Are Modern Baptists Really Anabaptists?
The preface of the First London Baptist Confession of Faith begins with the words: “The Confession of faith of those churches which are commonly (though falsly) called Anabaptists.”[1]
With this strong disclaimer, the framers of the First London Baptist Confession made a clear and deliberate distinction between themselves and the radical Anabaptists of the sixteenth century. Baptists who have sought to distinguish their doctrinal commitments and ecclesiastical practices from the more radical wing of the Reformation have reiterated this assertion across centuries. And yet, the label “Anabaptist” has continued to surface in both scholarly and popular evaluations of Baptist origins. This is done simplistically by some due to the similarity of names and the shared practice of believers’ baptism, while others see the Baptists as descendants of the Anabaptists. Others commonly referred to as Baptist successionists or Landmarkists have pointed to 16th-century Anabaptists as part of an apostolic succession of churches from the time of Christ, and as JM Carroll argues, are directly responsible for handing the baton to the Baptists of the 19th century.[2] This paper seeks to answer a simple but important question: Are the Baptists of the 17th century (and by extension, today) rightly distinguished from the Anabaptists of the Radical Reformation, or do they bear more resemblance than they were willing to admit?
While there is no denying some surface-level similarities between the Baptists and Anabaptists, a look into their history and theology will prove that Baptists emerged not from the Anabaptist stream but are a distinct branch of the Reformation.
Historical Background
The Anabaptist movement emerged in the early 16th century as a radical offshoot of the Protestant Reformation. While the magisterial reformers, such as Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, and John Calvin, sought reform within the structures of church and state, the Anabaptists represented a more radical break. Justo Gonzalez points out that while the magisterial reformers were convinced that the church no longer resembled what it was in the 1st century, they desired to cleanse it from the areas that contradicted scripture.[3] Tracing from the area of Zwingli, in the early 16th century, the origin of the Anabaptist is believed to have sprung from Zürich, Switzerland.
The origins of Anabaptists are typically traced back to Zürich in the 1520s. Although convinced of many of the principles that would be found among the Anabaptist, Ulrich Zwingli found it unwise to hurry the process of reform due to the political and cultural issues that a speedy reform would cause. Due to this disciples of Zwingli, most notably Conrad Grebel and George Blaurock, grew disillusioned with Zwingli’s slow pace of reform.[4] On January 21, 1525, this group baptized one another in a private home, marking what many consider the formal beginning of the Anabaptist movement.[5] With the Reformation gaining speed across Europe, Anabaptism spread rapidly throughout Switzerland and into southern Germany.[6]
Unlike other sects that emerged from the Reformation, this group was not called by the name of a leader, but by what they did. The term “Anabaptist” was applied to these groups because they rejected infant baptism as a rightful form of the sacrament and their insistence on the baptism of those who professed faith. Although this name was given due to the ‘rebaptizing’ of individuals who had been baptized as infants, they did not see it as such. Rather, they saw infant baptism as invalid, and as Balthasar Hübmaier would say, a robbery of the right use of baptism from Christ.[7]
As they spread, the Anabaptists would quickly become quite diverse. Although they were not indicative of the movement at large, some of the most well-known are the Anabaptists, who were part of the yearlong rebellion in Munster, Germany. Although not typical of the usually passive Anabaptists, this branch would become the source of discrediting the rest of the movement.[8] Although other streams emphasized mystic practices, Menno Simons is likely the clearest of the Anabaptist streams that remain into the 21st century. Part of the Dutch Anabaptist fellowship, his followers came to be called Mennonites.[9] Which will prove to wield some influence in the Baptists of England.
The Baptist tradition arose not out of the Continental Anabaptist movement but from within the English Puritan and Separatist movements of the late 16th and early 17th centuries. Although, like the Anabaptist, the backdrop to the rise of the Baptists was the reformation, it was the English Reformation that produced the Baptist as we understand them today. Under the rule of Elizabeth, many of the church of England had grown dissatisfied with what they saw as a half-reformed national church. While some worked to purify the church, a more separatist impulse began to gain traction. Separatists, as they would be called, believed the Church of England was beyond reform and thus withdrew to form independent congregations. As Gonzales notes, although some of their teachings coincided with those of the Anabaptists on the Continent, Baptists did not derive their ideas from the Anabaptists, but rather from their study of the New Testament in light of the Separatist ideals.[10] Among these Separatists, two major Baptist streams developed, first those that would be known as the General Baptist as early as 1609, and then those that would be called the Particular Baptist in the 1630s.
The General Baptists find their origins with John Smyth, an Anglican priest who came to embrace believer's Baptism in the early years of the 17th century. Fleeing persecution, Smyth and his followers eventually relocated to Amsterdam, where his views began to evolve due to his interactions with Dutch Mennonites, whose positions on pacifism he adopted.[11] Although he began to adopt some the views that were held by the Mennonites, they would not allow him to join their congregation. It should be noted that if Smyth’s views had originated within Anabaptists, this rejection would have likely not been the case, and is proof, as Professor Michael Haykins notes, that the General Baptists emerged from the womb of Puritanism and the Separatist movement.[12] A significant supporter of Smyth, Thomas Helwys, eventually parted ways with him over matters that Helwys viewed as incompatible with civic life, returned to England in 1611 to establish the first General Baptist church on English soil.[13] While some of the Anabaptist ideals connect, Author David Bebbington states that the real influence on Thomas Helwys and his successors was Arminianism, not from Arminius, but from the Anabaptist.[14] It was this Arminianism that would prove to be one of the primary differences between the General Baptists and the Particular Baptists that arose in the 1630s.
In contrast to the General Baptists, the Particular Baptists emerged from within the Separatist movement. Their origin can be traced to the Jacob-Lathrop-Jessey church in London, which began to meet in 1616, led by Henry Jacob and was later pastored by John Lathrop and Henry Jessey.[15] This congregation maintained ties with Puritans within the Church of England and affirmed the ongoing legitimacy of Anglican churches where clear doctrinal error was avoided. The move toward believers’ baptism among this group developed gradually and organically. In 1638, several members became convinced of credobaptism and joined with John Spilsbury, forming what is recognized as the first Particular Baptist church in London.[16] Theologically and practically, these Baptists not only rejected infant baptism but, unlike their General Baptist counterparts, embraced baptism by immersion. Additionally, they understood baptism as a sign of union with Christ, a view distinct from the General Baptists, who saw it as an outward symbol of the inner work of salvation.
This trajectory places the Particular Baptists, as stated by Professor and Historian Richard Muller, as branches of the Reformed movement rather than in the radical reformation.[17] Historically, they are best understood as the descendants of the Church of England, and brothers to the Presbyterians and Congregationalists, and as will be shown, differing primarily in matters of ecclesiology and also the subjects and mode of baptism.
Theological and Ecclesiological Differences
Though both Anabaptists and Baptists rejected infant baptism, their theological frameworks and ecclesiological practices differ in significant and telling ways. These differences reveal two distinct trajectories, one is the view of the primacy of the scriptures, and the second is in the interaction with public and civil life.
In the way that the scriptures were viewed, both Anabaptists and the Baptists view scripture in high regard. However, it was the interpretation of scripture that would cause the Anabaptists to devolve it error, and arguably it was this influence that would eventually cause the General Baptists to fall into heretical views as well. The Anabaptist, as explained by Professor Matthew Barrett, while holding the scripture highly, viewed the ‘spirit’ above the ‘letter.’[18] This understanding would cause the Anabaptist to operate under a Biblicist view of scripture, emphasizing personal interpretation above all else. This would cause Many associated with the movement and Biblicist ideals to reject historic creeds and confessions, viewing them as manufactured constraints on the Spirit's ongoing guidance. Barrett argues that for this reason, the Anabaptists in reality rejected Sola Scriptura[19] and explains that it is this same view that would eventually cause the General Baptists to reject the Trinity.[20]
In contrast, the Particular Baptists, much like the Church of England and the greater reformation, embraced a confessional approach to Scripture. Far from being anti-traditional, they drafted and adopted doctrinal statements such as the 1644 and 1689 Confessions to prove their standing in continuity with the broader Reformed tradition.
Anabaptist ecclesiology typically rejected not only infant baptism but also the idea of any visible connection between the church and the civil magistrate. Many early Anabaptists advocated for separation from the world. This included the rejection of oaths and an exclusion from politics altogether.
While Particular Baptists also affirmed the separation of church and state, they did so from different theological premises. Their concern was not retreat from public life but protection of the gathered church from state coercion. As Professor Thomas Kidd articulated, these early Baptists never intended to retreat from public life, nor did they divorce themselves from individual duties, however, they sought the two to stay in their own lanes, allowing the church to be the church.[21] For this reason, the Second London Baptist Confession would explicitly uphold the principle of liberty of conscience while still affirming the legitimacy of civil authority in its proper sphere.
Although the previous differences set the groups apart, the most profound difference lay in their soteriological frameworks. Many Anabaptist groups, especially in the earlier years, leaned toward synergistic understandings of salvation, with author Jerry Sutton arguing that the Anabaptists were actually the influence on the theology of Jacob Arminius.[22] They saw the life of Jesus as primarily an example, and as Barret points out, the Schleitheim Articles include nothing on Christology.[23] In terms of justification, the Anabaptists, according to author Brian Brewer, rejected the reformational view of justification as held by Luther and Calvin, stating that it had no effect on the Christian life and was thus a dead faith.[24]
In contrast, Particular Baptists were thoroughgoing monergists. They held to the doctrines of grace as expressed in the Reformed tradition. Flowing from this was the Spirit's work in the life of the elect, and the security of those individual with nothing contingent on their own morality. Due to this, the churches of the Baptists were structured around doctrinal purity and gospel proclamation rather than the ethical and political separation of the Anabaptist.
Baptist Confessions and their Rejection of an Anabaptist Identity
One of the clearest windows into the self-understanding of the early Baptists is found in their confessional documents, particularly the First London Baptist Confession of 1644 and the Second London Baptist Confession of 1689. These texts were not only theological articulations but deliberate public statements crafted in response to ongoing suspicion and slander, especially the charge that Baptists were nothing more than English Anabaptists in disguise.[25] As James Renihan notes, the English Baptists did not emerge from these groups and consistently sought to disabuse any notion of connection.[26]
The Second London Baptist Confession in 1689, heavily based on the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Savoy Declaration, further cemented the Baptists’ identity in the Reformed tradition. The confessional borrowing was not accidental. The Particular Baptists sought to show both doctrinal solidarity with their pedobaptism counterparts and careful differentiation only where they believed Scripture compelled it, chiefly in the understanding of the covenants and the subjects of baptism.
Conclusion
The historical and theological identity of the Baptists has often been obscured by superficial associations and modern misunderstandings. However, a closer examination of history and their theology and confessions demonstrates that they understood themselves not as theological innovators arising from the Radical Reformation, but as historian Norman Stanton stated, as those who took the Reformation principle of sola scriptura to its logical outcome.[27] While they departed from their pedobaptism counterparts on the nature and proper recipients of baptism, they did not depart from the foundations of the Reformation, namely, the recovery of justification and the primacy of Scripture. Their rejection of infant baptism was not rooted in Anabaptist theology, but in a desire to consistently apply the hermeneutical and theological principles of the Reformation.
This becomes especially clear in the 1644 Confessions, where the Particular Baptists explicitly reject the charge of being Anabaptists and demonstrate their continuity with Reformed orthodoxy. Far from seeking to “refound” the church as the Anabaptists did, the early Baptists sought to reform the church in line with the scripture as recovered by Luther, Calvin, and the Puritans of England.
In light of this evidence, the question of whether or not modern Baptists are Anabaptists finds an answer: the early Baptists did not see themselves as heirs of the Radical Reformation, and neither should the Baptists of the modern day. Rather, they understood themselves as faithful heirs of the Reformation, committed to carrying forward the convictions of Sola Scriptura without compromise, but in line with the creeds and confessions of the church. Their theology was not an innovation, but a maturation of Reformation principles, and an adherence to the Word of God. Recognizing this legacy is important for modern Baptists, who ought not to seek to reinvent their identity again and again according to the trends of contemporary evangelicalism, but to stand firmly within their historic roots. By embracing this heritage, Baptists today can recover a clearer sense of who they are, where they came from, and what they are called to be in the life of Christ’s church both now and into the future.
[1] London Printed: Printed by Matthew Simmons, 1644.
[2] J. M. Carroll, Trail of Blood (Lexington, KY: Ashland Avenue Baptist Church, 1976).
[3] Justo L. González, The Story of Christianity: Volume 2: The Reformation to the Present Day (New York: HarperCollins), 67.
[4] Anthony L. Chute, Nathan A. Finn, and Michael A. G. Haykin, The Baptist Story: From English Sect to Global Movement (Nashville: B&H Publishing Group), 12.
[5] Ibid.
[6] William R. Estep, The Anabaptist Story (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1963), 12.
[7] Henry Clay Vedder, Balthasar Hübmaier: The Leader of the Anabaptists (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1905), 204.
[8] Leonard Verduin, The Reformers and Their Stepchildren (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964; repr., Dissent and Nonconformity series, 2001). 12
[9] González, The Story of Christianity: Volume 2, 74.
[10] Ibid., 285.
[11] Ibid., 165.
[12] Michael A. G. Haykin, Kiffen, Knollys, and Keach: Rediscovering Our English Baptist Heritage (Fearn, Scotland: H&E Publishing), 28.
[13] González, The Story of Christianity: Volume 2, 165.
[14] David W. Bebbington, Baptists Through the Centuries: A History of a Global People (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press), 40.
[15] Haykin, Kiffen, Knollys, and Keach, 33.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Richard A. Muller, “Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics,” in The Oxford Handbook of Early Modern Theology, 1600–1800, ed. Ulrich L. Lehner, Richard A. Muller, and A. G. Roeber (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 169.
[18] Matthew Barrett, Reformation Theology: A Systematic Summary (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017), 32.
[19] Ibid., 919.
[20] Ibid., 283.
[21] Thomas Kidd, “Baptists and Religious Liberty,” Light Magazine, June 10, 2016.
[22] Jerry Sutton, “Anabaptism and James Arminius: A Study in Soteriological Kinship and Its Implications,” Midwestern Journal of Theology 11, no. 2 (2012): 86,
[23] Barrett, Reformation Theology, 468.
[24] Brian C. Brewer, T&T Clark Handbook of Anabaptism (London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2021), 87.
[25] Pascal Denault, The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology: A Comparison Between Seventeenth-Century Particular Baptist and Paedobaptist Federalism, Revised ed. (Birmingham, AL: Solid Ground Christian Books), 47.
[26] James M. Renihan, Faith and Life for Baptists: The Documents of the London Particular Baptist General Assemblies, 1689–1694 (Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press), 143.
[27] R. Stanton Norman, The Baptist Way: Distinctives of a Baptist Church (Nashville: B&H Publishing Group), 18.