. He argues against the Baptist Board of Foreign Missions on ecclesiological rather than soteriological grounds. "Not-so-much-Calvinists" (e.g. J. R. Graves) and Non-Calvinists (e.g. Ben M. Bogard) would later take similar positions against mission boards and methods. Both The Kehukee Declaration (1827) and The Black Rock Address (1832) – documents criticizing the missions movement – focus on matters of practice rather than soteriology.

Across the span of time from the pointing out of problems with the “mission system” to the point of division (roughly 1815 to 1845, depending on geography), the “anti-missions” side of the controversy consistently labeled the problem and their objection as the adoption of practices not justified by the teachings of the New Testament. This does not preclude the fact that the “anti-missions” side might have more appeal to the extreme for predestinarianism while the “missions” side might have more appeal to the extreme against predestinarianism, so that these extremes naturally gravitated to one side or the other. Once the so-called “anti-missions” side removed, the shift of center of the Regular Baptists, IMO, adjusted toward Fullerism and then more towards what some identify today as Extensivism or Traditionalism.

 

Thanks, Jerome. Do you know when he extensively toured the South? I see on page 284 that he made a long tour through the South and Southwest, but then again that was in 1870.

I think we have to factor in a broad spectrum of writings of men like Taylor and Wayland, as well as look at articles of faith of churches and associations to try to get an overall picture of what was the status of soteriology among these churches. There are several factors on the latter that can make it hard to sort out. For example, I know of a local Missionary Baptist Association in south Mississippi that (at least up to about 15 years ago) still had their original articles of faith -- which were 5-point Calvinistic -- and yet they really only held the "T" and the "P" (they reinterpreted the others and said they believed them too). So, in 18-whatever when they organized they were Calvinistic, and in 2000 they were not, but it is hard to know when they changed.

Some of my ancestors came from White Plains, Georgia. When they were constituted in 1806 they were founded on strict Calvinism in their church covenant. By 1850-something when they called J. H. Kilpatrick (who stayed about 50 years I think), just reading through the church minutes they seemed to have developed a somewhat different "flavor" -- but their church covenant still had the same strict Calvinism.

All that rambling to say that it is hard to nail down a time frame (in my opinion) from the sometimes varying evidence we have. Two other factors is that the shift happened at different rates in different locations, and that some of the people looking for evidence are not researching history, but trying to prove their polemical points -- either that Baptists were Calvinists or that they weren't Calvinists (or at least weren't that bad of whichever one).

But as for me, I set out questioning here as to what were the factors influencing change rather than just exactly when it was complete. Any thoughts on the factors?

Another question that rose in my mind -- might the loss of and devastation from the Civil War been another factor hastening the demise of strict predestinarianism? It might have been a hard pill for some Southerners to swallow to consider an absolutely sovereign God had predetermined their demise. Just thinking out loud.

 

In Jerome's link to Virginia Baptist Ministers by J. B. Taylor, the statement about David Jessee speaks of a change from "high-toned Calvinism" to a view in which "the atonement is general in its nature." "In the early part of his ministry he advocated the high-toned Calvinistic view of that subject [atonement, rlv]; but in the latter years of his life he supported the view now generally adopted by the Baptists, viz., that the atonement is general in its nature." I searched through the book to see is there is further information about what Taylor meant by the atonement being general in its nature. I may have missed it, but didn't find another reference like that to the atonement. Taylor, however, does speak of high Calvinism, moderate Calvinism and low Calvinism. Here are examples:

• Elliott Estes: "He delighted, especially, to exhibit that gospel to his fellow-men so as to make it develop conspicuously the glory of God, in showing forth His sovereignty, alike in the provision, the execution, and application of the gracious scheme of human redemption through the sacrifice of Christ." -- p. 61
• William Blair: "His sentiments were moderately Calvinistic; the command of the gospel he regarded as binding on all men, and thus he constantly called upon all men everywhere to repent." -- p. 128
• William Leftwich: "His doctrinal views were Calvinistic--not of the high, but low school, removed alike from Antinomianism on the one hand, and from Arminianism on the other." -- p. 138
• Robert T. Daniel: "As a divine his orthodoxy was above suspicion, rather of the high Calvinistic cast, and all his feelings with regard to the spread of the gospel truly apostolic." -- p. 150
• John N. Johnston: "He was strongly Calvinistic in his views, believing firmly the doctrines of predestination and decline, as taught in the word of God." -- p. 182
• Samuel Templeman: "Though a moderate Calvinist, his preaching was seldom doctrinal." -- p. 196
• James Reid: "Though Calvinistic in his faith, his preaching was seldom doctrinal." -- p. 200
• John G. Carter: "He was very decided in his doctrinal views; still he was courteous to those with whom he differed. He was strongly Calvinistic." -- pp. 386-387
• John Ogilvie: "In his doctrinal views he was a moderate Calvinist, removed alike from Antinomianism on the one hand, and Arminianism on the other." -- p. 469
• Charles A. Lewis: "Election, predestination, effectual calling, and the final perseverance of the saints, were themes upon which he delighted to dwell, while he taught experimentally that the love of Christ alone could constrain the believer practically to surrender all to Christ." -- p. 486
• John S. Abell: "A high Calvinist in doctrinal opinion, he was so urgent in exhorting sinners that a young man once said that he was a good Calvinist for half of his sermon, while the other half would do credit, in matter and manner, to a thorough Methodist." -- p. 512

There is at least one clue on how Taylor is using the terms. On pages 401-402, the book speaks of a man named Johnson in England, "who, although a warm friend and great admirer of Andrew Fuller was a high-toned Calvinist." Though Taylor uses high, moderate and low to refer to Calvinism, it seems like he may be using moderate and low as the same thing. Not sure. I feel fairly certain that by high Calvinism he would mean something of the sort of Calvinism of John Gill, and moderate/low would be like the revised Calvinism of Andrew Fuller -- which replaces limited atonement with a view that makes the atonement more general. Some explain it as Christ's death being sufficient for all men but efficient for the elect.

 

No need to be baffled. It's a lot easier to let someone who is familiar with the book find it than spend a lot of time figuring out what to search for and then searching for. I think I just searched for South.

 

I suppose that would be one way to interpret it. I generally try to stay away from "hyper". That usually doesn't have the same definition for different people. But it would seem to me what you call "Main Calvinism" would have to include "Limited Atonement." And it also seems to me that Taylor intends to exclude "Limited Atonement" when he is talking about moderate Calvinism. If so, he would then probably mean by High Calvinism a strict adherence to all five points of Calvinism.