A. H. Newman on the "Radical Reformers" by Peter Lumpkins

The eminent church historian, Albert Henry Newman (1852–1933) was one of the founders of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. An accomplished scholar recognized by a broad, prestigious society of reputable historians, Newman wrote several standard works on Christian history including Baptist history  >>>

In 1894, A History of the Baptist Churches in the United States was released and enjoyed several subsequent reprints. In an introductory section entitled "Relation of Baptists to Other Bodies of Christians" Newman had this to say concerning our Baptist roots in the Reformation:

Baptists have, for the most part, been at one with the Roman Catholic, the Greek Catholic, and most Protestant communions in accepting for substance the so-called Apostles', Nicene, and Athanasian creeds, not, however, because they are venerable or because of the decisions of ecclesiastical councils, but because, and only in so far as, they have appeared to them to be in accord with Scripture. .. .

As regards the set of doctrines on which Augustin differed from his theological predecessors, and modern Calvinists from Arminians, Baptists have always been divided.The medieval evangelical sects were all, apparently, anti-Augustinian, and the Baptist parties of the sixteenth century followed in the footsteps of their medieval spiritual ancestors in this and other important particulars. Those Baptist parties of modern times whose historical relations with the medieval evangelical parties and the antipedobaptist parties of the sixteenth century are most intimate have rejected the Calvinistic system; while those that owe their origin to English Puritanism, with Wiclifism and Lollardism behind it and with the deeply rooted Calvinism of the English Elizabethan age as its leading characteristic, have been noted for their staunch adherence to Calvinistic principles, not, of course, because of any supposed authority of Calvin or of the English Puritan leaders, but because they have seemed to them to be Scriptural. Calvinistic and Arminian Baptists have both had periods of extreme development, the former sometimes scarcely escaping fatalism and antinomianism, the latter sometimes falling into Socinian denial of the deity of Christ and Pelagian denial of original sin. The great majority of the Baptists of today hold to what may be called moderate Calvinism, or Calvinism tempered with the evangelical anti-Augustinianism which came through the Moravian Brethren to Wesley and by him was brought powerfully to bear on all bodies of evangelical Christians (all emphasis added)¹

With that, I am...

Peter 

¹A History of the Baptist Churches in the United States (first published in 1894, A.H. Newman, pp.5-6 

Comments

[Steve Lemke]

Well, Peter, if that was true in the era before 1894 (as affirmed by an expert at that time), one would have to surmise that Baptists were always in a mediating position somewhere between Calvinism and Arminianism, contrary to those who posit a "golden age" a decade or two before that in which all Baptists were purely and universally Calvinistic, wouldn't one -- that is, without ignoring significant evidence to the contrary. . . .

[peter lumpkins]

Dr. Lemke,

The more one studies closely the era leading up to the first confession Southern Baptists produced--per the national convention--the more one realizes how historically misguided it is to assume without serious qualification, even devastating qualification, that "Baptists were Calvinists" (i.e. strong Calvinists) until well into the 20th century.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Ron Hale]

Peter,
Thank you for introducing me to the work of A.H.Newman!

I like his statement:

"The great majority of the Baptists of today hold to what may be called moderate Calvinism, or Calvinism tempered with the evangelical anti-Augustinianism which came through the Moravian Brethren to Wesley and by him was brought powerfully to bear on all bodies of evangelical Christians (all emphasis added)1"

[Robert Vaughn]

Dr. Lemke, to surmise from what A. H .Newman reports was true in 1894 "that Baptists were always in a mediating position somewhere between Calvinism and Arminianism" is neither a logical nor historical conclusion. But those who say "all Baptists were purely and universally Calvinistic" also have a high hurdle to overcome. From my limited knowledge of our history it appears that most English Baptists remained separated by their "Particular" and "General" leanings until the 1800s rather than having "a mediating position" in between. In England the British Baptist Union's "Downgrade Controversy" and weakening of Calvinism resulted in compromise and union between the two parties. Dr. Davidson's history of the Free Will Baptists shows that the General Baptists from England were mostly absorbed into the Regular Baptist movement in America and became part of the Regular (Calvinistic) Baptist denomination (and at least Calvinists in theory). Interestingly, a good portion of the "General" and "Free" Baptists we have today are departures from the Regular Baptists rather than direct descendants of the English General Baptists. (Of course, the majority of the northern Free Baptists went "back" into the Northern Convention/ABCUSA.)

I wonder how closely it has been investigated as to the degree of influence on what Newman calls moderate Calvinism was mediated through the Moravian Brethren to Wesley? From anecdotal evidence I've seen, I think there is a lot of truth to be found in that. Baptists in the South were influenced not just by the ancestral Separate Baptist medium, but also the evangelical warmth and Arminianism of the Methodists who were their neighbors, friends, and family. For example, one of my ancestors' churches in Georgia was a Separate Baptist church with a direct line back to the Sandy Creek Church. When it was formed in 1806 the church covenant contained a strong 5-point Calvinist statement. They considered the Methodists of such a heresy that they would not even allow them to use their meeting house. But by the mid-1800s they had a friendly Christian relationship and were warmly welcomed to use the Methodist meeting house while they were constructing a new building. Sure, this is just anecdotal, but I believe such evidence could be multiplied enough to see the truth of Newman's proposition. It was, I feel, a contributing cause in moving away from the stricter Calvinism.

[Job]

"Those Baptist parties of modern times whose historical relations with the medieval evangelical parties and the antipedobaptist parties of the sixteenth century are most intimate have rejected the Calvinistic system ..."

Still say that attempts to trace the origins of the Baptist movement to the Anabaptists ignores the vast differences between Baptists and Anabapists in theology and practice.

"The medieval evangelical sects were all, apparently, anti-Augustinian, and the Baptist parties of the sixteenth century followed in the footsteps of their medieval spiritual ancestors in this and other important particulars. "

Let us just say that other church historians disagree with that statement.

"while those that owe their origin to English Puritanism, with Wiclifism and Lollardism behind it and with the deeply rooted Calvinism of the English Elizabethan age as its leading characteristic, have been noted for their staunch adherence to Calvinistic principles"

Even if this were true, why make a distinction between medieval evangelicals and English Puritanism, Wiclifism and Lollardism? It seems an artificial, arbitrary one at best, and thesis-driven propaganda at worst.

"The great majority of the Baptists of today hold to what may be called moderate Calvinism, or Calvinism tempered with the evangelical anti-Augustinianism which came through the Moravian Brethren to Wesley and by him was brought powerfully to bear on all bodies of evangelical Christians"

Yet another statement that either arbitrarily declares non-Calvinists to be evangelical and Calvinists not to be, or does so purposefully with the author claiming that non-Calvinists (whether Baptist or not) are evangelical and Calvinists (whether Baptist or not) are non-evangelical. It is also very disturbing that this fellow puts his Wesleyanism first and Baptist principles second, as Wesleyan theology is quite far removed from Baptist theology. And it is not the least bit ironic that this fellow is being cited as an authority when Particular Baptists are often accused of putting their Calvinism ahead of their Baptist identity. Also, what would those who are concerned about the ties of Particular Baptists to non-Baptist Calvinists (i.e. Acts 29, Tim Keller, John Piper) think of this scholar's decidedly ecumenical evangelical tilt (so long as the ecumenism is based on Wesleyanism)? The Anabaptists were not Baptist, neither were the Moravians, neither are the Methodists, but Newman was willing to lay claim to them all, in both a historical and a contemporary context. The distance between Piper (who is Baptist after all, just not SBC) and Wesley - whose influence over Baptists Newman cites as a GOOD THING - is much smaller.

In any event, what can be taken from this piece of Newman's (if anything) is that if General and Particular Baptists were able to get along with each other back then, then they should be able to today.

[peter lumpkins]

Job,

“Still say that attempts to trace the origins of the Baptist movement to the Anabaptists ignores the vast differences between Baptists and Anabapists in theology and practice.” You may “still say” all you wish. There exists an impressive school of reputable historians who trace our origins to the Radical Reformation. You must deal with their evidence. Asserting  you “still say” comes across as incorrigibility. Whatever the case, Job, your obviously skewed reading of history can hardly be trusted as I clearly showed here. Hence, for you to flippantly challenge Newman’s reading of history speaks for itself.

So, if you log back on, give the sources for your dissent or do not bother.

Have a nice day.

With that, I am…

Peter

[Robert Vaughn]

Job says "...attempts to trace the origins of the Baptist movement to the Anabaptists ignores the vast differences between Baptists and Anabapists in theology and practice."

Job, I disagree on two counts. First, this preamble: There a number of theories of Baptist origins, Though the English Separatist theory is currently in vogue in the U.S., historians past and present have posited a strong contribution of the Continental Anabaptists to Baptist history. In the current polemic atmosphere I see a tendency that the view one takes is based somewhat on their soteriology rather than history.

I disagree that these "attempts to trace the origins of the Baptist movement to the Anabaptists ignores the vast differences between Baptists and Anabaptists in theology and practice." I don't believe that historians from Newman to Estep are just ignoring something and calling it history. They have to make their case in the face of opposition.

I also disagree that "the vast differences between Baptists and Anabaptists in theology and practice" is a logical or historical reason to deny any connection between the two (one could also debate how vast the differences are or are not). A look at the 17th century Baptist churches of Second London Confession theology and a modern anti- or non-Calvinist Baptist church in the U.S. could reveal "vast differences...in theology and practice." But they are historically connected nonetheless.

Sometimes overlooked is Glen Stassen's Anabaptist Influence in the Origin of the Particular Baptists. Neither should we conclude this is just a theory of older and/or anti-Calvinistic writers. In “Assessing a Better Paradigm: The Case for a Third Way,” Nathan Finn (who could be described as young and reformed) makes a case for a "converging streams" theory of Baptist origins, which includes Continental Anabaptists as one of those streams.