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

[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 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 of the Anabaptists, but these appear to represent, at most, a set of influences rather than a continuous history.

[Aubrey]

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!

[Aubrey]

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.

[Aubrey]

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!!)