[We are working on an eBook titled The New Divinity Movement and Old School Baptists. This is just a portion of the book. Most Old School Baptists view the rise of benevolent societies as the cause of the split in 1832. But what about the split? These Old Baptists had no idea that decades before the seeds had been planted for this split, by the likes of Jonathan Edwards and others. This article explains somewhat that split and its causes - ed]
A Light Review Between Andrew Fuller, Jonathan Edwards and the New Divinity Movement
Andrew Fuller (1754–1815) was a significant figure in the development of evangelical Calvinism among Baptists and had a profound influence on the New Divinity movement in New England. His theological works, particularly The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation (1785), helped shape debates on atonement, human responsibility, and the nature of faith. His engagement with Hyper-Calvinism and his articulation of a more evangelistic and moral-governmental view of theology resonated with key thinkers in the New Divinity tradition.
1. The New Divinity Movement: Overview
The New Divinity movement was an 18th- and early 19th-century theological development among New England Congregationalists. It was led by disciples of Jonathan Edwards, such as Samuel Hopkins, Joseph Bellamy, and later Nathaniel Taylor. The movement built upon Edwardian Calvinism while incorporating new emphases on moral government, human ability, and the nature of atonement.
Key tenets of the New Divinity movement included:
- Moral Government Theology: God governs humanity in a way that upholds moral order.
- Unlimited Atonement with Limited Application: Christ's atonement was sufficient for all but applied to the elect.
- Human Responsibility: Emphasized that sinners were responsible for their own rejection of the gospel.
- Disinterested Benevolence: True virtue consists in love for God and others, without self-interest.
2. Fuller’s Theology and Its Parallels with New Divinity
Fuller’s theology closely aligned with the New Divinity movement on several points:
A. Atonement and the Moral Government of God
Fuller rejected both Hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism, advocating for an understanding of the atonement that was sufficient for all but efficient for the elect. This view paralleled the New Divinity’s moral governmental approach, which argued that Christ’s atonement was necessary to uphold divine justice while making salvation genuinely available.
Fuller’s View:
"The atonement of Christ did not consist in his enduring the identical punishment due to the sinner, but in his suffering that which maintained the honor of divine government and opened the way for mercy." (The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation, 1801)
This moral-governmental framework resonated with New Divinity thinkers like Samuel Hopkins, who saw the atonement as a means of demonstrating divine justice rather than a direct substitution.
B. Human Responsibility and the Free Offer of the Gospel
One of Fuller's most significant contributions was his argument that faith is the duty of all, countering Hyper-Calvinist claims that only the elect should be addressed in evangelistic calls.
Fuller’s View:
"That which is a gift of grace may also be a duty, just as life is a gift, yet we are responsible for how we use it." (Reply to Button, 1803)
New Divinity preachers, like Joseph Bellamy, similarly stressed that sinners were responsible for their own unbelief. They rejected the idea that sinners were passive in salvation, instead emphasizing that sinners must turn to Christ in faith.
C. Evangelism and Missions
Fuller’s emphasis on missions and evangelistic preaching profoundly impacted both the Baptist movement and the broader evangelical world, including New England Congregationalists.
- The New Divinity movement was deeply committed to revivalism and missionary work.
- Fuller’s theology provided a theoretical basis for missionary activity, directly influencing figures like William Carey in the Baptist Missionary Society.
Samuel Hopkins, a leader of the New Divinity, argued for the necessity of missions, a conviction shared by Fuller. Both men saw evangelism as a moral imperative based on divine justice and the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement.
3. Differences Between Fuller and the New Divinity
Despite their similarities, Fuller and the New Divinity movement had key differences:
-
The Nature of Original Sin:
- The New Divinity movement, particularly Hopkinsianism, denied that humans inherit Adam’s guilt, seeing original sin primarily as a disposition toward evil.
- Fuller, however, maintained that humans inherit both corruption and guilt from Adam.
-
The Extent of the Atonement:
- While both Fuller and the New Divinity men spoke of sufficiency for all, and efficiency for the elect, some New Divinity thinkers, like Nathaniel Taylor, moved toward a more Arminian understanding of atonement, which Fuller resisted.
-
Free Will and Human Ability:
- Some New Divinity theologians, especially in the later stages, began softening their Calvinism to emphasize human ability.
- Fuller, however, held to total depravity more strictly and saw regeneration as monergistic (God alone acts to regenerate sinners).
4. Fuller’s Lasting Impact on New Divinity Thinkers
Fuller’s defense of evangelistic Calvinism ensured that his works were read widely in New England. His influence is evident in:
- The adoption of duty faith in later New Divinity circles.
- His model of missions-minded Calvinism, shaped early American Baptist and Congregationalist missionary efforts.
- His theological framework, provided a bridge between traditional Calvinism and New Divinity thought.
Andrew Fuller’s engagement with Hyper-Calvinism, his defense of duty faith, and his evangelistic emphasis made him an important influence on the New Divinity movement. While he remained firmly within the Particular Baptist tradition, his work helped shape the broader evangelical Calvinist movement in America. The theological synergy between Fuller and the New Divinity thinkers contributed to a more evangelistically active, morally grounded, and theologically refined Calvinism in both England and New England.
Jonathan Edwards’ Influence on Andrew Fuller
Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758), the leading figure of the First Great Awakening and a foundational theologian in the New Divinity movement, significantly influenced Andrew Fuller’s theological development. Fuller was deeply impacted by Edwards’ writings on original sin, free will, and revivalism.
A. Theological Parallels
Original Sin and Human Depravity:
Edwards’ Original Sin (1758) argued for the deep corruption of human nature inherited from Adam. Fuller adopted this doctrine, using it as a foundation for his argument that all sinners are accountable to repent and believe.
Religious Affections and Genuine Faith:
Edwards’ Religious Affections (1746) emphasized the role of heartfelt, Spirit-driven affections in true conversion. Fuller echoed this in his emphasis on experiential religion and genuine conversion.
Freedom of the Will:
Edwards’ Freedom of the Will (1754) argued that humans act according to their strongest inclinations, despite their fallen nature. Fuller incorporated this into his refutation of Hyper-Calvinism, arguing that sinners are responsible for their unbelief.
B. Revivalism and Evangelism
Edwards’ revivalist preaching and defense of revival theology inspired Fuller’s own evangelistic mission. Fuller’s commitment to gospel proclamation and missions owed much to Edwards’ view that God works through revival to bring about conversions.
C. The Role of Atonement
Edwards’ concept of atonement as a demonstration of divine justice influenced Fuller’s governmental theory of atonement. Both men sought to reconcile God’s justice and mercy, making salvation accessible while maintaining the necessity of divine righteousness.
4. Differences Between Fuller and the New Divinity
Despite their similarities, Fuller and the New Divinity movement had key differences:
The Nature of Original Sin:
The New Divinity movement, particularly Hopkinsianism, denied that humans inherit Adam’s guilt, seeing original sin primarily as a disposition toward evil.
Fuller, however, maintained that humans inherit both corruption and guilt from Adam.
The Extent of the Atonement:
While both Fuller and the New Divinity men spoke of sufficiency for all, and efficiency for the elect, some New Divinity thinkers, like Nathaniel Taylor, moved toward a more Arminian understanding of atonement, which Fuller resisted.
Free Will and Human Ability:
Some New Divinity theologians, especially in the later stages, began softening their Calvinism to emphasize human ability.
Fuller, however, held to total depravity more strictly and saw regeneration as monergistic (God alone acts to regenerate sinners).
Amen. Neonomian hogwash. A century after Fuller, few Baptists could be told from Methodists
ReplyDelete