Independent Baptist churches vs Anabaptists

Anthony Pritchard · Friday at 11:46 AM

Jerome said:
Convention men (Southern) at the local level long used the title Dom. (Director of missions)
But recently the official title was changed to Ms. (Mission strategist)

Huh. Personally I don't think I'd care to be called Tony, Ms.

JonC · Friday at 1:23 PM

Anthony Pritchard said:
The same is true of Baptist churches today. Baptist denominations and independent Baptist congregations vary widely, and many of them hold very narrow doctrinal distinctives of their own. In the case of the Independent Baptists, those variations are precisely what makes them independent.

I agree. What I mean, though, is Baptists would consider Anabaptists to be Baptists because of what they believe while Anabaptists would not consider Baptists Anabaptists because of what they do not believe.

But I am taking traditional positions. All of that has changed today. We have had Baptists baptizing infants, have elder rule, and we have had Anabaptists involved in politics, holding offices.

Traditionally Baptists hold to Baptists distinctives that Anabaptists share. But Anabaptist belief included things like a type of separation that socially isolates, a strict view of male and female conduct within a congregation, a strict view of non-violence, non-participation in politics, not holding office or voting.

Traditionally Anabaptist theology was not as influenced by the Reformation whereas Baptist doctrine benefitted from both Anabaptist doctrine and the foctrine of the Reformers (at least to a greater degree).

But today those boundaries are certainly less defined.

Anthony Pritchard · Friday at 2:25 PM

JonC said:
I agree. What I mean, though, is Baptists would consider Anabaptists to be Baptists because of what they believe while Anabaptists would not consider Baptists Anabaptists because of what they do not believe.

But I am taking traditional positions. All of that has changed today. We have had Baptists baptizing infants, have elder rule, and we have had Anabaptists involved in politics, holding offices.

Traditionally Baptists hold to Baptists distinctives that Anabaptists share. But Anabaptist belief included things like a type of separation that socially isolates, a strict view of male and female conduct within a congregation, a strict view of non-violence, non-participation in politics, not holding office or voting.

Traditionally Anabaptist theology was not as influenced by the Reformation whereas Baptist doctrine benefitted from both Anabaptist doctrine and the foctrine of the Reformers (at least to a greater degree).

But today those boundaries are certainly less defined.

Agreed.

Anabaptists historically held positions Baptists never adopted, strict non‑violence, political non‑participation, rigid gender roles, and a level of social separation that today’s Baptists have never embraced. Most Baptists today vote, hold office, serve in the military, participate in civic life, affirm just war theory, and believe Christians may lawfully engage the state. The historic Anabaptist would not find these positions agreeable. But they agree on the foundational distinctives of the faith once delivered.

Alan Dale Gross · Saturday at 1:43 AM

360watt said:
What is the basis for rejecting this link from some ifb churches to Anabaptists?

My best guess would be that the part of the word, "Ana", that carries with it the designation of churches that do not accept "alien immersion" might not be what they are willing to stand for or do. Accepting "alien immersion" would mean that any potential members that had been "baptized", in whatever way, for whatever reason, would be allowed to become a part of their fellowship in good standing. One example of how that is a major problem is that they would be saying they accept for members those who have been "baptized" as an infant because someone was thinking it had something to do with their salvation, or people who believe "baptism" has to do with being saved as an adult. THE ENTRANCE TO CHURCH MEMBERSHIP IS NO LONGER SAFEGUARDED and they could accept in all kinds of lost people rather than maintaining a Regenerate membership, as much as possible, following the New Testament models and pattern.

360watt said:
Is it confounding groups with one another that actually aren't connected?

Like begets like. When their beliefs are the same on believer's baptism, Eternal Security, and the Priesthood of the Believer, those three things take in and cover all the other Doctrines, so they would be the same thing.

There would be groups of Waldensian, or some called Anabaptist, and said to be Baptists that have all kinds of differences which just would have to be weeded out of any investigation into their differences and similarities, but Historically Waldensians, Anabaptists, and Baptists who all administered Baptist Baptism are the same.

All of these document statements are from A. Ypeij and I. J. Dermout, History of the Dutch Reformed Church, trans. Lucas King (Kingstone Press, 2025), pp. 95–96. Originally published as Geschiedenis der Nederlandsche Hervormde Kerk, 4 vols. (Breda: W. van Bergen en Comp., 1819–1827); published by Kingstone Press, 2025.

“Here in this country there were likewise scattered many Waldenses, who possessed clear insights into the truths of religion, and, distinguished by a godly conduct of life, might be called the salt of the earth. These upright Christians — out of whom the still-surviving Baptists in this land have arisen, as will be further related afterward — had no small influence upon the uneducated portion of the people, in promoting better religious ideas, which thus had to become more and more widespread, especially with regard to the public church-ceremonies.”

“From this historical report concerning the old Dutch Waldensians, as they already existed in the twelfth century, and concerning their doctrine, as it was then, and had remained through the following centuries, one sees how the old and later Dutch Baptists, whose existence and doctrine are generally known, resembled them in everything.” Ibid., 159.

“...and yet it is indubitable that the Dutch Waldensians always rejected infant baptism, and only administered baptism to adults. This is definitely asserted of the Dutch Waldensians by HIERONYMUS VERDUSSEN, (106) by the Abbot A CLUGNY, (107) and other Roman Catholic writers. Hence it is that they have been known in this country from ancient times more under the name of Anabaptists than under that of Waldensians. (108) Especially from consideration of this doctrine concerning Holy baptism, one can explain how natural it was that, when in the sixteenth century some Anabaptists started mutinying, this crime was imputed to all Anabaptists, and all who would rather be called Baptists thereafter, were nevertheless still marked by their enemies with the hateful name of Anabaptists.” Ibid., 159.

“We have now seen that the Baptists, who in earlier times were called Anabaptists, and in later times Mennonites, were the original Waldensians, who, in the history of the church, have since long always received such well-deserved tribute. Therefore the Baptists may be regarded as from ancient times the only religious fellowship that has existed from the times of the Apostles on, as a Christian society which has kept the evangelical religious doctrine pure through all ages. The never deformed internal and external condition of the fellowship of Baptists then serves as proof of that truth, disputed by the Roman church, that the reformation of religion, as it came about in the sixteenth century, was necessary, most necessary, and also for the refutation of the Roman Catholics’ erroneous concept that their church denomination is the oldest.” Ibid., 165.
____________________________

“Nor could the Waldenses be called 'Reformed'; because they had from the earliest times remained pure in doctrine and therefore did not need to be reformed.” Ibid., 277.
____________________________

“But also a large part of the Netherlanders who declared themselves for the reformation of the church consisted only of old Waldensians, who were then called Anabaptists, as we have already come to know them before, as those true, noble Christians who, through all centuries of our chronology, had preserved the doctrine of the Gospel intact.” Ibid., 285.

Quotes from Dutch Church Historians
Concerning Waldenses
A. Ypeij and I. J. Dermout, 1819-1827

360watt · Saturday at 5:38 PM

Alan Dale Gross said:
My best guess would be that the part of the word, "Ana", that carries with it the designation of churches that do not accept "alien immersion" might not be what they are willing to stand for or do. Accepting "alien immersion" would mean that any potential members that had been "baptized", in whatever way, for whatever reason, would be allowed to become a part of their fellowship in good standing. One example of how that is a major problem is that they would be saying they accept for members those who have been "baptized" as an infant because someone was thinking it had something to do with their salvation, or people who believe "baptism" has to do with being saved as an adult. THE ENTRANCE TO CHURCH MEMBERSHIP IS NO LONGER SAFEGUARDED and they could accept in all kinds of lost people rather than maintaining a Regenerate membership, as much as possible, following the New Testament models and pattern.

Like begets like. When their beliefs are the same on believer's baptism, Eternal Security, and the Priesthood of the Believer, those three things take in and cover all the other Doctrines, so they would be the same thing.

There would be groups of Waldensian, or some called Anabaptist, and said to be Baptists that have all kinds of differences which just would have to be weeded out of any investigation into their differences and similarities, but Historically Waldensians, Anabaptists, and Baptists who all administered Baptist Baptism are the same.

All of these document statements are from A. Ypeij and I. J. Dermout, History of the Dutch Reformed Church, trans. Lucas King (Kingstone Press, 2025), pp. 95–96. Originally published as Geschiedenis der Nederlandsche Hervormde Kerk, 4 vols. (Breda: W. van Bergen en Comp., 1819–1827); published by Kingstone Press, 2025.

“Here in this country there were likewise scattered many Waldenses, who possessed clear insights into the truths of religion, and, distinguished by a godly conduct of life, might be called the salt of the earth. These upright Christians — out of whom the still-surviving Baptists in this land have arisen, as will be further related afterward — had no small influence upon the uneducated portion of the people, in promoting better religious ideas, which thus had to become more and more widespread, especially with regard to the public church-ceremonies.”

“From this historical report concerning the old Dutch Waldensians, as they already existed in the twelfth century, and concerning their doctrine, as it was then, and had remained through the following centuries, one sees how the old and later Dutch Baptists, whose existence and doctrine are generally known, resembled them in everything.” Ibid., 159.

“...and yet it is indubitable that the Dutch Waldensians always rejected infant baptism, and only administered baptism to adults. This is definitely asserted of the Dutch Waldensians by HIERONYMUS VERDUSSEN, (106) by the Abbot A CLUGNY, (107) and other Roman Catholic writers. Hence it is that they have been known in this country from ancient times more under the name of Anabaptists than under that of Waldensians. (108) Especially from consideration of this doctrine concerning Holy baptism, one can explain how natural it was that, when in the sixteenth century some Anabaptists started mutinying, this crime was imputed to all Anabaptists, and all who would rather be called Baptists thereafter, were nevertheless still marked by their enemies with the hateful name of Anabaptists.” Ibid., 159.

“We have now seen that the Baptists, who in earlier times were called Anabaptists, and in later times Mennonites, were the original Waldensians, who, in the history of the church, have since long always received such well-deserved tribute. Therefore the Baptists may be regarded as from ancient times the only religious fellowship that has existed from the times of the Apostles on, as a Christian society which has kept the evangelical religious doctrine pure through all ages. The never deformed internal and external condition of the fellowship of Baptists then serves as proof of that truth, disputed by the Roman church, that the reformation of religion, as it came about in the sixteenth century, was necessary, most necessary, and also for the refutation of the Roman Catholics’ erroneous concept that their church denomination is the oldest.” Ibid., 165.
____________________________

“Nor could the Waldenses be called 'Reformed'; because they had from the earliest times remained pure in doctrine and therefore did not need to be reformed.” Ibid., 277.
____________________________

“But also a large part of the Netherlanders who declared themselves for the reformation of the church consisted only of old Waldensians, who were then called Anabaptists, as we have already come to know them before, as those true, noble Christians who, through all centuries of our chronology, had preserved the doctrine of the Gospel intact.” Ibid., 285.

Quotes from Dutch Church Historians
Concerning Waldenses
A. Ypeij and I. J. Dermout, 1819-1827

I'm part of a Fellowship Bible Baptist church in Christchurch, New Zealand. Oldest IFB church in Christchurch I think. Looks like we may have very similar doctrine to you

Alan Dale Gross · Saturday at 8:26 PM

John of Japan said:
...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.

early dissenters went by the name of Cataphrygians, Quintillianists, and Pepuzians, as well as Montanists. These people will be referred to in the narratives which will follow. After the Donatists arose they were often called by that name."6

The following is mostly the origin of smears against the Montanists and the attached doc goes on to include discussion concerning their positive characteristics:

Montanists: Origin and Beliefs, AND THE TESTIMONIES of Tertullian,David Benedict, John T. Christian, Henry C. Vedder, Thomas Armitage, W. A. Jarrel, &

Final Notes on the Montanists

Many of them suffered. Tertullian tells of many who were martyred. As in our quote from Dr. Christian, "The crown of life was martyrdom." This would not have been said unless many of them died. The Martyrs Mirror records some of their persecutions.

[p. 44]
Some of them, no doubt, held to some things we would shy away from. That is true of some Baptists today. They were for the most part, churches of like principles with us today. We claim them in the line of our heritage.

Baptist History Homepage

Baptist History Notebook
by Berlin Hisel

Chapter 4
THE MONTANISTS

Baptists have been known by many different names in the past. They have been called by the name of the place in which they lived. They have been called by the name of the powerful leader among them. In was not until the time of the Reformation that they were called "Baptists." If time stands, we may be called by another name. This first group of our ancestors which we shall study gets their name from a man.

A Word of Caution

Not everyone today who calls himself a "Baptist" would be a "Baptist" as we consider it. In "Baptist" seminars, there are so-called Baptists who teach that a man can "fall from grace." They teach that the Bible is not infallible. They teach that Baptists began with John Smyth. Some of them teach that Jesus Christ was only a man. They call themselves Baptists. They pastor churches which call themselves Baptist churches. Yet, they are not Baptists at all. They deny many (most) of the cardinal doctrines that make a "Baptist" church. They do not bear the marks or the doctrinal peculiarities that Christ gave to His church when He founded it. So, in reality, they are "Baptists" who are not Baptists.

We will find this in our study of the Montanists and all other groups that we shall study about. We will not try to maintain that every Montanist was a true Baptist, however, we would maintain and do maintain that "among" them were the churches holding the truth as Christ gave it to His church.

False Charges

Much of the history we have of the Montanists was written by their enemies. There are many charges against them in the various church histories that are absolutely false.

[p. 36]
If we use common sense in our investigation, this will be evident. When one person is writing about another person who believes differently, false charges are often made, consciously or unconsciously. Example: A Baptist would say that everybody who is going to heaven will go like a Baptist goes. A Methodist, hearing this, says the man who said it believes only Baptists are going to heaven. This is a false charge. Our ancestors, who refused the baptisms of the apostate churches, are charged as not believing in baptism. Since we do not believe baptism saves, the Campbellites say we do not believe in baptism. Many false charges against the Montanists and others have crept into histories by this line of reasoning.

Eusebius

It is my opinion that Mosheim and others relate certain charges against the Montanists because they follow the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius. Eusebius was born about 275 A.D. and died about 339 A.D. He was bishop of Caesarea in Palestine and is revered, by most, as the father of church history. He was a close friend to Constantine, the ruler of the Roman Empire who united false churches to the state power. It is believed by many that Constantine commissioned him to write this history and financed his travel and investigations. Knowing what Constantine did to our Baptist ancestors should make us leery of him. Knowing he was a friend of Eusebius should make us careful of Eusebius too.

Eusebius quotes authors whom we know nothing about, against the Montanists. "He had also transmitted to us what we know of Miltiades and his works, especially on the Montanists. Extracts from Apollonius of Rome, caused much zeal in refuting the pretended prophets. Serapion, bishop of Antioch, is cited on the same subject." 1

Eusebius gives: "Their combination, therefore, and the recent heretical severance of theirs from the church, had for its origin the following cause: - There is said to be a certain village of Mysia in Phrygia, called Ardaba. There, they say, one of those who was but a recent convert, Montanus by name, when Cratus was proconsul in Asia, in the excessive

[p. 37]
desire of his soul to take the lead, gave the adversary occasion against himself. So that he was carried away in spirit, and wrought up into a certain kind of frenzy and irregular ecstasy, raving, and speaking, and uttering strange things, and proclaiming what was contrary to the institutions that had prevailed in the church, as handed down and preserved in succession from the earliest times. But of those that happened then to be present, and to hear these spurious oracles, and being indignant, rebuked him as one under the influence of demons and the spirit of delusion, and who was only exciting disturbances among the multitude. These bore in mind the distinction and the warning given by our Lord, when he cautioned them to be vigilantly on their guard against false prophets. Others again, as if elated by the Holy Spirit, and the gift of grace, and not a little puffed up, and forgetting the distinction made by our Lord, challenged this insidious, flattering, and seducing spirit being themselves captivated and seduced by him; so that they could no longer restrain him to keep silence. Thus, by an artifice, or rather by a certain crafty process, the devil having devised destruction against those that disobeyed the truth, and thus excessively honored by them, secretly stimulated and fired their understandings, already wrapt in insensibility, and wandering away from the truth. For he excited two others, females, and filled them with the spirit of delusion, so that they also spake like the former, in a kind of ecstatic frenzy, out of all season, and in a manner strange and novel, whilst the spirit of evil congratulated them, thus rejoicing and inflated by him, and continued to puff them up the more, by promises of great things. Sometimes pointedly and deservedly, directly condemning them that he might appear also disposed to reprove them. Those few that were deceived were Phrygians; but the same inflated spirit taught them to revile the whole church under heaven, because it gave neither access nor honor to this false spirit of prophecy. For when the faithful held frequent conversations in many places throughout Asia for this very purpose, and examined their novel doctrines, and pronounced them vain, and rejected them as heresy, then indeed they were expelled and prohibited from communion with the church."2

[p. 38]
Eusebius, speaking so severely against them, makes me think they must have been Baptists. Guess we all have our bias.

...I think most Baptists see the difference between the Holy Spirit dwelling in a believer and in the Holy Spirit empowering the church on the day of Pentecost. It seems to me that Montanus felt he was a teacher in the true church, empowered in a special way to teach the truth. Churches (true churches) have the Holy Spirit in a special way. True churches have the truth, so the best place to hear the truth is in a true church.

1Ecclesiastical History, Introduction page VII.
2Ecclesiastical History, pages 196-197.
3Church History, pages 55-56.
4Church History, page 56, footnote A.

Armchair Apologist · Saturday at 9:16 PM

John of Japan said:
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.)

If they actually studied what the Montanists believed and taught, they would find a legitimate reason to invoke extreme ecclesiastical separation!

About the only thing of which a Baptist could agree with is that the Montanists rejected Apostolic succession but before you could shout "Amen!" to this, they take it much further even questioning the authority of the actual apostles! Montanus accused the church leaders of his day of "Chasing the Holy Spirit into a book" and insisted that divine inspiration was not limited to the apostolic writings!

Montanus would make any Charismatic "continuationist" look like a rigid Presbyterian by comparison!

Armchair Apologist · Saturday at 9:28 PM

Much of the history we have of the Montanists was written by their enemies. There are many charges against them in the various church histories that are absolutely false.

And such is the rationale used by the "Trail of Blood" types to defend pretty much everyone they are attempting to turn into a "Proto-Baptist!" Don't they ever get tired of wiping the egg off their face?

First and foremost, Why would someone go through so much trouble to falsely identify and slander a group to the point of going into great detail regarding their practices and beliefs? Was Eusebius some sort of Jesuit or Illuminati operative? As absurd as this sounds, it is not far-fetched from the mindset of certain groups I used to run with! :Frown

Where did the REAL Montanist history go? They were an extant group up to at least the 6th century so where did all their history go? Eusebius and his ilk could not have gotten to and erased everything right?

Alan Dale Gross · 2026-07-19T01:09:59-0500

360watt said:
I'm part of a Fellowship Bible Baptist church in Christchurch, New Zealand. Oldest IFB church in Christchurch I think. Looks like we may have very similar doctrine to you

The Lord is Good. I'm so glad to hear from you. That's an amazing thing and the Work of the Lord.

As far as church History goes, I'd like to know of any History you all may have on the founding of your Fellowship.

It sounds very interesting.

Since I just happen to have ours from our website, I put it below.

"Bryan Station Baptist Church is a local, visible, called-out assembly of scripturally baptized believers, covenanted together according to the Biblical pattern of a “one member, one vote,” Spirit-led democracy; whose purpose is the carrying out of the Great Commission of Matthew 28:16-20. The Bible teaches that only such a church as this is authorized and constructed to be able to do so.

"Our Authority came, according to the Biblical Doctrine of “church succession,” through particular New England “Separate” Baptists who had sought out existing Baptist churches for this Arm of Authority. Such were Elders Shubeal Sterns and Daniel Marshall who, once they were saved, sought out Baptist Baptism; Shubeal Sterns at the Baptist Church at Toland, Connecticut on May 20, 1751; and Daniel Marshall from Winsor, Connecticut, saved and burdened to preach, came to Winchester, Virginia where he became convinced of the soundness of Baptist Doctrine and was immersed at the age of forty-eight.

"After a few years each under sound ministry, and after becoming licensed to preach by their respective churches, they were found laboring in Virginia, North and South Carolina and Georgia. They remained in Virginia only a short while “but the Power of God was Effectual in the Conversion of Samuel Harris, a man of great distinction…” who at length became greatly used of the Lord.

“Sometime in 1766… Elijah Craig and two others came to this same Mr. Harris’s home in order to procure his services in Orange County, Va. and adjacent parts; to preach and baptize and organize new converts. They found to their surprise that he himself at that time had not yet been Ordained; but being more perfectly instructed in the way of the Lord he carried them about 60 miles into North Carolina to get James Read (who was Ordained) (Robert B. Semple, “A History of the Rise and Progress of the Baptists in Virginia.”) and (John T. Christian, “A History of the Baptists,” pg. 215, vol. 2), even as Jesus traveled at least as far to receive baptism at the hands of a Baptists preacher (Mark 1:9-14).

"From this beginning churches were established and Ordination by them was begun (John T. Christian, pg. 216, vol.2), and a church was soon found at Spotsylvania, Va. – the Spotsylvania Baptist Church, pastored by Elder Lewis Craig. And it is from this church, when it became the famous “Traveling Church” in September of 1781, when Lewis Craig led the whole church over the Cumberland Gap to settle in the blue grass region of Central Kentucky, that the authority for our Bryan Station Baptist Church came, organized in 1786.

"We believe we are to take our history seriously. It is a glorious history. May the Lord Grant we live up to it."

Our History – Bryan Station Baptist Church

LEWIS CRAIG and CAPTAIN WILLIAM ELLIS are on our church rolls as some of our first members.
We've believed and taught the same things since 1786.

"THE TRAVELING CHURCH"
AN ACCOUNT OF THE BAPTIST EXODUS
FROM VIRGINIA TO KENTUCKY IN 1781
UNDER THE LEADERSHIP of Rev. LEWIS CRAIG and CAPTAIN WILLIAM ELLIS.

Jerome · 2026-07-19T01:40:33-0500

Alan Dale Gross said:
Baptist History Notebook
by Berlin Hisel
Chapter 4
"Much of the history we have of the Montanists was written by their enemies. There are many charges against them in the various church histories that are absolutely false."

Armchair Apologist said:
And such is the rationale used by the "Trail of Blood" types to defend pretty much everyone they are attempting to turn into a "Proto-Baptist!" Don't they ever get tired of wiping the egg off their face? First and foremost, Why would someone go through so much trouble to falsely identify and slander a group to the point of going into great detail regarding their practices and beliefs? Was Eusebius some sort of Jesuit or Illuminati operative? As absurd as this sounds, it is not far-fetched from the mindset of certain groups I used to run with!
Where did the REAL Montanist history go? They were an extant group up to at least the 6th century so where did all their history go? Eusebius and his ilk could not have gotten to and erased everything right?

Sigh.

Charles Spurgeon, "Hearken and Look, Encouragement for Believers" [Annual Sermon to the Baptist Missionary Society]:

"History has hitherto been written by our enemies, who never would have kept a single fact about us upon the record if they could have helped it—and yet it leaks out every now, and then that certain poor people called Anabaptists were brought up for condemnation....Long before you Protestants were known of, these horrible Anabaptists, as they were unjustly called, were protesting for the “one Lord, one faith and one baptism.” No sooner did the visible church begin to depart from the Gospel than these men arose to keep fast by the good old way. The priests and monks wished for peace and slumber, but there was always a Baptist or a Lollard tickling men’s ears with Holy Scripture, and calling their attention to the errors of the times. They were a poor, persecuted tribe. The halter was thought to be too good for them. At times ill-written history would have us think that they died out, so well had the wolf done his work on the sheep. Yet here we are, blessed and multiplied."

Alan Dale Gross · 2026-07-19T01:48:05-0500

360watt said:
I have the book History of the Baptists by John.T.Christian. It fleshes out the references and adds others that you see in the Trail of Blood

This is a great feature of the Baptist History Homepage where they've got all these references you can download. A lot of 'American' History, (I was searching for New Zealand!) but there are many other good sound works, too.

Baptist History Homepage, A Source for Original Baptist Documents

If there was ever a time that Baptists needed to know our history, it's today.
"If God has no need of human learning, He has still less need of human ignorance."

This one on the Welsh Baptists gives their History from A.D. 63 to 1770.

This is our beliefs in a nutshell: Simmons, Thomas Paul, A Systematic Study of Bible Doctrine, n.d.

There is some very good stuff in this Baptist History:
Ray, David B., Baptist Succession: A Handbook of Baptist History, 1871.

"Many Old Baptist Books have been digitized. There are 654 Old Baptist Books linked here, including: history, biography, theology and sermons. They are listed in alphabetical order by author. You may view and search, or download them.
"There are also 89 old Baptist Magazines / Journals here.
"And there are 50 old Baptist Commentaries here."

360watt · 2026-07-19T05:01:20-0500

Alan Dale Gross said:
This is a great feature of the Baptist History Homepage where they've got all these references you can download. A lot of 'American' History, (I was searching for New Zealand!) but there are many other good sound works, too.

Baptist History Homepage, A Source for Original Baptist Documents
If there was ever a time that Baptists needed to know our history, it's today.
"If God has no need of human learning, He has still less need of human ignorance."

This one on the Welsh Baptists gives their History from A.D. 63 to 1770.

This is our beliefs in a nutshell: Simmons, Thomas Paul, A Systematic Study of Bible Doctrine, n.d.

There is some very good stuff in this Baptist History:
Ray, David B., Baptist Succession: A Handbook of Baptist History, 1871.

"Many Old Baptist Books have been digitized. There are 654 Old Baptist Books linked here, including: history, biography, theology and sermons. They are listed in alphabetical order by author. You may view and search, or download them.
"There are also 89 old Baptist Magazines / Journals here.
"And there are 50 old Baptist Commentaries here."

I started at Christchurch Family Baptist..non calvinist IFB.. in 2004, that was independent missionary Baptist. Planted by a pastor who was trained in the ABA in Arkansas, from Meadow Lake Missionary Baptist. He had a mentor from Little Rock Arkansas, Landol Swinney. Landol was friends with my now Pastor at Linwood Fellowship Baptist.

My pastor now, is from Kentucky. I need to find out more of his church history. But we used to look at the same Baptist History Books you have mentioned.

Key distinctions in our beliefs is having no universal church.. a purely local body of Christ... cessationism... non calvinist... closed communion. Baptism of believers only. Baptism that allows someone to be voted in to be a member. Baptism as a symbol of eternal salvation..not eternal salvation itself.

Anthony Pritchard · 2026-07-19T13:35:47-0500

John of Japan said:

360watt said:
I started at Christchurch Family Baptist..non calvinist IFB.. in 2004, that was independent missionary Baptist. Planted by a pastor who was trained in the ABA in Arkansas, from Meadow Lake Missionary Baptist. He had a mentor from Little Rock Arkansas, Landol Swinney. Landol was friends with my now Pastor at Linwood Fellowship Baptist.

My pastor now, is from Kentucky. I need to find out more of his church history. But we used to look at the same Baptist History Books you have mentioned.

Key distinctions in our beliefs is having no universal church.. a purely local body of Christ... cessationism... non calvinist... closed communion. Baptism of believers only. Baptism that allows someone to be voted in to be a member. Baptism as a symbol of eternal salvation..not eternal salvation itself.

360watt,

The key distinctives you listed are the same ones I hold:

No universal invisible church, only local, visible assemblies.
Cessationism.
Non‑Calvinist soteriology.
Closed communion.
Believers’ baptism only.
Baptism as the door into local church membership, not a sacrament.
Baptism as a symbol of salvation, not salvation itself.

Those are the historic Baptist positions handed down from the faith once delivered, long before the Particular Baptists adopted the predestinarian framework and long before Augustine. The books mentioned, Ray’s Baptist Succession, Simmons’ Systematic Study of Bible Doctrine, the Welsh Baptist histories, all reflect that same line of doctrine: local church only, free gospel, believers’ baptism, and no Reformed sacramentalism or predestinarianism.

It’s encouraging to see how your own journey traces the same doctrinal stream many of us here hold. These old Baptist books weren’t just history; they were identity. They reveal a line of belief that never needed Calvinism to explain the gospel, never needed a universal church to define the body of Christ, and never needed sacramental theology to maintain order.

Your testimony fits squarely within that heritage.

Armchair Apologist · 2026-07-19T14:59:31-0500

360watt said:
Key distinctions in our beliefs is having no universal church.. a purely local body of Christ... cessationism... non calvinist... closed communion. Baptism of believers only. Baptism that allows someone to be voted in to be a member. Baptism as a symbol of eternal salvation..not eternal salvation itself.

You have to be careful about this. The Roman Catholic Church has reinterpreted the "Catholic, Universal Church" (as stated in the Nicene Creed) as being the magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church under the magisterium of the Pope which I (and every other Bible-believing Christian should) soundly reject! I believe this is the primary objection of the "Local Church Only" folks and is something that really needs to be better thought through.

However, Christ established and purchased but ONE CHURCH with his blood and this is the redeemed throughout the ages (division of Israeel and the Church notwithstanding - not my intention to argue this). It is this ONE CHURCH that Christ will present to himself without spot or wrinkle. You and I belong to this one, invisible (and indivisible) Church that manifests itself locally as your local Baptist church in New Zealand and mine in Stafford, TX. I would be adamant of the fact that every blood-bought child of God ought to affiliate themselves with a sound, local, Bible-preaching church! "YouTube Pastors" do not qualify as someone who is able to be your pastor. Your pastor needs to be someone whom you can shake hands and be on a first-name basis with. :Cool

If you want to be non-Calvinistic, this is something that is up to your congregation (and I respect this) but I would rather not take a stand either way. The BFM 2000 (SBC) gives a great deal of lattitude and you will never have to worry about your "position" taking precedence over whatever scriptural truth you may come across while preaching through the Bible and you are less likely to cause a church split when the issues does come up. Being either Anti-Calvinistic or Anti-Arminian ultimately become indefensible right along with taking "King James Only" to its logical extreme.

Armchair Apologist · 2026-07-19T15:21:44-0500

Jerome said:
Sigh.

Charles Spurgeon, "Hearken and Look, Encouragement for Believers" [Annual Sermon to the Baptist Missionary Society]:

"History has hitherto been written by our enemies, who never would have kept a single fact about us upon the record if they could have helped it—and yet it leaks out every now, and then that certain poor people called Anabaptists were brought up for condemnation....Long before you Protestants were known of, these horrible Anabaptists, as they were unjustly called, were protesting for the “one Lord, one faith and one baptism.” No sooner did the visible church begin to depart from the Gospel than these men arose to keep fast by the good old way. The priests and monks wished for peace and slumber, but there was always a Baptist or a Lollard tickling men’s ears with Holy Scripture, and calling their attention to the errors of the times. They were a poor, persecuted tribe. The halter was thought to be too good for them. At times ill-written history would have us think that they died out, so well had the wolf done his work on the sheep. Yet here we are, blessed and multiplied."

I will repeat myself; Who are these enemies and what motive have they to promote such lies? The Roman Catholic Church is the great slanderer of anyone and anything not Roman Catholic and we are well aware of this. The different Protestant groups have had their disagreements and often misrepresent each other but one is able to sift through everything and come to a semblance of the truth. How is it that these primitive "Proto-Baptist" groups have been so maligned throughout history that only that which is "slanderous" remains? Why were the accounts of Jan Hus so well documented and preserved? Seems to me that this is someone you would most certainly launch a "smear campaign" against and turn him into a blight upon Church history! Perhaps the Roman authorities tried to do so but were unable and if not, why?

Charles Spurgeon is "The Man" and if I lived in London during the time he pastored the Metropolitan Tabernacle, this is where I would be attending Church! If I had opportunity to do so, I would ask him these very questions! Perhaps I'd discover that he was not nearly as adamant of this point as you are making him out to be?

JonC · 2026-07-19T16:02:47-0500

Alan Dale Gross said:
My best guess would be that the part of the word, "Ana", that carries with it the designation of churches that do not accept "alien immersion" might not be what they are willing to stand for or do. Accepting "alien immersion" would mean that any potential members that had been "baptized", in whatever way, for whatever reason, would be allowed to become a part of their fellowship in good standing. One example of how that is a major problem is that they would be saying they accept for members those who have been "baptized" as an infant because someone was thinking it had something to do with their salvation, or people who believe "baptism" has to do with being saved as an adult. THE ENTRANCE TO CHURCH MEMBERSHIP IS NO LONGER SAFEGUARDED and they could accept in all kinds of lost people rather than maintaining a Regenerate membership, as much as possible, following the New Testament models and pattern.

Like begets like. When their beliefs are the same on believer's baptism, Eternal Security, and the Priesthood of the Believer, those three things take in and cover all the other Doctrines, so they would be the same thing.

There would be groups of Waldensian, or some called Anabaptist, and said to be Baptists that have all kinds of differences which just would have to be weeded out of any investigation into their differences and similarities, but Historically Waldensians, Anabaptists, and Baptists who all administered Baptist Baptism are the same.

All of these document statements are from A. Ypeij and I. J. Dermout, History of the Dutch Reformed Church, trans. Lucas King (Kingstone Press, 2025), pp. 95–96. Originally published as Geschiedenis der Nederlandsche Hervormde Kerk, 4 vols. (Breda: W. van Bergen en Comp., 1819–1827); published by Kingstone Press, 2025.

“Here in this country there were likewise scattered many Waldenses, who possessed clear insights into the truths of religion, and, distinguished by a godly conduct of life, might be called the salt of the earth. These upright Christians — out of whom the still-surviving Baptists in this land have arisen, as will be further related afterward — had no small influence upon the uneducated portion of the people, in promoting better religious ideas, which thus had to become more and more widespread, especially with regard to the public church-ceremonies.”

“From this historical report concerning the old Dutch Waldensians, as they already existed in the twelfth century, and concerning their doctrine, as it was then, and had remained through the following centuries, one sees how the old and later Dutch Baptists, whose existence and doctrine are generally known, resembled them in everything.” Ibid., 159.

“...and yet it is indubitable that the Dutch Waldensians always rejected infant baptism, and only administered baptism to adults. This is definitely asserted of the Dutch Waldensians by HIERONYMUS VERDUSSEN, (106) by the Abbot A CLUGNY, (107) and other Roman Catholic writers. Hence it is that they have been known in this country from ancient times more under the name of Anabaptists than under that of Waldensians. (108) Especially from consideration of this doctrine concerning Holy baptism, one can explain how natural it was that, when in the sixteenth century some Anabaptists started mutinying, this crime was imputed to all Anabaptists, and all who would rather be called Baptists thereafter, were nevertheless still marked by their enemies with the hateful name of Anabaptists.” Ibid., 159.

“We have now seen that the Baptists, who in earlier times were called Anabaptists, and in later times Mennonites, were the original Waldensians, who, in the history of the church, have since long always received such well-deserved tribute. Therefore the Baptists may be regarded as from ancient times the only religious fellowship that has existed from the times of the Apostles on, as a Christian society which has kept the evangelical religious doctrine pure through all ages. The never deformed internal and external condition of the fellowship of Baptists then serves as proof of that truth, disputed by the Roman church, that the reformation of religion, as it came about in the sixteenth century, was necessary, most necessary, and also for the refutation of the Roman Catholics’ erroneous concept that their church denomination is the oldest.” Ibid., 165.
____________________________

“Nor could the Waldenses be called 'Reformed'; because they had from the earliest times remained pure in doctrine and therefore did not need to be reformed.” Ibid., 277.
____________________________

“But also a large part of the Netherlanders who declared themselves for the reformation of the church consisted only of old Waldensians, who were then called Anabaptists, as we have already come to know them before, as those true, noble Christians who, through all centuries of our chronology, had preserved the doctrine of the Gospel intact.” Ibid., 285.

Quotes from Dutch Church Historians
Concerning Waldenses
A. Ypeij and I. J. Dermout, 1819-1827

The "ana" means "again". "Anabaptist" was coined by their opponents, referring to them as "rebaptizers".

Anthony Pritchard · 2026-07-19T16:31:40-0500

Armchair Apologist said:
I will repeat myself; Who are these enemies and what motive have they to promote such lies? The Roman Catholic Church is the great slanderer of anyone and anything not Roman Catholic and we are well aware of this. The different Protestant groups have had their disagreements and often misrepresent each other but one is able to sift through everything and come to a semblance of the truth. How is it that these primitive "Proto-Baptist" groups have been so maligned throughout history that only that which is "slanderous" remains? Why were the accounts of Jan Hus so well documented and preserved? Seems to me that this is someone you would most certainly launch a "smear campaign" against and turn him into a blight upon Church history! Perhaps the Roman authorities tried to do so but were unable and if not, why?

Charles Spurgeon is "The Man" and if I lived in London during the time he pastored the Metropolitan Tabernacle, this is where I would be attending Church! If I had opportunity to do so, I would ask him these very questions! Perhaps I'd discover that he was not nearly as adamant of this point as you are making him out to be?

This reply does not address Spurgeon’s point at all, which was showing that hostile historians maligned dissenting groups. Questioning Spurgeon’s conviction is deflection. Jan Hus is irrelevant to the point being made.

Spurgeon’s point is not difficult to understand. The enemies he refers to were the same enemies who persecuted dissenting groups for centuries. Rome wrote the histories, Rome conducted the trials, Rome preserved the records, and Rome had every motive to slander those who rejected her authority. The reason Jan Hus is well documented is because he was a public figure tried under international scrutiny. The reason earlier dissenters were not is because they were rural, scattered, and intentionally erased. Spurgeon was not speculating. He was describing the historical reality that even Rome’s own records cannot fully conceal.

Armchair Apologist · 2026-07-19T17:27:28-0500

Anthony Pritchard said:
This reply does not address Spurgeon’s point at all, which was showing that hostile historians maligned dissenting groups. Questioning Spurgeon’s conviction is deflection. Jan Hus is irrelevant to the point being made.

Spurgeon’s point is not difficult to understand. The enemies he refers to were the same enemies who persecuted dissenting groups for centuries. Rome wrote the histories, Rome conducted the trials, Rome preserved the records, and Rome had every motive to slander those who rejected her authority. The reason Jan Hus is well documented is because he was a public figure tried under international scrutiny. The reason earlier dissenters were not is because they were rural, scattered, and intentionally erased. Spurgeon was not speculating. He was describing the historical reality that even Rome’s own records cannot fully conceal.

Let me make this perfectly clear. I want to agree with you but am exercising caution over who I would refer to as being "Baptist." Would you agree with this? We are both Baptist here and I believe that Baptist is the best and most pure expression of the historic Christian faith. If I did not believe this, I would not be a Baptist. Fair enough?

Now here is the problem of what you are saying. We both agree that Rome has motive to slander any group that is not "Roman Catholic" and we understand why.

Now, if the history of these groups were intentionally erased as you say, how can we then go back and say that they were distinctly "Baptistic?" Where is our rationale and historic evidence for doing so?

This topic has me doing somewhat of a quick "dive" into these assorted groups. The Waldensians (Peter Waldo) originating in 1173, was excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church in 1184 so they are a "Proto-Protestant" group just as were the Hussites and Lollards. The Paulicians are questionable with some saying that they were Gnostic and Manicheist while others say they were a localized reform movement heavily focused upon early apostolic traditions and the writings of the Apostle Paul (hence their name) - either way, it seems they broke away from the Orthodox Church. I am not seeing any of these groups as standing alone and apart from the "established" (Catholic) church of their day which is the primary point that the "Trail of Blood" folks are trying to make here.

Anthony Pritchard · 2026-07-19T17:33:59-0500

Armchair Apologist said:
Let me make this perfectly clear. I want to agree with you but am exercising caution over who I would refer to as being "Baptist." Would you agree with this? We are both Baptist here and I believe that Baptist is the best and most pure expression of the historic Christian faith. If I did not believe this, I would not be a Baptist. Fair enough?

Now here is the problem of what you are saying. We both agree that Rome has motive to slander any group that is not "Roman Catholic" and we understand why.

Now, if the history of these groups were intentionally erased as you say, how can we then go back and say that they were distinctly "Baptistic?" Where is our rationale and historic evidence for doing so?

This topic has me doing somewhat of a quick "dive" into these assorted groups. The Waldensians (Peter Waldo) originating in 1173, was excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church in 1184 so they are a "Proto-Protestant" group just as were the Hussites and Lollards. The Paulicians are questionable with some saying that they were Gnostic and Manicheist while others say they were a localized reform movement heavily focused upon early apostolic traditions and the writings of the Apostle Paul (hence their name) - either way, it seems they broke away from the Orthodox Church. I am not seeing any of these groups as standing alone and apart from the "established" (Catholic) church of their day which is the primary point that the "Trail of Blood" folks are trying to make here.

I think we’re talking past each other. I’m not arguing that every dissenting group was “Baptist,” nor am I trying to force a successionist line. My point was simply the one Spurgeon made: the historical descriptions we have of these groups were written by their enemies, and those enemies had every motive to slander, distort, or erase them. That means we must be cautious about drawing conclusions from hostile sources. Whether a group was Baptistic or not is a separate question. Spurgeon’s point was about historiography, not successionism, and that is the point I was addressing.

John of Japan · 2026-07-19T17:42:11-0500

In regards to the rejection of Montanism by Eusebius in his The History of the Church (mine is the translation by G. A. Williamson), he quotes extensively from Apollinaris, a 2nd century pastor at Hierapolis in Phrygia from 171, who was a contemporary of Montanus. Eusebius himself made no judgment about Montanus on his own, but strictly stuck to what Apollinaris had written, "one of the most active and esteemed Christian writers of his day" (Who Was Who in Church History, by Elgin Moyer, p. 16. This good pastor was actually a contemporary of Montanus, and therefore very well informed about his heresies. (So much for the attacks on the character of Eusebius. They are irrelevant.)

The main attacks by Apollinaris on Montanus were about his two "prophetesses," Priscilla and Maximilla: they were demon possessed, they required gold for their prophecies, prophesied things that never happened, etc. Now, the Baptists I have known all my life, and serve God with to this very day, do not tolerate "prophetesses," and would ecclesiastically separate from such nonsense, as Armchair Apologist suggested. So, anyone who defends the Montanists as "Baptists" is ill informed and grasping at straws. I could write a lot more from Eusebius, but who needs it? "Down with all 'prophetesses' in the NT age!"

Independent Baptist churches vs Anabaptists

Well-Known Member

Moderator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Attachments

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Baptist History Homepage, A Source for Original Baptist Documents​

Member

Baptist History Homepage, A Source for Original Baptist Documents​

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Moderator

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Baptist History Homepage, A Source for Original Baptist Documents

Baptist History Homepage, A Source for Original Baptist Documents