The Compendium of Baptist History

[...]

Hello, fellow bookworms.

Has anyone here read this book? The Compendium of Baptist History.  I'm thinking of ordering it and was just wondering if anyone had any thoughts about it.

 

 

[John Young]

I have not read this particular book yet but it is available online to read here: http://www.baptists.net/history/category/compendium-of-baptist-history/

Chapters 1-9 are on the first section the others can be found by selecting "older post" at the bottom of the page

[...]

Thank you, brother Young.

[fastjav390]

Sounds like a "Baptist Brider" book similar to The Trail of Blood.

[Alan]

I have the book. I've only skimmed through it though.

Seems to be a lot of good church history. It is similar to the Trail of Blood (inclulding a chart); but, has a lot more detail.

Although not stated in the introduction, I think the author, J.A. Shackelford, was a Primative Baptist.

[...]

Thank you for your feedback, brother Alan.

[Invicta]

On 04/02/2017 at 6:28 AM, John Young said:

I have not read this particular book yet but it is available online to read here: http://www.baptists.net/history/category/compendium-of-baptist-history/

Chapters 1-9 are on the first section the others can be found by selecting "older post" at the bottom of the page

I skipped through the first chapters, It is interesting that he believes the woman in Revelation banished to the wilderness was the Waldensian Church.

 

[Alan]

I have been reading, 'Compendium,' and I find that it a very good book.

The book Compendium It is not a book on prophecy; but, on occasion, as many saints throughout ages have done, they have compared their intense, may I repeat intense, persecutions by the Catholc Church to those persecutions in the book of Revelation.

As we read the book we must remember some historical facts that were true in times past.

One. A lot of saints who did not join the Roman Catholic Chruch were persecuted unto death or banishment.

Two. These saints normally did not have a building, they met in homes or in the wilderness. So, they did not have signs saying, "Baptist Chruch," as we have today. Only the Roman Catholic Church had buildings and signs. Except for a few instances, this is a historical fact.

Three. Most of the saints during these times were illiterate.

Four. Most of these saints did not own their own personal copy of the Bible. All of the written words of the scriptures were hand-written and a lot of times only a book or two was available.

Five. The Roman Catholic Church forbade the written scriptures. So, a lot of these saints were put to death for even a copy of the scriptures.

Six. Almost none of these saints could write, and those that could, did not spend their time in writing theological books, commentaries, and the doctirnes they believed. For the most part, only the false, rich church, the Roman Catholic Church, had the funds, the time, and the ability to write books.

Throughout the book detailed descriptive information is given by the saints in the early church. Shakleford on several occasions, when possible, lists the detailed doctrinal, and practices, of these persecuted  churches. By the doctrine, practice, and description of the church, Shackleford contends that these were New Testament Baptist Churches by doctrine and description. I agree with him.

In the book, starting on page 72, Shackleford write about the the early history of the Paulicians. The history of the Paulicians starts in 653 A. D. After some history of this group of saints, on page 77  Schackleford asks the question, "But were the Paulicians Baptist? A summary of their doctrinal views will answer the question. We have seen...." All of the seven doctrinal reasons why Shackleford contends they were Baptist in doctrine, principle, and practice is seen in almost all Baptist churches in our age. In fact, one stands out very interesting.

Shackleford, in his Sixth point states, "Their churches were Independent organizations." Quite frankly, the Paulicians were more Baptist in doctrine, practice, and principle, than a lot of denomination Baptists in our age.

Brethren,

I would encourage all of you to purchase, "Compendium of Baptist History," by J. A. Shackleford, and read it. From the parts that I read I am convinced that the early churches, apart from the Roman Catholic Church, were Independent Baptist in doctrine, practice, and principle.

Alan

 

Edited February 5, 2017 by Alan
spelling and grammer (twice)

[...]

19 hours ago, Alan said:

I have been reading, 'Compendium,' and I find that it a very good book.

Brethren,

I would encourage all of you to purchase, "Compendium of Baptist History," by J. A. Shackleford, and read it. From the parts that I read I am convinced that the early churches, apart from the Roman Catholic Church, were Independent Baptist in doctrine, practice, and principle.

 

Brother Alan, 

A multitude of thanks for taking the time to read and comment upon the book about which I inquired.  Your thoughts have been most helpful and I will be purchasing a copy this evening.

*I just placed the order and also added Memorials of Baptist Martyrs.

Now I just need to do a good sized antique restoration so I can afford "1684 Foxe’s Book of Martyrs Facsimile Reproduction."  It's pricey, but I think it's important to have such books.  Charles Spurgeon is said to have told his pupils, "Sell your shirt and buy books," or something like that.

Edited February 6, 2017 by Brother Stafford

[Invicta]

There are historirical errors in the book.  The Montanists did not start in Africa, but in Phrygia, the capital being Smyrna.  The were named after Montaus, a Charismatic  who spoke as if he was the Holy Spirit, saying "I am the Paraclete." He also  had two women who he said were prophets.  Tertullian joined the sect in his later life and said that marriage was wrong as it consisted of the same act as adultery. They also were the first to believe that there were two types of sins, venal sins and mortal sins, which teaching was later adaopted by the Roman Church. Theye were hardly in the Baptist line.

[Alan]

Invicta,

Thank you for bringing out  a possible historical error with the Montanists. I will write those notes down in my copy and check them out later for possible historical errors. I am also sure that Montaus had his personal and spiritual faults.

Brethren,

The book Compendium is 318 pages in length, the original version was published in 1892, and as in the 1800's they did not have all fact checking abilities, nor even some of the basic technology, nor some of the extensive library facilities that we have today, I am sure that some of the dates, and some other minor facts, may be in error.

I am also sure, as in our day and age, that some of the leaders of the independent Baptist assemblies were not of sterling character. Do I need to give some examples?  

I am also of the persuasion that some of the leaders, and some of the doctrines, were not acceptable in some of our IFB churches. I am also sure that some of the brethren had their faults. Do I need to give examples in the IFB movement today of some of the IFB brethren who do not believe as I believe? 

Do not even some of the brethren here on OnLine Baptist have faults in our own lives? But, God still uses us.

Even with some faults with the book Compendium, I am still recommending it. Schaleford did not claim inerrancy: far from it.

Oh, by the way, as I pointed out in my review of the Clarence Larkin book his errors, I still recomended it. And, I still do recommend it. Even with some of the scripture interpretations that I feel Clarence Larkin is in error (and still do), I still recommend it as it is one of the best scriptural prophecy books available. Clarence Larkins strong points outweigh his weak points.

Alan

[HappyChristian]

I highly recommend the book America in Crimson Red  by James Beller. It is an excellent book on the history of Baptists in America. 

 

 

[fastjav390]

On 2/5/2017 at 6:15 PM, Alan said:

I have been reading, 'Compendium,' and I find that it a very good book.

The book Compendium It is not a book on prophecy; but, on occasion, as many saints throughout ages have done, they have compared their intense, may I repeat intense, persecutions by the Catholc Church to those persecutions in the book of Revelation.

As we read the book we must remember some historical facts that were true in times past.

One. A lot of saints who did not join the Roman Catholic Chruch were persecuted unto death or banishment.

Two. These saints normally did not have a building, they met in homes or in the wilderness. So, they did not have signs saying, "Baptist Chruch," as we have today. Only the Roman Catholic Church had buildings and signs. Except for a few instances, this is a historical fact.

Three. Most of the saints during these times were illiterate.

Four. Most of these saints did not own their own personal copy of the Bible. All of the written words of the scriptures were hand-written and a lot of times only a book or two was available.

Five. The Roman Catholic Church forbade the written scriptures. So, a lot of these saints were put to death for even a copy of the scriptures.

Six. Almost none of these saints could write, and those that could, did not spend their time in writing theological books, commentaries, and the doctirnes they believed. For the most part, only the false, rich church, the Roman Catholic Church, had the funds, the time, and the ability to write books.

Throughout the book detailed descriptive information is given by the saints in the early church. Shakleford on several occasions, when possible, lists the detailed doctrinal, and practices, of these persecuted  churches. By the doctrine, practice, and description of the church, Shackleford contends that these were New Testament Baptist Churches by doctrine and description. I agree with him.

In the book, starting on page 72, Shackleford write about the the early history of the Paulicians. The history of the Paulicians starts in 653 A. D. After some history of this group of saints, on page 77  Schackleford asks the question, "But were the Paulicians Baptist? A summary of their doctrinal views will answer the question. We have seen...." All of the seven doctrinal reasons why Shackleford contends they were Baptist in doctrine, principle, and practice is seen in almost all Baptist churches in our age. In fact, one stands out very interesting.

Shackleford, in his Sixth point states, "Their churches were Independent organizations." Quite frankly, the Paulicians were more Baptist in doctrine, practice, and principle, than a lot of denomination Baptists in our age.

Brethren,

I would encourage all of you to purchase, "Compendium of Baptist History," by J. A. Shackleford, and read it. From the parts that I read I am convinced that the early churches, apart from the Roman Catholic Church, were Independent Baptist in doctrine, practice, and principle.

Alan

 

If a Paulican was to enter a Baptist church he most likely would be kicked out as a heretic. They may have had some Baptist beliefs but they were also gnostic in their teachings. At least from the majority of known sources they were said to be so. How they truly were and what they taught is pretty much lost to history.  It's very dangerous trying to recruit some of these past sects as Baptists in order to prove some kind of apostolic succession.  I'm not sure why fundamental Baptists are so insistent of wanting to prove they are "the one true church". What matters is if your are teaching the truth from scripture now. The history of these past sects is sketchy at best and unless you are personally delving into their writings and not on what a third person is claiming about them you are on shackle ground, IMO. Good luck on finding any doctrinal or practical teaching of the Paulicans. 

[Ukulelemike]

12 hours ago, fastjav390 said:

If a Paulican was to enter a Baptist church he most likely would be kicked out as a heretic. They may have had some Baptist beliefs but they were also gnostic in their teachings. At least from the majority of known sources they were said to be so. How they truly were and what they taught is pretty much lost to history.  It's very dangerous trying to recruit some of these past sects as Baptists in order to prove some kind of apostolic succession.  I'm not sure why fundamental Baptists are so insistent of wanting to prove they are "the one true church". What matters is if your are teaching the truth from scripture now. The history of these past sects is sketchy at best and unless you are personally delving into their writings and not on what a third person is claiming about them you are on shackle ground, IMO. Good luck on finding any doctrinal or practical teaching of the Paulicans. 

Personally, I don't know of any IFB churches that are 'insistent' of wanting to prove they are the "one true church." First of all, we are churchES, not A church-each is independent of one another and often have slightly varying positions on certain areas, which we would not consider 'fundamentals'. But clearly, as the Bible says, in the end days there will be very few true churches, simnce the church character of the age is Laodicean-that is, of course, not to say that there won't still be churches with a Philadelphian spirit, or others, but the overarching character is Laodicean and that's pretty clear to see to be true today, in the era of the rock n roll megachurch. So ANY churches that tow the line of doctrinal purity and biblical separation could be seen as the true churches, as people flock away from them enmasse, looking to have their ears scratched by wolves in $1000.00 white Armani sheepskins. as for being somehow in a contiunal line from the Apostles, I couldn't say, but since we ALL heard the gospel from SOMEONE saved, who heard from someone, etc, etc, etc, pretty much any true born-again believer is, in a sense, in a direct line from Christ and the Apostles. So in that way, any church began from one of these believers could be considered in a line from them, as well. I don't see a problem with that. But none of us has anything we didn't receive, so we have nothing whereof to boast.

[Invicta]

15 hours ago, fastjav390 said:

If a Paulican was to enter a Baptist church he most likely would be kicked out as a heretic. They may have had some Baptist beliefs but they were also gnostic in their teachings. At least from the majority of known sources they were said to be so. How they truly were and what they taught is pretty much lost to history.  It's very dangerous trying to recruit some of these past sects as Baptists in order to prove some kind of apostolic succession.  I'm not sure why fundamental Baptists are so insistent of wanting to prove they are "the one true church". What matters is if your are teaching the truth from scripture now. The history of these past sects is sketchy at best and unless you are personally delving into their writings and not on what a third person is claiming about them you are on shackle ground, IMO. Good luck on finding any doctrinal or practical teaching of the Paulicans. 

Most of the reports on "heretics" were by their enemies.  But sometimes we can read between the lines.For instance one writer said the heretics rejected marriage, but later said they carried their wives around with them, so we can assume it was RC marriage the rejected.  Likewise when he said they rejected baptism we can assume they rejected RC baptism.  The RC branded all "heretics" as gnostics and Manacheans named after manes who believed there were two gods or two principles, a good who created spiritual things and the bad who created physical things.  The Bogomils were also accused of the same and the Waldensians.  also seemed to be A lady on  a forum I used to be on said she was returning to th RC.  In a discussion with her she said the Waldensians belived in two gods.  When I showed her some Waldensian documents that showed that they didn't she insisted "They believed in two gods."  She could only have got that from the RCC.  In the late 1400s the Hussites were concerned that Christians they had been in touch with all over Europe were not in contact, so sent messengers but found none.  The Waldensians had agreed to take the mass once a year, all others had disappeared, it is possible there were a few Lollards in England with whom they had been in contact at least from the days of John Hus.  In a few years the Hussites were also wiped out.  Evangelical silence reignrd over Europe.  Christ's witnesses were dead.