"So the Baptists were fairly monolithic, as a people. Until, that is, the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries when the great split in the Baptist family occurred."
I suppose he means the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, for the "great split" he speaks of is no doubt the split that occurred over missions via the "Black Rock Address" (1832). However, if he means the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, surely he knows that at that time there were several groups of Baptists, such as the General Baptists, Particular Baptists, Seventh Day Baptists, etc. Also in the mid eighteenth century in America we had both Regular and Separate Baptists, and then a union of these two that produced the United Baptists in many places. I am not sure what meaning this brother is attaching to the word "monolithic."
In the late seventeenth century and early eighteenth century we did see the rise of Hyper Calvinism epitomized by Congregationalist Joseph Hussey and his book "God's Operations of Grace, but no Offers of Grace" (1707) wherein he denied that sinner's were offered salvation by preachers via the gospel. He also embraced the idea that Christ in his humanity preexisted the creation. So, it is not true that "the Baptists" were ever "monolithic." Also, in England there arose the sect of the "Strict Baptists" coincidental with the "rise of the Hardshells" in American in the first half of the 19th century. Both these groups were Hyper Calvinists but the Hardshells would later go to further extremes than did the Strict Baptists, for the Hardshells would come to deny God's use of the means of his word and Gospel in saving sinners and the Strict Baptists did not.
When I was a Hardshell Baptist I often heard them say that prior to the division over missions (late 1820s-early 1830s) that all the Baptists believed as do the Hardshells (were monolithic) and that the split occurred because the "Missionary Baptists" brought in new views, such as mission societies, theological education, Sunday Schools, and taught that the word of God was a means in salvation, and a general or universal atonement. In 1887 Elder Lemuel Potter, representing the "Primitive Regular Baptists" had a debate with Dr. W.P. Throgmorton, a Missionary Baptist, on the question of who are the true primitive Baptists. In that debate Potter said:
"I claim that if an organization of any kind be rent by the introduction of new rules, regulations or doctrines, that the innovators, and not the party that adheres to the old rules, regulations and doctrines, are the seceding party."
What is ironically strange about this claim is the fact that it was the Hardshells who were guilty of the new things. Even Elder John M. Watson, who Elder Potter claimed to be one of their leaders, called those who denied God's use of means in salvation "modern innovators." In his book "The Old Baptist Test" (1st edition about 1858, second revised edition 1867) Watson said:
"Some of our ultraists are occasionally heard to say, in our pulpits, that they have no authority to preach to sinners, and they seem to glory in their fancied exemption. Nothing appears to give them greater offence, or savors more of Arminianism with them, than for sinners to be exhorted to repent!" ("Old Baptist Test," pages 327, 328)
"Paul, however, does not affirm, like some of our modern innovators, that means or instrumentalities are not employed by the Lord in the divine plan of salvation; for he asks: "How shall they hear without a preacher?" Rom. 10: 14. Paul, it is true, preached the Gospel in word only, while the election of God was manifested in the power and assurance of the Holy Spirit imparted to his words; when received by the elect which apart from that power and assurance would have been received in word only, as it really was by others not embraced in the divine election. I Thess. 1: 4." ("Old Baptist Test," pages 399, 400)
Supporting missionaries was not new among the Baptists. Theological education was not new either. Nor were Sunday Schools new in the history of the Church of Christ. What was new was the Hardshells making support for these things a test of fellowship and is why Dr. R.B.C. Howell, a neighbor and friend of Elder Watson in the Nashville area, called them "new test men." Dr. Howell wrote:
"The name given by them to the antimissionaries is the most appropriate we have yet seen--New Test men. We propose that the self styled Old School, be hereafter called New Test. What say you brethren? It is not reproachful, and conveys the exact description of those brethren and Churches, who have done so much evil by introducing a new test of fellowship that is, making friendship to the Convention a crime for which they will exclude a member, and enmity the ground of his reception." (Page 38 - "The Baptist" - Vol. V. Jan. 1839 No. 1)
In "BAPTIST SUCCESSION" a "HAND-BOOK OF BAPTIST HISTORY," by D. B. Ray, in chapter two titled "THE "MISSIONARY" AND "OLD-SCHOOL" BAPTISTS," wrote:
"The Regular Baptists and the Anti-Mission Baptists were once together as one people; and, therefore, their history up to the separation was the same. The opposition of our Anti-Mission brethren to the mission work, and kindred objects, is a new feature among Baptists...This declaration of Dr. Howell is fully sustained by historic facts. The opposition among Baptists to the mission work, is of recent date. "
So, all that Harvey said in the above citation is false. The truth is, it is the Hardshells who brought into the Baptist family new doctrines, such as denying that the word of God was a means in salvation. The fact that Alexander Campbell, who was a Hyper Arminian, drew off many from among the Baptists, and the fact that many supported missions, theological education, etc., and became known as Missionary Baptists, and the fact that some were Hyper Calvinists, shows that the Baptists in the early 19th century were not all of the same stripe, even among those who were Particular Baptists. The Baptists, both General and Particular, therefore, prior to the rise of Campbell and the Hardshells, had within their body Calvinists, Arminians, semi-Calvinists, and Hyper Calvinists. They also had disagreements over other issues, such as on the millennial question, church government, etc. They were not therefore monolithic. They also did not come from the same stock, as the General and Particular Baptists were never one.
Harvey continued:
"It is sad beyond words that this happened, but it did happen. And here is what caused it: Arminian doctrine and the general atonement theory, accompanied by the idea that the gospel was used in the eternal salvation of people. This is the false idea that people had to respond to the gospel in order to be born again. Which certainly is not primitive faith. Primitive faith says loud and clear that we must be born again first, that people who are dead in sins cannot understand or believe the gospel. Arminian doctrine was fairly young in the late seventeenth century. Thus the churches that adopted the new doctrine were labeled the "new school" Baptists. Those bodies who continued in primitive faith and practice were called "old school," or "primitive" Baptists."
There are so many false statements in these words. Harvey says erroneous things but gives no historical or biblical proof to substantiate them. First, it is a falsehood to say that it was "Arminian doctrine and the general atonement theory" that was the cause of "the great split in the Baptist family." Again, I am thinking by "the great split" he means the split between the Hardshell Anti-Mission Baptists and the Pro-Mission Baptists which is generally said to have occurred in 1832 as a result of the "Black Rock Address," which was a formal declaration of non-fellowship by the Hardshells against several things, such as mission societies. I don't know of a great split in England or America among the Baptists in the seventeenth or eighteenth centuries. The General Baptists and Particular Baptists never were together and therefore could not split.
Harvey says it was "Arminian doctrine" to believe in means, but surely he knows that nearly all Calvinists also believe in means. In fact, many "Primitive Baptists" today will say that the authors of the 1689 confession were Calvinists and Missionary Baptists. It was only the Hyper Calvinist Hardshells (who took over the newly formed denomination in the late 19th century) who denied means altogether. Nearly all of the older Hyper Calvinists, such as Joseph Hussey, believed in means.
In the Black Rock Address there is not a single word said about the extent of the atonement being a reason for their declaration of non-fellowship. You can read that Address (here). The declaration and address does not declare against the view that the preaching of the word of God is a means in saving sinners, though Hardshells continue to claim that it did. Rather, the Address upholds the means view. (See my posts on this here, here, here) The "split" was over evangelistic and mission methods, and not over whether the gospel was a means in salvation, and over whether preachers should be schooled in seminaries.
There was no split in the Particular Baptist family prior to this time over the extent of the atonement, over whether the gospel or word of God was a means in saving sinners, simply because they all believed in limited atonement and that the word of God was a means. Even the first "Primitive Baptists" immediately after 1832 confessed their belief not only in the perseverance of the saints but also in God's use of the gospel and word of God as a means in saving sinners. This blog is filled with citations from the leaders of the newly formed "Primitive" or "Old School" denomination from the 1830s and onward that show that they believed in means. See my series "What The First Hardshells Believed." This Page (here) gives you links to the several articles in that series. Elder John M. Watson was recognized as one of those leaders and in the above citations from him he states that the "no means" view was an "innovation" among them and that it arose from the Two Seed Primitives.
So, Harvey's statement that the means view was not the Primitive view is false. Many Hardshells say this but I have many times challenged them to give the proof of this. They have not done so because there is no evidence of it. All the Baptists, with very few exceptions, believed that God used his word as a means in saving sinners. This is the teaching of the 1689 confession and all the oldest Baptist confessions. It is not true that "Arminian doctrine was fairly young in the late seventeenth century." The General Baptists existed long before this time and they were always Arminian. Further, even among the Particular or Regular Baptists of that time period, some were Arminian leaning or partial Calvinists and some were Hyper Calvinists in several points.
Harvey then said "Thus the churches that adopted the new doctrine were labeled the "new school" Baptists. Those bodies who continued in primitive faith and practice were called "old school," or "primitive" Baptists." This statement leads me to believe even further that by the "end of the seventeenth century" he means rather the end of the eighteenth century, or the time period after 1832, for these labels were then coined. Also, Harvey gives no proof for his assertions. They are false. Who gave these labels? Who was the judge whether a church after 1832 was Old or New School? Was it not the Hardshells? Did not the Missionary Baptists, who the Hardshells labeled as "New School," deny this charge? Did they not claim to be the original Baptists or the old school? I have already cited from Howell who said that it was the Hardshells who were the "new test men" and even Elder Watson testified that his Hardshell Brethren who were beginning to deny means were the "innovators."
In the next chapter we will continue to examine the polemic for Hardshellism as given by Elder Harvey.
No comments:
Post a Comment