Basic question: Are Baptists Protestant?

[Rippon]

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.

You quote me and then you proceed as if I had something something contrary to what I posted.
Read carefully. The Lord has and shall preserve His own through the ages. But His own --the elect --the Church is composed of Baptists only. And since Baptists come in so many different flavors --some downright heretical --all Baptists are not among the elect.

Will you be surprised that Presbyterians, Plymouth Brethren, Evangelical Free and others outside the Baptist fold are among His own? Don't be blind or puffed up that you are Baptist as if they can do no wrong.

 

[Rippon]

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. Instead of the Baptists being a Protestant denomination from Rome,

Who in the world is making those claims? Answer: Nobody.

Rome is an apostasy from the Baptists, the true church." J.H. Grime in "Catechism of Ecclesiastical History" page 61-62.

Now that kind of statement has to be rebuffed at once. As I have said many times --the elect are from among all parts of the world. The true church is composed of folks from all walks of life,social status,denomination affiliation etc. The Baptists alone are not the sole members of the "true church." And with the very mixed bag that constitutes Baptists you should be quite circumspect when quoting things like the above. It is not the prudent thing to do.

His above quote shows that Baptist churches not only existed before the Protestant Reformation, but also the Roman Catholic Church)

It shows no such thing. Baptists churches are of comparatively recent vintage since they are only a spry 400 years of age.

 

[DHK]

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.

We had a "Baptist" "pastor" on this board who was a self-proclaimed homosexual. There are Charismatic Baptists and seventh-day Baptists.
Why do you feel the need to identify so strongly with the "Baptists" when so many of them have beliefs that most Baptists do not hold to??

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

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.

It isn't a matter of "identifying" with them, as I identify with the first-century apostolic church. My Baptist heritage comes directly from Paul, John, Peter, Dr. Luke, John Mark, Matthew, James and Jude -- the half-brothers of Christ -- and that brilliant Levitical scholar who wrote Hebrews. My heritage comes not from Roman nor Byzantine theology, but that of Christ. The various branches of the so-called "universal church" that culminated in unification at Rome were not the only ones bearing the torch of the apostles, but those branches were the ones that did the worst job of doing so.

Christianity as it exists today does not owe its history, heritage, nor doctrine to the Roman church. It owes it to those churches that carried the true gospel through the Dark Ages from the New Testament churches, apostles, pastors and teachers. Rome, Byzantium, nor Scythia have anything to do with the doctrines brought through those times by the men and women who followed the apostles teaching for 1,500 years until they emerged near the time Rome was in upheaval and coincidentally burst forth into the common knowledge of the world, only to be just as derided, tortured and murderered by both Catholics and Reformers as those groups did to one another.

It is time to put this thread to rest. I asked the original question, and it has been answered: Baptists are not from the Reformation, they are from Christ!

 

[Rippon]

The Lord has and shall preserve His own through the ages. But His own --the elect --the Church is NOT composed of Baptists only.

Somehow I had left NOT out of my original post.

 

[Rippon]

It isn't a matter of "identifying" with them, as I identify with the first-century apostolic church. My Baptist heritage comes directly from Paul, John, Peter, Dr. Luke, John Mark, Matthew, James and Jude -- the half-brothers of Christ -- and that brilliant Levitical scholar who wrote Hebrews. My heritage comes not from Roman nor Byzantine theology, but that of Christ.

Who is claiming otherwise?

The various branches of the so-called "universal church" that culminated in unification at Rome

Huh?

were not the only ones bearing the torch of the apostles, but those branches were the ones that did the worst job of doing so.

Baptists (who originated in the early 17th century) as well as Christians from other denominational backgrounds have been "bearing the torch."

Christianity as it exists today does not owe its history, heritage, nor doctrine to the Roman church.

Who here has said otherwise?

It is time to put this thread to rest. I asked the original question, and it has been answered: Baptists are not from the Reformation, they are from Christ!

Your little ole' thread and your itty bitty conclusions are not worth a hill of beans. You don't get to decide actual history.

Baptists did indeed originate from out of the Reformation. Those are just the facts --like em' or not.

Obviously any true Christian Baptist or not is in union with Christ.

Your oracles are like the infamous Caner quote:"I'm not a Calvinist. I'm a Baptist!" ;-)

 

[Rippon]

We had a "Baptist" "pastor" on this board who was a self-proclaimed homosexual. There are Charismatic Baptists and seventh-day Baptists.
Why do you feel the need to identify so strongly with the "Baptists" when so many of them have beliefs that most Baptists do not hold to??

In the 17th century --when Baptists just started out --the General Baptists (rather Arminian in their theology) and the particular Baptists (rather Calvinistic)both strenuously maintained that they were not Anabaptists. Now you are reversing your heritage. Your Baptists forefathers are going "Huh?" to your remarks.

 

[Rippon]

As Baptists we are spiritual heirs of the Protestant Reformation. We are Protestants,despite protests to the contrary! ;-)

Here are some scholars/historians who say we are indeed Protestants. Among them are Calvinists and non-Calvinists (in no particular order).
Jim Renihan, Michael Haykin, James E.M. McGoldrick, Nathan Finn, W. Morgan Patterson, Leon McBeth, Gerald Priest, Chris Traffanstedt, and Timothy George.

There, I have shortened my list so that those interested can avail themselves of true history.

Tom Nettles needs to be added.

 

[Tom Butler]

This thread has triggered some thoughts in my mind so I'm going to start a thread with the question, What are the identifying marks of a true New Testament church?

Among the areas I want to get into:
Since most Baptist claim to be "New Testament" churches, what are the marks of a Baptist church?

Further, since there are forty-leven kinds of Baptists, are there somethings Baptists can disagree about, that are not Baptist distinctives? (Eschatology, for instance).

Then, what are some beliefs and practices which would disqualify a congregation from calling itself Baptist, or a NT church for that matter?

I'm probably going to copy and paste this post, so watch for it in this General Baptist discussion section.