Some Baptist want to say that the Reformers wanted to kill off the Anabaptist, which is not true of course.
Having been a Baptist all my life, having been a member of Jack Hyles church, having been a Independent Fundamental KJV Baptist I am well aware of the comments that some of our brethren like to made about Calvin and Luther and the Reformers and about Calvinism. We cut down those men so we could destroy what is called Calvinism and TULIP. I read again today, and have heard for a number of years that Luther and Calvin had murdered a number of Anabaptist. They say this in order to try to destroy their doctrine of salvation.
However, historically speaking, the so-called “Doctrines of Grace” – which go by the nickname of Calvinism – did not originate with Calvin. Calvin had been dead many years before this every came about.
Again today I read another person try to destroy the work of the Reformers and John Calvin and Martin Luther and those who were in the Reformation. They and many others want to do is destroy the doctrines of grace, election and the sovereignty of God. So if you attract the men you kill the doctrine that they teach.
So if that is the case I should attack Jack Hyles and his son in law, and his on son. They were men who had not godliness in their life. No they did not kill anyone but they were not moral men either. So should we kill their doctrine of salvation and godliness. I can tell you they taught a gospel of godliness that they did not live very well. This is just on example. I heard these men first hand and much of what they said was right.
So are we to say that they way John Calvin and Martin Luther lived that what they said was not right? I don’t think so. If were were to destroy the man to destroy their work then there are many that would have their work destroyed.
In order to prove our position theologically are we to destroy the person who teaches it? I don’t think so. If you want to prove your point, prove your point by means that prove your point. Hay that was profound if I say myself.
John Calvin did not invent Calvinism. Where or not you believe in the doctrines of Grace, or Election that is one thing, then prove your position with a good argument.
Then our brethren want to say that Baptist have been around since Christ. They want to say that the Reformation had nothing to do with saving the work of Christ. They want to say there were Anabaptist around alone time before the Reformation.
Anabaptists (from Neo-Latin anabaptista, from the Greek ἀναβαπτισμός: ἀνά- “over again” and βαπτισμός “baptism”) are Christians of the Radical Reformation of 16th-century Europe, considered Protestant by some, although some consider Anabaptism to be a distinct movement from Protestantism.[page needed] The Amish, Hutterites, and Mennonites are direct descendants of the movement.
The name Anabaptist is derived from the Greek term anabaptista, or “one who baptizes over again.” This name was given them by their enemies in reference to the practice of “re-baptizing” converts who “already had been baptized” (or sprinkled) as infants. Anabaptists required that baptismal candidates be able to make their own confessions of faith and so rejected baptism of infants. The early members of this movement abhorred the name “Anabaptist”, claiming that since infant baptism was unscriptural and null and void, the baptizing of believers was not a “re-baptism” but in fact the first baptism for them. Balthasar Hübmaier wrote:
I have never taught Anabaptism. …But the right baptism of Christ, which is preceded by teaching and oral confession of faith, I teach, and say that infant baptism is a robbery of the right baptism of Christ…:204
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabaptist would be a good read about them.
Though a number of theories exist concerning origins, the three main ideas are:
- that Anabaptism began in a single expression in Zürich and spread from there (Monogenesis);
- that Anabaptism began through several independent movements (polygenesis); and
- that Anabaptism was a continuation of true New Testament Christianity (apostolic succession or church perpetuity).
Nevertheless, there is very good reason to approach the Anabaptist movement with a healthy dose of caution. While acknowledging our very real debt to the Anabaptists on the matters enumerated above, we must also recognize an unhealthy tendency in Anabaptist doctrine: Anabaptists rejected the Reformed understanding of justification by faith alone. They denied the forensic nature of justification and insisted that the only ground on which sinners can be acceptable to God is a “real” righteousness wrought within the justified person.
“Menno [Simons], and Anabaptists generally, did not accept Luther’s forensic doctrine of justification by faith alone because they saw it as an impediment to the true doctrine of a ‘lively’ faith which issues in holy living.” [Timothy George, Theology of the Reformers (Nashville: Broadman, 1988), 269].
Perhaps it is fair to note that the Anabaptists thought they detected a tendency toward antinomianism in the Reformed doctrine of justification by faith alone. That was what they argued against. But in doing so they undermined the very foundation of the biblical doctrine of justification. They left people to try to devise a righteousness of their own derived from the law, rather than trusting the perfect righteousness of Christ which God imputes to those who believe (cf. Phil. 3:9; Rom. 4:5-6).
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/anabapt.htm read the whole article:
The Anabaptists began in Zurich, Switzerland in 1525. (That was where my 12-great grandparents lived)