Do Baptists come under the unbrella of Protestants

[Jerome]

Salty!

Your own denomination's leading scholar:

[Albert Mohler in The Anabaptists and Contemporary Baptists: Restoring New Testament Christianity (Broadman & Holman, 2013]

"I stand indebted to the Radical Reformation in ways that cannot fully be calculated. Though Reformed in soteriology, I recognize that my decidedly Baptist ecclesiology has far more in common with the Anabaptists. I stand with the Anabaptists in their insistence on the baptism of believers only and the necessity of the personal confession of faith in Christ. I reject Calvin’s understanding of church and state and side without apology with those who died at the hands of those used the state as an instrument of the church, or the church as an instrument of the state. I stand with them on the sole final authority of Scripture, even when it means standing against the received tradition."

 

[Salty]

Salty!

Your own denomination's leading scholar:

[Albert Mohler in The Anabaptists and Contemporary Baptists: Restoring New Testament Christianity (Broadman & Holman, 2013]

"I stand indebted to the Radical Reformation in ways that cannot fully be calculated. Though Reformed in soteriology, I recognize that my decidedly Baptist ecclesiology has far more in common with the Anabaptists. I stand with the Anabaptists in their insistence on the baptism of believers only and the necessity of the personal confession of faith in Christ. I reject Calvin’s understanding of church and state and side without apology with those who died at the hands of those used the state as an instrument of the church, or the church as an instrument of the state. I stand with them on the sole final authority of Scripture, even when it means standing against the received tradition."

Seeing that Mohler is a Baptist - then he is speaking for all Baptists, not just SBC.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

That is what I consider to be one of the blackholes of history.

But did the current Baptists actually descend from ana-Baptists

 

[church mouse guy]

Merriam Webster give the interesting origin/first known use of the term with a bunch of German princes, then the common usage of the term.

Protestant
a: any of a group of German princes and cities presenting a defense of freedom of conscience against an edict of the Diet of Speyer in 1529 intended to suppress the Lutheran movement
b: a member of any of several church denominations denying the universal authority of the Pope and affirming the Reformation principles of justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers, and the primacy of the Bible as the only source of revealed truth
broadly : a Christian not of a Catholic or Eastern church

Nevertheless, though we first under the broad usage, I never use "Protestant" to refer to myself or my church.

I agree with the broad definition. The general public recognizes 3 branches of Christianity. Baptists certainly are not Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic so they fall into the broad category of Protestant. Some have said that Baptists are third-wave Protestants in that their theology is not like that of Luther and the other early reformers, and not like the Methodists and Presbyterians who sort of broke off from the Lutherans and the Church of England as the second-wave so to speak. In the 1980s or so the Pentecostals were saying that they were a fourth branch of Christianity but I could never see that they were anything but Protestant. Many Baptists say that they do not belong to one of the three branches, also. I just say okay. I call myself a Protestant so I would have to leave any church who was offended by my thinking on the subject. I was in two other denominations before I became a member of the SBC. I was trying to escape liberal theology. I suppose the neo-Calvinists and SJWs will eventually drive me out of the SBC. It doesn't matter; I learned long ago that churches change. I am looking at other denominations already.

 

[HankD]

But did the current Baptists actually decend from ana-Baptists

No we are of a different descendancy - the bloodlines of Jesus Christ.

1 Peter 1
18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

 

[loDebar]

Strange that they did not protest. All faithful Christians before the reformation protested agains the errors of Rome.
And where can you show baptists before the reformation when the papcy made a demand that any "heretic" come before the council anc plead their case. Ther was a deadly silence, not a ripple of protest. The Waldensians had been forced to attend mass once a year, the Hussites had been extinguished and the chairman of the council announced to the pope that ALL heresy had been extinguished, The delegates exchanged gifts and the pope gave the king of spain a golden egg. Revelation 11:10-11

The exactly 3½ years later to the day, Martin Luther posted his thesis on his church door beginning the great resurrection of Gospel Preaching. Revelation 11:12

The papists said the heretics had come alive again in Luther.

They, as we are told were hideout the church.

The old Chronicler Stowe, A.D. 1533, relates: "The 25th of May — in St. Paul's Church, London — examined 19 men and 6 women. Fourteen of them were condemned; a man and a woman were burned at Smithfield, the other twelve of them were sent to towns there to be burned."

Froude, the English historian, says of these Ana-Baptist martyrs — "The details are all gone, their names are gone. Scarcely the facts seem worth mentioning. For them no Europe was agitated, no court was ordered in mourning, no papal hearts trembled with indignation. At their death the world looked on complacent, indifferent or exulting. Yet here, out of 25 poor men and women were found 14, who by no terror of stake or torture could be tempted to say they believed what they did not believe. History has for them no word of praise, yet they, too, were not giving their blood in vain. Their lives might have been as useless as the lives of most of us. In their death they assisted to pay the purchase of English freedom." Likewise, in writings of their enemies as well as friends, Dr. Carroll found, their history and that their trail through the ages was indeed bloody: Cardinal Hosius (Catholic, 1524), President of the Council of Trent: "Were it not that the baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers." (Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pp. 112, 113.)

The "twelve hundred years" were the years preceding the Reformation in which Rome persecuted Baptists with the most cruel persecution thinkable. Sir Isaac Newton: "The Baptists are the only body of known Christians that have never symbolized with Rome." Mosheim (Lutheran): "Before the rise of Luther and Calvin, there lay secreted in almost all the countries of Europe persons who adhered tenaciously to the principles of modern Dutch Baptists." Edinburg Cyclopedia (Presbyterian): "It must have already occurred to our readers that the Baptists are the same sect of Christians that were formerly described as Ana-Baptists. Indeed this seems to have been their leading principle from the time of Tertullian to the present time." Tertullian was born just fifty years after the death of the Apostle John.

III

 

[loDebar]

But did the current Baptists actually decend from ana-Baptists

Some were called, Anabaptist then but are different than Anabaptist today.
The basic beliefs of believers baptism and individual responsibility are constant

 

[Van]

As a young man, I was taught from the pulpit of an American Baptist Church that Baptists are not really protestants. As others have said, we separated from the Church of England that had separated from Rome, out side of Martin Luther's protests.

But the umbrella, non-Catholics covers us as well.

 

[Salty]

Could we sum it up as:

Much ado about nothing?

 

[David Kent]

That word gets thrown around quite a bit, from my perspective.

SWhen they called me a heretic, my answer was. "Rome calls me a heretic, and as your futurism is a Jesuit teaching, I am not surprised that you do."

I do not beleive it is true that no baptists came from the Reformation. When the disenters were exiled from England after The Anglicans adopted the reformers teaching, they returned to Egland in the 1640's as Presbyterians but soon changed to Baptists on reading bible teaching on the subject. Some of my ancestors came from Norwhich, a town to which many of the English Baptists came (C B Jewson History of Baptists in Norfolk and another on those in Norwhich. I have never managed to get my eyes ona copy of the latter) Jewson said the first Baptists Churches in the county of Norfolk were all Particular Baptists, General Baptists came in later from outside the county. The first English Baptist Confession of faith was in 1644, updated 1646.

 

[Dave G]

"Rome calls me a heretic, and as your futurism is a Jesuit teaching, I am not surprised that you do."

Apologies for wandering from the OP, but:
Rome teaches a-millennialism...

"Futurism" was first proposed to the Roman Catholic Church by Francisco Ribera, a Jesuit, in the late 1500's.
Prior to that, it was virtually unknown to the RCC, especially during the Middle Ages and before the "Protestant Reformation".

But elements of it existed in the early centuries of the church before it became the RCC that we know from the Middle Ages.
It has never caught on in that institution, as they hold to an Augustinian "eschatology" ( understanding of future events from the Bible ), but not an Augustinian "soteriology" ( understanding of how salvation is accomplished ).

I'm curious...
How do you see the coming millennium and Christ's return?



As for the rest of English Baptist history, I agree that many or most of the Baptists from the 1600's were "Particular Baptists".

 

[David Kent]

Apologies for wandering from the OP, but:
Rome teaches a-millennialism...

Rome teaches what suits her at the time. She taught that the Millenium would end in AD 1000 and then would be judgement. Many rushed to hand over their properties to the church, hoping that it would stand them in good for the judgement. The Jesuit Alcasar taught preterism. Jesuits Balamine, Ribera, Walpole (aka Michael Chrostopherson) and others taught futurism. Their masterpiece of deception was Manuel Lacunza, A Jesuit from Chile who wrote under the false name of Juan Josafat Ben Ezra, a coverted Jew, who wrote a book entitled La Venida del Mesias en Gloria y Magestad ("The Coming of the Messiah in Glory and Majesty"), . Lacunza wrote under an assumed Jewish name to obscure the fact that he was a Catholic, in order to give his book better acceptance in Protestantism, his intended audience. Also an advocate of Futurism, Lacunza was deliberately attempting to take the pressure off the papacy by proposing that the Antichrist was still off in the future. His manuscript was published in London, Spain, Mexico and Paris.
Another deception was involved in the the book was placed ob Rome's banned list. This book was translated into English by Edward Irving who took up the teaching and futurism crossed over from the Roman church to the protestant churches. From Irving to Darby.

The Irvingites began to hold conferences from the late 1820's known as the Albury Conferences. Among those attending was Ladt Powerscourt, who began hosting similar conferences in he home at Powerscourt, Ireland. Among those attending were Irving and Darby. That is the connection. (or connexion if you prefer) ,

The main point of all these deceptions is to make Christians to believe that the Pope is not Antichrist.

But elements of it existed in the early centuries of the church before it became the RCC that we know from the Middle Ages.

Please give references. My reading from the early church is that they were premillenialist and believed in an orderly transition of the future, i.e. historicist.

 

[Dave G]

Please give references. My reading from the early church is that they were premillenialist and believed in an orderly transition of the future, i.e. historicist.

This is my final reply on this topic...

David, what does your personal reading of Scripture, without the outside influence of historical books, lead you to conclude?

 

[David Kent]

This is my final reply on this topic...

David, what does your personal reading of Scripture, without the outside influence of historical books, lead you to conclude?

Well I was originally taught dispensationalism by the Plymouth Brethren. When I went there my dad said "Beware of the Brethren, their teaching on the second coming is false." I took no notice of my dad's advice. But while I was there I met my wife. We went to meetings on the subject, and once at out church one of the elders we speaking on one of the prophecies of Daniel. Afterwards my wife commented "He said this is going to happen and then that is going to happen and then tghis is going to happen. I was expecting to read it in my bible, but I just cannot see it there. I fread it through and said "You are right, it isn't" Then I remembered my dad's words and started to read the scriptures and comentaries from people who did not support the teaching that I had discovered was false. I discovered that the Waldensians were correct when the claimed that the pope is antichrist. Clearly revealed in scripture. I had become a premillenian historicist. However I am reviewing the last part of that as scripture says the saints will be raised on the last day and the judgemnt will be on the last day.

 

[David Kent]

My personal reading of the scripture leads me to believe that Antichrist is not mentioned in Daniel 9 or Daniel 11, and that Lucifer is not Satan and Jacob's trouble is not future,

 

[JonC]

Prot·es·tant
/ˈprädəstənt/
noun

• 1.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.

Notice how it said - "That are separate from RC" NOT Seperated.

The Reformation began in 1517 the 95 thesis.
Baptist groups did not show up until around 1609
Some want to trace our history to Ana-Baptists - but actual decendents incluse Amish,
Mennonites, Bretheren, German Baptists.

Some will say we are decendents of local assemblies from the time of Christ. Really?

Is it bad to be called a Prosteant?

Open for discussion

I'd say Baptists are Protestant because while many doctrines come from churches that were not Catholic (like Anabaptist doctrine) we were also very much influenced by the Reformation and doctrines developed during that time. We owe a theological debt to both the Reformers and the "radical reformation".

The second reason us even the Anabaptists during the Reformation period added their voices to the movement to the extent Luther acknowled they had joined with them in the Protestant movement while never really being from them (Luther was condemning them).

I look at it as a theological issue. Baptists hold Protestant doctrine so I do not mind being called Protestant.

Lastly, Baptist like to protest. Heck, we even protest each other. The name suits us.

 

[David Kent]

The second reason us even the Anabaptists during the Reformation period added their voices to the movement to the extent Luther acknowled they had joined with them in the Protestant movement while never really being from them (Luther was condemning them).

Just as in the first Exodus, a mixed multitude to their opportunity to leave with the second Exodus, the Reformation. There were radicals like the Anabaptists and the charismatic prophets at the time who Luther also contended with.

 

[Salty]

Lastly, Baptist like to protest. Heck, we even protest each other. The name suits us.

That says it all!

 

[church mouse guy]

My personal reading of the scripture leads me to believe that Antichrist is not mentioned in Daniel 9 or Daniel 11, and that Lucifer is not Satan and Jacob's trouble is not future,

The old saying is that with the Book of Daniel and a quart of whiskey you can prove anything.

 

[David Kent]

The old saying is that with the Book of Daniel and a quart of whiskey you can prove anything.

Well I don't drink whiskey or even whisky, and I take a literal understanding of those prophecies.