Are Baptists Protestants?

[tonyhipps]

Methinks you may have your generals confused with your particulars.....

General and particular

In the early 17th century, Baptists in England developed along two different theologies. The General Baptists were so-called because they held belief in a General Atonement. The General view of the atonement is that Christ in His death undertook to make possible the salvation of all men. This position is identified with Arminianism and Amyraldianism.[citation needed] Early General Baptist leaders included John Smyth and Thomas Helwys.

The Particular Baptists were so-called because they held the Particular Atonement. The Particular view of the atonement is that Christ in His death undertook to save particular individuals, usually referred to as the elect. This position is often identified with Calvinism. Some early Particular Baptist leaders were Benjamin Keach, Hanserd Knollys, and William Kiffin.

Present day Strict Baptists of England are descendants of the Particular Baptists, but heavily influenced by men from the Gospel Standard Strict Baptist movement such as William Gadsby (1773–1844) John Warburton (1776–1857) and John Kershaw (1792–1870). Sometimes they are referred to as Strict and Particular Baptists. The terminology "strict" refers to the strict or closed position they held on membership and communion. There are still other Baptist churches known as Grace Baptist who hold to a closed communion table restricted to baptized believers. The Grace Baptist would not accept the view held by the Gospel Standard churches regarding the offer of the gospel. The majority of early Particular Baptists rejected open membership and open communion. One notable exception was the author of Pilgrim's Progress, John Bunyan.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_Baptist

Thank you, I stand corrected. Its been a few years since I took a Church/Baptist History course. I was going off memory which seems to be slipping

 

[michael-acts17:11]

There has always been "remnant" throughout the world. Believers have existed outside of institutional religion since the time of Christ. The Baptists err when they try to claim the lineage as exclusively their own. Believers have been called many things over the centuries, and no single denomination or group owns the "keys to the kingdom".

I've heard the same "we are the only true church" line from IFB's, Catholics, Church of Christ'ers, etc. My Bible says "the first shall be last and the last shall be first". Those who not only claim to be preeminent but claim to be the exclusive church are in danger of becoming a false church or a cult.

 

[Luke2427]

The reason why some do not want to say this is because they believe to say Baptists are protestant is to say that we came out of the RCC. However, this is a simplistic understanding of the Reformation. The Reformation was fueled by many factors, only one of them being theology.

Even narrowing it down to Baptist history does not yield simple results. There were two kinds of Baptists that arose independantly of each other. John Smyth was the founder of the General Baptists and are credited with being the first Baptists. The Particular Baptists rose in England through the influence of one church. This is one reason why there are two interpretations of Baptist history. The GB's were more influenced by the Mennonites than the PB's were. Even that shouldn't be overstated however. One of the reasons Helwys left Holland and refused to become a Mennonite was because he did not hold to their view of successionism because he recognized it for what it is - a "baptized" view of apostolic succession, just as the Catholics teach. (Baptist successionism falls into this same trap)

The basic fact is that God has NEVER been without a witness throughout the history of the Church. We know of some of these groups and while several had problems of their own, some were thoroughly evangelical. But none of them were Baptists. Baptists came in the 17th century and continued a long line of biblical fidelity and exegesis, and a remarkable balance between strong Biblical knowledge and evangelistic ferver. It is historically accurate to say that the Baptists were influenced by the Anabaptists, but it is not accurate to say we came from them.

Hope this helps,

Randy:godisgood:

good stuff randy

 

[Luke2427]

Kyredneck:
I believe that the Lord has had a people from the very beginning (at Genesis) that has had nothing to do with, and that always has been separate from any sort of organized, universal, established, religious entities on earth, and that includes the Mosaic Covenant and the RCC.*

I agree


Tom Butler
In other words, there were true churches already in existence, whose faith and practice was similar to theirs. And that these churches extended back to well in advance of the Reformation.

So yes, New Testament congregations have existed from Jesus' time to today.

I agree


Luke2427
Very helpful. Now how do we reconcile the information given by you and TomButler?

I agree that God has always had people that belonged to Him since He created man. My position is that the Baptist Church as we know it today was established in or around the 16th century. The Particulars were Arminian in there Doctrine while the Regulars were Calvinistic in theirs. That's why today we have Free Will Baptists, Independent Fundamentalists, Reformed Baptists, etc. etc.

I'm simply saying that no particular group of people can trace their body of believers back to the first century church. Where's the documentation?

This is my opinion as well.

That there was an unbroken line genuinely Christian people is not in question- what is, is that they were Baptist.

 

[Tom Butler]

This is my opinion as well.

That there was an unbroken line genuinely Christian people is not in question- what is, is that they were Baptist.

It's not a question of if they were Baptist. It is that we Baptists identified with them. Baptists have consistently sought to emulate first-century Christians in doctrine and practice.

We identify with those groups who baptized only confessing believers, by immersion, and refused to baptize infants. Those who held to such belief and practice have worn different labels over the centuries, but we should consider them our progenitors.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

It's not a question of if they were Baptist. It is that we Baptists identified with them. Baptists have consistently sought to emulate first-century Christians in doctrine and practice.

We identify with those groups who baptized only confessing believers, by immersion, and refused to baptize infants. Those who held to such belief and practice have worn different labels over the centuries, but we should consider them our progenitors.

Tom, are we talking about the Christians who also believed in the active gifts of the Holy Spirit?

 

[glfredrick]

Kyredneck:
I believe that the Lord has had a people from the very beginning (at Genesis) that has had nothing to do with, and that always has been separate from any sort of organized, universal, established, religious entities on earth, and that includes the Mosaic Covenant and the RCC.*

I agree


Tom Butler
In other words, there were true churches already in existence, whose faith and practice was similar to theirs. And that these churches extended back to well in advance of the Reformation.

So yes, New Testament congregations have existed from Jesus' time to today.

I agree


Luke2427
Very helpful. Now how do we reconcile the information given by you and TomButler?

I agree that God has always had people that belonged to Him since He created man. My position is that the Baptist Church as we know it today was established in or around the 16th century. The Particulars were Arminian in there Doctrine while the Regulars were Calvinistic in theirs. That's why today we have Free Will Baptists, Independent Fundamentalists, Reformed Baptists, etc. etc.

I'm simply saying that no particular group of people can trace their body of believers back to the first century church. Where's the documentation?

Well said... Though there have been groups here and there, there are no connections between those groups, either in their own literature or in the literature of detractors and enemies (sometimes we gain more knowledge of history from enemies than friends). The concept that says there is a trail all the way back to John the Baptist is flawed history, nice sounding to a bunch of people looking for an identity, gathered in a tent meeting somewhere, but flawed nevertheless. As far as I can tell, that flawed historical picture came out of the need to substantiate a dispensational view that manufactured several categories of church that had to be fulfilled somehow in the historical record.

Baptists are also (probably) not Protestants either, though we did stem from that movement (instead of from Catholicism directly). The first Baptists (and Ana-baptists) came out of the existing religious structure of their day -- Roman Catholicism or those who had broken from Roman Catholicism, the Protestants. There were no unaffiliated peoples in the world during the time when the Baptists were founded becasue every child born in any given community would have been brought to the priest for baptism. People didn't live in a world of choice then as they do now.

 

[Bob Alkire]

As far as I can tell, that flawed historical picture came out of the need to substantiate a dispensational view that manufactured several categories of church that had to be fulfilled somehow in the historical record

I thought it was the brother B. H. Carroll, J. M. Carroll who wrote,"The trail of Blood". I could be wrong, it has been way in the past that I read the little book. I believe in the dispensational view and I have never heard what you are bring up.

I do believe their have always been Christians on this earth from the cross on who were not in the RCC. A lot of them had their problems with the RCC as well as the reformers, if I recall my history correctly.

 

[Jerome]

Yes, credobaptists were long persecuted by the RCC as well as the "Reformers".

Cardinal Hosius, writing in the sixteenth century:

"there shall be no faith more certain and true, than is the Anabaptists', seeing there be none now, or have been before time for the space of these thousand and two hundred years, who have been more cruelly punished, or that have more stoutly, steadfastly, cheerfully taken their punishment, yea or have offered themselves of their own accord to death, were it never so terrible and grievous. Yea in Saint Augustin his time, as he himself sayeth, there was a certain monstrous desire of death in them. . . . Neither was there such foolish hardy heretics in Saint Augustine his time only. For four hundred years ago, at what time St. Bernard lived, there were Anabaptists, which were no less prodigal to spend their life, then were the Donatists, some (saith he) did marvel that they were led to their deathe not only patiently but as it semed very frolic and merry.
...If you behold their cheerfulness in suffering persecutions, the Anabaptists run far before all other heretics. If you will have regard to the number, it is like that in multitude they would swarm above all other, if they were not grievously plagued and cut off with the knife of persecution. If you have an eye to the outward appearance of godliness, both the Lutherans and the Zwinglians must needs grant, that they far pass them.
...And surely how many so ever have written against this heresie, whether they were Catholics or Heretics, they were able to overthrow it not so much by the testimony of the scriptures, as by the authority of the Church."

 

[saturneptune]

It's not a question of if they were Baptist. It is that we Baptists identified with them. Baptists have consistently sought to emulate first-century Christians in doctrine and practice.

We identify with those groups who baptized only confessing believers, by immersion, and refused to baptize infants. Those who held to such belief and practice have worn different labels over the centuries, but we should consider them our progenitors.

This question will probably never be settled for sure, but I am thankful to be part of a local church that believes as I believe the groups did from Acts to the Reformation outside the RCC.

 

[glfredrick]

This question will probably never be settled for sure, but I am thankful to be part of a local church that believes as I believe the groups did from Acts to the Reformation outside the RCC.

I don't doubt that these people existed, but I do doubt that there is a continual line that can be traced to the modern Baptist movement. I also doubt that these people did not spring from the Catholic Church. Literally, they had to. It was the only church for centuries. The word "catholic" means "universal," from the Greek, kata (about or concerning) and holos (whole), or more simply, "general" or "universal." "Church" of course, stems from the Greek, "ekklesisa," (called out ones).

There was no real competing body, though there were and still are sects that do not do precisely or believe precisely what the mainstream Magesterium hold, primarily those people who have actually read and follow the Scriptures instead of Sacred Tradition.

Note that the use of "Roman Catholic" did not come into play until about the time of the Reformation.

We tend to want to vilify the Catholic Church, and to stand against them in as many ways as possible, but in fact, there would be no church of any sort today if not for the catholic (universal) church of the first 1000 years. It is only when the Roman faction and political gain started to take precedence over the Lord that the church started to go seriously astray. Indeed, we are indebted to our Fathers in the faith.

 

[Alive in Christ]

(((OF COURSE))) we Baptists are protestants!

Why O why do some Baptists want to shrink back from the truth?

Its nothing to be ashamed of. Its something to be very proud of.

 

[Alive in Christ]

The Baptists err when they try to claim the lineage as exclusively their own.

Sure do. They err MONSTEROUSLY.

 

[Tom Butler]

Sure do. They err MONSTEROUSLY.

What's monsterous about identifying with the first-century Christians, claiming kinship with them, and adopting their legacy.

Disagree if you wish, but monsterous?

 

[Havensdad]

Whether or not there has always been "baptistic" churches, is a separate question from where the current Baptist churches came from. The churches iin the U.S. for instance, that call themselves "Baptist," can be historically traced to the English Separatists (16th-17th century people who broke off of the Church of England). Whether there were earlier movements which influenced them, is unclear.

 

[FundyPat]

I don't consider my self a protestant but if I had to chose a label, I would be a "separatist".

Same here. :thumbsup:

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Simply put, I don't want to be related to murderous sacralists.

(((OF COURSE))) we Baptists are protestants!

Why O why do some Baptists want to shrink back from the truth?

Its nothing to be ashamed of. Its something to be very proud of.

 

[saturneptune]

I can hardly wait to know the answer to the two questions that changes the eternal destiny for everyone, "Are Baptists Protestants?" and "Do Baptists have a link to the first century church?" Stay tuned, same bat time, same bat channel, next week to get the answers to this and other vital issues of the day, such as "Did King James carry around a NIV Bible?"

 

[Salty]

After reading this, I googled and found this website: WESTCHESTER CONFERENCE REPORT

 

[rsr]

I can hardly wait to know the answer to the two questions that changes the eternal destiny for everyone, "Are Baptists Protestants?" and "Do Baptists have a link to the first century church?" Stay tuned, same bat time, same bat channel, next week to get the answers to this and other vital issues of the day, such as "Did King James carry around a NIV Bible?"

Whether you consider the questions important or not, this happens to be a Baptist history forum and they are fair game here. If you don't care what the answers are, feel free to ignore these discussions.