Featured Why we are Baptists

I have to admit that I have not read Carroll closely. If he does mean that Baptist distinctive doctrine (e.g., ecclesiology, baptism) has existed in local and independent churches throughout history then I do agree. I think it obvious that the Baptist distinctiveness existed prior to the Reformation and remained alien to both the RCC and the Reformers (hence Martin Luther's comments regarding them as heretics).

 

I am not equating Baptists with Anabaptists, just pointing out that much of our doctrine (what distinguishes Baptist as a denomination) owes much to Anabaptist theology. Our doctrine as a whole is indebted to both Reformed and Anabaptist theology.

Look, for example, at the Schleitheim Confession (1527) as it is representative of Anabaptist principles. It contained 7 articles:

1. Baptism is only to be administered to those who believe. Infants are not to be baptized.
2. Believers who fall into sin should be admonished twice in secret…the third time they are to be openly disciplined and banned as a final recourse.
3. Only those who have been baptized can take part in communion. Communion is a remembrance - it is symbolic.
4. The community of Christians should have no association with those who remain in disobedience and a spirit of rebellion against God….no fellowship with the wicked in the world (Catholics and Protestants)
5. Pastors should be men of good repute. They are charged with faithfully the works of the local church. They are supported by the church, but must also be disciplined if they sin (they are not above, in this sense, the congregation).
6. Violence must not be used in any circumstance.
7. No oaths should be taken as they are prohibited by Scripture.

It is not, IMHO, a minor similarity in doctrine between this confession and the Baptist distinctiveness. We are not Anabaptist (we would be in 1527, of course, as the term merely referred to believers baptism). But much of this confession speaks to the Baptist Distinctiveness (definitely 4 of the 7 articles). NONE of Reformed theology speaks to this distinctiveness (which is obvious as we are speaking of what differentiates Baptist from … lets say…Presbyterians). The best way to look at it is to try to see what Particular Baptists and General Baptists had in common as "Baptists" but where they differed from other denominations. You are left with an Anabaptist perspective on many issues.

But no, I am not equating Anabaptists with later Baptists (just as I would not equate the theology of the Reformers with later Baptist theology). We learned from both (the Particular Baptists did a better job at this).