Baptists not protestants?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Wanderer

Puritan Board Freshman
I actually never like the term Protestant.

For I view it as a term first created to reflect those who where once part of the Roman Catholic Church, who have since rejected the Roman Catholic Church and are protesting it.

I have never been a Roman Catholic, and have only viewed one Mass during a wedding where my wife and I refused to be part of, and sat in the back all by ourselves.

However, I have much reformed teaching so much so that some would almost call me totally reformed. I too have problems with this term, since it really don't reflect what I believe has happen.

For I insist, that prior to knowing Christ, I was an unbeliever. And through the sanctification process my views and the truths that I hold to have come more aligned with Christ's. I do not do this in protest to the Catholic Church, for I assert that if there was no Catholic Church that the changes that God has wrought in me still would have occurred.

So, why would I want to hang the title of Protestant or even Reformed Believer around my neck, or any other name except that of Christian. For it is Christ who I aspire to become like.
 

YXU

Puritan Board Freshman
Can anyone suggest any material on the claim that the baptists do not come from the reformation but of the Apostles and are therefore, true Christians. Did Spurgeon hold to that, if so, is there any church farthers' writing regard this claim.

Thanks
 

Reformed Thomist

Puritan Board Sophomore
Can anyone suggest any material on the claim that the baptists do not come from the reformation but of the Apostles and are therefore, true Christians.

You may read all about John the Baptist in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. :up:
 

MrMerlin777

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landmarkism]Landmarkism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


Old Landmarkism (for the most part) would refuse to call Baptists Protestant.
 

smhbbag

Puritan Board Senior
If we believe that the Protestant Reformation was a response to both the Roman Catholic Church and the Anabaptist sects then yes, modern Baptists no matter how close they are to Reformed churches in their doctrinal tenets, are not Protestants because they embrace the central Anabaptist tenet of the rejection of Christian (infant) baptism

Quick interjection: while I have great respect for a strong position that is consistently held, the language here is simply not helpful. Baptists "reject Christian (infant) baptism"?

Would it further dialogue on these issues if I referred to the fact that you "add Roman (infant) baptism"?
 
Last edited:

YXU

Puritan Board Freshman
If we believe that the Protestant Reformation was a response to both the Roman Catholic Church and the Anabaptist sects then yes, modern Baptists no matter how close they are to Reformed churches in their doctrinal tenets, are not Protestants because they embrace the central Anabaptist tenet of the rejection of Christian (infant) baptism

Quick interjection: while I have great respect for a strong position that is consistently held, the language here is simply not helpful. Baptists "reject Christian (infant) baptism"?

Would it further dialogue on these issues if I referred to the fact that you "add Roman (infant) baptism"?

That is what I am looking for, can you provide farthers' writing to show when and how the Romanist added infant baptism to the commandment of God?

If the Romanist added infant baptism, then the farthers before AD 800 or so would reject infant baptism. Can you provide some names of these farthers?

Thanks
 

Jen

Puritan Board Freshman
Can anyone suggest any material on the claim that the baptists do not come from the reformation but of the Apostles and are therefore, true Christians. Did Spurgeon hold to that, if so, is there any church farthers' writing regard this claim.

Thanks

Whoops, I meant to hit the quote button instead of the Thanks button...

McGoldrick's "Baptist Successionism" takes on this claim. It was originally put forward in a book titled "Trail of Blood" (which is probably public domain by now, and so you should be able to find it online). Spurgeon spoke highly of a Baptist history book written by a successionist.

And there aren't any patristic writings on the subject.
 

smhbbag

Puritan Board Senior
That is what I am looking for, can you provide farthers' writing to show when and how the Romanist added infant baptism to the commandment of God?

If the Romanist added infant baptism, then the farthers before AD 800 or so would reject infant baptism. Can you provide some names of these farthers?

There is more than enough discussion of these issues in the Baptism forum. This thread is not about baptism, and so I will limit my comments on that topic to what I've already written.
 

kalawine

Puritan Board Junior
Baptists are Protestant in the sense of the 4 solas but not Protestant when used politically.

Ireland has its own baggage when the term protestant is used which is not usually present in the rest of Europe of the Americas. I would suggest that your scruples are partly regionaly based here.

If someone who has "embraced the reformed faith" does not see themselves as protestant then I do not think they really understand what the words really mean historically.

Ya know? I was trying to make all that out (that he was saying) and I was thinking, "He's very "regional." LOL Thanks for straightening that out for me.

-----Added 5/27/2009 at 10:40:50 EST-----

Can anyone suggest any material on the claim that the baptists do not come from the reformation but of the Apostles and are therefore, true Christians.

You may read all about John the Baptist in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. :up:

Please pardon me but OH BROTHER! :lol: Even when I was a Baptist I wouldn't have made such a claim.
 

YXU

Puritan Board Freshman
That is what I am looking for, can you provide farthers' writing to show when and how the Romanist added infant baptism to the commandment of God?

If the Romanist added infant baptism, then the farthers before AD 800 or so would reject infant baptism. Can you provide some names of these farthers?

There is more than enough discussion of these issues in the Baptism forum. This thread is not about baptism, and so I will limit my comments on that topic to what I've already written.

Yes, I am not debating anything with you here, just want to see the historical ground for your statement that Rome added infant baptism. When you said added, then such was not the practise of the church before Rome, so I said before AD800 or some earlier date. Can you show some evidence of your statement? This is about history, isn't it?
 

Kevin

Puritan Board Doctor
Can anyone suggest any material on the claim that the baptists do not come from the reformation but of the Apostles and are therefore, true Christians. Did Spurgeon hold to that, if so, is there any church farthers' writing regard this claim.

Thanks

Yes, the fathers wrote often against the heretics.

The (false) claim that any group condemned by the church must be "baptist", since the contemporary baptist making the claim faced opposition from the church lead the landmarkist to the erronious identification of a long list of heritics as "baptists".

Paulists, Donatists, Cathars, are just a few of the long list of enti-Christ heretics claimed to be "secret baptists". in my opinion this is a very wicked claim since it could (does!) lead to many false teachings being accepted within modern "baptist" circles. I have heard the most shocking dualistic non-sense taught by a well known (deceased) leader of the movement. It was justified as "part of our forgotten baptist heritage".

Sorry Xyu, I just read a subsequent post by you & I believe I misunderstood your question. I will leave the comment since In my humble opinion it is germane.
 

VictorBravo

Administrator
Staff member
There is more than enough discussion of these issues in the Baptism forum. This thread is not about baptism, and so I will limit my comments on that topic to what I've already written.


Yes, I am not debating anything with you here, just want to see the historical ground for your statement that Rome added infant baptism. When you said added, then such was not the practise of the church before Rome, so I said before AD800 or some earlier date. Can you show some evidence of your statement? This is about history, isn't it?

Moderation

Please stay on topic everyone. The history of Rome's approach to baptism isn't part of this thread.
 

YXU

Puritan Board Freshman
There is more than enough discussion of these issues in the Baptism forum. This thread is not about baptism, and so I will limit my comments on that topic to what I've already written.


Yes, I am not debating anything with you here, just want to see the historical ground for your statement that Rome added infant baptism. When you said added, then such was not the practise of the church before Rome, so I said before AD800 or some earlier date. Can you show some evidence of your statement? This is about history, isn't it?

Moderation

Please stay on topic everyone. The history of Rome's approach to baptism isn't part of this thread.

So where can such history be discussed?
 

VictorBravo

Administrator
Staff member
There is more than enough discussion of these issues in the Baptism forum. This thread is not about baptism, and so I will limit my comments on that topic to what I've already written.


Yes, I am not debating anything with you here, just want to see the historical ground for your statement that Rome added infant baptism. When you said added, then such was not the practise of the church before Rome, so I said before AD800 or some earlier date. Can you show some evidence of your statement? This is about history, isn't it?

Moderation

Please stay on topic everyone. The history of Rome's approach to baptism isn't part of this thread.

So where can such history be discussed?

Feel free to open another thread in Church History.
 

Reformed Thomist

Puritan Board Sophomore
Can anyone suggest any material on the claim that the baptists do not come from the reformation but of the Apostles and are therefore, true Christians.

You may read all about John the Baptist in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. :up:

Please pardon me but OH BROTHER! :lol: Even when I was a Baptist I wouldn't have made such a claim.

I probably should have added a smiley face to my comment.
 

rbcbob

Puritan Board Graduate
"Dont have time just now to do that study. Hence quick question on PB

I actually hope to take up a masters course in Radical and Free Church Movements in the not too distant future. It will cover some of those areas. Until then..."


I can appreciate the time crunch. Several of the responses you have received are helpful. I have no doubt that the sister who is waiting for Dr. Renihan will not be disappointed when he gets to this question. If you have time you might find the class I delivered to our church on Anabaptist origins helpful.
SermonAudio.com - The Anabaptists
-Bob
 

kalawine

Puritan Board Junior

pepper

Puritan Board Freshman
English Baptist came out of the Independant or Congregessional Churches in England in the early 1600's. They split into the General Baptist and the Particular Baptist. Therefore English Baptist are protestants. Southern Baptist came out of these Protestant Baptist in 1845.
 

JBaldwin

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Can anyone suggest any material on the claim that the baptists do not come from the reformation but of the Apostles and are therefore, true Christians. Did Spurgeon hold to that, if so, is there any church farthers' writing regard this claim.

Thanks

Whoops, I meant to hit the quote button instead of the Thanks button...

McGoldrick's "Baptist Successionism" takes on this claim. It was originally put forward in a book titled "Trail of Blood" (which is probably public domain by now, and so you should be able to find it online). Spurgeon spoke highly of a Baptist history book written by a successionist.

And there aren't any patristic writings on the subject.

I was trying to remember the name of this book. I read it several years ago when I was in the Fundy Baptist church. It was actually recommended reading when I took a BJU Bible Doctrines Extension Class.

-----Added 6/8/2009 at 12:05:02 EST-----

Every Baptist I know will deny vehemently that they are Protestant. Most believe that they did not even come out of the reformation, that they had it right all along. (These are the ones I know).

I find that interesting since my experience was exactly the opposite. I grew up in a predominantly catholic community. In fact, in the elementary public school I attended, I was usually the one lone "protestant" in a class of 30-35 students.
 

Herald

Administrator
Staff member
Can anyone suggest any material on the claim that the baptists do not come from the reformation but of the Apostles and are therefore, true Christians. Did Spurgeon hold to that, if so, is there any church farthers' writing regard this claim.

Thanks

Whoops, I meant to hit the quote button instead of the Thanks button...

McGoldrick's "Baptist Successionism" takes on this claim. It was originally put forward in a book titled "Trail of Blood" (which is probably public domain by now, and so you should be able to find it online). Spurgeon spoke highly of a Baptist history book written by a successionist.

And there aren't any patristic writings on the subject.

I was trying to remember the name of this book. I read it several years ago when I was in the Fundy Baptist church. It was actually recommended reading when I took a BJU Bible Doctrines Extension Class.

-----Added 6/8/2009 at 12:05:02 EST-----

Every Baptist I know will deny vehemently that they are Protestant. Most believe that they did not even come out of the reformation, that they had it right all along. (These are the ones I know).

I find that interesting since my experience was exactly the opposite. I grew up in a predominantly catholic community. In fact, in the elementary public school I attended, I was usually the one lone "protestant" in a class of 30-35 students.

I believe the Landmark Baptists trace their lineage back to John the Baptist. I've never been impressed with that argument.

As to whether Baptists are Protestants; it is clear (to me) that they are products of the Protestant Reformation. So whether they are blue-blood Protestants or step-children, does it matter?
 

JBaldwin

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
As to whether Baptists are Protestants; it is clear (to me) that they are products of the Protestant Reformation. So whether they are blue-blood Protestants or step-children, does it matter?

Frankly, I don't think it matters at all. I tend to agree with you. When I looked into the topic more seriously rather than just believing someone's book about the subject, I came to the conclusion that there are practically no connections between the Anabaptists and the Baptists. The Baptists these days are all over the place when it comes to beliefs and connections with history. However, I do agree that the reformed Baptists are not too far away from the reformers.

I used the example to point out that the answer the question "Are Baptists protestants?" is a subjective one.
 

Rangerus

Puritan Board Junior
As to whether Baptists are Protestants; it is clear (to me) that they are products of the Protestant Reformation. So whether they are blue-blood Protestants or step-children, does it matter?

Frankly, I don't think it matters at all. I tend to agree with you. When I looked into the topic more seriously rather than just believing someone's book about the subject, I came to the conclusion that there are practically no connections between the Anabaptists and the Baptists. The Baptists these days are all over the place when it comes to beliefs and connections with history. However, I do agree that the reformed Baptists are not too far away from the reformers.

I used the example to point out that the answer the question "Are Baptists protestants?" is a subjective one.

Are Baptists Protestant? If one uses this definition then yes!

Protestant; 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.

I think the Baptists are best defined by what they are not. They are categorically not of a Catholic or Eastern Church. Although, I agree with JBaldwin, these days they are certainly "all over the place" theologically. Some reformed, some quite liberal.
 

Herald

Administrator
Staff member
I was trying to remember the name of this book. I read it several years ago when I was in the Fundy Baptist church. It was actually recommended reading when I took a BJU Bible Doctrines Extension Class.

-----Added 6/8/2009 at 12:05:02 EST-----



I find that interesting since my experience was exactly the opposite. I grew up in a predominantly catholic community. In fact, in the elementary public school I attended, I was usually the one lone "protestant" in a class of 30-35 students.

I believe the Landmark Baptists trace their lineage back to John the Baptist. I've never been impressed with that argument.

As to whether Baptists are Protestants; it is clear (to me) that they are products of the Protestant Reformation. So whether they are blue-blood Protestants or step-children, does it matter?
And if it "doesn't matter," then Baptists shouldn't mind not being able to rightly call themselves Protestant. :lol:

Josh, I know you said it with humor, but even if you were serious I have no problem with your statement. Baptists have nothing to prove to any group. The same blood that cleansed my pure-blood Protestant brethren has cleansed the step children of the Reformation. We have the same right to be at the table of theological discussion as do the framers of the WCF. I don't write these comments to you personally, but to those who may have a more high brow opinion of what it means to be Protestant.
 

HeFailsNot

Puritan Board Freshman
I was trying to remember the name of this book. I read it several years ago when I was in the Fundy Baptist church. It was actually recommended reading when I took a BJU Bible Doctrines Extension Class.

-----Added 6/8/2009 at 12:05:02 EST-----



I find that interesting since my experience was exactly the opposite. I grew up in a predominantly catholic community. In fact, in the elementary public school I attended, I was usually the one lone "protestant" in a class of 30-35 students.

I believe the Landmark Baptists trace their lineage back to John the Baptist. I've never been impressed with that argument.

As to whether Baptists are Protestants; it is clear (to me) that they are products of the Protestant Reformation. So whether they are blue-blood Protestants or step-children, does it matter?
And if it "doesn't matter," then Baptists shouldn't mind not being able to rightly call themselves Protestant. :lol:

I certainly don't mind! :bouncing:
Let the baptists say "amen," the protestants nod their heads, (Neh 8) :wink:, and if God is merciful, aside from all our puny knowledge of history, hermeneutic and what we thought was the best eschatology, we will be blessed to call him Lord.
 

kd116

Puritan Board Freshman
I actually never like the term Protestant.

For I view it as a term first created to reflect those who where once part of the Roman Catholic Church, who have since rejected the Roman Catholic Church and are protesting it.

I have never been a Roman Catholic, and have only viewed one Mass during a wedding where my wife and I refused to be part of, and sat in the back all by ourselves.

However, I have much reformed teaching so much so that some would almost call me totally reformed. I too have problems with this term, since it really don't reflect what I believe has happen.

For I insist, that prior to knowing Christ, I was an unbeliever. And through the sanctification process my views and the truths that I hold to have come more aligned with Christ's. I do not do this in protest to the Catholic Church, for I assert that if there was no Catholic Church that the changes that God has wrought in me still would have occurred.

So, why would I want to hang the title of Protestant or even Reformed Believer around my neck, or any other name except that of Christian. For it is Christ who I aspire to become like.


but until the 16th century catholic was the only denomination then came lutheran then anabaptist then methodist etc etc so wouldnt every christian denomination be considered protestant? because we all sprung from catholicism?

just my two cents
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top