Who Are The General Baptists?
General Baptist Herald
Editors Benoni Stinson and Wm. Reavis
This question has
frequently been asked by our enemies and sometimes by persons more friendly. We
presume however, that the question is generally asked by those who really want
information. And to such inquiries, we will reply, by showing the difference
between the General Baptists, and other distinguished Baptist denominations.
1st.
We differ from the regular, or old school Baptists, because they believe in a
particular or limited atonement; and we believe in a general atonement; and a
possible salvation for all men. They oppose the missionary system, Bible, and
tract societies, &c.; and we are in favor of these. We believe that man is
a moral agent, endowed with the volition of will, capable of examining
propositions, choosing between objects, and therefore responsible to God for
his conduct. This they virtually deny.
We differ from the
united, or effort Baptists, because they are partly Calvinists, and
partly Arminians in sentiment, while we as a
denomination, are decidedly Arminians. They also hold
to close communion, while we hold to mixed or extended communion. The same
difference also exists between us and the regular Baptists. We differ with the
Free-will Baptists chiefly because they are abolitionists; and we have never
interfered with that subject. We differ from the reformers or Campbellites, because they believe baptism to be necessary
to the remission of sins; and we do not. We differ from what is called the
Christian order, or Unitarian Baptists; because we are Trinitarian, and they
are not.
Having shown the
principal difference between us and other noted Baptists in this country, we
propose now, to make some remarks in reference to some of our most prominent or
distinguishing articles of faith. By referring to our articles of faith it will
be seen that some of our articles ore in common with the Baptists of every
school. But our article on the atonement has been a matter of controversy
between us and all Calvinists ever since we took our stand as a separate and
distinct denomination. “We believe, that Jesus Christ, by the grace of God
tasted death for every man; yet none can partake of his divine benefits, only
be repentance towards God, and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.”
Art. 11. By a subsequent
act of the association, this article is qualified this: “Infants and Idiots excepted.”
We design now to make
some remarks on the following propositions:
1st.
We shall examine the character of man before the fall, together with his
maker’s will concerning him;
2nd.
Shall show what he was after the fall;
3rd. Shall make some remarks on the propriety and reasonableness
of a general atonement.
1
1st.
In reference to man’s condition before the fall, but little is said in the
Bible; but that little is of infinite consequence to a correct understanding of
all the rest of the Bible. Among other things however those points should be
carefully noted. 1st, That
man was good. 2nd,
Created in the image of God. 3rd, was possessed of a LIVING
SOUL. And as the Lord gave him dominion over all his works or creatures, we may
infer that he was not only good, yea, very good; but the best of all earthly
beings. Now we conclude that much controversy may be saved by settling one
single question. That is, whether man was a moral agent, or a machine. And that
he was one or the other, admits of no doubt. And we know of no better method of
coming to a correct understanding of this fact, than to examine by what law God
proposes to govern man. For nothing is more certain, than that the system of government, would be adapted to the character and abilities
of the person, or thing to be governed. This seems to be the order of God in
governing both animate and inanimate matter. Hence we see the law of force
applied to all machinery. God does not say to the sun, except you keep your
proper place, you shall be blown away. Nor does he say to the moor or stars, be
cautious what path you run. But he places them in their orbits, applies to them
the law of force, to speed them on their everlasting circuits; and it is so.
And the same may be said of all matter that is not accountable for its conduct.
But to man he says, “In the day that thou eatest
thereof thou shalt surely die.” This we thank clearly
shows that man could eat, or he could let it alone. If this was not the case
what meaning con be attached to the language of God to man? Can we, dare we,
suppose that God would caution men under the penalty of death, not to de a
certain act, when that act was unavoidable? Or that God would command him to do
a thing, that was impossible? God forbid. The only
rational conclusion is, then, that man was a moral agent; and that freedom of
will formed a part of his nature. It would be as absurd to deny, this, as to
deny that man possessed a soul.
Again, as all men stood in him and
were represented by him, so all stood in the same relation to God and his law.
If he stood in innocence, all stood so, so far as his conduct was concerned. If
he sinned, and polluted his soul, as all were in him all would be polluted,
precisely in the same sense. Hence it is said in Romans 5 chap. And 18 vrs., “As
by the offence of one judgment came upon all men,” &c.
In connection with the character of
man, we promised to say a few things concerning the will of God towards him. It
appears in the first place, that man was to be an active and industrious being.
Hence he was placed in the garden to keep and dress it. While doing this he was
not to eat, nor touch the fruit of the tree of Knowledge, of good and evil, on
pain of DEATH. Thus we behold man made good and
upright, having power to remain so. Gods will was then that man should stand.
His law, yea, his decree was, that man should not sin and consequently not fall.- But notwithstanding all this, man neglected to keep the
garden, let in the Serpent, eat of the forbidden fruit; and FELL. “And as by
the disobedience of one man judgment came upon all men to condemnation” &c.
And although all were affected by the fall, ADAM was the only active agent,
in the transgression, and all were effected by his sin
in the same sense. And as the law was a general law, its claims alike on all;
so when it was violated by one who represented all, the sentence
of Condemnation, so far as that act was concerned, came upon all. And in as
much as man was unholy; and the law was holy, just and good, claiming perfect
obedience, man was unable to render that obedience, and consequently could not
atone for his sins or save himself.
Having shown the condition of man
before and after the fall we come now to the 3rd proposition. We
shall make some remarks on the propriety, and reasonableness of a general
atonement. We are aware that on this subject, there are a great variety of
opinions. But however much the Christian world may be divided on the effect of
the atonement, its extent, &c., yet all agree, that
2
the great object of the death of Christ
was, to save Sinners. The question has long been argued, “Is the
atonement general or particular?” We think, however, that so far as supporting
the doctrine of general atonement is concerned, the question might be merged
into one more simple, “Was there at atonement made at
all?” It seems to us, that if an atonement was made at
all, it must have been general from the following considerations:
1st.
The law, as we have already had occasion to remark, was general in its claims
on mankind. The was also a perfect law. All agree to
this. Now as the atonement had reference to the law, and was designed to
satisfy the law, we argue, that in order to accomplish this object, it must be
possessed of two properties, viz: perfection and
generality. And we think it as absurd to deny its being general, as to
deny its perfection. For how could a limited atonement satisfy a general law?
And as the law could not speak on this subject, hear its author. “This is my
beloved son in whom I am well pleased.” Matt. 3 ch. and 17 vers. If the
author of this divine law was well pleased with the sacrifice, it must have
possessed all the qualities necessary to make satisfaction to the law. And as all
were represented by Adam in the breach of the law, and were condemned,
considered abstractly from the atonement, although passive in the
transgression; even so, all were represented by the atonement of Christ;
and all were justified, so far as Adams sins was concerned, passive, in both
instances. See Rom. 5 ch. And 15 vs. Hence all
Infants, dying in infancy, are saved by virtue of the atonement; but we are
bold to affirm that their salvation is doubtful, on predestinarian
principles.
We might here quote a host of
passages of Scripture, to prove, in so many words that Christ died for all; but
his we have done in another article. That will supercede
the necessity of doing it here. But the atonement is as extensive as the fall,
some of the Western Predestinarians already confess,
and believe. We do not know whether they have yet “Trembled;” but after
confessing, and “believing this, if they have not they may tremble, for the
fate of Calvinism.” Daniel Parker we believe, was the
first Calvinist to confess that Christ died for all who fell in Adam. He was
the first too, that made the important discovery “That none but the elect stood
or fell in Adam.” In this, Elder Parker, appears to
throw
But others equally inconsistent
believe that all fell in Adam and Christ passed by one part of the human family
and died for a favored few.
The Predestinarian
Baptists, generally, are of opinion, that if Christ died for all then all will
be saved. This is confounding the cause with the effect. Instead of viewing the
atonement as the procuring cause, they view it as salvation itself.- But when it is considered Christ not only satisfied the law,
and atoned completely for original transgression; but that he ”opened a
fountain for sin and uncleanness where all can go, and be washed from all
uncleanness occasioned by actual transgression,” thence we can see, that “God
can be just; and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus.”
3