1. Does the Baptist Church trace it's roots back to Calvin as the Primitive Baptists claim it does? Are the Primitive Baptists actually the first Baptist denomination, and did the other groups come out of them because of dissagreements over predestination and election?

2. I heard someone say that Baptists are not really protestants. As a Baptist, do you consider yourself to be a protestant, and if not, why?

3. Do Baptists believe that if you reject unconditional eternal security, you are not really saved because you have a works based belief system, or do they just believe those who dissagree over this issue are in error?

4. Do Baptists believe water baptism saves you? If not, what is it's purpose? Does it have to be done in a certain manner, like emersion, or will sprinkling or pouring work?

5. How did you become a Baptist? I know this is not a question directly involving the beliefs of the church, but I am curious, if you don't mind my asking.


I am only asking these questions to get things started, and because I would like a clarification. I have many family members who are Baptists, and have a lot of aquaintences who have been part of many differen't types of Baptist Churches, including the Northern Baptists, Southern Baptists, Freewill Baptists and Primitive Baptists. They all differ quite a bit. As such, I guess I should also ask you which group of Baptist you belong to so I know which doctrine you are explaining? Thanks in advance.

First of all, I am Southern Baptist, so most of my answers will be based on that persuasion. While we share much in common with most baptists, there will peculiarities that we differ upon.

The Baptists go back much farther than either Luther or Calvin. Primitive baptists came into existance in the 1800s. They are also known by other names such as, Hardshell Baptists, Predestination Baptists, Regular Baptists, Particular Baptists and other names as well, which escape me at the moment.

Because you will have some Baptist denominations that go by more than one name, it is gives the false impression that there a lot more different denominations than are there really are.

Baptists history teaches that the Baptists predate Luther and/or Calvin by at least 1,200 years.

We have a concurrent time line with the Catholic Church. Baptists were burned at the stake for rebaptizing a person that had been sprinkled. They were known most famously as the ana-Baptists.

Baptists are not Protestants because we did not break off from the Episcopalians, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists or any other mainline denomination. The Baptists were in Europe prior to any of those groups. Even his day, Sir Isaac Newton noted that the Baptists were the only Christian denomination that did not bear the marks of Rome.

Baptists do not believe in anything called "unconditional eternal security." It's the "unconditional" part that is problematic. That is not an accurate value assigned to what we believe.

What we believe is that a person who believes that works are necessary to ensure one goes to heaven is living under a works based system of salvation. It doesn't matter if one believes that works are necessary to gain salvation, simply to maintain or ensure salvation, both are under working from a position that is not taguht in the New Testament. Let me itemize it out, as it makes it easier to explain what we believe. Please understand these are generalities. I am not speaking for each every baptist. I am sure there are some will disagree with what list below.

1. We believe that a person saved by grace through faith in the finished work of Christ on the cross. We do not believe that good works (no matter how illustrious and holy they may appear to us) are not good enough to earn salvation or the favor/approval of God. Salvation is, from start to finish, wholly a work of God in the heart of a believer.

2. We believe in good works as a means of demonstrating to the world the validity and veracity of our profession of faith and the authenticity of the claims of the Bible concering the power of God to transform and change heart and life of any person who trusts in Him for salvation.

3. We believe in hell, and that Hell is not the will of God for anyone, but man is born into sin (spiritual death and separation from God) and it is this spiritual condition that ends up being the factor that leads many people into hell.

Hell is a gruesome existance; a place of horrors not the most depraved human imagination has yet conceived. Hell is as indescribably terrible as heaven is indescribably beautiful. For those who choose continued separation from God Hell is the consequence of that choice. Hell is a consequence of rejecting the gospel. It is not a punishment from God.

The point I am making is that we do not believe it is what you do or don't do that decides your eternal future, but what you are.

4. We believe in the ability of a person to apostacize from the faith. There are some people, I call them "hyper security" people who believe that even if a person aposticizes they are still saved. Unfortunately, I think they are often the plumline we are measured by. Many Baptitsts who believe in eternal security admit the possiblily of apostacizing. If a person fully and truly aposticizes from the faith and dies in that condition, it would have been better for them to have never heard the truth at all.

We do not believe, as a rule that baptism saves anyone nor does it play any part in salvation. We believe that Baptism is an outward testimony of an inward transformation, as well as a future reality. It is a picture of our old man which is dead to sin, and the new man which is now alive unto Christ. "Buried with Christ in Baptism, risen to walk in newness of life."

We believe in immersion only. We do not accept sprinkling or pouring as legtimate baptismal procedure. If a person wants to join from another denomination, that does not immerse, part of their "joining" will include being immersed in baptism.

One has to profess to being a Christian and have either been baptized or be willing to submit to that.

We do not believe joining makes one a Christian. You have to be a Christian before you join.

All we ask is that you willing to make your decision public at the end of the service you are attending. We do not accept members in private sessions.

Thanks for your reply Shiloh. I do have three follow up questions.

1. You stated that the Baptist Church goes back as far as the Catholic Church. I am not disputing this with you, but I have come in contact with people from the Primitive Baptist Church that claim they were the first Baptist denomination, and that they trace their roots to Calvin. They also claim all other Baptists trace their roots to Calvin as well, and came out of the Primitive Baptist Church. Do you have a web-site or a source you can refer me to that would clear up the true history of the Baptist Church?

2. Does the Baptist Church believe that someone can be saved if they hold to the idea that their initial salvation experience is based completely on faith, but they also believe they must live by a certain standard to remain saved?

3. When I was asking you how you became a Baptist, I meant personally. What I meant was did a Baptist man or woman share the gospel with you, or were your parents Baptist? I wasn't asking how another person could choose to become part of the Baptist Church.

Anyway, thanks again for your reply. I found the answers very helpful in better understanding your views.

Well the Primitive Baptists are basically ignoring an entire body of history. They may be able to trace their history to the Calvinists, but that is as far as they can go without comprising historical integrity.

Here is more on the subject>>The Trail of Blood

No, as I stated before, we believe that to just another variant on a works-based salvation system. The idea that you must maintain a certain type of conduct in order to remain saved, makes salvation earnable or something you deserve based merits of your condut.

The problem is this. We are accused of teaching that after you get saved, you can live in sin as often as you want to and still remain saved.

What we actually teach is that if you are truly saved, you have a new set of "want tos" We teach that savlation is a transformation of the heart, and if you can still go and "sin as much as you want to" then no transformation took place.

A true Christian is not looking for a way to sin. A true Christian is not the same person they were before. They are no longer abiding in separation from God and spiritual death. Getting saved is a complete transformation of heart and spiritual identity. What you do has nothing to do with your spiritual identity before God.

We teach that our works are still stained with Adam's sin. Even after we get saved, sin is not eradicated. Our good works no matter how holy, or righteous they may appear to the human eye are still stained and unacceptable before Gdo in and of themselves. We need someone living inside of us who can fulfill the rightesouness of God's law, beause we can't.

That is the real issue from the Baptist perspective. Jesus did not come to lower or abrogate God's standard of perfection. The perfection of His law is the same now as it ever was. Jesus not only kept that law perfectly, He did something that no one could ever do. Jesus fufilled the righteousness of the Law. Nothing we can do can fulfill the rightesouness of the law, and it is that righteousness that MUST be met in order for salvation to exist. Jesus accomplishes that in us in the power of the Holy Spirit.

Our lifestyle is simply supposed to reflect that reality.

I was saved when I was 18. I became a Baptist because after having examined the different doctrinal positions, I found the Southern Baptists to be most in line with what I was reading from the Scriptures. While I am not a dyed in the wool SB, the core beliefs of the Southern Baptist denomination are views I share without exception. Areas in which I part ways with my denomination, are peripheral and nonessential where salvation is concerned.

For example:

1. I have no problem with femail deacons (so long as they minister to women and the male deacons minister to men).

2. I have no problem with the gift of tongues or any of the other gifts. God can move as He chooses. I am not a cessationist, but I don't put a great deal of emphasis on the gifts or the supertnatral. My primary concerns lie with sound theology, character, integrity and a bold and clean witness for Christ.

3. Most Baptists are Amillennial. I am Premillenial.

Thanks Shiloh. The link you provided is very interesting. I skimmed over it, but will look at it closer when I get a chance. So basically, like the Catholic Church, the Baptist Church claims to trace their roots back to the early church? They claim Peter was the first Pope, and the Baptist Church believes they trace their roots back to the early Christians as well? That is interesting.

I didn't understand your answer to my other question. I know that the Baptist Church believes in the security of the true believer, and that they are not taking the position it is ok to continue in a lifestyle of sin. What I do not know is if they believe that people who believe you must live up to a certain standard of conduct after salvation are really saved? Let me give you an example.

Joe believes Jesus is the Son of God. He understands that he cannot live well enough to earn his salvation, and that becoming a Christian is only possible through grace. He accepts Jesus into his heart and becomes a Christian. At the same time, he believes he must live according to Biblical principles to remain saved. If he steals or kills or commits other wilful sins, and doesn't confess them, he believes he will lose his salvation. Do you believe Joe is really saved?

Unlike the Catholics, Baptist do not believe in apostolic succession, thus we do not teach that we are the "one true Church." Any similarities are purely cosmetic.

Of course Joe is saved. The question is whether or not Joe's faith in his own goodness or truly in Christ.

Thanks Shiloh. I asked that last question before you added your last post.

I appreciate you taking the time to answer my questions Shiloh. It gives me a greater understanding of you beliefs. I don't have anymore questions, so thanks again. <<tmbup>>

Yeah, when the blood finally reached my brain, I realized what you were getting at. :D

Did you finally have to stand on your head? ""k345::

:D

I always thought the Anabaptist were founded in 1521 by Nicholas Storch &Thomas Munzer in Germany, and the Baptist were founded by John Smyth in 1609 in Amsterdam.

Is this not correct?

Thanks,
K.D.

I found this about the Anabaptist. Fascinating history..Anabaptist from the Mennonite Encyclopedia

I really enjoy reading about early Church history.

No, that is not correct. "Anabaptists" were called by many names. Those name go back much, much further.

Baptists, while known by other names have timeline that runs parallel with the Catholic Church. We are not not protestants as we pre-date protestantism.

Baptists were called anabaptists because they rebaptized those who were baptized as infants. We believe in "believers" baptism, which follows the biblical model that true baptism is ONLY done after a person has professed faith Christ. Since we do not find infant baptism in the Scriptures, we reject it as having any part of genuine New Testament Christianity.

Wow the more I read about the Anabaptist the more confusing it gets. It appears that several groups all claim to have their roots in the anabaptist movment. Groups including

there is quite an in depth history, excerpt above, found here. anabaptist

Facinating stuff!


God Bless,
K.D.

It's not confusing at all. People who follow as they believe the Lord leads them. No one has it all together. No one corners the market on the Scriptures.

Paul says that we see through a glass darkly and so we make room for differences of opinion, even when the differences are contradictory.

Unity is not the absence of diversity, and it doesn't mean that we always have to agree on every point. Unity finds its truest value when people of differing convictions on certain matters can still find enough in common amongst themselves that they can work together to advance the cause of the Kingdom of God.

I would agree that we do need to find common ground and work together to further the Kingdom of God. appemote

God Bless,
K.D.

So where is the confusion?

The confusion is that I found 5 or 6 different groups all claiming to have their roots in the early anabaptist, yet these groups are quite different in some very significant ways. They include the Amish, Hutterites, and Mennonites, Puritans, Quakers, and Baptists. About the only tie I can find is the belief in Baptism as an adult and not an infant. Yet I don't think all religions who believe in adult Baptism can, on that basis, claim they have their roots from the early anabaptist. Further the word anabaptist was a discription, not a name of any one particular group, if I understand history correctly. Some of the beliefs that early anabaptist had are not simulare to any of the Baptist churches today. Like you could not hold any political office of any kind. It was not unusual for them to dance, fall under the power of the Holy Spirit and speak in tongues. In fact they were known to insist upon the "free course" of the Holy Spirit in worship. Probable the closest group to their beliefs were the Waldenses.



God Bless,
K.D.

Well yeah, but just because some groups have common roots does not mean that they will necessarily have all points in common.

And I don't see that they are doing so. To my knowledge, none of the other evangelical denomnations like pentacostals claim to be specifically rooted in the anabaptists.

Yes, and that would be expected.

So I am still unclear as to why that would produce "confusion." It seems perefectly normal to me.

We know from Church history that the very first Christian church after pentecost was conducted in hiding, Often in the Catacombs. The very first Christian Church was brutally persecuted by the Roman Empire. It would be a pretty safe bet to say that this very early church knew exactly what the Apostles taught on theology. To assert that the Anabaptist were in fact the continuation of this very first church would necessitate the belief that the Anabaptist were following the teaching as given by the Apostles. If this is true then why would 5 or 6 different groups take small parts of the Anabaptist beliefs and go in a different direction with different belief systems that are significantly apposed to each other. Further the early Anabaptist belief system or "line" completely disappears into many fragments. Take for example the Lutherans stating that they can trace their roots to the Catholic Church, Which clearly they can, however the Catholic "line" continues while the Lutheran line starts from that line and goes in a different direction. Where as the Anabaptist line stops and then later fans out in 5 or 6 different directions, of which none resemble the original line. None of the 5 or 6 can really make a good case that they are the continuation of the original Anabaptist. In fact none of the lines can show dates of existence that really tie them to the Anabaptist. I believe the Mennonites can come the closest.

So the confusion is in trying to tie any group to the early Anabaptist. The connection just doesn't ever really seem to pan out.


God Bless,
K.D.

Well, no, not really, at least not in the way a Catholic would reason it.

We only follow Scriptures as our final authority; we do not have oral teachings in the sense that Catholocism or Judaism have. Both Judaism and Chatholicism mirror each other in that particular aspect when it comes to the degree of authority they place on oral traditions.

As Baptists, we and our predessors, place the emphasis on the what the Scripture teaches, and upon what Jesus did on the cross, and not on the Apostles themselves. We do not hold the apostles to the same degree of authority that you do. The apostles were still only men and they were fallible men at that.

We do not believe in apostolic succession. When the last original apostle died, that office died with him. Our stake is in the Sciptures alone, and we believe that the Bible and ONLY the Bible is the final arbiter in ALL matters of Christian faith and practice.

Like I said, none of corner the market on biblical truth. The Bible, by nature of its design prohibits any of us from ever "arriving" the final absolute end all, understanding of all the wisdome it contains. So Christians, for a variety of reasons will have differing views on what the Bible says and some of those views will be directly opposed. But, so what?

At any rate, I am not entirely convinced that all of the groups you mentioned necesarily sprung from the anabaptists. Even if they did, it wouldn't be any great shakes.

Actually I agree with this, and there in-lies the confusion I was speaking of.

Also as this is a thread to understand where ones beliefs come from, I think you have stated them very nicely. Thank you. I think you are very correct in identifying the differences between Catholic and Baptist understanding of the role of the Apostles and the Bible. I think knowing this difference is very healthy and helps each of us work together in furthering the kingdom of God. <<tmbup>> Far too often "we Christians" demonise other Christian faiths and this has done more damage than just about anything else. God Bless you Shiloh, I am very glad you are part of this family.

God Bless,
Kansas Dad

appemote appemote appemote appemote appemote I love the fellowship on this board ::221:: ::221:: ::221:: ::221::

appemote <<tmbup>>

My coworker asked me what faith I am when I mentioned going to church. I told him that I'm a Christian. He said, "That's it-just Christian?" I explained that though there are different denominations, Christianity is one faith. The wonderful fellowship we all can have here is a beautiful illustration of that! :wub:

I went back and looked again at the information you (Shiloh) provided showing the Baptist Church traces it's roots to the early church. One thing I noticed was that the author claims the anabaptists are the same as the baptists, yet in reading other historical articles including information at Wikepedia, the anabaptists are today's Menonites. Even in some Menonite sources, I have read the same thing. In addition, there are a lot of Baptist splits, so even if one of the Baptist groups can trace it's origin to the early church, how would one know which one? I could easily get the idea that the group that really traces it's roots back to the early church is the Menonites, but even that seems like a stretch to me.

My question to you is, given the fact there are conflicting historical accounts over whether or not anabaptist are the same as today's baptist, and there are a lot of Baptist denominations, why are you so sure the church you belong to traces it's roots to the early church?

Here is what I have always heard about church history. I have heard that the early church was under great persecution. At some point in it's history, there was an attempt to unify everyone into the Christian religion, so the Romans created the Catholic Church. This church included certain practices that were not followed by the early church, but would have appeal to the pagans because there were similarities to things they did. For a long period of time, the Catholic Church swallowed up all of the Christians. This continued till the reformation when certain men saw the areas of paganism that had crept into the church. All denominations including the Baptist therefore trace their roots to the reformation.

When I look at the things taught in the Catholic Church, and the results of the reformation, I can easily see how this makes sense. The Catholic Church does hold to things that I don't believe are Biblical. At the same time, their is confusion as a result of the many differen't denominations that exist among protestants with their differen't beliefs. It is like Satan crept in at the time the Catholic Church was created, and he continued to have a foothold among the other churches that came out of the Catholic Church, as they all hold to unBiblical doctrines to one degree or another. I can see a lot of truth in the teachings of the Catholic Church, but I see a lot of error as well. I do believe the Catholic Church preserved the Bible for us today. At the same time, because of their acceptance that oral traditions are equal to scripture, they are teaching things that are not right. God does have a true church, but it is not found in any single denomination, but it is made up of born again Christians in Catholic and protestant denominations worldwide.

Anyway, that is my opinion based on what I have read and looked into so far. I would be interested in anything you could add to the conversation that might show why I am wrong in my conclusions? Thanks in advance. I have found these discussions very intersting.

Well first off, I would advise against using Wikiepedia for research. Wikipedia is user based and is subject to the knowledge of the user and the information is therefore, not objective and thus not reliable.

I have not studied the Mennonite history, but let me ask you this, is unreleastic for several groups to have been descended from the Anabaptists, including the Mennonites?

Baptists, before they were called such were known by different names and probably in some areas of theology and practice do not resemble modern baptists as such.

We trace our roots back through a history of one group outside the Catholic church that immersed and were persecuted for it, long before anaBaptists were a household name.

I would also caution that not EVERY group that necessarily calls itself "Baptist" comes from this line. For example there is a strain of Calvinistic Baptists that started in England well after the reformation and well AFTER the Baptist demoniation already existed.

We don't hold to the notion that we are THE truth Church. However, we do hold that we can trace a line of history that runs parallel to reformation, the Catholic church and hail from a group that has always held to Baptsim by immersion which is the only true form of Baptism taught by the disciples. We don't hold to the notion that the Baptists go all the way back to the first apostles. That would be ludicrous and just a bit arrogant.

I've always been interested in the Baptist's claim to be able to trace their history back to the early centuries of the church. Though it actually surprises me that you don't claim to be able to trace it back to the Apostles.

Could you give us a brief summary of how you exactly make those links?

Thanks,
Chaqar

It is our beliefs we trace back to the Apostles. Those who believed that Baptism by immersion was practiced by the Apostles was the correct over against the practice of sprinkling were heavily persectuted for engaging in that practice long before they were called Baptists, Anabaptists or whatever, and before the reformation. That is why Baptists (with the exception of a few groups in Europe) are not Protestants. Baptists go way back though, to at least the 4th century if the following Catholic Cardinal is to be believed:

Cardinal Hosius (Catholic, 1524), President of the Council of Trent:

"Were it not that the baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers.If the truth of religion were to be judged by the readiness and boldness of which a man or any sect shows in suffering, then the opinions and persuasions of no sect can be truer and surer than those of the Anabaptist, since there have been none for the 1200 years past that have been more generally punished or that have been more cheerfully and steadfastly undergone, and have offered themselves to the most cruel sort of punishment than these people:"(Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pp. 112, 113.)

Charles Spurgeon wrote:

"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 Anabaptists (Anabaptist was the name given to Baptists before the 16th century. "Ana" means "again," but the entire name, Anabaptist, was applied to those who believed and practiced what Bible-believing, separatist Baptists do today) were brought up for condemnation. From the days of Henry VIII to those of Elizabeth, we hear of certain unhappy heretics who were hated of all men for the truth's sake that 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, those horrible Anabaptists, as they were unjustly called, were protesting for the 'one Lord, one faith, and one baptism.' No sooner did the visible church begin to depart from the Gospel than these men arose to keep fast by the good old way The priests and monks wished for peace and slumber, but there was always a Baptist or a Lollard tickling men's ears with Holy Scriptures, and calling their attention to the errors of the times. They were a poor persecuted tribe. The halter was thought to be too good for them. At times, ill-written history would have us think that they died out, so well had the wolf done his work on the sheep. Yet here we are, blessed and multiplied, and Newington sees other scenes from Sunday to Sunday As I think of the multitudes of your numbers and efforts, I can only say in wonder, 'What a growth!' As I think of the multitudes of our brethren in America, I can only say, 'What hath God wrought!' Our history forbids discouragements."

Sir Isaac Newton:

"The Baptists are the only body of known Christians that have never symbolized with Rome."


Baptist Christians, as I said, run a timeline parallel to the Catholic Church long before the Reformation and also preexisted the Protestant denoms.

I found what you said here interesting, and I would like to ask you a couple of follow up questions. You mention that the Baptist "denomination" existed before some groups came along calling themselves Baptists that based their doctrine on the teachings of Calvin. Are you saying that an actual formal Baptist denomination can trace it's roots along side of the Catholic Church? If so, how would one know which church that is today? As I mentioned, Menonites claim to trace their roots back to the Anabaptists, and the persecutions you speak of they claim to be their own. Could it be possible that the Menonite Church is the original Anabaptists, and that they are the ones who remained separate from the Roman Catholics, rather than the denominations we now call Baptist?

If one wants to get technical, no single church can claim to go back to the early Apostles. The Roman Catholic Church was formed well after the death of Peter, James, John, etc. There was no formal denomination during the days of the early church. The same thing would apply to the Anabaptists. What you would have is a time arising where the Catholic Church was formed, and at the same time, a group resistant to it known as Anabaptists. Unlike the Catholic Church, where we can trace their existence back to one particular denomination, you can't do that with absolute certainty with the Anabaptists. There are so many groups that call themselves Baptist or even Anabaptist, you wouldn't know which was the original group, not to mention, the doctrines have possibly been altered over the years.

In many ways, Menonites seem closer to the early church than do any of the other groups, with their insistance on separation from the world, and complete dedication to following God. It would be easier for me to think that the old line Menonites are the ones being persecuted and called Anabaptists than to believe that title was refering to the Southern Baptists, Independent Baptists, Primitive Baptists, etc. I think getting to the truth would require more research, especially into the background of the Menonite Church.

Anyway, my follow up question involves the following two questions:

1. Are you claiming that there was an actual formal Christian Denomination that existed along side the Catholic Church?

2. How could one know what that group is today, given the fact that there are so many groups calling themselves Baptists, and that Menonites claim to trace their roots back to the persecuted Anabaptists?

I am saying there is line of Christians, that were not always called Baptists, even Anabaptists of which most modern Baptist denominations find a point of origin, and that line runs parallel for at least 1,200 years with the Catholic Church. This means, despite what the Chatholic Church claims, they were not the only Christian body prior to the emergence of the Protestants/Reformation.

What is more logical is that Baptists, Mennonites and other groups are related with respect to the Anabaptists. Keep in mind that that "Anabaptist" is not the name of a denomination per se. It is was derogatory term place upon those who baptized by immersion those who had been previously sprinkled by the RCC. It was seen as afront and highly offensive to the RCC. "Anabaptist" means "rebaptizer" but had a much more evil connotation back in the day.

Keep in mind again, it not our denomination we are trying to say that necessarily goes back to the original Apostles but our beliefs, namely the belief in Baptism by immersion and the only correct, biblical and "Apostolic" means of baptism.

I am quite sure that if one were to examine what our predecessors believed say 1,000 years ago, it would be clear that there would be other areas in which we would be in disagreement, so we cannot say "The Baptists are true line of Christians." That is patently absurd. However we do extend from a line of Christians who believed in the Bible practice of Baptism that DOES extend back to the Apostles and that line runs parallel to the RCC.

I agree.

Right, because "anabaptist" is not a denomination per se, it is a derogatory term meant to lump the Baptizers together. It was not a good thing back in the day, to be called "anabaptist." It was more of byword and an insult. It also marked you as one upon whom the RCC would level it full contempt. A lot of people died for bearing the label of Anabaptist.

Its easier for me to believe that there was more than one group that came out of what called "Anabaptists" it was more a coolition of Christians. I think the mistake you are making is looking at the term "Anabaptist" and seeing that as referring to particular, formal denomiation. Anabaptists was a label placed on them, not something they took to themselves. Kind of like how the pagans called the Gentiles "Christians" as means of insulting the first Gentile believers.

More like different groups Christians who believed in immersion as opposed to sprinkling.

The problem is found in groups wanting to say more than the evidence points to. Their pride gets in the way and they want to make the bold claim that their denomination is the true line that came from the Apostles. Again, totally absurd.

I can imagine lots of groups probably broke were actually under the umbrella term "Anabaptist." I don't think we can point to one group and say, "This is the group formerly known as Anabaptists and they are the true denom that goes back to the apostles." What I do think we can do with abosolute certainty is say that the doctrine of Baptism by immersion is a biblical doctrine and that immersion into water is the correct method of baptism.

Thanks Shiloh. That was very helpful. From what I was reading yesterday in a Mennenite web-site, the group of believers that were being persecuted believed baptism should be reserved for those who understood the plan of salvation and had accepted Christ of their own free will. Because they baptised those people a second time, they were known as anabaptist. That seems to be in agreement with what you are saying, and I can easily see how this could have occured.

That would mean that there are three groups of churches rather than two. You would have the Catholics, the protestants, and a third group that was never part of the Catholic Church because they rejected it from the beginning. In a way it is hard to believe everyone would have fallen in line 100 percent when the Catholic Church was created, so I see where you are coming from.