Baptist Origins

I just started reading A History of the Baptists by Robert G. Torbet. I am perparing for a course on missions in the SBC from 1845-1910 and I wanted to bulk up my baptist history knowledge. I had read Henry Vedder's A Short History of the Baptists in the past, but that was a long time ago. My Baptist History Professor preferred Vedder over Torbet because Vedder was more sympathetic to his understanding of Anabaptists (Torbet specifically refutes the approach to understanding the history of the Baptists that such professor held sympathies for), I chose to read Torbet because I haven't read him before, also because Kenneth S. Latourette, noted scholar and historian, writes a forward for the work. For me, its time to start afresh.

Let me relate to you chapter one:

As stated, Torbet disagrees with the Anabaptist Spiritual Kinship theory of the origins of the baptists. According to this theory, baptists have always existed since the early church, but usually through sects that separated from the church on moral or theological grounds. As much as I love the Donatists, when I read the literature by Augustine and the Donatists, I sympathize with their motives, but I agree with Augustine that grace overcomes sin. The problem with Augustine is that he did not see the danger of the connection of church and state. Any, that's all history. The problem with the Anabaptist Spiritual Kinship is that though baptistic principles are biblical and have reared their head from time to time in church history, it is not necessary that there be an apostolic or unbroken succession of such principles.

Torbet quotes Vedder in support of the English Separatist Descent theory. Torbet aligns himself with this theory for two reasons:

"(1) It does not violate principles of historical accuracy, as do those views which assume a definite continuity between earlier sects and modern Baptists. (2) Baptists have not shared with Anabaptists the latter's aversion to oath-taking and holding public office. Neither have they adopted the Anabaptists' doctrine of pacificsm, or their theological views concerning the incarnation, soul sleeping, and the necessity of observing an apostolic succession in the administration of baptism."

I think we would do well to investigate his findings and to understand if the dividing lines between Baptist and Anabaptist is as clear as point number 2 suggests, but I'll leave that up to baptist historians.

Even given his aversion to the Anabaptist Spiritual Descent theory, Torbet does not deny that Anabaptism influenced the early English Separatists. He doubts the figures that have been proposed (about 50,000 in the early 16th century) since Anabaptist was such a broad label. But he cites the research of E. Belfort Bax who notes the striking similarities between John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress and the Anabaptist Tobias. Nonetheless, Torbet notes that by the 17th century, the Anabaptists were being purged from England by the monarchy.

Torbet concludes chapter one by arguing for the influence of the Free Church Principle on Baptist origins. Firstly, the Free Church upheld congregational Bible study, discussion, prayer, and decision (30). Secondly, the Free Church is governed by the Spirit, not by political institution. Thirdly, the Free Church is a disciplined congregation--disciplined from within (democratically, not from without (by the State). Fourthly, they held to the concept of a gathered church; thus, a church was formed by regenerate membership through believer's baptism and discipline (31). Torbet quickly adds that though these principles argue for a level of autonomy for the local church, this was not to the loss of connectionalism, as he called it, rather each congregation saw a need for fellowship through associations. In conclusion, each church was equally responsible before Christ as a "gospel church".

I have been trying to understand the nature of the church more and more, recently, Alan Knox, on this on his blog posted concerning the geographic aspect of the church (See also this post concerning distinctions between universal and local). As the post unfolded, I understood that the church is defined by its relationship to Jesus. I think Torbet is trying to defend the Baptists from charges they they were unheathily bifurcating between universal and local church. He is trying to say that Baptists saw the biblical necessity of responsibility before God for the church in the above four concepts and that this did not split churches apart from one another.