DID BAPTISTS CHANGE THEIR DOCTRINE FROM 200 YEARS AGO?

 

Brothers, first let me say that ALL Baptist confessions and articles of faith of which I am aware, begin with some sort of statement as to the Word of God. Most will state something like, "We believe the bible and the books of the Old and New Testaments contained therein, to be the ONLY rule of faith and practice." That being the most important article of any confession or abstract of principles, we must begin there.

If it appears that Baptists were once all Calvinists, and then have evolved or changed their doctrine over time, there are only three  possibilities.

1) Either the term "Calvinism" had a much broader meaning 200 years ago and included any who held that final apostasy is not possible, or

2) Non Calvinist Baptists were more evangelical and founded more churches than Calvinists, thus over time we became the majority, or 

3) After reading the sacred oracles written in Scripture, having been enlightened by easier access to the original languages of Hebrew and Greek, they studied the scriptures anew, and came to the conclusion that Calvinism is not the best, or even correct way to define the Gospel, they changed course.

Either way, today's Calvinist will not be happy.

No one can deny that there were many Baptists who were neither Calvinist nor Arminian by today's usage of the terms. Many were like Adiel Sherwood, a founder of the Georgia Baptist Association, and forerunner of the Georgia Baptist Convention, who said of his own doctrine, I am aware that there are staunch professors to be found, who would smite me on one cheek, for displacing a fold of Mr. Wesley’s prunella gown—and others, who would smite me on the other cheek, for disturbing a curl of Doctor Gill’s wig. But I trust that the truth is found between the extremes.” 

In 1857 Francis Wayland (1796-1865), professor at Andover Theological Seminary, founder of Newton Theological Institution, president of Brown University, pastor of First Baptist Church in Boston and First Baptist Church of Providence, RI (the first Baptist church in America). A campaigner for anti-slavery causes and prison reform, Wayland College in Virginia (now Virginia Union University) for freed slaves was named in his honor. (Wayland Baptist University in Texas was named for a different Wayland). Wayland says the following;

"The extent of the atonement has been and still is a matter of honest but not unkind difference. Within the last fifty years a change has gradually taken place in the views of a large portion of our brethren. At the commencement of that period Gill’s Divinity was a sort of standard, and Baptists imbibing his opinions were what may be called almost hyper-Calvinistic. A change commenced upon the publication of the writings of Andrew Fuller, especially his “Gospel Worthy of all Acceptation.”

It is difficult at the present day to conceive to what extent the doctrine of the limited atonement, and the views of election which accompanied it, were carried. I once knew a popular minister, who used to quote the passage, “God so loved the world,” etc., by inserting the word elect before world: “God so loved the elect world,” etc. I was, in the early part of my ministry, settled in a respectable town in Massachusetts. One of my members, a very worthy man, and the son of a Baptist minister, and reputed to be “very clear in the doctrines”—(this was the term applied to this form of belief )—had an interesting family wholly given up to worldliness. I wished to converse with them on the subject of personal religion, and mentioned to him my desire. He kindly but plainly told me that he did not wish any one to converse with his children on that subject. If they were elected, God would convert them in his own time; but if not, talking would do them no good, it would only make them hypocrites. He was, I believe, the last pillar of Gillism then remaining in the church.

In my last number I referred to the change which had taken place, in the opinions of Baptists, on the subject of the Atonement. The question mainly at issue was the extent of the gospel sacrifice; in other respects there has ever been, I believe, an entire harmony. It may be well to state briefly what I suppose to be the prevailing belief, in this doctrine, at present. In the northern and eastern States, it is generally held that the whole race became sinners in consequence of the sin of the first Adam; and that, on the other hand, the way of salvation was opened for the whole race by the obedience and death of the second Adam. Nevertheless, this alone renders the salvation of no one certain, for, so steeped are men in sin, that they all, with one consent, begin to make excuse, and universally refuse the offer of pardon. God, then, in infinite mercy, has elected some to everlasting life, and, by the influence of the Holy Spirit, renders the word effectual to their salvation and sanctification. In his offer of mercy he is perfectly honest and sincere, for the feast has been provided, and it is spread for all. This does not, however, interfere with his gracious purpose to save by his sovereign mercy such as he may choose. There is here sovereignty, but no partiality. There can be no partiality, for none have the semblance of a claim; and, if any one perishes, it is not from the want of a full and free provision, but from his own wilful perverseness. Ye will not come to me, that ye may have life.^" (Francis Wayland, Notes on the Principles and Practices of Baptist Churches (New York: Sheldon, Blakeman, and Co., 1857), 18, 19, 20. Italics his, bold mine)

Spurgeon said this; 

"I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with myself; for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent? But I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it, "God our Savior; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."

and " Oh, my brothers and sisters in Christ, if sinners will be damned, at least let them leap to hell over our bodies; and if they will perish, let them perish with our arms about their knees, imploring them to stay, and not madly to destroy themselves. If hell must be filled, at least let it be filled in the teeth of our exertions, and let not one go there unwarned and unprayed for. [C. H. Spurgeon, “The Wailing of Risca,” in The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons, vol. 7 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1861), 11.]

Are you seeing the picture yet? If "change" of doctrine has occurred, if a "drift" has happened, or some have "evolved" in their doctrine,  who is it that changed? The answer must be it is the Calvinist strand of Baptists that "evolved" not the Non Calvinist Baptists. I deny that the majority of Baptists were Calvinists historically, but let's assume they were. The only possible conclusion is that the calvinistic Baptists became convinced of the doctrines that had always been preached by Provisionists, abandoned their theological system, and embraced the love of God for all persons, because of the  full and free provision mentioned above.

If a defection occurred among calvinistic Baptists, and they jumped into the boat of Provisionism, why be angry at the Provisionists? It seems many Calvinists are more concerned about converting other Christians to Calvinism, rather than converting sinners to Christ. If you wish to jump out of the Provisionist boat, feel free to do so, and if in doing so you take some Provisionists with you, our boat will continue to sail, will continue to throw out the lifeline to those who are perishing in the sea of sin, until our boat is full again. I dare say that the vast majority of those in Calvinist churches were converted in a Non Calvinist church. You should thank God for Provisionists and Arminians, for without them, your churches would be empty. The Presbyterians have the fewest churches of any sect. You must ask yourself "why?"

In conclusion, let me say this. The Calvinist must persevere in order to prove themselves "elect", while the Arminian must persevere to remain "elect". Can either be certain of eternal life? In theory yes. The Calvinist who becomes antinomian rests in a false assurance that since God has decreed all things, that this must include even their sin, and so they are not worried or convicted about their own sin. The Arminian makes the claim that one can achieve entire sanctification in this life, and at that point assurance can be found. Neither is biblical as far as I am concerned. This is why those like me, wear neither label. I will echo the sentiment of a Baptist preacher riding through North Carolina in the late 1780's.When he came to rest, he began to inquire about the state of the soul of a man he had just met. The man asked the preacher "Are you Calvinist or Arminian?" To which the preacher replied "I am a Baptist".