I do not deny that the Anabaptists were in some way predecessors to us as Baptists. Much in the same way Baptists are predecessors to the Church of Christ.

Yarnell quoting and holding up Willems as an example of our Baptist heritage is more or less equivalent to me as to if a Church of Christ leader were to hold up Andrew Fuller or William Carey as part of their heritage, in an attempt to bolster a “Restorationist Renaissance.”

Regarding the “love and kindness” shown to those of other theological persuasions, I confess I didn’t read as carefully as I should have, and missed that line you quote in Yarnell’s article the first time I read it. In any case, it seems ironic to me that Willems’ example of tolerance is being held up as a model in an article that, in essence, is defending greater Baptist separatism.

Thanks for the clarification, David. Unfortunately, I do not get the connection. The way I understood your comment when you wrote that Dr. Yarnell ommitted reference to Willems’ love & acceptance to those who differed was that Dr. Yarnell was “picking and choosing.” But the fact is he did no such thing. He referenced the very thing you lamented he overlooked.

Even more importantly, my Brother David, if I understand you correctly, none of us can possibly live up to the idealism you appear to hold in either reading history or connecting with it. Given your criteria, I could not look to Luther’s example and be exhorted to stand on consciencs and the Word of God because I have no connection point with the Catholic Church or a monastary. A curious way to proceed, were someone to ask me.

By the way, your judgement seems more than premature about Anabaptist influence. You are aware, I’m quite confident, of one theory of Baptist roots being very much indebted to Anabaptist-Mennonites. Moreso, check out Michael Westmoreland-White at Levellers http://anabaptist418.blogspot.com/ He is a Baptist scholar, a pacifist and traces Baptist roots to Anabaptists.

Peace to you. With that, I am…

Peter

My point is that I have seen on various occasions the early Anabaptists, and the persecution they endured, held up as our example as to our Baptist roots. However, never, in these same discussions, do I see any mention made of the Anabaptist position toward government and pacifism. If we were truly to honor the legacy left us by our “Anabaptist forefathers,” we ought to be more consistent, in my opinion. It would seem to me that Mennonites and other groups more directly akin to the Anabaptists would have a more legitimate claim to their heritage than Baptists. Also, I don’t know to what extent the whole “Baptist Renaissance” idea is really reflective of the values of the Anabaptists.

High comment counts are VERY overrated. I’m thankful this is an infrequent occurrence here… I really am beginning to feel a lot like I did when I originally wrote this post, except in regard to my own blogging and participation in such discussions as this.

I am well-aware of my words. I do see a difference between bluntly stating that an individual exhibits such qualities and stating that one could get the impression of such attitudes from words written, then warning a generic “we” against holding such attitudes. Perhaps, rather than “How dare we adopt such condescending views!”, I should have written, “Now I don’t know if my impression accurately portrays Dr. Yarnell or Dr. Caner, and I apologize in advance if they are hurt by the above statement for it was not my intent to offend, misportray, or inaccurately judge, but we must all ask ourselves, should we actually hold such views… How dare we!”

*SIGH*

I wanted to add that it would be a fair criticism of my above discussion of baptism to note that I technically did not cite to the Bible and some would say I am just using human rationale which clearly does not create a scripturally based dispute. I definitely did not intentionally omit scripture, nor is it because there is none to which to point. In fact, the discussion of the word baptizo and pulling every verse in which that word is used will demonstrate the point that there is nothing that points to any particular method for baptism; moreover, it will show that the word is used to mean “immerse” in a host of ways.

We have no idea based on the words of the NT how anyone was baptized. We know Jesus was baptized in the Jordan, so water was involved, but we don’t know if he was put under, or if he was put under if it was backward, forward, multiple times, etc. We know that the Ethiopian saw some water and was baptized there, but we don’t know if it was a trickle of water or a deep pond. We don’t know what happened. It is not described.

Perhaps it is not described because the method is not as important as the identification and symbol. I don’t know and am not arguing against immersion. I definitely am not arguing for infant baptism or pre-conversion baptism. I just am trying to show a reasonable dispute over something baptists tend to say is settled and done. I agree with the SBC method generally, but I would not say absolutely that we have a corner on the biblical market on baptism.

Thank you for the most innovative description of which I think I’ve ever heard about Baptism–red herring. Exquisite, I might say, and a great thought by which I may rest my tired old body this evening.

Peace to you. With that, I am…

Peter