Can someone point me toward a reliable history of the Baptists?

[Plaid Dad]

I'm trying to piece together some bits of church history and need to know more about the origins of the Baptists as a denomination - the sources of their theology, which Reformer's (or s'!) teachings they draw on, and so on. Can anyone recommend a good book or web site? I'm not so much looking for discussions of the current divisions among Baptists or their contemporary theology, but for the origins of the denomination in the 16th/17th centuries. Thanks!

[kokotg]

Well, it may be a more complicated topic than you're expecting....a lot of Baptists don't consider themselves Protestants, and maintain that their roots go back to Jesus in Jerusalem.

[Beth in Central TX]

As a Baptist for the last 13 years, I've always considered myself a Protestant, and I think most Baptists consider themselves Protestants. Wikipedia says that some Baptists with the Landmark movement reject the Protestant label, but I've never heard of this and plan to do a little more research now; however, it doesn't appear to be a prevalent view.

Plaid Dad--I'm not sure this book is exactly what you're looking for since it's more about the Evangelical movement of the First Great Awakening, but I'll link in case you might be interested: http://www.amazon.com/Great-Awakening-Evangelical-Christianity-Colonial/dp/0300118872/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205936288&sr=8-1

__________________________________________________ _________________________________________________
I looked a little more at Wikipedia about Landmarkism: According to the article "there is no identifiable sub-group of Baptists known as the Landmark Baptist Church", but "Landmark ideas still exist within the Southern Baptist Convention."

Based on this, it's difficult to talk about what "most" or "some" Baptists believe. I became defensive with your term "a lot of Baptists don't consider themselves Protestants", which may or may not be the case. I think the problem comes down to this sentence about Baptists in general: "A basic Baptist belief is that each local Baptist church is automous."

[kokotg]

____________________________________
I looked a little more at Wikipedia about Landmarkism: According to the article "there is no identifiable sub-group of Baptists known as the Landmark Baptist Church", but "Landmark ideas still exist within the Southern Baptist Convention."

Based on this, it's difficult to talk about what "most" or "some" Baptists believe. I became defensive with your term "a lot of Baptists don't consider themselves Protestants", which may or may not be the case. I think the problem comes down to this sentence about Baptists in general: "A basic Baptist belief is that each local Baptist church is automous."

I certainly didn't mean to put anyone on the defensive...I'm not Baptist now, but I grew up Baptist and the belief I described (and that Wikipedia notes) is one I heard preached in my Baptist church growing up (in a large congregation in a major metropolitan area--not a tiny, obscure little church). So it's definitely out there. The last thing you say is actually pretty much what I was trying to get at--that pinning down Baptist history may be nearly as difficult as pinning down Baptist theology--precisely because Baptists are such independent types. No offensive to Baptists at all intended!

ETA: it may well be that this is something that the vast majority of Baptists reject and that it's safe to disregard it when considering Baptist history--I honestly don't know. I just know what many Baptists in my family believe, and I checked Wikipedia to see if it was a noted phenomenon, so I thought I'd throw it out there. Because I like to make things complicated ;)

[Beth in Central TX]

No offense taken here, I just reacted because "all of the Baptists" I know believe they are Protestants too. Of course, all of the Baptist churches I've attended held that same belief. In addition, when I meet other Baptists I generally don't ask them about their beliefs on the origin of Baptists. Although, I might need to do this now... Because of my limited experience, I extrapolated my beliefs to the whole denomination. I do see the lack of church history taught by "the Church" (Protestant and/or Baptist) as a disadvantage. I don't have many recommendations for Plaid Dad because I obviously don't know the full history myself. I'll watch this thread, so that I can do a better job with my boys at least.

[Susie in MS]

I really can't help you, but I wanted to say that I grew up in a So Baptist church where we were never taught, neither do we believe in, Reformed Theology. It was only about 2 years ago that I found out that many Baptist are Reformed. I was surprised to see so many belief systems under the same name.

[Tami]

Menno Simmons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menno_Simons) as being the father of the modern Baptist thought and practice. I may be wrong, but that would be a place I would begin.

Glimpses of Church history (http://chi.gospelcom.net/)may be one helpful site, as I *think* it is from the Protestant viewpoint. Our church bulletins always contain these inserts, and I have "met" many interesting people in church history through them.

Blessings on your research!

[Tami]

Well, it may be a more complicated topic than you're expecting....a lot of Baptists don't consider themselves Protestants, and maintain that their roots go back to Jesus in Jerusalem.


Could you elaborate?

[LisaNY]

Plaid Dad, I just found this website: http://www.pbministries.org/History/Goodwin_&_Frazier/churches_02.htm

I did not read through it, but I glanced at it, and thought it might be helpful to you. It seems to contain a lot of history of the Baptist faith.

Hope it helps! :001_smile:

[neesek]

My dh had a class in seminary on the history of the Baptists. The book he recommends is called The Baptist Heritage: Four Centuries of Baptist Witness by Leon H. McBeth. It is a seminary text so it is quite comprehensive, but he says it is excellent.

Here is a link to the book on Amazon.

http://www.amazon.com/Baptist-Heritage-Four-Centuries-Witness/dp/0805465693/ref=sr_11_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1205939941&sr=11-1

HTH

[Pencil Pusher]

Well, it may be a more complicated topic than you're expecting....a lot of Baptists don't consider themselves Protestants, and maintain that their roots go back to Jesus in Jerusalem.

Not Baptist here, either, but dh is in a S Bap seminary, & this is what they teach about their roots.

[Gailmegan]

Sydney Alstrom's A Religious History of the American People is a fantastic resource. It begins with the European roots and the Reformation then tracks the development of all denominations as American history unfolds.

[Plaid Dad]

I really can't help you, but I wanted to say that I grew up in a So Baptist church where we were never taught, neither do we believe in, Reformed Theology.

Not all of the Protestant Reformers were "Reformed" in the sense of Calvinist. I'm asking specifically about the Reformation-era roots of the Baptists.

[OhElizabeth]

The Baptist History by McBeth, published by Broadman. That was the text we used in college. Goes all the way back, shows the various splits (Free Will, 4 square, you name it) and why they occurred. It's a college text, so it's a thick read, but it's all there, unlike a website or something shorter.

PS. Just saw Denise listed it too. There you go! :)

[Tami]

Not Baptist here, either, but dh is in a S Bap seminary, & this is what they teach about their roots.


I am confused. How do roots in Jerusalem and not being Protestant connect? I feel as if I'm being dense. From the Catholic perspective, I think there are 3 major groups: Catholic Christians, Protestant "Christians," and non-Christians.

I don't think Baptists would consider themselves Catholic or of a non-Christian faith, so that leaves "Protestant" in my mind.

Am I missing the boat here?

[kokotg]

Could you elaborate?

Here's what Wikipedia has to say about it:

The Baptist perpetuity view (also known as Baptist succession) holds that the church founded by Christ in Jerusalem was Baptist in character and that like churches have had perpetual existence from the days of Christ to the present. This view is theologically based on Matthew 16:18 (See Aramaic language and Greek translation thereof, in this passage Jesus is speaking to Cephas translated Peter, meaning "rock") "And I say unto thee thou art Cephas (Peter) and upon this Cephas (Peter) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it," as well as Jesus' commission and promise to be with His followers as they carried on his ministry, "even unto the end of the world."[13]

The Baptist perpetuity view sees Baptists as separate from Catholicism and other religious denominations and considers that the Baptist movement predates the Catholic church and is therefore not part of the Protestant Reformation.[14]

Baptist historian John T. Christian states the Baptist perpetuity view in the introduction to his "History of the Baptists": "I have throughout pursued the scientific method of investigation, and I have let the facts speak for themselves. I have no question in my own mind that there has been a historical succession of Baptists from the days of Christ to the present time."

Those holding the perpetuity view of Baptist history can be basically divided into two categories: those who hold that there is a direct succession from one church to the next (most commonly identified with Landmarkism), and those who hold that while the Baptist practices and churches continued, they may have originated independently of any previously existing church.

J. M. Carroll's The Trail of Blood booklet, written in 1931, has been a popular writing presenting the successionist view, pointing to groups such as the Montanists, Novatianists, Donatists, Paulicians, Albigensians, Catharists, Waldenses, and Anabaptists, as predecessors to contemporary Baptists.[15] John T. Christian published a more scholarly history of the Baptists from a perpetuity perspective[16] Other Baptist historians holding the perpetuity view are Thomas Armitage, G.H. Orchard, and David Benedict.

[Robin in Tx]

FWIW, there is a current fad of switching over to Calvinism within the Southern Baptist convention... quite the battle at the leadership/seminary level. Some argue that Calvinism *was* their original theology and that they are returning to their roots. That's an argument that I'm interested in researching... please let me know if you discover something in that regard.

I grew up southern Baptist and don't recall ever being taught that we subscribed to a particular protestant reformer's theology. I always assumed that we sorta came into being independently, afterwards... but I have since read/heard the idea that there are roots that go back to pre-reformation days... that baptists were always a separate "sect" even before the reformation. But I'm not sure that this isn't confusing what we know as Baptist today with the anabaptists... I'm not sure what the connection between the two are, if there is one.

Good luck!
Robin

[kokotg]

I am confused. How do roots in Jerusalem and not being Protestant connect? I feel as if I'm being dense. From the Catholic perspective, I think there are 3 major groups: Catholic Christians, Protestant "Christians," and non-Christians.

I don't think Baptists would consider themselves Catholic or of a non-Christian faith, so that leaves "Protestant" in my mind.

Am I missing the boat here?

The belief I'm talking about says that the Baptist religion predates the Reformation--that it existed alongside Catholicism before Luther. It's not Protestant because it doesn't come out of the Reformation. Incidentally, the Eastern Orthodox church would also fall outside your categories, wouldn't it?

[Plaid Dad]

From the Catholic perspective, I think there are 3 major groups: Catholic Christians, Protestant "Christians," and non-Christians.

Actually, we would talk about Catholics (of many rites), non-Christians, and "separated brothers and sisters" - a category that includes Protestants and Orthodox Christians. The Orthodox, for all our differences, are still "near kin" to Catholics in terms of belief and practice, and Catholic theology acknowledges their special place.

[Pencil Pusher]

I am confused. How do roots in Jerusalem and not being Protestant connect? I feel as if I'm being dense. From the Catholic perspective, I think there are 3 major groups: Catholic Christians, Protestant "Christians," and non-Christians.

I don't think Baptists would consider themselves Catholic or of a non-Christian faith, so that leaves "Protestant" in my mind.

Am I missing the boat here?

Protestants "protested" Catholic doctrines. Catholicism teaches that all Christian denominations are derrived from a Catholic origin. Some would disagree, arguing that there were other sects of Christianity that began before or at the same time as Catholicism.

[Pencil Pusher]

Protestants "protested" Catholic doctrines. Catholicism teaches that all Christian denominations are derrived from a Catholic origin. Some would disagree, arguing that there were other sects of Christianity that began before or at the same time as Catholicism.

To go a little further, trying *carefully* not to step on any toes, this theory is based on history from the Constantine era, during which much of the tradition that is associated w the Catholic church was instituted.

Remember the Council of Nicea? That was the first time that Constantine got involved in church politics, & there were a *very* few who balked at this, specifically one or more (I can't remember) churches in Africa. Constantine had them killed. The theory is that the Christians who did not follow Constantine & still managed to survive his tyranny would be the origins of non-Catholic traditions, or the maintainers of? Not sure how to word that. Think remnant, like when Israel was repeatedly near-extinction in the OT, but God saved some.

OK, that makes Catholics sound like the bad guys, & I don't mean that. :blush: I mean that...if there's a "bad guy" it would be Constantine. During his reign was when Christianity was finally divided from its Jewish roots, because Jews were still persecuted, but Christians were not. So the Christians wanted to *look* as different from the Jews as possible. Constantine "Christianized" a lot of pagan traditions, to unite his kingdom & to differentiate between the Jews and the Christians. This added to the early animosity between Christians and Jews, & it's part of the reason that a handful of Christians are returning to Jewish roots.

Hm, but we were talking about the Baptists, weren't we?:o Sorry. Let me ask dh before he leaves...

Ok, now dh says Baptist roots go back to the Anabaptists who *did* break off of Catholicism, but took reformation much further than Luther. He says "Anabaptist" means 2nd baptism because they didn't believe in infant baptism.

Ha! So everything I wrote above is. completely. irrelevant!:001_huh: Sorry.

Plaid Dad, he doesn't know a book. He'll have to take a class on Baptist history eventually, but he hasn't had it yet.

I'm sure that didn't help at all. :leaving:I'm going now.:blush:

[Daisy]

Ok, now dh says Baptist roots go back to the Anabaptists who *did* break off of Catholicism, but took reformation much further than Luther. He says "Anabaptist" means 2nd baptism because they didn't believe in infant baptism.

Only "some" of the Anabaptists come from the Reformation. The Anabaptists (and thus some baptists) claim to have already had a separate group of believers who coincided with the catholic church all along but were never, ever (and they make this clear) part of the catholic church. They simply assimilated those during the Reformation who recognized that Luther was once again attempting to create a "state" church and who had not completely done away with the traditions of the catholic church.

A great book to read on the subject is "Mennonites in Europe" by John Horsch. There are also plenty of Baptists who hold to the view that they were never part of the Reformation or Catholic church. BTW, I'm not Baptist or Catholic. I just happen to love church history.

[neesek]

Not Baptist here, either, but dh is in a S Bap seminary, & this is what they teach about their roots.


Does that mean that they are actually teaching it as fact or presenting it as one of several beliefs within the Baptists? If they are teaching it as fact, I would be very interested in knowing which SBC seminary it is. You can PM me if you would rather not post it publicly.:)

[LizzyBee]

My dh had a class in seminary on the history of the Baptists. The book he recommends is called The Baptist Heritage: Four Centuries of Baptist Witness by Leon H. McBeth. It is a seminary text so it is quite comprehensive, but he says it is excellent.
HTH

I think that's the same book my dh used for his seminary Baptist History class. He is also at a So Bapt seminary. His class did not teach that the denomination itself goes back to the time of Jesus. But I think it taught that the belief system and theology does (kind of funny considering the varying theology among So Bapts). Also, very few of the modern Baptist denominations grew directly out of the Anabapist movement, but most Baptists do identify very closely with the Anabaptists.

[Dawn]

Here's what Wikipedia has to say about it:



Quote:
The Baptist perpetuity view (also known as Baptist succession) holds that the church founded by Christ in Jerusalem was Baptist in character and that like churches have had perpetual existence from the days of Christ to the present. This view is theologically based on Matthew 16:18 (See Aramaic language and Greek translation thereof, in this passage Jesus is speaking to Cephas translated Peter, meaning "rock") "And I say unto thee thou art Cephas (Peter) and upon this Cephas (Peter) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it," as well as Jesus' commission and promise to be with His followers as they carried on his ministry, "even unto the end of the world."[13]

The Baptist perpetuity view sees Baptists as separate from Catholicism and other religious denominations and considers that the Baptist movement predates the Catholic church and is therefore not part of the Protestant Reformation.[14]

Baptist historian John T. Christian states the Baptist perpetuity view in the introduction to his "History of the Baptists": "I have throughout pursued the scientific method of investigation, and I have let the facts speak for themselves. I have no question in my own mind that there has been a historical succession of Baptists from the days of Christ to the present time."

Those holding the perpetuity view of Baptist history can be basically divided into two categories: those who hold that there is a direct succession from one church to the next (most commonly identified with Landmarkism), and those who hold that while the Baptist practices and churches continued, they may have originated independently of any previously existing church.

J. M. Carroll's The Trail of Blood booklet, written in 1931, has been a popular writing presenting the successionist view, pointing to groups such as the Montanists, Novatianists, Donatists, Paulicians, Albigensians, Catharists, Waldenses, and Anabaptists, as predecessors to contemporary Baptists.[15] John T. Christian published a more scholarly history of the Baptists from a perpetuity perspective[16] Other Baptist historians holding the perpetuity view are Thomas Armitage, G.H. Orchard, and

FWIW, I was a Reformed Baptist for 9 years and this was what I was taught about the baptist movement.

[LizzyBee]

But I'm not sure that this isn't confusing what we know as Baptist today with the anabaptists... I'm not sure what the connection between the two are, if there is one.

The Anabaptists primarily became the Amish and Mennonite denominations.

[Pencil Pusher]

Does that mean that they are actually teaching it as fact or presenting it as one of several beliefs within the Baptists? If they are teaching it as fact, I would be very interested in knowing which SBC seminary it is. You can PM me if you would rather not post it publicly.:)

Well, actually, I think I was wrong. In a post above, I mentioned that my dh corrected me. Maybe I got this from something I read? Anyway, if they *are* teaching that, I wouldn't know if it was as belief or fact, since I get hand-me-down info from dh. :glare:

Sorry.

[Robin in Tx]

Yeah, I know... that's why I'm not so sure we should be looking at Menno Simmons as an early father of the modern Baptist denomination (which was suggested elsewhere in this thread). Maybe there is a link back to the early anabaptist movement that I'm not aware of.

[Tami]

Protestants "protested" Catholic doctrines. Catholicism teaches that all Christian denominations are derrived from a Catholic origin. Some would disagree, arguing that there were other sects of Christianity that began before or at the same time as Catholicism.

While I would describe myself as "Evangelical," my Catholic friends use the term "Protestant" as a term for non-Catholic "Christians." I have heard the Catholic Church use the term "Separated Bretheren" but have never encountered this term in day-to-day Life with Catholic friends. This term is used widely and generically, I suppose.

I am learning that we need to really define terms! The same term means different things to different people. Then there is the "official" definition and the one that is in common use.

Life is interesting!

[Brenda in FL]

I'm not sure if this will help - but maybe it can give you a reference point. In "The Story of Christianity" by Michael Collins, on p. 145 there is a chart that shows the growth of protestant denominations in the US beginning with the split from the catholic church.

According to this chart, Norht American Baptists (German) and Baptisit General Conference (Swedish) Fall Under Anabaptist Churches, specifically "European National Groups" as opposed to Mennonite/Amish and Brethren denominations.

Other Baptists descended from the Anglican Church, and further from the seperatists, these are Free Will Baptist, Conservative Baptist, Progressive NAtional Baptist and American BAptist

You might find some information here: http://www.founders.org/

[Donna A.]

Founders is the one I was just looking up! Another link closely related to Founders which has a lot of good articles is www.ccwonline.org (http://www.ccwonline.org)

[8FillTheHeart]

To go a little further, trying *carefully* not to step on any toes, this theory is based on history from the Constantine era, during which much of the tradition that is associated w the Catholic church was instituted.

Well, Aubrey, not to step on any toes or anything, but that is a hugely inaccurate description on the origins of the Catholic Church. The foundation of the Church begins in scripture and is carried on in the papacy of St. Peter and continues after his death. Written historical evidence exists (alongside the existance of written scripture) giving testimony to this fact.

The First Epistle of Pope St. Clement I (AD 88-97) demonstrates the recognized authority of the papacy as he settled controversies that were disrupting the church in Corinth. The Epistle to the Romans written by St. Ignatius of Antioch (ca AD 35-ca107), who was appointed Bishop of Antioch by St. Peter himself, affirms the deferential obedience to the authority of the Bishop of Rome (who is the pope). St. Irenaeus' writings also stress the importance of the structure of the Church, including the papacy.

(btw....all of the original writings of the early Church Fathers are available to read online at http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/ To quote from Pope St. Clement (again.....within decades of the death of Christ......"The church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the church of God sojourning at Corinth, to them that are called and sanctified by the will of God, through our Lord Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, from Almighty God through Jesus Christ, be multiplied.

Owing, dear brethren, to the sudden and successive calamitous events which have happened to ourselves, we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us.....

The apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture in a certain place, "I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith."

From St. Ignatius (who was born in AD 35)....."Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that wills all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, [I wish] abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God."

The traditions of the Church are documented from the earliest days of the Church and were preserved along with scripture.

Constantine simply represents the beginning of Christians having political support. Prior to Constantine, Christians were totally at the will of the constantly flucuating views and condemnation of whoever was the reigning emperor. Constantine's intolerance of Arianists stemmed from the his view that the divide between Arianists and Catholics was destroying his Empire. (so the divide as to who attended and did not attend the Nicaean Council fell along the lines of who agreed with the true Divinity of Christ and those who did not believe that Chirst was God or equal to the Father--the error of Arianism)

[Donna A.]

Founders is the one I was just looking up! Another link closely related to Founders which has a lot of good articles is www.ccwonline.org (http://www.ccwonline.org)

And on the CCW website, if you scroll down on this page http://www.ccwonline.org/books.html to the book titled The Glory of Christ by multiple authors, it looks like it might hold some interesting insights into the Reformed Baptist thinking in particular. It says:

'"The Glory of Christ challenges and guides readers in doing just that. Chapters are drawn from sessions given at the "Solus Christus: Rediscovering the Wonder of Christ's Glory" conference, presented by Reformation and Revival Ministries. Contributors include John Armstrong, Jim Elliff, R. Albert Mohler, Jr., and J. I. Packer. The authors believe that true revival will come only when we as God's people return to the centrality of Jesus Christ. "Recovering the wonders of Christ alone is not merely an antiquated slogan of the 16th-century Reformation," declares this book. "It is the flame which will ignite a new reformation today."

[8FillTheHeart]

Only "some" of the Anabaptists come from the Reformation. The Anabaptists (and thus some baptists) claim to have already had a separate group of believers who coincided with the catholic church all along but were never, ever (and they make this clear) part of the catholic church. They simply assimilated those during the Reformation who recognized that Luther was once again attempting to create a "state" church and who had not completely done away with the traditions of the catholic church.

A great book to read on the subject is "Mennonites in Europe" by John Horsch. There are also plenty of Baptists who hold to the view that they were never part of the Reformation or Catholic church. BTW, I'm not Baptist or Catholic. I just happen to love church history.

Daisy, maybe you can answer a question for me? I, too, love church history and theology is my passion. I have had this conversation with many people and none have ever known an answer. How did the earlier Christians who were not part of the Catholic Church but still existing, end up on deciding to remove all the same books from the cannon of scripture that Luther did? And, did they wait until the 1500s to do so? I would really like to read historical testaments on this.

Thanks.

[Donna A.]

The traditions of the Church are documented from the earliest days of the Church and were preserved along with scripture.

Constantine simply represents the beginning of Christians having political support. Prior to Constantine, Christians were totally at the will of the constantly flucuating views and condemnation of whoever was the reigning emperor. Constantine's intolerance of Arianists stemmed from the his view that the divide between Arianists and Catholics was destroying his Empire. (so the divide as to who attended and did not attend the Nicaean Council fell along the lines of who agreed with the true Divinity of Christ and those who did not believe that Chirst was God or equal to the Father--the error of Arianism)

I'm not sure I can (personally) equate the existence of any documentation as being right up there with Scripture, BUT, the last paragraph is certainly true enough. And I believe that at some point, Constantine actually did become a believer (Christian), as opposed to simply being the Catholic political ruler that he started as. Aubrey, many Catholics in history have been true Christians. Not everyone who claims to be a Christian really IS a Christian, whether Catholic or not... but Constantine was at some point.

A good book to help us see how God used some Christian men -- including some of which were Catholic -- in the history of the church is Trial and Triumph: Stories from Church History by Richard Hannula.

[8FillTheHeart]

I'm not sure I can (personally) equate the existence of any documentation as being right up there with Scripture,
.

Donna, just for clarification, I was simply trying to point out that the written documentation exists historically at the exact equivalent time period after the death of Christ. I was not trying to equate its equivalence in authority. (Not in a million yrs would I have that conversation on this forum!)

My point was that Aubrey made it sound like nothing existed in Catholic tradition prior to Constantine.....which is simply false. :)

[Donna A.]

Donna, just for clarification, I was simply trying to point out that the written documentation exists historically at the exact equivalent time period after the death of Christ. I was not trying to equate its equivalence in authority. (Not in a million yrs would I have that conversation on this forum!)

My point was that Aubrey made it sound like nothing existed in Catholic tradition prior to Constantine.....which is simply false. :)

True. ;) Thanks for the clarification.

[Plaid Dad]

Only "some" of the Anabaptists come from the Reformation. The Anabaptists (and thus some baptists) claim to have already had a separate group of believers who coincided with the catholic church all along but were never, ever (and they make this clear) part of the catholic church.

Daisy, do you happen to know what the objective historical evidence is offered for this claim? Again, this is not to step on any toes, only an attempt to understand something that is new to me.

[Plaid Dad]

According to this chart, Norht American Baptists (German) and Baptisit General Conference (Swedish) Fall Under Anabaptist Churches, specifically "European National Groups" as opposed to Mennonite/Amish and Brethren denominations.

Other Baptists descended from the Anglican Church, and further from the seperatists, these are Free Will Baptist, Conservative Baptist, Progressive NAtional Baptist and American BAptist

Thank you - this is exactly the information I was looking for. :)

[Renee in FL]

It's funny you ask this, since part of the answer is in your previous post. Some Baptists consider themselves a sub-group of the Anabaptists, who are not Protestant (as in did not come about as a result of the Protestant Revolt.)

That is true for some, but not others and Independent Baptists have little in common with Anabaptists.

[Lisawa]

I'm trying to piece together some bits of church history and need to know more about the origins of the Baptists as a denomination - the sources of their theology, which Reformer's (or s'!) teachings they draw on, and so on. Can anyone recommend a good book or web site? I'm not so much looking for discussions of the current divisions among Baptists or their contemporary theology, but for the origins of the denomination in the 16th/17th centuries. Thanks!


I loved year 2 TOG last year! I learned so much about how and who started the different denominations... it was absolutly facinating....

Here is a great link: The Hall of Church History (http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/anabapt.htm) this was so helpful to me!

Also look thorugh the TOG year 2 link page (http://www.tapestryofgrace.com/tog_fast/y2/topics.htm).... look under Church History (http://www.tapestryofgrace.com/tog_fast/y2/ch_history.htm)... lots of great links... for later use too...

HTH~

[Plaid Dad]

While I would describe myself as "Evangelical," my Catholic friends use the term "Protestant" as a term for non-Catholic "Christians."

That is the case for denominations that stem from the Reformation. The Orthodox do not; Catholics and Orthodox parted ways (officially) in 1054 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East-West_Schism). Orthodox Christians are not Protestants, and I have never heard a Catholic refer to them as such.

Catholics also do not deny that Protestants are Christians (hence no quotes necessary around the word. :)) You can read more about the Catholic position on that in the Catechism (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM), esp. sections 811-822.

HTH!

[Cindy in C-ville]

I just want to say that you all are handling yourselves beautifully! How much diversity there is! I love the wisdom that Momof7 expressed to not even "go there" on this board when considering the place of the writings of the Church Fathers beside Scripture. My church is a Baptist General Conference church (Swedish roots), however, we are basically "reformed" in theology. As one person mentioned, this is one of the major difficulties with trying to track the history of baptists. Each church has so much autonomy and so there is no way to say that what is true for one congregation will be true for another. I know for one of my Catholic friends, this is one of the draws toward Catholocism. She loves that although individual Catholic Churches may express different personalities, they hold the same liturgy, same theology, etc.

Anyway, just wanted to say how impressed I am with you all!

:) Cindy

[Plaid Dad]

I too appreciate the civility of this discussion. I really hesitated before posting my question because I didn't want to cause any strife - particularly just a few days before Easter! But this has been a great and very informative discussion. I got the information I needed, and now understand better why it is that that information wasn't as straightforward as I expected. Thank you, all! :hurray:

[8FillTheHeart]

I love the wisdom that Momof7 expressed to not even "go there" on this board when considering the place of the writings of the Church Fathers beside Scripture!

:) Cindy

BTW......Just so I didn't convey a wrong idea.......Catholics DON"T place the writings of Church Fathers beside scripture. The writings contain references to the Traditions that Catholics do hold to.......

Still not a conversation for the boards, but the 2 do mean different things and I didn't want to cause misinformation. :)

(BTW.....I am not wise. ;))

[Tami]

That is the case for denominations that stem from the Reformation. The Orthodox do not; Catholics and Orthodox parted ways (officially) in 1054 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East-West_Schism). Orthodox Christians are not Protestants, and I have never heard a Catholic refer to them as such.

Catholics also do not deny that Protestants are Christians (hence no quotes necessary around the word. :)) You can read more about the Catholic position on that in the Catechism (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM), esp. sections 811-822.

HTH!

"
Just to clarify, I am not Orthodox. Well, I am perhaps even unorthodox. Ummm. You know what I mean. :D My Catholic friends refer to non-Catholics/non-Orthodox Christians as "Protestants" regardless of whether they are officially Reformed. Perhaps it is just my neck of the woods.

I read an article from the Pope that made me put "Christian" in quotes, and also in light that I would be excluded from the Eucharist. From what I can tell from Vatican II, I am "anathema" because of how I believe. Hence, the quotes. I don't wish to offend, nor to start a debate.

[Plaid Dad]

Just to clarify, I am not Orthodox. Well, I am perhaps even unorthodox. Ummm. You know what I mean.

Actually, I'm not sure I do! ;) Just to be clear, I'm using Orthodox here to refer to Eastern Orthodoxy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodoxy), not small-o orthodoxy or fidelity to a particular set of doctrines. I'm assuming from your self-description as an Evangelical that you're Protestant. :) If I'm wrong, or if you prefer to be referred to in another way, please forgive me!

About the rest...I think I know which statement of the Pope's you are referring to, and the media spin was tremendous. That's why I linked directly to the relevant passage of the Catechism. If you look at section 818, I think you'll find the teaching is very clear, and quote-free. :) I wouldn't expect a non-Catholic to agree with all of what's in that section, of course, but many people are surprised to learn what the Catholic position vis-a-vis non-Catholic Christians actually is. HTH!

[Plaid Dad]

My Catholic friends refer to non-Catholics/non-Orthodox Christians as "Protestants" regardless of whether they are officially Reformed.

Well, there certainly are Protestants who are not Reformed, if by Reformed you mean, essentially, Calvinist. The majority of Protestant denominations are not "Reformed" in that sense, but they all have their roots in the Protestant Reformation of the 16th and 17th centuries. When I say "Protestant," that's what I'm referring to and I think that's the common usage (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Protestant).

Now there are churches, formed in the last 100-150 years or so, that are none of the above - not Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox. Those sometimes get lumped in with Protestants, but that's not really accurate.

Does that clear things up, or have a just managed to muddy the waters further? :blush:

[Robin in Tx]

I am not a scholar, and I might very well be confused, but I was under the impression that the apocryphal books were canonized by the Roman Catholic Church some 20 or 30 years after the reformation began. Before then they were not onsidered scripture, right? It's my understanding that the anabaptists do recognize a certain value of these books (historial reference etc) but it's not like their bible ever had these books to begin with. It's also my understanding that some of the early christians that are associated with the birth of the anabaptist movement were thought to be "religious descendents" of (eastern) orthodoxy ... sorta displaced leftovers from that schism.

Again, no evidence to back all this up :), just what I have heard/read over the years.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Robin

[Michele B]

The apocryphal books were used by the Fathers of the Church. They were part of the Greek Old Testament - the Septuagint- the version quoted by St. Paul. He does not quote from the Apocrypha, but from the Greek OT. The Jewish biblical compilers - Masoretes- got rid of the apocryphal books in part because the early Church used several of them (especially the Wisdom of Solomon) so effectively in their preaching to Jews. The apocryphal Books were included in the original 1611 KJV.

Michele

[Michele B]

And about Constantine from an earlier post: The other "side" was the Arians. They were supporters of Arius who taught that Christ was a creature and not consubstantial with the Father. Major difference with any Christian denominations I have heard of! :D It would be hard to be Arian and believe "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God...!"

Michele :D

[Robin in Tx]

My question to Mom of 7, though, is that the apocrypha were not yet canonized when the Reformation began, hence the anabaptists who predated the reformation did not remove them from their bible... for that matter, neither did Luther... because they weren't in the bible yet. Before 1545 they were separate documents of great value to the Catholic church, but not actually scripture. Not yet. ETA: Wasn't the apocrypha canonized at Council of Trent, in response to the Reformation? And didn't many protestants still refer to the books (and still do today) but simply didn't agree that they were scripture?

Is this not right?

[Plaid Dad]

The deutero-canonical books had always been acknowledged as fully scriptural (http://www.catholic.com/library/Old_Testament_Canon.asp) by the Catholic and Orthodox churches.

In general, councils like Trent are called together when there is a challenge to the Faith. Those challenges force the Church to spell out more clearly what "the Apostles' teaching" is. There was no need to define the inclusion of these books in the canon so formally until Reformation leaders challenged them. It was simply accepted that there were part of the canon.

[Robin in Tx]

Aha! Well, that answers that... thank you so much!! My impression was not completely accurate, but I am left wondering about why, if they were fully scriptural, they wouldn't have already been formally canonized ... since they weren't, it is easy to see how someone might assume that their "status" was increased at Trent.

REgardless, I would agree that Mom of 7's question is a very good one... what did the anabaptist bible look like before the reformation? Did it change? When? I mean, I have no doubt that Luther is not the first person who ever lived in Europe who had a disagreement with the Catholic Church :), so I'm not doubting that there were small Christian groups who were not "attached" to the official church during those centuries. I'm just curious, like she is, where they got their information from? Did they even have a bible... were they literate? If so, did they have to use the Catholic Bible only becuase it was the only one in print?

Interesting to think about...

[Plaid Dad]

I would be interested in details of pre-Reformation Anabaptist groups. I was unaware of them, but then, I wasn't looking for them either. ;) All the information I'm finding places the Anabaptists' beginnings firmly in the Reformation era. I am seeing references to forerunners (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabaptist#Forerunners) of the Anabaptists, but these appear to represent, at most, a set of influences rather than a continuous history.

[Pencil Pusher]

Well, Aubrey, not to step on any toes or anything, but that is a hugely inaccurate description on the origins of the Catholic Church. The foundation of the Church begins in scripture and is carried on in the papacy of St. Peter and continues after his death. Written historical evidence exists (alongside the existance of written scripture) giving testimony to this fact.

The First Epistle of Pope St. Clement I (AD 88-97) demonstrates the recognized authority of the papacy as he settled controversies that were disrupting the church in Corinth. The Epistle to the Romans written by St. Ignatius of Antioch (ca AD 35-ca107), who was appointed Bishop of Antioch by St. Peter himself, affirms the deferential obedience to the authority of the Bishop of Rome (who is the pope). St. Irenaeus' writings also stress the importance of the structure of the Church, including the papacy.

(btw....all of the original writings of the early Church Fathers are available to read online at http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/ To quote from Pope St. Clement (again.....within decades of the death of Christ......"The church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the church of God sojourning at Corinth, to them that are called and sanctified by the will of God, through our Lord Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, from Almighty God through Jesus Christ, be multiplied.

Owing, dear brethren, to the sudden and successive calamitous events which have happened to ourselves, we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us.....

The apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture in a certain place, "I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith."

From St. Ignatius (who was born in AD 35)....."Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that wills all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, [I wish] abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God."

The traditions of the Church are documented from the earliest days of the Church and were preserved along with scripture.

Constantine simply represents the beginning of Christians having political support. Prior to Constantine, Christians were totally at the will of the constantly flucuating views and condemnation of whoever was the reigning emperor. Constantine's intolerance of Arianists stemmed from the his view that the divide between Arianists and Catholics was destroying his Empire. (so the divide as to who attended and did not attend the Nicaean Council fell along the lines of who agreed with the true Divinity of Christ and those who did not believe that Chirst was God or equal to the Father--the error of Arianism)

Oh, dear. What I meant was, the theory regarding the Baptist church is based on Constantine. And even in that, I misspoke. (Hm, sp?)

I do know that the history of the Catholic church is supposed to go all the way back to Scripture, & although I've had a hard time finding anything predating 300BC, I didn't mean to dispute that. At all.

I appreciate the references you've listed, & I look forward to doing more reading!

[Pencil Pusher]

And I believe that at some point, Constantine actually did become a believer (Christian), as opposed to simply being the Catholic political ruler that he started as. Aubrey, many Catholics in history have been true Christians. Not everyone who claims to be a Christian really IS a Christian, whether Catholic or not... but Constantine was at some point.

I didn't at all mean that Catholics are not true Christians. I personally don't believe that Constantine became a true Christian, based on the fruit of his life, but I hope that that is read simply as a personal view of history rather than a statement about someone's faith.

[Pencil Pusher]

My point was that Aubrey made it sound like nothing existed in Catholic tradition prior to Constantine.....which is simply false. :)

Will y'all put up w/ me if I try again? :blush:

What I meant here was simply that there are some muddy waters, historically speaking, during the period between Scripture and 300 AD that allow for differences of opinion, religiously.

From what I've gathered from my limited reading & from my Catholic friends, the documentation during this period is...lacking. From what Mom of 7 says, though, I'm just showing my lack of reading.

Fwiw, I did try! I read history written by Catholic priests! My best friends converted to Catholicism about 2 years ago, & I respect them so much, dh & I almost converted, too. We found quite a bit that we respected & that was closer to what we believed than the non-Catholic churches in which we'd been raised. In fact, ironically, before coming to this Baptist seminary, ALL of our friends were Catholic. So really, really, really, I meant no harm!

And one other thing, if anybody's *still* reading, I do know that the Arian controversy was addressed at Nicea, but I've read...somewhere?...that there were other disagreements, too. That some guys didn't like Constantine's sudden involvement & the church's pandering to him. Now, talk about not documented. This stuff's really hard to find! ;) (I mean that to poke fun at myself.)

So sorry. I'm going away now, to do more reading & keep my mouth shut!

Thanks for being gentle, though.

[Robin in Tx]

I think perhaps calling them forerunners is better, because I'm not sure the label has always been there. Here is a cut from an article I found at a baptist website... it is froma lecture about the history of the church:

___________________________

I quote a very significant statement from the Schaff- Herzogg Encyclopedia, under "History of Baptists in Europe," Vol. 1, page 210,

"The Baptists appeared first in Switzerland about 1523, where they were persecuted by Zwingle and the Romanists. They are found in the following years, 1525-1530, with large churches fully organized, in Southern Germany, Tyrol and in middle Germany. In all these places persecutions made their lives bitter."
(Note -- that all this is prior to the founding of the Protestant churches--Lutheran, Episcopal, or Presbyterian.)


We continue the quotation:-

"Moravia promised a home of greater freedom, and thither many Baptists migrated, only to find their hopes deceived. After 1534 they were numerous in Northern Germany, Holland, Belgium, and the Walloon provinces. They increased even during Alva's rule, in the low countries, and developed a wonderful missionary zeal."

___________________

This is about the time of the reformation, but definitely before... so they were organized and had large churches by then... that means they had been around for a little while before. Supposedly the anabaptists lent help to the reformers. And supposedly they were persecuted themselves by Zwingle... I think the point is that the anabaptists did not come out of the catholics during the reformation.

I am thinking that a printed bible probably wasn't a common possession at that time, so I doubt the anabaptists had gathered, decided what was canon and what wasn't and printed their own bible sans the apocrypha. It is interesting to think about, though... where Christians got their biblical instruction prior to the reformation if they weren't under the Catholic church.

Here is an interesting article about the history of baptists, by a group called the "Primitive Baptists" I'mcompletely unfamiliar with them, therefore can't vouch for the reliability of this info... but I have heard quite a bit about Welch Baptists that go very far back. Hope this helps you with your research!!

http://www.pb.org/pbdocs/chhist5.html#Succession_in_Wales

Robin

[Robin in Tx]

Here is a cut from an article I found at a baptist website... it is froma lecture about the history of the church:

___________________________

I quote a very significant statement from the Schaff- Herzogg Encyclopedia, under "History of Baptists in Europe," Vol. 1, page 210,

"The Baptists appeared first in Switzerland about 1523, where they were persecuted by Zwingle and the Romanists. They are found in the following years, 1525-1530, with large churches fully organized, in Southern Germany, Tyrol and in middle Germany. In all these places persecutions made their lives bitter."
(Note -- that all this is prior to the founding of the Protestant churches--Lutheran, Episcopal, or Presbyterian.)


We continue the quotation:-

"Moravia promised a home of greater freedom, and thither many Baptists migrated, only to find their hopes deceived. After 1534 they were numerous in Northern Germany, Holland, Belgium, and the Walloon provinces. They increased even during Alva's rule, in the low countries, and developed a wonderful missionary zeal."

___________________

This is about the time of the reformation, but definitely before... so they were organized and had large churches by then... that means they had been around for a little while before. Supposedly the anabaptists lent help to the reformers. And supposedly they were persecuted themselves by Zwingle... I think the point is that the anabaptists did not come out of the catholics during the reformation.

I am thinking that a printed bible probably wasn't a common possession at that time, so I doubt the anabaptists had gathered, decided what was canon and what wasn't and printed their own bible sans the apocrypha. It is interesting to think about, though... where Christians got their biblical instruction prior to the reformation if they weren't under the Catholic church.

Here is an interesting article about the history of baptists, by a group called the "Primitive Baptists" I'mcompletely unfamiliar with them, therefore can't vouch for the reliability of this info... but I have heard quite a bit about Welch Baptists that go very far back. Hope this helps you with your research!!

http://www.pb.org/pbdocs/chhist5.html#Succession_in_Wales

Robin

[8FillTheHeart]

Oh, dear. What I meant was, the theory regarding the Baptist church is based on Constantine. And even in that, I misspoke. (Hm, sp?)

I do know that the history of the Catholic church is supposed to go all the way back to Scripture, & although I've had a hard time finding anything predating 300BC, I didn't mean to dispute that. At all.

I appreciate the references you've listed, & I look forward to doing more reading!

Actually Aubrey, there is significant information prior to 300AD. The link I posted includes the surviving documents from that time period. Polycarp, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Ignatius, Clement, Origen, Hippolytus are ones that simply come to my mind at 4:00 in the morning. :)

Councils convened prior to Nicaea. The first was the Council of Jerusalem where St. Peter presided and decided that Gentiles did not have to meet the requirements of Mosaic law. In 257 there was Council in Carthage.http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3818.htm
In 314, there was one in Ancrya http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3802.htm

There is more information than the ones I posted. There isn't a "silent" period from scripture ending to Constantine.

[8FillTheHeart]

Aha! Well, that answers that... thank you so much!! My impression was not completely accurate, but I am left wondering about why, if they were fully scriptural, they wouldn't have already been formally canonized ... since they weren't, it is easy to see how someone might assume that their "status" was increased at Trent.

REgardless, I would agree that Mom of 7's question is a very good one... what did the anabaptist bible look like before the reformation? Did it change? When? I mean, I have no doubt that Luther is not the first person who ever lived in Europe who had a disagreement with the Catholic Church :), so I'm not doubting that there were small Christian groups who were not "attached" to the official church during those centuries. I'm just curious, like she is, where they got their information from? Did they even have a bible... were they literate? If so, did they have to use the Catholic Bible only becuase it was the only one in print?

Interesting to think about...

Robin, the Traditions of the Church (those that Catholics hold binding) exist w/o definition from the earliest days of the Church. The Church only "declares" a teaching when it has been challenged. Names (as in defined terms) are given for clarity to teachings whose existance have always been accepted.

For more information on the canon of scripture than the on Plaid Dad posted, you can read http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm This article is very heavy and shows the complexity behind the compiling of scripture.

Edit....
I found a couple easier to understand links since the one above assumes a lot of history knowledge.....
http://www.catholicevangelism.org/h-canon1.shtml
http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap030700.htm

[Brenda in FL]

Thank you - this is exactly the information I was looking for. :)

I am so glad to be of help!! (And thaks for the rep!!)