What do you think?
Rate this book
The Baptist Story, 2nd Edition: From English Sect to Global Movement
What does it mean to be a Baptist? How did this now worldwide movement begin and what are the current issues it faces today? The 2nd edition of The Baptist From English Sect to Global Movement gives a narrative history of Baptists spanning four centuries and many continents.
In this new edition, Baptist historians Anthony Chute, Nathan Finn, and Michael Haykin provide a fresh update, detailing events up to the 2024 Southern Baptist Convention, relocating their chapter on identity and distinctives to the front of the book, and adding new recommended reading resources.
Written with an irenic tone and illustrated with photographs in every chapter, The Baptist Story is ideally suited for graduate and undergraduate courses.
In this new edition, Baptist historians Anthony Chute, Nathan Finn, and Michael Haykin provide a fresh update, detailing events up to the 2024 Southern Baptist Convention, relocating their chapter on identity and distinctives to the front of the book, and adding new recommended reading resources.
Written with an irenic tone and illustrated with photographs in every chapter, The Baptist Story is ideally suited for graduate and undergraduate courses.
560 pages, Hardcover
Published December 1, 2025
5 people are currently reading
16 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
March 5, 2026
The Baptist Story (2nd edition) by Anthony Chute, Nathan Finn, and Michael Haykin is an excellent introduction to Baptist history.
The authors have done the church—especially those within the Baptist tradition—a real service by producing a work that is readable, concise, and historically responsible.
What stands out most is how accessible the book is. Baptist history can sometimes feel dense, but the authors present it in a clear and engaging way without sacrificing depth. At the same time, the book is comprehensive enough to give readers a solid understanding of how the Baptist movement developed.
Anyone interested in Baptist history would do well to read and digest this book. It’s a thoughtful and helpful contribution to understanding the Baptist tradition.
The authors have done the church—especially those within the Baptist tradition—a real service by producing a work that is readable, concise, and historically responsible.
What stands out most is how accessible the book is. Baptist history can sometimes feel dense, but the authors present it in a clear and engaging way without sacrificing depth. At the same time, the book is comprehensive enough to give readers a solid understanding of how the Baptist movement developed.
Anyone interested in Baptist history would do well to read and digest this book. It’s a thoughtful and helpful contribution to understanding the Baptist tradition.
March 9, 2026
Says it, but doesn’t do it: strains to hold on to tradition instead of applying the church of Scripture
It’s more interesting than I guessed it would be. I did learn some things, but overall the message is don’t replicate what the Scripture says about the church, just invent alternatives instead (i.e., the book admits there is no Baptist Church in the Scripture; see below). There are dry spots, but there are also some chin-stroking curiosities: a post-Reformer (Separatist) is unable to find someone to baptize him so he baptizes himself (page 52), a preacher is converted by his own sermon while preaching it (say, what?) on page 98, and an 1801 revival meeting had attendees experience “various ‘spiritual’ exercises called ‘the jerks’ (bodily agitations) or ‘the barks’ (vocal animations)” as part of a larger series of revivals that some thought indicated the return of Jesus was near is on pages 183-4. Apppfffttt!
Co-author Anthony Chute (Ph.D., Professor of Church History, California Baptist University) presents the history of the Baptist Church denomination in this book – an “assessment of Baptist beginnings” (page xviii), and it gets into the modern. Several points on various subjects are made throughout the book with detail, but generally there is no documentation to show you where they got this information from (no footnotes); it reads more like a storybook format. I found of particular interest a key point about slavery on pages 227-8. While analyzing slavery in the church, a key distinction is made, though I’m not sure it was the author’s intent: “What was it about .. the Bible they read that gave them the impression that the Christian faith was compatible with American slavery?” (pages 227-8). Did you notice the key distinction? It’s easy to miss! Previous US masters that used the Bible to justify slavery seem to have missed this, as well.
This is a controversial subject today, and commonly misunderstood – why did slavery continue throughout church history until the modern? Pages 227-8 correctly suggest the slavery the Bible allows is not the same as US slavery; i.e., ancient slavery is different from US slavery. And, there is a particular, profound difference that is enormous. What is it? I consider this to be the chief example of where critics of the Bible misunderstand this subject, as well. What was the view of slavery by the slaves themselves? This is almost never considered. Our modern mind tends to read the Bible and thinks it’s talking about US slavery, so get rid of their slavery, too – we look at ancient slavery and treat it like American slavery; US slavery is superimposed onto the Bible. We basically seem to treat all slavery as the same when actually it's not. Is a “bat” the same back then as now? (it can be an animal or a baseball stick) I consider the main legal difference to be that certain US State slave laws allow brutality, while Old Testament law does not (Ex 21:20, 26-7). And, the chief cultural difference is huge: we like to impose abolitionism onto the text today, but they were likely not abolitionist back then, but had a general welcome of slavery, even among the enslaved! (unthinkable today! their slaves may look at us strange for wanting to get rid of it, imposing their view onto us!) American slaves were abolitionist. It’s a complete reversal of custom/culture. The Bible was addressing a culture where slavery was welcome by slaves. The Bible can’t be used to impose or justify slavery on a culture where slaves were abolitionist / did not want slavery itself (US). Certain Greek and Medieval laws/figures can be found that were abolitionist, but in general the ancient cultures welcomed slavery, even among the enslaved! Ancient slave revolts were not attempting to abolish slavery. The problem ancients objected to was the misconduct of certain owners (1 Kg 12:4, 7, 10-11, 16a, 18). Israel had its own civil war over slavery in 1 Kings 12, started by the slaves, and they were not attempting to abolish slavery. There is an absence of abolitionist movements for a reason (notice the Exodus did not call for abolition). Abolition seems to have been a more widespread issue starting with the later British and American times. Abolition was not the issue like it dominates us today. Glancy notes, “No abolition movement existed in antiquity” ( - Slavery in Early Christianity, 2002 Oxford University Press, page 150; by Jennifer Glancy, Ph.D.; second edition 2024, page 223).
Though referring to the Golden Rule of Mat 7:12 for cruelty in slavery, the authors may also be pointing to the Golden Rule as a way to use the Bible for one to be against slavery in general: “How do you think these .. Baptists reconciled their beliefs about slavery with Jesus’s command to act toward others as you would like them to act toward you?” (page 104; cf. 230). But, if so, that fails to notice the Golden Rule was given under the Old Testament (Leviticus 19:18, 33-4) – a law system where non-brutal slavery was legal. And, notice the culture, again, that abolition was not an issue then, even among the enslaved. On page 230, the authors remark: “The apostle Paul .. asserted that slaves should learn to lean on Christ rather than long for their freedom (1 Cor 7:20-22).” Yes, Paul does make that priority, but it may sound as if Paul opposes freeing slaves. There is controversy over whether the Greek “make the most of it” in verse 21 refers to just remain a slave or to seek freedom if you can (“Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. Even if you can gain your freedom, make the most of it”). This is one of the useful benefits of the astonishing and recently found Hebrew manuscripts of the New Testament (15th century, but likely sourced earlier than the Greek) – it helps clarify the Greek. The Hebrew reads: “Are you called to be a servant? Care not for it; but if you may be made free, rather do that” ( - Hebrew Letter to Corinth 1-2: Translated from Seven Hebrew Manuscripts, 2023 Sefer Press; co-translator/editor: Dr. Al Garza, Th.M., Ph.D. in Second Temple Jewish Literature). The Aramaic New Testament reads (from various manuscripts, the earliest dating back to AD 390) at verse 21: “If you are called to being a servant; let it not trouble you. But if you can gain your freedom, choose to serve ..” In other words, if one is freed from slavery remember to still serve God; verses 23-4 read “.. being a free man, is the Mashiyach’s [Messiah’s] servant … become not the servants of men … continue with Elohim, in whatever calling in life he was called” ( - The Apostolic Writings: A Translation from Aramaic to English .., 2024, page 427; by Andrew Roth).
Another intriguing area that is commonly misunderstood today - There is a brief reference to Charles Darwin’s famous book on page 299: “.. Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859) is often cited as the most significant book to challenge traditional Christian orthodoxy ..” That book is generally thought of today as leading to unbelief or atheism, or having a strictly naturalistic purpose. However, that would go against Darwin’s intent and purpose for his book. The little known secret here is that the famous Origin of Species was actually written by a creationist (!). The words “the Creator” are mentioned 7 times in the 1859 Origin, including positive ways (original printing pages 186, 188, 189, 413 twice, 435, 488; “God” – page 167). It’s commonly viewed today that Darwin was against creation, but in reality he was actually against a certain type of creation (biologic), and favored deism – natural law (from God) was responsible for life; that is, law started life by chance – for God could not be responsible for a vicious nature. The Origin of Species presupposes a Creator, and it is Darwin’s attempt to distance nature from the Creator. Darwin was attempting to defend God with the Origin of Species. And, shouldn’t a religious publication be restricted from science? Federal courts strike down such material from science curricula as a violation of the religious establishment clause of the First Amendment. “To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes …” (- Origin of Species, 1859, original print page 488). Sounds unscientific – relying on the Creator to explain science. “From passages in Genesis, it is clear that the colour of domestic animals was at that early period attended to ..” (- Origin of Species, 1859, original print page 34). This alone should be enough to disqualify the Origin from scientific reference. Imagine your science teacher affirmatively referencing Genesis to explain biology. Edward Humes, an evolutionist writer and Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, also recognizes this legal problem in his book about the Kitzmiller v. Dover case: “Can a scientific idea also be a religious one, and if so, can it be taught in public school? Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species frequently discusses God and creation – should it, too, be banned from public school classrooms?” ( - Monkey Girl, 2007, page 258). “The question is of course wholly distinct from that higher one, whether there exists a Creator and Ruler of the universe; and this has been answered in the affirmative by the highest intellects that have ever lived” ( - The Descent of Man, 1871 edition, Vol. 1, page 63; by Charles Darwin).
“Darwin himself quietly renounced Christianity during his middle age, and later described himself as an agnostic. He continued to believe in a distant, impersonal deity of some sort, a greater entity that had set the universe and its laws into motion, but not in a personal God …” ( - National Geographic magazine, Nov. 2004, page 9). Darwin admits in his autobiography he was a creationist when he wrote the Origin of Species. He uses the term Theist, but his view was much more deistic: “Another source of conviction in the existence of God .. the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe .. as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist. This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the Origin of Species; and it is since that time that it has very gradually with many fluctuations become weaker” ( - The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, reprinted 1993 by W.W. Norton & Co.; edited by Nora Barlow; page 77). Evolutionist historians Desmond and Moore note (referring to the Unitarian Church), “In January 1842, Darwin let the cat out of the bag, probably cautiously … By now he had it down pat: .. Everything results from grand laws – laws that ‘should exalt our notion of the power of the omniscient Creator.’ This was a modified Unitarian view of the divine government. And like a Unitarian Darwin (with a certain amount of double-think) argued that it got God off the hook for evil and suffering, bundling the blame on to ‘natural law’ ..” ( - Darwin – The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist, 1992, pages 292-4; by Adrian Desmond, Ph.D., a Darwin scholar, and James Moore, a Darwin scholar, Professor of the History of Science, Open University).
In addition, the popular term “Baptist” seems to be more of a retrodiction; hence, “John the Baptist” in Greek/English modern “translation” for Matthew 3:1, Mark 6:25, Luke 7:20. The underlying term in the Greek manuscripts is “baptizer” for a correct translation; the noun was describing what John did. Unfortunately, this does not get mentioned in the book. The Hebrew New Testament reads for Matt 3:1: “In those days Yochanan the Immerser came …” ( - Hebrew Gospel of Matthew - Translated from over Thirty Hebrew Manuscripts, 2025, co-translator / editor Dr. Al Garza, Th.M., Ph.D.; cf. Hebrew Gospel of Mark, 2022).
For the Greek New Testament: “Baptistes, bap-tis-tace; … a baptizer … This word is used only of John the Baptist ..” ( - The New Strong’s Expanded Dictionary of Bible Words, 2001, page 1006). “.. a baptizer; one who administers the rite of baptism; the surname of John, the forerunner of Christ: Mt. iii. 1 ..” ( - Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, page 95). “There has been a wrong conception of the name Baptist and its significance. It has been associated in history and in significance with John the forerunner of Christ who baptized. The true origin of the name is found otherwise … In the final development of the name, the descriptive adjective ‘baptized’ came to be modified and shortened in popular usage to ‘Baptist,’ so that by the time the 18th century closed and the 19th century was opening, the term Baptist had come to be the accepted title. A distinction must be made between the commonly used adjective or noun ‘Baptist’ and the name given to John, the forerunner of Jesus. This adjective, Baptist, that is used as a proper name is the modified .. verb ‘to baptize’ … The name given to John .. meaning agent .. , one who does something .. The translation should be John the Baptizer. In the case of the English Baptists of the 17th and 18th centuries, they were so called because something was done to them ..” ( - Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists, 1958, Vol. 1, pages 136-7; co-editor Robert Baker, Th.D., Ph.D., Professor of Church History, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary).
The term “Anabaptist” is used by the authors in chapter 2, or page 485, etc, as if it is a normal, regularly used term welcomed by all in the Anabaptist Church. But, that is misleading. The book neglects to point out the term “Anabaptist” was a pejorative; they actually called themselves something different. “ANABAPTISTS. A polemical term applied to certain evangelical groups of the 16th century by their enemies … Anabaptists themselves protested against the term, preferring to be called Christians or brethren … demanding a restitution of New Testament teaching and order ..” ( - Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists, 1958, Vol. 1, page 47). On the title page of the 1646 Anabaptist Confession of Faith, it reads (with modern spelling): “A CONFESSION OF FAITH Of seven congregations or Churches of Christ in London, which are commonly (but unjustly) called Anabaptists.” They called themselves Churches of Christ (a designation which is found in Scripture, Romans 16:16b), and deny the term Anabaptists. The same with Martin Luther – the term “Lutheran” is presented as if it would be a normal, regularly used term welcomed by all in the Lutheran Church. However, the book fails to point out that Luther himself was against divisional party names in the church. Prof. Gritsch notes, “Lutheranism originated as a reform movement .. in the sixteenth century. The name ‘Lutheran’ was given the movement by its Roman Catholic opponents … [Martin] Luther himself rejected such a designation because he, as he put it, called for a return to what is truly ‘Christian’ rather than creation of a new ‘party name.’ The collection of authoritative Lutheran statements in The Book of Concord of 1580, known as ‘Lutheran Confessions,’ also avoids the designation ‘Lutheran’ … The term ‘Lutheran churches’ began to appear in the seventeenth century” ( - A History of Lutheranism, 2002, page xi; by Eric Gritsch, Professor Emeritus of Church History, Gettysburg Lutheran Seminary, Pennsylvania).
For the Baptist Church itself, Chute emphasizes the Scripture is to be followed, which sounds good; writing that, “Baptists are a ‘people of the book,’ … closely following the practices of the New Testament churches ..” (pages xvii, 20). So, we’re dealing with a book about the origin of the Baptist Church and also following what the Scripture says. Keeps sounding good. For the origin of the Baptist Church, the authors point out that, “.. the Baptist movement .. began with John Smyth and was continued through the work of Thomas Helwys. Both were Englishmen who left the Anglican Church … We concur with this history, tracing Baptist beginnings to 1609” (page xvi). Hmmm. Doesn’t sound like Jesus and the apostles in Israel. And, the authors clearly state the Baptist Church is not in the Scripture: “.. the Baptist movement does not reach back to John the Baptist in the first century, but its historical roots are in the Separatist movement that emerged from the Church of England in the first decade of the seventeenth century” (page xvi). But, if you think about it and mix in some common sense, wouldn’t it be better to search the Scripture and follow what it says about the church? (Acts 17:11) (especially if one claims to be “people of the book”). What designations are found there for the church and believers? It wasn’t Baptist. Did someone add to what the Scripture says? Why would you want to change it from what the Scripture says? “ ‘The church of God’ was the self-designation of the early Jerusalem church (1 Cor 15:9 ..” “.. Paul mentions Christ in connection with the term ekklesia: ‘the churches of Christ greet you’ (Rom 16:16)” ( - Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, series Vol. 2, 1993, page 126). If you follow the recipe to make a cake you will have a cake, not a hamburger. Unfortunately, tradition or opinion tends to prevail on such a matter, resulting in multiplied denominations.
Not to be outdone, the authors actually admit to the absence of church denominations in the Scripture: “It is important to begin by noting that denominations are not found in the Bible. John the Baptist was not a Baptist in the denominational sense … and Paul’s multiple references to the Church of God (1 Cor 1:2; Gal 1:13) had no affiliation with denominations by that name ..” (page 2). And, “.. the first question most students ask is .. ‘Why do we have denominations at all?’ This is a fair question and a good starting point for the Baptist story, particularly in light of Jesus’s prayer in John 17:21, ‘May they all be one ..’ ” (page 1). But, then the authors attempt to defend the practice of splitting the church into denominations on page 8 after admitting it is out of harmony with the Scripture.
So, there’s some double-talk or pretzel twisting in this book, and it avoids the obvious – the Baptist Church is not in the Scripture, but we are people of the Scripture, and here’s why we’re going to do it different from Scripture anyway.
Recommend books on Amazon: Churches of the New Testament by Ethan Longhenry; and Handbook on Church Doctrines by Dr. Stafford North; and Denominational Doctrines by Jerry Moffitt; and A Study of Denominations by Ethan Longhenry.
Shortened review due to space limit.
It’s more interesting than I guessed it would be. I did learn some things, but overall the message is don’t replicate what the Scripture says about the church, just invent alternatives instead (i.e., the book admits there is no Baptist Church in the Scripture; see below). There are dry spots, but there are also some chin-stroking curiosities: a post-Reformer (Separatist) is unable to find someone to baptize him so he baptizes himself (page 52), a preacher is converted by his own sermon while preaching it (say, what?) on page 98, and an 1801 revival meeting had attendees experience “various ‘spiritual’ exercises called ‘the jerks’ (bodily agitations) or ‘the barks’ (vocal animations)” as part of a larger series of revivals that some thought indicated the return of Jesus was near is on pages 183-4. Apppfffttt!
Co-author Anthony Chute (Ph.D., Professor of Church History, California Baptist University) presents the history of the Baptist Church denomination in this book – an “assessment of Baptist beginnings” (page xviii), and it gets into the modern. Several points on various subjects are made throughout the book with detail, but generally there is no documentation to show you where they got this information from (no footnotes); it reads more like a storybook format. I found of particular interest a key point about slavery on pages 227-8. While analyzing slavery in the church, a key distinction is made, though I’m not sure it was the author’s intent: “What was it about .. the Bible they read that gave them the impression that the Christian faith was compatible with American slavery?” (pages 227-8). Did you notice the key distinction? It’s easy to miss! Previous US masters that used the Bible to justify slavery seem to have missed this, as well.
This is a controversial subject today, and commonly misunderstood – why did slavery continue throughout church history until the modern? Pages 227-8 correctly suggest the slavery the Bible allows is not the same as US slavery; i.e., ancient slavery is different from US slavery. And, there is a particular, profound difference that is enormous. What is it? I consider this to be the chief example of where critics of the Bible misunderstand this subject, as well. What was the view of slavery by the slaves themselves? This is almost never considered. Our modern mind tends to read the Bible and thinks it’s talking about US slavery, so get rid of their slavery, too – we look at ancient slavery and treat it like American slavery; US slavery is superimposed onto the Bible. We basically seem to treat all slavery as the same when actually it's not. Is a “bat” the same back then as now? (it can be an animal or a baseball stick) I consider the main legal difference to be that certain US State slave laws allow brutality, while Old Testament law does not (Ex 21:20, 26-7). And, the chief cultural difference is huge: we like to impose abolitionism onto the text today, but they were likely not abolitionist back then, but had a general welcome of slavery, even among the enslaved! (unthinkable today! their slaves may look at us strange for wanting to get rid of it, imposing their view onto us!) American slaves were abolitionist. It’s a complete reversal of custom/culture. The Bible was addressing a culture where slavery was welcome by slaves. The Bible can’t be used to impose or justify slavery on a culture where slaves were abolitionist / did not want slavery itself (US). Certain Greek and Medieval laws/figures can be found that were abolitionist, but in general the ancient cultures welcomed slavery, even among the enslaved! Ancient slave revolts were not attempting to abolish slavery. The problem ancients objected to was the misconduct of certain owners (1 Kg 12:4, 7, 10-11, 16a, 18). Israel had its own civil war over slavery in 1 Kings 12, started by the slaves, and they were not attempting to abolish slavery. There is an absence of abolitionist movements for a reason (notice the Exodus did not call for abolition). Abolition seems to have been a more widespread issue starting with the later British and American times. Abolition was not the issue like it dominates us today. Glancy notes, “No abolition movement existed in antiquity” ( - Slavery in Early Christianity, 2002 Oxford University Press, page 150; by Jennifer Glancy, Ph.D.; second edition 2024, page 223).
Though referring to the Golden Rule of Mat 7:12 for cruelty in slavery, the authors may also be pointing to the Golden Rule as a way to use the Bible for one to be against slavery in general: “How do you think these .. Baptists reconciled their beliefs about slavery with Jesus’s command to act toward others as you would like them to act toward you?” (page 104; cf. 230). But, if so, that fails to notice the Golden Rule was given under the Old Testament (Leviticus 19:18, 33-4) – a law system where non-brutal slavery was legal. And, notice the culture, again, that abolition was not an issue then, even among the enslaved. On page 230, the authors remark: “The apostle Paul .. asserted that slaves should learn to lean on Christ rather than long for their freedom (1 Cor 7:20-22).” Yes, Paul does make that priority, but it may sound as if Paul opposes freeing slaves. There is controversy over whether the Greek “make the most of it” in verse 21 refers to just remain a slave or to seek freedom if you can (“Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. Even if you can gain your freedom, make the most of it”). This is one of the useful benefits of the astonishing and recently found Hebrew manuscripts of the New Testament (15th century, but likely sourced earlier than the Greek) – it helps clarify the Greek. The Hebrew reads: “Are you called to be a servant? Care not for it; but if you may be made free, rather do that” ( - Hebrew Letter to Corinth 1-2: Translated from Seven Hebrew Manuscripts, 2023 Sefer Press; co-translator/editor: Dr. Al Garza, Th.M., Ph.D. in Second Temple Jewish Literature). The Aramaic New Testament reads (from various manuscripts, the earliest dating back to AD 390) at verse 21: “If you are called to being a servant; let it not trouble you. But if you can gain your freedom, choose to serve ..” In other words, if one is freed from slavery remember to still serve God; verses 23-4 read “.. being a free man, is the Mashiyach’s [Messiah’s] servant … become not the servants of men … continue with Elohim, in whatever calling in life he was called” ( - The Apostolic Writings: A Translation from Aramaic to English .., 2024, page 427; by Andrew Roth).
Another intriguing area that is commonly misunderstood today - There is a brief reference to Charles Darwin’s famous book on page 299: “.. Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859) is often cited as the most significant book to challenge traditional Christian orthodoxy ..” That book is generally thought of today as leading to unbelief or atheism, or having a strictly naturalistic purpose. However, that would go against Darwin’s intent and purpose for his book. The little known secret here is that the famous Origin of Species was actually written by a creationist (!). The words “the Creator” are mentioned 7 times in the 1859 Origin, including positive ways (original printing pages 186, 188, 189, 413 twice, 435, 488; “God” – page 167). It’s commonly viewed today that Darwin was against creation, but in reality he was actually against a certain type of creation (biologic), and favored deism – natural law (from God) was responsible for life; that is, law started life by chance – for God could not be responsible for a vicious nature. The Origin of Species presupposes a Creator, and it is Darwin’s attempt to distance nature from the Creator. Darwin was attempting to defend God with the Origin of Species. And, shouldn’t a religious publication be restricted from science? Federal courts strike down such material from science curricula as a violation of the religious establishment clause of the First Amendment. “To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes …” (- Origin of Species, 1859, original print page 488). Sounds unscientific – relying on the Creator to explain science. “From passages in Genesis, it is clear that the colour of domestic animals was at that early period attended to ..” (- Origin of Species, 1859, original print page 34). This alone should be enough to disqualify the Origin from scientific reference. Imagine your science teacher affirmatively referencing Genesis to explain biology. Edward Humes, an evolutionist writer and Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, also recognizes this legal problem in his book about the Kitzmiller v. Dover case: “Can a scientific idea also be a religious one, and if so, can it be taught in public school? Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species frequently discusses God and creation – should it, too, be banned from public school classrooms?” ( - Monkey Girl, 2007, page 258). “The question is of course wholly distinct from that higher one, whether there exists a Creator and Ruler of the universe; and this has been answered in the affirmative by the highest intellects that have ever lived” ( - The Descent of Man, 1871 edition, Vol. 1, page 63; by Charles Darwin).
“Darwin himself quietly renounced Christianity during his middle age, and later described himself as an agnostic. He continued to believe in a distant, impersonal deity of some sort, a greater entity that had set the universe and its laws into motion, but not in a personal God …” ( - National Geographic magazine, Nov. 2004, page 9). Darwin admits in his autobiography he was a creationist when he wrote the Origin of Species. He uses the term Theist, but his view was much more deistic: “Another source of conviction in the existence of God .. the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe .. as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist. This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the Origin of Species; and it is since that time that it has very gradually with many fluctuations become weaker” ( - The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, reprinted 1993 by W.W. Norton & Co.; edited by Nora Barlow; page 77). Evolutionist historians Desmond and Moore note (referring to the Unitarian Church), “In January 1842, Darwin let the cat out of the bag, probably cautiously … By now he had it down pat: .. Everything results from grand laws – laws that ‘should exalt our notion of the power of the omniscient Creator.’ This was a modified Unitarian view of the divine government. And like a Unitarian Darwin (with a certain amount of double-think) argued that it got God off the hook for evil and suffering, bundling the blame on to ‘natural law’ ..” ( - Darwin – The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist, 1992, pages 292-4; by Adrian Desmond, Ph.D., a Darwin scholar, and James Moore, a Darwin scholar, Professor of the History of Science, Open University).
In addition, the popular term “Baptist” seems to be more of a retrodiction; hence, “John the Baptist” in Greek/English modern “translation” for Matthew 3:1, Mark 6:25, Luke 7:20. The underlying term in the Greek manuscripts is “baptizer” for a correct translation; the noun was describing what John did. Unfortunately, this does not get mentioned in the book. The Hebrew New Testament reads for Matt 3:1: “In those days Yochanan the Immerser came …” ( - Hebrew Gospel of Matthew - Translated from over Thirty Hebrew Manuscripts, 2025, co-translator / editor Dr. Al Garza, Th.M., Ph.D.; cf. Hebrew Gospel of Mark, 2022).
For the Greek New Testament: “Baptistes, bap-tis-tace; … a baptizer … This word is used only of John the Baptist ..” ( - The New Strong’s Expanded Dictionary of Bible Words, 2001, page 1006). “.. a baptizer; one who administers the rite of baptism; the surname of John, the forerunner of Christ: Mt. iii. 1 ..” ( - Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, page 95). “There has been a wrong conception of the name Baptist and its significance. It has been associated in history and in significance with John the forerunner of Christ who baptized. The true origin of the name is found otherwise … In the final development of the name, the descriptive adjective ‘baptized’ came to be modified and shortened in popular usage to ‘Baptist,’ so that by the time the 18th century closed and the 19th century was opening, the term Baptist had come to be the accepted title. A distinction must be made between the commonly used adjective or noun ‘Baptist’ and the name given to John, the forerunner of Jesus. This adjective, Baptist, that is used as a proper name is the modified .. verb ‘to baptize’ … The name given to John .. meaning agent .. , one who does something .. The translation should be John the Baptizer. In the case of the English Baptists of the 17th and 18th centuries, they were so called because something was done to them ..” ( - Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists, 1958, Vol. 1, pages 136-7; co-editor Robert Baker, Th.D., Ph.D., Professor of Church History, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary).
The term “Anabaptist” is used by the authors in chapter 2, or page 485, etc, as if it is a normal, regularly used term welcomed by all in the Anabaptist Church. But, that is misleading. The book neglects to point out the term “Anabaptist” was a pejorative; they actually called themselves something different. “ANABAPTISTS. A polemical term applied to certain evangelical groups of the 16th century by their enemies … Anabaptists themselves protested against the term, preferring to be called Christians or brethren … demanding a restitution of New Testament teaching and order ..” ( - Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists, 1958, Vol. 1, page 47). On the title page of the 1646 Anabaptist Confession of Faith, it reads (with modern spelling): “A CONFESSION OF FAITH Of seven congregations or Churches of Christ in London, which are commonly (but unjustly) called Anabaptists.” They called themselves Churches of Christ (a designation which is found in Scripture, Romans 16:16b), and deny the term Anabaptists. The same with Martin Luther – the term “Lutheran” is presented as if it would be a normal, regularly used term welcomed by all in the Lutheran Church. However, the book fails to point out that Luther himself was against divisional party names in the church. Prof. Gritsch notes, “Lutheranism originated as a reform movement .. in the sixteenth century. The name ‘Lutheran’ was given the movement by its Roman Catholic opponents … [Martin] Luther himself rejected such a designation because he, as he put it, called for a return to what is truly ‘Christian’ rather than creation of a new ‘party name.’ The collection of authoritative Lutheran statements in The Book of Concord of 1580, known as ‘Lutheran Confessions,’ also avoids the designation ‘Lutheran’ … The term ‘Lutheran churches’ began to appear in the seventeenth century” ( - A History of Lutheranism, 2002, page xi; by Eric Gritsch, Professor Emeritus of Church History, Gettysburg Lutheran Seminary, Pennsylvania).
For the Baptist Church itself, Chute emphasizes the Scripture is to be followed, which sounds good; writing that, “Baptists are a ‘people of the book,’ … closely following the practices of the New Testament churches ..” (pages xvii, 20). So, we’re dealing with a book about the origin of the Baptist Church and also following what the Scripture says. Keeps sounding good. For the origin of the Baptist Church, the authors point out that, “.. the Baptist movement .. began with John Smyth and was continued through the work of Thomas Helwys. Both were Englishmen who left the Anglican Church … We concur with this history, tracing Baptist beginnings to 1609” (page xvi). Hmmm. Doesn’t sound like Jesus and the apostles in Israel. And, the authors clearly state the Baptist Church is not in the Scripture: “.. the Baptist movement does not reach back to John the Baptist in the first century, but its historical roots are in the Separatist movement that emerged from the Church of England in the first decade of the seventeenth century” (page xvi). But, if you think about it and mix in some common sense, wouldn’t it be better to search the Scripture and follow what it says about the church? (Acts 17:11) (especially if one claims to be “people of the book”). What designations are found there for the church and believers? It wasn’t Baptist. Did someone add to what the Scripture says? Why would you want to change it from what the Scripture says? “ ‘The church of God’ was the self-designation of the early Jerusalem church (1 Cor 15:9 ..” “.. Paul mentions Christ in connection with the term ekklesia: ‘the churches of Christ greet you’ (Rom 16:16)” ( - Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, series Vol. 2, 1993, page 126). If you follow the recipe to make a cake you will have a cake, not a hamburger. Unfortunately, tradition or opinion tends to prevail on such a matter, resulting in multiplied denominations.
Not to be outdone, the authors actually admit to the absence of church denominations in the Scripture: “It is important to begin by noting that denominations are not found in the Bible. John the Baptist was not a Baptist in the denominational sense … and Paul’s multiple references to the Church of God (1 Cor 1:2; Gal 1:13) had no affiliation with denominations by that name ..” (page 2). And, “.. the first question most students ask is .. ‘Why do we have denominations at all?’ This is a fair question and a good starting point for the Baptist story, particularly in light of Jesus’s prayer in John 17:21, ‘May they all be one ..’ ” (page 1). But, then the authors attempt to defend the practice of splitting the church into denominations on page 8 after admitting it is out of harmony with the Scripture.
So, there’s some double-talk or pretzel twisting in this book, and it avoids the obvious – the Baptist Church is not in the Scripture, but we are people of the Scripture, and here’s why we’re going to do it different from Scripture anyway.
Recommend books on Amazon: Churches of the New Testament by Ethan Longhenry; and Handbook on Church Doctrines by Dr. Stafford North; and Denominational Doctrines by Jerry Moffitt; and A Study of Denominations by Ethan Longhenry.
Shortened review due to space limit.
February 22, 2026
Parts 1 and 2 were interesting, Part 3 was really slow, and Part 4 was a drag. This book started well at making history interesting but fell into the trap of making it boring by the end of the book. I do appreciate, however, that the authors recount history chronologically.
January 13, 2026
I really enjoy history like this that is academically rigorous but also committed to telling a narrative.
It was obviously written from a Baptist perspective, but did not shy away from including the ugly details.
There were so many pieces of Baptist history I’d never even heard of before reading this. Like the small (but influential) minority of baptists that made their own version of a “one true church” argument in Landmark movement was particularly interesting (although obviously far from convincing if you’ve read even a little history).
This book is a great example of what baptists need more of. We have a rich history of theology, mission, and confession. But it is often when we attempt to write out the ugly parts of our history that we end up losing our historical rootedness altogether.
It was obviously written from a Baptist perspective, but did not shy away from including the ugly details.
There were so many pieces of Baptist history I’d never even heard of before reading this. Like the small (but influential) minority of baptists that made their own version of a “one true church” argument in Landmark movement was particularly interesting (although obviously far from convincing if you’ve read even a little history).
This book is a great example of what baptists need more of. We have a rich history of theology, mission, and confession. But it is often when we attempt to write out the ugly parts of our history that we end up losing our historical rootedness altogether.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews