Is there actually an unbroken lineage of Baptist churches and that can be traced?
Way back in the dark ages of 2007, the Pope issued a statement saying that, unless your church could trace its lineage to an apostle, it was not a true church. It was, in no uncertain terms, a way of saying only the Catholic Church is a true church. Of course, he's wrong. The church does not need to be linked to a fallible man, but rather needs to be in close communion with the Holy Spirit of God. Once you get that sorted, it doesn't matter if your church is 500 years old or was founded five days ago.
Must a new church start have the authority of a "mother" church - or can a few Baptists just decide on their own to organize a new Baptist church.
Apparently, anyone who feels "called" to do so may "plant" a church. I disagree with this notion, for the simple fact that so many churches already exist and sometimes struggle to fill the pews. Most of those "church planters" are doing so because they disagree with the doctrines and traditions of their previous church and merely want a church that does things the way they prefer.
If a group splits from a church, and forms their own new church - is that a valid church - esp if they do not have any authority from another church?
Seeing as the vast majority of Baptists believe in the autonomy of the individual church, then being subject to the authority of a "mother" church is not in question. From my experience (and this is truly something I have experienced) around here when a church splits, the members leaving the church tend to join themselves with other already-established churches instead of forming their own. If they do form their own, it's typically very similar in form and structure to the church they just left.
The church I grew up in from my birth until 2001 suffered a very nasty split when some of the older men decided to try to stress pre-tribulation premillennial dispensationalism in a church that had, for all of its existence, been amillennial and, for all intents and purposes, partial-preterist. The strife grew so great that, at a church conference, roughly half the members requested their membership letters. My family and I requested our letters a month later, once we found our new church home. None of the folks who left ever considered starting their own church.
If there is a church split - and both sides declare they are the true continuation of the original church - who decides which group is - or does it even matter?
Frankly, Salty, it doesn't even matter. Serve the Lord, and don't worry about who can claim what title in regards to church history.
Are Baptists Protestants? Please explain.
Under the technical definition of Protestant, then yes, as the definition is "
a member or follower of any of the Western Christian churches that are separate from the Roman Catholic Church and follow the principles of the Reformation, including the Baptist, Presbyterian, and Lutheran churches."
I have personally never been one to label myself a Protestant, as that term comes from the Reformation as men split from the onerous teachings of the Catholic church. I view the precepts of the Baptist faith to hold most closely with scriptural teaching, so I've never really considered my little independent Baptist church to have "protestantly reformed" itself away from Catholicism.
