The Limitations Of HIstorical Study

When approaching the study of "history" we must be careful not to confuse the historical record with history itself. History itself is the sum total of all events that actually occured in the past. The historical record is the sum total of men's attempts to preserve history in written form.

While history itself is 100% complete and 100% accurate, the historical record has severe limitations on it's ability to convey an accurate knowledge and understanding of history. Some of these limitations are:

1. THE PAUCITY OF THE HISTORICAL RECORD COMPARED TO THE RICHNESS OF HISTORY. The sum total of the historical record, even were it totally accurate, represents only a very small portion of what actually occcured in history. Though we could do an exhaustive study of the historical record, our knowledge and understanding of history would still be extremely limited.

2. THE IGNORANCE OF THE HISTORIAN. This problem is closely aligned to the first. The historian can only write from his own first hand knowledge, oral knowledge gained from others, or the writings of other historians. Therefore he must remain ignorant of all historical events not available in his sources and this ignorance will be reflected in his own historical writings.

3. THE BIAS OF THE HISTORIAN. It is virtually impossible for a human being to rise above his biases when expounding or writing about any given subject. Even if one historian might, he has no gauratee that his sources wrote with an unbiased pen. Therefore the whole historical record is suspect.

4. THE DECEIT OF THE HISTORIAN. Some historians are simply dishonest and deceitful in their handling of the facts.

5. THE ACCIDENT OF THE HISTORIAN. Even if a historian could rid himself of bias and deceit, he is still subject to accidental errors of interpretation, transcription, and printing.

6. THE LANGUAGE BARRIER. Language is constantly changing. A word that "means" one thing today may "mean" a totally different thing tomorrow. A word that "means" one thing in one man's mouth may mean something else in another man's mouth, even today.

One of the greatest problems of both historical and Biblical exegesis is the faulty assumption that words have inherent meanings. No word means anything other than what some man used it to mean and we have no gaurantee that any historical record uses words in their common usage (if it can even be said that there is any such thing as "common" usage of words).

The language limitation is magnified when we cross from one language to another. It is further magnified in the study of religious movements and historical theology because of the very fact that religious terminology is used with such a wide range of interpretations.

A sheep is a sheep any where in the world. But atonement, salvation, baptism, church, and even "God" can mean a dozen different things to a dozen different writers.

I remember reading the statement somewhere that Jacob Arminus was a "mild Calvinist." And yet in most contexts "Calvinism" is considered the very antithesis of "Arminianism." Anyone familiar with the extant records of Baptist history knows full well the ramifications that varient uses of the term "Calvinist" could have on our understanding of the Baptist heritage.

Mark Osgatharp

 

Here I provide a concrete example of the limitations of the historical record that I described above. A book was recently published titled "Landmarkism Revisited." It was written by Robert Ashcraft, an American Baptist Association pastor from Little Rock, Arkansas. Brother Ashcraft has also authored a complete history of the American Baptist Association as well as the Arkansas State Association of Missionary Baptists.

"Landmarkism Revisited" purports to be an historical update on the Landmark Baptist movement. Chapter seven of this book is titled "Contemporary Landmarkism" and contains a section describing "Neo-Landmarkism."

"Neo-Landmarkism" is a lately invented term, used prejoratively to identify Landmark Baptists who are hostile to the modern programs, such as AWANA, Promise Keepers, and Evangelism Explosion, that have invaded the Landmark Baptist churches in the past two decades.

To begin with, the term "Neo-Landmarkism" itself is a biased term which was conceived with malice towards those who have vocally opposed certain innovations among Landmark Baptists. One of the primary issues in this controversy has been AWANA which is most certainly a lately conceived program; and yet those who stand in opposition to it are called "Neo" Landmarkers????

In his description of "Neo-Landmarkism" Robert Ashcraft makes the following statement:

"They are generally opposed to any form of presenting the gospel, apart from pulpit presentation by a gospel preacher."

I personally confronted brother Ashcraft with this statement and challenged him to provide me with the name of one man who fit this description; he responded that he thought I did.

I assured him I did not and challenged him to name another man who was "generally opposed to any form of presenting the gospel, apart from pulpit presentation by a gospel preacher." He gave me the name of another man who I knew believed no such thing. He could provide the name of no other.

To my knowledge, there is no Landmark Baptist preacher, "Neo" or otherwise, who is "generally opposed to any form of presenting the gospel, apart from pulpit presentation by a gospel preacher."

And yet this statement is now part of the "historical record." Even if brother Ashcraft should retract this statement in a future edition of his book, the books already distributed will remain and years from now, if the Lord delays His coming, someone will read that in the late 20th century there arose a group of Landmark Baptists who were,

"generally opposed to any form of presenting the gospel, apart from pulpit presentation by a gospel preacher."

Hmmmmm? Just think of the ramifications that could have on "Baptist history" as it is currently understood.

Could it be that just maybe a man, or group of men, would scheme to garner up money to send men to newly opened business venues in new frontiers and foreign lands, where they would start lucrative schools and hospitals and colporture endeavors......and that they would brand anyone who refused to pay them tribute as "anti-mission"?

How long, oh Lord?

Mark Osgatharp

 

So are you saying that an unbiased study of the Scriptures would prove that the Baptist position on baptism is incorrect according to the Bible? Are you suggesting that infant baptism is Scriptural after all? If so, maybe you would care to give us your sound exegesis of the Scriptures on the subject of infant baptism.

Mark Osgatharp

 

Doubting Thomas,

And perhaps you should at least consider the possibility that you might be wrong and that the Baptist position is the Scriptural position after all; in which case there can be no doubt that the promise of Christ to be with His people as they evangelize, baptize, and instsruct "even unto the end of the world" is a promise of baptist church perpetuity - the lack of historical documentation for their existence notwithstanding.

Mark Osgatharp

 

</font>[/QUOTE]Doubting Thomas,

I have never claimed to be able to prove Baptist succession by historical documentation, any more than I can prove:

</font>

• the Genesis account of creation</font>

</font>

• the flood</font>

</font>

• the Exodus</font>

</font>

• the virgin birth</font>

</font>

• the resurrection</font>

I believe these things because they are in the word of God. I believe succession because it is in the word of God.

It seems to me that you live up to your name. Unless you can see and feel His scars you will not believe.

Mark Osgatharp

 

And how do you know that what you identify as "The historical Church" was not that of which John spake when he said,

"They went out from us, but they were not of us"?

While it may be true that Baptist succession cannot be proven by the historical record, it is not true that it isn't found in the historical record.

I wouldn't give you a sack of hog dung for your "historical church" nor it's "interpretation of the word of God." I find a Baptist church in the Bible and a promise of Baptist perpetuity in the Bible and therefore I will believe it no matter what historical document you wave before my eyes.

Mark Osgatharp

 

Doubting Thomas and Matt Black,

I thought you fellows were Baptists, not Roman Catholics.

Baptists interpret history in light of the Bible, not the Bible in light of history. What you are calling "objective historical evidence" is nothing other than Roman Catholic propoganda.

Well, of course there is a lot more historical propoganda to prop up the Catholic church than there is to prove a succession of Baptist churches - because the Roman Catholic church subjected all who would not bow the knee to Rome to unrelenting persecution and committed their writings to the flame.

I stand ahgast that any man calling himself a "Baptist" would refer to Catholic tradition as "objective historical evidence." The next thing you know you'll be crying out,

"Kill them all, God knows his own."



Mark Osgatharp