Featured Baptists and Anabaptists

Here's a book to check out:

SBTS President Albert Mohler in The Anabaptists and Contemporary Baptists: Restoring New Testament Christianity (Broadman & Holman, 2013):

"I stand indebted to the Radical Reformation in ways that cannot fully be calculated. Though Reformed in soteriology, I recognize that my decidedly Baptist ecclesiology has far more in common with the Anabaptists. I stand with the Anabaptists in their insistence on the baptism of believers only and the necessity of the personal confession of faith in Christ. I reject Calvin’s understanding of church and state and side without apology with those who died at the hands of those used the states as an instrument of the church, or the church as an instrument of the state. I stand with them on the sole final authority of Scripture, even when it means standings against the received tradition."

 

Anabaptist is a catch-all word for a lot of stuff which may or may not contradict. Paradigm shifts of the historians must be considered.

That Jesus maintained His little flock through the gates of hell is a biblical and secular fact. He said He would never leave nor forsake them. He has kept His promise.

The rebaptizers were persecuted by all the religious powers. Anabaptists rejected the authority of Rome to baptize. They also rejected infant baptism--which the Reformers still practice. It is not difficult to show that such heretics were not members of the Universal Church, visible or invisible. This is still a bone of contention--what is the real nature of a New Testament Church.

The mystery of iniquity was already at work in the first century. See the letters to the Seven Churches of Asia. We have had 19+ centuries of apostasy including 400+ years of reforming apostasy. The author of confusion is still working diligently.

Behold-- The Bride: The Lamb's Wife. She is without spot or wrinkle or any such thing. The Marriage Supper is near. Are we ready?

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

Yes He has and will continue to do so. However, one cannot justifiably assert that only Baptists are members of this little flock...i.e. the Church.

You are trying awfully hard to claim that anyone not a Baptist is a heretic...i.e. not a believer. You are dead wrong.

Many of the things you take for granted in your belief system are the fruit of the Reformation.

 

I depends upon your understanding of what a baptist is. Al Mohler is correct; however, Anabaptists denied sola scriptura (other issues as well) and were much more like Quakers than modern baptists.

The 1689 Baptist Confessionists denied that they were Anabaptists -see the preface to the 1689 as well as C H Spurgeon

Hope this helps

 

"Anabaptists" is a catch all term of derision which the religious powers that be coined for those who did not regard Romish baptism as valid. That is: Rome had no authority from heaven to do what she was doing. This caused no small amount of consternation in the holy see--to the point of trying to exterminate such people--the gates of hell as it were.

The term Baptist (more at Baptists), is a catch all term of derision which is not clearly well defined in modern usage. The is no such entity as The Baptist Church. It is true that many so-called Baptist Churches do not appear to contend for the "faith once for all delivered to the Saints"(Jude 3), but rather are re-conformed to the so-called Protestant Reformation of Rome, which is probably their origin.

Generalities, stereotypes and misinformation are still apparent in the human mindset.

Basic paradigm: any religion founded by a human is corrupted

This is not about a name but rather a faith and practice which can be found in every generation.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James.

 

Spewing your nonsense again. The biblical truths which were sounded forth during the Protestant Reformation indeed conformed to Jude 3. It was the greatest Christian revival ever.

Yours in particular.

And that faith and practice has been evidenced in groups of Christians that have not identified themselves as Baptists per se. The Lord's people are found among many gatherings such as Presbyterians, Anglicans, and Dutch Reformed --ad infinitum.

 

Anabaptist are the peace churches. Baptists are not pacifist.

 

There are several key distinctions between the two groups...however, there is a great deal of discussion among historians that both conflates the two groups or at least demonstrates some kind of genetic heritage of the former from the latter.

My position (just to get it out of the way) is that Baptists are spiritual (and theological) descendants from the English Separatist movement and that the first "Baptist", John Smythe, found his formative theological expressions within the Separatist movements. Anabaptists did influence him, most particularly on the issues of baptism and ecclesial structures. But that influence was not total. To this end, imho, John Smythe and several of the other key initial leaders of the Baptist movement arose from the English side and from the Dutch Anabaptist movement.

Anabaptists were a small group from the radical reformation that arose in the Netherlands (though their formal origin in from within Switzerland) in late 1500s, particularly from the Zwickau Prophets. They lived in a radical communities across Europe and were led by individuals such as Balthasar Hubmaier and Felix Manz.

Their name is a bit confusing historically, but they are better seen in their present day incarnations as Amish, Mennonites, and the Hutterites.

John Smythe and Thomas Helwys were influenced by the Anabaptists while living in exile from England among their sect in Holland.

I can answer more questions as they arise.

 

I picked this book up yesterday before seeing this thread.

The Anabaptists and Contemporary Baptists: Restoring New Testament Christianity
by Malcolm Yarnell (2013)

$0.99 on Vyrso [LINK] and [KINDLE]

It's on my list of things to read.

Rob

 

Some interesting information: Anabaptist History Mystery. Surf the whole website.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

There are really 3 Baptist groups in history. Most of the Baptists in the 17-18 century rebutted Anabaptists in many ways. They did not see them nor their views as orthodox

The other 2 groups were the General Baptists and the Particular Baptists.

The General Baptists believed in a "General Atonement" meaning that Jesus literally died for everyone. They also believed that you could lose your salvation. Modern day GBs are direct descendants in a spiritual sense

The other group was the Particular Baptists who believed that Jesus died "for those he came to save" as the hymn says (Crown Him with Many Crowns). They were the "calvinists" and believed that Jesus died for the elect only. They believed that true christians can never "lose" their salvation. Southern Baptists trace their roots back here.

 

Marooncat79, you identified just two groups --the General Baptists and the Particular. But you began by saying that there are really three Baptist groups in history. What's the third?

 

Anabaptists would be #3

They believed in baptismal regeneration and some even baptized in the nude. Also, some were socinians in that they denied that Jesus had the flesh of Mary ie He supposedly had a "special" body. They also believed in glossalalia and were pacifists nonvoters

Here is a very very good article for those who want more

http://www.reformedreader.org/history/step.htm

 

Some anabaptists were even triple dunkers once for each member of the Trinity

 

Yeah, what a "very very good article":

"Reformed" Reader indeed!

 

That has been my experience as well. Was raised in an Anabaptist tradition and never heard a clear gospel message, except the rare times we would have a Missionary or IFB type Baptist guest speaker. The peaceniks sound all warm and cuddly but its just another variation of a works/social gospel, which does not address man's sin and the only remedy.