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

"mioque (? -don't have the letters before me - hope that's spelled correctly)"
Yes it is.

I don't know anything about Edman's work, I do know a little about Verduin's opus and find it very questionable.

"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."
That's ideology speaking...
The idea that state church = bad, is an idea originating from Menno Simons (brilliant man), before him persecuted churches often aspired to be (part of) the state church.

The text in the link below is basically accurate.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/W/Waldense.asp

 

Mioque - I thought I had a message on this line, but it doesn't seem to be there now - not sure if it got thru. If you already saw it, fine; if not, I'll try to re-create it at some point. Here is an interesting quote from "The Gathering Storm"
by G.S. M. Walker, Am. ed. Eerdmans 1962, Ch. IX, The Waldensians: ". . . . there was also a fully organized dissenting Church, with its own ministry and congregations, claiming to represent the pure form of Chrisianity, . . . . Above all, the Waldensians expounded a simple, Biblical type of piety, going out two by two to preach, and despite some remnants of medievalism, these in fact constituted the first Protestants. Very different in their beliefs and practices from the undoubtedly heretical Cathars, the Waldensians often suffered with them under persecution,for the hierarchy could tolerate no attack upon its privileges, and all these varied forms of dissent at least united in being strongly anti-clerical."

Walker takes them to be followers of Waldo, and in the ellipsis says they were "teaching the dualaist doctrine of the Cathars," then a few lines later says they were not Cathars - Homer nods, as they say. You pay your money and you take your choice on much of this. My point is that they CLAIMED to represent the pure form of Christianity. It is my strongly held opinion (and I am also a church historian) that the group Waldo joined had been hidden in the valleys (thus "valdesians," "vadouis,") long before his time as opponents of and persecuted by the state religious organization. In my other post, I again mentioned Verduin; if you are already familiar, fine; if not, I'll be glad to give info.

As I said in the missing note, I am enjoying this conversation and while we will be gone most of August, I'll try to check in from time to time.

Charles Blair - Clinton KY 42031 - Ro. 8:28

 

Well, I don't expect to ever understand computers, but my earlier post is there now! And with it your good answer - thanx for the source, which gives the "politically correct" info as is usual in such sources, carefully tailored to avoid any "offensive" elements. We'e all studied hundreds of such encyclopedias and realize they are the "Reader's Digests" of research, but since I didn't have it, it is printed off to go in my notebook on the W's.

Note that Verduin is writing against interest, "ex concessio." (I can't find any way to make this post italicize or underline; it's probably there somewhere, but for a person who has only had this contraption 2 years, I'm doing well just to be on line!) His work does contain some clearly expressed opinion, but that may be better than hidden agendas.

As to "state ch = bad" being late, think of the Montanists, Novatians, and Donatists - all enough alike that they recognized one another's baptisms and often blended into one another, not organized in any modern sense. Of course early Montanists had women preachers - even some Southern Baptists have had that recently! - and did some tongues, etc., - again not unheard of today, tho always an object of controversy - but after Tertullian, they were fairly orthodox; it is true that the "Donatist" group tried to be recognized for a while, but what about the many Baptists today who are in favor of the Bush plan to finance religious work? Again, my point is the extreme variety of these folks simply because they were the "headless," and it is among them that I find my spiritual ancestry - not all of them, any more than I can claim all the folks who post on the Baptist Board! But I'm glad we can have friendly discussions. Best - Charles - Ro. 8:28

(By the way - is "Mioque" (French, I suppose?) a male or female name? Just like to have some idea to whom I speak!)

 

"(By the way - is "Mioque" (French, I suppose?) a male or female name? Just like to have some idea to whom I speak!) "
It's a French last name, my ancestors were Huguenots.

"thanx for the source, which gives the "POLITICALLY CORRECT" info as is usual in such sources, carefully tailored to avoid any "offensive" elements. We'e all studied hundreds of such encyclopedias and realize they are the "Reader's Digests" of research,"
I would say it is not so much politically correct, as it is void of anything that might be considered questionable by the majority of the 'experts'.

"As to "state ch = bad" being late, think of the Montanists, Novatians, and Donatists"
The Montanists, wanted to be part of the established church, they were a movement protesting what they percieved as the church going soft on sin. They are also the prime example of the power struggle between prophets and bishops on who was to head the church hierarchy. Had the Montanists won, Benny Hinn would probably be the current pope.
The Novatians are also a protest movement again opposing lax church discipline (mind you, their standards were a little brutal), but once again they wanted to be part of the church proper. They weren't headless, they ordained bishops and tried to get them recognized as the official and only bishop of a particular area.
The Donatists, same story as the Novatians. A brutal persecution, some Christians giving in, some not and afterwards some of the folks who suffered want to kick out the ones who didn't.
None of the 3 groups you mention I would describe as headless. And none of them wanted an independent seperate church. In fact all 3 of them tried to completely take over the church. John of Ephesus, who was a follower of Arianism. Makes it clear that the emperor of Byzantium is the head of the church including Arianism, despite the fact that the emperors were often very hostile to that movement. The idea of different denominations is completely alien to the mindset of the early church.

 

"As to this discussion, one of the foundation stones of the Anglo-American School is the idea of Soul Liberty and its related idea the "separation of Church and State." This places us in direct conflict with as Verduin styled it the sacralist state. I believe that we hold to this principle independently of Brother Simmons input."


Continental Baptists, or more properly named Doopsgezinden existed before the English Baptists. Seperation of Church and State is one of the things the English Baptists learned from the Doopsgezinden, the other big one is: Baptism is not for babies.

And people around here ought to stop reading Verduin, Verduin

 

" There are some amoungst us who would hold that there were Baptists in England and Wales dating from at least the reign of Good Queen Bess (QE1 for you non-anglophiles)."
Sigh, yes I know.

"As for not reading Verduin (and why not),"
In my professional opinion, Verduin could have used his time better writing fantasy literature, like Tolkien and Lewis did. His historical tales are fancifull enough.


"pray tell who should we read?"
This is a nice link.
http://www.volstate.net/~credo/page13.html
And for those who prefer the feeling of having a murdered tree in their hands I recommend:
James Edward McGoldrick's Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History (The American Theological Library Association and The Scarecrow Press, 1994)

Please keep in mind that as a rule,
"Americans are mono-lingual. So, any source you suggest must be in English. "
To bad, most of the better, commentaries, theological works and church histories are not originally written in English, the good news is that eventually a good number of them do get translated.

 

Mr. Robertson, I apologize.
I just reread my last post and find it a bit rude.
My scholastic pride occasionally get's the better of me and at these moments I get crabby towards folks who hold notions I find .

If you'd hear the elders of my own church talk, you would think that John Smyth is only a minor figure in Baptist history and Simons is the central figure. Pure Jingoïstic pride.
To be frank I see this whole 'trail of blood' thing many US baptists believe in as something similar.

 

Mioque,

You recommended that Baptists should read James McGoldrick's book and the "Primer on Baptist History". I am surprised that you mention these two books. I have carefully read both and they both are full on assumptions and mistakes and in my opinion are very poor, especially the second.

Also please tell us why Verduin is such a poor historian? I have several of his books and he seems to be a first rate scholar.

 

Squire Robertsson
I benefit regularly from my knowledge of German. Knowing Koine Greek can be even better. But I'm surprised they dropped German. I'd say a working knowledge of 3 languages is about the minimum any church related professional needs. (except maybe the verger )

 

"You recommended that Baptists should read James McGoldrick's book and the "Primer on Baptist History". I am surprised that you mention these two books."

That "Primer on Baptist History" has 3 things going for it. It is easily found for free (just use the link). It is very readable. It is a nice introduction to the subject.
I'd say that as a basic what happened? text for laypeople it does well. It is not for the in depth student of the subject.

McGoldrick's book is an effective dispelling of those fancifull theories that turn the apostles into Independent, Southern, Fundie, Baptists.

I find both to be light and pleasant reading. I have to read turgid and ponderous material much to often for my tastes.


"Also please tell us why Verduin is such a poor historian? I have several of his books and he seems to be a first rate scholar. "
He could have been brilliant. But one is not supposed to fit the facts to one's theory but the other way around.

 

Friend Mioque - I've been away a few days and will be gone again for the next few, but I note in a quick scan that my last notes to you are not on the board - I'm never sure of the principles on which all this works. I do note your exchange with the brother from Arkansas.

What is your estimate of Mosheim?

Also, even though it is a textbook and subject to the same limits as encyclopedias, John T. Christian did a tremendous amount of research and is full of lengthy quotations which seem to document links among the various pre-reformation adult immersionists, at least some of whom taught salvation by grace based on Scriptural authority, not state or "official" sanction, Yes, as you say about a "nuanced" view, to quote Dosker: "There were Anabaptists and Anabaptists," and probably no two of them were exactly alike! But this is precisely the situation among modern Baptists, and does not invalidate the truth held by any one individual or group.

There is no rush to answer; it will be at least Sunday evening before I check in again.

With best wishes, Charles - Ro. 8:28

 

I simply bungled my reading of the quote by John Christian. I'm so used to folks, using the word religion as a code phrase for fake Christianity that I read a whole new meaning into the quote cited by Marc.

 

I think my previous post belonged on another thread.
Charles i don't know enough about Mosheim to have an opinion

 

Mioque - Just home briefly between varied activities. It took me a while to find your note - it seems that posts get juggled from time to time.

Let me encourage you to become familiar with the Lutheran historian John L. Mosheim, published in 1849. He is in the same "scientific, objective" school as von Ranke.

More when the summer schedule permits - Charles

 

Squire Robertsson
I often find that allthough all subjects are covered in the English literature, the German books are sometimes more thorough (or should I say gründlich) in their treatment of the subject matter.