Puritan and Baptist Dissenters — The Case Is Not New¶

One of the most common dismissals of this casebook is that it is a modern American argument. The English sources say otherwise: the case was made in the seventeenth century, by Puritans and Baptists, in the same century as Dort and Westminster.

Who they are¶

John Goodwin was a London Puritan pastor whose Redemption Redeemed (1651) is the era's fullest English defense of universal redemption. Thomas Grantham was a leader among the General Baptists, whose Christianismus Primitivus (1678) set out their theology. Thomas Helwys wrote A Short Declaration of the Mystery of Iniquity (1612), the first English plea for universal religious liberty, and the General Baptist churches that followed him held a general redemption. John Smyth led the Separatist congregation in Amsterdam from which the English Baptist movement emerged. Andrew Fuller (1754–1815) was a Particular Baptist pastor whose The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation (1785) recovered duty faith and the free offer against the hyper-Calvinism of his day.

Their best arguments¶

1. The Reformation era produced the argument, not just the system¶

Goodwin argued, in the middle of the Puritan century, that Christ died for all and that the decree of reprobation is not in Scripture — and he did it with the same texts the casebook uses. The point is not that Goodwin settles anything; it is that the "Calvinism versus Arminianism" fight is not a nineteenth-century American revival product. It is as old as the Reformed confessions themselves, and it was conducted by people who knew the confessions from the inside. See Augustine before and after.

2. The General Baptists made general redemption a confessional identity¶

The General Baptists took their name from the extent of the atonement. Helwys and Smyth belong to that stream, and Grantham's Christianismus Primitivus is its most substantial systematic statement. Two things follow. First, there is a Baptist tradition that is not Calvinist, so "Baptist theology" cannot be equated with the Reformed view. Second, the tradition linked universal redemption to religious liberty: a God who does not coerce conscience does not coerce it by decree either. That link is worth recovering, though it must be argued rather than asserted.

3. Fuller shows the system's own edge¶

Fuller is the most interesting figure here because he was a Calvinist. He argued that unbelief is a sin for which every hearer is responsible, that the gospel warrant is universal, and that the free offer must be preached to all — against hyper-Calvinists who denied duty faith. His argument is an internal critique: deny duty faith and the free offer, and the system becomes preachable only to people who already believe they are elect. The casebook's claim is that Fuller was right about the offer and that the offer, once granted, puts pressure on definite atonement — the "two wills" problem in its original setting.

One representative work¶

Goodwin, Redemption Redeemed (1651) for the era's fullest statement; Fuller, The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation (1785) for the internal critique. Grantham is for specialists; Helwys is for the religious-liberty connection.

Their distinctive contribution¶

They establish continuity, which matters rhetorically and theologically. When a pastor is told that his objections are a modern novelty, the answer is a list of names and dates from the 1600s. The tradition also shows that the non-Calvinist position has been held by people with high views of Scripture, grace, and the church — not only by liberals or by people who wanted a more comfortable doctrine.

Where the case is weakest¶

The General Baptist stream fragmented, and by the eighteenth century several of its congregations had drifted toward Unitarianism — which does not refute the original argument but does mean the tradition cannot simply be invoked as a golden chain. Goodwin was accused of heterodoxy in his own day, and some of his christological and justification views were contested, so he is a witness rather than an authority. The Baptist material is mostly about ecclesiology and liberty; using it as a soteriological argument is selective. And Fuller proves only that a Calvinist can be inconsistent, not that Calvinism is false — the casebook should say so plainly. The historical argument corroborates; it does not conclude.

What to borrow¶

The names and dates, the General Baptist confessional identity, the liberty link, and Fuller's internal critique of hyper-Calvinism. Quote Goodwin sparingly and check the edition.