# The Birth of Anabaptism



## Steve Owen (Jan 20, 2006)

Jan 21st is the anniversary of the first Anabaptist baptism in 1525.

*'And it came to pass that they were together until anxiety came upon them, yes, they were so pressed within their hearts. Thereupon they began to bow their knees to the Most High God in heaven and called upon Him as the Informer of Hearts and they prayed that He would give to them His divine will and that He would show mercy unto them. For flesh and blood and human forwardness did not drive them, since they knew well what they would have to suffer on account of it.

After the prayer, George of the House of Jacob stood up and besought Conrad Grebel for God's sake to baptize him with the true Christian baptism upon his faith and knowledge. And when he knelt down with such a request and desire, Conrad baptized him, since at that time there was no ordained minister to perform such work.'*

From _ The Large Chronicle of the Hutterian Brethren_

After being baptized by Grebel, George [Blaurock] baptized all the others present. They then pledged themselves as true disciples of Christ to live lives separated from the world and to hold the faith.

Martin

[Edited on 1-20-2006 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jan 20, 2006)

Too bad they didn't STAY separated from the world...


----------



## BrianBowman (Jan 20, 2006)

Martin,

Could you perhaps enlighten us on the history of the Anabaptists and how (or if) they are doctrinally related to the Reformed Baptists of today? I'm very ignorant on these matters on the whole. The only thing I understand is that the Mennonites and Amish of today trace their heritage to the Anabaptists.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 20, 2006)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabaptist

http://www.dr-fnlee.org/obbephil.html

http://www.dr-fnlee.org/anabfr.html


----------



## pastorway (Jan 20, 2006)

FN Lee's material is flat wrong on too many counts to note. Do not waste your time wading through his propaganda. He has an axe to grind against Baptists and highlighted and overstated only the worst of things that there was to tell about anyone remotely connected with the Anabaptist movement. Why everyone points right away to his work on this I will truly never know. And anyone who agrees with what he has written about anything Baptist is being fed a line and should know better.

They were not perfect. Some were in serious error. But men and women who belonged to Jesus Christ and were devoted to Him and His Word were MURDERED by those who wrote the history books.

For anyone to tie a woman to a chair and throw her in the river in the name of "baptizing" her in this way to punish her for submitting to believers baptism cannot be seen as ever remotely honoring to Christ. Much less the burning at the stake, torture, and other things that were done and encouraged even by reformers because of a disagreement on baptism! 

And where has this history brought us? I am not nearly so concerned about the descendents of the Anabaptists - but the descendents of those who MURDERED them are still spouting forth this insanity. 

Lee has stated that he, if given the chance, would demand that Baptists repent and if they do not he would put Baptist parents today in prison to punish them for their failure to baptize their children - and then take their children away from them and put them in Presbyterian homes so that they might be baptized and brought up in the church. 

Which view is more dangerous for the church? Tell me please? 



Phillip


----------



## raderag (Jan 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> Lee has stated that he, if given the chance, would demand that Baptists repent and if they do not he would put Baptist parents today in prison to punish them for their failure to baptize their children - and then take their children away from them and put them in Presbyterian homes so that they might be baptized and brought up in the church.
> 
> Which view is more dangerous for the church? Tell me please?
> ...



Yikes!!


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BrianBowman_
> Martin,
> 
> Could you perhaps enlighten us on the history of the Anabaptists and how (or if) they are doctrinally related to the Reformed Baptists of today? I'm very ignorant on these matters on the whole. The only thing I understand is that the Mennonites and Amish of today trace their heritage to the Anabaptists.



Brian, the origin of the English Baptists is a perpetual debate. The question is whether they primarily came out of English Puritanism or were they influenced by the continental anabaptists, and if so, to what degree. There have always been two types of Baptists from the beginning, the Particular Baptists and the General Baptists, particular and general relating to their views on the extent of the atonement. The Particular Baptists seem to have largely come out of English Puritanism, especially those who were responsible for the 1st and 2nd London Confessions, which were primarily aimed at differentiating themselves from some the anabaptists' more unorthodox views. 

There's also the Baptist successionist view (related to the "Baptist brider" view) which argues for an unbroken succession of Baptist churches from the time of Christ. "The Trail of Blood" is a popular example of this.

[Edited on 1-20-2006 by Pilgrim]


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> FN Lee's material is flat wrong on too many counts to note. Do not waste your time wading through his propaganda. He has an axe to grind against Baptists and highlighted and overstated only the worst of things that there was to tell about anyone remotely connected with the Anabaptist movement. Why everyone points right away to his work on this I will truly never know. And anyone who agrees with what he has written about anything Baptist is being fed a line and should know better.
> 
> They were not perfect. Some were in serious error. But men and women who belonged to Jesus Christ and were devoted to Him and His Word were MURDERED by those who wrote the history books.
> ...



Pastor Way,

Dr. Lee is polemical, no doubt. I've read many of the articles on his website and, while I did see him call for repentance on the part of Baptists, I didn't see the part where he'd imprison Baptist parents and put the kids in Presbyterian homes. Do you know where he states this?


----------



## Puritanhead (Jan 20, 2006)

On behalf of congregationalists and baptists in America--- I remind everyone, that most all Baptists in this country have an English or British pedigree, and were not beholdened to the heresies of libertinism condemned by Calvin. Don't paint us with this brush.


----------



## pastorway (Jan 20, 2006)

This is just some of what he had written in "The Anabaptists and their Stepchildren."

In this work he wrongly starts with this assumption:



> The Baptists are the (equally antipaidobaptistic) stepchildren of the Anabaptists. Baptists, however, have baptized by single submersion -- at least ever since about 1638. In this, they have followed Mediaeval Romanism -- and repudiated both the Protestant Reformation and most Anabaptists.



Because he automatically makes a connection between credos and the Anabaptists he is off on the worng foot throughout the rest of his work. He tries to show that Baptists claim to descend from the Anabaptists, and while many do just that, he fails to identify the FACT that the First London Baptist Confession of Faith, penned by CALVINISTIC Baptists who repudiated the Anabaptists, begins with these words:



> *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.*



A simple reading on our confessions proves how wrong Lee is on what he writes about what we believe. But because he so overemphasizes infant baptism, even saying that to baptize an infant is to write God's name of their forehead, he misses the point of all that we have in common between credo and paedo churches.

He likens modern day Baptists with these others groups:



> the Christadelphians, the Mormons, the Seventh-day Adventists, the Jehovah witnesses, the Pentecostalists, and the left- wing liberationists



He also labels us in the same category as:



> sacramentalists like the Campbellites; unitarian Christadelphians; 'charismatic' Pentecostalists; premillennial Dispensationalists; polygamous proto-Mormons; state-hating "Jehovah's witnesses"; soul-sleeping Seventh-day Adventists; and various assorted deniers of everlasting punishment.



He goes on to state that those who do not baptize infants are "heretics."

And it just gets worse from there.

In closing he writes the following:



> God has not left us in the dark as to how to overcome Anabaptist (and all other deleterious) influences even in our modern world. Those methods are: firstly, the powerful preaching of the Gospel; secondly, the 'improving' (or daily living-out) of one's own baptism; thirdly, the joyful outworking of the preached Word of God; fourthly, the State's punishment of criminals.
> 
> "For their publishing of such opinions or maintaining of such practices as are contrary to the light of nature or to the known principles of Christianity..., *they may lawfully be called to account and proceeded against...by the power of the civil magistrate*.





> It is an earnest petition that the Church be* "purged from corruption" such as Anabaptism*, and be *"countenanced and maintained by the Civil Magistrate"* against all ungodliness -- so "that the Ordinances of Christ may be purely dispensed." Romans 10:1f & 11:25f. This is a petition that baptism no longer be limited by some to adults alone -- nor repeated in adulthood to those already baptized in infancy.
> 
> The Westminster Assembly's Directory for the Publick Worship of God rightly understands the above petition to be a promise that the Church will ultimately calvinize all the world. That includes *de-brainwashing heretics* -- and redirecting them toward the untruncated Word of God.



and finally:



> standing upon Scripture, Christian Calvinists now say to all such stepchildren: "Anabaptists of all countries -- repent!"We therefore call upon all of the various stepchildren of the Anabaptists -- including justified Baptists; heretical Seventh-day Adventists; apostate "Jehovah witnesses"; polytheistic Mormons; and atheistic Communists -- to repent of their great sin of antipaidobaptism (and of all their other sins)



The part about taking Baptist children away and giving them to Presbyterian families was posted by Lee on an internet forum years ago. I referenced it before on the PB but that was long ago purged by one of our board crashes or overhauls. I cannot find it on the internet any longer - but had given a sourse for it in the past and Lee has never, that I have found, repudiated that view.

Lee has made his case in this work and on internet forums and it is a case that is lacking! I proved that with a simple post of the introduction to the _First London Baptist Confession_. The Second Confession, 1689, states the same. Particular and Reformed Baptists do not claim to have descended, nor can it be proved that they have, from the Anabaptists.

For the Record, again, Reformed Baptists do not claim to have descended from the Anabaptists - so for Lee to make the case that we are their "step children" and lump us in with several obviously heretical and apostate groups is poor scholarship at best and a lack of Christian charity at worst.

Because of Lee's stances on this and other topics I am not too pleased that he is getting recommendations from this board - for to recommend his work is to tell every Baptist here that they are criminals and false teachers.

And for what it is worth, it does not matter what Calvin thought about it either, because he was wrong too in his treatment of other Christian groups in his day.


Phillip

[Edited on 1-20-06 by pastorway]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jan 20, 2006)

Maybe this?:


The Rise of the Radical Anabaptists: Re-institution instead of Reformation
by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon 
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Reformation/McMahonRiseAnabaptists.htm


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> Maybe this?:
> 
> 
> ...



I gave it the old once over. Seems to be a good, sober, balanced treatment.


----------



## pastorway (Jan 20, 2006)

Their own confession makes it clear that they stood against a state church - which was probably the real root of their persecution!

They believed in believers baptism, church discipline, closed communion, not being unequally yoked (which is it true that they took this to the a position where they refused to be involved in secualr governments - coming out from "Bablyon"), the legitimacy of the office of pastor, not taking oaths, and pacifism (while they did allow the gov't to bear the sword they believed that the church and state were to be kept separate). Now that is radical!! 

They also preached a regenerate church, which remains a Baptist hallmark. 

The issue with their theology is that it is true that there were several veins of thought and preaching which are hard to nail down. Some of them did wander into heresy and error. But overall, they did not deserve the persecution they received at the hands of the state churches. And in fact, their persecution reveals what is most wrong with the whole idea of a state church! 

My reaction in this thread is simply due to the inclusion of Lee's work as a recommended source, which is completely unhelpful to any edifying or accurate discussion of the topic. I wish that those here would stop putting his work out there on this subject as if it was useful or relevant, as it has been demonstrated a number of times that Lee does not know what he is talking about and paints with much too broad a brush in his treatment of these people and their supposed descendents.

Talk about the Anabaptists all you want. But make sure you are using reliable sources!

Phillip


----------



## non dignus (Jan 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> After being baptized by Grebel, George [Blaurock] baptized all the others present. They then pledged themselves as true disciples of Christ to live lives separated from the world and to hold the faith.



At face value it appears seditious at worst, sectarian at best. Either way, you're in trouble.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by non dignus_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> ...



 

[Edited on 1-21-2006 by Pilgrim]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> Their own confession makes it clear that they stood against a state church - which was probably the real root of their persecution!
> 
> They believed in believers baptism, church discipline, closed communion, not being unequally yoked (which is it true that they took this to the a position where they refused to be involved in secualr governments - coming out from "Bablyon"), the legitimacy of the office of pastor, not taking oaths, and pacifism (while they did allow the gov't to bear the sword they believed that the church and state were to be kept separate). Now that is radical!!
> ...



Phillip,
To say that the good Doctor 'does not know what he is talking about' is quite bold. I believe his treatment is useful and helpful, and in many ways relevant. As far as anyone dealing with his treatise all I have ever heard was a lot of whinning or heresay. I trust the doctor has done his studies on the subject.

Earned Doctorates 

Th.D.: The Covenantal Sabbath University of Stellenbosch 
Ph.D.: Communist Eschatology Orange Free State University 
D.Min.: Daily Family Worship Whitefield Theological Seminary 
D.Ed.: Catechism Before Communion! Dominion School of Education 
S.T.D.: Rebaptism Impossible! Whitefield Theological Seminary 
D.R.E.: Baby Belief Before Baptism! Dominion School of Education 
D.Jur.: Women Ministers & Australian Litigation Rutherford School of Law 
D.Litt.: Holinshed on the Ancient British Isles Dominion School of Education 
D.C.L.: The Roots and Fruits of the Common Law Rutherford School of Law 
D.Hum.: Tiny Human Life: abortion, AID, AIH, SHW, IVF and cloning Whitefield Theological Seminary 

Other Degrees B.A.: University of Capetown 
LL.B.: University of Capetown 
M.A.: University of Capetown 
L.Th. (cum laude): University of Stellenbosch 
B.D. (cum laude): University of Stellenbosch 
M.Th. (cum laude): University of Stellenbosch 
M.A. & Cultural Sc.: Potchefstroom University


----------



## BrianBowman (Jan 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by pastorway_
> ...



 .... without being disparaging toward Pastor Way, who we have seen demonstrate the heart of a true shepherd again and again, I would like to see a truly academic summary refutation of Dr. Lee's arguments - sans the _ad hominem_ allegations against him.

[Edited on 1-21-2006 by BrianBowman]


----------



## pastorway (Jan 20, 2006)

*This is my last post on the topic.*

If you insist on using Lee as if he was trustworthy on this topic about the Anabaptists, well, there is nothing I can do for you other than to point out that this work is foundationally and fundamentally flawed. It is a BAD source. 

I showed how his argument was flawed from the very start. He lumps people in with the Anabaptists that have no part with them - so this proves his research is off base from the very foundation. And I showed how he over thinks the case toward modern day Baptists in a very un-Christian manner, thinking we are heretics, criminals, or worse. 

Remember too that a man can have 32 degrees and still be frozen! 

Education does not prove that everything a man does is _unquestionable_ and _completely accurate_. Credentials aside, let us examine the work in question.

While Lee may have good things to offer in many areas - in this particular area he is simply WRONG. He puts people in the same school as Anabaptists who published it widely that they were not heirs of the Anabaptists. The London Baptists repudiated the Anabaptists!! And yet ALL BAPTISTS are linked to this movement as if we were lying when we said, "Hey world - we're not with those guys!"

Think about it this way. Say I have 40 degrees and am well respected as a world authority in several disciplines. And I write a paper that says that People Y descended from Group X and then go on to build a case about how we should then respond to these descendents of Group X.

And then you are reading 2 foundational documents from People Y which both begin by stating unequivocably: "WE HAVE MISTAKENLY BEEN IDENTIFIED WITH GROUP X BUT WISH THE WORLD TO KNOW THAT WE IN NO WAY DESCEND FROM THEM NOR DO WE TRACE OUR HERITAGE FROM THEM.

It is seen as FACT that People Y were not related in any way to Group X.

What would you think of my research or my claims? 

It would be FLAWED from the very first assumption and as such cannot be viewed as a trustworthy resource on the topic. 

A simple reading of Particular Baptist material, starting with their confessions, disproves the whole premise upon which Lee tries to make his case against us "criminals" and "heretics".



> *The First London Baptist Confession of Faith, 1644/1646*
> 
> A confession of faith of seven congregations or churches of Christ in London, which are commonly, but *unjustly, called Anabaptists*....
> 
> ...





Phillip

[Edited on 1-21-06 by pastorway]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 20, 2006)

Dr. Richard Bacon does the foreward to Lee's book on the Anabaptists. 

Bacon writes:



> Doctor Lee is author of over three hundred books and pamphlets. His subject matter has covered such topics as the covenantal Sabbath, Christianity and Communism, a Christian view of the history of philosophy, church architecture, the importance of family devotions, Baptism and the Lord's Supper, etc.
> 
> This present work on Anabaptists and their history is another fine, well-documented book that is much in need by the Reformed community. Dr. Lee explains both the history and the strange beliefs of the groups that were on the radical fringes of Christendom during and shortly after the Middle Ages.
> 
> ...



[Edited on 1-21-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jan 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> *This is my last post on the topic.*
> 
> If you insist on using Lee as if he was trustworthy on this topic about the Anabaptists, well, there is nothing I can do for you other than to point out that this work is foundationally and fundamentally flawed. It is a BAD source.
> ...



Phillip,

Maybe you could help us in this thread by documentaing exactly where teh Baptists emerged from. That would be of great help and clear you of your accusation that Baptists are not Anabaptists. 

In other words, when i trace the Reformed church historically back, I find specific movements that can be legitimately traced to the theology and government for Presbyterianism, and the Reformed church. 

If we trace the Baptists back, what do we find? Wehre do they get thier givernmental structure, where did they emerge from?

It seems to me, that as Dr. Lee said the Baptists are stepchildren of the Anabaptists, that such a claim is dead on. Aside from any caustic ideas one may have about what he wrote in the work, one will have to deal with the invitable fact that baptists will ahve to always bear the birthmark of the Anabaptist mvoememnt. Without Anabaptism, there is no baptist line to be found if one is historically accurate with the facts, and I think that was Lee's overall point.

Phillip, is there some other source that tells us a historically different picture?

Can you say that this article does not demonstrate thier emergence and that the baptist movement then emerged from them?


----------



## turmeric (Jan 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> Lee has stated that he, if given the chance, would demand that Baptists repent and if they do not he would put Baptist parents today in prison to punish them for their failure to baptize their children - and then take their children away from them and put them in Presbyterian homes so that they might be baptized and brought up in the church.



*This is exactly why we have disestablishment in our constitution!*

Spoken by a Presbyterian.

[Edited on 1-21-2006 by turmeric]


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 21, 2006)

It's clear that, in general, the English Baptists repudiated many of the excesses and heresies of the continental anabaptists (at least those responsible for the London Confessions), but there's still the age old question of where they came from. Was there an organic link with the continental anabaptists? From my admittedly limited studies, this is somewhat unclear. Others think they primarily originated from the Puritans, with their concern for the purity of the visible church. I'm thinking it may be a combination of the two. There isn't a lot of documentation of a link with the continent, but no doubt the English Baptists had to be aware of the anabaptists and their concept of a gathered church of baptized believers. 

The other view that is advanced is the Landmark/successionist view, which is totally unprovable historically, with writers like Graves in "Trail of Blood" attempting to label any sects or groups that were outside of Rome after the 3rd or 4th century as Baptists, most of whom were heretical on one or more points. But it's understandable why they would hold to this view. Since they basically think they're the only true church, they have to come up with some theory as to why the church "disappeared" for centuries only to reemerge with the "Radical Reformation".

[Edited on 1-21-2006 by Pilgrim]


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 21, 2006)

It would appear that the English Baptists owe a lot to the anabaptists, even if there is no provable organic link. Their ecclesiology would seem to be roughly the same. In that sense I suppose it would be accurate to say they are stepchildren of the Anabaptists, even if they may not have been directly descended from them. But the Baptists (especially the Particular Baptists) soteriology owed more to the Reformation and was generally more orthodox. In general the Baptists don't seem to have advocated such a radical break with society as did some of the anabaptists, but this may owe a lot to their circumstances. I for one am thankful for the contributions of Particular Baptists (Spurgeon and others) through the years. 

Here's a question for Baptists: Consistent Baptist theology would seem to lead to the conclusion that non-Baptist churches are no churches at all. Baptists generally say that they have reclaimed the faith and practice of the early church before it was hijacked by Constantine and used for political ends. If you reject a link with the anabaptists and if you reject Landmarkism/Baptist successionism, where was the church for 1000+ years?

Other than the fact that they were "hidden" for longer, how is this different from the Pentecostals who appeared at the turn of the last century claiming they had regained the faith and practice of the early church? 

[Edited on 1-21-2006 by Pilgrim]


----------



## Steve Owen (Jan 21, 2006)

Wow! I seem to have stirred up a hornet's nest.
Perhaps I may just reply to Brian's question.



> _Originally posted by BrianBowman_
> Martin,
> 
> Could you perhaps enlighten us on the history of the Anabaptists and how (or if) they are doctrinally related to the Reformed Baptists of today? I'm very ignorant on these matters on the whole. The only thing I understand is that the Mennonites and Amish of today trace their heritage to the Anabaptists.



The first Anabaptists arose in Zurich. Several disciples of Ulrich Zwingli were disappointed when he seemed to back off from full reform of the church under pressure from the City Council. They therefore came to believe in the separation of Church and State. A church was a voluntary body which one entered of one's own will by baptism and a confession of faith.

Most Anabaptists were not overly concerned about the minutiae of doctrine. They tended to base their principles on James 1:27, hence the reference to 'separation' which has concerned one or two people on this thread. The earliest Anabaptist confession, the _Schleitheim_ Confession is heavy on discipline and order, but very light on theology. It is impossible to know whether or not its authors are Calvinistic.

Anabaptism was a movement rather than a denomination. Its adherents differed widely in their beliefs. Most of them were pacifists, but on the other hand there was the terrible insurrection at Munster which tarred the whole movement with the brush of violence. Some of them had faulty views on the Person of Christ, many being Melchiorites, and a few being Unitarians, but others were entirely orthodox.

Two useful books on the Anabaptists are _The Reformers and their Stepchildren_ by Leonard Verduin and _The Anabaptist Story_ by William Estep. These two books are somewhat uncritical in their approach, but they will serve as an antidote to the rantings of F.N.Lee. The truth, as usual, lies somewhere in between the two extremes.

In England, before about 1530, any religious groups outside the established Church were called _Lollards_, whether or not they had any connection with Wyclif. After that date, they were called _Anabaptists_ whether or not they rebaptized. It is hard, therefore to know to what extent Anabaptism gained a foothold in my country. However the [General] Baptist Church in Tiverton, Devon, claims to have been started by Anabaptist Flemish woollen merchants in around 1617.

The English Baptists arose in the main not from the Continental Anabaptists, but from the Separatist and Congregational movemant. The General or Arminian Baptists, arose from the Separatist churches in Gainsborough and Scrooby who migrated to Holland. Some of these remained paedo-baptistic and Calvinistic and became the Pilgrim Fathers, others got caught up in the Remonstrance and became Arminian and some of these became baptistic.

The Reformed or 'Particular' Baptist, however, were entirely home-grown and came out of Congregationalism. A Congregational church was set up in London in 1617 by one Henry Jacob. In 1638, a number of ts members, led by John Spilsbury, left the church to start a Baptist one. These people were Calvinistic and covenantal right from the start and, as Phillip has pointed out, were particularly eager to distance themselves from the Anabaptists. Interestingly, in the 1670s, a Particular Baptist leader named Thomas Collier became arminian. His colleagues were horrified and described him as 'having become an anabaptist.' They associated Anabaptism with Arminianism.

I hope that's enough to show that doctrinally, Reformed Baptists have nothing in common with the Anabaptists. The debt that all Christians, and all Americans, owe to the Anabaptists is that they were the first to call for the separation of Church and State, the first to oppose the idea of a national church and the first to uphold freedom of religion. The rantings of F.N.Lee, as quoted by Phillip, are enough to show us what a tender plant religious freedom is. The Anabaptists and others gave their lives for it and that is their especial glory which should not be denied them.

Chris asked:-


> Here's a question for Baptists: Consistent Baptist theology would seem to lead to the conclusion that non-Baptist churches are no churches at all.


I have never said that and I don't know any other Baptist that has said it, at least, in recent times, though some of the early Baptists were antagonistic to the Church of England, and understandably so, since it was persecuting them.  To me, Romans 14:4-5 seems relevant here.


> Baptists generally say that they have reclaimed the faith and practice of the early church before it was hijacked by Constantine and used for political ends. If you reject a link with the anabaptists and if you reject Landmarkism/Baptist successionism, where was the church for 1000+ years?


Where Luther said it was- In Babylonian captivity. 


Grace & Peace,

Martin


[Edited on 1-21-2006 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## non dignus (Jan 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by the Mar man_
> 
> The English Baptists arose in the main not from the Continental Anabaptists, but from the Separatist and Congregational movemant. The General or Arminian Baptists, arose from the Separatist churches in Gainsborough and Scrooby who migrated to Holland. Some of these remained paedo-baptistic and Calvinistic and became the Pilgrim Fathers, others got caught up in the Remonstrance and became Arminian and some of these became baptistic.



(Martin, I love English surnames; what is the background on Marprelate?)

Did the first particular Baptists deliberate with the church on the issue of baptism, or did a proto-Congregational church take a vote of the laity and just charge into error? In spite of my sarcasm it is a real question. Please mention a good book on the history. thanks


----------



## Steve Owen (Jan 21, 2006)

David asked:-


> Did the first particular Baptists deliberate with the church on the issue of baptism, or did a proto-Congregational church take a vote of the laity and just charge into error? In spite of my sarcasm it is a real question. Please mention a good book on the history. thanks


There were, as I understand it, discussions within the church before the separation, which was, in fact, entirely friendly. The Congregational Church of Henry Jacob planted six daughter churches of which five became Baptist churches. Eventually, in 1645, the original church also became a Baptist church.

There were often very good relations between Congregationalists and Baptists. In 1671, John Bunyan's church in Bedford was advising a member of their church who had gone to live in London. She was enquiring about joining a certain Baptist church of which the Beford congregation had not heard. Bunyan and his colleagues suggested getting a commendatory epistle' from, _'brother. Owen, brother. Coakain, brother. Palmer or brother. Griffith, confirming the faith and principles of the person and people you mention.'_ 'brother. Owen' was John Owen and the others are all Congregational Ministers. The Baptists were asking Congregationalists for their opinion on a Baptist Church!

Useful books on the early Baptists include

*The British Particular Baptists, 1638-1910, Vol. 1* ed. Michael Haykin (Particular Baptist Press. ISBN 1-888514-05-1 ).

*Battle for the Church* by John Gay (Brachus Books, ISBN 0-9529982-0-3 ).

*Kiffin, Knollys and Keach* By Michael Haykin (Carey Publications. ISBN 0-9527913-0-7 ).

Tom Nettles also has a book out on Baptist history which I haven't read, but which I'm sure is good.

Blessings,

Martin

[Edited on 1-21-2006 by Martin Marprelate]

[Edited on 1-21-2006 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 21, 2006)

Martin writes:



> I hope that's enough to show that doctrinally, Reformed Baptists have nothing in common with the Anabaptists.



I am curious as to why you reject the moniker at this point. it seems as if your original post was adoptive of the title.


----------



## Steve Owen (Jan 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Martin writes:
> 
> 
> ...



In my original post, I did no more than record the event.

However, to clarify, I honour the Anabaptists for their high ideals and their courage in the face of bitter persecution. I am more than happy to identify with them in their separation from the State Church, in their belief in a gathered church, in the high standards of church discipline that most of them practised and, of course, in their holding to credo-baptism (though initially, they baptized by sprinkling). I do not identify with the arminianism and other assorted dodgy theology practised by many of them.

Historically, as I have tried to show, The Reformed Baptists came from the English Congregationalists, not from the Anabaptists. However, both movements are an attempt to follow the word of God rather than the traditions of men.

Blessings,

Martin


----------



## non dignus (Jan 21, 2006)

> However, both movements are an attempt to follow the word of God rather than the traditions of men.



That is certainly commendable. But how is it, at that brief span of time in church history where the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone was scrutinized _ad nauseum_, the best and brightest minds of the reformation weren't convinced of credo-baptism?

Is credo baptism not an overzealous iconoclasm?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 21, 2006)

Martin adds:



> The Reformed Baptists came from the English Congregationalists, not from the Anabaptists.



Not that I agree with you Martin; Maybe I'm just stupid. Why this thread then? It seemed as if you were celebrating the day. If it is such a _stain_ and a misnomer for the particular baptist, why celebrate it?

[Edited on 1-21-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 21, 2006)

The idea that churches that practice infant baptism and that don't immerse aren't true NT churches is part and parcel of consistent Baptist thought and always has been. (That's not to say that Baptists believe that they are the only true Christians, although some extremists, often called "Baptist briders" have held this or something close to it).

I think the following is a representative sample of Baptist thought (and anabaptist, for that matter, although anabaptists weren't generally concerned with immersion, that seeming to come later in both Germany and England):



> The question of what our position leads to on separation has been the subject of much writing and discussion. Perhaps the best and most logical explanation of our position comes from the pen of a respected member of the Southern Presbyterian Church. R.L. Dabney, one of their greatest theologians, provides the following argument for a consistent immersionist position. Dabney wrote that:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The above is taken from "What Is An Historic Baptist?" by David A. West, Sr. http://www.reformedreader.org/histb.htm

[Edited on 1-21-2006 by Pilgrim]


----------



## Steve Owen (Jan 21, 2006)

Well if Dabney wrote brainless stuff like that, it's not surprising if he got a brainless response.

I really think some of you guys would love it if Baptists in general really hated you so that you could hate them back with a clear conscience.

No dice! We love you all. :bigsmile:

Martin


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Well if Dabney wrote brainless stuff like that, it's not surprising if he got a brainless response.
> 
> I really think some of you guys would love it if Baptists in general really hated you so that you could hate them back with a clear conscience.
> ...



Um...yeah.

I don't hate baptists. To quote RC Sproul Sr., I love them. they are so teasable!


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Well if Dabney wrote brainless stuff like that, it's not surprising if he got a brainless response.
> 
> I really think some of you guys would love it if Baptists in general really hated you so that you could hate them back with a clear conscience.
> ...



 No hatred here, Martin. I have many Baptist friends, probably moreso than Presbyterian. 

Well, that "brainless stuff" is posted at The Reformed Reader, which is probably the premier Reformed Baptist site on the web today, with many more resources than what is available on the Founders site, for example. So if you have a problem with it, take it up with your Historic Southern Baptist brethren there!


----------



## non dignus (Jan 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Well if Dabney wrote brainless stuff like that, it's not surprising if he got a brainless response.
> 
> I really think some of you guys would love it if Baptists in general really hated you so that you could hate them back with a clear conscience.
> ...



Thanks Martin.

What's Love Got ta Do withit? 

Love is not the issue. I applaud any man that sticks by his guns and says if you get the sacraments wrong....NO CIGAR...It's not a true church...AND I love you with Christ's love.


----------

