Post by Brother Ben on Jul 8, 2011 13:27:46 GMT -5
On another forum a brother asked:
To which another brother said:
I commented:
Though anabaptists do not adhere to the classic "calvinistic", (or Augustinian, for the hardcore historian,) doctrine, they were a "Reform group" of sorts. Some call them the Radical Reformation.
Like Calvin, Knox, etc., many of the anabaptist fathers of the 1500's were former Catholic priests who "saw the light" of truth as contained in only the scriptures, (thus Luther's phrase Sola Scriptora.)
The difference between Ind. Fund. Baptist and anabaptist is small and yet in many ways vast. IFBism, as we know it in America, (and around the world,) is a hybrid. Many do not like to admit it, but the early examples of the faiths called Baptist or Anabaptist were divided.
As stated above the anabaptist, as most know them, i.e., Mennonites, Amish, etc., came from that radical reformation in the 1500's. The early Baptists, as I've studies, were a reaction to the error in the church of England, (Anglicanism.) As the Puritan groups saw that they could not draw far enough away from the error and still be "in" the church of England, some of them, looking to the more pure example of anabaptism, and the first century church, broke with England and began "Baptist" churches. They were typically Calvinistic in their theology.
When the church came to America, and spread into the remote regions, more and more Baptist churches began. There was still the doctrinal split between those clinging to either General Baptist or Particular Baptist ways, (General meaning a general redemption, or free-will as opposed to Particular, meaning particular election [Calvinism.]) In time these groups realized, in some areas, that it was more profitable to work together and they met and discussed their differences and came to a happy medium, doctrinally. This is pretty much where we come up with the Arminian/Calvinistic blend in modern Baptist thought, (with the exception of Free Will Baptists and Reformed Baptists, it is obvious where they stand.)
Having said that, it does not negate the validity of modern Baptist churches, but instead just goes to show the fluid nature of the church Jesus started. He, much to the dismay of most groups, did not start "their sect," but started his church. It is an organism, not an organization. If your church contains the "germ" of his church it is valid, if it does not, it is an organization. It may be good, but it needs to reflect HIM, not it.
I cut my teeth in IFB circles, and still have a great love for many brethren there, but there is an error from which they need to free themselves, namely, thinking that they somehow have to have some written or unwritten link of "churches" that goes back to Jerusalem to the first church. I used to think the Montanists, Novatians, Donatist, etc., were Baptists. This is not so. They were Apostolic, (not to be confused with modern day Apostolic/Pentecostal thought.) The churches the Apostles started and [some] of their converts started had the germ. They started churches that were about Christ. This is what Menno saw, this is what Luther saw, and this is what some of the early (Puritan originated) Baptist brethren saw. They might not have been eye-to-eye on if Arminianism or Calvinism was the best way to describe their faith, but they both saw Christ and a Christ-filled life in it.
I realize this is an old post, and it may sit unseen here on a back page, but to those who come along, I hope I have not grossly misrepresented this, most interesting, part of church history.
To Christ be the glory,
Bro. Ben
Hello, I am a Fundamental Independent Baptist, What is the difference between Anabaptists and Independent Fundamental Baptist?
Lord Bless
Lord Bless
To which another brother said:
The history of the two groups is quite different, as Anabptists are not Protestant and did not derive from any Protestant or Reformed group during the Reformation. So, for example, Martin Luther's and John Calvin's Theologies are irrelevent to Anabaptism which has its own "fundamentals" distinct from Protestant/Baptists.
I commented:
Though anabaptists do not adhere to the classic "calvinistic", (or Augustinian, for the hardcore historian,) doctrine, they were a "Reform group" of sorts. Some call them the Radical Reformation.
Like Calvin, Knox, etc., many of the anabaptist fathers of the 1500's were former Catholic priests who "saw the light" of truth as contained in only the scriptures, (thus Luther's phrase Sola Scriptora.)
The difference between Ind. Fund. Baptist and anabaptist is small and yet in many ways vast. IFBism, as we know it in America, (and around the world,) is a hybrid. Many do not like to admit it, but the early examples of the faiths called Baptist or Anabaptist were divided.
As stated above the anabaptist, as most know them, i.e., Mennonites, Amish, etc., came from that radical reformation in the 1500's. The early Baptists, as I've studies, were a reaction to the error in the church of England, (Anglicanism.) As the Puritan groups saw that they could not draw far enough away from the error and still be "in" the church of England, some of them, looking to the more pure example of anabaptism, and the first century church, broke with England and began "Baptist" churches. They were typically Calvinistic in their theology.
When the church came to America, and spread into the remote regions, more and more Baptist churches began. There was still the doctrinal split between those clinging to either General Baptist or Particular Baptist ways, (General meaning a general redemption, or free-will as opposed to Particular, meaning particular election [Calvinism.]) In time these groups realized, in some areas, that it was more profitable to work together and they met and discussed their differences and came to a happy medium, doctrinally. This is pretty much where we come up with the Arminian/Calvinistic blend in modern Baptist thought, (with the exception of Free Will Baptists and Reformed Baptists, it is obvious where they stand.)
Having said that, it does not negate the validity of modern Baptist churches, but instead just goes to show the fluid nature of the church Jesus started. He, much to the dismay of most groups, did not start "their sect," but started his church. It is an organism, not an organization. If your church contains the "germ" of his church it is valid, if it does not, it is an organization. It may be good, but it needs to reflect HIM, not it.
I cut my teeth in IFB circles, and still have a great love for many brethren there, but there is an error from which they need to free themselves, namely, thinking that they somehow have to have some written or unwritten link of "churches" that goes back to Jerusalem to the first church. I used to think the Montanists, Novatians, Donatist, etc., were Baptists. This is not so. They were Apostolic, (not to be confused with modern day Apostolic/Pentecostal thought.) The churches the Apostles started and [some] of their converts started had the germ. They started churches that were about Christ. This is what Menno saw, this is what Luther saw, and this is what some of the early (Puritan originated) Baptist brethren saw. They might not have been eye-to-eye on if Arminianism or Calvinism was the best way to describe their faith, but they both saw Christ and a Christ-filled life in it.
I realize this is an old post, and it may sit unseen here on a back page, but to those who come along, I hope I have not grossly misrepresented this, most interesting, part of church history.
To Christ be the glory,
Bro. Ben