History of Baptists back to Christ

[tyndale1946]

Helen/AITB... It is always polite to let a lady have the last word... I will not argue with you!... Brother Glen & Sister Charlotte

 

[tyndale1946]

Bob... You said you wanted to get back into the fray of the C/A Debate Forum?... Well come on down we are always looking for new blood... Okay or old blood... As long as you're a warm body we will take anything... Ready to get your feet wet again?... Brother Glen & Sister Charlotte

 

[Singer]

Frank,

I detect an unbiased nature from your post. Thanks for the history lesson.

Did/does that church that was established have a name or does it
exist yet today ?

Singer

 

[martyr]

The baptists did not come from the anabaptists, as
one post in here seemed to imply. There were actually two groups of anabaptists, and the baptists did eventually adhere to some of the teachings of the more Biblically sound version of the anabaptists.

 

[Kiffin]

martyr is correct. The strongest conections between Baptists and Anabaptists would be a spiritual connection only and that Baptists improved upon Anabaptist theology. Baptists as we know it have their begginnings in 1609 and it was about 35 years later until Baptist theology was solidified with the 1644 London confession.

The TRAIL OF BLOOD cannot be considered a history book. John T. Christian was the best Landmark historian but Carroll's book is a propaganda pamplet with many many errors and distorted history(Such as Mariolatry begginning at the Council of Chalcedon in the 5th century..A false accusation that is untrue ).

Vedder, Torbet and McBeth give good histories of the Baptists in their books. Estep's THE ANABAPTIST STORY is a excellent introduction to our Anabaptist forerunners and good info on the origins of Baptists in the 1600's.

 

[Matt Black]

Kiffin (what a great name if we're talking about Baptist history

), wasn't the Waterlander church in the Netherlands that Smith came into contact with during his exile Anabaptist/ Mennonite in origin and helped to convince him of the necessity of Believer's Baptism?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Frank]

Singer:
Yes, it exists today. Where? Anywhere men and women submit to the new testament of Jesus Christ. The first century church or kingdom simply followed, practiced and taught that which the apostles did, no more no less. Acts 2:42. Therefore, if I desire to be like the church in the beginning I must follow the approved example or pattern of the inspired men who gave it to us. II Thes. 2:15, II Tim. 1:13, Acts 20:27.
By following the example of the inspired men of the first century, I can worship in spirit and in truth. John 4:24. I can preach and teach the same things they did. II Cor. 2:2, Eph. 3:1-6, I Tim. 1:1-3. I can follow the new testament and be organized just as my brethren of the first century. I Tim. 3:1-13, Titus 1:4-9. I can find the answer to every spiritual problem that arises by learning and applying the principles of the divine will of Jesus Christ. II Pet. 1:3.

If this were not true, God would have lied to us when he spoke through Daniel and said, in Daniel 2:44, And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. Paul affirmed the existence of this kingdom in Col. 1:12,13 when he spoke by inspiration these words, " Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
13  Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: Furthermore, Paul states the very sobering thought that subjects of His Son's kingdom will go to heaven to be with God. The Bible says in I Cor 15:24,  Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
In view of these facts, it behooves one to find the kingdom and become a subject of it. Mat. 7:7;21-26, Rev. 21:1,2, I Cor. 15:24, Phil. 3:20,21.

Jesus said his church ( kingdom ) would prevail over all the forces of hell. Mat. 16:18.

I appreciate your question. I hope this helps. If questions remain, please feel free to ask.

Sincerely,
Frank

 

[Kiffin]

Kiffin (what a great name if we're talking about Baptist history ), wasn't the Waterlander church in the Netherlands that Smith came into contact with during his exile Anabaptist/ Mennonite in origin and helped to convince him of the necessity of Believer's Baptism?

Yours in Christ

Matt

Hi Matt, thanks for the compliment. You are absolute correct. I am of the Anabaptist kinship school so I did not mean to imply there were no direct connections but that Baptists did not come directly out of the Anabaptist movement. I do not agree with either the Landmark successionist view or the strict English successionist view that seems to regard the Anabaptists as irrelevant.

Baptists are also products of the English Reformation in that they were English separatist from the Church of England and therefore are a marriage of the Radical Reformation and the English Reformation. (Kinda like Thomas Cranmer meets Menno Simmons

)

Another interesting question is the connection between the early English Particular Baptists and the Continental Anabaptists. The controversial "Kiffin" manuscript indicates that the Particular Baptists either learned immersion from a Anabaptist congregation in the Netherlands or learned it and were immersed by that congregation. Historians seem to not be sure because of the language of the document or the validity of it. So that would be a second direct contact between the 2 groups if true.

So I hope I clarified my view. God Bless

 

[Matt Black]

Do you mean Blunt's contacts with the Dutch Collegiants? It's certainly plausible - after all the PBs that grew out of the JLJ congregation had to 'catch' believers' immersion from somewhere, and it is logical to assume they got it from some continental Anabaptist-Mennonite group; they are unlikely to have got it from the Smith-Hellwys GBs, I think.

BTW, I agree with you about the Anabaptist-Puritan crossover. It is often forgotten that most of the early 17th century separatists started off as Puritans within the CofE, and it was only really with James I's "no bishop, no king" and threatening to "harry them out of the land" in 1604 do we really see large numbers separating off. Even the JLJ congregation, whilst Puritan, was not entirely Separatist - links with like-minded puritans in the CofE were maintained and often JLJ members would attend JLJ and their local CofE.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Singer]

(Frank)

"Yes, it exists today. Where? Anywhere men and women submit to
the new testament of Jesus Christ. The first century church or kingdom
simply followed, practiced and taught that which the apostles did, no
more no less."

(Singer)

I was hoping you'd say that.

God Bless !!!

 

[rsr]

I thought the thread would degenerate, but it's turned interesting.

I generally agree with Kiffin's view: Modern Baptists came out of English Separatism but were influenced by their contacts with Anabaptists.

English Baptists recovered the practice of believer's baptism in two steps. By 1608/09 the General Baptists insisted that baptism was for believers only, and by 1638 the Particular Baptists reached the same conclusion. At first English Baptists baptized by sprinkling or pouring. Immersion came a few years later. Some of the General Baptists may have immersed as early as 1614, but if so it was not yet customary. Many historians do not recognize them as Baptists before immersion.

By 1640 there were at least two Particular Baptist churches, and both became convinced that baptism should be by immersion. Old church records state:

1640. 3rd Mo: The Church became two by mutuall consent just half being with Mr. P. Barebone, & ye other halfe with Mr. H. Jessey. Mr. Richd Blunt with him being convinced of Baptism yt also it ought to be by dipping in ye Body into Ye Water, resembling Burial and riseing again.

Apparently, members of the Barebone congregation reached this conclusion from a study of the New Testament. Immersion was a new practice, for their old records speak of "none having then so practiced it in England to professed Believers." These two congregations reinstituted immersion in different ways. One church sent Richard Blunt to Holland to confer with a group of Mennonites, who practiced immersion. Possibly, he received immersion from them and returned to immerse others of the congregation. The other church simply began to immerse without alluding to historical precedent. "Where there is a beginning," the pastor said, "some must be first."

— H. Leon McBeth, Baptist Beginnings, Baptist History and Heritage Society.

BAPTIST BEGINNINGS