Lumping Baptists and Anabaptists togther?

[chrismon]

I'm just curious why anyone would lump Baptists and Anabaptists together? While the name is similar and a few ideas regarding baptism are the same, they have very different histories and very different ecclesiologies (and so different soteriologies). On the whole, they even see baptism quite differently (because of their ecclesiologies) - save that infants should not be baptised.

I'm not trying to complain, just reallycurious why this was done.

I do not of a single Baptists who admires John Howard Yoder

 

[rural_preacher]

Different Soteriologies? Please explain.


--

 

[chrismon]

Different Soteriologies? Please explain.


--

Anabaptist soteriology traditionally is more convenantal. Jesus saves us into the the People of God. Baptists generally explain salvation from the perspective of "Jesus paid for my sins" (a misreading of Anselm, ref. Barth). That's the "lite" version

 

[MatthewPoole]

I do not of a single Baptists who admires John Howard Yoder

Who?

 

[rural_preacher]

Anabaptist soteriology traditionally is more convenantal. Jesus saves us into the the People of God. Baptists generally explain salvation from the perspective of "Jesus paid for my sins" (a misreading of Anselm, ref. Barth). That's the "lite" version

OK.

But those are not fundamental points. The fundamental soteriology of both Baptists and Anabaptists is the same: Salvation is by the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ alone without human merit. Salvation is available because of the work of Christ on the cross followed by His resurrection.
I Corinthians 15:3,4; Ephesians 2:8,9; Titus 3:5,6

I wouldn't consider soteriology to be a significant dividing point between the two groups. You will find Baptists who would agree very much that God saves us into the body of Christ...we are no longer independent individuals, we are dependent members of His body (I Cor. 12). I preach that truth often to my congregation (I'm Baptist).

However, I would definitely agree that the two have very different understandings of eccesiology.

Personally, I don't have a problem with us all being in the same forum...

First Corinthians chapter 1:

12Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.


13Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

14I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;

15Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.

16And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

17For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 18For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

30But of Him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

31That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

--

 

[HumbleMan]

Would it be that Landmarkism has come into play, as some Baptists believe that they are the descendents of the historical anabaptists from NT times on?

I'm not to up on the anabaptist doctrines, but from what I've read, they aren't very similar.

 

[chrismon]

OK.

But those are not fundamental points. ... I preach that truth often to my congregation (I'm Baptist).

Yes, not fundamental to you because you are Baptist

However, I would definitely agree that the two have very different understandings of eccesiology.

It is preceisely that you can say there can simultaneously be soteriological disagreement and ecclesiological agreement that makes the difference. As a Baptist, you are taught that you may consider them separately. For the Anabaptist, this is not the case. The community-based nature of their understanding of the Cross is the direct cause behind what it means for Anabaptists to be the people of God. If you find yourself itching to respond, "Well, so do Baptists." I would encourage you to look further into Anabaptistism to see how deeply you misunderstand them. The reason why Baptists do not form the communities that Anabaptists do is fully dependent their understanding of salvation.

Personally, I don't have a problem with us all being in the same forum...

I don't either. Although its fun to point out that, soteriologically, Baptists are more like AoG. So why are the Baptists forum-wise grouped Anabaptists and not AoG? One reason: the name


Most importantly, the naming of Anabaptism is very unfortunate, and is almost wholly reactionary rather than definitive. That Anabaptists re-baptised adults is the "hot coal" of their denomination. It is the rift with orthodoxy that everyone gets on their case for and uses to categorize them. However, this is really a small part of who they are. What really makes up Anabaptism is the call for radical discipleship. Unfortunately, early on in their history there were some odd twists (probably often exaggerated) related to their radicalism that got them an even further bad name. However, for the very most part, Anabaptist faith has a far greater call to a radical discipleship which isn't just satisfied with orthodoxy and praxis, but envisions a complete change of the grid by which we view the world and respond to it. Anabapists are called to not be satisfied by the securities which the world provides - the basis of their radical discipleship.

If you want some good Anabaptist insight, for a book that's an easy read and a good general call to the entire Church, check out Lee C. Camp's "Mere Discipleship".

 

[BigNorsk]

Is it much different than lumping Arminian and Calvinistic Baptists together? It would seem to me that the Anabaptists and the Arminian Baptists would actually be more similar to each other than either is to the Calvinists, but that would all depend on the criteria one uses for splitting.

In the Lutheran forum we include Moravians, they have similarities and they have differences from "standard" Lutherans. The reality is that there aren't enough Moravians here to have a viable forum. In the Lutheran forum, we also have subforums for the confessionals and for the liberals so they can discuss things without the other group jumping in and preventing the discussion. You can do that too if there are things that subgroups of the forum need to discuss without the other groups here interfering.

Marv

 

[chrismon]

Is it much different than lumping Arminian and Calvinistic Baptists together? It would seem to me that the Anabaptists and the Arminian Baptists would actually be more similar to each other than either is to the Calvinists, but that would all depend on the criteria one uses for splitting.

Since you pose the question, I would think A. Baptists would have more positive discussions in a Methodist forum and C. Baptists with Presbyterians, than the with one another. At that point were talking more about difference in denominational polity than theology.

You can do that too if there are things that subgroups of the forum need to discuss without the other groups here interfering.

Again, it wasn't a complaint. It just didn't make sense to me. Were Anabaptists not so peaceful a people, it could get ugly in here

 

[Crazy Liz]

Welcome to CF, chrismon.

If you go back through the B/A threads, you'll see this isn't the first time this has been discussed. From my POV, there aren't enough Anabaptists, Brethren or Friends to have a viable forum. What we have in common is that we (along with the Scandinavian free churches, notably Covenant and Evangelical Free - who somehow ended up in the non-denom. forum) are the historical Free Church Protestants. (And yes, I know some Baptists and Mennonites don't like the protestant label.) All believe, for theological and historical reasons, in separation of church and state. All believe that no one can be compelled or coerced to be a Christian. All believe (there are exceptions to every rule, and here it would be "birthright Quakers") that one's own choice to follow Jesus is what makes one a Christian. And for this reason, none of us baptize babies, but insist that water baptism, if performed, must be voluntary on the part of the one baptized, never chosen for one by others.

This is our common ground. We have had many discussions about whether or not this common ground is as important as other things we share with other groups and not with each other, and I expect we'll have many more. The distaste of the Landmark Baptists and the Mennonites who hold similar views (cf. The Martyrs Mirror and The Trail of Blood) for the protestant label makes it difficult for all of us even to agree that we do hold this in common. Perhaps, though, we could agree to call ourselves free churches.

 

[chrismon]

Welcome to CF, chrismon.

Thanks Liz, and thank you for the insights. I suppose it is what is held most dear that forms connections, or divides them. Most of my views on this topic are not about the content of what is held most dear, but why certain parts of faith are so valued over another. I think it is because of that, were I to leave my Cumberland (Pres.) community, despite the connections you explain, I would far more likely to end up in an Anabaptist community than a Baptist one.

Anyhow - curiosity satisfied. I don't want to raise an old argument that wasn't mean to be one in the first place

 

[Crazy Liz]

Anyhow - curiosity satisfied. I don't want to raise an old argument that wasn't mean to be one in the first place

No problem. BTW, I think CaDan posted something yesterday somewhere on CF about the difference between argument and quarreling or fighting. The arguments are no problem between brothers and sisters. In fact, our scriptures are filled with positive examples. "Come now, let us reason together." (to take a saying completely out of context )

It's good to be reminded of what we have in common, even though it also reminds us of our arguments.

 

[MrJim]

Who?

Yeah exactly...

Though there are many anabaptists whom wish they'd never heard of JH Yoder.

He's considered too liberal for the more conservative body of the anabaptist/mennonite church.

Bring on Daniel Kauffman

 

[JPPT1974]

Being a Southern Baptist myself and who has never, ever been any other denomination other than that.
We consider ourselves to be more Conservative than any other denominations.

 

[mesue]

this gets asked from time to time and I'm still not sure of the answer. The official answer seems to make sense at the time it's offered, but it hasn't made a lasting impression
Am I in denial of acceptance of the official answer?
Or do I suffer from CRS?
Can't Remember Stuff

 

[chrismon]

Yeah exactly...

Though there are many anabaptists whom wish they'd never heard of JH Yoder.

He's considered too liberal for the more conservative body of the anabaptist/mennonite church.

Bring on Daniel Kauffman

In what way would you define Yoder as liberal? I do not know too much about him (my view of history gets foggy after 1550 ) and would appreciate knowing why you think this.

 

[MrJim]

In what way would you define Yoder as liberal? I do not know too much about him (my view of history gets foggy after 1550 ) and would appreciate knowing why you think this.

'Cause he wasn't plain-he was a worldy mennonite

Now don't get excited-only looking at it from a conservative mennonite view. The conservative mennonites would view anyone MC or GC (especially the new MennoniteUSA) as being liberal.

Do you know of Daniel Kauffman or George R Brunk SR or GRB II? (BTW GRB III would definitely be listed as liberal )

 

[Crazy Liz]

'Cause he wasn't plain-he was a worldy mennonite

Now don't get excited-only looking at it from a conservative mennonite view. The conservative mennonites would view anyone MC or GC (especially the new MennoniteUSA) as being liberal.

Do you know of Daniel Kauffman or George R Brunk SR or GRB II? (BTW GRB III would definitely be listed as liberal )

I'm surprised you were thinking in that direction. I come from the Mennonite Brethren, and they considered him liberal because his politics were liberal. - Although now that I think of it, the most "plain" Mennonites do tend to avoid politics entirely.

He also might be considered liberal by some because he (like Bonhoeffer) was a forerunner of a lot of postmodern theology, although he was not quite postmodern, himself. He brought a lot of Anabaptist communitarian ideas about ecclesiology and ethics, to the larger Christian community, just in time for the next generation to feel their need.

 

[JimfromOhio]

I grew up in mostly in an Arminian Baptist before moving to a Calvinistic Baptist. When I moved to Ohio, I joined a Calvinist Anabaptist Church even though most Anabaptists are Arminian. I agree with one poster, regardless what denomination we belong to, if one is a baptist (or anabaptist), one would ask "Arminian or Calvinistic?" Good Thread.

 

[chrismon]

OK, I'm confused by those responses to Yoder. I've read (albeit "only") _The Politics of Jesus_ and then others words about Yoder and books by those who have followed in his footsteps (e.g. Camp). I have gathered that the nature of his politics has nothing to do with conservativism or liberalism as we might think of politics or religion. His politics seem more radically orthogonal to those argument. The PoJ demands that the Gospel is political because it is in direct conflict with and is the death knell for all other political views, not because it espouses a particular human agenda. Does this make sense? Is this an incorrect assessment? Please explain.