I didnt even know the name ana baptist still existed......

[TheMommy]

I was raised in a strict Primitive baptist home, my father was our pastor of our church. He had done a great deal of research into our history, and I was always taught that we were originally called ana baptists. We are the only denomination I had ever heard of that preached select election.
and trace our roots back to John the Baptist. as teh only christian church that existed prior to the founding of the catholics. I knew that at some point the amish split off but my question is:

are we still considered ana baptists?

 

[MrJim]

anabaptist~put it together

In a technical sense baptists are anabaptists in that if one was baptized as an infant and later comes to faith and gets rebaptized they are anabaptist, since anabaptist means rebaptized one.

But in a theological sense the historical anabaptists would consist of the amish, mennonite, brethren folks that generally have some distictives apart from most baptists, including nonresistance/pacifism and seperation from the world. There is a HUGE discussion on exactly what applications these two distinctives take

And welcome to CF Mom

 

[TheMommy]

thank you for the welcome....what do you mean by separation from the world?

 

[Crazy Liz]

NZguy is a Landmarkist. You might find out where he's settled. I haven't seen him here in a while. Probably on the Baptist forum.

 

[MrJim]

NZguy is a Landmarkist. You might find out where he's settled. I haven't seen him here in a while. Probably on the Baptist forum.

 

[MrJim]

thank you for the welcome....what do you mean by separation from the world?

It can be as severe as the amish where technology is (generally ) shunned to some mennonite/brethren folks that do no engage in the political processes nor enlist in the military. These would be some of the more obvious examples. Some folks separate from the world by becoming something different than the way the "world" operates~consider folks like the JesusPeople, Simple Way, and even the Hutterites~communal folks that look at the way the world operates and decide to take a proactive way to seperate from it though deeply being in it (in and not of)...

 

[MrJim]

http://thesimpleway.org/index2.html
http://www.jpusa.org/

Here are folks we can learn from about the true nature of being "in the world but not of the world"...

 

[Crazy Liz]

What the OP described is similar to what NZguy described in this thread. I just wanted to point her in the direction of someone else who seems to share her POV, which some people call Landmarkism.

Here are some links about Landmarkism:

http://www.pbministries.org/History/J. R. Graves/Old Landmarkism/old_landmarkism.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptist_successionism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landmarkism

 

[MrJim]

oh...

 

[IAreJeebus]

lol wut

 

[nzguy]

Okay I have been labelled a landmarkist.. well the truth is I am not really! Since my church is independent and just gets it's doctrines straight out of the bible, there are alot of things we agree on with landmarkism and also some things we disagree on.

To set the record straight, I am simply bible-believing, in a church with links to other churches who have the same teaching, all derived from just studying scripture... not man's tradition.

So yes, I have many beliefs the same as Landmarkism, but I don't have that label.

Some distinct markers of what I believe:

the 'church' is an eccelessia in the Greek.. which is always an assembly or congregation.. and has no universal aspect to it. (the book of Ephesians with references to being in unity.. framed together.. knit together.. built up as one.. etc plus the other New Testament books where church is always ecclessia (a congregation) in the Greek)

salvation is by grace alone thru asking Christ into your life to forgive you of your sins.. Christ does that.. and then seals you for eternity. You can't leave God, He won't leave you. (Many verses about salvation show this.. a few central ones.. John 10:28-29, Ephesians 2 vs 8-9, Romans 8:37-39)

the remaining spiritual gifts are faith hope and love, and the gifts of prophecy tongues, knowledge and ministry gifts completed their effectual work when the bible was completed. (Acts 2, Ephesians 4, 1 Corinthians 12-14)

Now these teachings can be seen all through history with seperate churches having these beliefs... they are not one denomination.. not one universal church.. but have been around since Jesus started His church with His disciples.

So, that is it.. completely based on scripture.. not man's traditions.

I haven't posted here a while cos my internet has been down

good to be here again

 

[Crazy Liz]

WB, nzguy!

BTW, there is some history here at CF that probably makes some of the responses you have seen here seem strange or unfriendly. I would like to apologize for that and offer an explanation.

From the time CF created denominational ghettoes, rather than having one forum for all evangelicals, protestants, and other non-Catholic, non-Orthodox Christians, until about 2 years ago, we were part of a forum for Baptists, Anabaptists, Quakers and similar denominations. We had a lot in common. The Trail of Blood and the Martyrs Mirror were topics we could discuss together, as they are very similar documents, the big difference being that the Anabaptist Martyrs Mirror is much older than the Baptist Trail of Blood. Both had a similar POV, and we had common ground.

However, about 2 years ago the Baptists decided to kick everyone whose church was not called Baptist out of their forum. They went to TPTB at CF and asked them to make us a new forum. We did not ask for this forum. A few of us thought it was a good idea, but most of us saw this forum as a ghetto to which we were exiled because the Baptists wanted to be rid of us.

When a "Trail of Blood" Baptist then came in and tried to engage us in discussion, we associated you with those who kicked us out 2 years ago. They didn't want to discuss anything with us. They have their Trail of Blood and some of us have our Martyrs Mirror, but don't capitalize Baptist in the middle of of the word Anabaptist. We're not welcome in the Baptist forum. We got used to a system where someone who called him/herself Anabaptist was not welcome in the Baptist forum. And after 2 years of that, it seemed strange to see some new Baptists, who didn't know this history, coming here & wanting to discuss the Trail of Blood with us. We associated you with the Baptists who kicked us out 2 years ago.

This hurt even more because TPTB defined "similar" churches in a way that left some of our members (like Christian & Missionary Alliance) not allowed to be part of this forum or that one. I can't recall exactly why, but they were making up the definitions & telling us who could and could not belong back then.

I am sorry I treated you as a "foreigner" or hostile person when you came here. I read a tone in your post indicating you wanted to make belief in the Trail of Blood a criterion for belonging here. We did not want a newcomer, especially one who called himself a Baptist, coming here telling us again who did not belong here.

I realize you probably didn't understand that you came here identifying yourself as part of the group that kicked us out 2 years ago. I am sorry for the chilly reception you got.

I apologize for wrongly labeling you. I always thought the Trail of Blood and Landmarkism were inextricably connected. If I am wrong about that, please feel free to explain. I have been mistaken before, and I hope to be mistaken less and less as people correct the gaps in my knowledge.

 

[nzguy]

I think the thing here is, you can have a church that has established itself by following a tradition or denominations teachings.. or you can have one that has just looked at scripture and believed it and built doctrine on that.. and then seen what other churches have the same teaching.. that is what my church has done.

So with Landmarkism.. that is very closely linked to the Trail of Blood.. but is a kind of tradition if you will.. my church is associated with other churches in that tradition because we share most of the same beliefs and some of the churches in that tradition have exactly the same statement of faith.

My church likes the Trail of Blood because it sits with the scriptural notion of churches very well.. i.e. churches existing right from Jesus and His disciples as the first church, churches that have been in every age, churches that have been persecuted and cut off for their beliefs, churches that are missionary focussed.. these are all biblically sound markers that the bible teaches are features of churches.

So you will find there are churches who are not Landmarkists who stick to the Trail of Blood.. and also there are a number of other books that tease out the Trail of Blood history more.. giving it more historically sound basis.

Anyway.. my challenge is not to believe a tradition or men's teaching.. but just look at scripture in context.. and believe it.

That is how we got our beliefs in my church. And how I am establishing my beliefs. The reason we stick to the Trail of Blood and the notion of church being only local.. is because scripture backs it up!

So there you go,

many blessings

thanks for the post Crazy Liz

 

[MrJim]

Anyway.. my challenge is not to believe a tradition or men's teaching.. but just look at scripture in context.. and believe it.

Anabaptists did that and came away with a view of nonviolence toward their fellow people~other traditions did that and came away with a view that violence against fellow people is necessary and allowed...real riot how brethren can just look at scripture in context and believe it and be completely contradictory...

 

[nzguy]

yeah.. scripture in context is never subjective.. it is objective truth.. but men are not infallible and can interpret it in many different ways. I have never looked at non-violence scripturally.. but it would probably fit completely with scripture in context, given Jesus' attitudes towards people, sitting with 'sinners', healing the sick.. he was most pointed and sharp toward people who thought they were self-righteous.. so I am sure non-violence is sound.

Another thing is that people can interpret scripture and never look at the original Greek and Hebrew lingo.. because that gives deeper and more detailed meaning. Consider the word 'perfect' in English. For most English people, this means unblemished.. being without sin.. no imperfections.. but in Greek this word is 'telios' which means to be complete, lacking nothing necessary for completion, or mature. These are slightly different meanings.. but when you put them into a passage like 1 Cor 13.. it makes a HUGE difference!

So ya