Featured Begining of Baptists

OK, now who are the Anti-Baptists?

 

I suspect many of the Baptists came from Anti-Baptist groups, you know the Church of England, the Presbyterians and Lutherans, even the Roman Catholics.

I would also guess that some Baptists came from those groups known as Anabaptists. Anabaptists were severely persecuted by even the reformers because of their adherence to believers baptism which in some groups was immersion.

The First London Confession was written to distinguish Baptists from Anabaptists.

Having said all that to clear things up or muddy them further I believe there have always been groups who have adhered very closely to Scripture, even in peril of their lives.

 

Baptist is kind of catch all word like Christian--both are filled with ambiguity. There are dozens of groups called Baptist, many tooting different lofars(horns). A huge percentage of Christendom is nominal. One plus billion are on the rolls of the Vatican--some say this includes some dead ones as well. Where do we find Jesus' little flock in the maze of religions of the world?

While the Bible is not a history book, it does have a lot to say about the history of God's remnant.

In Mt. 16:18, Jesus promises a church which will not be overrun. He also gives Her authority to carry on in His absence. This was probably not listed in the Jerusalem yellow pages as the FBC.

Baptist is a term of derision. It is short for Anabaptist, another derisive term. It seems there were some in every generation who refused to recognize the pope as having authority to baptize; so those who were converted to the true gospel were baptized scripturally. Hence: rebaptizers. The Anabaptists considered the converts to have had one true baptism, that the infant baptism was null and void. Of course this incensed the holy see which tried on many occasions to eradicate such so called heresy.

This has been the major issue all through Church history: What is scriptural baptism and who has authority to perform it? Another big issue, of course, has been the nature and practice of the communion.

A large portion of those called Baptist are not aware of the faith and practice of true Baptist groups and their connection to Jude 3. These 16th century Baptists are also confused about Baptism and Communion as well.

Things get really muddled towards the end of Ecumenism.

The daughters will return to their mother.

The Lord knows them that are His.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

Only the uninformed believe this anymore. Actual historians reject the JJJ-Organic Successionism, or "Trial of Blood" theory on Baptist origins. You simply cannot find a complete line of succession from the first century on. Baptists emerged out of the radical reformation.

The two primary camps that remain:
1. Anabaptist Origins
2. English Separatists

I'm of the #2 camp.

I mentioned above that I'm of the English Separatist camp. There was influence from the Anabaptists and John Smythe in particular, but the rise of the separatist movement in England seems the logical link as Anabaptists seem to carry on in a different path theologically and ecclesiologically and became Mennonite.

There are lots of reasons, but we'll see if we need to get into this.

I do believe Baptists are a Protestant group, if for no other reason that no other group in Christendom wishes to Protest everything like Baptists. Also, because of their roots in the radical Reformation they are Protestant.

 

Actual historians

Who, specifically, are these actual historians?

This is not about successionism but rather the fulfillment of scripture: Mt. 16:18; Mt.28:18-20; Eph.3:21; Jude 3-5; etal. Jesus said He would never leave nor forsake His Bride. He is keeping His promise. He is faithful, even when we are not.

This is not about a name but rather a faith and practice; see Jude 3.

This is about: who got the keys?

"fear not little flock, it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom" See Lk. 12:31-33.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

Any reputable Baptist historian with a terminal degree and academic works in the field of study. Here are a couple notable ones from recent memory:
Leon MacBeth, William Estep, Robert Baker, Malcolm Yarnell, Kenneth Scott LaTourette, etc etc etc.

I disagree with this interpretation of both history and Scripture.

 

I believe you are correct. There have always been those who earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. [Jude 3}

 

And here some others,both recent and past who are reputable church historians who recognize that Baptists came from the Separatists,who had come out of the Church of England:
Renihan, Haykin, McGoldrick, Finn, Patterson,Garrett, Vedder,Armitage, Lumpkin, Benedict, Priest, Shurden, Ivimey, Cathart, Tiffanstedt and George.

 

I agree that there always have been saints throughout the age of the Church who upheld what Jude 3 states. But to equate that with a strictly Baptistic identity is mistaken.

 

That's a good list; you'll note I included Yarnell and McBeth who both affirm this position as well.

 

Thomas Armitage, David Benedict, Joseph Ivimey and William Cathart all rejected the English Separatist theory of Baptist origins. With one accord they believed Baptists were descended from the Anabaptists who were in turn descended from the first century church. Quotes can be supplied if needed.

William Whitsitt was the first to publically teach that the Baptist movement came out of English Separatists. And he was fired for teaching this.

 

This seems to boil to: Generals and Particulars--Chauvin and Arminius--more at pedobaptists and anti-pedobaptists-- Pope Peter and Pope Henry VIII.

Who were the people Luther and Calvin persecuted? Anti-pedobaptists--the remnant which God has preserved in every generation, as a witness of The Truth which makes one free, and The Peace which passes all understanding.

What's in your wallet?

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

Folks, let me endorse West Kentucky Baptist as one of the most knowledgeable students of Baptist history that I've ever met.

When he writes about it, he is most authoritative. Do not lightly dismiss his views because you don't like them.

 

You write in a consistently confusing manner.

If you want to use their real names :Jean Chauvin and Jakob Hermanszoon. And the latter was a paedobaptist.

Why do you reference Peter and Henry V111 as popes?

Let's stick to Calvin --who do you believe he persecuted? Do you even know that Calvin was himself persecuted in Geneva?

The remnant of grace includes many paedobaptists including John Calvin. The remnant is composed of many Christians who do not have the identical beliefs of you BJ.

 

The question ought to be: "Who didn't he persecute?"
Read Philip Schaff, chapter 8. I don't have the room here to quote the whole chapter.

 

You keep getting confused, like many others here. John Calvin did not have dictatorial authority in Geneva. He was not even a citizen until 1559.

Your memory is like a sieve. We went over this many times --the last of which was last month. Consult the archives.

Schaff (as a non-Calvinist)regarded Calvin most highly.

 

Rippon: thanks for the Hermanszoonists. Did not have that one until today. What does it mean in Dutch? I once was a Hermanszoonist unaware.

Believer's baptism is still a basic plank in the True Baptist platform. The pedobaptists have not been very amicable in that regard, in fact quite the contrary. Luther and Calvin both persecuted the True Baptists. How about Hermanszoon?

Sorry about the convolution, sometimes beta-blockers affect my brain. This is really not a complex subject. One either has scriptural baptism or not. Baptism either regenerates or it does not. It cannot be: all of the above.

Re: Pope Peter--the holy see believes The Apostle Peter was the first pope. Henry VII in effect made himself a pontifex maximus after he was excommunicated from the papacy. Henry started His own church using mostly romish liturgy with an Archbishop. This became known as the Church of England, Anglican, Episcopal(U.S.). The one who is the monarch of England is still the head of the Church of England. Would this make Queen Elizabeth excommunicated from Rome like Henry VIII? This would be an interesting read in the Canterbury/Vatican archives.

My point there being: True Baptists did not come out of the Rome nor Canterbury.

Have a blessed evening, and a better day tomorrow.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

This post was made in error. Sorry.
[NOTE: If any of you "out there in 'BB Land'" wish to know my opinion(s) on the origins and/or history of Baptists, feel free to PM "Yours Truly." --- ktn4eg]