From the beginning...

***sound of crickets chirping***

 

I think why there may be so much confusion to where the baptist originated is not enough records were kept. But I have been reading a book on baptist history, THE BAPTIST HERITAGE, FOUR CENTURIES OF BAPTIST WITNESS by H. Leon Mcbeth, Broadman publishing. Its been a good read, but he does make a comment in there that many believe baptist come from the anabaptist and then some believe the anababtist come from the baptist, depending on which way one believes the stream flowed.
From what I gather I don't think he believes either one. From what I get out of it he thinks they are completely separate, but just bumping into one another from time to time.
Don't know if that helps or not. I would like to say this for the record, I don't think it's so important that we know just when and where the denominations originated, but does what they teach NOW line up with scripture. A group of people can start a church today and teach truth and fifty years from now be teaching heresy. I mean just look at the churches in the Bible. Paul himself taught truth and within his life time they were already going shipwreck.

 

There is no provable tie (so far) between the anabaptist and baptist movements during their founding years in Holland.

That there was likely some influence is a given. Then, like now, those most interested in the entire ecclesiological issue were reading each other's works, pamphlets were circulated, etc., whereby the teaching of any given sect was produced and circulated in the general public.

The roots of the concept extend further back into history, but again, there is no direct provable tie between any of the various groups that held some form of baptistic understanding.

Rather, what we might say is that those persons who read the Scriptures for themselves, unencumbered by the dictates of Catholicism, etc., would likely arrive at a baptistic perspective, and that such was likely the greatest factor in the foundation of the baptist movement.

The idea seems to have sprung up independently, and was likely a move of God to uncover the eyes of His people as the main church of that era drifted father and farher into heretical practice.

Finally, we need no remnant of Catholicism, with all its apostolic succession and sacred tradition, in order to simply pick up the Word of God, read, become born anew, and go about serving God in the manner outlined in that Good Book. That so many baptist sects insist on some succession all the way back to the apostles, through every sort of unconnected (and oftentimes heretical sects) is ludicrous prima facia. We are constantly new again by God's grace, as we become His instead of slaves to sin, and He will call us out as He sees fit to do what He ordains. He gave us a great example in the Apostle Paul, who was neither an apostle in the strictest sense (was not one of the original 12 and did not follow Christ before He died), but rather was called, raised up into newness of life, and sent on God's mission.

 

Very good! That last paragraph is well written and on point.

 

I believe in organic link by link succession through reproducton of like kind of New Testament congregations. I believe this on the basis of scripture alone as there is not sufficient proof in secuar history even to document organic link by link sucession through reproduction ANY HUMAN BEING back to Adam or any other living thing back to Genesis and yet it would be ludicrous to deny their link by link reproductive cycle back to the Garden.

I base this upon the grammar and structure of the Great Commission as found in Matthew 28:19-20 as spelled out in practical detail in Acts 2:41-42. Can you find any congregation in the book of Acts that was not constituted by an EXPLICITLY CLEAR unbaptized, unchurched believer?

My contention is that only disciples can make disciples and a disciple of Christ has three characteristics (1) saved by the SAME gospel; (2) Baptized with the SAME baptism and (3) Assembled to be taught how to observe all things or else they cannot teach anyone else what they are not taught. These characteritics are impossible to obtain without organic contact between disciple and disciplee.

 

While I believe there has always been a true church on earth and believe baptists have existed at various times in history, I do not believe there is an unbroken line and that there always has been a Baptist Church.

The revival of Baptists occurs at the Reformation and in conjunction with the one form of the Anabaptist movement.

 

What is your basis for this belief?

 

Let me answer for him...

The facts of history.

Otherwise, go back and answer Luke2427's questions in the other thread. :laugh:

 

You mean uninspired, thus limited, incomplete, often wrong, personal viewpoints of various biased individuals primarily collected by Rome in regard to the 2nd to the 16th century???? That is what you call "facts"???

I didn't even notice any post by Luke2427 and I don't know which thread you speak of?

 

It is utterly amazing to me that Roman Catholic Church History is regarded as "facts" by those who condemn her as a false church??

It is utterly amazing that (1) Uninspired personal limited and often biased perpsectives that are often (2) inaccurate, revisionist, slanders in order to bring thier enemies under the judical wing of Rome for persecution but have been collected and preserved by Rome are regarded as the basis of "factual" history?

Anyone with a ounce of common sense can look at the Ante-Nicene Fathers and see a developmental theology that gives the rational basis for the Nicene Fathers which in turn provide a rational foundation for the Post-Nicene Fathers! This is the historical development of Apostasy and yet those who denounce this very System of doctrine developed from the first to the sixteenth century claim this as their own "factual" church history ROOTS to New Testament Christianity??????????? Really????

 

Share your other sources...

 

I have a novel idea? How about the Bible as the definitive and interpretative source for evaluating the future of New Testament Christianity and provides principles to evaluate secular sources?


1. The Bible predicts the rise and apostasy of a false state church Christiantiy

2. The Bible predicts the slander, persecution and killing by the same apostate

3. The Bible predicts the gradual decrease of "the faith" in latter days and increase of apostasy

4. The Bible explicitly predicts many of the apostate doctrines that charactrize the apostasy.

5. The Bible lays down three principles that characterize the organic succession and reproduction of New Testament congregations.

How about starting by taking these Bible principles to analyze secular historians and their uninspired, limited and often biased perspectives.

If these principles are correct should you not expect the following:

1. The rise of the state church in the fourth century as a persector and slanderer of the Lord's congregations.

2. The whole sale condemnation and slanderous perversion of New Testament congregations as "heretics"

3. The rise of other state churches originating out of one major apostate mother state church.

If these principles are correct should you not expect the type of secular history provided by the persecuting state church in what we see as the Ante-Nicene, Nicene and Post-Nicene source materials?

The only other option is to recognize both the source materials provided by Rome and Rome as representative of the true church of God between the second and fifteenth century and in need of reformation in the sixteenth century.