Early Baptist disputes over Limited Atonement in Post-Colonial America

source

Baptist historian, Robert Baylor Semple (1769-1831), published the minutes of the first Separate Baptist Association held May, 1771 in Orange county, Virginia.¹ Samuel Harriss was chosen moderator, and John Waller, Jr. was elected clerk, both ministers of whom, according to Semple, were strong advocates of the "Arminian" stream flowing into the Baptist river of theology.

In the May 1773 associational meeting in Goochland county, Elijah Craig offered the motion to divide the association into two districts, one north of the James River and one south. Semple indicates that while the minutes were lost describing the motion and the discussion, the following year's associational proceedings indicated that "they agreed to divide the Association, according to the plan proposed in the last Association." We might add there seems to be no theological motivation pushing the division of districts proposed by Craig, but only the size of the association and natural boundaries of the James River (as you'll note later, Elijah Craig was a Calvinist). 

On May 27, 1775, both the north and south districts met at the Dover meeting-house, 29 and 31 churches respectively represented. First up on the docket of queries submitted to the association for answer and counsel:

Is salvation, by Christ, made possible for every individual of the human race?

Semple says debate on the question took up the entire first day of the meeting. "Every thinking man in the Association felt himself seriously interested." In addition, according to Semple, as the meeting progressed the atmosphere became electrically charged with divisive rhetoric and behavior and was headed toward an associational split no one seemed to want.

Every thinking man in the Association felt himself seriously interested. Most of them spoke to it, more or less. The weight of talents and influence seems to have been on the Arminian side. Samuel Harriss, Jeremiah Walker, John Waller, and many other distinguished preachers stood forward and zealously, as well as ably, supported the argument in favor of universal provision.

Talents and ingenuity were not wanting on the other side. William Murphy, John Williams, and E. Craig stood foremost in favor of a Calvinistic solution. These supported by truth, or at least by the more generally received opinion among Baptists, obtained after a long and animated debate a small majority. This decision was on Monday afternoon immediately before an adjournment.

Thus, in terms of ecclesial democracy in the association, Limited Atonement won out over universal provision with a simple majority. Granted.

Unfortunately, many Southern Baptist Calvinists infer far more for Baptist belief generally than the minutes of the first Separate Baptist Association indicate. Some go as far as suggesting that as early as the turn of the 19^th century, a unified Baptist Calvinism theologically ruled and dominated the Baptist landscape all over America and did not begin waning in theological domination or overwhelming influence among Baptists until well into the 20^th century.

But that's not what Semple seems to suggest was happening among Virginia Baptists. Instead Semple indicates:

1. Separates were divided almost but not quite evenly so far as Limited Atonement was concerned;
2. Separate Baptists had great men of learning, influential men, who held to universal provision;
3. Strict Calvinism was not nearly as universally accepted among early Baptists in America as many of today's Southern Baptist Calvinists seem to suggest;
4. Limited Atonement appears to be among the most provocative doctrines of strict Calvinism.

As to number four above, Semple goes on to describe what happened after universal provision "lost" in the query posed to Separate Baptists:

That evening the Arminian party holding a consultation, determined to bring on the subject again the next day, and to have a determination whether their opinions upon this point should be a matter of bar to fellowship and communion. On Tuesday when they met, the business became very distressing. The Arminian party, having the moderator with them, withdrew out of doors. The other side also withdrew, and chose John Williams as moderator. Everything was then done by message, sometimes in writing and sometimes verbally.

After some time spent in this way, the following proposal was made by the Arminian party:

"DEAR BRETHREN, — A steady union with you makes us willing to be more explicit in our answer to your terms of reconciliation proposed. We do not deny the former part of your proposal respecting particular election of grace, still retaining our liberty with regard to construction. And as to the latter part, respecting merit in the creature, we are free to profess there is none.

"Signed by order.

"SAMUEL HARRISS, Moderator."

To which the other party replied as follows:

"DEAR BRETHREN, — Inasmuch as a continuation of your Christian fellowship seems nearly as dear to us as our lives, and seeing our difficulties concerning your principles with respect to merit in the creature, particular election, and final perseverance of the saints are in a hopeful measure removing, we do willingly retain you in fellowship, not raising the least bar. But do heartily wish and pray that God, in His kind providence, in His own time will bring it about when Israel shall all be of one mind, speaking the same things.

"Signed by order.

"JOHN WILLIAMS, Moderator."

The "Arminians" led by Walker and Harriss understandably desired to know exactly what the negative vote meant to them and their churches as members of the association. After several rounds of negotiations, the effect of the vote, the Calvinists maintained, would not "bar" them from fellowship.

Semple concludes with positive remarks about the early division over Limited Atonement among the Separate Baptists:

These terms being acceded to on both sides, they again met in the meetinghouse and resumed their business. Their union was as happy as their discord had been distressing.

 

¹Semple, Robert Baylor. History of the Baptists in Virginia: From the First Settlement by the Americans up to the Middle of the 19th Century. Originally published, 1810. Revised edition, 1894 by G.W. Beale: 48-58

Comments

[Leslie Puryear]

It's interesting that theological disagreement between non-calvinists and Calvinist was raging even before the formation of the SBC. Apparently, SBC Calvinism became the minor view during the first 80 years of the 20th century and arose again in the early 21st century. This issue will probably never be resolved until the Lord Jesus returns.

[Lydia]

I love to read how some wrestled with what was the common ingrained thinking of the time. I have always wondered about the evolution of thinking that had to take place in those quarters that could not accept the cognitive dissonance of our Constitution (immersed in the free will thinking of self government) and their determinist God.

[Scott Shaver]

Based on this primary source material with additional provided by Mr. Lumpkins, I fear, from an historical perspective, that Rick Patrick is in for the worst spiritual/denominational/professional rending of his life.

"Unity Platform" with a beast that knows nothing but "kill and eat".

[Scott Shaver]

Lets see, we've got Rick Patrick et al looking for a "unity platform" with folks who want to kill em.

Why am I not buying into the "Christian logic" of this proposition?

[peter lumpkins]

Les,

I have to say, from my reading of the source material, it was well before 80 years into the 20th century that Calvinism waned in influence. Indeed James Boyce was barely buried in the ground when his system of strict Calvinistic theology was delivered a broadside by F.H. Kerfoot in his revision of Boyce's Abstract of Theology. Ironically, Kerfoot was hand-picked by Boyce to be his successor at Southern seminary, and it was Kerfoot who thoroughly debunked Boyce's view on Limited Atonement as well as the regeneration-precedes-faith doctrine Boyce undoubtedly picked up from the Hodges at Princeton.

[Scott Shaver]

Pete: were u responding to "Les" or "let's see" from previous comment. Either way I'm encouraged by your presentation of these sources as guides to historical accuracy. Muchas gracias.

[Scott Shaver]

Would it be historically fair Pete, to say that Calvinism of the James Boyce stripe did not rear it's head again as a predominant denominational force or constituency in the SBC until the succession of Roy Honeycutt at Southern by Al Mohler?

Ironically, as you've pointed out with Boyce and Kerfoot and even though Mohler would certainly have not been handpicked by Honeycutt, Mohler like Kerfoot, set out to undo the work of of his predecessor in raising the flag of Boyce.

[peter lumpkins]

Thanks for the encouragement Scott. I think it is fair to say Boyce's theology was tucked neatly away on the shelf until Mohler revived it in the early 90s. Interestingly, Mohler's move back toward Calvinism was subtle but not unannounced. He flat said what he was going to do early on--move the seminary back to its "Confessional roots." But the CR leaders did not compute "Confessional roots" like Mohler meant it. They had on their mind "inerrancy" and Southerns commitment to biblical inspiration via Princeton's theory of inspiration. Mohler however while not disappointing on inerrancy would include in getting back to "Confessional roots" getting back to 19th century strict Calvinism. I don't think it's too much to say, not a single CR leader saw that one coming...

[Scott Shaver]

And now the cowardly lion, Page Patterson is going to team with Calvinists for a "unity" platform (try and save what's left of his "legacy") while Fundamentalist "Trads" like Rick Patrick are the new opposition with a "transparency" platform.

It's like a cyclical gag reel that keeps repeating itself over and over to the tune of diminishing influence and squandered resources.

You are right, the CR leaders never saw this coming and their previous allies, the Fundamentalist "trads" will be wondering what hit them.

Both camps deserve each other. Better yet, each other is ALL they have now.

[dr. james willingham]

None of this is as simple and easy as might be presumed. After all, both sides had suffered imprisonment, whippings, and other indignities at the hands of the judicial system acting in behalf of the state church (Anglican then). And the Separate Baptists had one writer who took the position of limited atonement. I refer to Isaac Backus whose writings can be found in libraries today. Actually, there is truth on both sides of the coin which some on either side refuse to recognize or acknowledge, namely, that the two poles of any particular truth is designed to fit the right and left hemispheres of the brain in order to provide a tension to make the believer balanced, flexible, creative, constant, and magnetic or, in other words, mature and able to cope with issues as they arise in life.

[peter lumpkins]

"None of this is as simple and easy as might be presumed."

If only the Southern Baptist Convention community of Calvinists as a whole would speak, teach, and behave according to this historical maxim, my friend. History IS messy and usually beats the tar out of those who try to contain it to one, solitary trajectory. Hence, those who attempt to make Southern Baptist history Calvinistically neat and uniform end up as committing the unpardonable sin for historians of any field of inquiry--historical reductionism.

Since 2006, SBC Tomorrow has been committed to posting sources to balance out the record too many of today's Calvinists systematically ignore. Our Baptist heritage is a soil far richer than only the TULIP can grow...

[Scott Shaver]

James Willingham: There is the kind of person who doesn't reject any spiritual "truth" associated with Calvinism but does reject deterministic understandings of God's nature along with the deliverance of church authority into the hands of power-obsessed men rather the power of the Holy Spirit.

A rejection of the tenets of Calvinism is not the same as a rejection of God, contrary to some popular opinion.

Calvinists pointing an accusing finger at Anglicans for spiritual abuse is like the proverbial pot calling the kettle black.

[Scott Shaver]

If, at the hands of Calvinism, Baptists lose touch with concepts like "soul freedom", church autonomy and the historic baptist emphases on the primacy of the Holy Spirit and believers baptism by immersion...why in the world should anybody do them the dignity of continuing to refer to them as "Baptist"?

People who ride motorcycles are wise to remember that alcohol and gasoline don't mix.

Same holds true in history when it comes to Anabaptists and their intermingling with the heirs of Calvinistic Reform".