Baptist vs.CT: Population vs Theological Literature

[blhowes]

I was wondering if somebody could recommend a church history source (preferably online) that compares the "baptist population" vs the "covenant theology population" during the church age and that also quantifies (roughly) the amount of theological literature that was published by each group?

Does the amount of theological literature written by each group correspond to the population of the group, or did one group just tend to write more than the other?

Thanks,
Bob

[Edited on 6-19-2003 by blhowes]

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Bob,

Good question, but you will need to refine it a bit. For instance:

During the 1300's and Wycliffe's writing time, how many Baptist churches exists, or even Anabaptist?

Answer: ZERO.

How much writing was done on Credo-Baptism?

Answer: ZERO.

Move foreword in time.

In 1500's how many Baptist churches were there?

Answer: ZERO

How many wrote on Credo-Baptism?
Very few - and they were all Anabaptists. Mostly this view was propagated by sermonization.

Enter into the 1600-1700's
How many Baptist chruches (Particular Baptist) were there?

Answer: about 16-20 in England, and by the end of the 17th century 4 in America.

How many wrote on Credo-Baptism?

Answer: Sources begin rising up, Confessions are made (1642, 1689, London, Philadelphia).

It may be best or fair to ask this question:
By the time of Charles Spurgeon, how many good Baptist resources on Credo-Baptism had been written?

Knowing full well that Baptistic Theology had not existed in any strong measure until the Confessions (1642, 1689), and I know Particular Baptists would not want to associate themselves with the heretical Anabaptists, you need to move up in the timeline to adequately answer your question because not many Baptistic writers were around.

In terms of population, I think, it is really not until the 20th century that Baptistic writing took off.

You certainly had Bunyan, Knollys, Keach, and Kiffin in the 17th century. But who Else? In another century many baptistic pastors would be around, but not many prolific writers.

When the 19th century hit, you had Gill, and Spurgeon. Gill wrote voluminously, and Spurgeon did not, but his sermons were all printed up. That made for enough reading to read one sermon a day for 15 years. (Wow!!)

So your question is a good one, but I think collectively would be a better place to begin.

Of the Baptistic Writers I know of, here is a list of "good" authors:

William Bradford
John Bunyan
William Kiffin
Hansard Knolleys
Benjamin Keach
RBC Howell
John Gill
Charles Spurgeon
Abraham Booth
John A. Broadus
BH Carrol
Alexander Carson
JM Frost
James R. Graves
William Shirreff
John Q. Adams
Henry Fish
Winthrop Hudson
Adoniram Judson
AW Pink
And you can then think about writers today.

This is not a very big list. Compared to the theological and exegetical output just from 1590-1641 from the Puritans alone overwhelmingly overshadows these writers. Not to mention all the Reformers, Wycliffe, Aquinas, Augustine, etc.

Some Baptists, to overcome this hurdle, attempt to trace "The Baptist Trail of Blood" back to the time of Christ. All I can say to that is

[Edited on 6-19-2003 by webmaster]

 

[blhowes]

Matt,
Thanks for your response.

[b:4493f5351e]webmaster wrote:[/b:4493f5351e]
Some Baptists, to overcome this hurdle, attempt to trace "The Baptist Trail of Blood" back to the time of Christ. All I can say to that is

I would imagine that most churches/denominations do that. The catholics, the Baptist, the Presbyterians (?). I once spoke to a dispensationalist pastor and I mentioned how relatively new this theology was. I asked him if any of the early church fathers were dispensationalists. To my surprise, he told me that the apostle Paul was and opened up his Bible to 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17.

I'm very ignorant about church history, so when you say:

During the 1300's and Wycliffe's writing time, how many Baptist churches exists, or even Anabaptist? ... Answer: ZERO.

and

In 1500's how many Baptist churches were there? Answer: ZERO

Is this because there weren't those who held these beliefs or because the government didn't allow baptist churches to officially meet during the dark ages? Was there freedom of religion then as we know it today? During this same time period, how many presbyterian churches were there?

Hopefully, as my reading speed improves, I'll be able to read more about church history and the writings of the reformers (on both sides). For now, scripture memorization - :wr9:

Matthew 13:2 And great multitudes were gathered together unto him...

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Correct, at that time there were no Baptists. Historical Fact.

Independent Congregatonal and Presbyterian churches were the norm.

There were hundreds of them in England alone, not to mention the rest of Europe.

 

[Drdad]

This is a fallacy in argumentation that proves nothing theologically. Actually, if you go on this line of thinking for historicity of things, the Roman Catholic Church existed before the Pres. or Baptists.

This line of thought is a reason I am Baptist because the historical is used to "prove" classical covenantal theology rather than pure exegesis.

Derick

 

[kceaster]

Derick...

The best exegetes the world has ever known clarified and articulated Reformed theology and the best reason you can give to stand against them is because of a faulty argument of historicity?

That's a real good reason.

What makes your exegesis better than theirs? Or, in what way is their exegesis and articulation of covenant theology faulty?

In Christ,

KC

 

[blhowes]

[b:f18ee45840]Derick wrote:[/b:f18ee45840]
This is a fallacy in argumentation that proves nothing theologically.

I didn't realize anybody was arguing. Are you talking about an argument that CTs use at times, or was there something specific that Matt said that seemed argumentative?

I'm just looking for the historical facts, mostly out of curiousity. I really had no feel for the relative numbers of baptist vs CT folks through the ages. I've been taught in the past that while the reformers were busy writing, the baptists were out evangelizing. Its sometimes good to take what you hear with a grain of salt.

Anyway, do you agree with what Matt said?

Bob

[Edited on 6-19-2003 by blhowes]

 

[pastorway]

Drdad is talking about this "argument" that because there are more souces among CTers than Baptists that then the Baptist is necessarily a "new, dispensational" view that contradicts church history.

And the historical facts given in this thread are not all correct. Not all Anabaptists were heretical. And there were those who taught believers baptism at the time of Wycliffe....and before. They were not called Baptists, but they did baptize believers only upon their profession of faith. They were the Waldensians.

The thrust if the reformation, beside restoring the doctrines of justification and giving us the 5 solas also gave us the first real attempt by men to systematize the Scriptures into a "school" of thought - or a systematic theology.

That does not mean no one held to other views before this, during this, or after this. It just means that the Puritans were scholars and writers unlike the world has ever seen.

Remember though that those who wrote so profusely (Baptist included) also had come form various backgrounds. Some were RCC (the reformers), some were Church of England, some were Baptist, some Congregational, some Non-Conformist, etc, etc. The truth is that they ALL upheld the gospel of Jesus Christ!

But the volume of work written by any one of these groups in no way proves or validates any doctrine! It is good to research history. It is hard to do so without bias. But we must above all ask, "What does the Bible say?"

Phillip

[Edited on 6-19-03 by pastorway]

 

[kceaster]

Phillip...

And when the Bible speaks, to what do we have to compare to that will tell us what it means?


In Christ,

KC

 

[pastorway]

To itself.

Scripture interprets Scripture.

Phillip

 

[Drdad]

Thanks Pastorway and very well said. As stated in his post, the idea that a lot of people hold to a certain belief does not make it a valid argument. Based upon that premise, as stated in my post, the Roman Catholics have a lot of evidence for their belief. Scripture either makes it valid or invalid.

I believe in the 5 points of Calvinism, not because of Calvin, the Synod of Dort, the LBC, the WCF, or anything else. I hold to them because they are expressely taught in scripture... no other reason. Since I hold to the 5 points of Calvinism I agree with many greats but my belief did not come because of them but because of the Bible alone. I read the Bible and saw Total Depravity... thus I believed in total depravity. Then I read Edwards and saw he believed in Total depravity... thus we agreed. Yet, I do not use Edwards to prove that I am correct... I use the Bible alone. Edwards was fallible... the Bible is not.

Derick

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

I was not trying to validate or not validate any doctrine. History demosntrates that teh Anabaptists were heretical, not orthodox. The Waldensians did have some good doctrine, and they did teach believers baptism, but as Anabaptists, not as the 1689 Confession would have said. they are certainly not Credo-Baptists.

My fault Bob for leaving out a "sect" of the Anabaptist movement during the time of Wycliffe.

In any case, Philip is right, for sheer magnitude of writing, the CT theologians are far and above a more voluminious bunch. I think that was the question asked.....?

 

[blhowes]

[b:73f124c77d]webmaster wrote:[/b:73f124c77d]
My fault Bob for leaving out a "sect" of the Anabaptist movement during the time of Wycliffe.

No problem. One of the benefits of a forum like this is that one person can post the information that comes to their mind and others can "fill in the holes" as needed.

Do you or others have much information about the Waldensians? I did a quick search last night on the net to find out more about them. One source said the details about the movement, their beliefs, when Waldo was born and died, etc. are a liittle sketchy because the group/movement didn't document their activities and beliefs? Much of what is known (according to the source) is based on the records of the catholic priests or bishops who had dealings with Waldo and his followers. He said you had to read between the lines of the catholic documents to determine the beliefs.

It sounds like they were a group who broke away from Rome in the areas of baptism, the authority of the church hierarchy, and the individual's right to read and interpret the scriptures for themselves. I gather that they still held to many of the RC teachings (don't know which ones), but I was wondering if they preached biblical salvation?

Bob

[Edited on 6-20-2003 by blhowes]

 

[pastorway]

Anabaptists

I would recommend that any wanting to know who the anabaptists were and what they [i:574cdbbbe4]really[/i:574cdbbbe4] believed should listen to the church history lectures from Dr. James White available at http://www.prbc.org/Sermons2.htm

He has done an excellent job pointing out where the anabaptists were right and where they were wrong.

Phillip

 

[doulosChristou]

[quote:e3958a8c72][i:e3958a8c72]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:e3958a8c72]
During the 1300's and Wycliffe's writing time, how many Baptist churches exists, or even Anabaptist?

Answer: ZERO.

How much writing was done on Credo-Baptism?

Answer: ZERO.

Move foreword in time.

In 1500's how many Baptist churches were there?

Answer: ZERO [/quote:e3958a8c72] This is not entirely accurate. First of all, the didache suggests that the early church was Baptistic. It speaks much of how to administer baptism, yet never once mentions infants. It describes how the one to be baptized is to fast for 3 days prior to baptism, praying to God and confessing their sins. Infant baptism was certainly intoduced rather early on in church history, I readily admit, but with it also, was introduced [u:e3958a8c72]the belief that baptizing infants washed them clean of original sin[/u:e3958a8c72]. For more than 1200 years, the church believed that infant baptism effectually washed away the guilt of original sin from the infant. These two errors, one of infant baptism and the other of the effectual washing of this sacrament, are very closely linked. How many non-papist paedo-baptists, paedo-baptists with a Presbyterian view of baptism rather than an Augustinian view of baptism, existed during the 1200's, the 1300's, or the 1500's? The Waldenses were Baptists, and they existed as early as the beginning of the 12 century. The Lateran Council of 1139 enforced infant baptism by severe measures, and successive councils condemned the Waldenses for rejecting it. The Waldenses Confession of 1544 is credo-baptist. Their creed of 1532 also states, "It is clear as day that infant baptism does no good, and is not ordered by Christ, but invented by man. Christ wants His baptism based upon His word for the forgiveness of sins, and then He promises, he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved."

[quote:e3958a8c72]Of the Baptistic Writers I know of, here is a list of "good" authors:

William Bradford
John Bunyan
William Kiffin
Hansard Knolleys
Benjamin Keach
RBC Howell
John Gill
Charles Spurgeon
Abraham Booth
John A. Broadus
BH Carrol
Alexander Carson
JM Frost
James R. Graves
William Shirreff
John Q. Adams
Henry Fish
Winthrop Hudson
Adoniram Judson
AW Pink
And you can then think about writers today.[/quote:e3958a8c72] To this list should be added:

Isaac Backus
Andrew Fuller
William Carey
Luther Rice
P. H. Mell
James P. Boyce

In Christ, dC

 

[grace2U]

The reason that there were relatively few Baptist churches in the 17th Century is that they were constantly and rigorously persecuted by their paedo-baptist brethren until 1689. Even after that time, Baptists were banned from going to University until well into the 19th Century.

However, it is wrong to say that there were only about 24 Baptist churches at the end of the 17th Century. IN 1644, there were 7 in London alone, and they spread rapidly after that date. There is one a few miles from where I live which dates back to 1652. It is situated on the borders of three counties so that if they were raided by one county's authorities, they could slip into the next county and avoid capture.
A good book to read on the subject is, 'Kiffin, Knollys and Keach' by Michael Haykin (Reformation Today Trust- ISBN 0 9527913 0 7).
Every blessing,
Steve

 

[blhowes]

[b:cf34645d98]grace2U wrote:[/b:cf34645d98]
The reason that there were relatively few Baptist churches in the 17th Century is that they were constantly and rigorously persecuted by their paedo-baptist brethren until 1689.

This may answer a question that I've been wondering about. I wondered why there were no particular baptists represented when the Westminster confession was written. There were Presbyterians, Independents, and Erastians, but no Baptists. It sounds like even the Episcopalians (SP?) would have been welcome to participate before the baptists.

It seemed like there would have been some who helped write the 1689 Baptist confession (as well as the previous Baptist confession) who would have been qualified to articulate the baptist position.

If there wasn't such animosity between the paedo-baptists and the baptists, would there have been any baptists at the time of the Westminster confession who would have given a good showing at the debates and discussions that went on during the writing of the Westminster confession?

Bob

 

[pastorway]

The Baptists wanted to show solidarity with the Presbyterians with the writing of the LBCF, but the Presbyterians never would have had a Baptist there to even discuss the WCF!

Such was the prevailing attitude of the day.

:sad:

 

[luvroftheWord]

Okay, maybe I'm missing something here, but...

I don't understand what the big deal is about baptists not being present at the formulation of the Westminster Confession of Faith. Have we forgotten that the WCF is a REFORMED document and not a baptist one? If any of your baptist churches wanted to formulate a confession of faith today, would you invite the Presbyterians for their input? Its not really that hard to figure out if you just stop and think about it.

 

[blhowes]

[b:b71cad1aa2]luvroftheWord wrote:[/b:b71cad1aa2]
Okay, maybe I'm missing something here, but... I don't understand what the big deal is about baptists not being present at the formulation of the Westminster Confession of Faith...Its not really that hard to figure out if you just stop and think about it.

I'm just trying to understand the historical context of the development of the Westminster confession.

I just started reading a book that KC recommended about the history of the Westminster confession. Its fascinating to read about what went into the development of the confession and the two catechisms. It was an amazing feat to accomplish what they accomplished in short time it took.

As I read about the differences between the Presbyterians and the independents and between the Erastians and the other two groups, the baptists (reformed) don't seem to be so different that they should have been totally excluded. The baptism issue is important, but so is the authority structure of the church and the relationship between the church and the civil government.

Had the baptists been included, they would have been in agreement with the other groups for the majority of the articles, as is evident when you compare the Westminster confession with the Savoy declaration of faith and the 1689 Baptist confession. There were a few points where the independents and the Eratians disagreed with the majority and there were a few points where the baptists would have disagreed.

I'm not sure that I understand the criteria for determining whether or not somebody was/is considered to be reformed/orthodox.

Just seeking to understand,
Bob

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

DC, you don't want to make arguments on history like Jewett using the Didache. It does not talk about allot of things, including election. According to Jewett, and following his line of thinking, that means the early church did not teach election! Jewett's argument goes like this: the Didache does not teach Infant Baptism, and it was a manual for the early church, so the early church did not believe it. NONSESNE! Go through the Didache and pick out everything "it does not teach" and then say the early church did not teach that because it is not in the Didache! Crazy argument if you do the homework. The Didache was used for neophytes, and catechumens, and the basics of initiatory enter into the church FOR THEM.

Also, your mention of the early church and the "washing them clean" statement is also very inaccurate. You may want to read through William Wall's work on Infant Baptism, which Jewett read and said it was the most thorough, which he quotes, but, conveniently he left out a number of important pages concerning terms surrounding the early church's usage of IB related ideas, and the definitions of those terms. Jewett picked and chose what he wanted to say out of context for the early fathers and, even on a cursory reading of them, it sounds like they taught baptismal regeneration (and they did not.) They did not? Check William Wall's work. it's pretty huge, but very helpful on really finding out what the early church taught. You would be surprised.

Also, I added the Waldensian Confessions to the Creeds portion of my site. If anyone wants to read them they are there.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Bob,

To alleviate some confusion check this:

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/McMahon-WhatDoesItMeanToBeReformed.htm

 

[blhowes]

[b:f5f96025b4]Matthew wrote:[/b:f5f96025b4]
To alleviate some confusion check this:
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/McMahon-WhatDoesItMeanToBeReformed.htm

Thanks.

 

[blhowes]

Matthew,
I think reading that article clarifies things for me. The article brings back memories of a forum thread that was posted some time ago and this article was debated. Without reopening the debate, would it be safe to say that this article reflects the mindset of those who decided who would and who wouldn't participate in the writing of the Westminster confession - ie., who was and who wasn't reformed?

Bob

[Edited on 7-8-2003 by blhowes]

 

[doulosChristou]

[quote:0c4cf62204][i:0c4cf62204]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:0c4cf62204]
DC, you don't want to make arguments on history like Jewett using the Didache. [/quote:0c4cf62204] I haven't read Jewett (though I have his book on my list) but I have read the didache and find the discussion on baptism very interesting in light of its absence of any reference to infant baptism and in light of the date of the didache. I am not saying that this alone is conclusive evidence by any means. I am just saying that the didache is Baptistic, emphasizing personal faith and the confession of sins by the one to be baptized; it is in no way a paedobaptist document.[quote:0c4cf62204]Also, your mention of the early church and the "washing them clean" statement is also very inaccurate. You may want to read through William Wall's work on Infant Baptism[/quote:0c4cf62204] I have not read Wall (though I've seen him quoted in other writings verifying that the Waldenses were indeed primitive protestant Baptists), but I have read Augustine's complete writings against the Pelagians (Four Volumes by New City Press), which clearly, thoroughly and without any equivocation articulated the church's view that infants are washed of the guilt of original sin by the sacrament of baptism.

In Christ, dC

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Yes Bob. they are the one who first said what the article purports. You know me, I'm just a parrot. "Polly want a cracker?"

 

[PASSION4TRUTH]

Thanks for the info Matt (Webmaster) and Pastor way. I agree that James white does well with the anabaptists.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Remember, though, DC, when dealing with arguments from history and documentation, that silence can be a real kicker on an issue - for instacne, the didache does not mention election and predestination. Does that mena it is Arminian? Not really. The question it answers: what do neophyties need to know upon entrance into the church? It BEGINS with talking about sanctification - (man theymust have had their theology backwards - usually we start a systematic with Holy Scripture and then God. - But - its not a systematic!) To say then, that it is not a PB document would be stretching things to fit a Baptistic worldview when Baptists were not even around at the time (not for another 1200 years or so).


The key in the didache is in 7:1 - "But concerning baptism, thus batize YE..." Neophytes. Adults. This is how YOU do it.

On the note with Augustine - what if "regeneration" was a synonymous term as "baptism?" How would Augustine read differently?



[Edited on 9-16-2003 by webmaster]

 

[john_Mark]

interesting from Justin Martyr

"Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the laver the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone. For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God; and if any one dare to say that there is a name, he raves with a hopeless madness. And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed." (First Apology, 61) Justin Martyr

 

[john_Mark]

And Tertullian

"And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children. For why is it necessary-if baptism itself is not so necessary -that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? Who both themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfil their promises, and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition, in those for whom they stood? The Lord does indeed say, 'Forbid them not to come unto me.' Let them 'come,' then, while they are growing up; let them 'come' while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ." - Tertullian (On Baptism, 18)