A Baptist theological shift

[rlvaughn]

The local association I was raised in (Texas) was organized in 1857. They adopted the New Hampshire Confession. It is a modified document that drastically waters down the Calvinism of the Philadelphia Confession. On the other hand, in 1868 this Missionary Baptist Association made peace overtures to the local Primitive Baptist Association -- even invited one of their preachers to preach for them in 1869. So they must not have thought a strict 5-point Calvinism heretical, or even all that odd.

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

So he would see 5 pointers as high, and 4 as being moderate ones?

 

[rlvaughn]

Well, that is kind of what it seemed like to me, but I think one would need to read more of Taylor to figure it out.

I was reading on site today that "High Calvinism" is more about the the origin of evil, and perhaps one who believes in "double predestination," that is, both predestination and reprobation. I don't think I have any more ideas that can help sort it out.

 

[rlvaughn]

Yeshua, I checked in Taylor's first volume of Virginia Baptist Ministers to see if anything there might help shed light on his use of terms High Calvinism and Moderate Calvinism. Below are some excerpts. Also read the entire paragraph on Lewis Conner on page 186, and especially on Robert Latham on page 323. There Taylor seems to contrast Latham's "high Calvinism" with the views of Andrew Fuller.

• John Weatherford: "In sentiment he was Calvinistic." -- p. 55
• William Fristoe: "As a disputant he was able--few being qualified to compete with him in argument. His religious views were strongly Calvinistic." -- p. 73
• John Corbley: "His sentiments were Calvinistic, being alike opposed to Arminianism and fatalism." -- p. 110
• John Williams: "From the minutes of associations to which he belonged, and other sources, it appears that in his religious sentiments, he was a moderate Calvinist." -- p. 132
  
• Lewis Conner: "Elder Conner might be considered a moderate Calvinist. The writer of this article has heard him preach a great number of sermons, without ever hearing him introduce any one of the 'five points' for special discussion...Next to the bible, he preferred the writings of President Edwards; and with such light as Edwards supplied him, he was in no danger of Antinomian extractions." -- p. 186
• William Mason: "Elder Mason was in his doctrine moderately Calvinistic. Indeed, some of his more orthodox brethren used laughingly to charge him with 'wearing too large a cloak.' But he had the good fortune to live at a day when among Baptists a difference of opinion upon abstract propositions did not interrupt Christian communion." -- p. 201
• Benjamin Burgher: "He usually inclined to dwell on the more doctrinal portions of Divine truth; and there was sometimes indulged a degree of severity in defending what are called Calvinistic sentiments." -- p. 202
• Jeremiah Moore: "His system is high Calvinism, which he presents with great ingenuity." -- p. 221
  
• Ambrose Dudley: "He was highly Calvinistic in his sentiments, and of unbending firmness where he thought truth and duty were involved." -- p. 222
• Samuel L. Straughan: "In his doctrine he was clearly and plainly evangelical. He might be termed a moderate Calvinist." -- p. 277
  
• Robert Latham: "His system was high Calvinism, and to some he seemed to border on fatalism, but this he himself denied as a consequence growing out of his views." -- p. 323
• Jeremiah Hatcher: "He was an uncompromising Calvinist. In sentiment, as a preacher, he was plain, pointed and consistent." -- pp. 338-339
• Francis Moore: "He was a great admirer of Dr. Gill, and considered the sentiments usually denominated Calvinistic as clearly taught in the Sacred Scriptures." -- p. 425

 

[The Parson]

My great grandfathers "sentiment" was Calvinistic, but historically in my family, he was alone in those beliefs. He recanted in his later years, but he had always told us, (my grandfather, my dad, and myself,) that there has always been a rift in our Baptist brethren from the days his fathers father came over from Wales and Scotland. The majority of my family still rejects Calvin's notions as did the majority of our forefathers. It's a long time family issue.

Anyway, my great grandfather, in his words, couldn't ever get past the word "whosoever"!

 

[Jerome]

"...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.

What he meant by Baptists holding that "the atonement is general in its nature" was that they held that the atonement was general in nature.

As you described in your article:

dominant view embracing...general atonement

Many Fundamentalists withdrew early in the 20th century. These churches agreed or tended to agree with general position on the atonement

 

[rlvaughn]

I don't think that is necessarily a given, that he would define it the way I did in my article. It seems that a move from a strict view of predestination and reprobation to a view that claims the atonement was sufficient for all but efficient for only the elect might be viewed as more "general in its nature."

 

[kyredneck]

in 1868 this Missionary Baptist Association made peace overtures to the local Primitive Baptist Association -- even invited one of their preachers to preach

Around here in this locale the split between the Old Schoolers and the New was more of a drifting apart, so I understand. They would share the same buildings and attend each other's meetings, much of the difference being between the older and younger generations.

The split between the Old School and Campbellites, however, was very heated and destructive. CoC has their origins right here in the Bluegrass.

 

[FollowTheWay]

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.

There were both particular and general Baptists which rebelled against the Anglican Church of England. Initially I believe Calvinism dominated but that shifted in the other direction. The bedrock statement of Baptist faith was the New Hampshire Confession of 1833. Baptists split in Northern (now American) Baptists in about 1845 for basically the same reasons which led to the Civil War. American Baptists have essentially stayed with the principals of the NH Confession. Southern Baptists did as well until the 50'S when Hershel Hobbs championed the idea of eternal security. The statement "Only those who persevere until the end" is included in the 1925 BF&M and remains as an American Baptist (as well as Methodist) belief but was removed from the 1963 and 2000 BF&M's. Hobbes was opposed by Dale Moody.

 

[rlvaughn]

Here is a comparison of the New Hampshire Confession and Baptist Faith and Message on the topic:

NHC 1833

XI. Of Perseverance of the Saints
We believe that such only are real believers as endure unto the end: that their persevering attachment to Christ is the grand mark which distinguishes them from superficial professors; that a special providence watches over their welfare, and that they are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.

BFM 1925

XI. PERSEVERANCE
All real believers endure to the end. Their continuance in well-doing is the mark which distinguishes them from mere professors. A special Providence cares for them, and they are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.

In 1963 this was made the second paragraph of section V and somewhat reworded:

V. God's Purpose of Grace
...All true believers endure to the end. Those whom God has accepted in Christ, and sanctified by His Spirit, will never fall away from the state of grace, but shall persevere to the end. Believers may fall into sin through neglect and temptation, whereby they grieve the Spirit, impair their graces and comforts, bring reproach on the cause of Christ, and temporal judgments on themselves, yet they shall be kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.

2000 BF&M

V. God's Purpose of Grace
...All true believers endure to the end. Those whom God has accepted in Christ, and sanctified by His Spirit, will never fall away from the state of grace, but shall persevere to the end. Believers may fall into sin through neglect and temptation, whereby they grieve the Spirit, impair their graces and comforts, and bring reproach on the cause of Christ and temporal judgments on themselves; yet they shall be kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.

If I accurately remember Dale Moody's views on falling from grace, they were not the same as the statement on perseverance of the saints in the 1833 NHC and 1925 BFM.

 

[Revmitchell]

The statement "Only those who persevere until the end" is included in the 1925 BF&M and remains as an American Baptist (as well as Methodist) belief but was removed from the 1963 and 2000 BF&M's. Hobbes was opposed by Dale Moody.

Once again you know not of which you speak:

V. God's Purpose of Grace
Election is the gracious purpose of God, according to which He regenerates, justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies sinners. It is consistent with the free agency of man, and comprehends all the means in connection with the end. It is the glorious display of God's sovereign goodness, and is infinitely wise, holy, and unchangeable. It excludes boasting and promotes humility.

All true believers endure to the end. Those whom God has accepted in Christ, and sanctified by His Spirit, will never fall away from the state of grace, but shall persevere to the end. Believers may fall into sin through neglect and temptation, whereby they grieve the Spirit, impair their graces and comforts, and bring reproach on the cause of Christ and temporal judgments on themselves; yet they shall be kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.

Southern Baptist Convention > The Baptist Faith and Message

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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.

It seems that everyone has their own definitions of what 'High' and 'Hyper-' Calvinism are. In the past, 'High' Calvinism tended to be the belief in Justification from Eternity (as opposed to election in eternity) which was a belief of John Gill and several others (in opposition to the 1689 Confession XI:4).
Hyper-Calvinism in my understanding is the belief that God's grace should not be offered to unbelievers. This teaching originated with a Congregationalist called Joseph Hussey, who wrote a book entitled God's Operations of Grace but no offers of Grace, and spread through men like John Skepp and John Brine into the Baptists (contra Mark 1:15; John 6:37 etc.).

But all the Particular Baptists, from Gill and Skepp through to Fuller and Carey, and on to Spurgeon, believed in Particular or Limited Atonement. The clue is in the name: if you don't believe in Particular Atonement, you're not a Particular Baptist QED. Four-point 'Calvinism' is not Calvinism.

I would go on to say that the 'High' Calvinism of Gill is an error (cf. Isaiah 12:1), but Hyper-Calvinism (as I have described it) is outside of Christian orthodoxy

 

[Yeshua1]

It seems that everyone has their own definitions of what 'High' and 'Hyper-' Calvinism are. In the past, 'High' Calvinism tended to be the belief in Justification from Eternity (as opposed to election in eternity) which was a belief of John Gill and several others (in opposition to the 1689 Confession XI:4).
Hyper-Calvinism in my understanding is the belief that God's grace should not be offered to unbelievers. This teaching originated with a Congregationalist called Joseph Hussey, who wrote a book entitled God's Operations of Grace but no offers of Grace, and spread through men like John Skepp and John Brine into the Baptists (contra Mark 1:15; John 6:37 etc.).

But all the Particular Baptists, from Gill and Skepp through to Fuller and Carey, and on to Spurgeon, believed in Particular or Limited Atonement. The clue is in the name: if you don't believe in Particular Atonement, you're not a Particular Baptist QED. Four-point 'Calvinism' is not Calvinism.

I would go on to say that the 'High' Calvinism of Gill is an error (cf. Isaiah 12:1), but Hyper-Calvinism (as I have described it) is outside of Christian orthodoxy

Another problem is that those such as Norman Geisler have seemed to see what is called as normal 5 point calvinism as being Hyper form of it!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Another problem is that those such as Norman Geisler have seemed to see what is called as normal 5 point calvinism as being Hyper form of it!

That is Geisler's problem, not mine.

 

[rlvaughn]

I would go on to say that the 'High' Calvinism of Gill is an error (cf. Isaiah 12:1), but Hyper-Calvinism (as I have described it) is outside of Christian orthodoxy

As an English Baptist, how do you view the Gospel Standard Baptists such as William Gadsby, J. C. Philpot and B. A. Ramsbottom?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

As an English Baptist, how do you view the Gospel Standard Baptists such as William Gadsby, J. C. Philpot and B. A. Ramsbottom?

'Mixed feelings' would be the short answer. It's impossible not to have respect for Gadsby who did wonderful work for the Gospel in Manchester and the surrounding area at the time of the Industrial Revolution. However, I can't agree with his belief that the law is not the Christian's rule of life. SFAIK Gadsby led a blameless private life, but the same cannot be said for some of those whom he discipled.

I respect Philpot for following his principles in coming out of the Church of England and some of his writings are very edifying. However, his Calvinism is just a little high for me as is Ramsbottom's.

Articles 33 &34 of the Gospel Standard Articles of faith (which were added, I think, after Philpott's time), are utterly wrong in that they inhibit the free preaching of the Gospel and the free offer to Christ to the penitent:-

33. Preaching To The Unconverted

Therefore, that for ministers in the present day to address unconverted persons, or indiscriminately all in a mixed congregation, calling upon them to savingly repent, believe, and receive Christ, or perform any other acts dependent upon the new creative power of the Holy Ghost, is, on the one hand, to imply creature power, and, on the other, to deny the doctrine of special redemption.

34. Preaching Of The Gospel
(Exhorting The Unregenerate)

We believe that any such expressions as convey to the hearers the belief that they possess a certain power to flee to the Saviour, to close in with Christ, to receive Christ, while in an unregenerate state, so that unless they do thus close with Christ, etc., they shall perish, are untrue, and must, therefore, be rejected. And we further believe that we have no Scripture warrant to take the exhortations in the Old Testament intended for the Jews in national covenant with God, and apply them in a spiritual and saving sense to unregenerated men.

Finally, here is Philpott's letter of resignation from the Church of England. It caused quite a furore at the time and is an interesting read, though rather long.
Philpot’s Letter of Resignation from the Church of England

 

[Yeshua1]

That is Geisler's problem, not mine.

His view seems to be a prominent one among certain Christians though...

 

[rlvaughn]

'Mixed feelings' would be the short answer. It's impossible not to have respect for Gadsby who did wonderful work for the Gospel in Manchester and the surrounding area at the time of the Industrial Revolution...I respect Philpot for following his principles in coming out of the Church of England and some of his writings are very edifying. However, his Calvinism is just a little high for me as is Ramsbottom's.

Thanks for giving your take on this. I only know these men through reading. I have been particularly blessed by Gadsby's hymn book and Philpot "Through Baca's Vale" devotionals. I haven't read much by Ramsbottom but figured your were aware of him as a more modern representative of these Baptists. I notice in the Articles of Faith and Rules on their website that it mentions that articles 32-35 were added -- but it doesn't say when. This suggests that some of these points might not have been as agreed upon by the older Gospel Standard Baptists. Though there is some uniqueness in the preaching of the apostles by direct inspiration and miraculous accompaniment, it is an error to think their exhortations to sinners to repent and believe the gospel is not a pattern for our preaching today. I nevertheless respect each of these names I mentioned.

Thanks also for linking Philpot's letter of resignation from the Church of England.