Historical Baptists Calvinistic?

[Mark Osgatharp]

Originally posted by WallDoctor:
This comment is made by one who obviously did not pay too much attention to the original question asked. I was asking why the change, not bemoaning it's taking place.

And you obviously did not understand the point of my comparison. A drunkard who quits drinking every day never actually quit drinking. Likewise, if Baptists were constantly departing from Calvinism, they were never really Calvinistic in the first place.

Mark Osgatharp

 

[rsr]

Of course they were, at least most of them. Calvinism is a theology that gradually loses its flavor unless constantly reinforced. Even the Presbyterian Church in the USA is no longer noticeably Calvinistic (that's left to the splinter groups) and there's no disputing it originally was Calvinist.

The Founders Movement in the SBC attempts to pin the slide to Arminianism on E.Y. Mullins; I think it's more complicated than that. While the doctrines of grace were prevalent among most Baptist groups, many embraced a modified form that is espoused in the New Hampshire Confession of 1833 and its grandchild, the SBC Faith and Message.

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Originally posted by rsr:
While the doctrines of grace were prevalent among most Baptist groups, many embraced a modified form that is espoused in the New Hampshire Confession of 1833 and its grandchild, the SBC Faith and Message.

Years before the New Hampshire confession was issued there were many Baptists who embraced general atonement, or, more accurately, general provision. The Baptist histories state that the first Baptist churches in America were "general", and that many of them turned "particular" in the mid 1700s under the missionary influence of the the Philadelphia Association. But even among the so called "particulars" you will find men advocating general provision.

It is during this same era that you will find Baptists bemoaning the mythological apostacy apostacy from Calvinism.

When you put all that together you see that Baptists did not slide away from Calvinism, but rather were from time to time tainted with Calvinism; and when the Calvinist interlopers lost their influence their scattered progeny started bemoaning the apostacy. But there were always those who rejected and resisted Calvinism and it was never the grass roots faith of Baptist people.

By the way, the historical study of this issue is complicated by the fact that "Calvinist" is often used by writers to mean "someone who believes in once saved always saved" and so many who are dubbed as "Calvinist" are not really Calvinist at all. For example, I fellowship in the American Baptist Association and I have seen historical writers dub us as "mildly Calvinistic" when, in fact, most of our preachers are vehemently anti-Calvinistic.

Mark Osgatharp

 

[dean198]

Mark, thanks for that info. I have never heard that line before, (that the first Baptists were Generals), and need to look into it more.

Dean

 

[3John2]

I was about to ask the same question as to WHEN did the church stop/start being "Reformed" (I hate the term Calvinist). So far this hasn't really helped though.

 

[rsr]

Depends on the church and the time.

The Particulars gained the upper hand in England by the 18th century; many of the Generals slid off into Unitarianism or other beliefs, and only the establishment of the New Connexion in 1770 was able to reunite the Particulars and Generals and, probably, save the Generals from extinction.

It is true that the New England Baptists were more General. I suspect that a good deal of the impetus toward the doctrines of grace came from the New Light movement, in which many Congregationalists moved toward the Baptist churches and took their traditional Puritan leanings with them.

Now, I'm not sure how you prove what "ordinary" Baptists held to throughout many of those years. The Separate Baptists, many of whom came through the New Light movement, were practically as Particular as the Regular Baptists, as is evidenced by the writings of the Regulars about the Separates. It was the preaching of Whitefield, a Calvinist, that appeared to fuel the growth of the New Lights and Separates, so it's only natural they would adopt that soteriology.

A brief examination of the creeds and confessions will testify that the vast majority of them were Particular. Even today, the SBC's confession is Particular, though in a waffling way (and totally in line with the New Hampshire confession.)

My own hypothesis is that Baptists were highly influenced by Methodism and Campbellism (with whom they were competing on the frontier) the rise of the revivalism movement, and (among Southern Baptists) a lessening emphasis on soteriology caused by the rise of conventionalism.

 

[El_Guero]

Interesting history Wall Doctor ...
Let me see if I get some of these fast balls ... and don't loose track of the curve balls ... And can still put all of this history together ...
... So, the Ariminians (First Baptists) were in Holland ...
Some Englishmen left the reformed theology of the Church of England and went to Holland and caught the faith. There they became an "English congregation" of these earlier Dutch speaking Baptists. They chose a faith that was opposed to the Reformed Theology of the Church of England.
Some of the English speaking church group went back to England to plant churches. Upon arrival back in England, these believers were severely persecuted for their new faith by the Reformed Church of England. Some of these decided that English politics were still to dangerous and decided to leave for America?
So, what happened to these Englishmen that went to Holland for religious freedom and then came to the colonies (along with some Dutchmen)... ?
So when did these believers change from early Baptist theology back to reformed theology? Was it before they left Holland? Was when their ship landed in the wrong place?
Do the history books say when the five (5) Winslow brothers changed their faith? Or, was it their descendent that changed to a reformed theology?
Hmmm ... I wonder if all of their Baptist descendents remained Baptists ... Or, did their descendents rejoin the Reformed churches ...
I get it - It had to be the cabin boy that was predestined to bring the change in theology upon the family?
... (hint: he was an early type of butler)
... And the butler always gets blamed ...
... (hint: the cabin boy was a french Huguenot)
... (hint ... one of the cabin boy's descendants married a Winslow.)
This marriage was predestined so that the early colonists would chose to change to the theology of the Reformed Church of England.
So were they predestined to flee the Church and then choose to go back? Or were they predestined to flee from God's will of a Reformed Church...
... Just a guess and a question or two...
... an educated guess
... It is in the history books - right?
... I mean, "Aren't historians devoted to telling the whole story and not just the part they want to tell?"
;o)
In Christ,
Wayne
"I have often "wondered" what it is that God has predestined me to ... I can only thank Him that He graciously allowed me to choose His destiny in my life ..." Attributed to W. W. Royce ...

 

[Hardsheller]

So let's get all this straight. If Baptist Soteriology and Theology has continously changed and evolved down through the years then at what point was it ever totally consistent with the Bible?

The problem with Historical Baptist Theology is that every generation has and still feels free to rewrite the theology books to suit themselves.

We claim there is no final authority but the Bible and that is absolutely true, but the reality is that over time the way Baptists look at the Bible changes as a result of the culture, the prevailing winds of doctrine, and the pragmatic results the church experiences in a free society.

 

[mioque]

"The Baptists of Wales, while differing slightly among themselves, maintain the understanding that they have been there since the First Century with the same basic doctrines: Salvation by grace through faith, believer's immersion, local church self-government under Christ, distinctively Baptist views."
''
There must be something wrong with the air in Great-Britain. British-Israelism, Jezus visiting it as a youngster together with Joseph of Arimatea and now baptist churches going all the way back to the 1st century.

 

[Kiffin]

The first Generation of Baptists were General Baptists and were Arminian in theology. This was due in part to the heavy influence of the Anabaptists on that first group of English dissenters that left the Church of England. It would be in the 1630's and 1640's when a second group of dissenters left the Anglican Church that we have the Calvinist Baptists that were more balanced in their overall theology than their General Baptist brothers and sisters reflecting both aspects of the Reformation (Luther, Calvin's theology as well as Anabaptist theology).

Baptists are children of both the Anglican Reformation of Cranmer, Ridley and Latimer and also of the Anabaptist Reformation of Grebel, Sattler and Simmons.

 

[mioque]

It is Simons not Simmons (sorry just pointless nitpicking, move along now nothing to see here).

 

[Kiffin]

I can never write his name right!

 

[Matt Black]

<Tangent alert ie: feel free to start another thread if you want>

If the Anabaptist connection is correct (and I think there is enough evidence to back that up both with the Generals - Waterlanders - and Particulars - Kiffin Manuscript) then to what extent can erroneous Hoffmanite Christology be said to have affected our forebears?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[rsr]

Done, Matt.