>>562228
Well any group that resulted from a simple schism in the catholic church would take with it some errors. In particular, some of those groups you mentioned I believe were influenced by Baptists (even if they didn't call themselves that, the name isn't important, the doctrine is). That is, they were influenced by but not to be confused with actual Baptists.
Now first off when you refer to Anabaptists as one of your groups, you probably mean to say the specifically pacifist churches that organized in certain areas of Switzerland and Germany such as the Mennonites. Those were originally organized from some, but not from all of the independent churches, such as the ones I mentioned from Holland, England and Wales. It was in around 1523 that the first known organized activity among our churches started, but the act of organizing more than one church into an official "Baptist denomination" is pretty much a political thing and not all of us agree with it. Nonetheless, many have tried. The Mennonites were the early attempt at this and so they are sometimes known as "the Anabaptists" today, even though that was really a derogatory term going all the way back used against anyone who didn't accept infant baptism. Later attempts took on the name for themselves "Baptist" and yet these groups also were organized denominations. What we call IFB churches are not organized beyond the church unit. They plant a new church and then there are two independent churches. So the historical situation is kind of confusing if you haven't really gathered your thoughts on this.
Now as for the other groups you named, how many of these errors would be realized seems to vary from group to group. I've made a chart that shows the six schisms that, from what I think, are noteworthy for our purposes here. I believe that Catholic writers consciously tied up independent apolitical churches with these groups, as with Protestants today, which are also state church denominations by the way. They have a definite motive for doing so. And while we may have shared more in common in terms of doctrine with these disparate Churches, due to our influence, that doesn't mean we all believed the same thing. A lot of this was political in nature, because the Roman Catholics were more adversarial to our beliefs than other state churches. That's why the 413 death sentence law was eventually passed by Rome, and re-enacted by Justinian in 529. That establishes a pretty good motive to leave places under their political control.
Now it's hard to judge what a lot of these people really taught since they no longer exist, like the Paulicians. But it's pretty clear to me that what it's said that they taught is heretical, yet that isn't an issue because they weren't us. Also, I didn't include Cathari and Albigenses at all because they were pretty clearly Gnostics and not influenced by us. As for Montanists I have no idea. So there's my idea on all that.
>I'd like to see a source outlining how there is an uninterrupted provenance of adult baptism practiced from the Apostles to present day Baptists.
Well here's one neutral source I've posted here before. It's way before anything like the Trail of Blood (which by the way has questionable sources and I don't use or recommend it).
The Edinburgh Encyclopedia, Vol 3, p.251 (1830)
>It must have already occurred to our readers, that the baptists are the same sect of Christians which we formerly described under the appellation of ANABAPTISTS. Indeed, this seems to have been their great leading principle from the time of Tertullian to the present day.
And I'll give you one more that agrees with me.
Robert Barclay, The Inner Life of the Religious Societies of the Commonwealth, pp.11-12
>As we shall afterwards shew, the rise of the "Anabaptists" took place long prior to the formation of the Church of England, and there are also reasons for believing that on the continent of Europe small hidden christian societies, who have held many of the opinions of the "Anabaptists," have existed from the times of the Apostles. In the sense of the direct transmission of Divine Truth, and the true nature of spiritual religion, it seems probable that these Churches have a lineage or succession more ancient than that of the Roman Church.