One best work on Baptist history?

I don't believe I was discussing what true Landmarkism is Doc though I spent 12 years in the ABA. I have found the Landmark view to be more diverse than you suppose but all Landmarkers agree that there have been "Baptistic" type Churches going all the way back to Christ.

So, you as a Landmarker have no problem that they baptized by affusion? Gee, Doc you must be one of one of those inclusive Landmarkers

Prove it! I have produced 2 Anabaptist sources, you simply have gave your opinion which means nothing if you don't have some valid historical evidence to validate that opinion.

Doc, I am waiting for you to explain how I poison the well of Baptist history when I quote from 2 respected primary sources (Ridemann's Riechenstaff, Hutterite Chronincle) that testify of Anabaptists baptizing by affusion and that Conrad Grebel, George Blaurock, Felix Manz were baptized in that manner. Can you come up with 2 primary sources (Not a secondary source such as Christian or Carroll) but a Anabaptist confession or Anabaptists themselves that give a differant version of January 21, 1525. Your opinion and my opinion on Baptist history are irrelevant if the primary sources disagree with us. So, I am anxiously awaiting the text you found that describes a differant version of January 21, 1525. If you can produce that it will shed great light on the early Anabaptist movement and demonstrate that the Hutterite Chroncles was a fraud or rewritten and that Vedder, Estep and others have been writing is false history On the other hand if you cannot Produce a differant historical text of January 21, 1525 then it means you have no historical evidence and are simply ignoring Historical evidence that disagrees with your theology. So, give us that text Doc. Certaintly you have primary sources that agree with you....Don't you?

[ September 10, 2002, 01:24 PM: Message edited by: Kiffin ]

 

Kiffin,

Anyone who accuses John Christian of resting his case on secondary sources only proves that he never read Christian. He was as familiar with the historical records as I suppose it is possible to be. Three things can be gathered from Christian's history:

1. The normal Anabaptist practice was dipping.

2. There were a minority of Anabaptists who practiced affusion.

This is the case yet today. You have Mennonites who practice affusion. You have Mennonites who practice immersion. You have German Baptists who are consistently dunkers. You have English/American Baptists of every stripe, most all of whom practice immersion, but some of whom tolerate affusion/sprinkling.

All this proves is that both in the past and present there have been and are churches denying infant baptism who differ or are indifferent as to the mode.

If you want the sources on which Christian's history rests, go read his books.

Mark Osgatharp

 

Why do you feel you must lie about my position? I have made it clear that not all who were called anabaptist were true proto-baptists. Why do you refuse to take me at my word, and try to put lying words into my mouth? Is that what your new "anti-landmark" church teaches you to do?

The proof is in your own words! You made claims that I believe something I don't believe, and claimed I attacked the Swiss Brethern, and other Anabaptists!!

Still making the same false claim, and after it was already explained to you! Shame on you!

Nice try at changing the subject!

 

Mark,

I believe John T. Christian was a good historian. John T. Christian however contradicts Riedman(1540) and the Hutterite Chronicle. He writes 300 plus years after the fact. These are not obscure or heretical sources. My Landmark friends (most notably DrC) ignore or Dodge the Hutterite Chronicle. They wish to claim the Swiss Brethern in their lineage yet ignore the history of January 21, 1525 from a 16th century Anabaptist source whose validity has not been challenged.

Dr.C,

This is the subject. Let me review our posts once again,

I said

Your Reply,

Doc here is a easy quiz

1. Who did Kiffin say were mainstream Anabaptists?

I said earlier "I have read over and over again where 2 of the great Anabaptist preachers Conrad Grebel and George Blaurock were performing believer's baptism by pouring ....THE HUTTERITE CHRONICLE states that when Conrad Grebel baptized George Blaurock on January 21, 1525 it was by pouring."

Answer: These are the founders of the Swiss Brethern movement.

2. Who did Doc say Kiffin was poisoning the Well with non-proto-anabaptists?

Answer: The Swiss Brethern

Now Doc, you later retreat from calling them non-proto-anabaptists possibly because you either did not fully read the post or were unfamiliar with Conrad Grebel, George Blaurock, Felix Manz or for some other reason. You made a mistake apparently by saying ":By claiming the non-proto-anabaptists are the "mainstream" you poison the well" and that can happen to any of us. Now please produce a differant historical text of January 21, 1525 that disputes that Conrad Grebel, George Blaurock, Felix Manz were baptized by affusion.

[ September 10, 2002, 06:53 PM: Message edited by: Kiffin ]

 

Doc you said,

You apparently took my sarcasm as serious comments. Here is why you missed the joke. You claim men such as Grebel, Manz, Blaurock (All who were baptized by pouring) as Baptists yet if a Baptist church baptized by affusion today, you would view them as practicing false doctrine and departing from the Baptist faith. Now I have no problem claiming them as forerunners of the Baptist movement though I believe Immersion to be the most proper form of Baptism but find it curious that Landmarkers with their belief that Immersion is the only Baptism would claim men who were affusion baptized as being Baptists.

[ September 10, 2002, 07:24 PM: Message edited by: Kiffin ]

 

You lie about my position, then claim you were just kidding, then have the audacity to repeat the lie! Please post where I have ever claimed Grebel, Manz, or Blaurock as Baptists! If you cannot, then please post an apology for misrepresenting my position.

[ September 10, 2002, 09:21 PM: Message edited by: DocCas ]

 

Doc,

My comments were sarcastic towards your contradictory opinions. If it will help you, I don't question your Landmark orthodoxy and I only apologize if you seem to take it wrong or if someone thought you were not a Landmarker from the statement. You however keep changing your positions in that you seem to not know whether the Swiss Brethern were Anabaptists or non proto-Baptists. Are the Swiss Brethern part of the Anabaptist/Baptist heritage or were they proto-Baptists?

Your first response regarding the Swiss Brethern was (Grebel, Manz, Blauroick) By claiming the non-proto-anabaptists are the "mainstream" you poison the well and also regarding those Swiss Brethern (Grebel, Manz, Blauroick) you said Don't assume all who were called Anabaptist were actual proto-baptists. But within that group we do find the proto-baptists then later and I must correct myself, I should have said Anabaptist rather than Baptists. You retreat later from your "non-proto-anabaptists " statement and claim the Swiss Brethern They were anabaptists

Which one is it Doc? non-proto-anabaptists or anabaptists? It can't be both? I say they were Anabaptists who I gladly claim as part of my heritage. Now Doc, maybe we can both agree they are part of our Heritage? Yes? or No?

I think you half way read my post and did not realize the Hutterite Chroncle was referring to the beginning of the Swiss Brethern. Now maybe one of my Landmark friends will will tackle the events of January 21, 1525 one of these days by either

1. Claiming it's false history with evidence to demonstrate that

2. Explain why you accept the Swiss Brethern as part of your heritage though they practiced affusion.

As I said I have no problem embracing them in that the early General Baptists had similar practices but I know my Landmark brethern are strict on the details of full Immersion regarding their forefathers usually don't regard those who did not practice it as not part of their heritage.

[ September 11, 2002, 12:35 AM: Message edited by: Kiffin ]

 

That is the problem! I have not stated any opinions, contradictory or otherwise. You just assume the error you were involved in was true Landmarkism and that, therefore, I believe all that garbage. That view is just as foolish as some of the "Fundamentalists" on the BB who think "Fundamentalism" is "no pants on woman, only sing hymns in church, no piano in the AM service, no wire rimmed glasses on men, etc etc etc." That is no more "Fundamentalism" than all the foolishness you spout is "Landmarkism."

I haven't changed anything.

There were anabaptists, for the most part, not proto-baptists. I have never said otherwise.

No retreat. I never claimed they were proto-baptists. Some anabaptists are proto-baptists, but the Swiss Brethren are not. The problem is that you do not read what I write, you read what you wish I wrote, then take exception to what you wish I had said.

Asked and answered. Non-proto-bapist anabaptists.

As I said before, you don't have a clue as to what real Landmarkism really is. All you know is the pseudo-Landmarkism taught by your former church(es). Your knowledge of historic Landmarkism is no more legitimate than the hyper-legalistic pseudo-fundamentalist's knowledge of historic Fundamentalism.

 

Well, Doc we can debate what is true Landmarkism on another thread in that I have never found it to be a unified movement on Baptist History. I have not really went into details on what Landmarkism teaches but really wonder why Landmarkers make John T. Christian the standard of Baptist history and ignore primary sources and instead create a mythical history. We can argue which form of Landmarkism is more true to Dr. Graves or not but that is more opinion that wrote in stone for it is more diverse than you assume and you have not been appointed the judge who or what is Landmarkism. Unfortunately Landmarkers never had a Council of Dort to sort out all the details.

I will accept your statements though your statements regarding the Swiss Brethern ) By claiming the non-proto-anabaptists are the "mainstream" you poison the well is at the least a insult at these Brethern who paved the way for us (I consider such a statement as an attack on our Heritage and ignoring true Anabaptist and Baptist history), since if anyone claims the Swiss Brethern as part of the Baptist heritage, they poison the well. That's like saying anyone who claims Washington, Madison, and Jefferson as part of American History, poison the well of American History.

[ September 11, 2002, 01:06 AM: Message edited by: Kiffin ]

 

Seems like someone asked that we get back on topic. Is no topic safe from pugnacious actions?

I agree that McBeth's Sourcebook is better than Baptist Heritage.

[ September 11, 2002, 10:44 AM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

Thanks for the redirect, Tom. I think it's time to move away from the "yes, you did" "no, I didn't" comments and get back on topic.

 

My apologies to all for getting this off course and maybe on another thread we can discuss the origins of Baptists. Thanks again Tom and rlvaughn for the needed rebuke.

 

Proverbs 22

4The reward for humility and fear of the LORD
is riches and honor and life.