One best work on Baptist history?

I would probably help the conversation if we defined what a baptist is, what makes one a baptist. My definition would be "modern" if I may use that word in scope. As I look back I don't see a group of people that I would call baptist until about the 1600's perhaps late 1500's. That is not to do away with the role other believer's had on baptist belief and formation. Many contributed to what we have as baptist today, for that I am thankful, but I don't think because these people had an influence you can call them baptist. Case in point: many on this board are Calvinist, to deny that Calvinism has had an influence on baptist life would be silly, huge influence. But Calvin was not a baptist. I think you have to be careful not to confuse influence on baptist formation with actual baptists.

 

Australian Baptist Student,

You said that John T. Christian was "soft on unitarianism." He was no such thing! He simply reported the history of the Anabaptists as it was, and that included some churches which embraced unitarianism. In the introduction to his first volume he explicitly states that he made no efforts to excuse the heresies of the groups mentioned in his history. His exact words are:

"No effort is here attempted to minimize, or to dismiss as trivial, these variations."

Today many of the Baptist churches that were formerly orthodox are now unitarian themselves. We have a man in this forum right now, Rev. Joshua Villines, who is associate pastor of a church which openly condones the sin of sodomy and yet fellowships in the same association with such a well known Baptist preacher as Charles Stanley.

The church at Corinth had members who denied the resurrection, the churches of Galatia had members who preached the gospel of Judaism, and the churches of Asia were plagued with such heresies as Balaamism, Nicolaitanism, and Jezebelism. I say with John Christian,

"No effort is here attempted to minimize, or to dismiss as trivial, these variations."

Christian's purpose was not to prove that these churches were faultless, but rather to prove that there existed a strain of churches, separate and distinct from the Roman Catholic Church, which preserved the ordinance of baptism and church autonomy as taught by Christ and the apostles and by modern day Baptists.

Mark Osgatharp

 

Hi Mark. I'm glad to see you posting here. I daresay you'll find a more sympathetic ear here than at BaptistLife.com; and that you can even sit back and watch me receiving the same treatment here that you sometimes have received there.

Just for clarification, we voluntarily withdrew from the association after several failed attempts by the fundamentalists to have us kicked out. (I was baptized by Charles Stanley though if that counts for anything .)

Joshua

 

Hello All,

To shift direction just slightly toward general church history, I highly recommend "The Churching of America 1777-1990: Winners and Losers in our Religious Economy," by Roger Finke and Rodney Stark. The book deals with their research into church census data and other such membership and property records. It certainly includes a vast amount of information regarding Baptist Churches here in the US.

Finke is an associate professor of sociology at Purdue University and Stark is professor of sociology and comparative religion at the University of Washington. These two "secular" researchers give us an outsiders unbiased look at church history in the US. Their work shows how the established churches and church historians have been "blinded" by bias and overlooked the very real pluralist trends that have crept into various denominations.

One thing that the book points out is rise and rapid growth of Methodist and Baptist Churches here in the US. The data shows that the strong early Methodist growth tracks right along with (and at times surpasses) Baptist growth and then it (Methodist growth) peeks and begins to decline just like the other "mainline" denominations. However, the Baptist growth continues to increase.

What is the reason for this continued Baptist growth? According to Finke and Stark (speaking of Southern Baptists), "certain structural features of the Southern Baptists have enabled them to offer strong resistance to secularization and, indeed, to reverse trends in that direction."

Basically, it boils down to our Baptist form of church government. Because of our congregational rule, when/if our leaders depart from teaching sound biblical doctrine, turn secular or liberal, the average "Joe Pew Setter" has the ability to remove them from leadership positions and to take control over the direction that the church is heading. The other mainline denominations cannot do so within their "top down" systems of church government. Therefore, once their leaders depart from sound Biblical teaching and/or turn secular, or liberal the average churchman has no recourse (except to leave his church/denomination). This book is really a fine bit of research, is very readable, and eye-opening.

Since I quoted a bit from the book I think I should give a full reference.

Finke, Roger and Rodney Stark. The Churching of America 1776-1990: Winners and Losers in our Religious Economy. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1992.

[ September 05, 2002, 09:01 AM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]

 

Dear Mark,
thankyou for your correction, I appreciated it. I was basing my thoughts on vol 1, pages 149-152, which I thought did show a degree of praise to the unitarians which I found unnessessary, and unhelpful. I take your point, however, and appologise if I slandered Mr Christian.

 

Australian Baptist Student,

I read the pages you mentioned and I can certainly see how you would think he was going soft on Unitarianiam. However, I do not think Christian's purpose was to uphold their error, but rather to show that the practice of immersion was explicitly taught by them.

In order to understand Christian you must understand that he was writing, in a large degree, to combat the teaching of William Whitsitt who contended that Baptists recovered the practice of immersion only in the middle of the 17th century and that before that time few of the Anabaptist churches practiced it. There was a great controversy over this issue in the Southern Baptist Convention which eventually pushed Whitsitt out of their seminary at Louisville, Kentucky. Christian was one of the major opponents of Whitsitt's new theories of Baptist history.

Christian wrote two other books, "Did They Dip?" and "Baptist History Vindicated", which were devoted exclusively to proving the fact that immersion had always been the standard practice of the Anabaptists. His two volume history was also written with the intent of proving this point and his information on the Polish Unitarian Anabaptists served to prove that there were Anabaptists who held strenuously to immersion.

You may be able to find copies of these other books on "abebooks.com" but they will doubtless be quite expensive (in the $100.00 range).

Mark Osgatharp

 

I have great respect for Christian though I disagree with his Landmark beliefs but his assertion that they always immersed is contradicted by the Anabaptist themselves in the Waterland Confession as well as by the Swiss Brethern accounts.

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 Anabaptists as well as the General Baptists did not seem to regard the mode as important and Christian either has bad sources or he did shoddy research in this area or the resources were not available to him to correct his wrong assertion. I know this bothers Landmarkers because of their assertion that only Immersion is true baptism. I believe Immersion to be the most proper form of Believer's baptism but I am not willing to unchurch my Anabaptist and General Baptist forefathers.

 

Kiffin,

Christian's writing go to the original sources to prove that the Anabaptists, as a rule, did practice immersion. Have you read "Did They Dip?" and "Baptist History Vindicated"? If not, I suggest you reserve judgement on the question till you do.

These books, along with volume one of his general history, prove that the Anabaptists were in the practice of dipping.

For the record, I have read Whitsitt and several Mennonite authors as well as Christian and, frankly, Christian ate their lunch.

Mark Osgatharp

 

Mark,

I have not read that part of Christian's work but I have read the Anabaptists on words. First hand sources are more reliable than second and third hand sources

It was Ridemann's Rechenschaft not the Waterland that shows baptism by pouring. This is one of the oldest Anabaptist confessions.

Ridemann's Rechenschaft, 1540


VII. THE FORMULA FOR BAPTISM

The baptizer first testifies to the baptizand and asks if he believes in God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The baptizand confesses. He then is asked if he desires to yield himself to God to live for Him and His church. If so, he is told to kneel before God and church, and water is poured upon him. If baptism cannot be performed before the entire church, the baptizer may perform the ordinance alone.

THE HUTTERITE CHRONICLE states that when Conrad Grebel baptized George Blaurock on January 21, 1525 it was by pouring. When I read first hand sources, I see Anabaptists not regarding the mode and this cannot be ignored by Landmarkers.

[ September 06, 2002, 12:08 AM: Message edited by: Kiffin ]

 

The important part of the Landmark argument regarding baptism speaks to the fact that our "Baptist" ancestors required believers baptism. Or did I miss the point?

Yes, Conrad Grebel bapitzed George "Blaurock" Cajacob by effusion rather than than by immersion. However, you must keep in mind that the baptism occurred at the home of Felix Manz on January 21, 1525 in Zurich, Switzerland. They did not have indoor bath tubs or pools. Therefore, they made due with what was available. Plus, the meeting at the house Felix Manz was in protest of the Council decree of January 21, 1525 that forbade all opponents of infant baptism from meeting together. Thus, they were making a statement of their deeply held convictions regarding believer's baptism. I don't think they were addressing the question of the proper mode of baptism.

However, we do know that during the week following Blaurock's baptism (January 22-29) thirty-five people were baptized at Zollikon three miles outside the city of Zurich on the eastern shore of Lake Zurich. Here we have lake baptisms occurring in January in Zurich, Switzerland! That demonstrates just how serious these saints were regarding their faith, their belief in believer's baptism and immersion (source: A Believer's Church Theology: The Anabaptist Story, by Stanley A. Nelson, [article on-line ]; http://www.hccentral.com/nelson1/part1.html , accessed September 18, 1999).

[ September 06, 2002, 09:50 AM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]

 

BibleboyII,

That only helps make the point. Most Baptist churches today would not regard Blaurock or Grebel's baptism as valid. Most Landmarkers I know would call them heretics. They not only baptized with affusion but bascically self baprtized themselves. There are valid reasons why they did this and no doubt this marks the revival of the Apostolic form of the Church during the Reformation period and is a event overlooked by most Baptist historians.

They may have felt immersion was the most proper form (Who knows?) but they certaintly at least because of weather conditions and shortages of water baptized with affusion and yes they baptized by immersion also. To them Believer's Baptism not the mode (immersion, sprinkling, affusion) was what was important. Certaintly Believer's baptism was important to them in that they paid for their lives for it but whether it was by immersion, sprinkling, affusion does not seem to be a issue in that they used all three.

 

I suspect that Kiffin's error is assuming all Anabaptists are claimed as proto-Baptists. Such is demonstrably not the case. All who were called Anabaptists were not necessarily true proto-Baptists. The name Anabaptist was a collective term in the day of the reformation. The practice of branding all non-conformists with the most odious name imaginable was not new. Earlier groups such as the Paulicians and the Albigenses had been marked as Manachaeans by their enemies in an attempt to discredit them, and the same practice was conducted against the Anabaptists.

Just as today, all who call themselves "Baptists" are not true Baptists. Many Baptist churches today will accept the baptism of other denominations as valid even when such baptism is by pouring or sprinkling. The church I pastor was originally founded as a Northern Baptist Convention church, and while under the ABC name it often accepted people into membership who had not be scripturally immersed. I had several unbaptized members in the early days of my pastorate (which is, in my opinion, an oxymoron). Don't assume all who were called Anabaptist were actual proto-baptists. But within that group we do find the proto-baptists.

 

Doc,

The Anabaptists I am referring to were the mainstream Anabaptists. The Swiss Brethern were the most orthodox of the Anabaptists and Conrad Grebel, George Blaurock, Felix Manz were the foundation of the Anabaptist Reformation and they fellowshiped with such notable Anabaptists as Michael and Margaretha Sattler. Taking these names out of the Anabaptist movement would be like removing Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison out of American history books. The Hutterites Anabaptists used Ridemann's Rechenschaft and they were another Biblical orthodox group of Anabaptists and they and the Swiss Brethern opposed the heretical type "anabaptists" that you find both Luther and Calvin writing against. I think the Mennonite Anabaptists had a stronger view towards Immersion though apparently those that John Smyth encoutered in Amsterdam didn't but according to the much debated and controversial "Kiffin" manuscript in 1638 a Anabaptist congregation in the Netherlands helped influence the the concept of full Immersion as being the most valid among the early Particular Baptists.

I think this is a problem with Landmark historians (with all due respect) is if history proves us wrong then we look for some obscure questionable history to try to validate their own history. It doesn't matter if 100 other historians including the original writings of the Anabaptists prove us wrong, we will find one historian who disagrees with the 100 and our 1 must be right.

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

 

I suspect it is just the opposite. Those who wish to deny the perpetuity of the faith will dismiss any fact that mitigates against their presupposition. By claiming the non-proto-anabaptists are the "mainstream" you poison the well just as assuredly as I would by claiming the ABC is the "mainstream" of Baptist life in the US.

 

Nope, no one here is denying the perpetuity of the faith but simplying denying the Landmark view of the perpetuity of the faith. By your attack on the Swiss Brethern you dishonour their great sacrifice for the faith. Those of us who are of the Anabaptist kinship school embrace our Anabaptist forefathers. Landmarkers dishonour them if they deny that every well known Anabaptist was not really a Anabaptist (though you do it with absolutely no historical evidence in your favor) and embrace a mythical Anabaptist heritage that is nameless and apparently wrote no confessions.

 

This tells me you don't have a clue as to what Landmarkism really is. You are arguing for Landmarkism, but against your distorted caricature of what you think Landmarkism is.

Well, there went the truth, right out the window. It is so sad that truth is usually the first casualty in any discussion with you. Just for the record, I have not attacked the Swiss Brethern, or any other Anabaptist! Shame on you for making such a false and fraudulent accusation.

 

I don't think I'm too far off base in saying the following. When Felix Manz and the others first baptized each other they were focused on their biblical view (correct I might add) against infant baptism. Their first "fight," so to speak, with Zwingli and the Zurich City Council was over that issue. I think as they continued to study the scripture they quickly saw that dipping or plunging the whole body under water was the proper biblical way to do it. I'm sure that they did not develop their entire theology in one sitting. Most did not live long enough following their baptism to even begin to develop a complete theology.

[ September 07, 2002, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]

 

I don't think the Landmark view of Baptist perputuity agrees with the Anabptist kinship view of Baptist perputuity. If so it's new to me.

Here is a simple question then Doc. Were Conrad Grebel, George Blaurock, Felix Manz and Michael Sattler Anabaptists? or were they proto-baptists? as you definitely said they were with these comments

Do Conrad Grebel, George Blaurock, Felix Manz and Michael Sattler poison the well of Baptist history...and please no conspiracy theories that these fellas were not really the Swiss Brethern or that Ridemann's Rechenschaft wasn't really a Anabaptist confession or that The Schleitheim Confession of Faith was really not Anabaptist confession or that the real Swiss Brethern were hiding in the wilderness.

[ September 07, 2002, 07:28 PM: Message edited by: Kiffin ]

 

Nobody has claimed it does. What I said, in case you forgot, is that you don't have a clue as to what true Landmarkism really is.

They were anabaptists. Why do you avoid responding to what I wrote?

I didn't claim any of these men poison the well of baptist history, I said you poison the well of honest discussion.

Just to refresh your memory, here is what you said follwed by my response:

Remember now? I am still waiting for a pertinent reply.

 

I believe among the Primitive Baptist brethren it has to be Hassells Church History which covers all church history up until 1885!... Another one I like though not a complete history is Fifty Years Among The Baptist by David Benedict. There are also many other works that may or may not exist online. These two do if you are interested!... Brother Glen