Baptists AND Anabaptists?????

[brotherjim]

Baptists AND Anabaptists, lumped together in the same sub-group?! What does one have to do with the other????? These are not connected, anymore than Anabaptism could be connected to ANY Christian denomination. Wuss up wit this?!

 

[Gold Dragon]

Baptists AND Anabaptists, lumped together in the same sub-group?! What does one have to do with the other????? These are not connected, anymore than Anabaptism could be connected to ANY Christian denomination. Wuss up wit this?!

Both groups (and the Quakers) share a rejection of infant baptism, congregationalist church governance and important roles in the idea of separation of church and state. All these groups also arose around similar geo-political climates in western Europe in the 1500s and 1600s where they were persecuted by more traditional Christian groups (Catholics and Reformers) and their respective states resulting in migrations to North America where they could practice their religion more freely.

Wikipedia - Baptist *
Wikipedia - Anabaptist
Wikipedia - Quaker

* disclaimer, much of the Baptist history sections were written by me so you might consider researching Baptist history from another source to verify my claims.

 

[ZiSunka]

Baptists AND Anabaptists, lumped together in the same sub-group?! What does one have to do with the other????? These are not connected, anymore than Anabaptism could be connected to ANY Christian denomination. Wuss up wit this?!

Wuss up with you? Why do you think anabaptists aren't Christians???

 

[TwinCrier]

They don't have much to do with each other except for having the term 'baptist' in their name, but we just can't have a subforum for every single denomination in the world that claims to be Christian. There must be thousands.

 

[brotherjim]

Gold Dragon,

Very interesting! I had no idea that Baptists had the same roots as Anabaptists. That notwithstanding, I believe Twin Crier had the appropriate answer insofar as this forum goes. After all, because of the way Baptists evolved and in light of their present stance being far removed from any semblance of Anabaptism (as are most modern-day, predominantly Ana. denoms.), --. Well, thanks, though, for the very interesting history lesson. I am humbled.
-----------

Lambslove,

I have no idea why you would jump to such a conclusion--despite my poor wording, and choose to rather leave that between you and your God. (I am, btw, an Anabaptist myself, and I believe God also considers me a Christian. My thread concerned the fact that Anabaptism, per se, is not a denomination but a generic term indicating someone believes a certain half dozen or so doctrines, such as pacifism/non-resistance, etc., and anyone can be both an Anabaptist AND a Baptist, Catholic, charismatic, etc., etc., etc., etc., i.e., ANY denomination whatsoever--more or less [it's not compatible with the KKK].)
---------------

Twin Crier,

Thanks. I thought so. Just wanted to be right, I guess {-_-}. (But if a ball would've started rolling concerning Anabaptist issues, of which threads I observed none, that would've been a bonus seeing as how I adore the subject and embrace Anabaptism from the heart, having been aligned to it by the Spirit, and not letter, of it--all glory to God alone.)

Thanks, all, bj

 

[Dmckay]

Both groups (and the Quakers) share a rejection of infant baptism, congregationalist church governance and important roles in the idea of separation of church and state. All these groups also arose around similar geo-political climates in western Europe in the 1500s and 1600s where they were persecuted by more traditional Christian groups (Catholics and Reformers) and their respective states resulting in migrations to North America where they could practice their religion more freely.

Wikipedia - Baptist *
Wikipedia - Anabaptist
Wikipedia - Quaker

* disclaimer, much of the Baptist history sections were written by me so you might consider researching Baptist history from another source to verify my claims.

Golden Dragon is absolutely right about this. The term anabaptist was used as an umbrella term to cover a number of pre-reformation Christian groups that refused to bow the knee to Rome and had the above mentioned similarities in doctrine and practice. If you do an online search for Trail of Blood you should find a reproduction of an old booklet that traces the history of these groups who were being persecuted and killed for their stand for Christ long before the Reformation and Protestants came on the scene.

However, not all Baptists can trace their roots back to the anabaptists. Many did actually start later. But the first Baptists actually took pride in their being called anabaptists because of their staunch belief and stand for believer's baptism only. They dropped the "ana" -"re" or "again" from term of derision that they were called and just termed themselves as Baptists.

BTW, that booklet Trail of Blood while it has some good historic information available in it, the author goes a bit overboard. He would almost have you believe that the first Baptist preacher was named John, and that he helped Jesus form the First Baptist Church of Jerusalem. Now this is a case of illustrating the absurd by being absurd, but it isn't that far off of the way he comes across. But he does have some good, worth reading material in the booklet.

 

[Gold Dragon]

After all, because of the way Baptists evolved and in light of their present stance being far removed from any semblance of Anabaptism (as are most modern-day, predominantly Ana. denoms.), --. Well, thanks, though, for the very interesting history lesson. I am humbled.

I am curious. What branch of Anabaptism do you affiliate yourself with?

I believe there is still much in common the core principles of Baptist and Anabaptist theology. Yes, the route that the Southern Baptists and fundamentalist baptists have taken differs greatly from where many anabaptist groups currently are. But my church is closely connected to the evangelical Mennonite community here in Toronto and we are continually finding points of commonality although we many not necessarily agree 100% on issues like pacifism and other issues.

 

[Gold Dragon]

BTW, that booklet Trail of Blood while it has some good historic information available in it, the author goes a bit overboard.

I would strongly disagree with this statement. The Trail of Blood contains some information about historical Christian groups that may have influenced current Baptist theologies, but it is full of very bad historical information in connecting the dots to try and poorly prove a restorationist position for the baptist church.

 

[Dmckay]

I just checked my files, I have a digitized copy of the Trail of Blood if anyone is interested in it. It runs 45 single spaced pages however, so I can't post it. Also one of the most helpful parts of the booklet, Which is comprised of several collected history lectures is that the author included a chart which lists most of the early anabaptist groups, many of which were actually killed off by Catholic and Protestant groups over the years. But in the chart you can see the succession and development of the different groups as they passed on their beliefs. If you are interested in a copy, it is an MS Word file PM me.

 

[Gold Dragon]

I just checked my files, I have a digitized copy of the Trail of Blood if anyone is interested in it. It runs 45 single spaced pages however, so I can't post it. Also one of the most helpful parts of the booklet, Which is comprised of several collected history lectures is that the author included a chart which lists most of the early anabaptist groups, many of which were actually killed off by Catholic and Protestant groups over the years. But in the chart you can see the succession and development of the different groups as they passed on their beliefs. If you are interested in a copy, it is an MS Word file PM me.

No need. It is posted all over the internet.

Landmark Independent Baptist Church - Trail of Blood
Trail of Blood Chart

 

[Gold Dragon]

Criticisms of Trail of Blood and other Successionist Baptist histories.

Baptist Heritage and History Society
...
The story of Baptist beginnings forms a paradox. On one hand, Baptists are deeply convinced that theirs is a Bible faith, rooted in the message of Jesus Christ and the apostles. To that extent, Baptists can be called a New Testament church.

On the other hand, the historical evidence clearly states that Baptists originated, as a distinct denomination, in the early seventeenth century. How does one harmonize the sense of continuity from Bible times with the factual reality of more recent beginnings?

Some have so emphasized the sense of continuity from Bible times that they find it difficult to face up to historical facts about Baptist origins. Some have even erected elaborate schemes, or "Trails of Blood," seeking to trace Baptists through all the centuries from Christ to the present. These theories are based upon assumptions, unreliable or nonexistent historical data, or faulty interpretation of Jesus’ promise that the gates of death should never prevail against his church. A Baptist today can have a real sense of identification with the teachings of Christ without trying to prove historical succession.
...

A Primer on Baptist History - A True Trail of Blood
...
The next view of Baptist origin is not held as strongly today but still finds expression in some Baptist circles. This view is known as the Continuation or Successionist view. It states that the Baptist church can be traced back through the ages in an unbroken succession of organized Baptist churches (although they all did not have the name Baptist) to Jesus Christ and John the Baptist. We must be careful in the way we refute this position, for we in no way want to say that our Baptist heritage has not come from Christ and the truths laid out in Holy Scripture. But we must speak against a position that lays out a history with a trail of real Baptist churches that can be traced from the New Testament to the present day.

This Successionist view has been presented in a little booklet called The Trail of Blood by J.M. Carroll. This booklet tries to show that “according to History...Baptists have an unbroken line of churches since Christ.” This book and others like it have stressed that John the Baptist represents the denominational start and that Jesus formed it and promised that it would never fail. They have made arrogant statements like “the real church is Baptist” and “all Christian communities during the first three centuries were of the Baptist denomination.” These types of views are based upon inadequate sources and upon more of a polemical mindset than a historical one. They make large assumptions where evidence is lacking. This hard-core position arose in a time (1800's) of intense denominational competition, when people believed faith was something that came from within themselves and not a wonderful gift of God’s grace. Many thought that this type of view would bring back a security that had been lost with the emergence of modern-day society.[14]
...

 

[ZiSunka]

I do believe that there is an unbroken line of non-catholic Believers going back to the disciples, and that many reformationists were influenced by these never-catholic groups. Read some of the writings of reformationists besides Luther but contemporary to Luther. A lot of their thinking goes back into the earliest church thinking, authors who were orthodox in their beliefs but considered heretics by catholicism. If I had all the time in the world I would post some of them, but they sometimes go on for thousands of words! Let's just say that justification by faith was not a new idea when Luther posted the 95 theses.

 

[Gold Dragon]

I do believe that there is an unbroken line of non-catholic Believers going back to the disciples, and that many reformationists were influenced by these never-catholic groups. Read some of the writings of reformationists besides Luther but contemporary to Luther. A lot of their thinking goes back into the earliest church thinking, authors who were orthodox in their beliefs but considered heretics by catholicism. If I had all the time in the world I would post some of them, but they sometimes go on for thousands of words! Let's just say that justification by faith was not a new idea when Luther posted the 95 theses.

Landmark baptists share the successionist origins view of Anabaptist history.

Wikipedia - Anabaptist
...
Apostolic Succession

Another popular theory is that the 16th century Anabaptists were part of an apostolic succession of churches (or church perpetuity) from the time of Christ. According to this idea there had been a continuity of small groups outside the Catholic Church from A.D. 30 to 1525 (which continues also to the present). Proponents of this view point out many common expressions of belief in these Catholic dissenters. The opponents of this theory emphasize that these non-Catholic groups differed from each other, that they held some heretical views, and/or that they had no connection with one another. This view is held by some Baptists, some Mennonites, and a number of "true church" movements.³ The writings of John T. Christian, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary professor, contain perhaps the best scholarly presentation of this successionist view. Somewhat related to this is that the Anabaptists are of Waldensian origin. Some hold the idea that the Waldenses are part of the apostolic succession, while others simply believe they were an independent group out of whom the Anabaptists arose. Estep asserts "the Waldenses disappeared in Switzerland a century before the rise of the Anabaptist movement." Ludwig Keller, Thomas M. Lindsay, H. C. Vedder, Delbert Grätz, and Thieleman van Braght all held, in varying degrees, the position that the Anabaptists were of Waldensian origin.
...

However, like the Landmark Baptist position illustrated in Trail of Blood which shares almost identical claims, it is a belief very poorly supported by historical evidence.

 

[ZiSunka]

Well, it's hard to keep a detailed history when you are on the run from being persecuted, isn't it? And when your persecutors catch you, they destroy what records and documents you have so no one else will get caught up in your "heresy"?

I don't know anything about this Trail of Blood, but I have read a lot of other things, including the writings of Luther's contemporaries and many catholic writers before them, including Marco Polo's journals of his journeys, and there existed from day one many Christian sects that were not catholic.

Even St Francis wrote about Christians who were not catholic, and how they should be delivered to the authorities for punishment. He didn't say they were heretics, he called them "Christian brothers who cannot say the offices of the Church." He never once criticized their theology, he just said they were not familiar with the prayers of catholocism, or refused to say those prayers.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Well, it's hard to keep a detailed history when you are on the run from being persecuted, isn't it? And when your persecutors catch you, they destroy what records and documents you have so no one else will get caught up in your "heresy"?

Agreed. And this is a common argument in support of the successionist view. But the lack of historical evidence due to persecution is of course, still not historical evidence.

I don't know anything about this Trail of Blood, but I have read a lot of other things, including the writings of Luther's contemporaries and many catholic writers before them, including Marco Polo's journals of his journeys, and there existed from day one many Christian sects that were not catholic.

I definitely acknowledge the existence of many non-Catholic Christian groups throughout history. The question is not their existence, but whether they had any direct lineage (not indirect influence after they disappeared) to current Baptists and Anabaptists. I would definitely agree with the statement that non-Catholic groups like the Hussites, Waldenses, etc had significant theological influences on Anabaptist theology who subsequently had significant influence on Baptist theology.

 

[ZiSunka]

I think that if you sat down and looked at the actual dates of these and other non-catholic sects, you would see a pretty convincing chain, plus, you have to consider that in the middle east, many sects existed from the 1st century and still exist today without having once been part of the catholic communion.


Don't just have a Rome-centered view of history, remember that Jerusalem was the originial center of Christianity and many churches and Christian communities existed and exist in that region that were never a part of the catholic empire and these groups evangelized in Europe during the middle ages as missionaries. That is known, not speculation. There have always been Christians who lived and worshipped outside the authority of Rome.

 

[Gold Dragon]

you have to consider that in the middle east, many sects existed from the 1st century and still exist today without having once been part of the catholic communion.


Don't just have a Rome-centered view of history, remember that Jerusalem was the originial center of Christianity and many churches and Christian communities existed and exist in that region that were never a part of the catholic empire and these groups evangelized in Europe during the middle ages as missionaries. That is known, not speculation. There have always been Christians who lived and worshipped outside the authority of Rome.

Agreed.

I would definitely agree with the statement that non-Catholic groups like the Hussites, Waldenses, etc had significant theological influences on Anabaptist theology who subsequently had significant influence on Baptist theology.

 

[brotherjim]

I am curious. What branch of Anabaptism do you affiliate yourself with? . . .

None. I'm an INTERdenominational Christian (Evang., fund., char., pent. holi., Anabap., quasi-Wesleyan/Naz., etc., etc., etc.). But NOT Baptist!!!!!!!!! (Hahaha). {-_-}

But my church is closely connected to the evangelical Mennonite community here in Toronto and we are continually finding points of commonality although we many not necessarily agree 100% on issues like pacifism and other issues.

'Sup, GD
Well, we must be careful on these forums, as most have rules forbidding any negative comments about specific denominations. So suffice it to say, I have visited many so-called "Anabaptist" denominations, and have found them all to be the equivelent, more or less, of a Salvation Army, with a more closely-knitted family twist. In other words, their predominence SEEMED TO ME to be no longer marked by evangelicalism or Anabaptism, but by social services such as disaster relief and third world job training and making gift baskets for nursing homes and the like. ("Not that there's anything wrong with that!" --Seinsmeld) Nearly all in their congregations are there because their parents were there, and their grandparents before them--enough said I think; or, for those other Ana. congregations who no longer bear any semblance of Anabaptism whatsoever, and whose people don't even know what the word means, some have become a melting pot of ambiguous doctrines and other light-hearted fare.

I hope and pray I said that politically correct enough, and beg forgiveness from anyone who may have been in even the slightest way offended. And I assume that there remains a few who are the exception.

In my opinion, EVERY denomination should automatically dissolve within, say, 30 or 50 years of its formation--which is my point, I guess.

Toronto is a very cool town, btw. I posted over on the Pent. segment of how I was blessed there at the TACF about 3 years ago (let's not go "there," over here, though, amen? amen.). My one and only visit, and I was very tempted to relocate. Too cold, though, for an Anabaptist wuss like me.

jim

 

[seebs]

I think the main reason all these groups are bundled is that we're the family of Christian groups which are neither Protestant nor Catholic. (Nor Orthodox.) Most of the other groups are somewhere in the Protestant/Catholic thing, but Baptist/Anabaptist believers tend to be neither.

 

[Crazy Liz]

I think the main reason all these groups are bundled is that we're the family of Christian groups which are neither Protestant nor Catholic. (Nor Orthodox.) Most of the other groups are somewhere in the Protestant/Catholic thing, but Baptist/Anabaptist believers tend to be neither.

Some Baptists and Quakers claim to be neither, but Anabaptists generally claim to be protestants of the Radical Reformation.

BTW, there are a lot of resemblances between the Trail of Blood, mentioned above and the much older Anabaptist Martyrs Mirror and Puritan Foxe's Book of Martyrs.

Brotherjim, have you had any contact with the Mennonite Brethren?