Are Baptist Protestants?

Regardless of how we far back we believe "baptist" history goes, wouldn't it be safe to recognize that the spread of Christianity throughout the Western world (and consequently the acceptability of Christianity - baptist or otherwise - to us or our neighbors) can be attributed to the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church?

Joshua

 

Joshua, my answer would be "yes, and no." You may be a Protestant, I am not. Some Baptists may trace their roots back to the RCC, I do not. My spiritual heritage was never part of the RCC. Why is it so hard to understand that all baptists are not the same? Some are Protestant and some are not. Why does one side insist the other utter its particular Shibboleth? Why does it harm the Protestant Baptists to allow other Baptists to come from a different source? It doesn't bother me one bit that some Baptists, such as you, are Protestant and trace your roots to the RCC. Why should it be such a threat to you that I don't?

 

These should help muddy the waters
http://www.reformedreader.org/history/ivey/ch04.htm
http://www.bibletruthforum.org/churches/chart1.htm
http://www.bibletruthforum.org/churches/intro.htm
http://www.fbinstitute.com/trail/lect4.htm (last paragraph)

And NO I didn't read this WHOLE thread so if this information already's been given, well...

[ December 15, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Shumer ]

 

My use of the word "Ana-Baptist" is in recognition of the fact that it is the ongoing terminology used to identify that which the Roman Catholic Compendium Theologicae calls heresy. I do not believe this to be a correct term to identify Baptist beliefs and practices nor do I believe the word Ana-Baptist to be scriptural. We all know that "Baptist" is scriptural and therefore its authenticity and veracity is unquestionable. From the appearence of certain posts, the pivotal acceptance of the accuracy, and therefore relevancy, of a particular set of historicals is solely based, in some minds, on their fundamental congruency with Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Pedobaptist Protestant theology and formulae of world-view. Again, I boldly state, these are the historical anti-thesis and open enemies to the scriptural faith that over 50 million Baptists were persecuted and killed for during the Inquisition. There is nothing in Roman Catholic Summa Theologicae, by Thomas Aquinas, nor Canon Law that identifies with "Ana-Baptism",as the "heresy" is called. The caption concerning the Waldenses addressed a period when the acceptance of a Monarchial Episcopate was observed by some in the group, even as it is observed by those today under the guise or name of "Preacher Rule". The Holy Bible does not support the Monarchial Episcopate which is the "pet peeve" of Catholicism and all of her sisters (Eastern Orthodoxy)and daughters (Protestants). You will note that this true heresy did not appear among the Waldenses nor Baptists, until friendship and equamity was sought with Catholics and Protestants. The introduction of this variable does not substantiate the basis for a counter argument as to 1) the basic fidelity of the group to the scriptures; 2) a origin from proto groups of like faith and practice; 3) a commensuate origin antedating the Protestant Reformation; 4) the historical summation, from sources biased against them, that this type of group existed from the first century. To be sure there are Baptists who are Protestant truthfully. However, this does not change the fact that Baptists as identified by the Bible never had anything to do with Rome, other than to offer her the gift of Eternal Life which is found in the true King of the Princes of the Earth, Jesus Christ. Happily this offer was accepted by those who became Protestants, but, sadly although they left Rome, Rome was still a part of them, hence their summary hatred of Baptists (or in their terminology ana-Baptists). I personally love all Baptists, but I hold a dear place in my heart for those who will declare their Protestantism. You see, and I must ask, why would you be something like the real thing ,when you can be the real thing? If Baptist Perpetuity, and that is what we are talking about, is false, then we are all in trouble. Because then Jesus lied, the Gates of Hell did prevail against the church. You do know don't you that is the premise for Protestantism...the true church died out..ceased to exist and had to be re-instituted. And if He lied about the church, then He very well could have lied about everything else...salvation, atonement, His divinity etc. But if Baptist Perpetuity is true, and I know it is, then there is a church that Jesus personally started and it was entrusted with the Great Commission, the preaching of the Gospel and it is the pillar and ground of the truth. Funny...all of the RCC Clan (her sisters and daughters) believe that the Great Commission was given to the Apostles and their successors. Again, here is another Baptist pre-Reformation distinctive that come to fore. Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter, Baptists are not Protestant, and Protestants are not Baptist.
Your Brother
John

 

Bro. John stated,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If Baptist Perpetuity, and that is what we are talking about, is false, then we are all in trouble. Because then Jesus lied, the Gates of Hell did prevail against the church. You do know don't you that is the premise for Protestantism...the true church died out..ceased to exist and had to be re-instituted. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually those who deny Baptist Perpetuity are not saying the Church died. Protestants believe there have always been followers of Christ on earth.

Westminister Confession of Faith
"
The purest churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error;and some have so degenerated, as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a church on earth, to worship God according to his will."

Second Helvetic Confession
"The Church Has Always Existed and It Will Always Exist. But because God from the beginning would have men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth (I Tim. 2:4), it is altogether necessary that there always should have been, and should be now, and to the end of the world, a Church. What Is the Church? The Church is an assembly of the faithful called or gathered out of the world; a communion, I say, of all saints, namely, of those who truly know and rightly worship and serve the true God in Christ the Savior, by the Word and Holy Spirit, and who by faith are partakers of all benefits which are freely offered through Christ"

And the 1689 London Baptist Confession agreed,

"The purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan; nevertheless Christ always hath had, and ever shall have a kingdom in this world, to the end thereof, of such as believe in him, and make profession of his name."

Even during those dark years between the 6th century to the 1500's, God has had people and Churches. The Albigences, Waldenses, Hussites, Lollards as well as people such as Huss, Salvanora, Wycliffe. For those who just think I converted to Landmarkism - I haven't! but God has always had a people on earth but a direct line of perputuity with these or others doesn't exist and none of these were Baptists though some practice similar beliefs.

The Anabaptist movement that began in 1525 owes much to Luther in they also are a fruit of his break with Rome. The Baptist movement began in 1609.

John Spilsbury, a Particular Baptist pastor, stated: “There is no succession under the New Testament, but what is spiritually by faith and the Word of God.”

Baptist Historian Henry Vedder stated it well,
"Through the continuous presence of this church and not along any chain of visible churches, the truth has descended to our days. Christ's promise would not be broken though at some period of history we should find his visible churches apparently overcome by Satan, and suppressed; though no trace of them should be left in literature; though no organized bodies of Christians holding the faith in apostolic simplicity could be found anywhere in the world. The truth would still be, as he had promised, witnessed somewhere, somehow, by somebody. The church does not cease to be because it is driven into the wilderness...To Baptists, indeed, of all people, the question of tracing their history to remote antiquity should appear nothing more than an interesting study. Our theory of the church as deduced from the Scriptures requires no outward and visible succession from the apostles. If every church of Christ were to-day to become apostate, it would be possible and right for any true believers to organize to-morrow another church on the apostolic model of faith and practice, and that church would have the only apostolic succession worth having—a succession of faith in the Lord Christ and obedience to him. "

God Bless,
Randy +†+

[ December 17, 2001: Message edited by: Kiffin ]

 

Joshua stated,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Regardless of how we far back we believe "baptist" history goes, wouldn't it be safe to recognize that the spread of Christianity throughout the Western world (and consequently the acceptability of Christianity - baptist or otherwise - to us or our neighbors) can be attributed to the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In what way? The Catholic Church up to Nicea and Chalcedon could not be called Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox no more than it could be called Baptist. The Roman Catholic Church as we know it seems to have it's origins in and around the 6th century though no doubt it had been moving in that way for 400 years. There were no doubt some Christians in both traditions afterwards but much of the Evangelism done by the RCC was done by the sword in the case with Charlemange and the Spanish Conquistidors.

In what way do you think it was made more acceptable by the RCC and EOC?

God Bless,
Randy +†+

[ December 17, 2001: Message edited by: Kiffin ]

 

Hello, great post.

[ December 10, 2002, 09:39 PM: Message edited by: Daveth ]

 

Brother Randy;
The issue addressed by Vedder and Spilsbury is so-called Apostolic Succession, the pivotal doctrine for the acceptance of the the Primacy of the Roman Catholic Church. On this argument Rome either thrives or is cast into oblivion. However, neither author directly states that Baptist Perpetuity does not exist. If you will re-read the quote you gave from Vedder, you will see that even he eludes to the authority and ability of Baptists to organize true churches.
The Westminster, Helvetica and London Baptist Confessions are openly from Protestant sources, the London in many cases, one of which you cited, is a word for word copy of the Westminster.
Although these documents are used by Baptists today, it is obvious that they do not come from historical Baptist sources. Just because a church or man uses a Protestant Confession of Faith does not make him or it Protestant. Or, does it in reality? Again, my use of the word Ana-Baptist is in the meaning as given by the orginators of the term..Roman Catholics. It was a all inclusive term for those who through the centuries defied Rome and held to what we call Baptist Distinctives today. To be sure, I am not saying Menno Simons and his group are Baptist. God forbid, they would kill me!! But Rome chose to identify them as anabaptist also. Guess what, she did the same with Baptists and Waldenses and Albigenses and Bogomils and Petrobrussians and Donatists and Novatians and Montanists and others, only centuries before. None here who are pro-Protestant want to understand that, like it or not, the term Ana-Baptist pre-dates the Reformation. I think the RCC has the last word on that matter. They ought to and do know what they have vehemently fought against for over 1000 years. Maybe if we keep this going the Protestants will truly become Baptist. Oh, by the way, why do you think Rome would come up with the Apostolic Succession thing anyway? Could it be that she accepts something called "Perpetuity" as being true but can not claim it for herself?
Your brother
John

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ventin:
as above. if not, are the Baptist from the ana-baptist line?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, Ventin, as far as I know, Baptists are practically Protestants because the denomination--as well as all other non-catholic and non-East Orthodox Christian groups--probably would not have emerged if the Protestant/Reformation movement had not occurred.

Baptists are Protestants by INDIRECT circumstance because individuals like Roger Williams, who historians consider one of the pioneers of the denomination, came from churches who HISTORICAL got their start through the Reformation.

That's about all I know. Can someone confirm/straighten me out about this?

Lover of the History of Christ's Church,
Jamal5000

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jamal5000:
Yes, Ventin, as far as I know, Baptists are practically Protestants because the denomination--as well as all other non-catholic and non-East Orthodox Christian groups--probably would not have emerged if the Protestant/Reformation movement had not occurred.

Baptists are Protestants by INDIRECT circumstance because individuals like Roger Williams, who historians consider one of the pioneers of the denomination, came from churches who HISTORICAL got their start through the Reformation.

That's about all I know. Can someone confirm/straighten me out about this?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I would love to try to straighten you out on this.

Your first point, that the dissenting churches (commonly called "anabaptist") would not have appeared had it not been for the Reformation. No so! The dissenters predate the Reformation by at least 1200 years!

Your second point regarding Roger Williams. Roger Williams did not come from a baptist church, was not baptized with baptist baptism, and was never a baptist. In fact, he was a see-baptist. That means he baptized himself! Later in life he renounced all faith/systems and spent the rest of his life as a "seeker."