Do we have a documented history?

Amazing how many Baptists want to claim the Anabaptists as ancestors! The Anabaptists are still around (Mennonites, Amish, etc.), and they do NOT want to be called Baptist! Nor are they Baptists--the direction their 16th century doctrine took them ended up being quite different from where the Baptist movement went.

Most genuine Baptist historians nowadays have abandoned the Anabaptist hypothesis for the belief that modern Baptists came from the early English Baptists of the beginning of the 17th century. This is dealt with thoroughly in the excellent (and up to date, being published in 1987) The Baptist Heritage, by H. Leon McBeth. All who are interested in Baptist history need this book

 

John of Japan,

A. Anyone who has read McBeth's book knows it is slanted towards a modernistic perspective.

B. The quote I gave above proves that the term "Baptist" was used in England at least as early as the middle of the 16th century.

I have read most of the modernist Baptist historians - Whitsett, Torbet, Vedder, McBeth - and I have yet to see any proof that these "Baptists" of the 16th century were a different lot from the Baptists of the 17th century, or that either of them were anything other than Anabaptists.

C. The Mennonites used to refer to themselves as "Baptists" and they are no more divergent from the English/American Baptists than the English/American Baptists are divergent among themselves. None of that changes the fact that we share a common ancestry.

Mark Osgatharp

 

Mark Osgatharp, I think we need to clarify some definitions here.

You seem to be defining "Baptist" to mean anyone who calls themself a Baptist. When I say "Baptist," I mean someone who holds to the Baptist distinctives. Calling a musk melon a watermelon does not make it so.

I didn't see any modernism in McBeth at all. What in the world are you defining as "modernistic?"

 

While its been quite a few years since I've read him, I have the same question concerning your characterization of Henry Vedder. </font>[/QUOTE]This is a little confusing, Squire. I haven't said anything about Vedder. You mean Mark's characterization of Vedder, right? Kinda like Vedder, myself. It's been a few years since I read him myself, but I'd like to have a cup of coffee with him sometime soon!

 

The history of The Baptist Church does not exist because there is no such entity as The Baptist Church. There is however, a history of the assemblies which Jesus started on the shores of Galilee and which have been maintained by The Holy Spirit in every generation.

The name of these assemblies has not always been the same--the names usually given in derision by their enemies. The terms Anabaptist and Baptist were not appelations of respect--more at hatred.

There is a history of New Testament Churches--it is written in blood. The trail can be followed in every generation. Some of the documents have been destroyed--by fire, along with the adherents who were earnestly contending for the "faith once for all delivered to the saints".

Where is it recorded? Do a word study on "heretics". There is a lot of information available through the Vatican and through places like Cambridge and Oxford in England. Keep in mind that all heretics were not necessarily "earnestly contending".

The Bride of Christ is still alive and well. She is still the pillar and ground of the truth. She is still without spot or blemish or any such thing--waiting for the Marriage of the Lamb.

That is a history to make one shout. Jesus has been faithful. Have we?

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Squire,

Henry Vedder was a full fledged theological modernist. This may not be so readily obvious in his history of the Baptists, since it is not a theological work per se. But when you approach Vedder's history knowing that he is a modernist, some aspects of that become more apparent in his history.

One of the primary aspects of modernism, and it's associate ecumenicalism, is the renunciation of the historic church and all claims to historic succession. That fits in right well with the denial of Baptist succession by the "modern" (now over 100 years old) Baptist historians.

In fact, the Landmark Baptists recognized the denial of Baptist perpetuity for what it was when they rooted William Whitsitt out of the Louisville Seminary and stigmatized his teaching as "German rationalism." Unfortunately - no tragically - the other infidels dug into the Baptist educational establishment and systematically injected their toxin deep into the Baptist bloodstream.

Mark Osgatharp

 

So it sounds like by definition, you would consider all non-Landmarkists modernists. Is this true? Because I don't know of any non-Landmarkists who believe in Baptist historic successionism. I also would consider non-Landmarkists to make up about 95%+ of Baptists.

I don't mind being label modernist because I do consider myself a product of both modern and postmodern culture and do not consider those labels to be negative. But I think many folks here who consider the fundamentalist-modernist controversy of the late 1800s and early 1900s to be the identifying conflict in Christianity will not take to that label so well.

[ October 16, 2005, 12:46 AM: Message edited by: Gold Dragon ]

 

Squire,

Another thing, you will notice the lopsided and unscriptural emphasis on "libery of conscience" among the modernist Baptist historians.

They have taken the legitimate Baptist principle of liberty of conscience, that you cannot force a man to worship God against his will, and made it do service to the modernistic idea that the church should harbor and embrace all, regardless of their theological or moral opinions.

When that perversion of "freedom" is carried to it's logical end, you have what you have today - "Baptist" churches condoning every evil you can imagine, as well as some you can't, and doing it all in the name of "Christian" liberty.

Mark Osgatharp

 

I am well aware that there are many Baptists who do not hold to the theology of modernism and yet do not believe is successionism. However, I do believe they have, even if unknowingly, embraced a concept that got it's major impetus from the modernistic movement.

Mark Osgatharp

 

I am well aware that there are many Baptists who do not hold to the theology of modernism and yet do not believe is successionism. However, I do believe they have, even if unknowingly, embraced a concept that got it's major impetus from the modernistic movement.

Mark Osgatharp </font>[/QUOTE]Thanks for clarifying.

 

Squire,

I haven't read Armitage's history very extensively. By what little I know of it, my understanding is that he traced the Baptists back to Christ, but did not think that succession was a necessity for valid church life. This, I think, is also the view that Benedict and Robinson held.

By contrast, the modern era of Baptist historians flatly assert that the Baptists began in England in the 16th century. They see the Baptist movement as a restoration, rather than a continuation of primitive Christianity.

As for Vedder, he goes so far as to claim that the church was an invention of Paul and that Christianity was basically lost since the days of the apostles.

While I would certainly disagree with Armitage on the necessity of succession, I would not class him among the modernists who see the Baptists as a purely restorationist movement.

Mark Osgatharp

 

Quick Bible study: which ever version you like;look for authority,historicity, perpetuity and succession(not mantras of men) but of New Testament Assemblies.

Mt. 16:13-19

Mt. 28:18-20

Acts 2:1-36

Eph. 3:21

Rev. 8:9-17

Rev. 22:17-20

Now get the Vatican Encyclopedia and read about "heretics".

We just documented the history of Baptistic Assemblies which trace their faith and practice to the shores of Galilee; and Jesus saying: "come, follow me, I will make you fishers of men".

Now, get off the fence and decide who may have put the bias in the history books which remain regarding this subject.

No other commentary necessary.

Selah,

Bro. James

[ October 16, 2005, 09:13 AM: Message edited by: Bro. James ]

 

Actually, that should have been 17th century - not 16th century.

Mark Osgatharp

 

So Bro. James, is this how you define a Baptist Church? Are "NT Assembly" and "Baptist Church" identical? Are there any distinctives to a Baptist church?

Mark, you have never defined "Baptist." The typical Landmarker, in my experience, will criticize you if you don't call your church "Baptist." Is that what makes a Baptist, just the name? Or are there actually Baptist distinctives?

 

Defining a Baptist Church--I have not a definition. As already stated: there is no such thing as "The Baptist Church" nor even "A Baptist Church. There is so much difference of doctrine in that which is called Baptist, that a much stricter definition must stated.

That Jesus started and preserved His assemblies in every generation can be established in both scripture and secular history. What these assemblies practiced is established by scripture. What these assemblies were called depends usually on which enemy was writing their history. This is not about a name--it is about a faith and practice handed down in every generation from before Jude 3 was written.

Jesus said He would never leave her nor forsake her. He has kept His promise. The Bride is waiting for the Groom. She is without spot, wrinkle, blemish or any such thing--despite the gates of Hades.

Are we keeping Jude 3?

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Frankly, Bro. James, forgive me, but I find this pretty silly. If you can't even define something, what are you doing writing about it?

It's one thing to say, "Such and such defines a Baptist church, but if a church does such and such it is not a Baptist church." But if you can't even define one, what is the use of talking about one and even claiming to be a Baptist?

How then do you know you are going to a Baptist church or if you yourself are a Baptist? If you cannot even define yourself as a Baptist, you are being disingenuous even by being on this forum. This forum is for Baptists, and the thread is "Do we have a documented history?"

Please define the term Baptist, or it is useless discussing this with you.