Who can be called Anabaptist?

[MaxPC]

Are The Bruderhof considered Anabaptist? The Hutterites?

What criteria are used to determine whether a group can be defined as Anabaptist?

[Josh]

Are The Bruderhof considered Anabaptist? The Hutterites?

What criteria are used to determine whether a group can be defined as Anabaptist?

Hutterites are and there isn’t much academic dispute about it.

Bruderhof are as well, but they are probably on the fringes the most of being “conservative Anabaptists”.

Anabaptists are defined by a belief in believer’s baptism coupled with a strong rejection of involvement in the state insofar as doing so would require the use of force/violence.

[RZehr]

Is Anabaptism solely a set of beliefs? Subscribing to certain historical creeds is probably an important part. Or is it a set of beliefs plus descent?

If a new set of folks arise with no need to “re-baptize”, and we’re never called that by others, I’m not sure that they are.

Consider why someone with no connection to the 1500’s, would desire that label. Isn’t/shouldn’t “Christian” be the desired label? Seems really strange to feel a need to adopt a name from someone else.

I haven’t spend a lot of time thinking about this, just my initial thoughts this morning.
I find myself much more accepting of some individuals saying that they identify with the early Anabaptists vs. saying they are Anabaptist. Further, I do believe that a person who joins a church with legitimate historical ties to the Anabaptists, can then call himself an Anabaptist.

Can just anyone call himself whatever he wakes up feeling these days? Apparently so.

At the same time, if there arises persecution in some other country, and they are persecuted for rejecting their infant baptisms, and want to call themselves, or others call themselves Anabaptist, I would be inclined to say that they deserve it more than todays Mennonites.

I don’t consider Bruderhof true Anabaptist, but they feel Anabaptist adjacent. Seem pretty close. I don’t consider myself to be Bruderhof.

[ohio jones]

What about the Brethren and German Baptist groups? They date to 1708 rather than 1525, yet are usually considered Anabaptist.

[Josh]

What about the Brethren and German Baptist groups? They date to 1708 rather than 1525, yet are usually considered Anabaptist.

Cory Anderson has a good academic paper called “What are the plain Anabaptists?”

[Soloist]

By most Anabaptist perspectives, the adult baptism was the first baptism. Thus the name only fit from the perspective of those who persecuted them. Now days it means different things then it did back then and an exact definition is dependent on who is defining them.

[Neto]

Strictly speaking it just means "baptize again", a description that is not really accurate in its commonly perceived meaning by insiders, or, one might say, only from the viewpoint of proponents of infant baptism. I personally prefer the way the Dutch 'Mennists" were tagged (even before Menno himself joined): "baptism minded". But even that is a narrow description in terms of self description. The issue of baptism was not the central issue for those who had joined this 'movement', at least in my understanding of it historically. I would say that (at least for the Dutch) the central idea was a Biblicism centered on Christ, with a firm belief in a visible, 'pure' church. (I put the word pure in quotes because I do not mean 'perfect', but rather that this is the aim of all who participate. Any who do not have this aim should be encouraged in this direction, rebuked if necessary, and finally disciplined if they do not repent and change their focus.) That is, the idea of a 'true church' within an all inclusive decadent 'church' is not the concept they saw in Scripture.

The focus on the Scripture, which is the revelation of Christ for us - this also lead to separation from the ideology and practice of, and participation in, the civil government. (I also think there's been a lot of extra 'baggage' attached to the term since it was first plastered on the 'early anabaptists'. But that has been done by insiders, not the outsiders. Funny how that works, huh?)

[RZehr]

What about the Brethren and German Baptist groups? They date to 1708 rather than 1525, yet are usually considered Anabaptist.

I consider them to be Anabaptist. That’s just my default bias, I don’t know exactly why I do, nor do I know much about them. I am unprepared to argue one way or another over them.

[Sudsy]

I read an article yesterday on how the early Anabaptists and the early Pentecostals had so much in common. Both were focused on what they understood to be NT Christianity.

Today I think perhaps most Christians are not at all familiar with the word 'Anabaptist' and know what it means. I grew up understanding Mennonites as basically Christians from a German/Russian background. Sometimes their meetings were and some still are, advertised as a separate German speaking church meeting.

I probably would never had made a Mennonite MB church my home church without it having an Evangelical emphasis and it appears this is still the case that most Mennonite groups are not evangelical in practise.

I would think the most defining belief of 'Anabaptist' churches today is not adult baptism but rather the belief in non participation in war (although warring has been a big issue within Anabaptism). Early Pentecostals had that same belief however they differ today by putting more emphasis on the work of the Holy Spirit in a NT way (although some don't practise in NT ways) and they don't hold the same stance on not participating in earthly wars.

Regarding being re-baptizers, most evangelical groups are 'Anabaptist' in that sense of the word. And as for 'separation from the world', I think there is as much variation in practise amongst Anabaptists as there is in Protestantism..

[MaxPC]

Excellent input; thank you. It helps sort it for me.

Holy Week starts today. I will see you all after Easter.