Featured A Baptist theological shift

So he would see 5 pointers as high, and 4 as being moderate ones?

 

My great grandfathers "sentiment" was Calvinistic, but historically in my family, he was alone in those beliefs. He recanted in his later years, but he had always told us, (my grandfather, my dad, and myself,) that there has always been a rift in our Baptist brethren from the days his fathers father came over from Wales and Scotland. The majority of my family still rejects Calvin's notions as did the majority of our forefathers. It's a long time family issue.

Anyway, my great grandfather, in his words, couldn't ever get past the word "whosoever"!

 

What he meant by Baptists holding that "the atonement is general in its nature" was that they held that the atonement was general in nature.

As you described in your article:

 

Around here in this locale the split between the Old Schoolers and the New was more of a drifting apart, so I understand. They would share the same buildings and attend each other's meetings, much of the difference being between the older and younger generations.

The split between the Old School and Campbellites, however, was very heated and destructive. CoC has their origins right here in the Bluegrass.

 

There were both particular and general Baptists which rebelled against the Anglican Church of England. Initially I believe Calvinism dominated but that shifted in the other direction. The bedrock statement of Baptist faith was the New Hampshire Confession of 1833. Baptists split in Northern (now American) Baptists in about 1845 for basically the same reasons which led to the Civil War. American Baptists have essentially stayed with the principals of the NH Confession. Southern Baptists did as well until the 50'S when Hershel Hobbs championed the idea of eternal security. The statement "Only those who persevere until the end" is included in the 1925 BF&M and remains as an American Baptist (as well as Methodist) belief but was removed from the 1963 and 2000 BF&M's. Hobbes was opposed by Dale Moody.

 

Once again you know not of which you speak:

Southern Baptist Convention > The Baptist Faith and Message

 

It seems that everyone has their own definitions of what 'High' and 'Hyper-' Calvinism are. In the past, 'High' Calvinism tended to be the belief in Justification from Eternity (as opposed to election in eternity) which was a belief of John Gill and several others (in opposition to the 1689 Confession XI:4).
Hyper-Calvinism in my understanding is the belief that God's grace should not be offered to unbelievers. This teaching originated with a Congregationalist called Joseph Hussey, who wrote a book entitled God's Operations of Grace but no offers of Grace, and spread through men like John Skepp and John Brine into the Baptists (contra Mark 1:15; John 6:37 etc.).

But all the Particular Baptists, from Gill and Skepp through to Fuller and Carey, and on to Spurgeon, believed in Particular or Limited Atonement. The clue is in the name: if you don't believe in Particular Atonement, you're not a Particular Baptist QED. Four-point 'Calvinism' is not Calvinism.

I would go on to say that the 'High' Calvinism of Gill is an error (cf. Isaiah 12:1), but Hyper-Calvinism (as I have described it) is outside of Christian orthodoxy

 

Another problem is that those such as Norman Geisler have seemed to see what is called as normal 5 point calvinism as being Hyper form of it!

 

That is Geisler's problem, not mine.

 

'Mixed feelings' would be the short answer. It's impossible not to have respect for Gadsby who did wonderful work for the Gospel in Manchester and the surrounding area at the time of the Industrial Revolution. However, I can't agree with his belief that the law is not the Christian's rule of life. SFAIK Gadsby led a blameless private life, but the same cannot be said for some of those whom he discipled.

I respect Philpot for following his principles in coming out of the Church of England and some of his writings are very edifying. However, his Calvinism is just a little high for me as is Ramsbottom's.

Articles 33 &34 of the Gospel Standard Articles of faith (which were added, I think, after Philpott's time), are utterly wrong in that they inhibit the free preaching of the Gospel and the free offer to Christ to the penitent:-

33. Preaching To The Unconverted

Therefore, that for ministers in the present day to address unconverted persons, or indiscriminately all in a mixed congregation, calling upon them to savingly repent, believe, and receive Christ, or perform any other acts dependent upon the new creative power of the Holy Ghost, is, on the one hand, to imply creature power, and, on the other, to deny the doctrine of special redemption.

34. Preaching Of The Gospel
(Exhorting The Unregenerate)

We believe that any such expressions as convey to the hearers the belief that they possess a certain power to flee to the Saviour, to close in with Christ, to receive Christ, while in an unregenerate state, so that unless they do thus close with Christ, etc., they shall perish, are untrue, and must, therefore, be rejected. And we further believe that we have no Scripture warrant to take the exhortations in the Old Testament intended for the Jews in national covenant with God, and apply them in a spiritual and saving sense to unregenerated men.

Finally, here is Philpott's letter of resignation from the Church of England. It caused quite a furore at the time and is an interesting read, though rather long.
Philpot’s Letter of Resignation from the Church of England

 

His view seems to be a prominent one among certain Christians though...