Are Baptists Protestants?

[Luke2427]

Do you believe that Baptists came to be via the Reformation or do you hold to the view that there has been a line of Baptist people all the way back to John the Baptist or do you hold some other view point?

Please support your position with some historical evidence.

 

[drfuss]

I do not believe that Baptists came to be via the reformation. The reformation involved people coming out of the Roman Catholic Church.

I believe the Baptists came into being about the time of the reformation as a result of the printing press making the Scripture available to all who wanted it.

Those who came out of the reformation carried with them many of the RCC beliefs that Baptist do not believe in, such as: infant baptism, sinless Mary, etc.

 

[tonyhipps]

There are people in almost every congregational governed denominations that believe they can trace there denomination back to the first century church. They also will usually deny that they are a denomination, because that would make them Protestant or (coming from the Reformation.)
Church of Christ congregations usually hold this view even though its well documented that they were established in the 18th century. As far as Baptists are concerned its general agreed upon that it was started by John Smyth (1570-1612), an English ordained Anglican minister who broke from Anglicanism and established his own 'baptist' church in the Netherlands in 1608/1609.

Some baptists choose to identify themselves with various devout Christian groups who practiced adult baptism, such as the Waldenses as far back as 1177. However the Waldenses were not called Baptists, nor did they call themselves Baptists. A more recent 'predecessor' of the Baptist movement would be the Anabaptists, but again, they were not called 'Baptists'.

The Catholics also claim that they can trace all of the Popes back to Peter who was supposedly the first. This has never been substantiated either. They have produced these supposed lists from time to time throughout history, but they are always contradictory to other lists that have been brought to light.

 

[kyredneck]

I believe that the Lord has had a people from the very beginning (at Genesis) that has had nothing to do with, and that always has been separate from any sort of organized, universal, established, religious entities on earth, and that includes the Mosaic Covenant and the RCC.

Now the question is:

Would these people fit the mold of 'Baptists' today (or vice versa)?

I am content to trace our roots back to the Strict/Particular Baptists of England/Wales/Scotland. I believe the Mennonites hold the legitimate claim to the Anabaptists.

 

[ituttut]

There are people in almost every congregational governed denominations that believe they can trace there denomination back to the first century church. They also will usually deny that they are a denomination, because that would make them Protestant or (coming from the Reformation.)
Church of Christ congregations usually hold this view even though its well documented that they were established in the 18th century. As far as Baptists are concerned its general agreed upon that it was started by John Smyth (1570-1612), an English ordained Anglican minister who broke from Anglicanism and established his own 'baptist' church in the Netherlands in 1608/1609.

Some baptists choose to identify themselves with various devout Christian groups who practiced adult baptism, such as the Waldenses as far back as 1177. However the Waldenses were not called Baptists, nor did they call themselves Baptists. A more recent 'predecessor' of the Baptist movement would be the Anabaptists, but again, they were not called 'Baptists'.

The Catholics also claim that they can trace all of the Popes back to Peter who was supposedly the first. This has never been substantiated either. They have produced these supposed lists from time to time throughout history, but they are always contradictory to other lists that have been brought to light.

well done .

 

[asmcreations]

Term "Protestant" only used by RCC to all those christians opposing RCC beliefs. But in truth, Baptist follows biblical doctrines than the RCC. Here in our country, idolatry is very rampant in every fiesta and I think it's them "RCC" protesting God's word.

 

[Tom Butler]

Baptists (or Baptizers) was an epithet given by their enemies. They were known by other names well before the Reformation,

The view that John Smyth established the Baptists in 1609 is bought part and parcel by many. There is disagreement among historians whether Smyth baptized himself (by pouring, not immersion) or was baptized by Helwys.
Smith apparently held the view that true apostolic Christianity had died, and therefore there was no one to baptize him, so his was a restoration, a starting over.

John T. Christian, in his book, The History of Baptists, relates the rise of Particular Baptists (as opposed to Smyth's General Baptists) in this passage from Chapter 17.

The year 1650 marked the appearance of a distinguished book by Daniel King (A Way to Zion, sought out and found, for Believers to walk in; or, a Treatise, consisting of three parts). In the first part it is proved:

1. That God hath had a people on earth, ever since the coming of Christ in the flesh, throughout the darkest days of Popery, which he hath owned as saints, and as his people.

​

Here is a distinct claim that the Baptists have existed since the days of Christ. King further says:

2. That the saints have power to re-assume and to take up as their right, any ordinance of Christ, which they have been deprived of by the violence and tyranny of the Man of Sin.

​

This was the ordinary position of the Particular Baptists. In the third part King says:

Proveth that outward ordinances, and among the rest the ordinance of baptism is to continue in the church, and this Truth cleared up from intricate turnings and windings, clouds and mists that make the way doubtful and dark.

​

Four of the most prominent Baptists of those times, Thomas Patience, John Spilsbury, William Kiffin and John Pearson wrote an introduction for the book. These men declare that the assertion that "there are no churches in the world" and "no true ministers" has 'been of singular use in the hands of the Devil." These old Baptists carefully guarded every historical statement.

In other words, there were true churches already in existence, whose faith and practice was similar to theirs. And that these churches extended back to well in advance of the Reformation.

So yes, New Testament congregations have existed from Jesus' time to today.

 

[Luke2427]

Baptists (or Baptizers) was an epithet given by their enemies. They were known by other names well before the Reformation,

The view that John Smyth established the Baptists in 1609 is bought part and parcel by many. There is disagreement among historians whether Smyth baptized himself (by pouring, not immersion) or was baptized by Helwys.
Smith apparently held the view that true apostolic Christianity had died, and therefore there was no one to baptize him, so his was a restoration, a starting over.

John T. Christian, in his book, The History of Baptists, relates the rise of Particular Baptists (as opposed to Smyth's General Baptists) in this passage from Chapter 17.



In other words, there were true churches already in existence, whose faith and practice was similar to theirs. And that these churches extended back to well in advance of the Reformation.

So yes, New Testament congregations have existed from Jesus' time to today.

Very good info. Thank you.

 

[Luke2427]

There are people in almost every congregational governed denominations that believe they can trace there denomination back to the first century church. They also will usually deny that they are a denomination, because that would make them Protestant or (coming from the Reformation.)
Church of Christ congregations usually hold this view even though its well documented that they were established in the 18th century. As far as Baptists are concerned its general agreed upon that it was started by John Smyth (1570-1612), an English ordained Anglican minister who broke from Anglicanism and established his own 'baptist' church in the Netherlands in 1608/1609.

Some baptists choose to identify themselves with various devout Christian groups who practiced adult baptism, such as the Waldenses as far back as 1177. However the Waldenses were not called Baptists, nor did they call themselves Baptists. A more recent 'predecessor' of the Baptist movement would be the Anabaptists, but again, they were not called 'Baptists'.

The Catholics also claim that they can trace all of the Popes back to Peter who was supposedly the first. This has never been substantiated either. They have produced these supposed lists from time to time throughout history, but they are always contradictory to other lists that have been brought to light.

Very helpful. Now how do we reconcile the information given by you and TomButler?

 

[jrscott]

The reason why some do not want to say this is because they believe to say Baptists are protestant is to say that we came out of the RCC. However, this is a simplistic understanding of the Reformation. The Reformation was fueled by many factors, only one of them being theology.

Even narrowing it down to Baptist history does not yield simple results. There were two kinds of Baptists that arose independantly of each other. John Smyth was the founder of the General Baptists and are credited with being the first Baptists. The Particular Baptists rose in England through the influence of one church. This is one reason why there are two interpretations of Baptist history. The GB's were more influenced by the Mennonites than the PB's were. Even that shouldn't be overstated however. One of the reasons Helwys left Holland and refused to become a Mennonite was because he did not hold to their view of successionism because he recognized it for what it is - a "baptized" view of apostolic succession, just as the Catholics teach. (Baptist successionism falls into this same trap)

The basic fact is that God has NEVER been without a witness throughout the history of the Church. We know of some of these groups and while several had problems of their own, some were thoroughly evangelical. But none of them were Baptists. Baptists came in the 17th century and continued a long line of biblical fidelity and exegesis, and a remarkable balance between strong Biblical knowledge and evangelistic ferver. It is historically accurate to say that the Baptists were influenced by the Anabaptists, but it is not accurate to say we came from them.

Hope this helps,

Randy:godisgood:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

If you are using the context that a Protestant is one that protests the RCC then yes & thats a natural conclusion. I believe however from an historical position that Baptists are originally an enterprise from the Calvinist churches in Europe & I draw that conclusion by looking at the 1st Baptists churches in Wales & England....they used the 1689 Confessions of Faith.

Jesus Saves

 

[tonyhipps]

Kyredneck:
I believe that the Lord has had a people from the very beginning (at Genesis) that has had nothing to do with, and that always has been separate from any sort of organized, universal, established, religious entities on earth, and that includes the Mosaic Covenant and the RCC.*

I agree


Tom Butler
In other words, there were true churches already in existence, whose faith and practice was similar to theirs. And that these churches extended back to well in advance of the Reformation.

So yes, New Testament congregations have existed from Jesus' time to today.

I agree


Luke2427
Very helpful. Now how do we reconcile the information given by you and TomButler?

I agree that God has always had people that belonged to Him since He created man. My position is that the Baptist Church as we know it today was established in or around the 16th century. The Particulars were Arminian in there Doctrine while the Regulars were Calvinistic in theirs. That's why today we have Free Will Baptists, Independent Fundamentalists, Reformed Baptists, etc. etc.

I'm simply saying that no particular group of people can trace their body of believers back to the first century church. Where's the documentation?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Yes, OK but my personal focus would be Orthodoxy, sound Doctrine & Worship ie where we are presently, where we will be in the future. The Past, not so much.

 

[HankD]

My parents were Catholic, I was "baptised" in the RCC.

I don't consider my self a protestant but if I had to chose a label, I would be a "separatist".

IMO to use the word "protestant" is to give some credence to the dogma of Church of Rome and give second hand stamp-of-approval of the errors and abuses the hierarchy has allowed to overcome them.

HankD

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

My parents were Catholic, I was "baptised" in the RCC.

I don't consider my self a protestant but if I had to chose a label, I would be a "separatist".

IMO to use the word "protestant" is to give some credence to the dogma of Church of Rome and give second hand stamp-of-approval of the errors and abuses the hierarchy has allowed to overcome them.

HankD

In other words you dont think baptists have their own problems & inconsistencies. Im not looking for a fight here, just honesty. I would say for me personally, Id rather not identify a church today as Baptist because of so many past issues, but then thats my own personal viewpoint

 

[rsr]

A topic should be posted in only one forum. I am thus sending it to the Baptist history forum.

 

[Fred's Wife]

Am I seeing double? Are there two "Are Baptists Protestants" threads in the same forum (Baptist History)?

 

[rsr]

The other has been closed in favor of this one.

 

[psalms109:31]

Baptist

I believe the Baptist church faith and practices have been going on since John the Baptist into a point where Christ most be become greater and we most become less. We have went through many transition, but our faith and practices have started and continued from the day's of John the Baptist. We are growing and maturing and adding to our faith and practices through the scriptures that teaches us.

 

[kyredneck]

The Particulars were Arminian in there Doctrine while the Regulars were Calvinistic in theirs......

Methinks you may have your generals confused with your particulars.....

General and particular

In the early 17th century, Baptists in England developed along two different theologies. The General Baptists were so-called because they held belief in a General Atonement. The General view of the atonement is that Christ in His death undertook to make possible the salvation of all men. This position is identified with Arminianism and Amyraldianism.[citation needed] Early General Baptist leaders included John Smyth and Thomas Helwys.

The Particular Baptists were so-called because they held the Particular Atonement. The Particular view of the atonement is that Christ in His death undertook to save particular individuals, usually referred to as the elect. This position is often identified with Calvinism. Some early Particular Baptist leaders were Benjamin Keach, Hanserd Knollys, and William Kiffin.

Present day Strict Baptists of England are descendants of the Particular Baptists, but heavily influenced by men from the Gospel Standard Strict Baptist movement such as William Gadsby (1773–1844) John Warburton (1776–1857) and John Kershaw (1792–1870). Sometimes they are referred to as Strict and Particular Baptists. The terminology "strict" refers to the strict or closed position they held on membership and communion. There are still other Baptist churches known as Grace Baptist who hold to a closed communion table restricted to baptized believers. The Grace Baptist would not accept the view held by the Gospel Standard churches regarding the offer of the gospel. The majority of early Particular Baptists rejected open membership and open communion. One notable exception was the author of Pilgrim's Progress, John Bunyan.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_Baptist