Baptist History

me too! My history teacher at school kept calling Baptists, protestants, and you better I corrected her. Although she doesn't believe me, she is a mormon though so what do you expect, they think that Jesus and the Devil are brothers!

 

Baptists are protestants. No better, no worse than our brethren. Just with different traditions and a tiny amount of different doctrine.

 

Baptists are protestants? When did that happen?

 

I humbly beg to differ with the statement that "the Baptists are Protestants." Unless one is attaching a different meaning to the generally acknowledged one(s) inherent in the term "Protestant," an in depth study of the history of the heritage of the people who would call themselves "Baptists," will reveal to the objective and unbiased reader that:

1) Contrary to the heritage of Protestant groups, the people we now designate as "Baptists" did NOT trace their lineage via the Roman Catholic Church.
If anything, the Roman Catholic Church left that body of adherents to separation of church and state and individual soul liberty to practice and proclaim the truths of God's Word as each individual understood what that Word meant to him.

2) While these groups may not necessarily called themselves "Baptists," they were, by the very similarities they had cf. the historic Baptist body of doctrine(s) and practice(s) [which, in itself covers a wide spectrum--as you will see if you read some of the postings in this as well as the other subsets of Baptist Board], in essence, what we would call "Baptists." ("A rose by any other name is still a rose.")

3) While there may have been some specific areas where they differed with "Baptists" today [if the historic sources from which we glean such information is totally objective and unbiased (i.e., to borrow from Fox News, "fair and balanced reporting")--a highly UNLIKELY supposition at best since a vast amount of documentation that is available to historical researchers was NOT written by those sympathetic to those groups [e.g., a publication published by the Kerry campaign would probably not go to great lengths to point out the positive(s) of President Bush's accomplishments--and vice versa], in general terms, we would still desginate these "forerunners" to modern Baptists as...."Baptists." ("If it looks, smells, walks, & quacks like a duck....")

4) We do a great disservice to both our heritage and to our own understanding of what we as Baptists in certain parts of the world today (and it's getting no easier for us here in the good old USofA either!) when they took/take a stand for the great biblical principles that even the Protestant reformers also persecuted our forefathers in the faith, when we either remain unaware of the price these folks paid to bequeath to us today--a price that most Baptists are unaware that these people paid, and ignorant of that same price we too may soon have to pay right here--when we simply lump Baptists as "Protestants."

5) While we should look upon anyone who has trusted the finished work of Christ as our brother or sister in the Lord, we need to be careful when we marginalize the service and sacrifices made by those who took a stand for the truths of historic Baptist principles either by our lack of understanding of why it was that these people chose death by torture rather than renouncing these precious principles, or our unwillingness today to "draw the line in the sand" in our rush to make everyone, everywhere, under every condition the recipient of our closest and most initmate fellowship.

I hold no personal animosity towards anyone who claims another religious affiliation than that of Baptist. Maybe they have their own reasons for so doing. But, as for me, I'm glad God allowed me to align myself with those people who have historically stood for (and quite often paid the ultimate sacriface for so doing) the historic Baptist principles that--sad to say--today are either NOT taught (much less implemented!) or are ignored even by those who claim a Baptist affiliation.

A great Baptist preacher and historian was once asked this question:
"Sir, if you were NOT a Baptist, what WOULD you be?"

Without hesitation this historian and evangelist said this in reply to that question:

"What would I be if I were NOT a Baptist? That's simple....I'd be ashamed of myself!!!"

 

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"What would I be if I were NOT a Baptist? That's simple....I'd be ashamed of myself!!!"
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
I heard that on a CD of my mine...I loved it.

My history teacher is Church of Christ and I think he taught that Baptists came from protestants too.

 

Protestants "protested" the Catholic church and were founded by CATHOLIC priests.

If Baptists "protested" anything, it was that the reforming CATHOLIC priests did not go back to the Bible. Baptism was one of the most striking distinctives.

 

OK Back to the thread.

Books on Baptist History are often biased by the authors' views of Baptist Theology. The two areas this is most visible are the thoughts upon AnaBaptist influence and Baptists being baby reformed churches.

short list:
SBC and its People - Baker
Baptists around the World - Wardin
The Baptist Heritage - McBeth
A Source book for Baptists - McBeth
--- One of McBeth's books was easier to read, but I forgot which one.
Creeds of the churches - John Leith

 

El Guero (et. al.)

If you will analyze part of my statement that dealt with the primary source(s) for writing not only Baptist history, but also ANY historical event, person, group, whatever, you will read about my caution to the reader not to accept some writer's account solely at face value simply because that writer chose to have a "history of" or "biography of" something or someone published.

It is highly unlikely that ANY writer (regardless of his topic or subject matter is absolutely and thoroughly unbiased in how he presents his subject to his readers. I don't care if he is writing on Baptists, Catholics, or UFO'ites, that bias will appear to some extent.

This is why it is imperative for one who would seek "the whole truth and nothing but" about any matter to not rely solely on one or two sources. EX: You will read in other sections of Baptist Board a vast divergence of views on, say, the KJV Bible vs. other translations, CCM vs. "Traditional" Music, Calvinism vs. Ariminianism, and the list goes on.

Just because so-and-so wrote a book about a certain topic does NOT mean that, therefore, he has the FINAL authority.

Maybe his biases were not intentional, but they will show themselves in one form or another. EX: A KKK publication and one published by the NAACP might view a civil rights protest march (and its participants) with slightly different interpretations: Same event, same participants, etc., but their reporting of this event most likely would lead the readers of those accounts to come to somewhat different conclusions of the reason for that protest march.

To classify Baptists as Protestants simply because they "protested" some of the beliefs and practices of the Catholic church is a very tenuous justification for this classification.

The Islamic people living in the lands of the Middle East during the era of the Crusades protested some of the practices of the Catholic church too (namely its sponsorship and promotion of military ventures whose avowed purpose was the utter destruction of as many Islamic lives and property as was necessary to "rescue the relics" of early Christendom from the Muslim infidels). By your rather strained logic, I suppose that you could therefore classify the Islamic people as "Protestants" too.

The Native Americans were oppressed by the Catholic church in the days of the Spanish colonial empire. They, too, protested the harsh and abusive tactics of the Catholic priests. Were these followers of what was basically a naturalistic or anamistic creed of theology therefore "Protestants"?

I guess so, according to your standard of determining who should be considered "Protestant."

Labels can and have been attached to individuals and groups throughout history quite often with little thought or concern over how accurate that label might be with reference to the persons or groups to which such labels have been applied.

If a person has some reservations about some of the regulations that modern day Israel places upon Christian missionary activity with Israel's borders, is he therefore "anti-Israeli"?

If someone or some group has some questions about the extent of the stockpile of weapons of mass destruction that Saddam had readily available at his disposal as the major justification for President Bush to go to war with Iraq, is such a person therefore an "anti-American"?

You mentioned two prominent schools of interpretion of Baptish history up to and including the 17th century. There is also that school that has been called the "Chain Link" interpretation that holds that modern day Baptists have an unbroken "Chain link" succession of churches/baptisms from John the Baptist untill today. Such so-called "examples" of this school of interpretation have even been published in a few Baptist history books. However, a closer examination of these "chain links" has revealed a lot of, if you will, "missing links" in the items they list as "proof."

Honest and thorough historical research can be a very time-consuming and expensive propostion if one seeks to approach it in an exhaustive manner.

But, to the genuine researcher and reader, it is a noble and praiseworthy venture.

 

if yall like reading about martyrs and what a good book about them try finding "Fox's Book of Martyrs" I havent got to read it personally but my friends have and its really cool from what I hear.

 

Britney is right, John Fox's "Book of Martyrs" is a classic. There are also available other, more recent texts that cover this subject. The website for the "Voice of the Martyrs" -- www.persecution.com -- has some really good books on both historic martyrs as well as many up-to-date ones.

It's a little known (probably because it's little reported) fact that there have been as many (if not more) Christians put to death all over the world for their unwavering stand for Christ in the just past 20th century than in the period of heightened persecution of the Roman Empire.

The CCM group d.c. Talk has published a 2-volume (350+ pg each vol) set called "Jesus Freaks" that's an awesome source book for ANY age (and musical preferenced) Christian on how people "Loved not their lives unto death" and paid the ultimate price for refusing to deny their Savior.

You can check out these kinds of materials at the above website.

This is just another reason why we need to REALLY pray and encourage missionaries in service to our Lord.

While we rightfully honor those who have fallen in defense of freedom's cause, we also need to support those who've answered "the Christian Call to Arms" and fill the ranks of God's Army in this day and age when (to borrow from a book title by Hal Lindsey from 30+ yrs ago) "Satan Is Alive and Well on Planet Earth."

 

There is also an outstanding work entitled "Bloody Theater or Martyr's Mirror of the Defenseless Christians," by Thieleman Van Bragt published by Herald Press.

This weighty tome is a 1,150+ page compendium of biographical sketches plus primary source writings of primarily anabaptist people (those from whom Baptists draw their heritage). While there were different Anabaptist groupings, and this work tends to feature those from whom the Mennonites derived, this work is different in that it draws the reader to see that their contemporary Protestant groups ALSO PERSECUTED ANABAPTISTS.

John Fox, author of his "Book of Martyrs," fails to mention many of the anabaptist martyrs because many of them were persecuted by the Protestants; moreover, while Fox may not have been a Catholic, his contention that once Queen Elizabeth I became queen of England, 99% of religious persecution ended, is false and misleading.

Perhaps the intensity of persecution of non-Catholics was reduced, but it was not over. John Bunyan lived some 100 years later and was persecuted for rejecting the licensing of preachers in his day. That's what put him in prison so that he could write "Pilgrim's Progress."

At any rate, this book was rated 5-stars by all the reviewers on the Amazon web site. While its $40 cost may discourage some from purchasing the book, you can still access it via interlibrary loan at a public library.

On a side note, some 30 years ago, a composer whose name slips my mind used portions of this book to compose the oratorio "Martyr's Mirror" (just like Handel used Bible verses to compose "Messiah") for full orchestra, soloists, and chorus. As far as I know, it's never been available on CD or tape, etc., but when it was performed live, few people left the auditorium with dry eyes.

 

Has any of you read the Trail Of Blood?
I have been wanting to read it. Supposedly it traces the Baptist Heritage back to the very biggining.

 

With a Bible in their Hands by Al Fasol.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Another good summary of our Baptist history and heritage is the 250+ page paper bound book "The Faithful Baptist Witness," by Dr. Phil Stringer that's published by Landmark Baptist Press of Haines City, FL.

It not only highlights the distinctives for which we Baptists have stood and died for, but traces the history of various anabaptist groups who stood for the same set of values from the NT era on up through at least the mid 20th Century.

I believe that the book still sells for less than $10.00.