The churches in Acts after splitting from Judaism proper were Baptist like in doctrines and practices!
-
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!
Why Baptists are not Protestant
- Thread starter Salty
- Start date
37818
Well-Known Member
If the New Testament is not the evidence then there is no genuine Christianty!
All io know is No Mormon, JW.RCC Sda theology in NT churches!
37818
Well-Known Member
The presuppositions which affect them. The either reading into the text what is not there or the denial of the explicit teachings.
could you elaborate?
Christforums
Member
Historically, that is in context, Protestants "protested" the Catholic church attempting to realign her in orthodoxy. The early catholic church [universal] used principles that were reestablished in an attempt by Martin Luther. The Reformation was not an attempt to destroy the Catholic church but bring her back to orthodoxy, just emphasizing that point. Protestant, therefore, follow the theology of monergism and the 5 Solas. While Luther was one of the early "reformers" Lutherans today have essentially ended the Reformation upon the death of Martin Luther, whereas the gap between Protestant and Reformed widens. So much for Semper Reformanda. I think the best example of Protestant are the "conservative" branches of Lutheranism today such as the Missouri Synod.
As far as Baptist being Protestant if we were define Protestant as simply nothing more then protesting than I believe they qualify. But, if we are to define Protestant in historical context the Baptist were out somewhere else protesting the church of England. In other words Baptist do not fall into the historical context. Though what I observe today is that one must take the theology of an individual and church separately as there are many factions, independent churches, and members which actually don't adhere to the church's theology.
However, if theological transmission is used to define who is or is not Protestant then I believe a firm foundation for Protestant are those universal catholic churches that are early monergist, ecumenical creedal [early creeds followed the same principles], and profess the 5 Solas as use the principles established in them for interpretation.
However, by observation most of Christianity has regressed back to Catholicism in one way or the other. That is, they take upon themselves synergism rather than monergism, disregard one or more principles of the 5 Solas all the while complaining about the pope and tradition [protesting]. Ironically, traditions exists even in the grape juice drinking, water dunking Baptist church. J/king, lighten up or I'll play the Beatles John and Yoko's ballad about how ya'll are going to crucify me.
Last edited:
"Extensive graduate study and independent investigation of church history...surviving primary documents render the successionist view untenable...Baptists arose in the seventeenth century in Holland and England. They are Protestants, heirs of the Reformers." (Baptist Successionism : A Crucial Question in Baptist History, 1994 --pages 1,2)
Christforums
Member
I haven't read the reference material so forgive me for shooting blind. Just questioning the "doctrine" or more so Apostolic Doctrine of the Baptist church when stating Baptists are "heirs of the Reformers. I won't go into detail as some of the most obvious deviations at this point unless asked but I consider Protestant and Reformed or Baptist Particular or otherwise different theological camps. If you'll entertain my brief description, imagine a tree's trunk running straight up vertically from which the trunk is rooted in Scripture. We'll call that line Orthodoxy. The Trunk was varied from by the Roman Catholic church and new trunk began of some 20+ rites after the trunk split off from Orthodoxy. Protestant is an attempt to realign that variance. As conveyed:
Protestant Theology:
Catholic [Universal]
Evangelical
Ecumenical Creeds
Monergism
5 Solas
Reformed:
Protestant [includes all the above]
Systematic
Calvinist
Covenant Theology
Amillennial
Confessional
Lastly, I'd like to point out or emphasize the importance of the Ecumenical Creeds and Confessions. Such keep the body of believers from swaying in time during a cultural shift. If you'll note, I'm confident you may observe symptomatic steps which lead to the apostasy of a body of believers throughout any particular apostate denomination such as the PCUSA etc. For example, when Liberalism creeps into the body the first thing that must go are the Creeds and Confessions. Once uprooted "rational discourse" entertains Liberal ideals and the methods and principles of interpretation may be applied. In others words, Liberalism can't creep into a body while the body is rooted in Scripture [they profess as a body the very Creeds and Confessions from which the truth of Scripture is conveyed]. As Reformed, I do not believe the Creeds and Confessions because they are an ultimate source of authority or equal to Scripture but rather believe them because the truth contained in them are essential to faith as conveyed from Scripture. Such Creeds and Confessions follow the principles as contained in the 5 Solas with emphasis on Sola Scriptura and always ending in theological conclusion with Soli Deo Gloria. In other words, if anything conveyed by a Creed or Confession resulted from a Council or Synod does not follow Sola Scriptura and ultimately adhere to the theology that results in all Glory to God alone in matters of salvation etc etc then that theology ought be rejected.
Enjoy,
William
Last edited:
Heirs? They rejected what your basic run of the mill Protestants such as Lutherans or Anglicans believes. Not much in common between a Baptist and a Lutheran.
37818
Well-Known Member
Genuine Baptist sccessionism is the New Testament documents pure and simple.
Other than "John the Baptist" Baptists are NOT named. If anything the "Church of Christ" and the "Church of God"
have a better argument for saying they are named in the Bible!
37818
Well-Known Member
Duh. Baptist sccessionism is not the name. But genuine New Testament churches.
That I agree with - BUT == YOU are the one who included the name "Baptist"
Why didnt you use genuine New Testament churches the first time?
early Christians would have been Baptist like in theology, but not Baptists in historical sense of term!
I dont know about that - where in the Bible does it talk about Fried Chicken Dinners and the like???? HMmmmmmmmmm
Would reformed and non calvinist churches to you be NT churches?
or the infamous chicken fried steak at even luncheon?
What are even luncheons?