Jack Matthews said:
This is probably a post for another thread somewhere, and I'm new here, so it has probably been discussed, but Baptists don't go back to the early church, and can't be traced back there. I've seen a few of those authors make that attempt, but there is overwhelming evidence against it. Baptists are the product of the early 1600's, almost 150 years after Luther, and originated among English separatists living in the Netherlands, a blending of separatist and Anabaptist influences. I've seen some pretty strong arguments here for strict adherence to literal interpretation and application of scripture as a doctrinal standard. If you trace Baptist history back through some of the pre-reformation groups that existed outside of the Catholic church, you're going to have to accept some doctrine that would be considered heretical by the more fundamental and conservative Baptists today.
i strongly disagree with the statement that baptists aren't ancient.
every baptist historian before 1899 said that baptists were ancient and many could trace their principles back to Christ and his disciples. every baptist historian held this view. heres a list of baptist historians that bilieved this:
john spittlehouse (1652)
theilman van braught (1660)
henry d'anvers (1670)
thomas crosby (1740)
isaac backus (1770)
david benedict (1813)
joseph ivimey (1830)
g.h. orchard (1830)
j.m. cramp (1868)
william cathcart (1887)
thomas armitage (1888)
j.m. carroll (1901)
john taylor christian (1926)
you would think that pedobaptist historians would try to prove wrong or discredit the ancient nature of baptist history, but the renowned catholic historian and president of the council of trent in 1565 said "there shall be no faythe more certayne and true, then is the anabaptists, seeying there be none nowe, or have bene before time fore ye space of these thousand and two hundred years, who have bene more cruelly punyshed, or that have more stoutly, steadfastly, cherefully take theire punishment, yea or have offered them selves of theire own accorde to deathe, were it never so terrible or grevouse. yea in saint augustyn his time, as he hymselffe sayth, there was a certaine monstrous desire of death in them." clearly he raletes the history of baptist to about A.D. 300 (beller, pg 3)
After 1899 those that held to the belief that baptists were ancient were labeled as " landmarkers" or " trail of blood adhereents" or baptist briders.
a group of dissenters arose about a.d.150 they were called the novationists charles spurgeon wrote about them: "Novation held that apostacy was a sin which disqualified them from again entering into church fellowship and to secure a pure community he formed a seperate chuch which elected him for its pastor. these purer churches multiplied and continued in existence for more than three centuries the members being everywherelooked upon as puritans and dissenters. they were anabaptists, baptising all who had been immersed by the orthodox and corrupt church
the novatians were then Baptists. "
ther have been many other baptist- like groups which have striking resemblances with modern baptists
donatists (398)
paulicians (690)
petrobrussians (1126)
waldenesians (1487)
anabaptists (1530)
lollards (1575)
of course there some doctrinal deviances but the similarities are striking. their most outstanding characteristic was immersion for believers only,going agianst the belief of infant baptism for non-believers.
and the quote that "baptists are the product of the 1600's" is wrong that theory was developed by william whitsitt in1880. whitsitt insisted that baptists did not exist until the reformation. (Beller, pg 7-9,12-13,21-23)
a couple great authors on the subject of baptist history are David L Cummins and James Beller theyre great. somehow on does god care which denomination i belong to we started talking about baptist history but its been!:type:
