Was John Bunyan a Baptist? A Test Case in Historical Method [Nathan Finn]

Nathan Finn
Nathan Finn

Nathan Finn:

What many readers may not know is that scholars have debated whether or not Bunyan was a Baptist or a Congregationalist since at least the late-1800s. There are several reasons for this debate. First, Bunyan’s church in Bedford, which began as a Congregationalist (Independent) meeting, seems to have embraced a dual baptismal practice prior to his pastorate. Second, though there is no evidence the church baptized infants during Bunyan’s pastorate, the church continued an open membership policy that included both credobaptists and pedobaptists. (Bunyan even engaged in a literary debate with William Kiffin, among others, over the relationship between the ordinances and church membership.) Finally, after Bunyan’s death in 1688, the church gravitated toward mainstream Congregationalism and rejected credobaptism as a normative practice.


John "The Baptist?" Bunyan
John “The Baptist?” Bunyan

For these reasons, scholars have tended to fall into three camps when debating Bunyan’s baptism bona fides. First, some scholars argue he was not a Baptist, but rather was a Congregationalist who privately preferred credobaptism to pedobaptism. Second, some scholars argue that Bunyan was an “Independent Baptist,” i.e., a Baptist who practiced open membership. Finally, some scholars punt (ahem) and suggest that Bunyan was “baptistic,” but falls short of being a consistent Baptist.


This makes for a good test case in historical method.

Read [6 min. readout]

3 Replies to “Was John Bunyan a Baptist? A Test Case in Historical Method [Nathan Finn]”

    1. Sweet. That means John “Pure Awesome” Owen was a Baptist too. And Jonathan Edwards! And don’t forget John “Wonderful” Calvin.

Leave a Reply to Mark N. Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *