Featured Why Baptists are not Protestant

I believe Baptists have to be considered as Protestant.

The reason is that Baptists benefit theology from both the Reformation and the "Second Wave" (or "Step-Children"). Our doctrine is comprised of Reformed doctrine and "Anabaptist" doctrine.

The term Protestant did not come from the groups that protested the Roman Catholic Church from within, or that came out of the RCC, but that were a part of the Protestant Movement. Baptists seem, historically, to have been very much a part of the Protestant Movement (although perhaps a late arrival).

 

This is not correct. Anabaptists who were never a part of the Roman Catholic Church were Protestants because of their doctrine in opposition of RCC doctrine. Martin Luther even referred (negatively) to these groups recognizing that they were a part of that movement and joined the effort (of the Reformers) but did not share their doctrine.

 

Methodist is a product of Reformed Theology (it was at one time Calvinistic). Arminianism is also of a Calvinistic trajectory (James Arminius agreed with Calvinism except insofar as predestination related to salvation).

You are confusing the term "Reformed" with what Baptist refer to as "Calvinism" (TULIP). When speaking of the Reformation Lutheranism, Calvinism, Methodist, etc. are all Reformed denominations and are products of the Reformation.

 

We are not talking about TUILP. We are talking about the Reformation.

BUT it does not matter what you can or cannot see. Someone here (I can't remember who....I think @Aaron ) said if you count the dogs tail as a leg how many legs does the dog have? The dog has four because the tail is not a leg regardless of how you count it.

Methodists were initially Calvinists. It was a revival movement within the Church of England. You are thinking of the Methodists after George Whitfield when influenced by John Wesley.

Reformed Theology is much more than TULIP. It is more than divine predestination in salvation. James Arminius was one of Calvinism's top scholars. He was considered a Calvinist throughout his entire life (the Synod of Dort was after he had died). Beza praised Arminius.

Martin Luther was also a Reformer, but not a Calvinist (Lutherans coined the term "Calvinists" as a way of speaking against the sect).

 

It has been awhile but I have read (not studied) the document. I remember very little of it. I agreed with its conclusion about ruling elders vs teaching elders being a Calvinistic invention. I disagreed with the document as a whole, though. The reason is that I do not believe there was ever one church in the history of Christianity prior to the spread of the gospel to the Gentiles that held a common doctrine as we would refer to the term. The reason I believe this is it is evident in the Book of Acts at the Jerusalem counsel that churches (at least between Jewish and Gentile congregations) held different general doctrines but were united in Christ.

I believe that those who look for a baptist line misunderstand the nature of the church.

Regardless, if there was a Baptist church in existence during the Protestant Movement I would be surprised (and ashamed to be a Baptist) if they did not speak against Roman Catholic Doctrine.

The idea that "protestant" means "came out of the Roman Catholic Church" is strange (especially since we know this is not true).

So my question would be, if Baptists are not Protestant then why were they silent when Anabaptists who were not a part of the RCC joined their voices in opposition to RCC doctrine?

 

I agree insofar as Anabaptist groups go. They would certainly be considered Baptists (but most Baptists would not be considered Anabaptist as all Anabaptist sects held other distinctives as well).

My point is that they are Protestant (they belong to the Protestant Movement), which has nothing to do with formerly being Catholic.