The term "Reformed"

[The Biblicist]

“By all which ye see by plentiful Evidence, that Christ hath not been without His Witnesses in every age, not only to defend and assert the true, but to impugn, and to reject (yet, even to death itself) the false Baptism. In so much that we are not left without good testimony of a series of succession, that by God’s providence hath even kept afoot, of this great ordinance of believer’s baptism ever since the first times.” Henry D’Anvers, 1674

D'Anvers was a General Baptist who had served as Governer of Standford.

 

[Yeshua1]

In England, during this period the term "Anabaptist" was commonly used to describe Baptists. On the mainland (Europe) there were many different types of Anabaptists (just as there are many types of Baptists in America).

However, at that period it was a term of reproach, not a compliment.

So Baptist arose during te time of the Reformtion....

 

[The Biblicist]

So Baptist arose during te time of the Reformtion....

They arose with the disciples gathered by Christ from John the Baptist.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

They arose with the disciples gathered by Christ from John the Baptist.

Try this out for information:

http://www.reformedreader.org/history/ivey/ch05.htm

 

[JonC]

Dude, I just want to know where these Baptists come from .....Like in Briton where they became so prevalent.

The idea is that Baptist doctrine (what separates baptists from other Christian denominations) existed since the church began. There are evidences that many sects (many we would denounce in terms of doctrine as a whole) held to believers baptism, a free church, etc. That they were Baptists like us....well. that's another story.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

A lot of this stuff was discussed in the 'Baptist History' forum a few months ago. No one is disputing that there were Anabaptists about during the 16th Century. I posted this a while ago.

" In March 1535, there is a Royal proclamation, warning that "of late many strangers, born out of the King's obedience, are arrived and come into this realm, which albeit that they were baptized in their infancy and childhood according to the ordinance of the universal Church of Christ........in contempt of that holy sacrament of baptism so given and received, they have of their own presumption and authority lately rebaptized themselves......
The King's most royal majesty....minding above all things to save his loving subjects.....from falling into any erroneous opinions and damnable heresies......infected by the communion and conversation of such corrupt, seditious and erroneous persons: ordaineth and staitly chargeth and commandeth that all and singular strangers now being in his realm....that have or do hold or teach those or any other erroneous opinions or heresies against God and his Holy Scriptures shall within twelve days next after this present proclamation depart out of the realmand of all his other dominions on pain to suffer death........"

We learn from various sources that around 20 Dutch Anabaptists had been arrested. Seven abjured their faith, the rest were burned- two in London, the rest being despatched around the country to be burned as a warning.

However, these folk were followers of Melchior Hofmann and held to various errors: " ....Whose opinions were: First that in Christ is not two natures, God and man. Secondly: that Christ took neither flesh nor blood of the virgin Marie [sic]: thirdly that children of infidels shall be saued: Fourth: that baptisme of infants is of none effect: Fiftly, that the sacrament of Christ's bodie is but bread onely: sixtly, that he who after his baptisme sinneth wittingly, sinneth deadly, and cannot be saued." (John Stow, The Annales of England)."

This is the earliest documented account of Anabaptists in England, and therefore the earliest account of the punishment of Anabaptists. There are plenty of cases before 1535 where proto-Protestants (Lollards) were arrested and burned but none of these was accused of baptizing adults or not baptizing infants.

Henry executed Lollards and Anabaptists indiscriminately (more that he did Roman Catholics). The only Christian to be executed during the reign of Edward VI was Joan Boucher (Joan of Kent) who was an Anabaptist subscribing to the melchiorite heresy mentioned above. The majority of those martyred under 'Bloody Mary' were also Anabaptists.

When the Particular Baptists arose 100 years later, they were very keen not to be confused with the Anabaptists. The introduction to the 1646 Confession reads:-

A confession of faith of seven congregations or churches of Christ in London which are commonly, but unjustly, called Anabaptists; published for the vindication of the truth and information of the ignorant; likewise for the taking off of those aspersions which are frequently, both in pulpit and in print, unjustly cast upon them.

Who were the ignorant who needed to be informed? Those who thought these seven churches were Anabaptist.
What were the aspersions being made in pulpit and press about the churches? That they were Anabaptist.

So to prove that they were nothing whatsoever to do with the Anabaptists, the leaders of these churches compiled a confession based on the True Confession of Henry Ainsworth and the Marrow of Sacred Divinity of William Ames, both paedobaptist documents.

The seven churches therefore did not come out of Anabaptism, but out of Independent Protestantism.

 

[The Biblicist]

A lot of this stuff was discussed in the 'Baptist History' forum a few months ago. No one is disputing that there were Anabaptists about during the 16th Century. I posted this a while ago.

" In March 1535, there is a Royal proclamation, warning that "of late many strangers, born out of the King's obedience, are arrived and come into this realm, which albeit that they were baptized in their infancy and childhood according to the ordinance of the universal Church of Christ........in contempt of that holy sacrament of baptism so given and received, they have of their own presumption and authority lately rebaptized themselves......
The King's most royal majesty....minding above all things to save his loving subjects.....from falling into any erroneous opinions and damnable heresies......infected by the communion and conversation of such corrupt, seditious and erroneous persons: ordaineth and staitly chargeth and commandeth that all and singular strangers now being in his realm....that have or do hold or teach those or any other erroneous opinions or heresies against God and his Holy Scriptures shall within twelve days next after this present proclamation depart out of the realmand of all his other dominions on pain to suffer death........"

We learn from various sources that around 20 Dutch Anabaptists had been arrested. Seven abjured their faith, the rest were burned- two in London, the rest being despatched around the country to be burned as a warning.

However, these folk were followers of Melchior Hofmann and held to various errors: " ....Whose opinions were: First that in Christ is not two natures, God and man. Secondly: that Christ took neither flesh nor blood of the virgin Marie [sic]: thirdly that children of infidels shall be saued: Fourth: that baptisme of infants is of none effect: Fiftly, that the sacrament of Christ's bodie is but bread onely: sixtly, that he who after his baptisme sinneth wittingly, sinneth deadly, and cannot be saued." (John Stow, The Annales of England)."

This is the earliest documented account of Anabaptists in England, and therefore the earliest account of the punishment of Anabaptists. There are plenty of cases before 1535 where proto-Protestants (Lollards) were arrested and burned but none of these was accused of baptizing adults or not baptizing infants.

Henry executed Lollards and Anabaptists indiscriminately (more that he did Roman Catholics). The only Christian to be executed during the reign of Edward VI was Joan Boucher (Joan of Kent) who was an Anabaptist subscribing to the melchiorite heresy mentioned above. The majority of those martyred under 'Bloody Mary' were also Anabaptists.

When the Particular Baptists arose 100 years later, they were very keen not to be confused with the Anabaptists. The introduction to the 1646 Confession reads:-

A confession of faith of seven congregations or churches of Christ in London which are commonly, but unjustly, called Anabaptists; published for the vindication of the truth and information of the ignorant; likewise for the taking off of those aspersions which are frequently, both in pulpit and in print, unjustly cast upon them.

Who were the ignorant who needed to be informed? Those who thought these seven churches were Anabaptist.
What were the aspersions being made in pulpit and press about the churches? That they were Anabaptist.

So to prove that they were nothing whatsoever to do with the Anabaptists, the leaders of these churches compiled a confession based on the True Confession of Henry Ainsworth and the Marrow of Sacred Divinity of William Ames, both paedobaptist documents.

The seven churches therefore did not come out of Anabaptism, but out of Independent Protestantism.

First, it is pure assumption these were the earliest Anabaptists in England. It is one thing to state the earliest record and it is quite another thing to prove these are the earliest Anabaptists in England, especially when several churches in England claim existence long before this record.

Second, the seven churches of London did not originate with Paedobaptist clergy. Dr. Featly proves they were in existence in great numbers in 1625 long before Whitsitt's theory, long before the 1633 theory.

Third, in 1575 there was a congregation of Dutch Anabaptists in London who believed that Jesus Christ was both God and man. (a church in Broadmead, p. lxvii)

 

[JonC]

First, it is pure assumption these were the earliest Anabaptists in England. It is one thing to state the earliest record and it is quite another thing to prove these are the earliest Anabaptists in England, especially when several churches in England claim existence long before this record.

Typically, in dealing with history, when people say "these were", what is meant is per the historical account. That individual churches have claimed a physical lineage into antiquity is obvious, but the problem is that such claims are generally baseless as they have nothing but their own desire - perhaps a hold over ideology of apostolic succession - to hold such mythology.

Of your positions,you stated that MartinM’s conclusion was pure assumption when his conclusion was in fact a deduction from the historical account. If Anabaptists were present in England earlier, then they would have been subject to the same punishment as were the Lollards (for the same reasons). It is a legitimate conclusion. Your conclusion, however, that these groups existed earlier apart from any historical account or evidences (except a strong and natural desire for a physical heritage) is pure assumption.

The reason that I disagree so strongly with the assumption that there has always been a church like ours (Baptist like us) is that I see it as diminishing the church, and God's preservation of the church, throughout history to an assumption that for the most part of history the church was but a remnant - Hell had indeed prevailed against and stifled her - until the Reformation where the oppressors (the false church) liberated her through their own struggles.

But to each their own.

 

[JonC]

A lot of this stuff was discussed in the 'Baptist History' forum a few months ago. No one is disputing that there were Anabaptists about during the 16th Century. I posted this a while ago.

" In March 1535, there is a Royal proclamation, warning that "of late many strangers, born out of the King's obedience, are arrived and come into this realm, which albeit that they were baptized in their infancy and childhood according to the ordinance of the universal Church of Christ........in contempt of that holy sacrament of baptism so given and received, they have of their own presumption and authority lately rebaptized themselves......
The King's most royal majesty....minding above all things to save his loving subjects.....from falling into any erroneous opinions and damnable heresies......infected by the communion and conversation of such corrupt, seditious and erroneous persons: ordaineth and staitly chargeth and commandeth that all and singular strangers now being in his realm....that have or do hold or teach those or any other erroneous opinions or heresies against God and his Holy Scriptures shall within twelve days next after this present proclamation depart out of the realmand of all his other dominions on pain to suffer death........"

We learn from various sources that around 20 Dutch Anabaptists had been arrested. Seven abjured their faith, the rest were burned- two in London, the rest being despatched around the country to be burned as a warning.

However, these folk were followers of Melchior Hofmann and held to various errors: " ....Whose opinions were: First that in Christ is not two natures, God and man. Secondly: that Christ took neither flesh nor blood of the virgin Marie [sic]: thirdly that children of infidels shall be saued: Fourth: that baptisme of infants is of none effect: Fiftly, that the sacrament of Christ's bodie is but bread onely: sixtly, that he who after his baptisme sinneth wittingly, sinneth deadly, and cannot be saued." (John Stow, The Annales of England)."

This is the earliest documented account of Anabaptists in England, and therefore the earliest account of the punishment of Anabaptists. There are plenty of cases before 1535 where proto-Protestants (Lollards) were arrested and burned but none of these was accused of baptizing adults or not baptizing infants.

Henry executed Lollards and Anabaptists indiscriminately (more that he did Roman Catholics). The only Christian to be executed during the reign of Edward VI was Joan Boucher (Joan of Kent) who was an Anabaptist subscribing to the melchiorite heresy mentioned above. The majority of those martyred under 'Bloody Mary' were also Anabaptists.

When the Particular Baptists arose 100 years later, they were very keen not to be confused with the Anabaptists. The introduction to the 1646 Confession reads:-

A confession of faith of seven congregations or churches of Christ in London which are commonly, but unjustly, called Anabaptists; published for the vindication of the truth and information of the ignorant; likewise for the taking off of those aspersions which are frequently, both in pulpit and in print, unjustly cast upon them.

Who were the ignorant who needed to be informed? Those who thought these seven churches were Anabaptist.
What were the aspersions being made in pulpit and press about the churches? That they were Anabaptist.

So to prove that they were nothing whatsoever to do with the Anabaptists, the leaders of these churches compiled a confession based on the True Confession of Henry Ainsworth and the Marrow of Sacred Divinity of William Ames, both paedobaptist documents.

The seven churches therefore did not come out of Anabaptism, but out of Independent Protestantism.

Good points.

Even before that there were others who sought to link Baptists apart from Protestants and existing throughout the corridors of time as the true church by linking them to such sects as the Donatists (the validity of the sacraments depend on the faithfulness of the priest), the Paulicians (a 7th century attempt to reform the RCC under the authority of Scripture), and the Waldensians (the 12th century sect that became a part of the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century).

So while I agree with a spiritual kinship separate from the RCC, I think we also have to realize the debt we owe the Reformers in terms of what constitutes our Baptist churches today. While we may accept a typical Anabaptist (although we may view him as extreme and take exception to his focus on Christus Victor theory/ rejection of the “Penal” part of Christ’s death) into our churches, they would be hard pressed to accept a typical Baptist into fellowship (our views on oaths, separation, public service, etc. are in contrast to what they held as fundamental).

 

[The Biblicist]

Typically, in dealing with history, when people say "these were", what is meant is per the historical account. That individual churches have claimed a physical lineage into antiquity is obvious, but the problem is that such claims are generally baseless as they have nothing but their own desire - perhaps a hold over ideology of apostolic succession - to hold such mythology.

What you are dismissing as pure "desire" or "mythology" was the position of all Particular Baptists living at the very time Reformed advocates claim Baptists began. What you are dismissing as pure "desire" or "mythology" is the united testimony of every single solitary English Baptist historian in the seventeenth and early eighteenth century. What you are dismissing as pure "desire" or "mythology" is the testimony of archeological evidences in the church graveyards that all living in that vicinity had no questions about. There are dated headstones. What you are dismissing as pure "desire" or "mythology" John Knox was complaining about in Scotland at the very same time this historical documentation of this one particular group is noted.

The Whitsitt, aka Reformed view of origins is thoroughly disproven by Dr.James Featley, and by the obvious sound Anabaptist congregation existing in London in 1575.

So, it seems that if any position is motivated by "desire" and "mythology" it is the position you are defending and Martin is defending.

However, I am going to drop out of this discussion at this point, and in fact going drop out of this forum for a while as I am going to spend the next few months thoroughly going through original sources in that period in England. So you fella's just have a hay day while I am gone.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Typically, in dealing with history, when people say "these were", what is meant is per the historical account. That individual churches have claimed a physical lineage into antiquity is obvious, but the problem is that such claims are generally baseless as they have nothing but their own desire - perhaps a hold over ideology of apostolic succession - to hold such mythology.

Of your positions,you stated that MartinM’s conclusion was pure assumption when his conclusion was in fact a deduction from the historical account. If Anabaptists were present in England earlier, then they would have been subject to the same punishment as were the Lollards (for the same reasons). It is a legitimate conclusion. Your conclusion, however, that these groups existed earlier apart from any historical account or evidences (except a strong and natural desire for a physical heritage) is pure assumption.

The reason that I disagree so strongly with the assumption that there has always been a church like ours (Baptist like us) is that I see it as diminishing the church, and God's preservation of the church, throughout history to an assumption that for the most part of history the church was but a remnant - Hell had indeed prevailed against and stifled her - until the Reformation where the oppressors (the false church) liberated her through their own struggles.

But to each their own.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe (and others) are saying there was a remnant Christian people who had nothing to do with Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, Presbyterianism ( as well as other protestant church groups)....yes others from these named churches can & did join them (Baptists) but they (the " Pure" Believers Baptists") maintained their ....can I say it, 'Structural Integrity' and were never polluted by the apostates (who trace their heritage back to Catholicism--God Forbid!

My primary question still is "Where did these 'Pure Baptists' come from?"

 

[JonC]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe (and others) are saying there was a remnant Christian people who had nothing to do with Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, Presbyterianism ( as well as other protestant church groups)....yes others from these named churches can & did join them (Baptists) but they (the " Pure" Believers Baptists") maintained their ....can I say it, 'Structural Integrity' and were never polluted by the apostates (who trace their heritage back to Catholicism--God Forbid!

My primary question still is "Where did these 'Pure Baptists' come from?"

The idea that there was a "Pure Baptist church" like ours is a fantasy that fades quickly when we realize that the churches in Acts did not hold exactly the same doctrines and views (yet were true churches). But that the doctrines that form the Baptist identity existed is, I believe, reasonable. The church has always been presented as organic, and those who look throughout history for actual churches representing their doctrine as a whole are simply tweaking apostolic succession and applying it to a physical lineage of churches to support their romish ecclesiology.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

First, it is pure assumption these were the earliest Anabaptists in England. It is one thing to state the earliest record and it is quite another thing to prove these are the earliest Anabaptists in England, especially when several churches in England claim existence long before this record.

The document I quoted is a solid fact. If there were Anabaptist congregations in England before that time, there is no direct evidence for them, only anecdotal.

Second, the seven churches of London did not originate with Paedobaptist clergy. Dr. Featly proves they were in existence in great numbers in 1625 long before Whitsitt's theory, long before the 1633 theory.

Can you give me the names of the original Pastors of the seven churches? If not, how do you know they did not come out of Protestant churches as Knollys and Kiffin did? Daniel Featly was the great opponent of the earliest Baptists. Kiffin and two others debated him in 1642. His aim was to show that, contrary to their claims, the Baptists were indeed no better than Anabaptists and therefore not to be considered orthodox. It was due to his criticisms that the 1644 Confession was replaced by the 1646 with its clearer disassociation from the Anabaptists. [See Featly's book, The Dippers dip't: or the Anabaptists duck'd and plung'd over head and ears at a Disputation in Southwark]

Third, in 1575 there was a congregation of Dutch Anabaptists in London who believed that Jesus Christ was both God and man. (a church in Broadmead, p. lxvii)

Well whoopee-do! So there was an Anabaptist church that wasn't heretical- in its Christology, at least. What does that prove? The signatories of the 1644 and 1646 Confessions were eager to show that they had nothing to do with such churches.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe (and others) are saying there was a remnant Christian people who had nothing to do with Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, Presbyterianism ( as well as other protestant church groups)....yes others from these named churches can & did join them (Baptists) but they (the " Pure" Believers Baptists") maintained their ....can I say it, 'Structural Integrity' and were never polluted by the apostates (who trace their heritage back to Catholicism--God Forbid!

You will not find such people. The 'Trail of Blood' is a myth. There were groups before the Reformation which practised Believers' Baptism but you would not want to be associated with the Paulicians or Albigensians, both of whom were utterly heretical. The Petrobusians and Waldensians were better, but not all Waldensians practised Believers' Baptism.

Although we respect and honour the Anabaptists for being the first to practise Independency and Separation of Church and State, the theology of almost all of them does not bear close inspection. Most of them were Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian; many (most?) of them denied that the Lord Jesus took flesh from His mother; many either denied the Trinity or were unsound about it. Others denied the Fall and/or salvation by faith Alone.

My primary question still is "Where did these 'Pure Baptists' come from?"

We are all 'unprofitable servants,' but the Particular Baptists came out of the Independent churches, and they took their doctrine of Independency, not from the Anabaptists, but from the Brownists.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Think early Church made it easier, just called themselves Christians!
That is a problem in todays churches, as we tend tos ee ourselves as Reformed/Baptist/Presby etc before being Christians!

When you get your,'Who am I?', question right, all of your,'What should I do?' questions tend to take care of themselves. That in itself will simply make you more usable for God.

 

[rsr]

Interesting that Dr. Featley's evidence should be so revered. His testimony is that there were "Anabaptists" in the 1620s, which seems to me be rather unremarkable.

Still, before one establishes Featley as an expert upon all things Baptistic, listen to Samuel Richardson, a Particular Baptist pastor and signer of the First London Confession, who responds to The Dippers Dipt:


But the Doctor charges us in his book, with many things that we hold:

That no malefactor ought to be put to death,

That it is lawful to have more wives then one at once,

That a man may put away his wife if she differ from him in point or religion,

That we are to go naked, and not be ashamed,

That we hold it lawful to slay wicked Magistrates,

That no Christian may go to law, but right himself by violent means,

That wicked men have no properiety in their goods, but all things ought to be hold in common,

That we maintain pretended Revelations,

That Christ took not flesh of the virgin Mary,

That there is no original sin,

That men have free will in spiritual actions,

That election is for foreseen faith and repentance,

That God gives all men sufficient grace to be saved,

That a man hath free will of himself to accept or refuse grace, That Christ died indifferently alike for all,

That a true believer may fall away from grace totally and finally,


And that we hold Libertinism & Familism, and such like stuff which we utterly abhore and detest; and if God permit, we shall in the next impression of the Confession of our Faith, more fully declare jointly what we believe, and therefore I will not answer his exceptions, which he makes at some of the Articles, but leave it to them to answer for themselves, which will be before long, if God permits.

But I am sure, all this poison (which he charges upon us) is drawn out of the impure fountain of divers Heretics, in which he labors to drown us in; and I wonder how his conscience would permit him to heave so many untruths into the Press; but (as Christ said, John 16:2, and) he was encouraged by Sleiden, Grabriel, Abres, Alsterdus, and others, Oh, I think I hear the press grone, if not sweat under the burden of so many heavy charges; and sure his grones will be much greater when God opens his eyes, and shows him what he hath done, which the Lord in mercy do, if it be His will. I hope I may say as Christ did, Father forigve him, for he knows not what he has done, (Matt. 5:44, 11,12).

 

[The Biblicist]

The document I quoted is a solid fact.

I never challenged the document, only your interpretation of it.

Can you give me the names of the original Pastors of the seven churches?

John Spilsbury, Wapping Street Baptist Church.

Daniel Featly was the great opponent of the earliest Baptists. Kiffin and two others debated him in 1642. His aim was to show that, contrary to their claims, the Baptists were indeed no better than Anabaptists and therefore not to be considered orthodox.

Featley identified them as Anabaptists and then attempted to smear them by comparing them to the contential Anabaptists. I just finished reading The Dippers dip't: or the Anabaptists duck'd and plung'd over head and ears at a Disputation in Southwark.

Well whoopee-do! So there was an Anabaptist church that wasn't heretical- in its Christology, at least. What does that prove? The signatories of the 1644 and 1646 Confessions were eager to show that they had nothing to do with such churches.

It proves your either ignorant of English Baptist history or intentionally being deceptive. They denied identification with the contential Anabaptists that Featley was comparing them to but purposely identified with previous English Anapbaptists as Broadmead Street Church records clearly and explicitly show. Broadmead was constituted in 1640.

I told JonC that I would be dropping out for awhile to do some more research. However, your ridiculous remarks could not be left unanswered.

 

[The Biblicist]

Interesting that Dr. Featley's evidence should be so revered. His testimony is that there were "Anabaptists" in the 1620s, which seems to me be rather unremarkable.

Still, before one establishes Featley as an expert upon all things Baptistic, listen to Samuel Richardson, a Particular Baptist pastor and signer of the First London Confession, who responds to The Dippers Dipt:


But the Doctor charges us in his book, with many things that we hold:

That no malefactor ought to be put to death,

That it is lawful to have more wives then one at once,

That a man may put away his wife if she differ from him in point or religion,

That we are to go naked, and not be ashamed,

That we hold it lawful to slay wicked Magistrates,

That no Christian may go to law, but right himself by violent means,

That wicked men have no properiety in their goods, but all things ought to be hold in common,

That we maintain pretended Revelations,

That Christ took not flesh of the virgin Mary,

That there is no original sin,

That men have free will in spiritual actions,

That election is for foreseen faith and repentance,

That God gives all men sufficient grace to be saved,

That a man hath free will of himself to accept or refuse grace, That Christ died indifferently alike for all,

That a true believer may fall away from grace totally and finally,


And that we hold Libertinism & Familism, and such like stuff which we utterly abhore and detest; and if God permit, we shall in the next impression of the Confession of our Faith, more fully declare jointly what we believe, and therefore I will not answer his exceptions, which he makes at some of the Articles, but leave it to them to answer for themselves, which will be before long, if God permits.

But I am sure, all this poison (which he charges upon us) is drawn out of the impure fountain of divers Heretics, in which he labors to drown us in; and I wonder how his conscience would permit him to heave so many untruths into the Press; but (as Christ said, John 16:2, and) he was encouraged by Sleiden, Grabriel, Abres, Alsterdus, and others, Oh, I think I hear the press grone, if not sweat under the burden of so many heavy charges; and sure his grones will be much greater when God opens his eyes, and shows him what he hath done, which the Lord in mercy do, if it be His will. I hope I may say as Christ did, Father forigve him, for he knows not what he has done, (Matt. 5:44, 11,12).

I just finished reading Dr. Featley and he was purposely trying to identify them with the more heretical continential Anabaptists and their extremes. However, Featley claimed to be eye witness to baptism by immersion "head over ears" "dipt" near his own home for "over twenty years" and none of the Baptists (who were still being called anabaptists" denied it. They only denied the intentional smear job that paedobaptists sympathizers are still using on this forum.

 

[The Biblicist]

You will not find such people. The 'Trail of Blood' is a myth. There were groups before the Reformation which practised Believers' Baptism but you would not want to be associated with the Paulicians or Albigensians, both of whom were utterly heretical. The Petrobusians and Waldensians were better, but not all Waldensians practised Believers' Baptism.

The only myth is historical knowledge. You are more than willing to believe the reports of the paedobaptists. Anyone who has done any serious study in the Anabaptist history knows there were many different groups who differed with each other in many different areas. Notice your own language "most."

For the most part you are the eager mouthpiece to spread the foul false accusations by their enemies.

.

We are all 'unprofitable servants,' but the Particular Baptists came out of the Independent churches, and they took their doctrine of Independency, not from the Anabaptists, but from the Brownists.

What an abominable lie! You have absolutely no evidence to prove that. The 1640 Baptists themselves utterly repudiated that very thing. The Broadmead church records clearly distinguishes between these groups and utterly repudiates your accusations.

 

[JonC]

What you are dismissing as pure "desire" or "mythology" was the position of all Particular Baptists living at the very time Reformed advocates claim Baptists began.....

Yes, I know. It was also the position of the early SBC leadership (I grew up and still attend a SBC affiliated church). It is also the position of Landmark Baptists, a variety of other Baptists, the Church of Christ, the Church of God, Iglesia Ni Cristo, the Seventh Day Adventists, the Oriental Orthodox Church, and the Catholic Church. Interestingly, they all believe they are the one true church started by Jesus for about the same reasons. And I believe that they all misunderstand the nature of the church in about the same way.