how do anabaptists and baptists differ?

[alexsonofmatthew]

Where do they differ?

God bless you

 

[FreeinChrist]

Anabaptists include Amish and Mennonites. They are usually pacifists who do not participate in war, where a Baptist may join the military. Also, Anabaptists usually baptize with 3 dips - one for the Father, one for the Son and one for the Holy Spirit. A baptist will be dipped once in the name of all three. Anabaptists do not take oaths, so will not be seen in civil service (and military for that reason too), where Baptists will take oaths necessary for public service. Another difference is that Anabaptists will rebaptise those baptized as infants where many Baptists will not.

 

[MrJim]

Anabaptists include Amish and Mennonites. They are usually pacifists who do not participate in war, where a Baptist may join the military. Also, Anabaptists usually baptize with 3 dips - one for the Father, one for the Son and one for the Holy Spirit. A baptist will be dipped once in the name of all three. Anabaptists do not take oaths, so will not be seen in civil service (and military for that reason too), where Baptists will take oaths necessary for public service. Another difference is that Anabaptists will rebaptise those baptized as infants where many Baptists will not.

Pretty good~~most Baptists I've been around will rebaptize those that receive infant baptism..also mennonites generally will pour for baptism instead of immerse..and Church of the Brethren are about the only ones that do the triple immersion..many of the conservative brethren denominations (Old Order German Baptist Brethren, conservative Church of the Brethren, Old River Brethren) would align with most anabaptist views.

Also there is a very liberal spectrum of the anabaptists too~~Mennonite Church USA (MCUSA) would be the leading element...very much in the stream of UCC/UMC though local congregations will vary.

 

[classicalhero]

I know I was re-baptised when I was 10 years old after being "baptised", I say that term loosely because it was sprinkling, not full immersion, which is what the word means.

 

[JM]

Anabaptists were a lot more radical compared to the Baptists who find their roots in the English separatist and Puritan movement. Consider the First and Second London Baptist Confessions of Faith were the Baptists tried to reach out and find common ground with the Presbyterians and Congregationalists. The Anabaptists would not have done.

Preface to the Second London Baptist Confession, 1677

To The Judicial and Impartial Reader

Courteous Reader: It is now many years since divers of us (with other sober Christians then living, and walking in the way of the Lord, that we profess) did conceive ourselves to be under a necessity of publishing a Confession, of our Faith, for the information and satisfaction of those that did not thoroughly understand what our principles were, or had entertained prejudices against our profession,

The "prejudices against our profession" are referring the violent Rebellion at Munster. The English Baptists were lumped together with what the Magisterial Reformers thought were Anabaptists so the English Baptists performed a re-write of the Savoy and Westminster Confessions of Faith to show they had much in common. Even the General/Freewill Arminian Baptists used the Savoy and Westminster as the backbone for what they titled The Orthodox Creed of 1678.

The example of the Particular Baptists in publishing a new confession was closely followed by the General Baptists when, in 1678, they drew up their so-called "Orthodox Creed' to "unite and confirm all true Protestants in the fundamental articles of the Christian religion...." Additional inspiration for the Creed lay in the desire to refute the Hoffmanite Christology which Matthew Caffyn, a General Baptist messenger, was preaching Kent and Sussex, and in the fear of a return of popery to England.

The Creed was not published in the name of the General Assembly but of a group of the more earnestly orthodox General Baptist churches of the Midlands, in the counties of Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire, and Oxford. On Jan. 30, 1678, fifty-four Messengers, Elders, and Brethren met "in the name of many baptized Christians or congregations in the several counties." The Creed is supposed to have been particularly the work of Thomas Monck, a farmer and a Messenger in Buckinghamshire, who in 1673 had published A cure for the cankering error of the new Eutychains.

Theologically, in keeping with its unionistic purpose, the Confession approaches Calvinism more closely than any other General Baptist confession. This disposition is particularly evident in the articles on "Predestination and Election" (IX), "Perseverance" (XXXVI), and "The Invisible Church" (XXXIX). Perhaps, indeed, the Creed is principally noteworthy as an early attempt at compromise between the two great systems of theology, thus anticipating the work of Andrew Fuller and others of the latter eighteenth century.

In the Appendix on Baptism to the 1689 we read;

Whosoever reads, and impartially considers what we have in our forgoing confession declared, may readily perceive, That we do not only concenter with all other true Christians on the Word of God (revealed in the Scriptures of truth) as the foundation and rule of our faith and worship. But that we have also industriously endeavoured to manifest, That in the fundamental Articles of Christianity we mind the same things, and have therefore expressed our belief in the same words, that have on the like occasion been spoken by other societies of Christians before us.

During the 17th century Baptists distanced themselves from the more radical Anabaptists. You will notice it more pronounced in the First London Confession of 1644/46;

A confession of faith of seven congregations or churches of Christ in London, which are commonly, but unjustly called Anabaptists; published for the vindication of the truth and information of the ignorant; likewise for the taking off those aspersions which are frequently, both in pulpit and print, unjustly cast upon them. Printed at London, Anno 1646.

I normally do not recommend this site...SOURCE

Anabaptist Influence

Most Baptists are fooled into thinking that we come from the Anabaptists just because the word "baptist" is found in their name. But we must use great caution here. We must explore who the Anabaptists really were and ask the all-important question: Are they truly representative of Baptist beliefs?

Who are these people called "Anabaptist"? This group refers to a community of rebels during the Reformation period; they were considered to be the radical wing of the Reformation. Even within this group there were various views and camps. Two main separate camps can be identified: the "revolutionary Anabaptist" and the "evangelical Anabaptist."[11] We really do not want to spend too much time on the revolutionary group for they hardly reflect a biblical approach to Christianity. They actually took on the form of a cult, holding to an extreme mystical experiential view and believing their leaders to be prophets (future-tellers). They were also quick to use violence to get their way.

However, the "evangelical" Anabaptists were a movement of a different type. And it is from this group that many say the Baptist movement was born. Thus, we need to take some time to examine them. This group, first of all, rejected the orthodox Christian view of sin. Instead of holding to sin as a bondage both of the nature and actions of mankind, they held that sin was "a loss of capacity or a serious sickness."[12] The Anabaptists, in following Rome's view of justification, held that God makes us righteous and then accepts us on the basis of our righteousness. They also believed that Christ did not take His flesh from Mary but held to a heavenly origin for His flesh. When it came to the world, the Anabaptists believe we were to totally separate ourselves from it (although they did dip into it with a zealous evangelism on occasion). The Anabaptists rejected infant baptism and held to believer's baptism, but their mode for the most part was sprinkling, not pouring or immersion. Their view of interpreting Scripture was that of just strict imitation which led to large movements of legalism.[13]

When we look at the Anabaptists we must agree that there are some similarities with the early General Baptists, but overall these similarities are slight and not always relational. In the end, we must come to say that this group of Christians does not reflect the historical teaching of the Baptists. The large portion of Baptist history shows us that Baptists held to a strong position on sin, both in our nature and in our actions, not as just some mere sickness. Baptists have also held to a belief in the virgin birth and see that this is what points to the doctrine of the God-Man, not just some heavenly illusion. As well, Baptists have held strongly to the Reformation's recovery of justification - that it is based upon Christ's righteousness alone and not our righteousness because we have none. And finally, Baptists have always seen that the Scriptures are to be studied and applied to everyday life through the power of the Holy Spirit and are not to be followed just in blind imitation or by a leap of faith. So we must clearly reject, as history does, that the Baptist origins flow from the Anabaptists.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[JM]

Anabaptists hold to a radical separation between the church and the world that is almost Gnostic.

 

[CelticRebel]

Anabaptists were a lot more radical compared to the Baptists who find their roots in the English separatist and Puritan movement. Consider the First and Second London Baptist Confessions of Faith were the Baptists tried to reach out and find common ground with the Presbyterians and Congregationalists. The Anabaptists would not have done.



The "prejudices against our profession" are referring the violent Rebellion at Munster. The English Baptists were lumped together with what the Magisterial Reformers thought were Anabaptists so the English Baptists performed a re-write of the Savoy and Westminster Confessions of Faith to show they had much in common. Even the General/Freewill Arminian Baptists used the Savoy and Westminster as the backbone for what they titled The Orthodox Creed of 1678.



In the Appendix on Baptism to the 1689 we read;



During the 17th century Baptists distanced themselves from the more radical Anabaptists. You will notice it more pronounced in the First London Confession of 1644/46;



I normally do not recommend this site...SOURCE



Yours in the Lord,

jm

Although I grew up Baptist, I have known for a long time that I am closer to the early Anabaptists in the areas which you talked about.

 

[Goodbook]

Intersting i didnt really know this..about the military and such. I suppose that means thr anabaptists are more strict? Do they have a rule as such, or is it the baptists just are a bit more lax?

I worked in the public service for a while, but God brought me out of it. I was a library assitant cum librarian. We didnt take oaths, but we had to kind of ally ourselves with the world. If we wanted to keep our jobs.

 

[Goodbook]

I wasnt a beleiver before I took that job though, so didnt know. I was confronted with personal things in my job like...the library has occult books and lets anyone borrow. As a christian do you go with the library or what God wants?

When the councils says you not to speak about what goes in in politics to outsiders and you know its wrong...what do you do? What if the mayor commits adultery, but the others cover for him and say it doesnt affect his job? I realised i was in bondage and cos I signed a contract and i was actually free to go if I just told them. But it was very hard cos that was my source of income...and people pay their rates to the council.