Protestant? RCC?

The Baptists of the sixteenth century, generally, were a goodly, upright, honorable race. They hated no man. But all men hated them. And why? Because they testified against the abominations of the times, and wished to accomplish changes which would indeed have revolutionized society, because it was constructed on anti-Christian principles, but which were in accordance with the Word of God. An outcry was raised against them, as if they were "the off-scouring of all things," and their blood was poured out like water. Even the Reformers wrote and acted against them. The writers of that age searched out the most degrading and insulting epithets that the language afforded, and applied them with malignant gratification. Latimer speaks of the "pernicious" and "devilish" opinions of the Baptists. Hooper calls those opinions "damnable." Becon inveighs against the "wicked," "apish Anabaptists," "foxish hypocrites," that "damnable sect," "liars," "bloody murderers both of soul ,and body," whose religious system he denounces as a "pestiferous plague," with many other foul- mouthed expressions which we will not copy. Bullinger designates them as "obstinate," "rebellious," "brain-sick," "frantic," "filthy knaves." Zuingli speaks of the "pestiferous seed of their doctrine," their "hypocritical humility," their speech, "more bitter than gall." But enough of this. These men could, notwithstanding all, appeal to those who witnessed their sufferings, and boldly declare, with the axe or the stake in view, none venturing to contradict, that they were not put to death for any evil deeds, but solely for the sake of the Gospel.
(J.M. Cramp's Baptist History)

The Baptist's arose from the Anabaptists, which had been in existence for many years.
DHK

 

Can I laugh now. The only direct descendants of the anabaptist movement are the Mennonites not the Baptists. If the Baptists are anything they are a conglomeration of several different Reformation theologies.

 

LOL

 

May I quote from a pamphlet put out by the Baptist History and Heritage Society ?

Baptist Beginnings

Sure seems like the Baptists only go back to the Seventeenth Century to me. History tells us that the descendants of the Anabaptists are the Mennonites, not the Baptist churches of today.

 

We have seen Benedict's History of the Baptist denomination in America, and take the liberty of making the following quotation from his works:

"About sixty years after the ascension of our Lord, Christianity was planted in Britain, and a number of the royal blood, and many of inferior birth, were called to be saints. Here the gospel flourished much in early times, and here also its followers endured many afflictions and calamities from pagan persecutions. The British Christians experienced various changes of prosperity and adversity, until about the year 600. A little previous to this period, Austin the monk, that famous Pedo-baptist persecutor, with about forty others, were sent here by Pope Gregory the Great, to convert the Saxon pagans to popery, and to subject them to the dominion of Rome. The enterprise succeeded, and conversion (or rather perversion) work was performed on a large scale. King Ethelbert and his court, and a considerable part of his kingdom, were won over by the successful monk, who consecrated the river Swale, near York, in which he caused ten thousand of his converts to be baptized in one day. Having met with so much success in England, he resolved to try what he could do in Wales. There were may British Christians who fled hither in former times, to avoid the brutal ravages of the outrageous Saxons. The monk held a synod in their neighborhood, and sent to their pastors to request them to receive the pope's commandment; but they utterly refused to listen to either the monk or pope, or to adopt any of their maxims. Austin meeting with this prompt refusal, endeavored to compromise matters with these strenuous Welshmen, and requested that they would consent to him in three things: one of which was, that they should give baptism to their children. But with none of his proposals would they comply. `Sins, therefore,' said this zealous apostle of popery and pedobaptism, ` ye wol not receive peace of your brethren, ye of other shall have warre and wretche.' And accordingly he brought the Saxons upon them to shed their innocent blood, and many of them lost their lives for the name of Jesus. The Baptist historians in England, contend that the first British Christians were Baptists, and that they maintained Baptist principles until the coming of Austin. `We have no mention,' says the author of the Memoirs, ` of the christening or baptizing children in England, before the coming of Austin in 597; and to us it is evident, that he brought it not from heaven but from Rome.' But though the subjects of baptism began now to be altered, the mode of it continued in the national church a thousand years longer, baptism was administered by dipping. From the coming of Austin, the church in this island was divided into two parts, the old and the new. The old, or Baptist church, maintained the original principles. But the new church adopted infant Baptism, and the rest of the multiplying superstitions of Rome." [Benedict's History of the Baptist Denomination in America, p. 190]
Austin's requesting the ancient British Christians, who opposed his popish mission, to baptize their children, is a circumstance which the English and Welsh Baptist consider of the greatest importance. They infer from it, that before Austin's time, infant baptism was not practiced in the Isle of Britain, and that though he converted multitudes to his Pedo-baptist plan, yet many, especially in Wales and Cornwall, opposed it; and the Welsh Baptists contend, that Baptist principles were maintained in the recesses of their mountainous Principality, all along through the dark reign of popery.
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/early.htm

The Baptists were so named Anabaptists simply because they baptized again, which the word means.
DHK

 

Baptists have a direct connection back to the English Reformation of Thomas Cranmer and have at least a indirect connection with the Radical Reformation of the Anabaptists (The debate rages how much of one). There was definitely a direct connection between Smyth and Helwys General Baptists and the Mennonites. The Calvinist Baptists who began by 1638 showed by their theology to be a marriage between Luther/Calvin's Reformation and the Anabaptist Reformation. There was some direct contact between the Calvinist Baptists and the Europeon Anabaptists but it appears they only learned immersion from the Mennonites. Baptists as a whole showed a mixture of English Puritan and Anabaptist theology.

 

Here are a few tidbits about the Anabaptists:

Contemporary groups with early Anabaptist roots include the Mennonites, Amish, Dunkards, Landmark Baptists, Hutterites, and various Beachy and Brethren groups.

There is no single defining set of beliefs, doctrines, and practices that characterizes all Anabaptists.

The era of the 16th-century Protestant Reformation in Europe spawned a number of radical reform groups, among them the Anabaptists. These Christians regarded the Bible as their only rule for faith and life. Because of their radical beliefs, the Anabaptists were persecuted by other Protestants as well as by Roman Catholics.
Mennonites have been characterized historically by a love for the Word of God, and by a strict demand for holiness of life.

The evangelical and non-revolutionary Anabaptists of Switzerland, Austria, Germany, and the Netherlands, were somewhat of a trial to the leading reformers because of their radical views on the nature of the church and of the Christian ethic.
http://www.anabaptists.org/

 

The only solution when discussing issues
with calvinists is to find yourself
a brick wall and lightly tap your
forehead against it.
It works for me.

John

 

Hmmm, seeing as how the RCC has made public apologies for atrocities of the inquisition and persecution of non-Catholics in the past, it's clear that the RCC has repented.

In any event, it seems several posters here are holding the current members of Catholic and Protestant denominations responsible to the sins of past members. Jesus makes it clear that one does not inhierit or bear the burden of the sins of the parents (original sin notwithstanding). Remember the healing of the blind man? It ws believed that the man was borne blind because he was bearing the sins of his parents and forebearers. But Jesus heals him Why? Because he wasn't responsible for the sins of those who came before him.

Likewise, current members of denominations, both Catholic and Protestant, are not responsible for bearing the burden of sins of the past.

 

Does this mean that when history is taught in the public schools and universities that it is rewritten and revised to such an extent that nothing ever negative is ever taught? What were you taught when you learned American history? Did you never learn about any of the wars: First World War, Second World War, Korean War, Vietnam War, Civil War, War of Independence? Were there any atrocities committed? Were there people that were killed? Was everything positive and rosy? Is it wrong to study history?
DHK

 

then why not be a christian only?

Revelating John

 

DHK said:

The only way to trace a church to the true church is by sound doctrine and to those by name who held to this sound doctrine... There is no other way!... If the Church Of Christ is as they claim the true church... Then I guess the true church didn't exist until Alexander Campbell came along and brought it out of hiding for these many centuries!... Do you brethren really believe this?... Go figure!... Brother Glen

 

From Church History by C.B. & Sylvester Hassell 1886... These persecuted people of God have had, since the first century, a variety of names, generally given them by their enemies, and derived from their location, or from some of their leading ministers, or from some doctrine or practice of theirs which distinguished them from worldly religionists. Until the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century, they were known as Montanists, Tertullianists, Novatians, Donatists, Paulicians, Petrobrusians, Henricians, Arnoldists, Waldenses, Albigenses, United Brethren of Bohemia, and Lollards; many of these were called by the general name of Ana-Baptists (or Re-Baptizers), because they did not acknowledge the scripturalness or validity of infant baptism, and therefore baptized (Paedobaptists said they baptized again) those who joined them on a profession of faith. While these various classes of people differed in minor particulars, and while some of them were in much darkness and error on certain points of truth, they yet held substantially to the same general doctrine and practice- insisting, above all, upon the spirituality of the church of God and her heavenly obligation to walk in humble and loving obedience to all His holy commandments, both in an individual and a church capacity, and not in obedience to the unscriptural traditions and commandments of men. For the last 365 years (since A.D. 1520) they have been called Baptists (for about the first 100 years of this period, also Ana-Baptists), because they baptized (that is, immersed in water, in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost) all who, upon a credible profession of their repentance towards God and faith in Christ, desired to unite with them in a church capacity... If you are wondering what I am I am a Baptist of the Primitive Brethren... Or Primitive Baptist... Class dismissed... Brother Glen

[ June 05, 2002, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: tyndale1946 ]

 

But as you state Ana-baptist are
re-baptizers and re-baptizers are
reacting to what error?
And when did this error come into
being?

Believing and Revelating, John

 

I for one certainly don't believe fairy-tale story. Don't include me in that bunch.
Thank you for your input, and setting the record straight.
DHK

 

John The Revelator said:

When they went against Jesus Christ coming up straight way out of the water... Immersion... Does that about cover it?... I'm positive it does!... Brother Glen

[ June 05, 2002, 03:43 PM: Message edited by: tyndale1946 ]

 

??
Actually i was referring to the
reaction to baptismal regeneration/infant baptism
which did not come into effect until the church
apostasized. So the anabaptist had to have
been established later than that date.

Still Revelating,
John