The Baptist Split Of 1832

Hi folks

I have read the thread, and I think the mechanics of the division are pretty well known, at least by the regulars here, so I won't go over them again.

At any rate, I sometimes wonder if the rhetoric of both sides didn't drive them further apart. I know that New School and Old School parties went to great lengths to prove that they were the original group and right in their decisions. I would throw it out for discussion that neither party was completely right or completely wrong, and that excesses were committed by both sides.

The fundamental differences of intrepretation of the order of the salvation experience must come into play here, (i.e., does the new birth preceed repentance or does repentance preceed the new birth.) The question of to whom the great commission was delivered -- to the church or to the apostles must also be considered. A third question of whether the gospel is necessary to regeneration, or is the gospel to bring life and immortality to light is also central. Of course these questions can never be answered to the satisfaction of all in this world. These three central theological questions are still with us today. The Old School folks were less successful at putting out their views than were the New School folks. This is, in my view, inevitable, based on the nature of the beast, and nature of how things were in 1832 and since.

So, was the division of 1832 inevitable? Probably. Will it be resolved in this world? Probably not.

The positions the various sides took in 1832 led to the excesses, and positives noted below, which are strictly my opinion:

Some Old School excesses:
Lack of witness
Lack of centralization, which led to further fragmentation.
Deemphasisis of education
Drift to fatalism and hyper-Calvinism.
Drift to hyper-conservatism.

Some New School excesses:
Deempahsis on church discipline
Easy believism
Excessive centralization, which led to further fragmentation
Over emphasis on education at the expense of mentoring.
Drift to arminianism
Drift to hyper-dispensationalism.
Inconsistent and sometimes illogical theology.
Drift to liberalism
Excesses in areas of money. This was perhaps not as bad in actual Baptist circles, but did open the door for people like the tele-evangelists who are money grubbers.

Some positive items
Old School Positive attributes
Consistent theology
Taking care of one another
Church discipline is generally strong.
Mentoring one another.

New School Positive attributes
"Compelling those to come to the marriage supper." Community outreach.
Educational opportunities (I don't view this as contradictory to the negative comment above).

(There are probably more positive New School items, I should list, but I am not one, so some what would be good I don't know).

So, there is as balanced a view as I can muster. I realize that we all have our interpretation on the events nearly 200 years ago. Neither side is blameless or 100% correct.

Jeff.

[ February 25, 2003, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: Jeff Weaver ]

 

How reliable is the whole Trail of Blood scenario? I've heard some (esp. Catholics--imagine that!) say that it is inaccurate, and others act as if it were all true.

 

We are so spooked by the word evolution, we are afraid to admit that there is an evolution of thought down through the ages. The primitive church was just a beginning and unfolded through history as theology and bible knowledge developed. Some went too far theologically, and some never grew at all.

Culturally we have changed, and I am glad for that. I would not want to step back into 1930's England despite the untoward changes that have come about with modernity.

The church too must develop along with the progresses in civilization. We cling to the main tenents of scripture, but progress as well.

On the splits. We often quote "come out from among them and be ye separate." That is true for the individual believer. Had all the fundamentalist abandoned the Baptist Conventions in Canada, we would have left them in the bed of modernism. As it happened, we recaptured that Convention and it is predominately evangelical to-day. The important thing is to take a stand, and not be hoodwinked.

I am overwhelmed at all the splits in the USA, and even by all the various groups of Baptists, especially those who make eschatology a test of fellowship. We have a few fellowships in Canada to-day that do the same, but they are newcomers and all AMerican in origin. In our Fellowship, we have members of all schools, and some strongly so, but it never hindered our fellowship or cooperation in the things of the gospel.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Brother Glen, the least of worries in this particular forum, is to trod on toes. We don't behave that way in here. We teach and learn; we share and develop.

Cheers,

Jim

 

No offense here, Brother Glen. Never crossed my mind. Your personal problems are our personal problems..afterall, we are brethren in the Lord.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Thanks for the info, Bro. Glenn--I'll check it out.

God bless

 

Bro. Glen

I gotta agree with Stephen on the historic background. I don't buy the connection to those ancient groups as being a legitimate connection for modern Baptists to apostolic Christianity. Most all of them would have taught things that we would reject today as heretical. Some of these groups were heavily influenced by gnostic thought.

I'll trade your rain for our snow. Our predicted 1-3 inches has become about 5.

Jeff.