Introduction
Baptists are a peculiar people. They
are diverse in their understanding of the gospel, their soteriology, but are
agreed in their understanding of the church, their ecclesiology. In theological
and more technical terms, Baptists, especially Southern Baptists as a
denomination, are a mixture of people with either Arminian or Calvinist
soteriology, and that in varying degrees. Therefore there is no one soteriology
that defines what Baptists believe about the gospel. The defining factor for
Baptists comes in their practice rather than their soteriology. This does not
mean, however, that there is no agreement among both Arminian and Calvinist
Baptists concerning the gospel. Nathan Finn has rightly observed:
As a general rule, Southern Baptist Calvinists
and non-Calvinists agree on the basics of the gospel. All parties agree that
Jesus Christ is the divine Son of God who was incarnate in the Virgin Mary,
lived a life of perfect obedience to God’s law, provided a penal substitutionary
atonement for sinners on the cross, and was resurrected after three days in the
tomb, securing the justification of every person who repents of their sins and
trusts Christ as Lord and Savior.[1]
One would think that because of the
presence of two major and differing soteriological viewpoints among Baptists
that cooperation between the two groups would be if not impossible, at least
not desirable. Such a match may not be considered one made in heaven. After
all, will there not be internal struggles for ascendency of one group above the
other? Will there not be accusations of unbiblical hermeneutics, unbiblical
philosophizing, unbiblical evangelism, unbiblical non-evangelism, and even
heresy? Will there not be severe clashes that result from being diverse in
soteriology that will threaten to dismantle the cooperation of the two? If yes,
are there any reasons that Arminian and Calvinist Southern Baptists should
remain in cooperation as a denomination?
The history of Baptists in general and
Southern Baptists in particular shows that Baptists can accomplish more united
than they can divided and that they need each other to counteract unbiblical
extremes into which either group is capable of degenerating. The harmful
effects of either competition or monopolism should be avoided by Southern
Baptists. Instead, Southern Baptists should apply the principle of symbiosis.
Christian Schwarz wrote:
Symbiosis,
according to Webster, is “the intimate living together of two dissimilar
organisms in a mutually beneficial relationship.” Two negative models stand in
contrast to this principle: competition
and monoculture. Competition assumes
“dissimilar organisms,” just like symbiosis does, but these organisms harm
rather than help one another. Monoculture, on the other hand (called monopolism
in economics and society), has lost the variety of species, and one type of
organism dominates. This obviously eliminates destructive competition, but it
also takes away the symbiotic interdependence of different species.[2]
Both
Arminian and Calvinist Southern Baptists have everything to lose and nothing to
gain from dissolution of their symbiotic relationship. Both competition and
monopolism in soteriology can be detrimental to the mutually beneficial
relationship among Southern Baptists.
Southern Baptists, dissimilar in
soteriology, can accomplish more united than they can divided. They need each
other to counteract unbiblical extremes into which either group is capable of
degenerating. To prove this thesis, first, a sketch of the rise of the two
differing groups will be traced. After that, a sketch of the formulation of
Baptist confessions of faith and their historical contexts that gave them rise
will be outlined. Then, the unbiblical extremes that plagued both groups will
be sketched. Next, the catalyst for entering a mutually beneficial relationship
of cooperation between the two differing groups will be highlighted. Finally,
the benefits of cooperation between General and Particular Baptists in the
Southern Baptist Convention will be discussed.
The
Rise of Arminian (General) and Calvinist (Particular) Baptists
Modern Baptists, including Southern
Baptists, have as their common source of ancestry, two streams of Baptists that
originated in England, General and Particular Baptists. This view, however, is
not held by all Baptists. Four basic theories concerning the origins of
Baptists have been developed by Baptist historians. These have been identified
as (1) the successionist theory that claims Baptist origins to John the
Baptist, (2) the continuation of Biblical teachings theory that claims that
Baptist-like faith and practice never completely died out from New Testament
times to the present, (3) the Anabaptist spiritual kinship theory that claims a
spiritual relationship of Baptists to Anabaptist sects, and (4) the English
Separatist descent theory that claims Baptists originated from English
Separatists and Puritan reform groups of the sixteenth century.[3]
The best scholarship of Baptist
history concludes that the English Separatist descent theory matches the
historical evidence that Baptists are thoroughgoing Reformers and Protestants.[4] James
Leo Garret, concerning the Baptist church succession theory and its claim of
identity with pre-Reformation movements and non-identity with the Magisterial
Protestant Reformation, said, “Often the claims of identity between such groups
and Baptists of the last four centuries have not matched the historical
evidence.”[5]
Paige Patterson, although allowing for similarities between Baptists and
Anabaptists, concluded:
Those who argue
for a foundation in English separatism are demonstrably correct. Those who see
a connection to continental Anabaptism have not yet established indisputable
evidence of such, but they can still suggest that similarities between the
Swiss and South German Biblicists and Baptists are adequate to attract the interest
of Baptists and sufficiently compelling to engender not only admiration but
also in many cases imitation of their commitments and convictions.[6]
Roger
C. Richards, in History of Southern
Baptists, stated, “The first Baptists in America originated principally
with the emigration of General and Particular Baptists from Great Britain in
the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.”[7] W.
Wiley Richards wrote, “Baptists originated in England about 1600 as a part of a
group of separatists who saw no hope of purifying Anglicanism and had begun
private meetings of their own.”[8]
Robert Torbet concluded that the English Separatist descent theory was the most
plausible. He said:
Such
a conclusion is apparently the most plausible one for several reasons: (1) It
does not violate principles of historical accuracy, as do those views which
assume a definite continuity between earlier sects and modern Baptists. (2) Baptists
have not shared with Anabaptists the latter’s aversion to oath-taking and
holding public office. Neither have they adopted the Anabaptists’ doctrine of
pacifism, or their theological views concerning the incarnation, soul sleeping,
and the necessity of observing an apostolic succession in the administration of
baptism.[9]
Historical
accuracy concerning the origins of the people called Baptists, demands then, a
conclusion of descent from the English Separatist movement. However, the
question remains, how did the two streams of Baptists, General and Particular,
originate in England?
The Rise of General Baptists in
England
The
General Baptists, so called because of their belief that the atonement made by
Christ was a general or unlimited atonement which was sufficient for the whole
world and not just the elect, were the first to emerge on English soil in
Baptist history[10].
The historical context of their emergence is that of dissent from Roman
Catholic domination and from the Church of England “which was halfway between
Roman Catholicism and Protestantism.”[11] General
Baptists separated from the Church of England and began to hold private
meetings of their own because they saw no hope of purifying Anglicanism.[12] These
Separatists, as they came to be called, had come to the conviction that the
church ought to be free of government connection.[13] They
organized covenanted congregations and usually signed written covenants that
defined the commitment of their individual members.[14]
Three
men, John Smyth, Thomas Helwys and John Murton, are credited by historians as
the first to begin a fellowship of General Baptists.[15] Their
group sought refuge in Holland where Smyth came under Mennonite influence,
became an Anabaptist, and eventually came to the conclusion that the Amsterdam
Mennonites constituted a true church and therefore had a true baptism.[16] Smyth
and the majority of the group presented a petition to the Mennonites for membership
in the Mennonite church. The remaining eight to ten people that did not apply
for membership among the Mennonites parted company with Smyth and followed
Helwys. Helwys’ group drew up a confession of faith to present to the
Mennonites to distinguish themselves from Smyth’s congregation.[17]
Shortly afterwards, Helwys and his group returned to London and formed the
first Baptist church on English soil in 1611 or 1612 at Spitalfield for which
there is historical proof.[18] Concerning
this church, Torbet wrote, “It was Arminian or General Baptist in doctrine and
affusionist in mode of baptism.”[19]
The
number of General Baptist churches grew and they eventually formed an
association of General Baptists. Roger Richards wrote:
By
1626 there were five General Baptist churches in England with about 150
members. They numbered about forty churches by 1644. In 1654 they formed the
General Assembly of General Baptists and in 1678 adopted a strong confession of
faith . . . . Many of these General Baptists . . . emigrated to Carolina and
Virginia in the colonial period.[20]
Thus
the General Baptists arose as one of the two streams of Baptists that
originated in England. The question remains, how did the second stream of
Baptists, the Particular Baptists, originate in England?
The
Rise of Particular Baptists in England
The Particular Baptists, so called
because of their belief that the death of Christ was a particular atonement
limited to the elect, emerged about a generation later than the General
Baptists.[21]
Particular Baptists shared the same historical context of emerging out of
reforming Separatism as the General Baptists. However, the Particular Baptists were
not as rigid as the General Baptists at first in their stance of separation
from the Church of England. The Particular Baptists were semi-Separatists, not
in rigid or hostile separation from the Church of England, who only later
“assumed a more sectarian stance.”[22]
Particular Baptists originated in
England about 1638.[23] Their
roots are traced back to Henry Jacob, an Anglican clergyman who was a moderate
Separatist, but never became a Baptist.[24]
Jacob was imprisoned for circulating a treatise calling for reform in the
Church of England. He was released on his promise not to circulate his treatise
and went into exile in Holland.[25]
Jacob returned to England in 1616 and gathered a church in the Southwark
section of London. “This is often called the JLJ church for its first three
pastors, Henry Jacob, John Lathrop, and Henry Jesse.”[26]
This church would later give rise to the first Particular Baptist church,
probably about 1638.[27]
Under the leadership of men like John Spilsbury, Henry Jessey, and William
Kiffen, the movement of the Particular Baptists grew and by 1644, the number of
Particular Baptist churches increased to seven.[28]
[1] Nathan A. Finn, “Southern
Baptist Calvinism: Setting the Record Straight,”
http://www.edstetzer.com/Building%20Bridges%20Chapter.pdf (accessed September
29, 2012).
[2] Christian A. Schwarz, Natural Church Development: A Guide to Eight
Essential Qualities of Healthy Churches (St. Charles, IL: ChurchSmart
Resources, 2000), 74. Italics in the original.
[3] Robert G. Torbet, A History of the Baptists, 3rd
ed. (Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1975), 18-22; H. Leon McBeth, The Baptist Heritage: Four Centuries of
Baptist Witness (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1987), 49-60.
[4] McBeth, Heritage, 61; James Leo Garrett in Southern Baptist Identity: An Evangelical Denomination Faces the Future,
“The Roots of Baptist Beliefs,” edited by David S. Dockery (Wheaton, IL: Crossway
Books, 2009), 143. McBeth stated that the most reliable historical evidence
confirms that Baptists originated in the early seventeenth century. Garrett
cited John Quincy Adams as writing that the Baptists are the truly
thoroughgoing Reformers.
[5] Garrett, Identity, 142.
[6] Paige Patterson, Southern Baptist Identity: An Evangelical
Denomination Faces the Future, “Learning from the Anabaptists,” edited by
David S. Dockery (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2009), 124.
[7] Dr. Roger C. Richards, History of Southern Baptists, Kindle
Edition, 2012. location 200 of 9258.
[8] W. Wiley Richards, Winds of Doctrine: The Origin and
Development of Southern Baptist Theology (Lanham, Maryland: University
Press of America, Inc., 1991), 6.
[9] Torbet, History of Baptists, 21.
[10] Richards, Winds, 6; Torbet, History of
Baptists, 37,
[11] Richards, Southern Baptists, 200-226 of 9258.
[12] Richards, Winds, 6.
[13] McBeth, Heritage, 25.
[14] A. J. Smith, The Making of the 1963 Baptist Faith and
Message (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2008), 66.
[15] Richards, Southern Baptists, 263 of 9258; Richards, Winds, 6; Torbet, History of
Baptists, 37.
[16] Torbet, History of Baptists, 35.
[17] Torbet, History of Baptists, 36.
[18] Richards, Southern Baptists, 263 of 9258; Torbet, History of Baptists, 37.
[19] Torbet, History of Baptists, 37.
[20] Richards, Southern Baptists, 275 of 9258.
[21] McBeth, Heritage, 39.
[22] McBeth, Heritage, 39, 42.
[23] Torbet, History of Baptists, 40.
[24] McBeth, Heritage, 40.
[25] McBeth, Heritage, 41.
[26] McBeth, Heritage, 42.
[27] McBeth, Heritage, 43; Richards, Southern
Baptists, 300 of 9258.
[28] Richards, Southern Baptists, 300 of 9258; Torbet, History of Baptists, 43.
No comments:
Post a Comment