It is certainly true that ideas do have consequences--sometimes very important ones. This is
certainly true in the area of theology. Practice is always, whether consciously
or unconsciously, based on doctrine. Doctrine is the root; practice is the
fruit. Doctrine is the foundation; practice is the superstructure. Sometimes,
to a superficial observer, the relationship between the two may not be
immediately apparent, but it is there and will eventually be manifest to all.
This is true, for example, in the area of pastoral
counseling. For much of the first half of the twentieth century most of what
was called “Christian” counseling was not Christian at all, because it was
based on ideas that had been borrowed from Freud and other theorists who were
hostile to God’s Word. Many well-meaning Christian pastors used these flawed
practices which were based on false ideas. They were sincere but they did not
realize the implications of what they were doing. Thankfully, Jay E. Adams and
others were blessed to think through the problem and to realize that good
results would not be achieved by acting on false principles. Christian
counseling, in the true sense of the term, would have to be based on Christian
presuppositions.
This same principle holds in the work of evangelism.
There are a lot of activities that might go by the name of evangelism but that
is only true evangelism which is based on correct theology. Some people do not
want to consider theology when evangelism is being considered. They think that
the only thing that is important is that the “gospel” is being preached to as
many people as possible. The flaw in this thinking is basic and lies in this:
The gospel cannot be preached unless those who preach it really know what the
gospel is! It is commendable to be zealous, but zeal is not enough. There was a
young man with a great zeal who lived in the time of King David. There was a
battle and he wanted to be the one to run and tell the outcome. Joab tried to
dissuade him and asked, “Wherefore wilt thou run, my son, seeing that thou hast
no tidings ready?” But the young man ran anyway even though he did not have
anything to tell when he reached his destination. (II Sam. 18:22-29).
Similarly, in the New Testament, the Lord Jesus denounced those who had a great
zeal to “evangelize” but who carried a false gospel. He said:"Woe unto
you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye compass sea and land to make one
proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than
yourselves.” (Matt. 23:15). The Savior was not denouncing zeal here; He was
denouncing false doctrine. We must have our doctrine right before our
evangelism will be right.
We must tell the right message in the right way!
God dictates both the right message and the right
method.
Andrew Fuller l John Gill
For most of the nineteenth century there was a great
struggle among the Baptists in the United States and in the British Isles over
the subject of evangelism. The struggle may have seemed to a superficial
observer to be confined to methodology. But a more careful observer would soon
discover that the real, fundamental issues that underlay the dispute were
doctrinal. The two schools of thought that emerged were identified by the
appellations “Fullerites” and “Gillites.”
These designations came from the names of two English theologians. One
was John Gill of London. He was born in 1697 and died in 1771. The other was
Andrew Fuller of Kettering. He was born in 1754 and died in 1815. These men agreed
on very many points of doctrine and both claimed to be orthodox Baptists. But there were some very vital points where
they believed and taught differently, and it was these differences among their
followers which caused a great division among the Baptists in both the British
Isles and in North America. This was not a sudden division. There was a lot of
agitation among Baptists on the disputed points of doctrine for several
decades. The trouble began for all practical purposes when Fuller published a book
entitled The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation. The dissemination of some
of the ideas contained in this book ultimately led to something radically new
among the Baptists. The Baptist Missionary
Society was formed in Kettering, England in 1792. This is the date
usually given to define the beginning of the so-called Modern Mission Movement
among the Baptists.
This movement, with its new doctrines and practices
split the Baptist family.
Sometimes there must be divisions among people who do
not believe the same things about important subjects. An old prophet asked the
question many years ago, “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” (Amos
3:3). The obvious answer is “no.” Those
who disagree on fundamental matters cannot walk together. On the other hand, it
is very sinful when professing Christians separate from fellowship with each
other on matters that are not vital. Paul tells Christians that we should be,
“Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” (Eph.
4:3). Solomon said that one of the things that the Lord hates is, “he that
soweth discord among brethren.” (Prov. 6:19). The Lord Jesus said, “Blessed are
the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.” (Matt. 5:9).
The disputants in the theological struggle that is being considered here were
aware of these principles. They knew what a serious matter that going their
separate ecclesiastical ways was. This is why the process of division took so
long. Serious minded brethren fervently wrestled with the issues. Many of them
tried to find common ground on which to base their fellowship. They held in
common such basic Christian doctrines as the Trinity, Total Depravity, and many
others. But, after much soul-searching, the people who eventually became known
as “Old School,” or “Primitive” Baptists thought that they must separate from
those who became generally known as “New School,” or “Missionary” Baptists.
The question we must ask is this: Were the Old School
brethren justified in their actions? Obviously they thought they were. But many
people, then and now, did not think they were. Some people believe that the
differences were not great enough to justify a separation. They say that the
theology of John Gill and that of Andrew Fuller were essentially the same. If
they are right, then the Old School Baptists did a terrible thing! They tore
the Baptist family asunder for no good reason. However, if the Old School
brethren were correct in their stand, we owe them our undying gratitude. They
were heroes of the faith who were caustically criticized as they made a noble
but very unpopular stand.
Theological Differences
The most glaring difference in the theologies of Gill
and Fuller dealt with the very heart of the doctrine of salvation, the Atonement. Atonement, here, is used in
the sense of redemption, that is, the payment for sin. Gill and his followers
held to the Biblical doctrine of a Limited Atonement or of Particular
Redemption. This simply means that the atonement is limited to the elect
children of God. The atonement was not intended by God for anyone else.
Redemption was, therefore, particular. It was only for the elect. The Baptists
who held to this doctrine, including John Gill, were called Particular
Baptists. There were other Baptists in England and in North America who were
called General Baptists. They were called this because they openly believed in
and taught the doctrine of General Atonement. That is, they taught that Christ
had shed His blood for each member of the human race.
Fuller claimed to be a Particular Baptist. He never
embraced or taught a full-blown doctrine of General Atonement. However, he
introduced a theory of the atonement which his opponents said was a halfway
road to that doctrine. There is no question that Fuller introduced something
that was new and different. The Baptist Enclyclopedia of William
Cathcart says concerning Fuller: “His views of the atonement, however, were
innovations to the English Baptists of his day, which stirred up vigorous
opposition.” An American Baptist historian, David Benedict, published a book in
1859 entitled Fifty Years Among The Baptists. He mentioned that forty years previously there had been a lot
of agitation among the Baptists because of the “modifications” to their creeds
which had been introduced by Andrew Fuller. He said concerning Fuller: “This
famous man maintained that the atonement of Christ was general in its nature,
but particular in its application, in opposition to our old divines, who held
that Christ died for the elect only.” Benedict also said that the Fuller system
was not well received by “the staunch defenders of the old theory of a limited
atonement.”
The question, then, is not whether Fuller introduced
something new among the Particular Baptists. He emphatically did. The question
to be answered is how important were these innovations? Did the opponents of
Fuller overreact? Were the differences serious enough to cause what became a
rift of fellowship in the Particular Baptist family? Tom Nettles, in his recent
book, By His Grace and for His Glory, says that “the differences in
their theologies are largely overdrawn.” (P.110) If this assessment is true,
then the Particular Baptists did, indeed, react too strongly and caused an
unnecessary schism in the Baptist family.
However, many Baptists, both then and now, did not and
do not believe that the old Baptists reacted too strongly against the doctrine
of Andrew Fuller. They have contended the Fuller doctrine is radically
different from the old, orthodox view of the limited scope and design of the
atonement. William Rushton, an English Particular Baptist, published a book in
1831 entitled A Defense of Particular Redemption. His thesis is that
Fuller wrote in such an artful way that the differences between him and his
opponents seemed to be of little importance. Nevertheless, said Rushton, the
differences are great. He said that Fuller did not want to be considered to be
an open opponent of Particular Redemption. Neither did he want to side totally
with the General Baptists and say that Christ died equally for all men. He was
actually accusing Fuller of speaking out of both sides of his mouth. Fuller
taught that Christ’s death was sufficient for all of mankind, but was applied
only to the elect. Rushton would call this double talk. He said, “It is absurd
to represent Christ as paying a ransom sufficient for all, when he intended
only to redeem some! Or to affirm that Christ is a sufficient Savior of those
whom he never intended to save!” He further said, “Hence the word of God never
represents the sufficiency of the atonement as more extensive that the design
of the atonement.” Once more, he said, “The atonement of Christ cannot be both
indefinite and special.” Rushton called Fuller’s teaching on the atonement an
“uncertain, self-contradictory system {which} has led many to suppose that it
depends on our believing whether Christ died for us or not. According to such
persons, our believing makes it true that Christ died for us. Such a sentiment
is contrary both to Scripture and to every principle of right reasoning.”
Another man who saw a great deal of difference between
the views of Fuller and those of the advocates of Particular Redemption was J.
P. Boyce, a prominent member of the faculty of the Southern Baptist Theological
Seminary during the last half of the nineteenth century. He wrote much about
the doctrine of Atonement in his Abstract of Systematic Theology. Boyce
considered Fuller’s theory to be so different from what he called the
“Calvinistic” theory held by the old Particular Baptists, that he considered it
as a totally separate theory. In criticism of Fuller’s teachings Boyce said it
ascribes such a nature to the atonement “as makes it only a method of
reconciliation for the people of God, and not actual reconciliation.”
Conclusion
The Particular Baptists in England and the Old School
or Primitive Baptists of the United States were fully justified in rejecting
the teachings of Andrew Fuller and his followers regarding the doctrine of the
atonement. Most of Fuller’s followers soon began to openly advocate the theory
of General Redemption, that is that Christ died for each individual of the
human race and sincerely desires their salvation. The good old brethren could
see where Fuller’s ideas would lead. They were duty bound to lift up their
voices and pens against this false teaching.
It was not easy for them to do so. They were severely criticized. They
were called a lot of unkind names. They were sometimes lonely, but they had to
be faithful to the truth. The present writer, for one, holds these staunch old
warriors of the faith in high regard. May the Lord give us the same dedication
for truth in our day.
Zack M.
Guess
May 31,1995