John Calvin's Treatise Against the Ana-Baptist

[Katarina Von Bora]

What bishop Mark Hansen showed here was more than an apology... This was pure repentance! You can see great determination in this mans eyes to settle this thing right, in which he did. And you also see a godly joy in the people around him, proud of the decision he had made.

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.

 

[Jerome]

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."

 

[Rippon]

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[sic] 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.

The Reformed of that time did in fact believe in 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 [sic]against the received tradition."

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.

 

[The Archangel]

The Smyth congregation (including Helwys) fled to Amsterdam to escape persecution. They worked and lived and worshiped in facilities provided by a Waterlander Anabaptist. Smyth obviously was deeply influenced by the Waterlanders, even so far as attempting to have his congregation joined the Waterlanders. Helwys disagreed with some points of Smyth's evolving theology, particularly unorthodox views about the celestial flesh of Christ and successionism in the validity of the ordinances and broke with Smyth.

Nonetheless, it appears that Smyth and Helwys were traditional Separatists (Calvinists) until they went to Holland, when they adopted an Arminian soteriology. It is not difficult task to think that they were influenced by the Waterlanders.

Helwys returned to England to found the first General Baptist church on English soil. The connection between the Anabaptists and the Generals seems fairly clear. That you can't find a document from Helwys that says "we owe some of our theology to the Anabaptists" is beside the point.

Now, is there any evidence that the Generals or Anabaptists influenced the Particulars? If you accept the Kiffin Manuscript and the Jessey Documents, it appears that the Particulars' rejection of infant baptism and subsequent requirement of baptism by immersion were strengthened by the examples of continental Anabaptists. The story goes that the English Baptists sent an emissary to Holland to learn about immersion and met with Collegiants, an amalgam of (largely) Remonstrants and Anabaptists — who were provided a declaration of faith by a Waterlander, Hans de Ries, who was eager for a union with the Smyth congregation.



Then I suggest your reading is not up to date. I am not arguing that the English Baptists were direct descendants of the continental Anabaptists; the Separatist/Calvinist leanings of the Particulars is beyond doubt.

Many years ago I described the second wave of the Protestant Reformation as a heady stew of diverse theologies and practices (some orthodox, some not) of which many groups — including the English Baptists — imbibed.

Nathan Finn, dean of the School of Theology and Missions and professor of Christian thought and tradition at Union University argues for a "convergent" view of Baptist origins, with influences from a variety of traditions merging with the Separatist river to create what we call Baptists.



Between The Times - Toward a Convergent View of Baptist Origins, Part 2

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

 

[rsr]

I had thought you would be willing to discuss this without preconceptions and would at least engage the arguments.

You have not, of course, countered any of historical elements I have offered. You have said there is no evidence, yet you offer nothing when I present it. Except "no scholar would agree with you." I have offered, and Jerome has offered, evidence to the contrary.

I don't think you understand my thesis, which is that Particulars arose from Anglican Separatists but may owe some of their theology and practice to Anabaptist (and other) influence. I thought that I had made that plain. And it is clear you don't understand Flinn, who allows for Anabaptist and other influences on the Particulars even though it is obvious that they were mostly influenced by Separatism. Flinn's thesis, in general, is identical with mine. He cannot contradict me because we essentially believe the same thing.

Unfortunately, in the matter of Baptist origins, it seems there is no room for multiple influences for those riding one hobby horse or the other.

It is obvious that there is no use of my digging through the literature to present arguments because you have made up your mind and discussion would be fruitless. So unless you have something else to offer, I suppose this discussion is at an end.

 

[Rippon]

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

 

[The Archangel]

I had thought you would be willing to discuss this without preconceptions and would at least engage the arguments.

You have not, of course, countered any of historical elements I have offered. You have said there is no evidence, yet you offer nothing when I present it. Except "no scholar would agree with you." I have offered, and Jerome has offered, evidence to the contrary.

I don't think you understand my thesis, which is that Particulars arose from Anglican Separatists but may owe some of their theology and practice to Anabaptist (and other) influence. I thought that I had made that plain. And it is clear you don't understand Flinn, who allows for Anabaptist and other influences on the Particulars even though it is obvious that they were mostly influenced by Separatism. Flinn's thesis, in general, is identical with mine. He cannot contradict me because we essentially believe the same thing.

Unfortunately, in the matter of Baptist origins, it seems there is no room for multiple influences for those riding one hobby horse or the other.

It is obvious that there is no use of my digging through the literature to present arguments because you have made up your mind and discussion would be fruitless. So unless you have something else to offer, I suppose this discussion is at an end.

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

 

[Jerome]

I recognize that my decidedly Baptist ecclesiology[sic] has far more in common with the Anabaptists.

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

 

[rsr]

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

I never claimed that the Anabaptists "spawned" the Baptists. I simply said that some of the early English Baptists' unique beliefs — credobaptism and immersion, for example — may owe something to Anabaptists.

Historically speaking, you could make a case that the Congregationalists "spawned" the Baptists, who then went their own way on baptism and other topics — perhaps with influence by, or confirmation by, other faith traditions, such as Anabaptists. You will be hard-pressed to find among the English dissenters a full-throated

The Second London, though it adopts huge chunks of the Westminster, also contains wording from the Congregationalists' Savoy Declaration, as well as original language in sections other than baptism and ecclesiology (including from the First Londone). (And an explicit rejection of double predestination.) The Presbyterians and Congregationalists both assumed that it is the duty of civil magistrates to exercise some control over blasphemy and heresy; the Baptists would have none of that.

My entire thesis is that for too long Baptist historians have been split into neatly divided camps that, virtually ignore influences that may have come from other sources. English (and American) Baptists have been influenced by many streams of thought — some good, some bad — and to try to pigeonhole a single origin is not only to ignore history but also common sense.

Please forgive me if I come across as frustrated and if I've been offensive. I only wanted to point out that the early English Baptists did not live in a vacuum and may have absorbed ideas from other traditions. That's all. I'm not proposing anything radical, just a consideration that English Baptists have a complex history that can't be summed up in a few words.

 

[The Archangel]

I never claimed that the Anabaptists "spawned" the Baptists. I simply said that some of the early English Baptists' unique beliefs — credobaptism and immersion, for example — may owe something to Anabaptists.

Historically speaking, you could make a case that the Congregationalists "spawned" the Baptists, who then went their own way on baptism and other topics — perhaps with influence by, or confirmation by, other faith traditions, such as Anabaptists. You will be hard-pressed to find among the English dissenters a full-throated

The Second London, though it adopts huge chunks of the Westminster, also contains wording from the Congregationalists' Savoy Declaration, as well as original language in sections other than baptism and ecclesiology (including from the First Londone). (And an explicit rejection of double predestination.) The Presbyterians and Congregationalists both assumed that it is the duty of civil magistrates to exercise some control over blasphemy and heresy; the Baptists would have none of that.

My entire thesis is that for too long Baptist historians have been split into neatly divided camps that, virtually ignore influences that may have come from other sources. English (and American) Baptists have been influenced by many streams of thought — some good, some bad — and to try to pigeonhole a single origin is not only to ignore history but also common sense.

Please forgive me if I come across as frustrated and if I've been offensive. I only wanted to point out that the early English Baptists did not live in a vacuum and may have absorbed ideas from other traditions. That's all. I'm not proposing anything radical, just a consideration that English Baptists have a complex history that can't be summed up in a few words.

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

 

[glad4mercy]

So what? Most of the Protestants and all of the Catholics hated the AnaBaptists. What's
your point?

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.