Books on Baptist History

C.A.

It should not be perplexing. The premise is that God has always had a witness, a group of believers who have held to the basic tenents of our faith and have not succumbed to the "one true church" rule and have rejected baptism apart from the local church context.

As a IF Baptist I am sometimes perplexed why folks want to make us reformed or protestant when our history (prior to, during and after the reformation) is neither.

In my opinion reformed theology is nothing more than rehashed Augustinian theology with some bigger words added. :tonofbricks: :laugh:

I am not Covenant in theology, but I will note this, when God wanted to speak to his people he usually did not use those in authority the religious or political leaders of the day. He instead used an individual who usually did not fit in politically or socially. Well thats pretty much the description of most IFB'ers though not all JoJ seems pretty refined as well as some others on the BB.

There will always be divisions amongst us concerning our history and while I do not hold to a succession of visiable churches and visible authority to start those churches I do hold to the perpetuity of a local independent church (called out assembly) through out what we call church history.


thjplgvp

 

Thank you for the link.

thjplgvp

 

RSR

Thanks for the info all I read was the Waldenses section (chapter five I believe) and based on that I made my post concerning the book. While I don't hold strictly with Brother Cloud on every issue I am close enough that I have his Baptist History CD which is why I was surprised at the link. On his CD he has the complete works of Armitage, Benedict, Cathcart, Christian, Crook, Cramp, Hassel, Jones, (different) Orchard, stokes, Vetter and Williams. It is really a good collection with 3 of them being printed in the early 1800's.

That William Jones' work is not on that CD is a dissapointment. Anyway thanks again for your info.

thjplgvp

 

All books are biased

All histories are biased. History may be factual but it is not objective. There are varying and valid interpretations. If modern political pundits cannot agree on the President's State of the Union Address, how can we expect historians to be agreed upon the meaning of events hundreds of years removed?

Although some historians try to write in an objective style, one's own historiography, training and interests bias all histories. The problem, IMHO, is when the predisposition is well hidden or the author claims true objectivity, although a real scholar will not do this. I like to see the viewpoint acknowledged and stated. A known bias can be countered by the reader's own prejudice and critical thought.

Whereas one can easily spot the other fellow's prejudice, it is much harder to see one's own partiality. I value some of the older works for two reasons: (1) They tend to expose our own biases and ways of seeing things and (2) they give a historical perspective on the development of historiography and our historical perception today. Does not each generation uniquely see history through its own eyes and spectacles of present thought and culture? Reading history from a different perspective can be instructive.

Jones' book is well worth reading for breadth and perspective.

 

Children of our generation

Every age uniquely interprets history through its own eyes. We are the children of our generation with its own biases. The primary sources are facts but the understanding and meaning is given by our interpretations subject to our own predispositions and intellectual paradigms. The route of ideas is hard to follow. We need to be a little more humble and open to the thinking of other perspectives. Remember that our children and grandchildren will sit in judgment upon us. :smilewinkgrin: