Baptists Are Protestants

[HankD]

The problem is some seem to mistake "Protestant" to mean protesting from within the Catholic Church rather than representative of the Protestant movement.

For example, Luther wrote (negatively) of Anabaptists who were never a part of the Catholic Church but were particapants within the Reformation movement alongside the Reformers.

Personally, I would find it more troubling if Baptists (those who held a baptistic distinctive) were absent a voice in the Protestant Reformation when the Anabaptists were quite active and vocal (even forming a "second wave" or "radical reformation" when they saw the Reformers were not completely willing or able to completely abandon RCC doctrine).

The Reformation fell short of a full deck.

Even Calvin was confused about the ordinance of Baptism, John Calvin himself an infant baptizer.
If he couldn't get something as basic and simple as believer's baptism right where else was he confused I wonder.

So indeed confusion concerning ALL the Baptist Distinctives by the churches of the Reformation.

 

[JonC]

The Reformation fell short of a full deck.

Even Calvin was confused about the ordinance of Baptism, John Calvin himself an infant baptizer.
If he couldn't get something as basic and simple as believer's baptism right where else was he confused I wonder.

So indeed confusion concerning ALL the Baptist Distinctives by the churches of the Reformation.

Yes, but Anabaptists were a part of the Protestant Reformation (which is why Anabaptists are Protestants). Anabaptists affirmed at least the most part of what we consider "baptistic" (they affirm believers baptisn, a separation of Church & State, for example). AND they were never a part of the RCC.

I am not sure Baptists should be proud of a belief past Baptists remained silent. Was it because they saw how Anabaptist Protestants ended up being treated?

 

[Salty]

Since John was the first baptizer, and since his name was “Baptist,” he must have been the first Baptist.

Johns name was NOT Baptist - That's like saying George the Surveyor . His name was Washington, NOT Surveyor.

 

[Alan Gross]

Johns name was NOT Baptist - That's like saying George the Surveyor . His name was Washington, NOT Surveyor.

Salty, have you ever in your lifetime been able to crawl far enough into access the presence of a Bible?

 

[Salty]

Have no ideal of what you are trying to get across.

 

[Alan Gross]

Yes, but Anabaptists were a part of the Protestant Reformation (which is why Anabaptists are Protestants). Anabaptists affirmed at least the most part of what we consider "baptistic" (they affirm believers baptisn, a separation of Church & State, for example). AND they were never a part of the RCC.

I am not sure Baptists should be proud of a belief past Baptists remained silent. Was it because they saw how Anabaptist Protestants ended up being treated?

Baptists by
VARIOUS DIFFERENT ‘NAMES’
THAT HOLD to WHAT, TODAY,
COULD BE CALLED:
BIBLICAL BAPTIST DOCTRINES,
have existed all along,
but they have often
been called by other names than,
‘Baptists’.
…
The churches of the New Testament
as they have existed down through the ages
have usually received their names
from their enemies and persecutors.
…
These names were received
by those
THAT HELD to WHAT, TODAY,
COULD BE CALLED:
BIBLICAL BAPTIST DOCTRINES,
as terms of odium and reproach.
…
New Testament believers
grouped together
in New Testament churches here and there,
bore different names at different times,
such as
Paulicians,
Bogomils,
Waldenses,
Anabaptists,
Catabaptists, etc.,
have existed through all the ages,
SINCE JESUS
FOUNDED HIS CHURCHES,
with each ‘name’ giving place to another

THAT HELD to WHAT, TODAY,
COULD BE CALLED:
BIBLICAL
NEW TESTAMENT DOCTRINES,
of
THE CHURCH
THAT JESUS Built,
and
are known the World over as
Baptists.

 

[Alan Gross]

Have no ideal of what you are trying to get across.

What man has come up with is going to conflict with God's Revlations of church Truth, as seen in The Bible.

Or, maybe not seen, before:

This is JESUS CHRIST’S

Promise of Perpetuity

TO HIS ORGANIZED ASSEMBLIES

that HE STARTED

DURING HIS EARTHLY MINISTRY

“Upon this Rock”
as Jesus Said, Referring to Himself,

“I Will Build
( Continue to EDIFY & TEACH )
My church;
and the gates of hell [Hades]
will not prevail against It”
[Matthew 16:18].

…

We may find various interpretations

of this statement of Jesus,

but despite a great variety of ideas

in detailed interpretation

it is fairly clear to all that we have here

a PROMISE of our Lord

that His church would not be overcome

by the powers of evil.

…

Whatever this church was,

it could not fail if Jesus Spoke The Truth.

…

We believe that this church was

what would now be called a Baptist church,

and anyone who will honestly examine

the organization and doctrines

of this New Testament institution

in comparison with the organization

and

doctrines of SCRIPTURAL

Baptist churches today

will reach the same conclusion.

…

If the church that Jesus built

was not a Baptist church,

then we need to find out

what kind of church it was, and join that church,

if we want our service to be pleasing to Him.

…

One thing we can be sure of:

if Jesus Spoke The Truth

— and what real Christian would deny this? —

the church that Jesus built

has been in the world ever since

and will be here till He Comes Again.

…

The popular “Protestant” dogma

in this connection

speaks of an “invisible” church

to which all Christians belong.

…

More on this as we go along,

but for the present note a few simple facts:

…

a. Neither the expression “invisible church”

nor the idea of such an expression

can be found in the New Testament.

…

b. The whole purpose

of the “invisible church” dogma

is to justify the Protestant splits

from Roman Catholicism.

…

But since Baptists are not Protestants

and were never a part

of the heretical Catholic system,

we have no need of any such dogma

to justify our existence.

…

c. Most Protestants and many ignorant Baptists

suppose that Christ built two churches;

that is, two kinds of churches:

the “invisible church” of their own vain imagining

and the organized assemblies

that they cannot help recognizing in the New Testament.

…

Then, to add insult to injury,

they call their imaginary monstrosity

the “true” church!

…

But the Bible says there is only one body (church),

that is, one kind of body,

just as there is only one baptism,

that is, one kind of baptism [Ephesians 4:4-5].

…

d. Since there is no just reason to do otherwise,

we must understand that Jesus used the word,

“church” [Greek “ekklesia] in Matthew 16:18

in the same general sense

that it has everywhere else in the New Testament:

that is, an assembly,

almost always an organized assembly.

…

The word here is used abstractly;

that is, it expresses an idea

whose realization is to be found

in a particular organized assembly.

 

[rlvaughn]

There are many branches of Anabaptists, but it is not uncommon for them to say they are not Protestants. The book Anabaptism: Neither Catholic Nor Protestant by Walter Klaassen is one example.

 

[JonC]

Baptists by
VARIOUS DIFFERENT ‘NAMES’
THAT HOLD to WHAT, TODAY,
COULD BE CALLED:
BIBLICAL BAPTIST DOCTRINES,
have existed all along,
but they have often
been called by other names than,
‘Baptists’.
…
The churches of the New Testament
as they have existed down through the ages
have usually received their names
from their enemies and persecutors.
…
These names were received
by those
THAT HELD to WHAT, TODAY,
COULD BE CALLED:
BIBLICAL BAPTIST DOCTRINES,
as terms of odium and reproach.
…
New Testament believers
grouped together
in New Testament churches here and there,
bore different names at different times,
such as
Paulicians,
Bogomils,
Waldenses,
Anabaptists,
Catabaptists, etc.,
have existed through all the ages,
SINCE JESUS
FOUNDED HIS CHURCHES,
with each ‘name’ giving place to another

THAT HELD to WHAT, TODAY,
COULD BE CALLED:
BIBLICAL
NEW TESTAMENT DOCTRINES,
of
THE CHURCH
THAT JESUS Built,
and
are known the World over as
Baptists.

I agree that the baotist distinctive has existed throughout Christian history. That said, Baptists were also Oritestants (as you evidence here).

It is interesting that Baptists ad we know them today would have been deemed heretics not only by the Catholic Church and Reformed churches, but also by the lineage you have provided.

Also, Christians deem sone listed as heretics (although, granted, they held a baptistic distinctive).

Bogomils were, for example, Gnostic in their teachings.

Waldenses were distinctly Protestant (they actively joined the Protestant movement), but historically they were also very much a works based faith (seeking perfection in anti-materializism).

Anabaptistic theology is perhaps our closest spititual cousin, but traditionally they held as essential what we often see as a matter of conscious (physical separation, a rejection of Penal Substitution Theory, pacifism, ect.).

Baptists have existed throughout history in terms of the distinctive (all marks of the Church have existed). But Baptist churches as we know the descriptive have not as we are also indepted to the Reformers.

When we start looking to a physical lineage rather than spiritual "kinships", and even here for "churches like us", then we misunderstand what the church is. Catholics look for such a heritage. Baptists do not.

 

[Alan Gross]

I understand your referencing ' the church' to mean your allegence is pledged to being 'Catholic'.

 

[HankD]

Confusion abounds among the "Reformers".

What are the greatest issues separating Baptists from Reformed Protestantism : disagreement concerning - Believers Baptism, the Lord's Table (communion), the Priesthood of the believer...

Baptist DistinctivesGARBC

 

[JonC]

I understand your referencing ' the church' to mean your allegence is pledged to being 'Catholic'.

I thought so. I could tell your definition was close to a "Catholic" definition.

I disagree as I believe that the Church is defined not by a landmarkist heritage (RCC hold over doctrine) or doctrine at all. I think if you would step back from the idea and search Scripture you will find the church is defined by Christ and evaluated in its adherence to the gospel of Christ - NOT one's allegiance to a universal church.

In other words - we do not look to a "Mother Church" to establish our identity. We look to Christ.

Why do you believe the a church is determined by its its allegiance to a universal or "catholic" church? Do you have Scripture to back up your position?

 

[Alan Gross]

I thought so. I could tell your definition was close to a "Catholic" definition.

I disagree as I believe that the Church is defined not by a landmarkist heritage (RCC hold over doctrine) or doctrine at all. I think if you would step back from the idea and search Scripture you will find the church is defined by Christ and evaluated in its adherence to the gospel of Christ - NOT one's allegiance to a universal church.

In other words - we do not look to a "Mother Church" to establish our identity. We look to Christ.

Why do you believe the a church is determined by its its allegiance to a universal or "catholic" church? Do you have Scripture to back up your position?

I do now. This is austoundly monumental an epiphany of Biblical and Spiritual insight to me that Protestants, Protestant 'Baptists', Reformers, and 'Reformed Baptists', who are Catholic Universal Invisible 'church' proponents are Catholic.

The Bible Teaches that there is 'one baptism'.

So, just as the Charismatic wholly, completely, and rediculously invent something in which "they say" The Holy Spirit Has somehow baptised something!!!

The is 'one baptism'.

The Holy Spirit has never Baptised anything, of Record in The Book.

Way don't they see that?

Their devotion to The False Phophet blinds them to Plain Teaching.

The is 'one body'.

Why do universal invisible church believers not see that 'one body' means the same as 'one baptism'?

The demand that they align their Religious societies in the style of Cstholsium, organizationally, has blinded them to a Plain Teaching of there being 'one kind of body', which is always a Divinely Led and Biblically Organized Assembly of Baptised Believers, as far as Jesus and The Bible Teaches.

Utterly Phanominal:

That the Words in The Bible Teach The Lord's Truth regarding His Institution of His churches in which Believers are to Acceptably Bring Glory to God

and an entire World full of believers outside the fellowship of having been Scripturally Baptised into faithfulness to One of The churches Jesus Built, Are In The Kingdom of God on Earth AND YOU CAN'T EVEN FORCE FEED God's Words in front of their face, where they can comprehend what Jesus Teaches.

They are Catholic.

God has associated them with the source of their authority to conduct His Business, which is None.

A Worldwide Universal Visible, or Invisible 'church' is Catholic and influenced by The False Phophet.

Protestants are Catholics.

They try any darn thing, like, "Baptist" is not John's name, when Jesus is The Savior.

 

[JonC]

I do now. This is austoundly monumental an epiphany of Biblical and Spiritual insight to me that Protestants, Protestant 'Baptists', Reformers, and 'Reformed Baptists', who are Catholic Universal Invisible 'church' proponents are Catholic.

The Bible Teaches that there is 'one baptism'.

So, just as the Charismatic wholly, completely, and rediculously invent something in which "they say" The Holy Spirit Has somehow baptised something!!!

The is 'one baptism'.

The Holy Spirit has never Baptised anything, of Record in The Book.

Way don't they see that?

Their devotion to The False Phophet blinds them to Plain Teaching.

The is 'one body'.

Why do universal invisible church believers not see that 'one body' means the same as 'one baptism'?

The demand that they align their Religious societies in the style of Cstholsium, organizationally, has blinded them to a Plain Teaching of there being 'one kind of body', which is always a Divinely Led and Biblically Organized Assembly of Baptised Believers, as far as Jesus and The Bible Teaches.

Utterly Phanominal:

That the Words in The Bible Teach The Lord's Truth regarding His Institution of His churches in which Believers are to Acceptably Bring Glory to God

and an entire World full of believers outside the fellowship of having been Scripturally Baptised into faithfulness to One of The churches Jesus Built, Are In The Kingdom of God on Earth AND YOU CAN'T EVEN FORCE FEED God's Words in front of their face, where they can comprehend what Jesus Teaches.

They are Catholic.

God has associated them with the source of their authority to conduct His Business, which is None.

A Worldwide Universal Visible, or Invisible 'church' is Catholic and influenced by The False Phophet.

Protestants are Catholics.

They try any darn thing, like, "Baptist" is not John's name, when Jesus is The Savior.

I agree that we do not look to a "Mother Church" (whether it is the RCC, a Presbyterian diocese, or Baptist Lankmarkism). And I agree that all of them (Reformed Churches, RCC, and Landmark churches) hold to a "romish" isea of what constitutes a church.

But it is not perfect doctrine that constitutes a "church". It is a community of saved people who are rightely called "children of God" identified "in Christ" assembled for Kingdom purposes and united in the one true gospel.

Insofar as John the Baptist, no one is saying "Baptist" was John's name (as in a proper name). I am not sure where you are going there but I think most here at least know that first century Judiasm did not use English-type surnames. That said, he was known as the "Baptist" (known for baptizing people).

 

[Alan Gross]

The Bible Teaches what a church of The Lord Jesus Christ is, as a New Testament Teaching and Doctrine.

I would be referring to the Teaching of The church Jesus Built to Distinguish a New Testament church, as defined by Jesus.

The argument against identifying that Kind of church that Jesus Founded during His Earthly Ministry as Baptist, because John's 'name' wasn't Baptist, is equal to saying 'Savior', or 'Christ' has to be eleminated from being used to Identify Jesus.

I was struck by the insistent resistance and rebellion against The Bible Teaching of Church Truth, to the extent of actual Blasphemous Hatred of God, when hallucinating a Thread Title on a Baptist discussion board could include man-made hierarchical religious social clubs of any variety to the extent of imagining them ingulfing and consuming The churches that Jesus Built, until I saw all the testimonies were of Rome.

No wonder.

Rome has been fighting every Divine Element of The Divine Organization and Institute of The Lord's churches, as Satan has also opposed the Divine Reality of male and female and The Divine Institute of Marriage.

That sure doesn't say much for Jesus Christ, Does it? The demand that The gates of Hell have prevailed against His churches (?)

Maybe I shouldn't ask if some folks, here, believe they came from a monkey.

Or maybe I should.

How bizarre.

So, "church Truth" is not something that is on the table, here(?)

Maybe folks actually have never been exposed to Jesus' Teachings in The New Testament.

I hadn't considered that.

The things I learn here.

Shoving 'Salvation' into the verse on "shut up the kingdom of heaven" took me a while to decipher. As if a phase of words can be pulled out of the Bible and just said to mean something.

Like 'World'.

God so Loved The World and Love Not The World.

WORLD.

God Loves "everybody".

Really.

God Commands us to Not Love "everybody", or the things in "everybody", then.

Now this, "we want to pretend we Love Jesus, too" stuff, by Rome enthusiates, without a Bible, or concern for a Bible, fooled me, again.

I had quit, sense I knew God doesn't Call someone to overcome the darkness of Rome, but Tells them to "Come out of her My childre", when they are His, and Tells me to Preach the Gospel, i. e., not 'argue man-made religion verses Bible churches Established by God.'

Maybe I should describe a Bible church, as associated with Jesus, as their Inventor, Origin and Head.

Then, maybe someone may be able to see that two kind of bodies are not Spoken of, when God Says, "one body".

There is ONE KIND OF BODY.

LIKE ONE KIND OF BAPTISM

OR ONE KIND OF HUSBAND, IN "THE HUSBAND IS THE HEAD", ETC.

NOT 'ONE BIG HUSBAND'.

NOT ONE BIG BAPTISM.

 

[Alan Gross]

The CHURCHES
THAT JESUS BUILT
are

Baptist Believing churches
and are each
A Self-Governing Body,
with Jesus Christ as their Head,
by The Authority of God.
…
The CHURCHES
THAT JESUS BUILT
are all

Baptist Believing churches,
which are
abo. utividual Self-Governing Bodies,
under
The Governing Influence of Jesus,
as their Head,
and are each
Specific Autonomous
Baptist church Congregations,
or Assemblies,
which
cannot ‘project’ her Authority
or ‘merge’ her Sovereignty
into a ‘general body’ of any kind,
nor ‘delegate’ her Powers,
under
The Government of Jesus Christ,
by The Holy Spirit of God.
…
There is not
and cannot be
a ‘Baptist’ ‘federal body’.”
…
There is not
and cannot be
a ‘Baptist’ seminary,
association, convention,
a club, college, denomination,
or a collective group, of any kind,
which may claim,
‘The Authority of God’
Given to The Kind of Bible Based,
Scripturally Organised
Churches that Jesus Built.
in The New Testament.
…
Adapted from
Distinctive Baptist Principles
By B. H. Carroll
…
“A Declaration of those things
which are most surely
Believed among us.”
– Luke 1:1
…
“It was needful for me
to exhort you that
you should earnestly
Contend for the Faith
which was
Once Delivered to the saints.”
– Jude 3
…
The Distinctive Principles of the Baptists
are those Doctrines or Practices
which distinguish us from
groups of individuals
who claim the name ‘Christians*’
and yet have formed
man-made ‘denominations’ (?)
…
*And if any of those
individuals within these groups,
or anyone else,
who claims the name ‘Christian’
are a Spiritually Born Again
Child of God,
who has Believed and Fully Trusted
JESUS, ALONE, as THEIR SAVIOR,
Who Died,
Was Buried, and Rose from The Dead
FOR THEIR PERSONAL SINS,
then that is
Eternally Great
and
GLORIOUS.

While rejoicing in our Savior,
one of the Distinctive
of Members in
The CHURCHES
THAT JESUS BUILT
is that they Honor The Word of God
and Worship in
Baptist Believing churches,
by
The AUTHORITY of GOD,
as Jesus Commanded.
…

That’s what we are talking about.

From one of my WordPress blog posts.

( 8.0 ) INTRODUCTION: THE CHURCHES of THE GODHEAD BODILY, ORGANIZED by JESUS CHRIST, which have been since then and ARE STILL on EARTH TODAY. | Aware of The Godhead

 

[melchizedeck]

It is interesting how many Christians know little to anything about Church history. Church history is the NT period, so Christ's birth to John on Patmos (Revelation)~100 AD.
100 AD - 1500 AD is a fascinating time that most Christians know little about.
1500 AD - present - Reformation, vague knowledge.

It is true that there were isolated movements within Christianity from 100-1500. However, they were mostly Gnostic. Gnosticism predates even Christianity and had infiltrated parts of Judaism in the Jewish diaspora... that is, the Jews in Rome, Greece, etc.

The Reformers had two groups, both of whom believed the Roman Catholic Church had become corrupt. One believed in tweaking theology and practice, creating groups like the Church of England. The other side believed that was just putting on band-aids. It was time to focus on scripture alone and becoming a NT church, not using tweeks according to scripture.

There have been strong emotions on all sides over the last 500 years. Combining this with a lack of focus on history by the church has led to some far out views that have nothing to do with verifiable history. My favorite is that Baptists are from John the Baptists, have always existed, and then emerged during the Reformation. The 'proof' was the existence of pockets of various movements that have little in common, no linearity, and mostly Gnostic elements from the 1st Century.

 

[melchizedeck]

New Testament believers
grouped together
in New Testament churches here and there,
bore different names at different times,
such as
Paulicians,

That was a group of Gnostics in 7th Century Armenia.
Also, rejected the OT.
Also, rejected the Trinity.

Bogomils,

10th Century Bulgaria.
Also, Gnostic.

Waldenses,

This was an isolated movement in France that had nothing to do with the prior two groups. They believed in salvation through poverty.

Anabaptists,

Catabaptists, etc.,

have existed through all the ages,
SINCE JESUS
FOUNDED HIS CHURCHES,
with each ‘name’ giving place to another

THAT HELD to WHAT, TODAY,
COULD BE CALLED:
BIBLICAL
NEW TESTAMENT DOCTRINES,
of
THE CHURCH
THAT JESUS Built,
and
are known the World over as
Baptists.

There was nothing written about Anabaptists, or Baptists until the 16th Century. I think some Christian groups would delight in a Baptist claiming they came from Gnosticism.

 

[Alan Gross]

It is interesting how many Christians know little to anything about Church history. Church history is the NT period, so Christ's birth to John on Patmos (Revelation)~100 AD.
100 AD - 1500 AD is a fascinating time that most Christians know little about.
1500 AD - present - Reformation, vague knowledge.

It is true that there were isolated movements within Christianity from 100-1500. However, they were mostly Gnostic. Gnosticism predates even Christianity and had infiltrated parts of Judaism in the Jewish diaspora... that is, the Jews in Rome, Greece, etc.

The Reformers had two groups, both of whom believed the Roman Catholic Church had become corrupt. One believed in tweaking theology and practice, creating groups like the Church of England. The other side believed that was just putting on band-aids. It was time to focus on scripture alone and becoming a NT church, not using tweeks according to scripture.

There have been strong emotions on all sides over the last 500 years. Combining this with a lack of focus on history by the church has led to some far out views that have nothing to do with verifiable history. My favorite is that Baptists are from John the Baptists, have always existed, and then emerged during the Reformation. The 'proof' was the existence of pockets of various movements that have little in common, no linearity, and mostly Gnostic elements from the 1st Century.

Having Rome's favorite as your favorite is not the kind of thing God would want you to try to brag about is it?

 

[Alan Gross]

That was a group of Gnostics in 7th Century Armenia.
Also, rejected the OT.
Also, rejected the Trinity.



10th Century Bulgaria.
Also, Gnostic.



This was an isolated movement in France that had nothing to do with the prior two groups. They believed in salvation through poverty.




There was nothing written about Anabaptists, or Baptists until the 16th Century. I think some Christian groups would delight in a Baptist claiming they came from Gnosticism.

Your denial of Jesus' Ability to Initiate and Perpetuate His Divine Institution as an Organized Witness to The World, as His Candlesticks, is that of Rome.

What you can write doesn't change The Bible or History any more than what someone else did or didn't write, supposedly.

Jesus Has Been with His churches and you and I weren't there, and everywhere, to be knowledgeable and Testify to all of History.

And yet there is plenty of History to add credence to the position of church Perpetuity, along with The Bible, if someone first knows what a church is, in The Bible, and their devotion is not exclusively to Rome.