Just wondering

[The Parson]

Has the distinction between being an Anabaptist, or a Baptist become such that the board would want to have each as a separate group? After all, we Baptists were first called Anabaptist's before we dropped the Ana (meaning to repeat or do again) from the name.

 

[public hermit]

Has the distinction between being an Anabaptist, or a Baptist become such that the board would want to have each as a separate group? After all, we Baptists were first called Anabaptist's before we dropped the Ana (meaning to repeat or do again) from the name.

Good question. To be honest, I thought most of the Anabaptists perished during the Munster rebellion. I guess some got past Franz von Waldeck's siege.

 

[The Parson]

Good question. To be honest, I thought most of the Anabaptists perished during the Munster rebellion. I guess some got past Franz von Waldeck's siege.

No, that was very localized so to speak, although I find myself reading about it for the first time ever. Anabaptist's were wide spread all over Europe, including England.

 

[JM]

Has the distinction between being an Anabaptist, or a Baptist become such that the board would want to have each as a separate group? After all, we Baptists were first called Anabaptist's before we dropped the Ana (meaning to repeat or do again) from the name.

This is a common error.

Baptists emerged from the non-conformist movement and the Puritans, not the Anabaptists. The introduction to the 1644 Baptist Confession of Faith (republished in 1646) reads, "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 in London, Anno 1646."

Baptists are not Anabaptists, Anabaptists are not Baptists. We differ on the extreme separation of church and state, the manner of baptism (pouring, sometimes sprinkling, rarely full immersion), the early Anabaptists were anarchists (Munster Rebellion), others pacifists, covenant theology, regulative principle, etc. there are a lot of differences.

Every step along the historical way Arminian and Calvinistic Baptists did their best to avoid being called Anabaptists and even followed the Savoy (Congregational) and the Westminster Confession (Presbyterian) when re-writing their own Confessions of Faith.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[The Parson]

This is a common error.

Baptists emerged from the non-conformist movement and the Puritans, not the Anabaptists. The introduction to the 1644 Baptist Confession of Faith (republished in 1646) reads, "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 in London, Anno 1646."

Baptists are not Anabaptists, Anabaptists are not Baptists. We differ on the extreme separation of church and state, the manner of baptism (pouring, sometimes sprinkling, rarely full immersion), the early Anabaptists were anarchists (Munster Rebellion), others pacifists, covenant theology, regulative principle, etc. there are a lot of differences.

Every step along the historical way Arminian and Calvinistic Baptists did their best to avoid being called Anabaptists and even followed the Savoy (Congregational) and the Westminster Confession (Presbyterian) when re-writing their own Confessions of Faith.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

Hardly an error. Many historians plainly tell us that we Baptists were known as Anabaptist's before the 1600's. To name a few, Dr. J. M. Carroll, Dr. J. M. Pendleton, the eminent Charles H. Spurgeon. Shoot, even Theodore Roosevelt who was one of the contributors to Crossing the Centuries, copyrighted in 1912. Who with J. Cardinal Gibbons, Primate of the Roman Catholic Church in America, Patrick J. Healy, D.D., Catholic University of America said:
“Of the Baptists it may be said that they are not reformers. These people, comprising bodies of Christian believers known under various names in different countries, are entirely distinct and independent of the Roman and Greek churches, have had an unbroken continuity of existence from Apostolic days down through the centuries. Throughout this long period they were bitterly persecuted for heresy, driven from country to country, disfranchised, deprived of their property, imprisoned, tortured and slain by the thousands, yet they swerved not from their New Testament Faith, Doctrine and Adherence.”

“The extreme conditions of the Reformation served to develop an organized denominational unity among the Baptists in Switzerland in 1523, which extended into Germany, then spread to Holland and other countries of Europe, also to England and Wales. The Baptist church of modern times may properly claim its “organized” denominational activities as beginning with the Switzerland movement.”

Sir Isaac Newton. I’m sure you’ve heard of him? (1643 – 1747) The prominent English scientist, philosopher, mathematician, historian, and student of the Scriptures said:
“The modern Baptists formerly called Anabaptist’s are the only people that never symbolized with the Papacy.”

Heinrich Bullinger, a Swiss Reformer (1504 -1575) said:
"Now, I think it not labour lost to speak somewhat of anabaptism. In the time that Decius and Gallus Caesar were Emperors, there arose a question in the parts of Africa of rebaptising heretics; and St. Cyprian, and the rest of the Bishops, being assembled together in the council of Carthage, liked well of anabaptism."

 

[The Parson]

Oh, I forgot to add Spurgeon's quotes:
In 1860, Spurgeon was quoted in a sermon as saying: “I am not ashamed of the denomination to which I belong, sprung as we are, direct from the loins of Christ, having never passed through the turbid stream of Romanism, and having an origin apart from all dissent or Protestantism, because we have existed before all other sects.”

The next year in 1861, Spurgeon said: “We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther or Calvin were born; we never came from the church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the very days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel underground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents.”

In 1881, 20 years later, Spurgeon was still preaching the same things about the origin of Baptists. It’s interesting to note that after twenty years more of study his belief had not changed one bit: “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 Anabaptist’s were brought up for condemnation. From the days of Henry II (A.D. 1154-1189) to those of Elizabeth (1558-1603) we hear of certain unhappy heretics who were hated of all men for the truth’s sake which was in them. We read of poor men and women, with their garments cut short, turned out into the fields to perish in the cold, and anon of others who were burnt at Newington for the crime of Anabaptism. Long before your Protestants were known of, these horrible Anabaptist’s, as they were unjustly called, were protesting for the ‘one Lord, one faith, and one baptism.”

 

[chevyontheriver]

Hardly an error. Many historians plainly tell us that we Baptists were known as Anabaptist's before the 1600's. To name a few, Dr. J. M. Carroll, Dr. J. M. Pendleton, the eminent Charles H. Spurgeon. Shoot, even Theodore Roosevelt who was one of the contributors to Crossing the Centuries, copyrighted in 1912. Who with J. Cardinal Gibbons, Primate of the Roman Catholic Church in America, Patrick J. Healy, D.D., Catholic University of America said:
“Of the Baptists it may be said that they are not reformers. These people, comprising bodies of Christian believers known under various names in different countries, are entirely distinct and independent of the Roman and Greek churches, have had an unbroken continuity of existence from Apostolic days down through the centuries. Throughout this long period they were bitterly persecuted for heresy, driven from country to country, disfranchised, deprived of their property, imprisoned, tortured and slain by the thousands, yet they swerved not from their New Testament Faith, Doctrine and Adherence.”

Just checking, because the first quote is also ascribed to William C. King. Who are you saying wrote it? Teddy Roosevelt? It would not have been Gibbon or Healy. Was King the editor of Crossing the Centuries and manager of other contributors?

 

[The Parson]

Roosevelt was a contributor to it.

 

[The Parson]

Deleted...

 

[The Parson]

Just checking, because the first quote is also ascribed to William C. King. Who are you saying wrote it? Teddy Roosevelt? It would not have been Gibbon or Healy. Was King the editor of Crossing the Centuries and manager of other contributors?

That's a good question. I'll check it after church tonight. Please ignore and forgive my last response to you. I deleted it. I was trying to juggle more than one thing while I was responding to it...

 

[chevyontheriver]

That's a good question. I'll check it after church tonight. Please ignore and forgive my last response to you. I deleted it. I was trying to juggle more than one thing while I was responding to it...

I saw that you posted three things. The second had no content. I get the idea that the book was edited by King and prominent people were allowed to make submissions, among them Gibbons and Healy and Roosevelt, but that they were offering things from their own POV. I don't really have a dog in this race but I was just curious. Thanks.

 

[JM]

Hardly an error. Many historians plainly tell us that we Baptists were known as Anabaptist's before the 1600's. To name a few, Dr. J. M. Carroll, Dr. J. M. Pendleton, the eminent Charles H. Spurgeon. Shoot, even Theodore Roosevelt who was one of the contributors to Crossing the Centuries, copyrighted in 1912.

I'll need sources, thanks. What tends to happen is one Fundamental quote mines a bunch of quotes, out of context, to support their cause.

 

[JM]

Oh, I forgot to add Spurgeon's quotes:
In 1860, Spurgeon was quoted in a sermon as saying: “I am not ashamed of the denomination to which I belong, sprung as we are, direct from the loins of Christ, having never passed through the turbid stream of Romanism, and having an origin apart from all dissent or Protestantism, because we have existed before all other sects.”

No mention of Baptists and Anabaptists being one and the same.

The next year in 1861, Spurgeon said: “We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther or Calvin were born; we never came from the church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the very days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel underground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents.”

In 1881, 20 years later, Spurgeon was still preaching the same things about the origin of Baptists. It’s interesting to note that after twenty years more of study his belief had not changed one bit: “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 Anabaptist’s were brought up for condemnation. From the days of Henry II (A.D. 1154-1189) to those of Elizabeth (1558-1603) we hear of certain unhappy heretics who were hated of all men for the truth’s sake which was in them. We read of poor men and women, with their garments cut short, turned out into the fields to perish in the cold, and anon of others who were burnt at Newington for the crime of Anabaptism. Long before your Protestants were known of, these horrible Anabaptist’s, as they were unjustly called, were protesting for the ‘one Lord, one faith, and one baptism.”

Note, 'Anabaptism' was the crime according to ol' Spurgeon. 'Anabaptism' refers to baptism of those who were once sprinkled or had water poured over them, hence the name.

 

[The Parson]

I'll need sources, thanks. What tends to happen is one Fundamental quote mines a bunch of quotes, out of context, to support their cause.

Oh my goodness, the same could be said for your quotes. But please do check them.

 

[JM]

Oh my goodness, the same could be said for your quotes. But please do check them.

I listed my source in the first post I made.

I could not find sources for your quotes, they are random and found on Fundamentalist sites without any further reference, and Spurgeon was quoted out of context.

One example of false information that seems to be spread without a second glance is the idea that John Smyth 'founded' the modern Baptist Church. That's simply not true. He was associated with the Baptists due to his belief in credobaptism but, "The more Smyth conversed with the Mennonites, the more he liked them. ... Eventually, Smyth applied for membership with the Mennonites. Helwys, who agreed with Smyth on nearly every point but could not accept Mennonite teachings on Christ and ministerial succession, recommended to the church that Smyth, then in bad health, be excommunicated. In 1611 they agreed. Smyth continued to defend his membership with the Mennonites up to his death in 1612. But to this day, it is not as a Mennonite that he is remembered, but as the first Baptist." John Smyth

Smyth was a Mennonite and rejected the teachings of the "Separatists," these Separatists were Baptists, not Anabaptists or Mennonite. That's why Smyth converted...there is a difference.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[The Parson]

Making me do the extra research... That's great... Finding the things I once found many years ago. OK...
This will be disjointed but it'll get my point across.
Here's one of the "NOT" misquoted Spurgeon quotes...

The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit

Look at the bottom of page 302 also. Plenty of goodies there.
Baptist Church Perpetuity

I'll dig out more for you as time allows.

 

[JM]

Making me do the extra research... That's great... Finding the things I once found many years ago. OK...
This will be disjointed but it'll get my point across.
Here's one of the "NOT" misquoted Spurgeon quotes...
View attachment 285563
The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit

Well, that's just plainly false even if Spurgeon said it in a sermon. Baptists fall for this all the time, the 'Trail of Blood' was popular during the 1800's and patently false. Unless, you like being linked with the Gnostic Cathars, Bogomils, Paulinists, etc. These are all heretical groups.

Another source with current research demonstrates Spurgeon's error.

Baptist Successionism

Waldenses practiced paedobaptism not credo and they had Mass.

The Waldenses no Anabaptists, but Presbyterians. — Reformed Presbyterian Church (Covenanted) - "Steelite" Covenanters

Waldenses, "Some expressed doubts about infant baptism, but it was never rejected by the group."

Source: Waldenses - GAMEO

View attachment 285564
Look at the bottom of page 302 also. Plenty of goodies there.
Baptist Church Perpetuity

I'll dig out more for you as time allows.

The Donatists, again, were heretics. Donatism was close to Roman Catholicism with Mass, paedobaptism, confession, etc. the heresy comes into play because they believed they were the remnant, the only true Christians and others were 'outside the church.'

The Donatist Controversy: The Most Important Heresy… You’ve Never Heard Of | Greg Svoboda

"Donatists argued that Christian clergy must be faultless for their ministry to be effective and their prayers and sacraments to be valid. Donatism had its roots in the long-established Christian community of the Roman Africa province (now Algeria and Tunisia) in the persecutions of Christians under Diocletian."

Source: Donatism - Wikipedia.

Encyclopedia Britannica:
“BAPTISTS, members of locally autonomous Christian churches, whose historians have proposed various hypotheses to explain their origin. The only tenable theory of Baptist origin, however, is that they derive from English Congregationalism in early 17th century… Not until the time of John Smyth (d. 1612) did the Baptist movement in England break away from Brownism (see Congregationalism). Smyth had been appointed an Anglican clergyman and lecturer in Lincoln (1600). As a Separatist he led the Gainsbrough church whose members, with those of Scrooby Manor, migrated to Holland (1606). The latter group settled at Leyden and were represented among the Pilgrims aboard the “Mayflower”; the former went to Amsterdam. The Arminianism of the Mennonites and their rejection of infant baptism appealed to Smyth… When Smyth later proposed closer association with the Mennonites, a schism occurred and the dissenters supporting Thomas Helwys (1560-1616) returned to London, forming the first Baptist church worshipping English soil. The church met in Newgate street, London, and so the origin of the “General Baptists,” so-called because they repudiated the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination and affirmed Arminian view of individual responsibility. They also held that no church ought to challenge any prerogative over any other”; and that “the magistrate is not to meddle with religion, or matters of conscience nor compel men to this or that form of religion.” By 1644 they had 47 churches and up to 1653 affusion [pouring] persisted as the mode of baptism.” (1956 edition, volume 3, page 87) TRAIL OF LIES

Landmark Baptists: Historians debate reasons for rise of Landmarkism in 19th century

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[The Parson]

What a bunch of brubaha!!! Your sources are history revisionists quoting history revisionists. And it seems this will be a pointless discussion. And by the way, Charles H. Spurgeon wasn't delusional, nor one who would take lightly the things he said from behind the pulpit. Gee whiz.

 

[The Parson]

Even more so, if your sources cannot produce facts prior to the 20th century, you're probably barking up the wrong tree.

The Tri-lemma

 

[JM]

Even more so, if your sources cannot produce facts prior to the 20th century, you're probably barking up the wrong tree.

View attachment 285577
The Tri-lemma

Inferior research and presuppositions. It's dishonest.

People can read and decide for themselves but Mr. Parson, please be aware that you are following the Landmarkist Tradition and not being honest with scripture or history.