History Recommendations

[rlvaughn]

Here are a few recommendations of some probably lesser known books. BTW, is there anyone awake here in the History Forum????????????

Asher, Louis Franklin. John Clarke: Pioneer in American Medicine, Democratic Ideals, and Champion of Religious Liberty. Pittsburgh, Pa.: Dorrance, 1997. 125 pages.

Christian, John Taylor. Did They Dip? An Examination of Baptism as Practiced by the English and American Baptists Before the Year 1641. Louisville, KY: Baptist Book Concern, 1896.

Davidson, William F. An Early History of Free Will Baptists. Nashville: Randall House, 1974. 238 pages.

Goadby. J.J. Bye-paths in Baptist History. London: Elliot Stock, 1871. 375 pages.

Hoad, Jack. The Baptist - A Historical and Theological Study of the Baptist Identity. UK: Grace Publications Trust, 1986. 355 pages.

Ivimey, Joseph. History of the English Baptists. 4 vol. London: Printed for the Author, 1811. 2438 pages. Currently available from the Primitive Baptist Heritage Corporation.

Latch, Ollie. History of the General Baptists. Poplar Bluff, Mo: General Baptist Press, 1954. 471 pages.

Yonts, Wesley. History of Old Time Baptists in America. Utica, Ky: McDowell Publications, 1988. 402 pages.

 

[rsr]

Thanks, Robert.

Haven't had anything to contribute, but I keep checking in.

 

[Daniel Dunivan]

rlvaughn,

We have discussed several General Baptist things in these history threads, so I thought you might like a website done by a GB pastor in AR. He is putting GB historical material (most of it primary sources) on the net at www.generalbaptist.net

FYI

Grace and Peace

[ January 25, 2003, 03:18 PM: Message edited by: Daniel Dunivan ]

 

[Jeff Weaver]

I'm awake. Pour me another cup of coffee.

Thanks for the recommendations. Will check out some of them when I can get a minute.

Daniel, welcome back. I missed your sensible postings for a bit.

Jeff.

 

[rlvaughn]

That's a nice website, Daniel. I noticed they have links to Goadby's Bye-paths and Christian's Did They Dip (as well as a host of other material.

I also want to put in an extra comment on two of the books listed above. The books by Louis Asher & Jack Hoad may not be as well known or as readily available as some history books, but IMO they are both excellent books.

 

[tyndale1946]

Brother Robert... First of all I'm dirt poor!... The books I have I cherish and won't go into them at this time. Suppose I could go to the library and see if I could find them... Then again we could start a book lending club couldn't we?... You all know me by now... You would trust a christian brother with your book wouldn't you?... I didn't think so! ... Brother Glen

 

[Shqippy]

Tyndale, you could always try interlibrary loan at your library!

 

[Daniel Dunivan]

Jeff,

Been busy with final papers for my doctoral seminars, and getting situated into a new semester.

Grace and Peace, Danny

 

[Jeff Weaver]

Danny

I can appreciate that. I did my Ph.D. in American history some years back, a piece at a time. Wasn't easy that way, but it worked for me. I had several books published by that time, so it was a lot of formality to get the sheepskin. Never used it though, just something I did for myself.

At any rate, do you have your dissertation topic laid out and approved? Do tell. I miss academic life, and sometimes I am tempted to go back to take something just for the stimulus of learning. The stroke, however, has left parts of my brain like jello. I have a difficult time putting a coherent sentence together sometimes. I miss the thrill of the research, discovering something long forgotten, etc.

 

[Daniel Dunivan]

Jeff,

I am waffling a little on final research topics right now. I am in my first year of seminar work, so I have some time; however, I do have some ideas. In the particular program I am in, we can choose between several areas of specialization--patristics, medieval, reformation (pretty interesting at a Jesuit institution), modern, and American. I am interested most in modern and American. In the American realm (the one I originally thought I would do my research in), I am particularly interested in the effects of the Second Great Awakening (I think they are still reverberating in contemporary evangelical theology), and the continuing function of myth within baptist historiography (successionism). In modern studies, I am particularly interested in the work of the modern European theologians (i.e. Barth, Brunner, Rahner, and my favorite Wolfhart Pannenberg). In Pannenberg, I am interested in looking at contemporary applications of his concepts of history as revelation and how post-modernity effects the formulation of the concept.

Wow I sure can sputter on about what I love.

Thanks for asking,

Danny

 

[rsr]

... I am particularly interested in the effects of the Second Great Awakening (I think they are still reverberating in contemporary evangelical theology) ...

As a nonacademic, pardon me if a drool a bit at the prospect. Cane Ridge, the Burned-Over District, Baptists, Campbellites, Millerites, Mormons, Methodists, New Lights, Old Lights ...

 

[Tony Solomon]

Originally posted by Daniel Dunivan:
I am particularly interested in the work of the modern European theologians (i.e. Barth, Brunner, Rahner, and my favorite Wolfhart Pannenberg). In Pannenberg, I am interested in looking at contemporary applications of his concepts of history as revelation and how post-modernity effects the formulation of the concept.

Daniel

I have become interested in Barth/Brunner and their pov on Reformed Theology. I have this untested notion that in trying to distance themselves from European Pietism (not the same as English speaking pietism), then ended up back where they started by turning to Kierkegaard and Dostoyevsky, who were, to all intents and purposes, Pietistic!! This gells well with the peitistic strain in experimental Calvinism in the 19th cent.

See this Barthian statemetn from one of our chief men in the 1940s:

Inspiration is not inherent in the inspired words...The Holy Spirit who produced the written word of God must, by his vital power, renew and enlighten the eye's of men's understanding. It then becomes the Word of God to them.
J H Gosden, "What Gospel Standard Baptists Believe."

peace in Him

 

[Jeff Weaver]

Daniel D. noted:

In the American realm (the one I originally thought I would do my research in), I am particularly interested in the effects of the Second Great Awakening (I think they are still reverberating in contemporary evangelical theology), and the continuing function of myth within baptist historiography (successionism).

I would absolutely agree that the effects of the Second Great Awakening are still alive and well. Some effects from the First as well.

At the risk of offending Bro. Glen and the rest of the Primitive Baptist community which accepts much of the successionistic theory, I would agree that there is considerable myth in that area. The historical evidence just isn't there to support some of those links to times past.

I did my M.A. Thesis on the political divisions in the Baptist Church in Appalachia during and immediately following the American Civil War. That is my area of expertise, if there is any expertise in my brain.

Rsr noted:

As a nonacademic, pardon me if a drool a bit at the prospect. Cane Ridge, the Burned-Over District, Baptists, Campbellites, Millerites, Mormons, Methodists, New Lights, Old Lights ...

Rsr, I'm not sure what you mean by drool. Could you elaborate?

Jeff.

[ January 28, 2003, 06:16 AM: Message edited by: Jeff Weaver ]

 

[Jeff Weaver]

Solly wrote:

I have become interested in Barth/Brunner and their pov on Reformed Theology. I have this untested notion that in trying to distance themselves from European Pietism (not the same as English speaking pietism), then ended up back where they started by turning to Kierkegaard and Dostoyevsky, who were, to all intents and purposes, Pietistic!! This gells well with the peitistic strain in experimental Calvinism in the 19th cent.

Tony

Could you expand on your thoughts on this particularly the last sentence. I think I agree with the comment, just would like a little more to think about.

See this Barthian statemetn from one of our chief men in the 1940s:

Inspiration is not inherent in the inspired words...The Holy Spirit who produced the written word of God must, by his vital power, renew and enlighten the eye's of men's understanding. It then becomes the Word of God to them.
J H Gosden, "What Gospel Standard Baptists Believe."

I would agree with that. It took me a minute to grasp what Gosden is saying, but it does fit with GS/Primitive Baptist thought.

Jeff

 

[Tony Solomon]

Jeff

The main influence I have found, in comparison between the Barthian view and the pietism within our own circles, is what some of us call the "lightning bolt" effect. Even JC Philpot was not without this aspect. It is the idea implicit idea that Scripture is taken out of the historical sphere, and floats in some sort of ether, waiting for the lightning bolt to strike down and make it the Word of God to us; as we hold a Bible in our hands - as Christians - it is just a dead letter. But then, as we are reading this "dead letter" ZAP!, the Holy Spirit makes it the word of God to us. Effectively, it means that without the Zap, we cannot act upon scripture. I know Barth had a high regard for Scripture, and devoted his life to it, so I am not saying "this is that", just that I was struck by the similarities between pietism and dialectical existantialism.

This works out in practice in the aforementioned Bethesdaism, in which people won't come forward for baptism, because the Lord has not told them too - even though it's there in the word!! And they call themselves Baptists!! Another one that made people see the light recently, was recounted by a minister who, responding to the account of someone's personal trials, said, The Lord is on the throne. The response to that was: is he? Can you feel that? I can't.

As far as: This gells well with the peitistic strain in experimental Calvinism in the 19th cent.

I have not been able to dig too deeply into this, but from reading the Germans, one picks up a great disdain for pietism, esp in Barth's letters. It is seen as something Lutheran, and therefore not quite kosher. It is seen as irrational, and tending to a works righteousness. This obviously is not English Puritan Pietism, even though Luther's comm on Galatians is one of the most read books amongst us - more than Calvin!! Kierkegaard, and to an extent Dostoyevsky, and even Nietzsche, were fighting against a dull orthodoxy drifting into liberalism. Romanticism was also on the increase (affecting such disparate British groups as the Plymouth Brethren and the Oxford Movement), and they tended this way, reproducing the affective nature of Pietism. K and N were both Lutherans.
There was a significant divide between Reformed and Lutheran chrches it seems, and this was apparent in the academic world too, where Schlatter was despised for his pietistic origins.
IMHO Barth wanted an objective religion that avoided the excesses of Pietism, but, firstly, in lifting the Word of God out of history (into the spiritual ether) he played the same hand, and, secondly, in falling back onto existentialism, he effectively brought pietism in by the back door.

[ January 28, 2003, 07:57 AM: Message edited by: Solly ]

 

[Daniel Dunivan]

Solly,

You have brought up some issues that I hadn't thought of. I am currently writing a summary of critiques on Barth's work. I will do a little research on any other theologians who have thought similarly to you. I am relatively unfamilar with Schlatter's thought, but I met a guy yesterday (an irishman who just finished his doctorate at Oxford) who did his disertation on him.

After I write out my paper for my seminar on Barth, would you be willing to read it? Maybe I could email it?

Grace ane Peace, Danny

 

[rlvaughn]

Originally posted by Solly:
See this Barthian statement from one of our chief men in the 1940s:

Inspiration is not inherent in the inspired words...The Holy Spirit who produced the written word of God must, by his vital power, renew and enlighten the eye's of men's understanding. It then becomes the Word of God to them.
J H Gosden, "What Gospel Standard Baptists Believe."

Solly, I found this statement interesting, and thought that it would be similar to some views on the inspired word held by Primitive Baptists in this area, particularly those of the Absolute Predestinarin variety. I was interested to note that Bro. Jeff felt the same. When I began to actively visit among a certain correspondence of Primitive Baptists in my area, I was shocked by what I perceived as a near denial of God's word and its inspiration. But as I began to listen and consider what they were saying and practicing, I realized that they were not taking the liberal view of denying the scriptures. What they believe is probably the "non-scholastic" equivalent to what Gosden taught.

 

[tyndale1946]

Originally posted by Jeff Weaver:

At the risk of offending Bro. Glen and the rest of the Primitive Baptist community which accepts much of the successionistic theory, I would agree that there is considerable myth in that area. The historical evidence just isn't there to support some of those links to times past.

What about doctrinal succession would that be a better term then the historical and those that held to that view over the ages. Corruption crept into the church even when those establishing the church were in the process... Oh you foolish Galatians!... Who hath bewitched you? Will we ever find the true church or just get close enough in doctrine and practice to the true?... Brother Glen

 

[Jeff Weaver]

Bro. Glen wrote:

What about doctrinal succession would that be a better term then the historical and those that held to that view over the ages. Corruption crept into the church even when those establishing the church were in the process... Oh you foolish Galatians!... Who hath bewitched you? Will we ever find the true church or just get close enough in doctrine and practice to the true?... Brother Glen

Bro. Glen

I think even doctrinal successionism can be difficult to prove. I think that the various doctrines that we hold dear have been passed down through time, just not all in one place at one time. Did that make sense? For example, some of our reputed forebearers might have held to believer's baptism but had error in the nature of God, or doctrines of Grace. Others might have been correct on grace but missed the mark on Baptism or church government.

Will we ever get to 1st century Christianity again? I don't know. I know our folks aren't perfect, I don't know of any church that is. But I am satisfied we aren't likely to do better in this life. We know in part, see in part, and look through a glass darkly.

As can be seen from your reference, Christians removed from Christ by only a few years in time. If they couldn't get it completely right, how in the world are we to do it. We have the written word, but those folks had Apostles, which was probably a better deal. You could ask for clarification if necessary. We can't.

Hope it helped clear up my view on this subject. If it didn't, ask, I'll answer if I can.

 

[Jeff Weaver]

Tony

Thanks for your clarification of your thoughts on Barth, et.al. It has been many years since I have read this stuff, and the memory gets hazy, but I think you are on to something here. I will have to dig out the old text books and reread some of these things. Thanks for bringing them to mind.

Jeff.