Baptists Were Once All United?

When I was first being taught the Hardshell version of their history (of the "primitive" or "old school"), and of the Baptists in general, I was told something like this: "once upon a time the Baptists were all united, believing what Primitive Baptists believe now, but some in the early 19th century began to embrace new doctrine, particularly a general atonement and the means view of regeneration or rebirth, until there was a formal division in 1832 when the new school were declared in disorder and non fellowship."

Since then I have seen how this was all fake history. It shows a complete ignorance of actual historical facts and evidences. In  "Myth: Baptists Believe in Doctrinal Uniformity" by Robert N. Nash, Jr. (here) we rather have the truth on whether the Baptists were all united (and believing Hardshell doctrine) prior to 1832. He said (emphasis mine):

"Baptists have never had doctrinal uniformity. We have disagreed over hundreds of theological issues throughout our history." 

The Hardshells in disagreeing over this statement reveal how ignorant they are of Baptist history.

Further, it is the Hardshells who brought in new doctrine as we have demonstrated by historical evidence in this blog. The means doctrine was the belief of 99.9% of all Baptists prior to 1832. Prior to the "rise of the Hardshells" (Carroll) the Baptists were generally more tolerant, but the Hardshells became intolerant.

Said Nash:

"This emphasis upon the rights of individual conscience caused Baptists to create organizational and denominational structures that protected this right. Baptist churches, associations, societies, conventions, and denominations maintained a relative autonomy that allowed groups of Baptists to disagree with each other and to form new organizations when theological differences became too great. While Baptists were loosely held together by common beliefs about baptism and personal, experiential faith in Jesus Christ, doctrinal uniformity was impossible given the Baptist insistence upon soul freedom, church freedom, Bible freedom, and religious freedom.[2] Baptists who disagreed theologically with other Baptists in a church, association, or denomination were always free to move down the street and start a new organization."

That is very true.

Nash said:

"While minor differences have been a constant irritant, three major theological controversies have dominated in Baptist life; and each can be loosely assigned to a particular century or centuries. The earliest Baptists of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries disagreed over Christology, particularly the nature of Christ’s atonement, with some Baptists arguing for a limited atonement of the elect and others insisting that Christ died for all humanity. Baptists in the nineteenth century focused their disagreements upon ecclesiology, or the nature of the church. Significant battles raged over Baptist origins, mission-sending agencies, and the characteristics of a true, New Testament church. The twentieth century has witnessed a great debate among Baptists over the Bible itself and its perspective upon such issues as evolution, women’s roles in church and society, and pastoral authority."

Others, like author Bob L. Ross, have written upon the three great divisions in the American Baptist family. First, there was the "Campbellite" division, then the "Hardshell" or "Anti Mission" division, and then the "Landmark" division. Of course, there are numerous disagreements among Baptists over many things.

I have always accepted the London and Philadelphia confessions and view them as a kind of cement that has held many Baptists together. I also, like the Separate Baptists, believe that one does not need to be in agreement on every point in the 1689 London Confession to be accepted as sound. The United Baptists allowed brethren to exist together in fellowship who disagreed on the extent of the atonement. Most Baptists believed each church should be allowed to support missionary organizations and Sunday Schools without being declared in disorder, being tolerant of each other.