Baptist History and the Lack of Concern

[Bro. Williams]

There is an excellent book, "The Coming Destruction of the Baptist People" by James R. Beller.


I was reminded of this book while browsing through all of BaptisBoard.com. The most obvious connection is the author's statements that individuals of Baptist conviction and belief, for numerous reasons, have little concern, realtively no understanding, and an unbelievable lack of desire for their own history.

Upon becoming a member of these forums, I have witnessed the same. And though some might claim that my membership time is limited, which it is, the numbers tell their own stories. There is a constant movement on this site in regards to posting about random topics, simple games, and common opinions (Note: I am not bashing any of these, and am glad to see Baptist fellowship when possible). Yet, the threads of Baptist History seem scarcely scanned and very much looked over in regards to contributions.

Our Baptist brethren are not alone. Although a student and teacher of history myself, I have spent relatively little time in acquiring more knowledge and education concerning Baptist history. The book mentioned has been a great tool in enlightening my eyes of the need and need of understanding of Baptist History and it's principles.

I strongly encourage any Baptist to read the above mentioned book, and to strive to learn about true Baptist History, suffering, and accounts.

This link deals with the author's briefings that are held in a seminar format for the learning and educating of Baptists across America. Baptists in this country need to awaken. The briefing contains vital information on our colleges, Christian School and Home school curriculum, and the ongoing obstruction of Baptist heritage.

http://www.baptistchristianworldview.com/

 

[bobbyd]

great reminder, thanks.
I'm kind of reminded of that old saying, "those who don't know their own history are doomed to repeat it".

 

[Bro. Williams]

great reminder, thanks.
I'm kind of reminded of that old saying, "those who don't know their own history are doomed to repeat it".

Definately my pleasure. That quote is repeated in the very book I mentioned if my memory serves me correctly.

Honestly, Beller has a great idea, it would make for a great ministry!

 

[Squire Robertsson]

A better reading of that quote is:

History does not repeat itself. It does however oftentimes rhyme.

 

[Bro. Williams]

A better reading of that quote is:

Nah. Like the original quote I do like the other quote that goes with it:

The only thing that men ever learn from history is that men never learn from history!

 

[Jkdbuck76]

OK.

So when did the baptists begin?
Are they an offshoot of the RCC?
Where they always there since 33 AD?


What's up?

 

[mnw]

Maybe others can provide exact quotes and sources, but in reply to the above questions I would say this:

Baptists, thought not always designated with that name, appear to go all the way back to the early church.

They were NEVER a part of the RCC and there is a famous quote by a RCC priest in something like 1500 or 1200 that speaks of there being baptists going back to the early hundreds.

THis is all off the cuff so forgive the lack of sources. Maybe it'll just set off some thoughts in those more learned that myself.

 

[Tom Butler]

OK.

So when did the baptists begin?
Are they an offshoot of the RCC?
Where they always there since 33 AD?


What's up?

mnw has it right.

If you'd like to do some research here are two good sites:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LandmarkSouthernBaptist/


http://www.geocities.com/baptist_documents/index.html

Baptist have held for centuries that their doctrines and practices most closely mirror those taught by Jesus and the apostles. Baptists did not come out of the Catholic church, therefore cannot be called Protestants. In fact, they preceded the RCC, although known by other names.

 

[Scarlett O.]

deleted....

 

[CarpentersApprentice]

mnw has it right... Baptist have held for centuries that their doctrines and practices most closely mirror those taught by Jesus and the apostles. Baptists did not come out of the Catholic church, therefore cannot be called Protestants. In fact, they preceded the RCC, although known by other names.

Well...

Before one buys into the idea that Baptists have always been around, I'd recommend reading these two books...

W. Morgan Patterson, Baptist Successionism: A Critical View (Judson Press, 1969).

Looks at the methods successionist writers use to make their case.

James Edward McGoldrick, Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History (Scarecrow Press, 2000).

Looks at what the groups named in The Trail of Blood actually believed.

CA

 

[rsr]

While I agree with Beller and Bro. Williams in lamenting interest in Baptist history, I don't know that I would agree with them on the particulars of what would be taught (based on a reading of Beller's Web site, and the knowledge that he repeats the old story about John Gano baptizing George Washington.)

I am encouraged that Beller takes dead aim against the theonomistic Dominionists and their fellow travelers and have no qualm at all about agreeing that we should know more about Leland, Backus, John Clarke, etc.

His complaint that Dominionism is related to "catholic Reformed" thought has an intellectual plausibility, but I think he overplays his hand in arguing that the goal of such a program is to reinstitute infant baptism. It is possible I misunderstand his position on this point since I have little to go on.

 

[Bro. Williams]

Well...

Before one buys into the idea that Baptists have always been around...

Idea? I will overlook this simple thought, for we all have mental blocks from time to time. Baptists have been around since the early church, for the name may have changed, yet the main doctrines are the same! To say that the Baptists have not been around since the early church is not taking a close look at church history, doctrines, and the connections. Do the doctrines vary from time to time, of course! That is the same as the million and one baptist differences today, but the principal drive of Baptist doctrine is present throughout the centuries.

The book I mentioned in the OP is a great source of Baptist origin history and succession as well as a book called "The Collegiate Baptist History Workbook" which is also by the same author.

In regards to "Trail of Blood", I am not certain on its accuracy or even the total account, for it has been years since I read it. I believe I still have it in my library and I will endeavor to give it a second glance.

THe Bible will settle this easily though, for wasn't even John a Baptist!?!

Actually, that last point is a joke (although I am sure someone has tried to literally make that point before!... especially since I had an unsaved man try to tell me that watergate was in the Bible, which it is, but not the political scandal as he was inferring).

 

[CarpentersApprentice]

Individually, of course, people are free to believe anything they wish. But, to my knowledge, no major Baptist denomination, educational institution, or group believes that Baptists go all the way back to the NT.

The classic standard textbooks for Baptist history are The Baptist Heritage by H. Leon McBeth and History of the Baptists by Robert Torbet. Both of these begin with Baptist history in the 1600's.

The Baptist Historical Society published a three volume History of the English Baptists, General Editor B.R. White. Volume 1 begins in the 17th century, not in the 1st.

Typical of the major Baptist bodies is this statement from the Baptist History and Heritage Society: "Our best historical evidence says that Baptists came into existence in England in the early seventeenth century...." http://www.baptisthistory.org/baptistbeginnings.htm

The Baptist World Alliance Heritage and Identity Commission has information about Baptist beginnings in various parts of the world (no claims of a 1st century beginning):
http://www.bwa-baptist-heritage.org/hst.htm

CA

 

[Tom Butler]

Well...

Before one buys into the idea that Baptists have always been around, I'd recommend reading these two books...

W. Morgan Patterson, Baptist Successionism: A Critical View (Judson Press, 1969).

Looks at the methods successionist writers use to make their case.

James Edward McGoldrick, Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History (Scarecrow Press, 2000).

Looks at what the groups named in The Trail of Blood actually believed.

CA

I'm not going to get into a debate over successionism. You get your scholars and I'll get mine. But I think we can agree over perpetuity--that there has always been a New Testament church since Jesus established it, known by various names.

A former pastor of mine deals with the succession question this way: "If you see tracks going into a pond and tracks coming out of the pond, you may conclude that whatever went into and out of the pond existed, even if you couldn't see it."

 

[Bro. Williams]

As I have stated before, you can trace Baptist doctrine to the Bible, before (BEFORE) the 1700's, before the reformation, through the reformation, and after the reformation. If it walks like a Baptist, talks like a Baptist, etc, even though the name may differ, the doctrine and principle is the same.

CarpentersAppr.:

On the statement that "But, to my knowledge, no major Baptist denomination, educational institution, or group believes that Baptists go all the way back to the NT.", it would be good for you to get more knowledge. Plus, the majority is almost always wrong.

 

[Bro. Williams]

I will try to make this post somewhat more productive.

CarpentersApprentice, you should take a look at the works of James R. Graves, D.B. Ray, J.M. Carroll (trail of blood author I believe), G.H. Orchard, J.M. Cramp, and S.H. Ford to name a few. Others that share a very similar view are Thomas Crosby, Issac Backus, A.H. Newman, David Benedict, Thomas Armitage, and William Cathcart. Hope that helps.:thumbs:

 

[TCGreek]

I'm not going to get into a debate over successionism. You get your scholars and I'll get mine. But I think we can agree over perpetuity--that there has always been a New Testament church since Jesus established it, known by various names.

A former pastor of mine deals with the succession question this way: "If you see tracks going into a pond and tracks coming out of the pond, you may conclude that whatever went into and out of the pond existed, even if you couldn't see it."

I always thought so based on Matt. 16:18 and 2 Thess. 1:10. And I too would avoid the debate over succession. Rather, we should praise God that someone brought the true gospel of His Son to us and that we were able to respond in faith and repentance toward Jesus as Savior and Lord (Acts 30:21). Hallelujah!!!

 

[Bro. Williams]

TC: Ahh, at last we have found something we can agree on, no? Good post, and although I can't agree on not striving over succession (go figure), I can heartily agree on the given verses (I assume you meant Acts 20:31 on that last one) and on that wonderful Gospel which saved my soul, amen and amen.

 

[TCGreek]

TC: Ahh, at last we have found something we can agree on, no? Good post, and although I can't agree on not striving over succession (go figure), I can heartily agree on the given verses (I assume you meant Acts 20:31 on that last one) and on that wonderful Gospel which saved my soul, amen and amen.

Should be Acts 20:21, a typo.

 

[Bro. Williams]

Gotcha.

Verse 31 was speaking of witnessing and warning as well, but thanks for the clarification.