Doctrinal Extremes
of General and Particular Baptists
Neither the General nor the
Particular Baptists, in and of themselves and through their respective
confessions, were able to completely avoid unbiblical extremes peculiar to
their respective soteriological viewpoints. Usually the unbiblical extremes of
each group are polar opposites. On the General Baptist end of the scale there
were the doctrinal extremes of Arianism, Socinianism, and Liberalism. On the
Particular Baptist end of the scale there were the doctrinal extremes of
hyper-Calvinism, ultraconservatism, and Antinomianism.[1]
Both General and Particular Baptists declined in the first half of the
eighteenth century.[2]
The disappointing reality is, as Torbet said, “A condition of apostasy laid
hold upon the General Baptists, whereas hyper-Calvinism plagued those of the
Particular group.”[3]
Both English and American Baptists on
both sides of the soteriological divide were plagued to some degree by the
doctrinal extremes into which their respective viewpoints were vulnerable.
These doctrinal extremes caused decline in both groups on both continents.
Doctrinal
Extremes of General Baptists in England
In
England, General Baptists declined as a group due to their doctrinal extremes
“concerning the deity of Christ and the meaning of the atonement.”[4] In
particular, the General Baptists were susceptible to Arianism, Socinianism, and
Liberalism. Both Arianism and Socinianism are forms of anti-Trinitarianism. Arianism
denies both the deity of Christ and humanity of Christ by teaching that he was
an angel created by God. Arians therefore taught that Christ was more than man
but less than God.[5]
Socinianism on the other hand denies the deity of Christ but not the humanity
of Christ. The Socinians taught that Christ was merely a good man.[6]
Therefore the death of Christ “was simply that of an ordinary human being in a
fallen and sinful world.”[7]
Concerning Socinianism, McBeth said, “This doctrine robbed the cross of any
real atonement.”[8]
Socinianism reduces the atonement, the
death of Christ, to an example of the type of dedication that Christians are to
follow. Erickson identified the erroneous concepts that feed the Socinian
understanding of the atonement. He said:
Several
conceptions feed into the Socinian understanding of the atonement. One is the
Pelagian view of the human condition as spiritually and morally capable of
fulfilling God’s expectations. Another is the conception that God is not a God
of retributive justice, and therefore he does not demand some form of
satisfaction from or on behalf of those who sin against him. Finally, there is
the conception of Jesus as merely human. His death was simply that of an
ordinary human being in a fallen and sinful world. It is important, not in some
supernatural way, but as the ultimate extension of his role as the great
teacher of righteousness.[9]
This
erroneous understanding of the atonement came to be held by many General
Baptists “and many of their churches eventually became Unitarian.”[10]
Doctrinal
Extremes of General Baptists in America
In America, General Baptists
declined as a group more as a result of the evangelistic zeal of Particular
Baptists than from doctrinal extremes. Richards said, “The General Baptists
seem never to have built a strong doctrinal base in the local church and
consequently were no theological match for the evangelistic zeal of the
Particular Baptists.”[11]
However, Richards also noted that “around the end of the eighteenth century and
at the beginning of the nineteenth, a few ministers lapsed into Unitarianism.”[12]
McBeth attributed the decline of the
General Baptists in America to “internal problems, such as doctrinal ambiguity,
lack of aggressive evangelism, and opposition to the First Great Awakening.”[13]
He said, “The thrust of the First Great Awakening was Calvinistic, and it swept
all opposition aside.”[14]
There arose a campaign to win the General churches to Calvinism that resulted
in the majority of General Baptist churches transitioning to Calvinism but with
the detrimental effect of 95 percent of their membership either dropping out of
church life or joining other Arminian groups.[15]
The doctrinal ambiguity of the
General Baptists also made them susceptible to the teachings of Alexander
Campbell who taught that there was “no promise of salvation without baptism;
that baptism should be administered to all who say they believe Jesus Christ is
the Son of God without examination on any other point; that there is no direct
operation of the Holy Spirit on the mind prior to baptism;” and, “that baptism
brought the remission of sins and the gifts of the Holy Spirit.”[16] Many
Baptists west of the Alleghenies, holding to Arminian doctrine were won to
Campbell’s views “and brought their entire churches into his movement.”[17]
Richards said, “Campbell’s followers split Baptist churches. No definite
figures are available, but there can be little doubt that hundreds of Baptist
churches left the denomination to follow Campbell.”[18]
Doctrinal
Extremes of Particular Baptists in England
The Particular Baptists declined as
a group due to their doctrinal extremes on the opposite end of the spectrum
from that of the General Baptists. McBeth said, “While General Baptists had
fallen into extreme liberalism, the Particular group fell victim to extreme
doctrinal conservatism. . . . [M]any Particular Baptists became theologically
narrow, rigid in sterile orthodoxy, and with a faith more rationalistic than
biblical.”[19]
Both hyper-Calvinism and Antinomianism would plague the English Particular
Baptists.
In England, hyper-Calvinism resulted
from an overemphasis on election and predestination to the exclusion of any
zeal for evangelism. McBeth said, “At their most extreme, Particular Baptists
would not preach or apply the gospel to the unsaved.”[20] The
fatalism of hyper-Calvinism put a damper on evangelism. The notion was that God
would save his elect without the means of men preaching the Gospel. In fear of
offending God by offering his grace to the non-elect, hyper-Calvinists refused
to evangelize.[21]
This created in the Particular Baptists a spirit of ultraconservatism that
caused them to have no room in their preaching for evangelism, invitation, or
application.[22]
Another error of hyper-Calvinism is
antinomianism. McBeth noted that some Particular Baptists in England fell into
antinomianism. He said, “Some of them also fell into Antinomianism, an extreme
form of Calvinism which assumed that even personal behavior was foreordained,
thus excusing individuals for any lapses in moral conduct.”[23]
One needs only to contemplate the effects of Antinomianism on the witness of
the church.
Doctrinal
Extremes of Particular Baptists in America
In America, Particular Baptists were plagued
by the same doctrinal extremes that plagued their counterparts in England.
These also struggled with hyper-Calvinism, ultraconservatism, and
Antinomianism.
The hyper-Calvinism and
ultraconservatism of the Particular Baptists in America combined to create in
them a spirit that opposed “missionary societies, Bible societies, temperance
societies, Sunday schools—all of which they regarded as man-made efforts to
evangelize, and as unscriptural and contrary to their extreme emphasis upon
predestination.”[24]
This anti-mission doctrinal extreme caused “the first controversy which
actually split the ranks of [American] Baptists, particularly in the South and
West.”[25]
John Taylor (1752-1835) and Daniel
Parker (1781-1844) both wrote in opposition to missionary activity.[26] Taylor’s
“principal polemic was a pamphlet entitled Thoughts
on Missions . . . . Taylor charged that missionaries were simply involved
in the movement because of their love for money, and that the missionary system
was hierarchical in its tendencies and contrary to Baptist church government.”[27]
Parker’s polemic, Views of the Two Seeds,
was based on his theology of predestination.[28]
In his pamphlet Parker “divided the human race into the predestined children of
God and the predestined children of the devil. God will save his own; the devil
will claim his own. There was no place for missions in his theology.”[29]
This anti-mission spirit had an
infectious effect on Southern Baptists. Dr. Roger Richards wrote, “The effect
of the antimission movements . . . on Southern Baptists was devastating. Many
churches and sometimes whole associations declared themselves antimissionary.”[30]
While other factors were part of the anti-mission spirit, there is no denying
that hyper-Calvinism was a main reason for it.
English Baptists “were devastated by
doctrinal extremes which sapped vitality and warped Baptist outlook. The
General Baptists fell into extreme liberalism, Arianism, and Socinianism.
Particular Baptists fell into extreme conservatism, hyper-Calvinism, and
Antinomianism.”[31]
American Baptists were not immune to the doctrinal extremes that plagued their
English counterparts. They were also affected by doctrinal extremes as has been
mentioned.
The historical contexts of the
General and Particular Baptists, both in England and America, makes one wonder
if there could possibly be any form of cooperation among the two groups. Could
there be any possibility of the two groups, with their differing soteriological
viewpoints and their opposing poles of doctrinal extremes, working together in
a mutually beneficial relationship? What could possibly bring these two groups
together?
[1] McBeth, Heritage, 152, 154.
[2] McBeth, Heritage, 154.
[3] Torbet, History of Baptists, 62.
[4] McBeth, Heritage, 155.
[5] McBeth, Heritage, 155.
[6] McBeth, Heritage, 155.
[7] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd Ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2001),
801.
[8] McBeth, Heritage, 155.
[9] Erickson, Theology, 801.
[10] McBeth, Heritage, 155.
[11] Richards, Winds, 12.
[12] Richards, Winds, 22.
[13] McBeth, Heritage, 704.
[14] McBeth, Heritage, 704.
[15] McBeth, Heritage, 704-705.
[16] Richards, Southern Baptists, 1919-1933 of 9258.
[17] Richards, Southern Baptists, 1933 of 9258.
[18] Richards, Southern Baptists, 1933 of 9258.
[19] McBeth, Heritage, 171.
[20] McBeth, Heritage, 172.
[21] McBeth, Heritage, 174.
[22] McBeth, Heritage, 176.
[23] McBeth, Heritage, 172.
[24] Torbet, History of Baptists, 261-262.
[25] Torbet, History of Baptists, 268.
[26] Richards, Winds, 78.
[27] Richards, History of Southern Baptists, 1965 of 9258.
[28] Richards, Winds, 78.
[29] Richards, History of Southern Baptists, 1965 of 9258.
[30] Richards, History of Southern Baptists, 2020 of 9258
[31] McBeth, Heritage, 199.
No comments:
Post a Comment