1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Did Baptists originate from the Anabaptists?

Discussion in 'Baptist History' started by BigBossman, Jan 27, 2009.

  1. Pastor David

    Pastor David Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Messages:
    246
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Jerome. In a sense I agree with you about the terminology. But it is a useful tool in distinguishing certain strands of Baptists. Interestingly enough, for those Baptists who never came out from under the auspices of the RCC, and who had never been baptized in the RCC, they couldn't technically be called "re-baptizers" (Anabaptists). Only that branch of Protestants who rebaptized their followers based upon a credible profession of faith are, in this sense, rightly considered Anabaptists - of which we know there now exists many varieties.
     
  2. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,371
    Likes Received:
    2,405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I'm not arguing from silence. I'm only acknowledging that there is a documentary Black Hole in the period we're talking about. At least, there's a Black Hole when considering "Baptists" in the Britain. However, considering the ferment on the continent, the non-existance of Baptists in England would make the country an exception. Something I find hard to believe. I figure this is one of the questions that can only be resolved in Glory. Kinda like how DNA testing and other bits of science has shown truths that were previously hidden to the naked eye.
     
  3. Jim1999

    Jim1999 <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    1
    He can also go to Wales and check some of the dates in existing Baptist Churches. Go to the Baptist church in Gloucestershire and check the church records. They predate Helwys church in Nottinghamshire where they claim as his first church and have his name as their name.

    We don't need silence. We've been in England and Wales. Further, I should like to see the Anglican Church with baptistic teachings. If this were so I would never have left my beloved Church of England and become a Baptist.

    Cheers,

    Jim
     
  4. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,371
    Likes Received:
    2,405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    By visible evidence, I meant documentary evidence. Jim could no doubt provide us with the citations for what exists. Though I expect it would be fragmentary at best.
     
  5. Jim1999

    Jim1999 <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    1
    Squire,,this is why I don't get dogmatic about this. I know what I want to believe from history,,,and soe reading between the lines,,secular books, stories from early writers and so on.

    Facts to some might be fiction to another. Even recorded history has a fair amount of authors speculation including our beloved Churchill and all his books.

    Cheers,

    Jim
     
  6. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,371
    Likes Received:
    2,405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Thought as much. I'm fine as long as both sides agree to the murkiness.
     
  7. Jim1999

    Jim1999 <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    1
    The Trail of Blood is a good starting point, but a man would be a fool to think it has definitive answers in the trail. Think of all the confusion that existed in NT churches. Paul and Peter had their hands full to keep the churches on the straight and narrow. How much more for us some 2000 years removed.

    I just have a problem trying to imagine that baptistic churches did not exist in time before the Reformation. They just didn't get the front page as did the other groups, ie. the Catholic writers.

    My coffee will not get cold worrying that others do not accept what I think about the trail of baptist blood.

    Cheers,

    Jim
     
  8. Joe R.

    Joe R. New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2009
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is the "when" important"

    When people begin talking about which was the first church, or who was the first preacher of "X" faith, it begins to sound like an argument about what football team has the best record. What does it matter who was first? What DOES matter is what is taught. As long as the four precepts are taught and nothing else of man added, then that church is a gospel church. Many churches have infant baptism. Not biblical. Some churches have the priests forgiving. Unbiblical. Some churches teach that "yes, you are save by grace, but you still have to work to gain heaven."

    What we need to present to every person we meet when we have the opportunity is simple and outside the question of who was first, best, oldest, most prestigious: 1. God and Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are God. 2. Jesus became man and symbolically sacrificed himself to take the sins of all men who would believe that He had, indeed, done that. 3. That Jesus, God, ask no price for this sacrifice other than acceptance of the sacrifice, and 4. That once God has accepted a person as redeemed, there will be no denial later of that redemption. It is forever.

    The Bible says "Whosever believeth shall have life eternal." It does not say, Whosever believeth and committs no more sin and lives a perfect life shall have eternal life. What we have is the perfect gift. Once the sinner accepts the gift, God will never take it back. He does not ask us to pay for the gift.

    Any church that says otherwise is not a gospel church. Any church that teaches that it is not necessary to admit sin and ask forgiveness of God through Jesus is not a gospel church. There is only one church, and that is the Church of Jesus and it doesn't matter what its name is, or how old it is.
     
  9. rsr

    rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    11,850
    Likes Received:
    1,084
    Faith:
    Baptist
    In general, that may be true, but since this is a history forum, this is a topic that is discussed. No harm in that, and the discussion has been cordial so far.
     
    #29 rsr, Jan 31, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 31, 2009
  10. Jimmy C

    Jimmy C New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    from my studies I found that the anabaptists arose from Zwingli - and the reformation and had split off from the Roman Catholic Church around 1523. The anabaptists (I believe) still retained a hierarchal form of church government with priests having more of a direct line to God than did the members of their churches. They first rejected infant baptism, although Zwingli later went back to that position under pressure from the government/church. Hundreds of Anabaptists were killed for practicing believers baptism in Zurich from 1523 on.

    John Smith and Thomas Helwys were part of the church of England, but wanted true reform in the church. They became part of the separatist movement in 1606

    Their basic tenants were the Bible not the Church was their guide for all matters of faith and practice, the church should be made up of believers only and congregational form of church government.

    When the pressure in England was too great they moved to holland in 1607 and were influenced by the Anabaptists.

    The separatists still retained infant Baptism (as part of thier Church of England tradition), Smith and Helwys decided in 1609 that the only way to insure that the church was made up of believers only was to institute Believers Baptism and so they baptised each other, and then the rest of the congregation.

    Thus Baptists were born 400 years ago.

    The distictives of the Baptist Church beginning in 1609 were
    1.Believers Baptism - thus a church made up of true believers

    2. Congregational polity - no member of the church, including the pastor/bishop had any more say than any other member

    3. Priesthood of All Believers - all Christians are ministers.

    4. The bible as the final word on matters of faith and practice, not traditions or Popes or Bishops etc

    Interestingly enough Smith and Helwys poured rather than dunked at first, they thought the method was not as important as who was baptized.

    So Happy 400th birthday Baptists
     
  11. Jim1999

    Jim1999 <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    1
    Did you know the Church of England had full baptismal tanks installed in the floor beneath the pulpit or somewhere in the front of the church? To this day, if a parishioner requests adult immersion a vicar must comply? Did you know that Queen Elizabeth I was immersed?

    Did you know that Smyth was never a baptist and never started a baptist work?

    Did you know there was some 15 different anabaptist groups prior to the Catholic Reformation?

    Strange that all the groups formed out of the reformation continued with infant baptism and other type of church government.

    Did you know that Welsh Baptist churches existed in Wales long before the reformation, and started the first church in England at Gloucestershire. Plaques on the walls establish this fact.

    The priesthood of believers refers to access to God and not preachers or pastors per se.

    Yes, some of us, if we held a birthday, would celebrate our birth back to the New Testament and not out of the Catholic Reformation of Martin Luther, who never wanted to leave his native church.

    Cheers,

    Jim
     
  12. Jimmy C

    Jimmy C New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jim

    I think we said the same thing about the Priesthood of all believers - just in a different way.

    I dont disagree with your post above in any way - what Smith and Helwys started - and Helwys continued and what separates the Baptists from the AnaBaptists and the Separatists is in the four main distinctive s (my previous post), that are essentially Baptist distinctives today.

    In my personal study I found it fascinating that Smith and Helwys came out of the Church of England via the separatists while the Anabaptists were part of the reformation. I am probably late to the party on learning this but still think its pretty neat.

    As a nonlandmarker SBCer - I'll still say Happy 400th BDay Baptists!
     
    #32 Jimmy C, Feb 4, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 4, 2009
  13. QuickzDraw

    QuickzDraw New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2009
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Very good. A great book on the Anabaptists is "The Anabaptist Story," by Estep. I went to the Mennonite Seminary in Fresno, California. They basically view their movement as a protest against RCCism and a revival of biblical truths concerning salvation, believer's baptism and the church of the consenting. Mode of baptism was/is unimportant to them, but stress believer's baptism.

    Baptist successionists will certainly not accept the Baptist separatist view of origins. :)
     
  14. persona non grata

    persona non grata New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2008
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bravo to those who've followed along in this thread in my absense. JDale, Jimmy C -- good contributions. QuickDrawz, your point about Baptist Successionists is accurate. They reject the idea that Baptists could have ever been affiliated with anyone, RCC, Anglicans, etc -- except possibly John :The Baptist" and Jesus. (Sarcasm, gentlemen -- I am merely joking).

    Determining who were the first "Baptists" historically depends greatly on what group held to what we view as the "modern" or current set of distinctives. As Jimmy C noted, the Helwys movement unequivocally meets those criteria -- right down to identifying themselves as "Baptist." Though other groups of believers (Waldensians, etc.) held to SOME of these distinctives, they did not wholly accept them all, or did not emphasize them all as part of their identity -- and they certainly did not claim the name "Baptist."

    As to whether or not there were Welsh Baptists that predated the Helwys movement, I don't know. As has been acknowledged by others, there is a "black hole" insofar as documentary evidence. THat doesn't mean it doesn't exist -- as Jim has noted some evidence DOES. I haven't seen it -- but I'd like to. Perhaps a visit to England and Wales is in order? Well, maybe when this depression is over...

    PNG
     
  15. Bro. James

    Bro. James Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,130
    Likes Received:
    59
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The ambiguity of labels can be a hindrance to finding the truth--especially in the history of New Testament Churches. Anabaptist is a catch-all term, much like the term: Christian, is used today. The LDS call themselves Christians, yet they would not be so considered by Orthodox Christianity, whatever that term may mean.

    If one is looking for the origin of the denomination called Baptists, which, in reality, does not exist, one could use secular history to show there were several groups, post Luther, who have the word Baptist in their names. Following that name to today reveals utter confusion--there are dozens of groups called Baptist--all sounding a different trumpet. What is it that makes them different? Doctrine.

    The term Anabaptist was more one of derision coined by the religious powers that be--some in charge of the governing class--also the historians. There were a number of groups who re-baptized as it were, because some of them did not regard the sprinklings and afflusions of Rome and her daughters as having any heavenly authority. This really insensed the Holy See and others, Wittenburg included. Luther was not a friend to anything Baptistic. This introduces a basic point of this diatribe: while the name Baptist cannot be traced to one specific group, there is a basic Faith and Practice which can be traced to the Book of Acts. See also Eph. 3:21,Jude 3. This fact, coupled with the plain promises of Jesus to preserve His Bride in every generation, should lead one to believe that there has been a remnant of God's people in every generation, world without end. It matters not what Joseph Smith Jr. got in his apparition.

    "Let God be found true, and every man a liar"

    Selah,

    Bro. James
     
  16. Alive in Christ

    Alive in Christ New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2008
    Messages:
    3,822
    Likes Received:
    1
    There is indeed that unbroken string of Gods people, seperate from the Great Whore and her daughters.

    There was of course diversity among these groups, just as God intended. But still...the unboken line. God has never been without His witnesses as to the truth, and the simplicity of the gospel.


    :godisgood:
     
  17. Anthony

    Anthony New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    0
    Greetings Friends

    This topic caught my attention because I recently learned of the Culdee Church.

    What little resource I've found so far is interesting if not conclusive.

    I've seen mention of ancient Welsh and Irish churches in this thread which would seem to indicate this church at first view.

    Other points of interest I've seen but have yet to look at in depth are;

    Claims this church was founded by Joseph of Arimathea and his disciples.
    This church is linked to the Cathars, and like them it was brutally suppressed by the Roman church.
    This church favored the Gospel of John arousing the hostility of the Petrine church.

    If the roots of the Baptist congregation are in this church it would establish an unbroken line from the time of Christ.
    This church also claims to have established a doctrine over a century before the Romans did.

    I believe that the church was damaged by the merging of the Imperial authority with the church, which I would consider one of the foundations of protestant thought - what I doubt is that this resistance only began a thousand years after the seizure of church control by the imperial power.

    It has been adequately pointed out that Luther's animus was the corruption of Rome not the corrupted doctrine of Rome.

    Many of you are probably better scholars of the matter than I am, but if the Baptist congregation is a continuation of this "Johannine" church the Romans destroyed, then we are not "protestant" in the Lutheran sense; instead it is the Roman church that is "insurgent".

    On the counterbalance I have seen some disturbing talk about links between the Culdee Church and the Druid cult it replaced (again surviving in Wales and Ireland after being suppressed elsewhere).
    This would be references to solar cultism, which is one of the heresies Rome went after - or accused the Culdees of as a pretext.

    Personally I will never accept the idea that any living man can absolve me of my sin - on that point I see no compromise. There is only one savior.

    God bless
     
  18. rsr

    rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    11,850
    Likes Received:
    1,084
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Lots of things are interesting without having a shred of truth.

    You're making an awfully big leap after a first look.

    I don't see how this has been adequately pointed out. While you and I may think Luther's reformation didn't go far enough, there is no question he differed on doctrine at many points.

    There is a good bit of "information" (much of it spread on the Internet) about differences between the Celtic and Roman churches. Much of it is, I am afraid, a sentiment in search of a history, a celebration of near-gnosticism by moderns who want to clothe their own freshly coined theology with the mantle of ancient authority. (There is, in fact, a good deal of romantic bunk about Celticism in general, as evidenced by an interest in neopaganism, which is touted as an ancient system but really was invented almost from whole cloth by the 19th century Romantics and enlarged upon by their more modern followers.)

    The facts – as opposed to overwrought romanticism that delights in finding tidbits to confirm the righteousness of its own mystical navel gazing – that can be ascertained show that the primary difference between "Roman" and Celtic Christianity was not so much in doctrine but in organization, the Celtic church being based in monasteries and the Roman churches in the dioceses.
     
  19. Anthony

    Anthony New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    0
    Too bad about them Sooners.
    I hope you get over it someday.

    Navel gazing?

    Should I have gone to a Catholic or Lutheran board instead?
    I fail to see the leap you speak of - I made no conclusions.
    I certainly didn't come here to debate Luther - or promote Celtic christianity.

    Thanks anyway.

    God bless
     
Loading...