Basic question: Are Baptists Protestant?

[Rippon]

Hmm ... First let's deal with your "Calvin -- never" error.

Not an error.

Let me give you a time line for a period in the 1530s.

April 1532 published an annotated edition of Seneca's De Clementia. No mention of the Bible.

Nov. 1,1533 he stood in solidarity with Nicholas Cop the rector of the University of Paris. It was strongly Protestant-oriented. Calvin may have helped with the speech.

May of 1534 he resigned his ecclesiastical benefices. He had never been a priest in Roman Catholicism.

In 1534 he wrote against soul sleep in a work called Psychopannychia.It was his first Christian work and filled with biblical citations.

On Aug. 13,1535 he wrote his preface to the first edition to the Institutes.

Sometime in 1535 he wrote the preface to his cousin --Robert Olivetan's New Testament translation. Calvin revised the translation through the years --up through 1551.

Speculations are all over the board as to the timing of his conversion. It was probably between late 1533 and May of 1534.

Therefore there is no indication that Calvin had the intention to reform Roman Catholicism.

So ... They actually undertook to reform the Catholic Church. You even provided us a list of names --showing they did, indeed, intend to remain in the Catholic Church.

The rediscovery of biblical truths was a revolution. Luther was the pioneer. The others (not including Calvin) did indeed think that they should try and change Roman Catholicism from within that body. There were growing pains initially. Cut them some slack. "Within the first generation" is laughable though. A generation is generally considered to be at least 30 years. They (with the exception of Calvin) took an average of five years to move completely out of the RC orbit. To be known as Protestants one had to be outside of the Roman Catholic communion.

 

[West Kentucky Baptist]

Rippon,

I asked you for a quote showing where any early Baptist leader believed the Baptists originated out of the Puritans or Protestant Reformation?

You replied by giving a quote from Leon McBeth.

Here's the problem with that line of thinking:

1. That's a secondary source. Give me a primary source.

2. McBeth is one of the most bias Baptist historians out there. I used his textbook in both college and seminary. While it is very readable, it has a number of problems.

3. One of the reasons Leon McBeth so despised the idea of Baptist perpetuity, is he was reacting to the Baptists of his childhood. His father, J.P. McBeth, was a very conservative Baptists who believed in Baptist perpetuity. Leon McBeth went to seminary, embraced liberal views, and turned away from the views of his father.

 

[Rippon]

2. McBeth is one of the most biased Baptist historians out there. I used his textbook in both college and seminary. While it is very readable, it has a number of problems.

3. One of the reasons Leon McBeth so despised the idea of Baptist perpetuity, is he was reacting to the Baptists of his childhood. His father, J.P. McBeth, was a very conservative Baptists who believed in Baptist perpetuity. Leon McBeth went to seminary, embraced liberal views, and turned away from the views of his father.

What liberal ideas did he advance? As an historian who tried to be factual couldn't he still be considered conservative if he did not believe in successionism?

Now I speak as a Calvinist --McBeth certainly was not. And he got carried away with using the handle hyper-Calvinist often. But he was an honorable man. He died just last year. His obituaries praised him for his devotion to the Lord.

 

[Rippon]

John Spilsbury (1593-1668)

"There is no succession under the New Testament, but what is spiritually by faith and the Word of God."

John Smyth (1570-1612)

"I deny all succession except in the truth. There is no succession in the outward church, but that all succession is from heaven."

 

[~JM~]

Baptists are Protestants. We are the true Reformers, those who return to the practice of the early church, recovered during the 17th century.

 

[Bro. James]

Our Heritage is Important

Interesting reads: Why Baptists Are Not Protestants, Raul Enyedi.

Also: Are you a Baptist or Just a Fundamentalist? Del Wray.

The bibliographies are good reads as well.

"Ye shall know The Truth, The Truth will make you free."

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[Rippon]

Interesting reads: Why Baptists Are Not Protestants, Raul Enyedi.

I scanned most of the article. Enyedi generally equated Anabaptists with Baptists --and that is just not true. When the premise is faulty --so are its conclusions.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Baptists are Protestants. We are the true Reformers, those who return to the practice of the early church, recovered during the 17th century.

We didn't have to "return" to anything, since we were not taking our example from "Mother Church" but from the apostolic roots from which we came.

 

[Bro. James]

We didn't have to "return" to anything, since we were not taking our example from "Mother Church" but from the apostolic roots from which we came.

AMEN. No return, no recovery, no reformation--none necessary. Jesus said, "I am with you always, even to the end of the age." He has kept His promise through the gates of hell.

The implication of this shakes the hallowed halls of rank and file Christendom--especially those who are following men/women through Rome, Wittenburg and Geneva.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[Bro. James]

I scanned most of the article. Enyedi generally equated Anabaptists with Baptists --and that is just not true. When the premise is faulty --so are its conclusions.

A lot of Enyedi cannot be discounted by a glossed over speed reading. His bibliography has a preponderance of evidence which shows True Baptists did not come out of the so called Reformation of Rome. They were never part of Rome. They were persecuted by Luther and Calvin along with the papists.

Now what?

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[Rippon]

Can one be considered a Baptist if one doesn't practice full immersion? Pouring and sprinkling seemed to be the mode of anabaptists.

 

[Bro. James]

Can one be considered a Baptist if one doesn't practice full immersion? Pouring and sprinkling seemed to be the mode of anabaptists.

Do you mean one of those 3/4 dippers? Most of them have come and gone.:laugh: This is really not amusing.

With what part of immersion are we having difficulty? The preponderance of evidence regarding Anabaptist mode points to the immersing, dipping or plunging of adults regardless of their having been sprinkled as infants. This infuriated the holy see and her reformers.

There are a lot of different groups called Anabaptist. Not all of them were necessarily scriptural in their doctrine and practice.

The fact remains: New Testament Churches have been in every generation, regardless of their names. This is about Jude3: The Faith, once for all, delivered to the saints.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[Tom Butler]

I have borrowed the following from Ben Stratton's Yahoo website, "Landmark Southern Baptist. Ben is a participant in the Baptist Board under another handle, and I'll leave it to him if he wants to identify himself.

Ben wrote at his site:

(George W. McDaniel was President of the Southern Baptist Convention in the 1930’s and pastored the First Baptist Church of Richmond, Virginia for 25 years. He authored a number of books including "Churches of the New Testament" and "The People Called Baptists". The following quote is from "The People Called Baptists" which was published by the Southern Baptist Sunday School Board in 1925. – Ben Stratton)
“The first Baptist churches were the churches of the New Testament. It is not necessary to prove succession. It is of more importance to identify our churches today with those of the first century than it is to trace the history through the centuries when there was no recorded history. To illustrate: After the war General Lee lost a beautiful mare, whether strayed or stolen he did not know. He advertised for her, describing her color and size in detail. Deacon William Campbell, of Essex County, Virginia, read the advertisement and saw near his home an animal that exactly answered the description. He wrote General Lee, who sent his son from Lexington to investigate. As soon as he saw the animal he said, “That is my father’s mare.” It was not at all necessary to follow the tracks of that mare from Lexington to Essex. The main thing that was identify her with the one that was lost. The Baptist churches of the New Testament were local, independent, self-governing, democratic organizations. The Baptists of today, and they alone of all peoples in Christendom, answer precisely to that description.” George McDaniel “The People Called Baptists.” Page 83-84

 

[Tom Butler]

Here's another post from Ben Stratton's Yahoo website Landmark Southern Baptist.


[FONT==Arial]Question: Are Baptists Protestants?[/FONT]
[FONT==Arial]Answer: They are not in the common acceptation of that term. That they have always protested against Rome from the very incipiency of Rome to the present, is a fact. And it is also a fact that they have with equal loyalty protested against the heresies of what is know as Protestantism. But that they are Protestants in the sense that they once were connected with Rome, and came out of that body as a Protestant denomination, is a mistake. Rome at the start was a made up of apostate brethren from the Baptists. "They went out from us because they were not of us." Instead of the Baptists being a Protestant denomination from Rome, Rome is an apostacy from the Baptists, the true church." J.H. Grime in "Catechism of Ecclesistical History" page 61-62. [/FONT]

[FONT==Arial](John Harvey Grime <1851-1941> was a very influence Tennessee Baptist pastor and leader around the turn of the twentieth century. He pastored over 30 different churches in Tennessee, Kentucky, and Texas as well as authored a number of books. He also edited the "Baptist Freeman" newsletter for several years. His above quote shows that Baptist churches not only existed before the Protestant Reformation, but also the Roman Catholic Church)[/FONT]

 

[Tom Butler]

While not every Baptist accepts the idea of successionism, I imagine most would accept the idea of perpetuity. That is, that there have always been New Testament churches in existence from the time of Jesus to this day--although by different names.

I wish I could remember who gave me this example to illustrate perpetuity, even in the Dark Ages:

If you see wagon tracks going into a body of water, and see wagon tracks coming out of the water, you may safely assume that the wagon went through the water.

 

[Rippon]

There are a lot of different groups called Anabaptist. Not all of them were necessarily scriptural in their doctrine and practice.

That's right. I don't understand the need for some Baptists to identify so strongly with the Anabaptists when so many of the latter had beliefs that most Baptists do not hold to.

How many Baptists of whatever flavor (like BB'ers) have fellowship with Mennonites and Amish for example? Do you share commonalities?

The fact remains: New Testament Churches have been in every generation, regardless of their names.

I grant that the Lord has preserved His own through the ages. However, His own would not necessarily correspond with what present day Baptists adhere.

This is about Jude3: The Faith, once for all, delivered to the saints.

No, it's not about that. It's about some Baptists holding to successionism and other Baptists saying it began as an early 17th century phenomenon --a break-off from the Separatists --who broke off from the Puritans --who broke off from the Church of England.

 

[Rippon]

It's funny. A thought just struck me. Some Baptists have this Landmark tendency --or what I would call an aberration.

What if Presbyterians should come up with the same kind of idea favoring their distinctions? After all, the office of elders is authorized by the New Testament. Many Baptists churches do not have elders --only Deacons. How unscriptural! A New Testament church with no elders --absurd. Presbyterians are holding to the authority of the Word of God in this matter. Baptists, for the most part are deficient in this regard. The Lord has preserved for Himself assemblies of believers who steadfastly cling to the rule of elders --other "churches" are not truly being of the New Testament model.

 

[Rippon]

After the war General Lee lost a beautiful mare, whether strayed or stolen he did not know. He advertised for her, describing her color and size in detail. Deacon William Campbell, of Essex County, Virginia, read the advertisement and saw near his home an animal that exactly answered the description. He wrote General Lee, who sent his son from Lexington to investigate. As soon as he saw the animal he said, “That is my father’s mare.” It was not at all necessary to follow the tracks of that mare from Lexington to Essex. The main thing that was identify her with the one that was lost. The Baptist churches of the New Testament were local, independent, self-governing, democratic organizations. The Baptists of today, and they alone of all peoples in Christendom, answer precisely to that description.” George McDaniel

General Lee was Episcopalian. ;-)

 

[Bro. James]

I grant that the Lord has preserved His own through the ages. However, His own would not necessarily correspond with what present day Baptists adhere.

Bro. James replied:

This implies that Jesus has not been able to preserve His Bride without spot or blemish or any such thing. He promised to never leave Her nor forsake Her.

The gates of hell have not prevailed. She is still here, pillar and ground of The Truth.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[kyredneck]

...Some Baptists have this Landmark tendency...

.....think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. Mt 3:9

It's an old tendency.