Yeah, this is pure trash and inaccuracy. And I'm being kind.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Baptists and Anabaptists
- Thread starter wpe3bql
- Start date
Yeah, this is pure trash and inaccuracy. And I'm being kind.
I can't and won't deny your experience, but I would say it was narrow and not representative of Anabaptists as a whole. Also, there are just as many divisions and theological positions among Anabaptists as there are among Baptists.
This is a non-Baptist article that is poorly informed and with a Presbyterian slant.
How someone could post this in a Baptist discussion and call it 'very very good' is beyond me.
Baptism is not a sacrament. Baptists don't believe in, nor practice, sacramental theology. Aside from that, there are errors in the historical accounting.
I'd recommend reading Leon McBeth's Baptist Heritage and William Estep's Anabaptist Story for actual historical views of the groups.
Btw, the greatest Baptist Church Historian of the day especially in SBC circles, as well as William Whitsett who was an original Southern Seminary professor all agree.
The greatest Baptist History Book written in the last 100 yrs is By His Grace and For His Glory. Might wanna pick one up and read it. You might learn something but I am not so sure. Noone and I mean noone has refuted anything therein and it was written in 1986. Nettles was my Church History professor at MABTS
MacBeth and Estep have been seriously refuted, but their view is the convenient view not the correct view
The greatest Baptist History Book written in the last 100 yrs is By His Grace and For His Glory. Might wanna pick one up and read it. You might learn something but I am not so sure. Noone and I mean noone has refuted anything therein and it was written in 1986. Nettles was my Church History professor at MABTS
MacBeth and Estep have been seriously refuted, but their view is the convenient view not the correct view
BTW, the Anabaptists denied
1. Sola Scriptura-Scripture alone
2. Sola Fide-Faith Alone
3. believed in Baptismal regeneration
4. Denied original sin
5. Believed in glossalalia
6. Were very charismatic
7. Denied that Jesus had the flesh on Mary his mother--they were Socinian
There are other issues as well and no I am not looking any more up
Their views do not sound very baptistic to me
1. Sola Scriptura-Scripture alone
2. Sola Fide-Faith Alone
3. believed in Baptismal regeneration
4. Denied original sin
5. Believed in glossalalia
6. Were very charismatic
7. Denied that Jesus had the flesh on Mary his mother--they were Socinian
There are other issues as well and no I am not looking any more up
Their views do not sound very baptistic to me
Here's a website you might find interesting for doing research on the "Mennonite Wing" of Anabaptists: http://mennohistsoc.mennonite.net/
WPE3BQL was once a Mennonite. Not the ones who wear the distinctive dress but what we used to call "New" Mennonites. IOW, their dress wasn't any different than your typical Lutheran or Presbyterian (or Baptist).
The "New" Mennonites split from the "Old" ones about 1867. There were secondary issues, I'm sure, but the principal one was over BUTTONS!
Yep, that's NOT a typo! Buttons were developed sometime in the middle 1700's, and their first major use was on military uniforms. A person doing combat could easily put on or take off his coat by means of buttons. Evidently it was Napoleon I who really made use of them in his efforts to conquer Europe (including the area where most Anabaptists originated [modern-day Germany, Netherlands, etc.]).
Since the Mennonite branch of Anabaptists were traditionally pacifistic ["Non-resistance" was their way of identifying it.], anything having to do with the military was looked upon in a rather negative light.
So, that's how "New Mennonites" came to be here in the USA.
This isn't to say that the Old and the New never cooperated on anything. The Mennonite Central Committee was formed to act on issues in which there seemed to be a general unifying consensus.
And, not too long ago, both Old and New merged, since after about 125 years of being separate, they "buried the hatchet."
My particular "New" Mennonite church was as liberal as the day is long. The pastors would read some selected passages from the NT from one pulpit and then walk over to another pulpit to pontificate on the necessity of maintaining "good works."
Salvation by grace through faith in the Blood of Jesus Christ was never mentioned.
The last pastor of this church learned his theology from Harvard Divinity School, which wasn't that much of a bastion of Bible thumping, sin hating, evangelism. The pastor previous to him left the church to pastor some liberal Lutheran church in the Midwest.
That was my experience with "Church & Religion" until about late 1965. About six months later, I received Christ as my Savior.
WPE3BQL was once a Mennonite. Not the ones who wear the distinctive dress but what we used to call "New" Mennonites. IOW, their dress wasn't any different than your typical Lutheran or Presbyterian (or Baptist).
The "New" Mennonites split from the "Old" ones about 1867. There were secondary issues, I'm sure, but the principal one was over BUTTONS!
Yep, that's NOT a typo! Buttons were developed sometime in the middle 1700's, and their first major use was on military uniforms. A person doing combat could easily put on or take off his coat by means of buttons. Evidently it was Napoleon I who really made use of them in his efforts to conquer Europe (including the area where most Anabaptists originated [modern-day Germany, Netherlands, etc.]).
Since the Mennonite branch of Anabaptists were traditionally pacifistic ["Non-resistance" was their way of identifying it.], anything having to do with the military was looked upon in a rather negative light.
So, that's how "New Mennonites" came to be here in the USA.
This isn't to say that the Old and the New never cooperated on anything. The Mennonite Central Committee was formed to act on issues in which there seemed to be a general unifying consensus.
And, not too long ago, both Old and New merged, since after about 125 years of being separate, they "buried the hatchet."
My particular "New" Mennonite church was as liberal as the day is long. The pastors would read some selected passages from the NT from one pulpit and then walk over to another pulpit to pontificate on the necessity of maintaining "good works."
Salvation by grace through faith in the Blood of Jesus Christ was never mentioned.
The last pastor of this church learned his theology from Harvard Divinity School, which wasn't that much of a bastion of Bible thumping, sin hating, evangelism. The pastor previous to him left the church to pastor some liberal Lutheran church in the Midwest.
That was my experience with "Church & Religion" until about late 1965. About six months later, I received Christ as my Savior.
The only one of these that is correct is number 4.
You need to read some objective, factual church history before you come on a forum and make a fool of yourself.
Rebel and Mooncat both have points and have demonstrated why I hate the term "Anabaptists". Mooncat is describing the antitrinitarian(Servertus and Valdes) and spiritualisten(muntzer and Storch) Anabaptist movements. I believe Rebel holds more to the swiss bethern and Mennonite Anabaptist view. The term is way to encompassing. Everything moonbat says about Anabaptists is true of some Anabaptists. Some Anabaptists were very heretical. Some were not.
I hate them term. When we say Anabaptists, everyone thinks of different groups. , which all fall under this loose term.
Last edited by a moderator:
FWIW, Two of the men listed in my previous post RE: The Mennonite Historical Society are rather well-known historians among the Mennonites.
John Ruth was (maybe still is) a very good historical writer of my "home area." ZIP 18964.
Among his local history works are 'Twas Seeding Time (the history of the Mennonites in/around SE PA during our War for Independence); the historical text of 18964's Centennial (1887-1987) book Seeing Souderton; and the book about Union National Bank's centennial, The History of the Indian Valley & its Bank, 1876-1976.
John Ruth is also credited for writing a cantata, Christopher Dock, about a famous Mennonite educator [Christopher Dock Mennonite School is named in his honor.], and an oratorio Martyrs' Mirror, the Anabaptist "equivalent" to Foxe's Book of Martyrs.
John Ruth was (maybe still is) a very good historical writer of my "home area." ZIP 18964.
Among his local history works are 'Twas Seeding Time (the history of the Mennonites in/around SE PA during our War for Independence); the historical text of 18964's Centennial (1887-1987) book Seeing Souderton; and the book about Union National Bank's centennial, The History of the Indian Valley & its Bank, 1876-1976.
John Ruth is also credited for writing a cantata, Christopher Dock, about a famous Mennonite educator [Christopher Dock Mennonite School is named in his honor.], and an oratorio Martyrs' Mirror, the Anabaptist "equivalent" to Foxe's Book of Martyrs.
Thousand Hills
Active Member
Buttons, yes, that's a really good reason to split up. :laugh:
On a more serious note, the pacifism nonsense is taken to an extreme, at least from my experience. In the group I was raised in I knew a kid, he was smart, well liked by everyone, the type that was destined for success, the world was at his finger tips. He decided to join the Navy (no conflicts at that time), my understanding his family gave him much grief over it, and he sadly took his own life.
Thankful the Lord saved you out of that nonsense brother. :thumbsup: :godisgood:
I'm thankful too! :godisgood:
OTOH, I don't despise genuine pacifists/non-resisters, etc.
Most people who've seen the horrors of war (be they military or civilian) are, in their hearts, "against" war.
To me, war ought to be the very last option that a sovereign nation ought to take, and even then it needs to be "studied" quite comprehensively, and be in FULL compliance with Article I, Section 8, Clause 12.
The last time that the Congress of the USA declared war was in December, 1941.
Every subsequent military action that the USA has been (or is now in) has NOT been a declared war! Korea is still officially a UN-sponsored "police action." Vietnam began as a response to the Tonkin Gulf "Incident." Subsequent military actions were/are (at least in theory) in some compliance with the War Powers Act (e.g., Operation Desert Storm, Iraqi Freedom, Enduring Freedom, etc.).
An Act of Congress does NOT have the same legal weight as a part of our Constitution!
It was POTUS Dwight Eisenhower who was the last Commander-In-Chief who led the US military into combat and witnessed first-hand the horrors of war.
President/General Eisenhower hated war, and it was he who warned the USA of the dangers of an ever-encroaching "Military-Industrial Complex."
I may not have agreed with everything POTUS Eisenhower did or advocated, but on this, he was "spot on"!! :applause:
---WPE3BQL, retired USAF / TN ANG [23 years net total of service]
I Peter 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
Anabaptist were called that because they re-baptised those who came into the church from any other order. They still do today. I heard one old Baptist preacher put it this way... If one is not regenerated before they are immersed in baptism... Then they go in a dry devil and come out a wet one!... This scripture backs up what he says... Unless you brethren want to argue with Peter?... Brother Glen
Anabaptist were called that because they re-baptised those who came into the church from any other order. They still do today. I heard one old Baptist preacher put it this way... If one is not regenerated before they are immersed in baptism... Then they go in a dry devil and come out a wet one!... This scripture backs up what he says... Unless you brethren want to argue with Peter?... Brother Glen
I agree with that.
I'm still in the process of gleaning and/or recalling what little I know of how the Anabaptist Mennonites came to be and what their influence(s) may have been upon the people we now refer to as Baptists.
One simple way to approach this subject is to glean from Cornelius J. Dyck's An Introduction to Mennonite History: A Popular History of the Anabaptists and Mennonites, which is now in its 3d Edition (1993).
I had an earlier edition (probably the 2d one) but I don't remember what happened to it.
The book is published by Herald Press in Scottdale, PA & Waterloo, Ont., & is available via Amazon (ISBN 0-8361-3620-9).
Not surprisingly, the greatest concentration of Mennonites in the USA is still in SE PA, which I'd mentioned before in my 6/16 post as being where I was born/reared until 1964.
I didn't know that in Canada their greatest concentration is in (1st) Winnipeg, Manitoba & (2d) the southern half of neighboring Saskatchewan.
I suppose that makes some sense because these two areas are fairly good farming areas, which was historically the Mennonites' principal means of making a living.
Just thought y'all'd like to know.
One simple way to approach this subject is to glean from Cornelius J. Dyck's An Introduction to Mennonite History: A Popular History of the Anabaptists and Mennonites, which is now in its 3d Edition (1993).
I had an earlier edition (probably the 2d one) but I don't remember what happened to it.
The book is published by Herald Press in Scottdale, PA & Waterloo, Ont., & is available via Amazon (ISBN 0-8361-3620-9).
Not surprisingly, the greatest concentration of Mennonites in the USA is still in SE PA, which I'd mentioned before in my 6/16 post as being where I was born/reared until 1964.
I didn't know that in Canada their greatest concentration is in (1st) Winnipeg, Manitoba & (2d) the southern half of neighboring Saskatchewan.
I suppose that makes some sense because these two areas are fairly good farming areas, which was historically the Mennonites' principal means of making a living.
Just thought y'all'd like to know.
Mennonites came from the Swiss Brethren(Grebel and others). Grebel and the other founders broker off from Zwingli. Grebel and at least 2 other founders were students of Zwingli. They developed a more advance doctrine on baptism and church/state than what Zwingli eventually supported. Zwingli, during the NT study with Grebel and others acknowledged that their was no scriptural grounds for infant baptism. When the state upheld infant baptism, Zwingli fell inline quickly. The Swiss Brethren continued to fight. They quickly found their teacher betraying them and what he taught them. Zwingli would not dare question the state. He drove his students into exile. I believe eventually, all were put to death. The Swiss Brethren grew into the Mennonites.
It is sad.....the students fought harder for believers baptism then their teacher did.
A dated but thorough examination of the Anabaptists was written by Baptist historian Albert Henry Newman. A History of Antipedobaptism from the Rise of Pedobaptism to A.D. 1609 is still good reading, if perhaps a little dense. It was the first nonsectarian scholarly history of the formation of the modern Anabaptists.
Last edited by a moderator: