Are Baptist Protestants?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jonathan:
However, it is not our "church to church to church" chain that makes us an authentic Baptist church.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Jonathan, we are not talking about chain-link successionism, but whether our faith pre-dates the Reformation. So far the consensus seems to be that, yes, our faith did not originate in the Reformation due to a protest of the decline of the State Church of Rome, but had always existed alongside the State Church from Apostolic times to the present.

 

I prefer "separatist", I do not consider myself a Protestant.

To "protest" the Church of Rome could mean that one agrees with it but simply is "complaining" about a dogma or a practice.

To biblically separate means "to come out from among them" and "touch not the unclean thing".

HankD

[ December 11, 2001: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I wonder what all those early Christians based their beliefs/teachings on when there was no Bible as we have it today. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Michael, The early churches didn't have the Bible all put together like we have it now in the accepted canon, but I believe they passed around the individual writings and tested each one by comparing Scripture with Scripture. The Lord Jesus Christ said that the Holy Spirit would guide into all truth. True born again believers in Christ had the witness of the Holy Spirit to guide them in knowing which writings were Holy Scripture and which were not.

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth...

 

I can accept the fact that the principles and teachings that we consider consistent with scripture and with Baptist theology did not originate with the Reformation. However, to say that they existed in the dissenting groups of the period before the Reformation is a far stretch of virtually non-verifiable history.

There have always been a significant number of people within the Catholic church itself who have held to the principles of scripture and the teachings of Christ. This is where the reformation came from, within, not from outside, of the church. And there are a significant number of Catholics today who hold to the truth, are born-again, and practice their faith with the same committment and fervor as Baptists or other Protestants.

I'd rather find my church heritage there, than in groups like the Donatists, Waldenses, Montanists and others who denied the inspiration of portions of the Bible, claimed to see visions and signs exactly like the alleged appearances of the "Virgin" in Catholic circles today and generally considered the writings and teachings of their leaders to have more authority than the Bible. One of the "prophetesses" associated with the Montanists actually predicted the return of Christ in her lifetime and claimed to actually have a vision of the "Holy City" descending from the skies above Jerusalem.

Baptists are generally a theogical product of the Anglican church, which makes us a second generation Protestant denomination.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ellis:
I'd rather find my church heritage there, than in groups like the Donatists, Waldenses, Montanists and others who denied the inspiration of portions of the Bible, claimed to see visions and signs exactly like the alleged appearances of the "Virgin" in Catholic circles today and generally considered the writings and teachings of their leaders to have more authority than the Bible. One of the "prophetesses" associated with the Montanists actually predicted the return of Christ in her lifetime and claimed to actually have a vision of the "Holy City" descending from the skies above Jerusalem.

Baptists are generally a theogical product of the Anglican church, which makes us a second generation Protestant denomination.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Can you support, from their own writings, not from the writings of their avowed enemies, the charges you make against the Montanists?

And YOUR baptist church may be a product of Anglican Protestantism, but mine is not. Can you speak for me and my spiritual heritage, and if so, does that give me the right to speak for you and yours?

 

Historically all Baptist Churches be they General or Particular have their roots directly in the English Reformation of the Church of England. There is no credible evidence to refute this. Landmark Historians have tried in vain to do this but usually refer to some obscure History book or source and then fill in the blanks to show a sort of Baptist type apostolic succession. There however were no Baptist churhes as we know the before 1609. The Anabaptists and Waldenses while similar differ with Baptists on many things.

Certaintly there was some Anabaptist influence on the first generation of British Baptists. The connection of Baptists to our forefathers the Anabaptists and Waldenses seems to be only a spiritual connection in that they were our forerunners.

 

Modern Baptists are the refinement of the imperfect attempts (in doctrine and polity) of such groups as the Waldenses to separate from the organized Christianity of Rome under the leadership of the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, The Pope.

I am not a Protestant, but a separatist.
I don't care what the GARBC says.

HankD

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kiffin:
Historically all Baptist Churches be they General or Particular have their roots directly in the English Reformation of the Church of England. There is no credible evidence to refute this. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly right

 

My Dear Brother Chris and Kiffin,

Please post your evidence that the Particular Baptist originated with the Church of England, without quoting a seconary source.

 

I'm not currently a member of any paticular Baptist Church, so it would not be revealing to actually link my history on any one paticular tract. But whether are not the majority of my Baptist beliefs existed outside the Roman Catholic Church, I personally have been influenced by churches and people who do come from Churches of the Reformation. I don't think it would be going out on a huge limb to say that as a whole a Baptist line outside Rome would influence the Reformation and vice versa, but I won't state it as fact. But it certainly is a fact in my own life.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
Can you support, from their own writings, not from the writings of their avowed enemies, the charges you make against the Montanists?

And YOUR baptist church may be a product of Anglican Protestantism, but mine is not. Can you speak for me and my spiritual heritage, and if so, does that give me the right to speak for you and yours? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess, then, by this line of reasoning, that nothing a Baptist has to say about the Catholic church is valid, because it comes from their critics and not from what they wrote about themselves. And no Christian criticism of Mormonism would be valid by this same line of thinking, because it came from their avowed enemies.

I guess we could take your version of understanding and interpreting history, but then it would make Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia look like the champions of freedom and human rights.

You must consider all--critics, enemies, friends and those within. And all of that evidence, including the fragmentary writings left behind by the dissenting groups prior to the reformation, backs up the fact that these groups were no more doctrinally correct than the Catholic church they were opposing.

 

&lt;&lt;I guess, then, by this line of reasoning, that nothing a Baptist has to say about the Catholic church is valid, because it comes from their critics and not from what they wrote about themselves. And no Christian criticism of Mormonism would be valid by this same line of thinking, because it came from their avowed enemies. &gt;&gt;

A Baptist distinctive is the final authority of scripture. Whoever does not line up with the Scripture is subject to the directive of "contend for the faith" whether they be Catholic or "Baptists".

HankD

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ellis:
I guess, then, by this line of reasoning, that nothing a Baptist has to say about the Catholic church is valid, because it comes from their critics and not from what they wrote about themselves. And no Christian criticism of Mormonism would be valid by this same line of thinking, because it came from their avowed enemies.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You can determine Catholic doctrine by reading what Catholics have written. You don't have to read a work of fiction such as "The Two Babylons" to understand the RCC. If a Baptist says that Catholics eat their own babies, some moron will probably believe it, but that does not make it true. The enemies of God's people have been lying about them from the time of Adam. If you believe the lies of God's people's enemies, your views of history will be sadly distorted. There is enough material available written by the people themselves to determine what they believed. We don't have to believe fiction to make our position seem superior. It stands or falls on its own merits. Do you let the RCC tell you what you believe? Then why allow the RCC to tell you what the Waldenses believed?

 

JR Graves stated,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> My Dear Brother Chris and Kiffin,
Please post your evidence that the Particular Baptist originated with the Church of England, without quoting a seconary source. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bro. JR, many great Baptist historians such as Vedder, Torbet and even Armitage rejected Landmark history. Even early Baptist historians such as Crosby and Ivimey were not Landmarkers in their history.


The fact is that the first particular baptists were English separatists. There is no evidence to suggest that they came out of the Anabaptist movement. Men such as Kiffin and Spillsbury left the Anglican church and were English separatists. If we are to believe the Kiffin Manuscript they either learned immersion or some of the early Particular Baptists were immersed by a Anabaptist congregation in the Netherlands. That is the closest direct contact between the 2 movements. Baptist soterology mirrored that of the English Reformers (Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer) while their view of the Church and sacraments shows a Anabaptist flavor.

Baptists actually are a marriage between the 2 Reformations (The Magisterial of Luther and Calvin and the Radical Reformation of the Anabaptists) and was an improvement on both. Baptists like our Anabaptist forerunners sought (and prayerfully still are) to restore the Church to it's Apostolic origins.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Baptist soteriology mirrored that of the English Reformers<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Glen Stassen has done some interesting work showing the Anabaptist influence accounting for differences in the soteriological statements of the 1644 London Confession from the standard Calvinism of the day. This is not to suggest that Stassen himself believed there was a "physical" connection between the English Baptists and the Continental Anabaptists, but without doubt the popular ('politically' correct) viewpoint of modern Baptist historians is to dismiss these connections altogether.

When I get home I'll find the exact title of the article and post it. This probably has not been read by so many Baptists because it was in the Mennonite Quarterly Review.

 

Bro. rlvuaugn,

Interesting thoughts. Similar things have been said about the 1655 Midland Confession though both the 1644 London and 1655 Midland show strong Calvinism in them but there could be some truth to Stansen's observation of some Anabaptist soterology flavor mixed in to the Calvinism of these 2 statements.

I have looked for Glen Stassen's article that is quoted by McBeth in his Baptist history but was unsuccessful in finding it. Do you know if it is found online?

God Bless,
Randy +†+

 

I am entering this discussion a little late, but I would like to make a couple of comments.

In my studies I have found no direct link from any Anabaptists to the English Baptist churches. If there is one I would like to read it.
Also Protestants are defined as those who left the RCC. Anglicans were Protestants, but those that left the Anglican church's doctrine and practices and formed Baptist churches largely patterned after the NT denouncing Protestant theology.
Protestants left the RCC church only partly and maintained some of its false teachings, infant baptism, grace plus works, etc.
The point is those who read God's word and accepted it left the Anglican church, called themselves Baptists and separated themselves from the false teaching and identifcation with the Anglicans.

It is not correct to call Baptists by a name they denounced and separated themselves from.

 

The name of the article by Glen Stassen is "Anabaptist Influence in the Origin of the Particular Baptists" (Mennonite Quaterly Review, October 1962, pp. 322-348). I have never found this online. That is a shame. To me this seems to be some important research that deserves wider circulation.

Quotes from Stassen:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Our knowledge of the immediated beginning of the Particular Baptists is sparse. The sources give us but a few inconclusive hints of many different possible influences upon their thought. p. 325<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I give this for effect. When speaking of the origins of Particular Baptists (particularly on this board), some people speak as if there is widespead evidence to establish one viewpoint or the other concerning their origins. As I see it, what we have is a lot of writings about their origins in which people try to establish their theory. At present the prevailing theory is the "English Separatist Origin" theory. Again, as I see it, what we have is NOT a LOT of EVIDENCE, but a LOT of writers IN AGREEMENT on their theories about the evidence. I am not in agreement with the majority. There is at least a small smattering of evidence that makes it appear to me that to try to disclaim any Anabaptist influence is to stick one's head in the sand. My opinion, with two quarters, will get you enough to make a phone call.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The central motif of the Baptist innovations is an interpretation of baptism which is discontinuous not only from the Congregational doctrine of baptism, but from all Congregational doctrines. The convictions which it presupposes are absent from Congregational thought. p. 337<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Two conclusions can be reached from this. First, the General Baptists are not the source for the Particular Baptist concerns. Second, there are many different ways to argue for believers' baptism: the fact that the Particular Baptists used the same arguments which Menno used cannot be brushed aside as if there were only one obvious way to argue...Menno Simons' Foundation Book exactly fulfills all the requirements for explaining every detail of the Baptist innovations. p. 341<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hopefully, just enough quotes for someone to want more.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The indebtedness includes such doctrines as believer's baptism, the meaning of baptism as signifying the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, immersion, Christology, and that large area we have called the application of the gospel to the believer...the peculiar Baptist bent is the results of a fresh breeze from Holland. p. 348<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The article may be obtained from the Mennonite Quarterly Review.

 

Hi everyone,
I've been just watching this forum for some time. I have a question for those that say Baptists are Protestant. Would you care to tell all of us when this theory of Baptist origins started? I believe that when you truly do know where it came from and when, you will not make an assumption without having correlating data from un-biased sources as proof. The theory of a Middle Age origin for Anabaptist(so-called)-Baptist groups is not substantiated by historical data from that period. Cumulative historicals from the period in question and other well received submissions tend to indicate an first century/apostolic origin. To make it simpler if we see horse hoof prints on one side of the stream and we see the same horse hoof prints on the other side of the stream we can safely conclude that the horse obviously crossed the stream. But in this case we have hoof prints on both sides of the stream and in the mud underwater also. If even Roman Catholics claim the existence of "Ana-Baptist", as an heresy, in existence from as early as circa 320 AD or even earlier, what could be a Baptist's problem with accepting the truth of the matter? Maybe it lies in wanting to be a part of the very thing that Satan has used for centuries to destroy Baptists...Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. Or have you forgotten your history. Remember the Inquisition?
John

 

The term "Ana Baptist" was used to refer to any group that rebaptized and is not synomous with Baptists.

The Waldenses seem to split from Rome in the 12th century though some have stated their origins may go back to the first century. The FACT is however there is no CREDIBLE evidence to back this us. Until it is proved they are older than the 12th we must accept History's judgment. The Waldenses it seemed to have practiced a form of episcopal form of Church government but it is debatable.

The Anabaptists began as a movement in 1525. There is no evidence to show a link between them and the Waldenses. The Anabaptists also state in their own history and confessions that they baptized by sprinkling, pouring, and Immersion.

The early English Baptists did not come directly out of the Anabaptist movement. That is Fact and not Theory. Their own words state they were English dissenters from the Church of England. As one who hold's to the Anabaptist Kinship Theory I definitely believe however there was Anabaptist influence upon the early Baptists but not that we directly came out of them.

[ December 15, 2001: Message edited by: Kiffin ]