do baptists monopolize non-protestant and pre-protestant history?

[Aki]

the point is, since the apostolic age, divisions or at least in doctrinal variations, already existed. it's not a mistake therefore to assume that churches then have been divided and categorized.

during the Dark Ages certain christian groups were tortured. these groups are therefore non-protestants. history has it that this group continued even in extreme pressure. baptists claim this line.

on the other hand, there are others who simply hid in caves and other places. the critical question is, are all those christian groups and churches that existed before the dark ages went on to be all baptist?

i once talked to a seveth-day adventists and he told me that they also do not claim to be protestants. well, one version is that they were started by a baptist!

so, is there any record of groups or churches other than the baptist which can claim existence apart from both the RCC and Protestants?

 

[Bugman]

I've been thinking about this as well the last few days (Since I'm reading the Pilgrim's Church, great book) and the one group that came to mind was the Mennonites. From my understanding they came from the Anabaptists and therfore have just as much right to be regarded non-Protestant non-Catholic.

I do remember reading somewhere however that they have departed from biblical views on some matters and thus no longer should be considered part of the sucession of churches. Since I can't remember where I read this I can't really refute it, but I know the Mennonite teachings that I know are biblical teachings.

Bryan
SDG

 

[Haruo]

Originally posted by Aki:
the point is, since the apostolic age, divisions or at least in doctrinal variations, already existed. it's not a mistake therefore to assume that churches then have been divided and categorized.

during the Dark Ages certain christian groups were tortured. these groups are therefore non-protestants. history has it that this group continued even in extreme pressure. baptists claim this line.

on the other hand, there are others who simply hid in caves and other places. the critical question is, are all those christian groups and churches that existed before the dark ages went on to be all baptist?

i once talked to a seveth-day adventists and he told me that they also do not claim to be protestants. well, one version is that they were started by a baptist!

so, is there any record of groups or churches other than the baptist which can claim existence apart from both the RCC and Protestants?

Well, certainly a number of the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Heterodox (Monophysite, Nestorian etc.) churches have as great a claim to antiquity and to apostolic foundation/succession as the RCC. (And note that the RCC generally does not dispute this, except to say that those churches differ from the Roman Catholic Church on certain points of doctrine or dogma, and above all on the cardinal point of the Petrine supremacy, i.e. the supreme authority of the bishop of Rome over all other overseers.)

When it comes to the groups that were persecuted in the Dark Ages, in many cases the Roman and Greek Churches succeeded in effacing whatever self-documentation might have existed, so that most of the evidence has to be sought in Catholic/Orthodox documents which may reasonably be assumed to be biased against the groups in question (though the degree of bias and the degree of truthfulness may be matters of conjecture or controversy). In many of these cases the Catholic line historically was to accuse the persecuted groups of heretical beliefs, e.g. of Manichaeanism or Gnosticism or Chiliasm. In some cases these charges seem more likely to have a basis in fact than in others. A cluster of cases in point can be seen in the surviving history of the Bogomils, Paulicians, Catharii, Albigenses, and Waldenses. All of these were accused by their Catholic persecutors of Manichaean tendencies if not outright Manichaeanism. Many Baptists claim some or all of them as forebears, but that is because most Baptist historians do not take the Catholic charges to be reliable. But in all these cases except the Waldenses, the Catholic or Orthodox suppression was sufficiently severe that the documentary situation does not allow one to be sure whether the groups were Manichaean, or fundamentally orthodox as Baptists use the term, or heretics of other types.

And yes, Miller (who started the Adventist ball rolling in the 1840s) was a Baptist minister. I'm not sure what Mrs. White's denominational provenance was. In many respects the SDAs remain a Baptist offshoot.

Haruo

 

[Haruo]

Originally posted by Bugman:
I've been thinking about this as well the last few days (Since I'm reading the Pilgrim's Church, great book) and the one group that came to mind was the Mennonites. From my understanding they came from the Anabaptists and therfore have just as much right to be regarded non-Protestant non-Catholic.

I do remember reading somewhere however that they have departed from biblical views on some matters and thus no longer should be considered part of the succession of churches. Since I can't remember where I read this I can't really refute it, but I know the Mennonite teachings that I know are biblical teachings.

Bryan
SDG

Oh! I get it! Soli Deo Gloria!

(I was trying to make it out to be "Seventh-Day" something, but couldn't think what the G would be for.)

The Mennonites played a critical role in the formation of the English Baptist movement in the early 1600s. If you belong to an American landmark Baptist church and believe your church to be in an unbroken succession of local churches from the first century to the present, then you had better not write the 17th-century Mennonites out of your fantasy genealogy. It is only by tracing the succession back through the Mennonites that one can hope to avoid the appellation "Protestant", since the folks the Mennonites pollinated there in Holland in the first decade of that century, yielding English Baptists as fruit not long after, were Protestants, separatist Puritan Anglican Protestants.

Haruo

 

[Bugman]

Yes, I was reading that Mozart did SDG whenever he signed his name, and decided it's a good way to end anything

As for sucession my views on it are a bit different for most people I beleive(considering I know what I knwo about Church history by reading and not talking abotu it with others it's not suprising. I am defintily not Landmark). I think that correct doctrine can be traced back from the time of the apostles to today outside of the Catholic Church. I think that there has never been a time when God has left this world without a group of people holding to the truth of the Bible. I don't think that you are able to draw direct lines such as this group formed this group and this group became known as this group...but I do think that whenever perscution came and one group of true believers was about to be destroyed God raise up the true church in another area to carry on His work. Therefore I can look back at history and see the sucession of God's Church and how it is linked to us Baptists today.

As for Protestant I believe they are part of God's chruch for sure, but becasue of the comming out of the Catholic Church they still hold to some false doctrine or bad theology. I have no problem fellowshipping with them as they are part of the body of Christ, some I will join for their church services, some I will join for evangilical missions, some I will not.

Bryan
SDG

 

[baptistteacher]

I read a book by a Baptist historian called "The Free Church" (or something like that) which works through the history of those churches which did not "Tow the Party Line" so-to-speak of the heirarchical churches. Thus he calls them the Free churches. These are churches which by-and-large kept to the basics of the true Gospel against all opposition.

According to his postulations, many of these churches and their successors developed into what are now known as Baptist churches. Others became Anna-Baptist - Mennonites - Amish, while still others possibly became Evangelical Free church, etc.

It has been a while since I read this book, and it is buried in the Archives at the moment so I am not sure where it is to get exact title/author/publisher.

 

[baptistteacher]

Tried to edit the previous but couldn't.

Regarding the free churches, some groups just died out, and some would have merged in with other movements, including some of the Protestant movements.

 

[mioque]

Time for a much needed and little appreciated reality check.
1. Believing Waldensian doctrines will get you kicked out of any orthodox Baptist church. There is no evidence The Waldensians are the exception and the little evidence there is suggests that they are more orthodox than the other groups persecuted before the Reformation.
2. Christianity usually is divided in 3 parts. The (roman) Catholic church. The Eastern churches. The Protestants. And considering the amount of time many Baptists spend complaining about Romanism, I think Protestants is a valid category for our branch of Christianity.

 

[R. Charles Blair]

Which Waldensian doctrine, held by which group of Waldensians, at which particular time, would exclude one from an "orthodox" Baptist church?

Well, infant sprinkling, practiced after Calvin and the Reformation by some Waldensians, I suppose
(though for some "Baptists" today it might be all right if the person was satisfied with it!)

Early Waldensians (especially before Peter Waldo, who joined them) immersed believers only. The group in Valdese NC today is Presbyterian; some are "Waldensian Methodists," but the record shows that they changed during/after the Reformation.

Charles Blair (maybe the only
"Junior Member"?

 

[tyndale1946]

The monopolization or the lack there of is not by any group but by doctrine!... A study of Baptist History will prove nothing less... All have been pure shall we say at one time until error and false doctrine crept in... Then men by their traditions change what God has set up... There is not in my studies a monopolization by Baptist in non or pre protestant history... To the contrary the only thing that monopolized anything was false doctrine and there has been plenty of that in all groups... And if false doctrine creeps in the Baptist can't be called Baptist anymore as they have left their identity and lost it... Even though they claim and wear the label!... Just my thoughts... To each his own!... Brother Glen Moderator

 

[mioque]

R. Charles Blair
Peter Waldo did not join the Waldensians, he started them! (that's why they are called Waldensians). The Waldensian movement resembled the Franciscans much more than they do a Baptist congregation.

Between not opposing infant baptism, not having altar calls, not talking about your personal relationship with Jezus and stressing the virtue of poverty, you've got a completely different approach to Christianity on your hands.
Early Waldensians just aren't true ancestors of the Baptist movement.

Ironically, the run of the mill modern Baptist church, is much more hatefull towards Catholicism, than the modern Waldensian movement, despite the fact that the Waldensians have suffered real persecution at the hands of Rome, while Baptism as a movement suffered comparatively little in this regard.

 

[Bugman]

There is deabte over who started the movement:

"Historical difference of opinion concerning the origin of the Valdenses1 claims either that they derived their name, organization and beliefs from Peter (Valdo) of Lyons in France, or that they pre-dated Peter who probably acquired the name Valdo from his connection with the Valdese.2 These people were known as Vaudois and Valdenses in ancient writings pre-dating Valdo.3 Peter and his followers were first known as the Poor Men of Lyons, who were expelled from that city in the 1180s before they joined with the valley men of the Cottian Alps in northern Italy." - http://www.wrs.edu/journals/jour896/waldensians.html

Needless to say a leaders name is often applied to the group he is part of. Menno Simon is the same way, he did nto start the Anabaptist movement, but becasue he became such a promonate leader amoung then people identified the movement with him.

Bryan
SDG

 

[mioque]

That article is a clear example of revisionist history, drawing on sources more interested in attacking the flaws of Romanism instead of telling anything resembling the truth.
I'm a churchhistorian and I recognize at least one of the books mentioned as one the "stay away from because it is bogus history list".

 

[mioque]

"Menno Simon is the same way, he did nto start the Anabaptist movement, but becasue he became such a promonate leader amoung then people identified the movement with him."
Actually Menno Simons is very much the founder of a specific kind of Anabaptism. The kind that believes in pacifism and seperation between church and state.
Mennisten (or Mennonites in English) are very different from earlier forms of the Anabaptist movement. The ones that stress Theocracy and bloody violence.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Originally posted by mioque:
....I'm a churchhistorian and I recognize at least one of the books mentioned as one the "stay away from because it is bogus history list".

And which one is that?

 

[mioque]

"Menno Simon is the same way, he did nto start the Anabaptist movement, but becasue he became such a promonate leader amoung then people identified the movement with him."
Actually Menno Simons is very much the founder of a specific kind of Anabaptism. The kind that believes in pacifism and seperation between church and state.
Mennisten (or Mennonites in English) are very different from earlier forms of the Anabaptist movement. The ones that stress Theocracy and bloody violence.

 

[mioque]

The book I refferred to as bad history is
Alexis Muston's The Israel of the Alps.

 

[J.R. Graves]

Mioque,

Why do you think Alexis Muston's The Israel of the Alps is such a bad history?

 

[mioque]

"Why do you think Alexis Muston's The Israel of the Alps is such a bad history?"

All historybooks are biased to a certain extend, this can't be avoided, history is not mathematics.
However, one is supposed to at least try for a certain minimum of objectivity.
Many authors (many Communists come to mind) rewrite history, motivated only by the desire to 'prove' their ideologies.
The English speaking world of the 19th century had it's own branch of rewriters. Churchhistorians 'proving' that their version of the Faith was the right one and not interested at all in historical accuracy. In the end those writings only end up hurting the cause of the author.
Muston's book, belongs in the same category as that delightfull work that proved that Roman Catholicism was a reïnvention of the pagan religion practiced at ancient Babylon.

 

[R. Charles Blair]

mioque (? -don't have the letters before me - hope that's spelled correctly) - My Waldensian friends in Valdese, North Carolina, are now Presbyterian; there are also "Waldensian Methodists" in the U. S. But they say they changed with or after the Reformation, and were originally adult immersers. They are still strong on grace.

Quoting Raymond Edman, former Chancellor of Wheaton College, in "The Light in Dark Ages," p. 301: "The origin of the Waldenses has been a matter of great dispute. They themselves allege, and their critics admit they have long held that allegation,that the group of believers has persisted in the remote valleys of the Maritime Alps since the days of Constantine." To that same point, read Verduin, "The Reformers and Their Stepchildren."

Of course documentation for this period is difficult for a variety of reasons. Persecuted people often do not keep records; the records were sometimes used to light the fires at which they were burned; most record is from their enemies, much of it clear misrepresentation. But if the words of Jesus in Matt. 16:18 and 28:18-20 are correct, and those of Paul in Eph. 3:21, there have been some NT churches at all times since Jesus, and modern Baptists being non-state churches must seek any "ancestry" we have among these perseuted peoples. They differed among themselves, sometimes strongly, often on minor points (sounds "baptistic"!), but not all professing Christians were in the state churches.

I'm enjoying our conversation - have been away a good deal recently, will be gone more in the next few weeks, but will check in from time to time.

I hope this gets posted on the right site; the computer seems to delight in throwing my messages into some other forum! - Best-Charles - Ro. 8:28