Featured John Calvin's Treatise Against the Ana-Baptist

Another nonsensical apology tour. On what basis do you think this is the right thing? The Anabaptists involved are DEAD. Let's give it a rest. An apology has no useful purpose other than to say "Look at me, look at me I'm soooooooooooooooo sorry after 5 centuries have passed. The scriptures teach us to be forgiving and make apologies. This way It comes across as insincere.

You are showing so much praise for an ELCA Bishop? He is a member of the ELCA, the most liberal denomination on the planet. Take a look at the presiding Bishop.

Office of the Presiding Bishop

Did you know that ELCA Lutherans are paedobaptist? That means that they baptize babies.

I believe that shows it all. They are more about politics than the B I B L E. Martin Luther is spinning in his grave at the corruption in a church he founded.

 

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 state 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 standing against the received tradition."

 

The Reformed of that time did in fact believe in the personal confession of faith in Christ.

I think Mohler has some misunderstanding about Calvin's view of Church and State. Calvin believed in the principles outlined in Romans 13.

I don't know if the typos were yours or Mohler's.

 

Finn's first paragraph contradicts your thesis. Again, I'm not saying (nor is Finn) that there aren't similarities. However, regardless of similarities, the modern baptist movement grew out of the English Separatists, not the Anabaptist. It is possible for two groups of people to have similar ideas about baptism, for instance, having read the scriptures even though those two groups are not related.

The Archangel

 

Well please don't close this thread because someone disagrees with you.

 

It was not my intention to dismiss your post or frustrate you, and I did enjoy reading your post. The issue, however, is not "influence;" the issue is "genesis." The baptists did not have their genesis in the anabaptist movement. Are there similarities, might one have influenced the other? Sure. But genesis? No.

The influence of the Presbyterians on the Particular Baptists may be seen in the similarities between Westminster and 2nd London (since 2nd London is, essentially, Westminster with a different understanding of baptism and polity). However, it is likely going too far to say that the Presbyterians spawned the Particular Baptists.

In the same way, it is not accurate to say the anabaptists spawned the baptists.

The Archangel

 

Anyone know why a sic would need to be inserted in this sentence written by Albert Mohler?

 

Well said...

My only concern was to demonstrate that the anabaptists did not spawn the baptists. We my debate the "influences" and whether there were any or many, or to what extent the baptists were influenced--and that's not a bad discussion.

My goal in mentioning the difference between the baptists and the anabaptists was to argue against the idea that Calvin would have been against the Baptists because they were "decedent" of the anabaptists. Calvin likely would not have looked favorably on several of the Baptist distinctives. But to apply his arguments against the anabaptists to the baptists is quite problematic because there is no "genesis" of the baptist from the anabaptists and Calvin, who died in 1564, would have been writing against a movement that did not begin until 1609.

Now, your suggestion about a congregational influence is worthy of further consideration. However, without being able to read further on it at the moment, there are significant differences in thinking, at least between the American congregationalists and the American baptists. This is seen in, for instance, Roger Williams' "need" to found Rhode Island so that he may be free from, among others, the congregationalists to worship as a Baptist. So, some ideals are shared, but it is at least possible that the influence is not direct.

The Archangel

 

If that is the case, they were not keeping the Holy Commandment to love their neighbor as themselves. We are not called to hate, but to love.

We can hate DEEDS, like Jesus hated the DEEDS of the Nicolaitains, but nowhere are we called to hate men who are made in the image of God.