• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Baptists = Protestants?

Did the Baptists come from Protestants?

  • No, a true Baptist can trace lineage to the FBC of Jerusalem

    Votes: 2 4.4%
  • No, a true Baptist can trace lineage to the New Test times

    Votes: 3 6.7%
  • No, though not a direct lineage - there have always been baptistic churches

    Votes: 11 24.4%
  • Possibly Baptist churches in Europe did

    Votes: 1 2.2%
  • Somewhat - individuals of the Reformation eventually started Baptist churches

    Votes: 13 28.9%
  • Yes, at least in the US, Baptists came out of the Congregational Church

    Votes: 5 11.1%
  • Its not even an issue

    Votes: 1 2.2%
  • Not Sure

    Votes: 2 4.4%
  • Other answer

    Votes: 7 15.6%

  • Total voters
    45

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Here is a link that is most helpful!

http://www.dbts.edu/pdf/macp/2007/Priest, Are Baptists Protestants.pdf

4. To say that Baptists were not Protestants because they did not come out of the Roman
Catholic Church (since they were never a part of it) really begs the question of 17th century
Baptist origins. Clearly, both General and Particular Baptists derive from British Puritanism,
which was unquestionably a part of the Protestant Reformation.
5. To say that Baptists are not Protestants flies in the face of documented evidence to the
contrary.
The First London Baptist Confession (1644) title page states that this was a confession of
“churches which are commonly (though falsly) called Anabaptists.”
In the preface to the First London Confession, the Particular Baptists complained that they had
been charged “with holding Free-will, Falling away from grace, [and] denying Originall sinne....
All which Charges wee disclaime as notoriously untrue.”
The General Baptist Confession or Declaration of Faith (1660) was “set forth by many of us,
who are (falsely) called Ana-Baptists.”
In the preface to the Second London Baptist Confession (1677, 1688), we find comments
regarding the reason for adopting the Presbyterian Westminster Confession:
...and finding no defect in this regard in that fixed on by the [Westminster] Assembly, and after
them by those of the Congregational way [viz. The Savoy Declaration], we did readily conclude it
best to retain the same order in our present Confession.... We did in like manner conclude it best
to follow their example, in making use of the very same words with them both, in those articles
(which are very many) wherein our faith and doctrine is the same with theirs. And this we did, the
more abundantly to manifest our consent with both, in all the fundamental articles of the Christian
religion, as also with many others whose orthodox confessions have been published to the World,


on the behalf of the
protestants in diverse nations and cities; and also to convince all that we have
no itch to clog religion with new words, but to readily acquiesce in that form of sound words
which hath been, in consent with the holy scriptures, used by others before us; hereby declaring
before God, angels, and men, our hearty agreement with them, in the whole- some

protestant
doctrine, which, with so clear evidence of scriptures they have asserted (italics added for
emphasis).


It is worthwhile for anyone wanting factual data on the matter to consult this work by Gerald L. Priest from Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary.

 

Gold Dragon

Well-Known Member
The two main origins views of Baptist are

1. The English Separatist view best articulated by historian Leon McBeth.

2. The Baptist successionism/perpetuity view best articulated by John T. Christian. Carroll's Trail of Blood is also in this vein but of significantly inferior scholarship compared to John T. Christian's, A History of Baptists.


I subscribe to the English Separatist view (which is an extension of protestantism). Those who support baptist successionism usually do so because of distaste for association with groups they theologically are at odds with and not because of any actual historical evidence.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
It depends on how you look at it. A succession of actual churches is not a part of Baptist ideology (Baptists by doctrine and distinctiveness are not dependent on a parent church for legitimacy). What you are left with is whether or not Baptist doctrine is a derived from the Protestant movement.

Were churches who held what has become a Baptist distinctive a part of the Protestant Reformation? Yes, of course they were. Luther stated such when he called them heretics. But he said that they were among them but not really a part of them...they joined them for a time but taught old heresies (believers baptism, separation of church and state, etc.). So no, the doctrines that form the Baptist identity (those things that place Baptist apart from other churches) did not come out of the Reformation but existed long before. Still, much of the way we view doctrine has come directly from the Reformers. This is not, I suppose, what would set apart someone as being "Baptist."
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Gold Dragon

Well-Known Member
It depends on how you look at it. A succession of actual churches is not a part of Baptist ideology (Baptists by doctrine and distinctiveness are not dependent on a parent church for legitimacy). What you are left with is whether or not Baptist doctrine is a derived from the Protestant movement.

Were churches who held what has become a Baptist distinctive a part of the Protestant Reformation? Yes, of course they were. Luther stated such when he called them heretics. But he said that they were among them but not really a part of them...they joined them for a time but taught old heresies (believers baptism, separation of church and state, etc.). So no, the doctrines that form the Baptist identity (those things that place Baptist apart from other churches) did not come out of the Reformation but existed long before. Still, much of the way we view doctrine has come directly from the Reformers. This is not, I suppose, what would set apart someone as being "Baptist."

While there were groups that held to theologies that were similar to believer's baptism and some other theologies we align with the name Baptist, their influence on the first groups to be labelled Baptist (by critics no less) were slim to none. The Anabaptists had a strong influence being a contemporary of the first Baptists but the largest influence of the first Baptists is still from separatist puritanism.

We can try to assign some spiritual significance to these groups in the past who have been persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church and maybe God also sees an association between these disparate groups. But it would be dishonest to say there is any historical evidence connecting these very different groups separated by large gaps in time, geography and theological heritage.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The two main origins views of Baptist are

1. The English Separatist view best articulated by historian Leon McBeth.

2. The Baptist successionism/perpetuity view best articulated by John T. Christian. Carroll's Trail of Blood is also in this vein but of significantly inferior scholarship compared to John T. Christian's, A History of Baptists.


I subscribe to the English Separatist view (which is an extension of protestantism). Those who support baptist successionism usually do so because of distaste for association with groups they theologically are at odds with and not because of any actual historical evidence.

Would sate that I see what we call "Baptist theology" as being basically what the Apostles and the earliest christians held to and practiced, but that we also in many ways came out of the reformation, especially those here who hold to reformed baptist teachings!
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Would sate that I see what we call "Baptist theology" as being basically what the Apostles and the earliest christians held to and practiced, but that we also in many ways came out of the reformation, especially those here who hold to reformed baptist teachings!


The problem with that view is no one on either side of the issue claims that Baptist believe came out of the Reformation. It is clear however that these early Baptist like groups held influence to a degree on the reformers. It is clear that the radical reformers also had influence on some of the churches. It is clear that Anabaptists congregations influenced some of the English separatist.that is why I say that we have a physical kinship or link to the separatist but a spiritual our theological link to those earlier groups.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
While there were groups that held to theologies that were similar to believer's baptism and some other theologies we align with the name Baptist, their influence on the first groups to be labelled Baptist (by critics no less) were slim to none. The Anabaptists had a strong influence being a contemporary of the first Baptists but the largest influence of the first Baptists is still from separatist puritanism.

We can try to assign some spiritual significance to these groups in the past who have been persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church and maybe God also sees an association between these disparate groups. But it would be dishonest to say there is any historical evidence connecting these very different groups separated by large gaps in time, geography and theological heritage.

I was thinking specifically of John Smythe (1570-1612) and his view of baptism (and Anabaptist influences, especially towards the end of his ministry). While we’d differ from much of his theology, he did hold to “believer’s baptism,” he was of Anglican persuasion although he had separatists ideas, and he was definitely influenced by Anabaptist theology.

We could also look the influences with the Swiss reformers. Although ultimately not inclined to accept “Baptist views,” Zwingli was influenced at least to consider that doctrine (and for a time to accept portions of that doctrine). So we should also consider George Blaurock and Conrad Grebel.
Martin Luther also indicated the influence of these “early Baptist doctrines” when he lamented that the heretics existed long before the Reformation, joined the Reformers, but were never really a part of them as they held to heretical teachings. These heretical teachings were, more often than not, doctrines that would form the Baptist distinctive.

So I do disagree with you that their influence was slim to none. It may have been an undercurrent rather than a direct linage, but the Radical Reformers did have a lasting impact on the Baptists.
 

Gold Dragon

Well-Known Member
I was thinking specifically of John Smythe (1570-1612) and his view of baptism (and Anabaptist influences, especially towards the end of his ministry). While we’d differ from much of his theology, he did hold to “believer’s baptism,” he was of Anglican persuasion although he had separatists ideas, and he was definitely influenced by Anabaptist theology.

We could also look the influences with the Swiss reformers. Although ultimately not inclined to accept “Baptist views,” Zwingli was influenced at least to consider that doctrine (and for a time to accept portions of that doctrine). So we should also consider George Blaurock and Conrad Grebel.
Martin Luther also indicated the influence of these “early Baptist doctrines” when he lamented that the heretics existed long before the Reformation, joined the Reformers, but were never really a part of them as they held to heretical teachings. These heretical teachings were, more often than not, doctrines that would form the Baptist distinctive.

So I do disagree with you that their influence was slim to none. It may have been an undercurrent rather than a direct linage, but the Radical Reformers did have a lasting impact on the Baptists.

I agree with you on Zwingli. I include him under the heading of Anabaptist whose influence on the early baptists were significant. You are correct that he was not Anabaptist.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

zaptearNH

New Member
I don't really know about all that stuff I call my self a Bible believing Christian and a follower of Christ that happens to worship at a independent Baptist Church
 

HankD

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Baptists = Protestants?

No. Being a former Catholic , I do not "protest" against the Church of Rome, I have separated from it.


The Universal Church:

Hebrews 12
22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

HankD
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Baptists = Protestants?

No. Being a former Catholic , I do not "protest" against the Church of Rome, I have separated from it.



HankD

That's what most Protestants did, they separated from the Catholic Church (at first they sought reformation, but it came clear fairly soon that this was not to be). The ones who reject Baptists as Protestants do so because they were never a part of the Catholic Church.
 

HankD

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
That's what most Protestants did, they separated from the Catholic Church (at first they sought reformation, but it came clear fairly soon that this was not to be). The ones who reject Baptists as Protestants do so because they were never a part of the Catholic Church.

Well, yes that's partially true Jon especially on the individual level.

But there are Anglo-Catholic churches that still call the worship service a "mass". I went to one here in California and it certainly even looked like a mass.

Lutherans call the communion part of the service where the bread and wine are blessed "consubstantiation" in place of the "transubstantiation" of the Church of Rome saying that the bread and wine "contain" the body and blood of Christ (rather than being transformed into the body and blood of Christ) thereby confirming the romish "Real Presence".

I don't see how any Baptist can become a member of any church that teaches infant baptism (which most of the churches of the Protestant reformation practice). There may be a limited coming together under certain circumstances, but even then there would be confusion.

IMO, Infant baptism as a fulfillment of New Testament water baptism cannot be justified by a full study of the NT and that is what is lacking.

To me, infant baptism and anything more than symbolism of the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper demands ecclesiastical separation and not just a "protest" or even less "well, I was never Catholic, so I'm OK".

Yes, there are true born again brethren in these churches and on an individual level we could fellowship with them but personally I would find it difficult to work with them on a church level.

As circumstances recently suggested, I did visit an Anglo-Catholic church my daughter and her husband attended but I refrained from communion (I was the only one) and the liturgy unless it was the reading of the scripture.

But yes, they were "Protestants" (and I would say - just barely).


HankD
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Well, yes that's partially true Jon especially on the individual level.

But there are Anglo-Catholic churches that still call the worship service a "mass". I went to one here in California and it certainly even looked like a mass.

Reformed churches very much retain a Catholic “flavor.” I would also find it difficult to work with them on a church level. These are traditional/historical Protestant churches. Perhaps this is one reason so many Baptists reject to being lumped together as Protestants (although during the Reformation, this is precisely what was done…voluntarily).
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Reformed churches very much retain a Catholic “flavor.” I would also find it difficult to work with them on a church level. These are traditional/historical Protestant churches.
Please explain. Have you visited some of these "Roman Catholic-flavored Protestant churches? Please flesh-out your answer.

You certainly can't be referencing conservative Presbyterian and Reformed Baptist churches.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
You certainly can't be referencing conservative Presbyterian and Reformed Baptist churches.

I am not referencing "Reformed Baptist churches." And my apologizes for not clarifying at the onset. I mean "Reformed" as in the churches of the Reformation. So no, I do not mean Baptist churches. But yes, Presbyterian churches do carry over some Reformed ideas of the nature of the Church from RCC doctrine, specifically the composition of the Church in relation to belief (e.g., infant baptism). This is at minimum a common quality in Reformed churches, where as Baptist churches consider it's members to be believers (with the acknowledgment that all are not). In other words, my brother's two year old is not considered a Christian in a Baptist church, but she would be as a Presbyterian...or a Catholic.

In terms of "fleshing it out," what I am speaking of are the accusations of the Radical Reformers (the one's Martin Luther declared existed prior to the Reformation, joined them, but were not really a part of them...they were to the Reformed Churches "heretics") that Reformed doctrine clung on to too much Catholic dogma. I do not mean "Reformed Baptist churches."
 
Last edited by a moderator:

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
As an elder in a Reformed Baptist church, I'd be curious to know how you came to this conclusion.
Hey JohnDeereFan,

As I was explaining to Rippon, I am not speaking of Reformed Baptist churches. I am speaking of “Reformed” as in the Reformation. I apologize that I didn’t point this out, but my reasoning was that the OP concerned Baptists being called Protestant and I just assumed a definition of “Reformed.”

I mean Reformed churches as those derived from Calvin, Zwingli, Luther, etc. who took a strong stance not only against the RCC but also against doctrines that form the Baptist distinctive. They maintained a Catholic view in many areas. “Reformed Baptist” is another issue altogether. Their distinctiveness is Baptist but also soteriological within the Baptist distinctive. They are not a product of the Reformation (although some may argue, perhaps rightly, that they did come out of Reformed churches) and their view of the Church, of the Sacraments, and of Baptism at least would separate them from being “Reformed” in a historical sense. Again, I apologize for not clarifying at the onset, Reformed Baptist is not at all what I was trying to say.
 

Bro. James

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Infant baptism is apostasy. It is another gospel which is not another. Paul says such is anathema. He leaves no wiggle room.

How does one reform apostasy? Luther tried to reform Rome. He got defrocked and banished. He persecuted True Baptists, etal. So did Calvin. These folk are pedobaptists; so are their progeny.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Infant baptism is apostasy.
Infant baptism is a man-made anti-scriptural teaching. But to claim that those who abide by it have departed from the faith and fall under the condemnation of Gal. 1:8 and 9 --is going too far BJ.

How does one reform apostasy? Luther tried to reform Rome. He got defrocked and banished.
He wasn't defrocked --he willingly left. He was banished --he stayed right where he was.
These folk are pedobaptists; so are their progeny.
You and I are of their progeny --like it or not --it's a fact.
 
Top