Featured Do Baptists come under the unbrella of Protestants

Agreed. I embrace the term. Other Baptists do not. Oh well.

 

Personally im just being semantically technical

 

Even the Church of Rome refers to Protestants as "Separated Brethren".

Dictionary : SEPARATED BRETHREN

 

My professor in History of the English Language, probably my favorite undergrad course, spoke about the long line of grammarians bemoaning the changes to the language after they had published their definitive volumes.

 

To say that I ONLY "protest" that Rome teaches that the consecrated communion wine is the Actual blood of Christ gives them some amount of believability, rather i reject the heresy and separate from them.

 

As I see it, Baptists would be those who baptise believers by immersion in water going back to the first century church who did likewise. Ideally, they were never involved in infant baptism but remained apart from those churches. I see myself as someone baptised by a long line of others going back to the Apostles. But not in the Landmark sense.

 

how is this opposed to the Landmark position?

 

Landmark = visible institutional church. My view = church invisible until at least two or three meet for worship and then becomes invisible again.

 

Strange that they did not protest. All faithful Christians before the reformation protested agains the errors of Rome.
And where can you show baptists before the reformation when the papcy made a demand that any "heretic" come before the council anc plead their case. Ther was a deadly silence, not a ripple of protest. The Waldensians had been forced to attend mass once a year, the Hussites had been extinguished and the chairman of the council announced to the pope that ALL heresy had been extinguished, The delegates exchanged gifts and the pope gave the king of spain a golden egg. Revelation 11:10-11

The exactly 3½ years later to the day, Martin Luther posted his thesis on his church door beginning the great resurrection of Gospel Preaching. Revelation 11:12

The papists said the heretics had come alive again in Luther.

 

Merriam Webster give the interesting origin/first known use of the term with a bunch of German princes, then the common usage of the term.

Protestant
a: any of a group of German princes and cities presenting a defense of freedom of conscience against an edict of the Diet of Speyer in 1529 intended to suppress the Lutheran movement
b: a member of any of several church denominations denying the universal authority of the Pope and affirming the Reformation principles of justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers, and the primacy of the Bible as the only source of revealed truth
broadly : a Christian not of a Catholic or Eastern church

Nevertheless, though we first under the broad usage, I never use "Protestant" to refer to myself or my church.

 

The test for heretics in England was the question. "Do you accept the real presence in the bread and wine?" if the answer was "No." you were on your way to the stake. One person who was halled before a couple of bishops gave that answer but the bishops disagreed on the subject themselves and during a heated argument between the two, the prisoner walked out.

 

Interestingly in this regard, R. B. C. Howell, who was cited earlier, held a view of Baptist succession but was "anti-Landmark". He and J. R. Graves were something of arch-enemies.

 

I ha ve been on an IFB site where many taught that we afre baptised into a local church. One thread asked "What local church was paul bapstised into?" I was not all that popular when I said "We are not baptised into any church, we are baptised into Christ."
Some even went further and said that when you move to a new church, you should be baptised into that church. They seemed to leave b ecause they didn't like "heretiics" like me on the forum.

 

Bible believers have never been "Protestants", at least in the way others who rebelled under the yoke of Rome during the "Reformation" went out and protested against it.

Some who left the RCC ( and some who were never part of it ) down through the centuries have been pinned with a label and called "Baptists", "ana-Baptists" and many other names, but those who have believed the Bible and rejected the teachings of Rome and the Orthodox churches have a history that is largely unwritten.

What is written, is said to have been written in blood.
I don't agree with everything J.M. Carroll wrote on the subject, but I think he made a few good points in his tract.

That said, those who believe God's word, understand it, preach it and are killed for it have never owed their allegiance to any institution of men.
We owe our allegiance to Jesus Christ and him alone.

Many call us "Baptists" because we believe and teach "believer's baptism", not infant baptism.
We are independent, local, and we do not cooperate with those who preach and teach error.

Amen.

Please show me the Scriptures on that one...
I know of no such mandate Scripturally, to be baptized more than once at point of belief on Christ.

To me, a person's word that they have been Scripturally baptized is good enough for me.

That word gets thrown around quite a bit, from my perspective.

It seems that almost anyone can be considered a heretic, and yet, still be following God's word.
Heresy is doctrinal and practical, and people should be careful when applying the term to someone.
It's not something that one should be quick to accuse someone of.

However, infant baptism is heresy, as I see it.
There is no mandate in God's word to baptize anyone into the body of Christ who has not shown evidence of salvation, and confessed Christ.

Finally and for the record, I am anti-Landmark.
I do not believe that God has instituted visible, "building-on-street-corners" Baptist churches in each town that are automatically the domain of born again and saved individuals...
I've seen too many places that were once Baptist, and are now apostate in both doctrine and practice...yet still have a sign out front that reads, "Baptist".

"Protestant"?
No.

Separate?
Yes.

 

"Some Baptist churches in my area will not take letters of recommendations from other Baptist churches but require you to be re-baptized. Not all Baptist believe exactly the same."

Unfortunately, some Baptist churches should really search the Scriptures to see if things are true,
instead of teachings for doctrines the commandments of men.

I once tried to join a Baptist church in my area, only to be told of their insistence that I be re-baptized to identify with their teachings.
I told the pastor that I was already baptized...

To identify with my Saviour and His teachings.

Needless to say, I didn't go back, as I figured that they had more problems "under the hood" than insisting that people that have believed on Christ and been scripturally baptized in other places than theirs, be baptized again.

Perhaps I should have taken him up on his invitation to talk about it, though.
But I have a feeling it wouldn't have made a difference.

I understand the practice had been going on for a very long time.

 

It sounds like you deny our ana-baptist heritage. I tend to separate ana-baptist from Protestant due to a little bit of murder of early Baptist by order of the Protestant churches. I'm sure you know this Ana-baptist means second baptist referring to being baptized as an adult which at the time was a second for most due to being born as a part of a Protestant church. And they would drown baptist leaders.