Infidel Historians

Until the late 1800s both the Baptists and the Mennonites taught that they were descendants of the Anabaptists and that the Anabaptists were descendents of the Waldenses who were, in turn, descended from the original New Testament churches. Even historians (such as Crosby, Benedict, Robinson, and Armitage) who did not subscribe to successionism, nonetheless believed there had been a general continuation of Baptist type churches from the time of Christ. Not only so, but there were even Protestant and Catholic scholars who acknowledged that the Anabaptists were of a pre-Reformation origin.

However, in the late 1800s and early 1900s Anabaptist/Mennonite/Baptist history was revised to make all three the product of the Protestant Reformation. So now it is generally taught that the Anabaptists originated at the beginning of the 1500s and that the Mennonites are their modern day descendants and that the English Baptists originated out of 17th century English Separatism.

With these thoughts in mind, has it ever occured to any of you that the same era of "scholarhip" which revised Anabaptist/Mennonite/Baptist history is that which also revised Biblical history? Does no one here find it odd that many professedly "Bible believing" Baptists rely on the works of modernistic infidels for their Baptist history?

The genious of the old Anabaptist/Mennonite/Baptist history is that it was drawn almost exclusively from the writings of their enemies and yet was favorable to them.

The irony of the new Anabaptist/Mennonite/Baptist history is that it was produced by men who were antagonistic to Baptist principles, yeah to Christ and the Scriptures - men, I say, with an unhidden agenda - and yet it is swallowed hook, line, and sinker by many who otherwise consider themselves ardent believers in Biblical Christianity.

Thoughts anyone?

Mark Osgatharp

 

No, it hasn't.

And you'd better be careful with your label of "infidel." </font>[/QUOTE]RSR,

Oh, believe me, I chose that label very carefully. An infidel is, by definition, an unbeliever. From a Christian perspective those who do not believe the Scriptures, whatever else they may profess, are unbelievers - infidels.

The modernistic theological movement was/is, therefore, an infidel movement. Modernists are infidels.

One of the integral aspects of the modernist movement was to call in question the accuracy of Bible history. And again, I say, the same generation of "scholarship" which openly assailed the truthfulness of the Scriptures is that which fabricated the revisionist Anabaptist/Mennonite/Baptist historography.

This simple observation ought to send up a red flag to anyone who takes the Baptist faith seriously.

Mark Osgathaarp

 

Brother Dallas,

I'm talking about the modernist movement of the late 19th and early 20th century wherein the historical accuracy of the Scriptures was denied.

Mark Osgatharp

 

Can anyone read these quotes and not conclude that "Baptist" historian Henry C. Vedder was a bona fide modernist infidel?

http://www.nimbus.org/Inside/Faith/Christianity/WhatThenIsChristianity.html

Mark Osgatharp