Did 19th century Virginia Regular Baptists hold to general atonement? by Peter Lumpkins

Southern Baptist Calvinists frequently assert that it wasn't until well into the twentieth century that strong Calvinism began to wane in  influence among Southern Baptists. For example, Al Mohler is recently quoted as saying,  >>>

Even the opponents of Calvinism must admit, if historically informed, that Calvinism is the theological tradition into which the Baptist movement was born. The same is true of the Southern Baptist Convention. The most influential churches, leaders, confessions of faith and theologians of the founding era were Calvinists—it was not until well into the twentieth century that any knowledgeable person could claim that Southern Baptists were anything but Calvinists (//link, italics added)

Consider, however: less than a year after the Southern Baptist Convention was birthed in Augusta, Georgia, James B. Taylor was appointed the first Corresponding Secretary of Foreign Mission Board. One of Taylor's many accomplishments was the massive two-volume set entitled Virginia Baptist Ministers (New York:Sheldon & Co. 1860). J.B. Jeter penned the Introduction.

In the entry under David Jessee, we find:

Elder David Jessee was born March 6th, 1783, in Russell County, Virginia. In 1801, being then in his eighteenth year, he made a profession of religion, and connected himself with the church at Castle's Woods, in his native county. He commenced his labors as a minister of the gospel in the same year of his conversion. In the year 1803 he was ordained to the ministry, and called to the pastoral care of the church at Castle's Woods... (p. 288//link)¹

Castle Woods would be the only church Elder Jessee ever pastored for he stayed there until his death. Nonetheless, his ministry would span at least four counties.

Interesting for our purposes here is the following description of Jessee's doctrinal beliefs and preaching. Note well this description:

In regard to the doctrines held and preached by him,  it may be sufficient to say, that they coincided generally with those of the Regular Baptists. His views, however,  in reference to the extent of the atonement, underwent a change. In the early part of his ministry he advocated the high-toned Calvinistic view of that subject; but in the latter years of his life he supported the view now generally adopted by the Baptists,  viz., that the atonement is general in its nature (p.289, italics added)

First, Jessee's beliefs coincided generally with what we know to be "Regular Baptists." And, unless I am mistaken, Regular Baptists were considered to be, historically speaking, strongly Calvinistic. Second, Jessee's theology underwent a shift, especially in regard to Limited Atonement.² Whereas during the "early part" of his ministry he embraced a high-toned Calvinistic view of the atonement, he later adopted the view of atonement considered "general in nature." Finally, and most significantly for us, Jessee's view of the atonement as general in nature, according to the author, was the view then generally adopted by the Baptists.

Hence, we may infer that, according to Jessee's biographer, the view of the atonement generally adopted by the Baptists in 1860 was an atonement general in nature, an inference hardly in step with what we're repeatedly informed by Mohler and other Founders-advocate Calvinists who insist Baptists were united theologically, and presumably the glue that held them together was their forged commitment to "Reformed" theology. That's certainly the impression I get when I read statements like Mohler's above.

Even so, we concede Jessee's biographer could have been mistaken. Granted. Of course, if he was mistaken, it needs to be empirically  established not merely asserted. Whatever the case, it remains telling that the more one looks into the historical record for one's self, the more doubt is cast toward those who'd remake the Southern Baptist Convention's heritage into an exclusively "Reformed" Baptist Convention. 

I close with a question and a brief response:

If it was well into the twentieth century before Calvinism began to wane³ as Dr. Mohler and other Founders-advocate Calvinists over and over insist, what is one to make of local church pastors like David Jessee who forsook strong Calvinism and embraced what may be called among many of today's Founders-advocates as diluted Calvinism or perhaps not even Calvinism at all?

I can tell you what I make of it.

Southern Baptists better be reading their history for it may be we're about to lose our history.

With that, I am...

Peter 

¹I'm indebted to a comment by "Jerome" for pointing out this delicious, little historical crumb

²also of interest is, Jessee's position on alcoholic beverages apparently took a radical turn as well--from moderation to abstinence (p.289)

³and make no mistake: the Calvinism about which Mohler and Founders-advocate Calvinists are speaking is strict five Point Calvinism (i.e. T.U.L.I.P.)

Comments

[PH Mell]

Peter,

I speak though I'm with our Lord now..This is PH Mell...I never changed in my view of the atonement. ;)..... Ha Ha ;).... PARTICULAR

[Ian D. Elsasser]

For a direct link to the full entry on David Jessee.

The book is also a free download should you wish to save it to your computer as pdf or epub or download to read the whole on your device.

[Lmalone]

To get a real view of the nuances of history we must read around the subject. That is what you are doing here instead of invoking the history of a few notable "Founders" who "make" history.

I can remember as a teen visiting the John Knox Presbyterian church for a local event. I had not heard of Knox so started asking questions.To the Presby's he was a stalwart pillar of the faith. My mom suggested I read some history which I did and was astounded at what a creep he was.

It pays to read around the subject as to what was what in history. It is usually more nuanced and complicated than what we thought.

[Robert Vaughn]

John S. Abell on p. 12, "A high Calvinist in doctrinal opinion, he was so urgent in exhorting sinners that a young man once said that he was a good Calvinist for half of his sermon, while the other half would do credit, in matter and manner, to a thorough Methodist."

Of Charles A. Lewis it is said, "Election, predestination, effectual calling, and the final perseverance of the saints, were themes upon which he delighted to dwell, while he taught experimentally that the love of Christ alone could constrain the believer practically to surrender all to Christ." (p.486)

Or of John N. Johnston, "He was strongly Calvinistic in his views, believing firmly the doctrine of predestination and decline, as taught in the Word of God." (p. 182)

One thing that can be made of it is that these brethren were independent, and of mixed opinions. In the mid 1800s most of the Missionary brethren would have held a version of Calvinism stronger than the average Southern Baptist of the 20th century, but not generally as strong as the High-Calvinism of Al Mohler as others. They were deeply affected by Fuller and moving toward what they would become in the next century. Yet many a Southern Baptist who opposes Calvinism would not want the beliefs of these moderated brethren preached in their pulpits.

J. R. Graves in some of his writings exemplifies the enigma of the 19th century Southern Baptist soteriology. In the book "The First Baptist Church In America Not Founded By Roger Williams" (1887), J.R. Graves gives this editorial note regarding the articles of faith (evidently later ones than of Clarke/Holmes), "All can see there is not a scintilla of Calvinism in them." Yet in his "The Work of Christ in the Covenant of Redemption; Developed in Seven Dispensations" (1883) he wrote:

"Now, will not, must not all unprejudiced Bible-read[ing?] Christians agree with the following propositions?
1. That the Son undertook and will save all the Father, in the Covenant of Redemption, gave him to save.
2. Since all are not saved, as all evangelical Christians admit, we must conclude that all were not given to the Son.
3. That the Father, in the Covenant of Redemption, gave some of Adam's race to his Son to be redeemed."

That may not be the high Calvinism of Mohler, and apparently is not what Graves meant as Calvinism in the "First Baptist Church" book, but it would have been branded Calvinism in the churches I grew up in.

Simple statements don't explain complex history.

[peter lumpkins]

Robert,

Thanks. First, not a single quote you gave spoke directly to the extent of the atonement which was precisely what I quoted from Jessee's belief. Second, you did not deal with the statement of Jessee's biographer. Rather you ignored it which is precisely the point I make about Mohler & co. Third, while I agree in part that "Simple statements don't explain complex history" to ignore simple statements arguably skews history, especially simple descriptive statements from the immediate context within history. In this case, Jessee's biographer stands as an eye-witness to the phenomenon he describes. Hence, to dismiss his account outright does not seem to be responsible historical investigation. Agreed?

Know also, that what I'm doing here is offering historical sources that one hardly finds amongst Calvinist historians' resources. Hence, the record I offered was a balance, so to speak, to the investigation so often overlooked in the ever-growing Calvinist Resurgence which, I'm confident, has no desire--or, at least does not appear to show any real desire--to deal with these "simple statements" as you call them. In fact, I would argue that if anyone is reducing the complexity of our Southern Baptist heritage to simplicity, perhaps we should examine the views of Founders-advocate Calvinists like Mohler, Ascol and others.

With that, I am...
Peter

[David Campbell]

Mr. Vaughn,

Your Graves quote is taken out of context. He most certainly lauded the doctrines of grace, but dubbed "Calvinism" as what he erroneously added.

"These will be interesting to all Baptists, and perhaps many of our churches and brethren about to organize would like to adopt them, and so hold the faith of the First Baptist Church organized on this continent. All can see there is not a scintilla of Calvinism in them. Baptists were sound, held and taught in all the faith once delivered to the saints, fifteen hundred years before Calvin was born. What he added to it is Calvinism, and that we most heartily repudiate."

[David Campbell]

The "general nature of the atonement" was the common belief of baptists in 1860. It seems to me that Jesse moved away from hyper tendencies (hence,"high-toned") towards the more biblical Calvinism of the day. Believing in the general nature of the atonement does not mean one denies a robustly Calvinistic particular redemption. I believe this is a reference to the Calvinism of men like Andrew Fuller.

This can be demonstrated in baptist historian David Benedict, who published his "Fifty Years Among The Baptists" the very same year Taylor published his "Virginia Baptist Ministers".

Benedict writes, "Forty Years Ago large bodies of our people were in a state of ferment and agitation, in consequence of some modifications of their of Calvinistic creed, as displayed in the writings of the late Andrew Fuller of Kettering, England. This famous man maintained that the atonement of Christ was general in its nature, but particular in its application..."

It seems, in 1860, though one might limit the intent and application of the atonement to the elect alone....the "general nature" of it regards the imputation of sin to Christ.

[peter lumpkins]

David,

Thanks for the Benedict quote. He represents yet another historical witness that our SBC heritage is not definitively and certainly not exclusively stitched tightly together by the single thread of strong Calvinism as our Founders-advocate Calvinists (Mohler & others) propose. Instead, as Baptist historical theologian W. Wiley Richards argues in his book, Winds of Doctrine, Baptist Calvinists scratched and pawed all through the 19th century attempting to hang on to their strong influence with Baptists in the south (and north). They finally were washed downstream by the end of the century.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Ian,

Thanks for offering a deeper link than I posted.

Hope you are well.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

PH,

Perhaps you didn't. Perhaps you didn't. Note, however, your good friend and Georgia compatriot apparently did--Jesse Mercer (cp. Richards' book, Winds of Doctrine who documents Mercer's move from Particular Atonement).

With that, I am...
Peter

[Eric]

like the new look of your blog

[peter lumpkins]

Thanks Eric...

[Robert Vaughn]

Mr. Campbell,

You are right that I provided little context for the quote I gave from Graves, though I think it was sufficient for the point I was making. Thanks for giving the whole paragraph. You are exactly right that Graves dubbed "Calvinism" as what he (Calvin) erroneously added. My whole point is that Graves rejected what he called "Calvinism" while others would call what Graves believed "Calvinism."

But your statement that he "most certainly lauded the doctrines of grace" brings us back to part of the problem of this discussion. What do you mean by the doctrines of grace and what did Graves mean? In the Newport articles of faith Graves bolded the following: "(Jesus) freely offered himself as a substitute to suffer and die in behalf of all men." p. 196

(Note: the articles that Adlam prints are not the articles of John Clarke and Obabiah Holmes.)

[Robert Vaughn]

Peter,

I did not intend to necessarily "speak directly to the extent of the atonement." What I intended to point out, and said, was that these brethren were of mixed opinions as to their preaching and practice of "Calvinism". A look at the whole book, as well as other books of the period, will bear this out. So I'm not so much disagreeing with you, as going a little further -- pointing out that the truth is in the middle. Balance, you call it. Since that was my point, I felt no need to "deal with the statement of Jessee's biographer." I don't disagree with it. He probably meant by his statement in 1860 "that the atonement is general in its nature" something like the views Andrew Fuller. I was actually thinking more of Mohler's statement about Calvinism when I wrote "Simple statements don't explain complex history." Simple statements, whether by Mohler, you or myself, require explanation. There are lots of issues. What is meant by "Calvinism"? Issues of articles of faith saying one thing and the preaching & practice of a church or association not agreeing with those articles of faith. And on & on.

[Ian D. Elsasser]

Peter,

You are welcome. I am doing well. I wish the same for you and your family: may the peace and grace of Jesus our King and Lord be with you all in 2012.

Other books by David Benedict available as free downloads are Fifty Years Among The Baptists (referenced by David Campbell above, Jan 08, 2012 at 02:59 AM) and A General History of the Baptist Denomination in America and Other Parts of the World.

[peter lumpkins]

Robert,

Thanks for the clarification.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Robert Vaughn]

You're welcome. I should further clarify that with my current knowledge of Baptist history, I do believe the Baptists were mostly "Calvinistic" up to the 20th century. But I would include different variations of theology than would Al Mohler (at least I'm pretty sure of that). It seems that by the mid-1800s the strict 5 point "high-Calvinsm" was waning. The New Hampshire Confession of 1833 (admittedly "Northern") greatly modified the earlier Calvinism of the Philadelphia Confession, and New Hampshire, not Philadelphia, was the basis of the BF&M (as well as the confessions of other missionary Baptist groups). By the early 1900s "modified Calvinism" that discarded the "ULI" of the TULIP and keyed in on total depravity and once saved, always saved had gained the ascendancy.

I am aware we are somewhat limited by our experience, but my impression is that this was almost the only soteriology of any missionary Baptists in East Texas (SBC, ABA, BMA, BBF, independent) when I started out life in this world in the 1950s. Preachers that I heard mention "TULIP" (not until the 1970s that I heard it) called it three bad pieces of meat between two good pieces of bread. My impression is that much of the South of this time was the same as we. Of course, that is just an experientially-based impression.