Amazon
Barnes and Noble
Ebay
Baptist Standard Bearer
Books A Million
Bio at Baptist History Homepage
Perhaps you could provide a link to where the book recommended in the op may be purchased if it is not the one above.
I provided a link from a website specializing in marketing tools for critical thinking explaining the fallacy. Here's the
Wiki description.
The argument, "
No true Christian does X," implies anyone who does not do X is not a Christian, or they are not authentically Christian. They are an untrue Christian. What qualifies as a Christian is modified using the qualifier "true" and stipulating what it is that make "true" true. In this case, the Baptist view of baptism is the indicative qualifier that decides whether or not a person is a Christian or not.
Similar examples would be the Presbyterian (or Reformed Baptist) who asserts monergist soteriology is the measure of what qualifies as a (true) Christian and anyone holding a synergistic view is not, therefore, a Christian. During the 19th century there was a huge explosion of sectarianism, one that made the Protestant Reformation look like a trial run. Sects like the Church of Christ, the Disciples of Christ, the Brethren sects, the Seventh Day Adventists, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Latter Day Saints, the Christadelphians arose during this period. At the foundation of these sects' theology was the fundamental believe the Church was corrupt and in need of restoration (hence the name of the movement). The need for restoration was supposedly measured by the New Testament precedents (or Old Testament Judaism, since Christianity was originally Jewish). The problem was that each sect had different views of what qualified as "pure." These sects were all also apocalyptic, using the doctrine of imminence (or imminent return) to empower the need for people to return to a pure or "restored" church/Church lest they either suffer the wrath of God's return or miss the rapture and be left behind while all the "true" Christians were removed from the planet. Some of these sects fell within the pale of orthodoxy, but most did not. Most of them were cults. All of them made appeals to purity.
I was once interviewing a series of leaders (pastors and elders) of various congregation in an effort to find a congregation suitable for my children when they reached adolescence because the congregation my family had been attending was very small and had no youth group. In the process of doing my due diligence I visited each congregation on Sunday and experienced the service, the teaching, and the fellowship. I was not looking for a social club. I was looking for a congregation that could support my children's move from childhood to adulthood in Christ, from boyhood and girlhood to manhood and womanhood. At my visits I picked up copies of each congregation's statement of faith and bylaws because I wanted sound doctrine
and structures for both internal and external accountability. I've seen too many congregations divide or self-destruct because they lacked oversight by some outside governing body. This is especially problematic in non-denominational, independent, and/or family-run congregation. I had some theological differences with one of the congregations in which I was interested but the congregation had a very good youth group, was involved in both congregational, community, and international ministries and had an otherwise good reputation in the area. Having filled out one of the visitor card, the congregation sent someone to my house to discuss my joining the congregation and we talked, and I decided to meet with one of the pastors or elders to discuss my particular needs. After I made the appointment, I went online and listened to some of the sermons or teachings of that particular pastor (that congregation was so large it had several pastors on staff). During our conversation I brought up something I read in the congregation's by-laws. The by-laws of that particular congregation required all of its members to subscribe to Dispensational Premillennialism (DP). No other eschatological point of view was permitted despite the facts 1) eschatology in general is not a core doctrine of the faith and 2) eschatology is one of the most vigorously debated doctrines, and 3) DPism has a lot of problems. I simply commented that I was unaware that Dispensational Premillennialism was a prerequisite to be a Christian, to be in Christ, to be a member of the Church* (the ecclesia), or that any specific eschatological point of view was required to be a member of Christ's body.
The pastor acknowledged Dispensationalism is not what qualifies a person to be a member of Christ's body.
I suggested he take the matter up with the elders and amend their bylaws accordingly.
While not explicitly stated, at the foundation of their by-laws was this appeal to purity. In order to be a Christian, you must subscribe to Dispensational Premillennialism. In order to be a
true Christian and join that congregation as a member a person must subscribe to DPism. Otherwise, the implication is you're not a true Christian and, therefore, cannot be a member of that congregation.
Sadly, there are many examples of this throughout Church history. The appeal to purity is much different than an appeal to sound, historical orthodoxy.
If I understand the op correctly, the main point is that the positions of the Baptist distinctives pertaining to baptism existed long before the Baptist denomination began. It's a good and valid point. It should, however, be left at that. Claiming those distinctives are what definitively define a "true" Christian is not exegetically correct and, although I did not mention in it earlier, an appeal to views held previously is another fallacy. Pelagianism, for example, has been around since the fourth century but it has been deemed a heresy since the debate he had with Augustine. Many people make arguments appealing to the ECFs but the facts of the ECFs are that their views were quite diverse so just about any position can be justified using the ECFs. It took almost 400 years of devoted prayer and rigorous debate for the core doctrines of the Church to be formalized. Even given these facts there are still people claiming to be Christians who also claim that points of view held prior to the setting of core doctrine are valid and should be considered in modernity. Simply put, just because Polycarp, Clement, or Augustine said X, Y, or Z, does not make X, Y, or Z true and correct. I happen to be Reformed in my positions, but I will wholeheartedly stand against Calvin's position pedobaptism is salvific. I understand Luther, Calvin and all the other early Reformers were coming out of the RCC and, therefore, still held onto various positions asserted by Roman Catholic doctrine. Luther, Calvin,
and Arminius were all soteriological Augustinian (RCC). It was only with the rise of subsequent generations that the Reformed doctrines got an in-house debate (and lots of corporate prayer) and were eventually formalized as doctrines. Those doctrines took to different avenues and since then the Protestant doctrines have become further fractured and diverse, especially in the area of soteriology. It has become harder and harder to prove what constitutes as a "
true" Christian because 999 gazillion different points of view define the identity in 999 gazillion different ways.
Scripture defines a Christian in only one way: those who believe in the name of God's one and only resurrected and ascendant son and trust in him for their salvation from sin and wrath....... and even within that definition there are a lot of poseurs (
see Matthew 7:21-23).
My apologies for the length. Hope this is helpful.
*
Scripturally speaking, there is only one Church (capital "C"). There are many congregations, but only one body of Christ, the ecclesia, or those called out of the world into God's service through His Son, Jesus Christ. Unblessedly, over the centuries the word "church" (small "c") has many definitions. The word can refer to the body of Christ, a religious institution, a local congregation, or a building of brick or aluminum siding in which people gather to worship. I use the word "Church" to refer to the body of Christ. I rarely use the lowercase "c," church but, instead, use the word "congregation," when referring to any local body of believers.
.
. lol.
. Lot's of self-identifying Arminians, therefore, are not actually Arminian. They're Pelagian 
.
