Is it true that Baptists go back to John the Baptist?

Yes I believe you can do a doctrinal tracing all the way back to John The Baptist. Here is an outline that will give you a headstart. The first church that was set up had to be a Baptist Church even though they were called Christians. Go to this link within this forum. There are also many past posting on the history of the Baptist Church posted by me and others so there is no lack of evidence. Welcome to Baptist History and I hope you enjoy your stay and it may be eyeopening as well as educational and honoring to God... Brother Glen

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=16&t=000130&p=

 

Read this as you get time.

http://ovmonline.hypermart.net/tob1.htm

 

No

 

Go 2 Church what is your answer in reference to?... Brother Glen

[ August 23, 2002, 02:09 AM: Message edited by: tyndale1946 ]

 

No

 

Tyndale
To the original question(s). It is not true that Baptists have been around since John the Baptist. Here is the opening paragraph of "The Baptist Heritage" by H. Leon McBeth, the Baptist history text book of the SBC seminaries

"The modern Baptist denomintation originated in England and Holland in the early seventeenth century (1600's). Baptist emerged out of intense reform movements, shaped by such radical sissent as Puritanism, Separatism and possibly Anabaptism. Influenced by the Reformation theology of Ulrich Zwingli and John Calvin, the English Bible, and a deep desire for spiritual reform. some of these Separatists adopted baptism for believers only. They later applies that baptism by total immersion and were nicknamed "Baptists" for that practice."

Landmarkism, which you are advocating for is the history of different religious movements distorted to bring about a presuppossed conclusion that Baptist have been here all along. It is simply not true.

 

You brethren that answered no I feel you are in error. Check all thoughout church history and you will find that one of the marks that identified a Baptist was that they believed in immersion... being buried in the liquid grave... submerged and the baptizo applied only to those who confessed that Jesus is the Christ!... These brethren may not have gone by the name of Baptist but their practice was Baptism in the same manner that John Baptised Jesus... Jesus coming strightway out of the water. There is no way you can prove this doctrinal chain has ever been broken since John the Baptist and the proof is in your camp not mine!... I'm not talking about modern baptist but primitive ones before 1600 and those that held to the proper mode of believers baptism... The same baptism that is now practiced by the baptist in this age!... Brother Glen

[ August 24, 2002, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: tyndale1946 ]

 

Well if make baptism the only defining characteristic of a baptist, I suppose there MIGHT be a link throughout history. But you must remember that the baptism that John practiced was a common Jewish practice of John's time. In my mind that is not the only thing that makes a baptist a baptist. Soul Freedom, local church autonomy, priesthood of the believer and religious freedom in addition to beliver's baptism, in my mind is what makes a baptist individual unique. There are many groups that practice believer's baptism, but are not baptist. Also there should be some thought given to the fact that Jesus had not died and arisen at the time of His baptism.

 

If John's Baptism was a "common Jewish practice" and not a new command from Christ, are you saying none of the Disciples/Apostles were ever scripturally baptized?

 

Doc
No, I was just pointing out that baptism is not the only thing that makes one a baptist. My understanding is that the diciples had the same baptism as Jesus, if it is ok with the Lord, it is ok with me.

 

Although baptism had been done for centuries,
I believe that John's baptism was unique,
because he preached the Messiah's coming
and baptized people unto the coming Messsiah,
a practice never before heard of. The people,
up to that time, had always been baptized unto
our God.

Anytime there is a major spiritual change in a
Jew's spiritual life, as it was done then, they
are baptized into that change. Of course, there
are also the baptisms after giving birth, after
menses, after copulation, before entering the
Temple, at the time of bar/bat mitzvah, etc.
There was even baptism after one had been in
a Gentile country, before entering Jerusalem.

But John's baptism had to be unique from
these, because although he was baptizing at
the place where it was ordinary to be baptized
previous to entering into Jerusalem, the people
were hesitant. Furthermore, although baptism
was an ordinary, oft-done practice, John's
baptism was treated in Acts as extraordinary.
(1:22;, 10:37; 13:24, 25, and especially 19:3)

When the people said they had been baptized
into the Messiah but that they had not heard of
the Holy Spirit, they were asked, "Well, then,
what was your baptism?" They replied that
it was John's form of baptism, which was unto
repentance, saying that they should believe
also on the Messiah who was coming. Upon
hearing this, they were baptized into the
specific name of Y'shua (Jesus).

This is not to in any way support Jesus
Onlyism. They had already been baptized
unto YHVH, believing in Him, then into the
coming Messiah, whom they learned was our
Lord. We, coming into belief without the
benefit of ever having been baptized into our
God,, must be baptized in all the names as
taught in Matthew 28.

I know that some will not understand what I
wrote, some criticize, and there may be name-
calling, or maybe even questions about what I
wrote, but that's all right: it's happened before.
8o)

[ August 24, 2002, 07:13 PM: Message edited by: Abiyah ]

 

I think this is somewhat an arguement over symantics. I believe that there has always been true believers of Jesus Christ in every age. That didn't just begin again in the 1600th Century. Yet I'm sure some of them had doctrinal error, just as some of us on this board must have (evidenced by the fact that we don't all agree) yet are still true believers. That said, I'm SURE somewhere people have practiced believers baptism in different places and different times. Good for them! But that doesn't mean that the baptist churches that we have today in this country weren't influenced and or break aways from movements that took place in the protastant reformation. If it were true, there would be no shame in that.

I have received some of my biggest spiritual growth and edification through some of the writings of the reformers, especially Calvin and Luther. So when I teach my daughter to trust in Jesus Christ, her spiritual ancentry will now include them. I don't agree with everything they said (obviously) but I believe that were true believers in Christ and very Godly men at that. Newsflash, I don't agree with everything said on this board, yet I regard most as mature Christians. God will just have to correct you when you get to heaven

 

Yes and Yes.

But I don't have to prove it any more than I have to prove my lineage back to Adam in the Garden. Neither can anyone disprove it.

As the saying goes, If it looks like a dog, and barks like a dog.....

Jesus started the first church.
There have always been true churches.
He gave the authority to administer the ordinances to His first church.
It takes a church to start a church.

The Lord's true churches will be here when He returns. Matt. 16:18

 

There have been churches which have been Baptistic
in practice since the time of Christ, but not
necessarily Baptist in name.

 

There were no Baptists before 1609.

 

The Baptist faith is the same as was preached by Christ and the Apostles. If not, it is a false faith.

 

So Jesus was a Baptist?

 

If you mean historically what we find in the 1644 and 1689 Baptist confessions I will generaly agree. The question asked however Is it true that Baptists go back to John the Baptist? and the answer to that is No. While I believe the Baptist faith to be built upon the teachings of the Apostles with Jesus Christ as our chief cornerstone, there were no Baptists before 1609 and Baptist doctrine as we know it was formulated and solidified between 1638-44.

 

Warm Christian greetings!

It depends what you mean by baptist. If you mean one who believes that salvation comes by believing in Christ and not by being part of an institutional religion; who believes that such faith is evidenced by baptism by immersion (for believers only) and holds to the autonomy of the local church then the answer is an emphatic yes.

If you mean the actual denominations commonly called "Baptist" then, of course, the answer would be no.

It is that simple.

Kind regards

Robert J Hutton