-
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!
The Baptist Split Of 1832
- Thread starter tyndale1946
- Start date
Sure are a lot of preacher brethren around here... Brother Jeff... Brother Robert... Jim... Squire... Brother Dallas... Hardsheller... Don't know about Stephen... And me I'm just a song leader and church clerk... Just an observation... And a lot of history buffs... Now back to the topic!... Brother Glen 
That's it Stephen you hit the nail right on the head... The Missionary Society started in England and then adopted by Americans!... Maybe we should really be looking at Fuller and Carey or where the idea came to fruition?... Or was it an extension of the Great Awakening and The Reformation... Or is that stretching it to much?... Brother Glen
Jeff Weaver
New Member
Hi folks
I have read the thread, and I think the mechanics of the division are pretty well known, at least by the regulars here, so I won't go over them again.
At any rate, I sometimes wonder if the rhetoric of both sides didn't drive them further apart. I know that New School and Old School parties went to great lengths to prove that they were the original group and right in their decisions. I would throw it out for discussion that neither party was completely right or completely wrong, and that excesses were committed by both sides.
The fundamental differences of intrepretation of the order of the salvation experience must come into play here, (i.e., does the new birth preceed repentance or does repentance preceed the new birth.) The question of to whom the great commission was delivered -- to the church or to the apostles must also be considered. A third question of whether the gospel is necessary to regeneration, or is the gospel to bring life and immortality to light is also central. Of course these questions can never be answered to the satisfaction of all in this world. These three central theological questions are still with us today. The Old School folks were less successful at putting out their views than were the New School folks. This is, in my view, inevitable, based on the nature of the beast, and nature of how things were in 1832 and since.
So, was the division of 1832 inevitable? Probably. Will it be resolved in this world? Probably not.
The positions the various sides took in 1832 led to the excesses, and positives noted below, which are strictly my opinion:
Some Old School excesses:
Lack of witness
Lack of centralization, which led to further fragmentation.
Deemphasisis of education
Drift to fatalism and hyper-Calvinism.
Drift to hyper-conservatism.
Some New School excesses:
Deempahsis on church discipline
Easy believism
Excessive centralization, which led to further fragmentation
Over emphasis on education at the expense of mentoring.
Drift to arminianism
Drift to hyper-dispensationalism.
Inconsistent and sometimes illogical theology.
Drift to liberalism
Excesses in areas of money. This was perhaps not as bad in actual Baptist circles, but did open the door for people like the tele-evangelists who are money grubbers.
Some positive items
Old School Positive attributes
Consistent theology
Taking care of one another
Church discipline is generally strong.
Mentoring one another.
New School Positive attributes
"Compelling those to come to the marriage supper." Community outreach.
Educational opportunities (I don't view this as contradictory to the negative comment above).
(There are probably more positive New School items, I should list, but I am not one, so some what would be good I don't know).
So, there is as balanced a view as I can muster. I realize that we all have our interpretation on the events nearly 200 years ago. Neither side is blameless or 100% correct.
Jeff.
[ February 25, 2003, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: Jeff Weaver ]
I have read the thread, and I think the mechanics of the division are pretty well known, at least by the regulars here, so I won't go over them again.
At any rate, I sometimes wonder if the rhetoric of both sides didn't drive them further apart. I know that New School and Old School parties went to great lengths to prove that they were the original group and right in their decisions. I would throw it out for discussion that neither party was completely right or completely wrong, and that excesses were committed by both sides.
The fundamental differences of intrepretation of the order of the salvation experience must come into play here, (i.e., does the new birth preceed repentance or does repentance preceed the new birth.) The question of to whom the great commission was delivered -- to the church or to the apostles must also be considered. A third question of whether the gospel is necessary to regeneration, or is the gospel to bring life and immortality to light is also central. Of course these questions can never be answered to the satisfaction of all in this world. These three central theological questions are still with us today. The Old School folks were less successful at putting out their views than were the New School folks. This is, in my view, inevitable, based on the nature of the beast, and nature of how things were in 1832 and since.
So, was the division of 1832 inevitable? Probably. Will it be resolved in this world? Probably not.
The positions the various sides took in 1832 led to the excesses, and positives noted below, which are strictly my opinion:
Some Old School excesses:
Lack of witness
Lack of centralization, which led to further fragmentation.
Deemphasisis of education
Drift to fatalism and hyper-Calvinism.
Drift to hyper-conservatism.
Some New School excesses:
Deempahsis on church discipline
Easy believism
Excessive centralization, which led to further fragmentation
Over emphasis on education at the expense of mentoring.
Drift to arminianism
Drift to hyper-dispensationalism.
Inconsistent and sometimes illogical theology.
Drift to liberalism
Excesses in areas of money. This was perhaps not as bad in actual Baptist circles, but did open the door for people like the tele-evangelists who are money grubbers.
Some positive items
Old School Positive attributes
Consistent theology
Taking care of one another
Church discipline is generally strong.
Mentoring one another.
New School Positive attributes
"Compelling those to come to the marriage supper." Community outreach.
Educational opportunities (I don't view this as contradictory to the negative comment above).
(There are probably more positive New School items, I should list, but I am not one, so some what would be good I don't know).
So, there is as balanced a view as I can muster. I realize that we all have our interpretation on the events nearly 200 years ago. Neither side is blameless or 100% correct.
Jeff.
[ February 25, 2003, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: Jeff Weaver ]
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
How reliable is the whole Trail of Blood scenario? I've heard some (esp. Catholics--imagine that!) say that it is inaccurate, and others act as if it were all true.
We are so spooked by the word evolution, we are afraid to admit that there is an evolution of thought down through the ages. The primitive church was just a beginning and unfolded through history as theology and bible knowledge developed. Some went too far theologically, and some never grew at all.
Culturally we have changed, and I am glad for that. I would not want to step back into 1930's England despite the untoward changes that have come about with modernity.
The church too must develop along with the progresses in civilization. We cling to the main tenents of scripture, but progress as well.
On the splits. We often quote "come out from among them and be ye separate." That is true for the individual believer. Had all the fundamentalist abandoned the Baptist Conventions in Canada, we would have left them in the bed of modernism. As it happened, we recaptured that Convention and it is predominately evangelical to-day. The important thing is to take a stand, and not be hoodwinked.
I am overwhelmed at all the splits in the USA, and even by all the various groups of Baptists, especially those who make eschatology a test of fellowship. We have a few fellowships in Canada to-day that do the same, but they are newcomers and all AMerican in origin. In our Fellowship, we have members of all schools, and some strongly so, but it never hindered our fellowship or cooperation in the things of the gospel.
Cheers,
Jim
Culturally we have changed, and I am glad for that. I would not want to step back into 1930's England despite the untoward changes that have come about with modernity.
The church too must develop along with the progresses in civilization. We cling to the main tenents of scripture, but progress as well.
On the splits. We often quote "come out from among them and be ye separate." That is true for the individual believer. Had all the fundamentalist abandoned the Baptist Conventions in Canada, we would have left them in the bed of modernism. As it happened, we recaptured that Convention and it is predominately evangelical to-day. The important thing is to take a stand, and not be hoodwinked.
I am overwhelmed at all the splits in the USA, and even by all the various groups of Baptists, especially those who make eschatology a test of fellowship. We have a few fellowships in Canada to-day that do the same, but they are newcomers and all AMerican in origin. In our Fellowship, we have members of all schools, and some strongly so, but it never hindered our fellowship or cooperation in the things of the gospel.
Cheers,
Jim
Brother Jim, I concur with your idea of "evolution". That is what I think happened in the early 19th century. As we Baptists gained a measure of peace (cf the state of affairs for Baptists in 1632 and 1732), we began to think of matters that previously were of little consecquence or upon which we had followed the thinking of others outside our "denomination." (I hate useing the word "denomination" to describe us but for the moment I can't think of a better word.)
I will throw out this little tidbit just speaking of my self personally as a Primitive Baptist...You can see my concern in this post... Posted by Pinoybaptist in Missions and the Primitive Scriptural Posotion http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=000226;p=2
The reason I bring this up is it is possible that I could have been born in a Missionary Family with the practice and doctrine aimed toward that end... I believe in missions but the track record of the missionary system is anything but pretty over the years... With the aim and pardon my forewardness brethren... To get the heathen to heaven to be so blunt.
I agree with all Brother Jeff said... There has been error on both sides of the camp and we are the recipients of that the was passed down to us. Being the children... of the children... of the children... of the split. We do not try to change the old paths or do we?... And if we do are we not also changing what our fathers and mothers in Zion believed and stood for?... I agree the church is suppose to evolve but does it evolve in a greater understanding of the old paths established in doctrine and practice or to modernism to please all and draw in the crowd?... If I have stepped on some toes feel free to give me some back to what I dished out and I wiil not think the less of any one here... I'm here to learn and understand as we all are!... Brother Glen
The reason I bring this up is it is possible that I could have been born in a Missionary Family with the practice and doctrine aimed toward that end... I believe in missions but the track record of the missionary system is anything but pretty over the years... With the aim and pardon my forewardness brethren... To get the heathen to heaven to be so blunt.
I agree with all Brother Jeff said... There has been error on both sides of the camp and we are the recipients of that the was passed down to us. Being the children... of the children... of the children... of the split. We do not try to change the old paths or do we?... And if we do are we not also changing what our fathers and mothers in Zion believed and stood for?... I agree the church is suppose to evolve but does it evolve in a greater understanding of the old paths established in doctrine and practice or to modernism to please all and draw in the crowd?... If I have stepped on some toes feel free to give me some back to what I dished out and I wiil not think the less of any one here... I'm here to learn and understand as we all are!... Brother Glen
Brother Glen, your concern is why both James and I tried to tread gently when we used the word "evolution". We are not seeking to be "modern". We simply seek a better understanding of what the Holy Scripture teaches.
Bro. Glenn, trying to keep up with you is like trying to hop onto a speeding locomotive!
I think you can reasonably trace the missions societies to the Great Awakening, which changed the popular image of evangelization. Many of societies -- such as the American Tract Society and the American Bible Societ -- date from the time of the Second Great Awakening.
The societies must have been especially attractive to Americans and Baptists. They were a way of undertaking a project without denying the autonomy of the local churches. (An association-led effort at home missions by the Philadelphia Baptist Association had been attempted in the mid-1750s, but it collapsed because of just such concerns.)
Such societies must have seemed a good choice for Baptists and other non-established churches, which did not have the infrastructure of publishing houses, colleges and other resources the established churches possessed.
And Americans have traditionally been great supporters of voluntary organizations for a multitude of causes, as de Tocqueville noticed.
I think you can reasonably trace the missions societies to the Great Awakening, which changed the popular image of evangelization. Many of societies -- such as the American Tract Society and the American Bible Societ -- date from the time of the Second Great Awakening.
The societies must have been especially attractive to Americans and Baptists. They were a way of undertaking a project without denying the autonomy of the local churches. (An association-led effort at home missions by the Philadelphia Baptist Association had been attempted in the mid-1750s, but it collapsed because of just such concerns.)
Such societies must have seemed a good choice for Baptists and other non-established churches, which did not have the infrastructure of publishing houses, colleges and other resources the established churches possessed.
And Americans have traditionally been great supporters of voluntary organizations for a multitude of causes, as de Tocqueville noticed.
Jim, I'm sure that the bewildering variety of Baptists the splits have created seems odd to folks from other places. But this is not limited to just Baptists; it's a very American response. I could show you Catholics, Anglicans and others that have split away on American soil and are pursuing their own paths.
I got out of line Jim and Squire and apologize as many thing are affecting us in the PB camp at the present time... I offended you both and I'm sorry... I agree we should only seek what the scripture say... Not bring up personal problems!... The moderator has been warned and I apologize also to all the other brethren that I've offended
... Brother Glen
Doubting Thomas you were asking about Trail Of Blood by J.M. Carroll... There is also another publication that can be found at this website called The Baptist In All Ages by J.S. Newman... Read them both and may the Lord give you understanding in all things!... Brother Glen
http://www.primitivebaptist.org/writers/newman_js/baptists/baptists.asp
http://www.biblepreaching.com/trailofblood.html
http://www.primitivebaptist.org/writers/newman_js/baptists/baptists.asp
http://www.biblepreaching.com/trailofblood.html
I'm afraid we'll never agree on "The Trail of Blood," Bro. Glenn. At best, I think it's "not proven" and tends to use isolated and unsubstantiated evidence to prove the connections.
But that's really not why we're here, so I'll shut up now after I post a link to McBeth Lite:
http://www.baptisthistory.org/facts.htm#Baptist%20Beginnings
But that's really not why we're here, so I'll shut up now after I post a link to McBeth Lite:
http://www.baptisthistory.org/facts.htm#Baptist%20Beginnings
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
Thanks for the info, Bro. Glenn--I'll check it out.
God bless
God bless
You know Stephen I guess it just slipped my mind but you are so correct... Religion whether baptist or not are full of splits... Splits within splits... We are of Paul who planteth... We are of Apollos who watereth!... But who giveth the increase?... The Lord!... Gotta go now will check the board when I get home... It's now 6:05pm and raining... Duck weather!... Quack... Quack... Quack!... Brother Glen
Jeff Weaver
New Member
Bro. Glen
I gotta agree with Stephen on the historic background. I don't buy the connection to those ancient groups as being a legitimate connection for modern Baptists to apostolic Christianity. Most all of them would have taught things that we would reject today as heretical. Some of these groups were heavily influenced by gnostic thought.
I'll trade your rain for our snow. Our predicted 1-3 inches has become about 5.
Jeff.
I gotta agree with Stephen on the historic background. I don't buy the connection to those ancient groups as being a legitimate connection for modern Baptists to apostolic Christianity. Most all of them would have taught things that we would reject today as heretical. Some of these groups were heavily influenced by gnostic thought.
I'll trade your rain for our snow. Our predicted 1-3 inches has become about 5.
Jeff.