# Baptist view of Anabaptist?



## arapahoepark (Nov 27, 2015)

What is the Reformed Baptist view of the Anabaptists? Don't reformed baptists trace their history through Puritanism?


----------



## DMcFadden (Nov 27, 2015)

Two schools of thought exist regarding the origin of Baptists. One school, emphasizing similarities with views on separation of church and state, believer baptism, etc., attempt to link modern Baptists to the Anabaptists. The other approach (the one which I always held when a Baptist) was to trace Baptists to English congregationalism, dissent, and Puritanism.

I would expect that any Baptists on the PB would proffer the explanation seeing ties to Puritanism. The LBCF of 1689 essentially replicates the WCF with "Baptist" revisions (e.g., baptism). A careful study of radical reformational emphases in Anabaptism will reveal a mystical approach to revelation and voluntaristic understanding that stand at odds with the Calvinistic Westminster doctrine of the LBCF of 1689.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Nov 28, 2015)

I agree with the comments above on the 1689 Confession.

A close friend of mine actually wrote on this topic. Hope you find this useful. http://rbc.org.nz/library/anabap.htm


----------



## Captain Picard (Nov 28, 2015)

The modern anti-Calvinistic faction in the SBC are functionally neo-anabaptistic, and proud of it.

It's not a Reformed movement.


----------



## Edward (Nov 28, 2015)

DMcFadden said:


> Two schools of thought exist regarding the origin of Baptists.



Well, there is actually a third. Trail of Blood.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Nov 28, 2015)

The conventional wisdom of the 20th century was that since baptist practiced the baptism of disciples alone, and the Anabaptists did as well, Baptists must have descended from them. But this is flawed logic and historically inaccurate. Saying Baptists came from the Anabaptist movement because they both affirm the credobaptist position neglects the many other distinctive characteristics of the English Baptists that were completely at odds with the Anabaptists. Indeed, early Baptists in England regarded the Anabaptists as heretics (and rightfully so). 

The popularity of the idea that Baptists came out of the Anabaptist movement was the result of modern day liberal revisionists endeavoring to white-wash their liberalism with ideas that inhere in Anabaptist thought (i.e. individual soul liberty, priesthood of the believer, a deeds-not-creeds approach to Christianity). Modern liberal Baptists saw in Anabaptist thought many things that added a historical credibility to their modern perversions of the faith. And this attempt carried the day. It became the dominant theory of Baptist origins and identity in the 20th century and has only begun to be seriously challenged in recent years.

The bottom-line is this: Historical origins determine present identity, present identity determines future direction. That is why this issue is so important. If the history of a group's origins can be changed, their present identity and trajectory can be changed with it.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Nov 28, 2015)

Edward said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> > Two schools of thought exist regarding the origin of Baptists.
> ...



When I took Baptist history at SEBTS, we were taught that there were four theories of Baptist origin. I don't remember all four anymore, but we were taught that the Puritan view was the only view that could be historically established.


----------



## Edward (Nov 28, 2015)

Bill The Baptist said:


> When I took Baptist history at SEBTS, we were taught that there were four theories of Baptist origin.



May have found them: 
http://joshteis.com/home/2013/07/16/four-views-of-baptist-origins/
Separatists
Anabaptists
Trail of Blood
Continuation of Biblical Teaching (as I understand it, Baptists will emerge whenever the Bible is available)

I had never heard of that last one. Thanks for broadening my horizons today.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Nov 28, 2015)

Edward said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > When I took Baptist history at SEBTS, we were taught that there were four theories of Baptist origin.
> ...



Yes that looks right. The Trail of Blood is especially far-fetched, kind of like a Baptist version of apostolic succession.


----------



## arapahoepark (Nov 28, 2015)

Bill The Baptist said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> > Bill The Baptist said:
> ...



So is that basically that those persecuted by the church, or whatever, were/are Baptists?


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Nov 28, 2015)

arap said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > Edward said:
> ...



Yeah the argument is basically that there have always been Christians who were not a part of the Roman church and modern day Baptists are descended from these Christians, and thus a clear line can be established from the modern day Baptists all the way back to the apostles. Those who subscribe to this theory are fond of saying that Baptists aren't Protestants. The trouble with this view is that it is completely lacking in any historical evidence. There is simply nothing tangible that connects these groups with modern day Baptists.


----------



## Edward (Nov 28, 2015)

Bill The Baptist said:


> Yes that looks right. The Trail of Blood is especially far-fetched, kind of like a Baptist version of apostolic succession.



But ... I was told by my Baptist antecedents that Jesus was a Baptist because he was baptized by John the Baptist.


----------



## VictorBravo (Nov 28, 2015)

Edward said:


> But ... I was told by my Baptist antecedents that Jesus was a Baptist because he was baptized by John the Baptist.



Well, yes. The KJV tells us that John was a Baptist, so why not?

Of course, the Baptist's diet of locust and wild honey diet sort of fell by the wayside in favor of pot-lucks (oops, I mean pot-Providences....).


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Nov 28, 2015)

Edward said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > Yes that looks right. The Trail of Blood is especially far-fetched, kind of like a Baptist version of apostolic succession.
> ...



The worst thing about this is not the inaccurate view of church history that has been formulated by the literarily challenged, but rather the overreaction to this misunderstanding that has resulted in the horribly awkward expression "John the Baptizer."


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 28, 2015)

I just had an idea:

Trail of Blood is like the baptist version of the Steelites!


----------



## Grimmson (Nov 29, 2015)

No one quoted the First London:
"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 those aspersions which are frequently, both in pulpit and print, unjustly cast upon them."
At least that what the particular Baptist thought when they published this in 1646. As you can see they did not see themselves as Anabaptists then.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Nov 29, 2015)

A related point is why the Particular Baptists wrote the 1644/1646 and 1689 Confessions was to demonstrate they were in the Puritan, not Anabaptist heritage. They wanted to distance themselves from the Anabaptists. Further the Anglicans wanted to throw Anabaptist mud at them but in truth it did not stick!!


----------



## TheOldCourse (Nov 29, 2015)

On the other side these confessions also demonstrate that many Reformed still did, in fact, view them as Anabaptists and that association is not an invention of later liberal historians. Any analysis that seeks either to divorce them completely from or identify them completely with the Anabaptists is probably not a balanced one. In some respects it may be useful to see them as a heirs of both traditions who, thankfully, jettisoned many of the most egregious errors of the Anabaptists.


----------

