Calvinism: The Conflict That May Never Go Away

      Ever fond of rummaging through that toward which many, possessing no curious interest in such historical matters, offer but merely a discomforting yawn, I ran across this little golden nugget from Alabama Baptist history.  Elder W. C. Bledsoe, author of The History of The Liberty (East) Baptist Association of Alabama (Atlanta, GA. Constitution Job Office, 1886) writes of events leading up to the formation of that association, the first session of which took place "On Thursday before the fourth Sunday in September, 1836...held at the LaFayette church, Chambers county, Ala." (p.17).  "Delegates" from several churches were listed, including those from "New Hope church," a conflicted church Bledsoe had described only a few pages earlier (pp. 12-15).

From Bledsoe's description, New Hope's conflict centered primarily upon the issue which historian, Wayne Flynt, author of the definitive history of Alabama Baptists, Alabama Baptists:  Southern Baptists in the Heart of Dixie, dubbed as the most crucial, on-going debate among Alabama Baptists--Calvinism.  According to Flynt, they argued over Calvinism from the very beginning.  Bledsoe affirms Flynt's thesis. He records of the Calvinistic conflict among Baptists as a whole, that, compared to New Hope, "Something of this character precipitated a like result in most of the churches [that is, a split over Calvinism]" (p.12).

Back to the New Hope church. 

Bledsoe records a question he posed to one of the "missionary" Baptists (their arch nemesis were called "anti-missionaries") named Thomas Berry:  "The question has often been asked, whether or not doctrinal differences lay at the foundation of the separation" (Ibid).  He then records Berry's response:

"I would say, no and yes.  Both parties subscribed to the same Articles of Faith, but there were differences of opinion on matters which were not settled by the Articles of Faith.  The anti-missionary party generally held to what is called the 'commercial' view of the atonement of Christ.  They believed that the efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ was sufficient for the salvation of the elect alone--that the elect were eternally justified--that God would save them without the use of human means or instrumentalities. 

The logical consequence of these views was that they did not recognize the obligation to press the Gospel on the acceptance of sinners, much less to send it abroad to the nations of the earth.

During that period I sometimes heard a sermon from Elder John Blackston, the most distinguished leader of the anti-missionary party in this part of the State.  On one occasion I remember to have heard him use substantially, if not precisely, the following words:  'Brethren, God saved his people, not virtually, but actually before the foundation of the world.'  He frequently, if not always, closed his sermons with an utterance like this:  'Poor sinner.'  I have nothing to say to you; you are in the hands of God to do with you as He wills.'

The missionary party generally held the views of Andrew Fuller on the atonement--that the sacrifice of Christ was a great moral expedient, made to God without special reference, in itself, to the salvation of any one--its value being measured not by the suffering involved, but by the dignity of the sufferer--its effects being to remove the legal difficulties which stood in the way of the salvation of sinners--that the Gospel is addressed to every creature--that it is the duty of every one to hear and obey.  Those who adopted these views, could not do otherwise than recognize the duty of the church to use every available means to send the tidings of salvation into all the world!" (p.12-13; emphasis added).

Given such, that the Baptists of the south unitedly had their heels dug firmly into the theology of the Founders' movement today cannot be sustained in light of the historical record itself, and that, regardless of the innumerable champions of Calvinism in the 19th century south, champions no one who looks at the historical record can deny.

With that, I am...

Peter

Comments

[Donald H]

Can't we all just get along? I want to eat some quiche, and have you over for organic herbal coffee (no caffeine)and a slice of sweet potatoe pie!

Why can't we have more Calvinist, Evangelicals, Arminians,and non-Calvinist/Arminian Baptist that agree on essential doctrine just join hands and sing Kum Ba Yah?

And give the "slobbering guy" a hanky or something.

Notice that there's never an uproar over Arminianism? Why is that?

That's all. Peter I like your blog bro! Just don't look down when you walk on water. Matthew 14

[Morris Brooks]

Peter,

Sorry to take so long to reply, but being bi-vocational keeps me busy. My question to you would be, "What difference does it make in evangelism whether you are 4 pt, 5 pt, or no pt; if you are sharing the gospel?" Holding to particular redemption does not make you anti-evangelistic. Some of the best and boldest Gospel presenters I have heard are 5 pointers. One even calls himself a "slobbering five point Calvinist", but consistently preaches the Gospel and has written a book on sharing the Gospel.

Plus, as I have understood Owen, his issue was not Universal Atonement, but Universalism itself.

You simply cannot take the actions of a few, either yesterday or today, and make a universal application.

Morris

[Steve]

Peter,
I am thoroughly shocked!
Whilst looking for some of your tremendous articles on alcohol I came across this latest revelation "Ever fond of rum!"
Peter, I had an ancestor that was ever fond of rum and he managed to destroy the Australian nation! (google lt Governor Grose and the rum corps!) Brother put aside this fondness I implore you!
Come and rejoin our wagon!
Steve

[Benji Ramsaur]

Peter,

Even if I do not agree with your commentary, I like primary sources such as this one.

Thanks Peter.

Grace to you,

Benji

BTW: Some of the Old Biblical Recorder Newspapers are now online http://www.archive.org/details/biblicalrecorder_1892_1893

[Byroniac]

I think the debate over Calvinism will never go away, at least not until Christ comes back.

I also think that when Christ separates the sheep from the goats, Calvinism will not be the criteria He uses.

I cannot comment on people who cannot or will not fellowship with others who strongly disagree on this issue, other than to admit that sometimes I do not pass this test either. I believe if we share the same Holy Spirit, then we have fellowship with our brethren in Christ which does not depend on artificial devices like social standing, group membership, or religious identification. The fellowship we have in Him should go deeper than even brotherly affection. Sadly, I have to admit I am one of the ones that Christ has to work on in this area, because I do not struggle much to cross the theological divide in this area of my life.

[Bob Cleveland]

My personal opinion is that, when we all finally agree to disagree, agreeably, we'll probably get to work on agreeing disagreeably.

[Perry]

Dispute all you like...if it makes you feel better:)

[peter lumpkins]

Bob,

Thanks. Roger Olson is one I mentioned. As for others, the example in the mid-19th century churches should suffice, not to mention dozens of churches today who split over Calvinism...

Perry,

Thanks. I do not dispute Fuller's Calvinism. Instead, that Fuller's view represents Founders Calvinism is the huckleberry.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Perry]

Andrew Fuller was a Calvinist.

[Debbie Kaufman]

John: That is terrific.

Peter: I agree with Bob. I would consider myself hard Calvinist but I could and do worship side by side with those who are not Calvinists. I have no problem. I would teach Calvinism and have, but always give grace to disagree. It's not belief in Calvinism that makes one a Christian.

[Bob Cleveland]

"As a by-word, some theologians believe it is virtually impossible for strong Calvinists and strong non-Calvinists to worship side-by-side--Roger Olson comes to mind."

I don't know who those thee-oh-lowjuns are, but they couldn't be more wrong. I have personally BTDT too many times not to take exception. In more than one language on more than one continent, in fact.

[peter lumpkins]

John,

Thanks. And, I think your approach is a delightful way to open up a conversation about Who Jesus is. Excellent!

With that, I am...

Peter

[John Daly]

While I am not a Calvinist, I do cling to the Doctrines of Grace as my theological foundation. While I could not rightly say: "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life." I can rightly say, "The doors of Heaven are forever shut to you unless you are 100% perfect. If that is not the case, might I suggest a substitute?"

[peter lumpkins]

Morris,

Glad to hear from you, my brother. You bring up an interesting point, and one that is hard to deny. Hints of Hyper-Calvinism swirl within this passage to be sure, especially of note--"the elect were eternally justified."

What further needs mentioning is, the missionaries' description of the anti-missionaries' "'commercial view'" of the atonement which, in their mind, drove the anti-missionaries' passive, lackadaisical spirit for evangelizing.

Also, contrast such with the missionaries' description of their own view of the atonement--"that the sacrifice of Christ was a great moral expedient, made to God without special reference, in itself, to the salvation of any one...its effects being to remove the legal difficulties which stood in the way of the salvation of sinners."

Think David Allen! This is precisely one of his points about the atonement, a point for which he got massacred after the J316.

In short, the atonement for which the missionary Baptists contended contra the anti-missionary Baptists, at least in this instance, is the very view of the atonement Founders Calvinists deny today. For the missionary Baptists clearly were arguing for an atonement concerning which an "exact transaction of payment" was absent; that is, a non-Owenic view--read Universal Atonement! Jesus died for the sins of the whole world (in its broadest sense).

Such constitutes, in part, the concern Non-Calvinists & 4Point Calvinists insist against Founders Calvinists today.

Grace, Morris. With that, I am...
Peter

[Morris Brooks]

Peter,

After reading the above, it seems to me that the issue they were really squabbling over/conflicted over was one of hyper-Calvinism. They were there then, and they are here now. They have always been a fringe group among Calvinsts, but are used as the proof-text boogey-man that if you are a Calvinist, you are anti-evangelism, which couldn't be further from the truth.

Morris

[Joe Blackmon]

Peter

If I understand you, the problem is that there are people who can't agree to disagree or can't disagree agreeably, right?

Actually, I'm near Nashville so I don't really have mountains to worry about. Thanks for the well wishes.

[peter lumpkins]

Joe,

Great question. I, with you, have ministered along side Calvinists. Nor am I opposed to continuing to do so.

The contention, if I may suggest, is not concerning whether I or my brother Calvinist is believer, as you seem to imply. Instead, it's whether our respective vision of God's character, God's love, and/or God's salvific plan, as each of us views its scriptural embeddedness, and whether that vision becomes so aggressive, that attempts are initiated to soak up the other. Or, perhaps a better image is, one squeezes the other dry.

Since at least 1982, there has been a formal, strategic attempt to squeeze the other dry. I'll let you use your imagination to conclude which one I think is doing the squeezing :^)

As a by-word, some theologians believe it is virtually impossible for strong Calvinists and strong non-Calvinists to worship side-by-side--Roger Olson comes to mind. Interestingly, he has our Baptist record on his side, at minimum, pertaining to squabbling about it.

Grace, Joe. Always my pleasure. And, I hope you are staying warm in the mountains!

With that, I am...
Peter

P.S. Oh! I almost forgot: O.K. you're on. I'll take the blue robo!!

[Joe Blackmon]

Question--why would it have to go away or be a conflict at all? I mean, I have ministered alongside folks who are on the opposite side of this fence than I an and had no problems. The only problems I can forsee is someone from either side who says "If you don't believe about this like I do, then you're not a Christian". I believe those who disagree with me on this issue are wrong but I'd never go to the point of saying they are teaching a false gospel or anything.

Also, if we're going to fight, how about a round of Rock 'em Sock 'em Robots?

I call the Red one.