Independent Baptist churches vs Anabaptists

[360watt]

Are they the same thing?

 

[DaveXR650]

Do you know of an actual Anabaptist church or do you mean historically when they formed? I have some sources that claim some Anabaptist influence from one of the branches of the non-Calvinist early Baptists. And by that I mean the ones who trace their history to the Reformation. I am not referring to the claims some Baptists make of a direct lineage from the Anabaptists, which I believe is totally made up at least as far as written records.

 

[360watt]

Do you know of an actual Anabaptist church or do you mean historically when they formed? I have some sources that claim some Anabaptist influence from one of the branches of the non-Calvinist early Baptists. And by that I mean the ones who trace their history to the Reformation. I am not referring to the claims some Baptists make of a direct lineage from the Anabaptists, which I believe is totally made up at least as far as written records.

It would be the non calvinist ifb churches. If they aren't Calvinist though.. how would they originate in the Reformation? They usually aren't Armenian either.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

"Independent" Baptists make all sorts of sordid claims. Many adhere to "Baptist Perpetuity" that the Baptist Church is the "true church" in the same manner that Catholics claim that they are the true church.

Such "Trail of Blood" Baptists are wary of the "Reformed" crowd (they murdered Servetus after all) insisting they were never "Protestant" and never had anything to do with the "Great Whore" (Catholic Church) but in order to make such a claim, they need to claim affilliation with numerous spurious groups whose doctrines and teachings were questionable at best and heretical at worst. Their view of Church history is therefore quite skewed. There is also a good bit of "Restorationist" thinking (anti-creedalism) going on with this group.

While it goes without saying that the General Baptists (non-Calvinistic) were influenced somewhat by the Anabaptist movement, the two most certainly are no the same and there is little resemblance today between an Anabaptist congregation (Mennonite, Amish, Brethren, Etc.) and Independent Baptists or any Baptist for that matter. For starters, I do not believe that your average gun-toting, "Nuke 'em till they glow and shoot 'em in the dark" Independent Baptist would see eye-to-eye with the "turn the other cheek" pacifist Mennonite or Amish.

 

[DaveXR650]

It would be the non calvinist ifb churches. If they aren't Calvinist though.. how would they originate in the Reformation? They usually aren't Armenian either.

I would just echo what @Armchair Apologist said above. I think I have a copy of "Trail of Blood" from my days as an IFB. If you want to trace IFB's you simply don't have a path back to Anabaptists as far as I know. But you do have influences. I would look at this more as a fish net with various leaders and groups splitting off, and then their followers influencing other groups and leaders and some of them have later interactions with still others- some of which were of the groups which their teachers had split from and so on. For example, Menno Simons was a Catholic priest for years, and later came under some influence of Anabaptists but also was influenced by Luther, who had been a Catholic.

I do think that traditional fundamental Baptists have very good theology. It's just that the nature of the way they operated means they don't write as much about it.

 

[John of Japan]

Are they the same thing?

No.

1. There is no historical congruence. When you look at the histories, they do not intersect. For example, none of the 17th century English Baptist pastors came from or were connected to the Anabaptists.
2. Many of the Anabaptists had doctrines contradictory to the Baptist distinctives. For example, there were Anabaptists who believed in sprinklying.
3. The Anabaptist traditions still existing are not Baptistic: Mennonites & Amish.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

I do think that traditional fundamental Baptists have very good theology. It's just that the nature of the way they operated means they don't write as much about it.

Yes, there are some traditional fundamental Baptists that have really good theology. I had to leave this group in order to find them.

 

[John of Japan]

"Independent" Baptists make all sorts of sordid claims. Many adhere to "Baptist Perpetuity" that the Baptist Church is the "true church" in the same manner that Catholics claim that they are the true church.

There are various groups of Independent Baptists, so please do not lump us all together. It is a complicated movement.

Many if not most of us do not adhere to "Baptist Perpetuity." My crowd does not, and the GARBC crowd generally does not. My seminary "Baptist History" prof listed three views: Baptist perpetuity, Anabaptist origin, and English Baptist origin, and he held to the third, as do I. I teach Church History, and explicitly deny the first two (though someone else teaches our "Baptist History" class).

Such "Trail of Blood" Baptists are wary of the "Reformed" crowd (they murdered Servetus after all) insisting they were never "Protestant" and never had anything to do with the "Great Whore" (Catholic Church) but in order to make such a claim, they need to claim affilliation with numerous spurious groups whose doctrines and teachings were questionable at best and heretical at worst. Their view of Church history is therefore quite skewed. There is also a good bit of "Restorationist" thinking (anti-creedalism) going on with this group.

Never heard the Catholics described as "the great whore" by an independent Baptist, though we do oppose Catholicism. (I'm baffled at J. D. Vance becoming a Catholic.)

Not sure what you mean by "anti-creedalism." I know of no Independent Baptists who teach that or use that phrase.

While it goes without saying that the General Baptists (non-Calvinistic) were influenced somewhat by the Anabaptist movement, the two most certainly are no the same and there is little resemblance today between an Anabaptist congregation (Mennonite, Amish, Brethren, Etc.) and Independent Baptists or any Baptist for that matter.

I see no historical influence at all from the Anabaptists (a very broad group) in General Baptists.

For starters, I do not believe that your average gun-toting, "Nuke 'em till they glow and shoot 'em in the dark" Independent Baptist would see eye-to-eye with the "turn the other cheek" pacifist Mennonite or Amish.

I'm nonplussed. This is a weird description of Independent Baptists. I certainly wouldn't describe us this way. Militarism is not one of our usual positions, though many of us serve in the military, and we have various ministries around the world reaching US military bases, and an organization that helps men get into the chaplaincy.

 

[John of Japan]

Independent Baptist seminaries that do not hold to Baptist perpetuity or recognize an Anabaptist origin:

BJU (not explicitly Baptist, but the students generally are)
Central Baptist Theological Seminary
Maranatha Baptist Theological Seminary
Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary
Baptist Theological Seminary (where I teach)

 

[Jerome]

But Charles Spurgeon did!

Spurgeon on Baptist Perpetuity

The Reformed Reader is committed to the historic Baptist faith.

www.reformedreader.org

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

Are they the same thing?

"WHO THE ANABAPTISTS WERE"

The Compendium of Baptist History by J. A. Schackelford identifies many ancient groups of Christians outside the state church or churches as those who were called Anabaptists. On pages 107, 108 Mr. Shackelford says: “The Waldenses, Albigenses, Paterines, Paulicians, Donatists, and Montanists were all known as Anabaptists, from the fact that they rebaptized all who came over to them from the Catholics.” John Lawrence Mosheim wrote of the Anabaptists, “The true origin of that sect which acquired the denomination of the Anabaptists by their administering anew the rite of baptism to those who came over to their communion, and derived that of Mennonites, from the famous man, to whom they owe the greatest part of their present felicity, is hid in the remote depths of antiquity, and is, of consequence, extremely difficult to be ascertained (Ecclesiastical History, John Lawrence Mosheim, Vol. 2, pp. 119, 120). Mosheim then showed that the Anabaptists of the seventeenth century were descendants of the Waldenses, the Petrobrussians, and other ancient sects.

"Perhaps the most significant statement of the antiquity of Baptists came from the two men whom the King of Holland appointed in 1819 to prepare a history of the Dutch Reformed Church. Dr. Ypeij, Professor of Theology in the University of Groningen, and Rev. I. J. Dermout, Chaplain to the King published their History of the Dutch Reformed Church in 1823. In their history they devoted one chapter to the Baptists in which they wrote: “We have now seen that the Baptists, who were formerly called Anabaptists, and in later times Mennonites, were the original Waldenses, and who long in the history of the church received the honor of that origin.”

"Then these commissioned historians said, “On this account the Baptists may be considered as the only Christian community which has stood since the apostles, and as a Christian society has preserved pure the doctrine of the gospel through all ages.” (This well-known and oft cited quotation is taken from “Baptists in History” by W. P. Harvey which appears in Pillars of Orthodoxy, or Defenders of the Faith edited by Ben M. Bogard, p. 417).

"When the authenticity of this quotation was questioned in the late 1800’s, Dr. Harvey contacted Dr. George Manly who was President of a college of languages in Berlin to verify this statement. Dr. Manly found the volume by Ypeij and Dermout written in the Dutch Language containing the quotation and translated it for Dr. Harvey. Thus the authenticity of their oft-quoted statements concerning the Baptists was confirmed (“Baptists in History”, Harvey, cited in Pillars of Orthodoxy, edited by Bogard, pp. 418-420)."

"THOUGH THEY WERE FALSELY CALLED ANABAPTISTS, THESE CHURCHES WERE THE TRUE CHURCHES OF JESUS CHRIST."

Note: If they were not, go find the ones who where that Jesus Promised to be with until the End of the Age, bring them to us.

That is, if you have any comprehension of what a True Church of Jesus would be, and is, in it's most fundamental form, or forget it.

"There are those who would call our Baptist Churches Anabaptist Churches today because we baptize those who come to us from the both the Church of Rome and Protestant Churches so-called. We do not rebaptize; we baptize, because those who have been either sprinkled or dipped by these societies do not have true and Scriptural baptism.

"As we have seen, there were many more distinguishing characteristics of the Anabaptists than baptism alone. They held tenaciously to the old, Apostolic faith which was once delivered to the saints (Jude 3). May we, as their spiritual descendants, continue to hold to that same faith."

Note: We will also baptize those who come to us from 'Baptist' churches who except as members those who have been "either sprinkled or dipped" or immersed by these Church of Rome and Protestant, or Reformed Protestant-baptist societies. They do not and never did have true and Scriptural baptism, by the Authority of God. They knew that. Authority in baptism has been Handed down from God Himself, through John the Baptist, to His True Churches of Jesus Christ in the New Testament, through to His present day churches, until Jesus Comes Again.

I'd like to see someone prove Historically that it wasn't.

John the Baptist had the Authority of God to administer baptism, by fulfilling The Counsel of God and "all Rightousness".

I'd like to see someone prove Historically that he didn't.

"WHAT THE ANABAPTISTS BELIEVED"

"Those falsely called Anabaptists held to Biblical positions advocated by all true Baptists in every age.

"Doctrines are not true because they are Historical; they are true because they are Biblical. In a paper read before the American Society of Church History in 1890, Henry S. Burrage, D.D., stated the following concerning the beliefs that characterized the Anabaptist movement of the Sixteenth Century: “

(1) "That the Scriptures are the only authority in matters of faith and practice.

(2) "That personal faith in Jesus Christ only secures salvation; therefore infant baptism is to be rejected.

(3) "That a church is composed of believers who have been baptized upon a personal confession of their faith in Jesus Christ.

(4) "That each church has entire control of its affairs, without interference on the part of any external power.

(5) "That the outward life must be in accordance with such a confession of faith and to the end it is essential that church discipline should be maintained.

(6) "That while the State may properly demand obedience in all things not contrary to the law of God, it has no right to set aside the dictates of conscience, and compel the humblest individual to set aside his view, or to inflict punishment in case such surrender is refused. Every human soul is directly responsible to God.” (Henry S. Burrage, "American Society of Church History," pp. 157, 158, quoted by W. A. Jarrel, Baptist Church Perpetuity, pp. 182, 183).

"Following are some of the beliefs that characterized the Anabaptists:

"A Regenerated Church Membership: It was this conviction that caused them to reject infant baptism. No person could be a member of an Anabaptist Church who had not been regenerated and professed his faith in Christ. “They believed in regeneration by the atoning blood of Christ, but they demanded the fruits of regeneration”* (Burrage, quoted by Jarrel, p. 183). Neither did they believe in baptismal regeneration in any form. Balthazer Hubmeyer, a prominent leader among the despised Anabaptists from 1525 to 1528 said, “Salvation is conditioned neither on baptism nor on works of mercy. Condemnation is the result, not of neglect of baptism, but of unbelief alone.” (Burrage, quoted by Jarrel, p.184).

*"bring forth fruit met for repentance."

"A Baptized Church Membership: The Anabaptists obviously believed in and practiced baptism, else they would never have been called Anabaptists. Hubmeyer called baptism an Ordinance of Jesus Christ, saying, “It is not enough that one believes in Jesus; he must confess Him openly. . .The Divine order is, first, the preaching of the Word; second, Faith; third, baptism” (Burrage, quoted by Jarrel, p. 183)."

Quotes in quotes, quoted from:
Baptist History Homepage
The Anabaptists, by Royce Smith, 2019

 

[360watt]

"WHO THE ANABAPTISTS WERE"

The Compendium of Baptist History by J. A. Schackelford identifies many ancient groups of Christians outside the state church or churches as those who were called Anabaptists. On pages 107, 108 Mr. Shackelford says: “The Waldenses, Albigenses, Paterines, Paulicians, Donatists, and Montanists were all known as Anabaptists, from the fact that they rebaptized all who came over to them from the Catholics.” John Lawrence Mosheim wrote of the Anabaptists, “The true origin of that sect which acquired the denomination of the Anabaptists by their administering anew the rite of baptism to those who came over to their communion, and derived that of Mennonites, from the famous man, to whom they owe the greatest part of their present felicity, is hid in the remote depths of antiquity, and is, of consequence, extremely difficult to be ascertained (Ecclesiastical History, John Lawrence Mosheim, Vol. 2, pp. 119, 120). Mosheim then showed that the Anabaptists of the seventeenth century were descendants of the Waldenses, the Petrobrussians, and other ancient sects.

"Perhaps the most significant statement of the antiquity of Baptists came from the two men whom the King of Holland appointed in 1819 to prepare a history of the Dutch Reformed Church. Dr. Ypeij, Professor of Theology in the University of Groningen, and Rev. I. J. Dermout, Chaplain to the King published their History of the Dutch Reformed Church in 1823. In their history they devoted one chapter to the Baptists in which they wrote: “We have now seen that the Baptists, who were formerly called Anabaptists, and in later times Mennonites, were the original Waldenses, and who long in the history of the church received the honor of that origin.”

"Then these commissioned historians said, “On this account the Baptists may be considered as the only Christian community which has stood since the apostles, and as a Christian society has preserved pure the doctrine of the gospel through all ages.” (This well-known and oft cited quotation is taken from “Baptists in History” by W. P. Harvey which appears in Pillars of Orthodoxy, or Defenders of the Faith edited by Ben M. Bogard, p. 417).

"When the authenticity of this quotation was questioned in the late 1800’s, Dr. Harvey contacted Dr. George Manly who was President of a college of languages in Berlin to verify this statement. Dr. Manly found the volume by Ypeij and Dermout written in the Dutch Language containing the quotation and translated it for Dr. Harvey. Thus the authenticity of their oft-quoted statements concerning the Baptists was confirmed (“Baptists in History”, Harvey, cited in Pillars of Orthodoxy, edited by Bogard, pp. 418-420)."

"THOUGH THEY WERE FALSELY CALLED ANABAPTISTS, THESE CHURCHES WERE THE TRUE CHURCHES OF JESUS CHRIST."

Note: If they were not, go find the ones who where that Jesus Promised to be with until the End of the Age, bring them to us.

That is, if you have any comprehension of what a True Church of Jesus would be, and is, in it's most fundamental form, or forget it.

"There are those who would call our Baptist Churches Anabaptist Churches today because we baptize those who come to us from the both the Church of Rome and Protestant Churches so-called. We do not rebaptize; we baptize, because those who have been either sprinkled or dipped by these societies do not have true and Scriptural baptism.

"As we have seen, there were many more distinguishing characteristics of the Anabaptists than baptism alone. They held tenaciously to the old, Apostolic faith which was once delivered to the saints (Jude 3). May we, as their spiritual descendants, continue to hold to that same faith."

Note: We will also baptize those who come to us from 'Baptist' churches who except as members those who have been "either sprinkled or dipped" or immersed by these Church of Rome and Protestant, or Reformed Protestant-baptist societies. They do not and never did have true and Scriptural baptism, by the Authority of God. They knew that. Authority in baptism has been Handed down from God Himself, through John the Baptist, to His True Churches of Jesus Christ in the New Testament, through to His present day churches, until Jesus Comes Again.

I'd like to see someone prove Historically that it wasn't.

John the Baptist had the Authority of God to administer baptism, by fulfilling The Counsel of God and "all Rightousness".

I'd like to see someone prove Historically that he didn't.

"WHAT THE ANABAPTISTS BELIEVED"

"Those falsely called Anabaptists held to Biblical positions advocated by all true Baptists in every age.

"Doctrines are not true because they are Historical; they are true because they are Biblical. In a paper read before the American Society of Church History in 1890, Henry S. Burrage, D.D., stated the following concerning the beliefs that characterized the Anabaptist movement of the Sixteenth Century: “

(1) "That the Scriptures are the only authority in matters of faith and practice.

(2) "That personal faith in Jesus Christ only secures salvation; therefore infant baptism is to be rejected.

(3) "That a church is composed of believers who have been baptized upon a personal confession of their faith in Jesus Christ.

(4) "That each church has entire control of its affairs, without interference on the part of any external power.

(5) "That the outward life must be in accordance with such a confession of faith and to the end it is essential that church discipline should be maintained.

(6) "That while the State may properly demand obedience in all things not contrary to the law of God, it has no right to set aside the dictates of conscience, and compel the humblest individual to set aside his view, or to inflict punishment in case such surrender is refused. Every human soul is directly responsible to God.” (Henry S. Burrage, "American Society of Church History," pp. 157, 158, quoted by W. A. Jarrel, Baptist Church Perpetuity, pp. 182, 183).

"Following are some of the beliefs that characterized the Anabaptists:

"A Regenerated Church Membership: It was this conviction that caused them to reject infant baptism. No person could be a member of an Anabaptist Church who had not been regenerated and professed his faith in Christ. “They believed in regeneration by the atoning blood of Christ, but they demanded the fruits of regeneration”* (Burrage, quoted by Jarrel, p. 183). Neither did they believe in baptismal regeneration in any form. Balthazer Hubmeyer, a prominent leader among the despised Anabaptists from 1525 to 1528 said, “Salvation is conditioned neither on baptism nor on works of mercy. Condemnation is the result, not of neglect of baptism, but of unbelief alone.” (Burrage, quoted by Jarrel, p.184).

*"bring forth fruit met for repentance."

"A Baptized Church Membership: The Anabaptists obviously believed in and practiced baptism, else they would never have been called Anabaptists. Hubmeyer called baptism an Ordinance of Jesus Christ, saying, “It is not enough that one believes in Jesus; he must confess Him openly. . .The Divine order is, first, the preaching of the Word; second, Faith; third, baptism” (Burrage, quoted by Jarrel, p. 183)."

Quotes in quotes, quoted from:
Baptist History Homepage
The Anabaptists, by Royce Smith, 2019

This is also what I have learned. What is the basis for rejecting this link from some ifb churches to Anabaptists?

Is it confounding groups with one another that actually aren't connected? Like saying Baptists started in the Reformation, when actually that was a different set of baptist groups?

 

[360watt]

Independent Baptist seminaries that do not hold to Baptist perpetuity or recognize an Anabaptist origin:

BJU (not explicitly Baptist, but the students generally are)
Central Baptist Theological Seminary
Maranatha Baptist Theological Seminary
Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary
Baptist Theological Seminary (where I teach)

The thing is, the references in the likes of the Trail of Blood, are more fully fleshed out in books like My Church, by J.Moody and the Battle for Baptist History by I.K.Cross.

If we reject that historical evidence, what is the basis?

 

[John of Japan]

The thing is, the references in the likes of the Trail of Blood, are more fully fleshed out in books like My Church, by J.Moody and the Battle for Baptist History by I.K.Cross.

If we reject that historical evidence, what is the basis?

We can accept the narrative of the Trail of Blood if we dumb down what it means to be a Baptist so that it simply means to baptize by immersion.

Some of the groups in The Trail of Blood rejected some of the Baptist distinctives. For example, the author has Montanists seeming to be in the true line of Baptists in his chart, or close to it. However, they believed in extra-biblical revelation through the two , while Baptist believe in the Bible as our sole rule of faith and practice. Montanus had two prophetesses who gave revelation along with him named Prisca and Maximilla. Their "prophecies" were considered to be inspired like the Bible. I don't know how someone can be called Baptist simply because they immerse.

Considering the historical evidence, in most cases, IMO there is not enough data to decide whether or not they were actual Baptists like we are. Perhaps some of them were. (I think of the Paulicians.) However, I'm not willing to say they were actual Baptists without more evidence. (The Paulicians look like a denomination, but Baptists are not.)

 

[Jerome]

Historical correction for some of the smack talk in this thread:

The Trail of Blood was published by Ashland Avenue Baptist Church under pastor Clarence Walker, who was a Calvinist!