# Baptists not protestants?



## Jon 316

I've saw a few articles online which claim baptists are not protestants. 

Seems like a strange thought to me. 

Why Baptist are not Protestants


----------



## Zenas

We need no more Baptist/Presbyterian jokes. Suffice it to say that one could be made, again.


----------



## Knoxienne




----------



## Herald

Jon 316 said:


> I've saw a few articles online which claim baptists are not protestants.
> 
> Seems like a strange thought to me.
> 
> Why Baptist are not Protestants



The article you linked seems to support the Anabaptist movement. I'd agree that the Anabaptists are not Protestants.


----------



## Jon 316

Herald said:


> Jon 316 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've saw a few articles online which claim baptists are not protestants.
> 
> Seems like a strange thought to me.
> 
> Why Baptist are not Protestants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The article you linked seems to support the Anabaptist movement. I'd agree that the Anabaptists are not Protestants.
Click to expand...


So, the assumption being that baptists are the offspring of anabaptists and therefore also not protestants?


----------



## JohnGill

Jon 316 said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jon 316 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've saw a few articles online which claim baptists are not protestants.
> 
> Seems like a strange thought to me.
> 
> Why Baptist are not Protestants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The article you linked seems to support the Anabaptist movement. I'd agree that the Anabaptists are not Protestants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, the assumption being that baptists are the offspring of anabaptists and therefore also not protestants?
Click to expand...


Depends on which Baptist group you're dealing with. And which anabaptist group you are dealing with. And of course how you define Protestant.

From the London Baptist Confession of Faith 1644: "The CONFESSION Of Faith, of those Churches which are commonly (though falsely) called ANABAPTISTS."


----------



## Herald

Jon 316 said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jon 316 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've saw a few articles online which claim baptists are not protestants.
> 
> Seems like a strange thought to me.
> 
> Why Baptist are not Protestants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The article you linked seems to support the Anabaptist movement. I'd agree that the Anabaptists are not Protestants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, the assumption being that baptists are the offspring of anabaptists and therefore also not protestants?
Click to expand...


Baptists are not the "offspring" of Anabaptists. Do a comparison study of Calvinistic Baptist and Anabaptist theology.


----------



## Jon 316

Herald said:


> Jon 316 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> The article you linked seems to support the Anabaptist movement. I'd agree that the Anabaptists are not Protestants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, the assumption being that baptists are the offspring of anabaptists and therefore also not protestants?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Baptists are not the "offspring" of Anabaptists. Do a comparison study of Calvinistic Baptist and Anabaptist theology.
Click to expand...


I know, thats why I used the word _assumption_. 

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...


----------



## Hippo

It is usually a mistake to look at any one doctrine in isolation from its supporting doctrines when considering Christian traditions. The anabaptists had a very low view of the Church which had a lot more to do with their rejection (or at least the form of that rejection) by the protestant mainstream than did credbaptism. Historic baptists in the form we would recognise today have much more in common with protestants than anabaptists.


----------



## JohnGill

From Baptist History | The Reformed Reader




> The First Known Baptist Congregations (?)
> 
> The first known Baptist Congregation was formed by a number of these fleeing separatists in Amsterdam, Holland in 1608. It was largely made up of British persons led by John Smyth who along with Thomas Helwys, sought to set up the group according to New Testament patterns. As they saw it, it was important to 'reconstitute' and not just 'reform' the Church. There was emphasis placed on personal conversion and on baptism, which was to be given to individuals who had personally professed faith in Jesus Christ, that is, to believers only and on mutual covenanting between and among believers. Though taking some years to crystallize, the reconstituting efforts of Smyth, Helwys and others gave distinctive shape not only to the group's belief and practice, but the various others which emerged from it. Some affiliated groups started when members of the Amsterdam group went back to Britain and took the name 'Baptist' to identify themselves. This had to do with the distinctive approach to the meaning and mode of baptism.
> 
> With the continuing religious and civil disturbances, and with the new awareness in Europe of North America, many persons, including those influenced by Baptists and related beliefs, practices and groups, crossed the Atlantic to build a 'New World'. They sought not only to establish dwellings, but their faith as well. In time the entire continent, but particularly the Eastern section, was affected, Baptist Churches, being among the many institutions, which sprang up in the seventeenth century. All these shaped not only the new American Environment, but eventually impacted beyond it as well.
> 
> William Cathcart, Baptist Historian/Author
> 
> The American Baptists deny that they owe their origin to Roger Williams. The English Baptists will not grant that John Smyth or Thomas Helwysse was their founder. The Welsh Baptists strenuously contend that they received their creed in the first century, from those who obtained it, direct, from the apostles themselves. The Dutch Baptists trace their spiritual pedigree up to the same source. German Baptists maintained that they were older than the reformation, older than the corrupt hierarchy which it sought to reform. The Waldensian Baptists boasted an ancestry far older than Waldo, older than the most ancient of their predecessors in the Vales of Piedmont. All these maintain that it ultimately reappears, and reveals their source in Christ and His apostles." (pp. 34-35 - The Testimony of the Baptists, by Curtis A. Pugh quoting William Cathcart, the Baptist Encyclopedia, 1881, pp. 620-621.)



Here's a short primer on these issues: A Primer on Baptist History, Chris Traffanstedt | The Reformed Reader


The Reformed Reader site has been one of the best sites I've found on historic baptist beliefs.

For an alternate view I would recommend, http://www.standardbearer.org/shop/Search.aspx?cat=hist Most of the books listed in their catalog under Baptist history are available online. Generally at http://books.google.com and http://www.archive.org.

-----Added 3/1/2009 at 05:58:06 EST-----

William Cathcart's Baptist Encyclopedia is online at archive.org here: Scrolld down to Baptist Encyclopedia

I'd recommend the flip-book.


----------



## TimV

When I was a Reformed Baptist in College we referred to the other kind as "RAs" AKA Raving Arminians.


----------



## jambo

I would not see Baptists as "Protestant". Traditionally baptists have always believed in the separation of church and state whether one traces baptist ancestry back to the Anabaptists, the English Separatists or any pre-Reformation group or even a mixture of these three roots.. 

The Anabaptists, as re-baptisers objected to infant baptism into a Protestant or RC church and hence a Protestant or RC state.

This was a great advantage when we ministered in the Republic of Ireland. The Church of Ireland (Anglican), Presbyterians and Methodists came with political baggage and converts were perceived as becoming Protestant. Converts into Baptist churches were seen as having joined a cult rather than becoming Protestant. But to the RC mind, joining a cult was perceived as a better option than becoming a Protestant. I knew many converted RCs who embraced the Reformed faith yet would never in a million years think of themsleves as Protestant.

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


----------



## Herald

> Baptists are Protestant in the sense of the 4 solas but not Protestant when used politically.



4 solas?


----------



## Hippo

jambo said:


> 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.


----------



## Brian Withnell

When I was attending an Independent Baptist church (no reformed church available), they claimed not to be protestants. It kind of surprised me.

(Opps, this is Jean posting)


----------



## MW

Is somebody suggesting that Baptists are Protestant? I know of Baptists who have adopted Protestant teaching, but if they were Protestant they would stop calling themselves Baptist.


----------



## Herald

I'm not concerned with whether Baptists are Protestant. It is not necessary to trace Baptist history to the beginning of Protestantism. The question that needs to be answer is, "What do Baptists believe?" Confessional Baptists can trace much of their theology to the early Protestant movement. Mainline Baptists that do not embrace Calvinism or confessionalism possess a theology that is generations removed from the Reformation and the inception of Protestantism.


----------



## MW

Herald said:


> The question that needs to be answer is, "What do Baptists believe?"



Correct; we all realise "Baptist" is a generic term which describes a great variety of groups, including individuals who reject the reformation. Hence it is not possible to call Baptists Protestant, while we can still accept those Baptists who associate themselves with the Protestant movement.


----------



## Jen

It is my understanding that Baptists who hold to successionism reject being labelled as Protestants (because they maintain that they have existed since the apostolic era). Those who hold to the English Separatist view on the origins of modern Baptists, however, do believe that Baptists are, indeed, Protestants.

But my Baptist History class (taught by Dr. Renihan) has thus far only covered the faulty argumentation of successionism and not gotten into the details of the English Separatist view (yet).


----------



## A.J.

Jen,

I agree. Dr. Renihan has done the Reformed Baptist community a great service with his research on Particular Baptist origins.

John,

I highly recommend the following articles for further study on the origins of Baptists. 

Baptists: Their Historical Relation to the Protestant Reformation And the Roman Catholic Church by Fred G. Zaspel

Confessing the Faith of in 1644 and 1689 by Dr. James Renihan

Are Baptists Protestants? by Gerald L. Priest

The Anabaptists and the Reformation by Christ Good

-----Added 3/2/2009 at 03:26:31 EST-----



jambo said:


> I knew many converted RCs who embraced the Reformed faith yet would never in a million years think of themsleves as Protestant.



Thanks for sharing your experience. But if your statement (as quoted) is true, I higly doubt whether these men and women really understood what it means to be Reformed.


----------



## BertMulder

Depends...

Using the strict definition of 'Protestant', referring to the protest of the German Lutherans at die Imperial diet, the answer is no.

Just as, by that definition, the reformed are not 'protestant'.

however, in the normal, everyday usage, where protestant means non-papist, the answer is yes.


_The word Protestant is derived from the Latin protestari [2][3] meaning publicly declare which refers to the letter of protestation by Lutheran princes against the decision of the Diet of Speyer in 1529, which reaffirmed the edict of the Diet of Worms in 1521, banning Luther's documents. Since that time, the term Protestantism has been used in many different senses, often as a general term merely to signify that they are not Roman Catholics.

While churches which historically emerged directly or indirectly from the Protestant Reformation generally constitute traditional Protestantism, in common usage the term is often used to refer to any Christian church other than the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches.[4] This usage is imprecise, however, as there are non-Roman Catholic and non-Eastern Orthodox churches which predate the Reformation (notably Oriental Orthodoxy). Anglicans, although historically influenced by the Protestant Reformation in what is called the English Reformation, differs from many Reformation principles and understands itself to be a middle path—a via media—between Roman Catholic and Protestant doctrines. Other groups, such as the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, reject traditional Protestantism as another deviation from Christianity, while perceiving themselves to be restorationists._

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant]Protestantism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


----------



## JohnGill

The originator of Landmarkism appears to be James R. Graves.

You can read his book here: Old Landmarkism: what is It?: What ... - Google Book Search

I found the following interesting from the above mentioned article: http://www.dbts.edu/pdf/macp/2007/Priest,%20Are%20Baptists%20Protestants.pdf



> Hudson’s famous five points of Baptist/Anabaptist discontinuity have provided the
> principal frame of reference for debate:
> 
> a. Early Baptists themselves repeatedly denied they were Anabaptists.
> b. Baptists firmly rejected the distinctive features of Anabaptist life.
> c. Practically all of the early Baptist leaders had been Separatists before they adopted
> Baptist views.
> d. Baptist views represent the logical conclusions of Separatism.
> e. After John Smyth’s defection to the Anabaptists, he was repudiated by a Baptist
> remnant who separated from him.


----------



## jambo

I would see three lines of baptist ancestry. Those who would trace the line back to the Anabaptists would say Baptists were not Protestant. Believing in the separation of church and state (infant baptism being perceived as baptism in the state church, RC or Protestant) Anabaptists were persecuted by both RCs and Prots.

Those who would trace Baptist lineage through pre-reformation groups would not see Baptists as Protestant either as they pre-date the Reformation. 

Those who link back to the English Separatists are more likely to think in terms of Baptists as Protestant. 

It is a long story and I would not wish to divert the thread away from the original question, but it is not fair to say those who love the reformed faith and bravely proclaim it to their RC families and neighbours haven't understood what it means to be reformed.

They do understand what it means to be reformed, its the hi-jacking of Protestantism with all its abuses they cannot get their heads around.


----------



## JohnGill

jambo said:


> I would see three lines of baptist ancestry. Those who would trace the line back to the Anabaptists would say Baptists were not Protestant. Believing in the separation of church and state (infant baptism being perceived as baptism in the state church, RC or Protestant) Anabaptists were persecuted by both RCs and Prots.
> 
> Those who would trace Baptist lineage through pre-reformation groups would not see Baptists as Protestant either as they pre-date the Reformation.
> 
> Those who link back to the English Separatists are more likely to think in terms of Baptists as Protestant.
> 
> It is a long story and I would not wish to divert the thread away from the original question, but it is not fair to say those who love the reformed faith and bravely proclaim it to their RC families and neighbours haven't understood what it means to be reformed.
> 
> They do understand what it means to be reformed, its the hi-jacking of Protestantism with all its abuses they cannot get their heads around.



Another reason I love the Irish. Guinness being the first. 

Good summation.


----------



## Poimen

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. This is clearly demonstrated by reading Calvin's _Institutes_ as well as the Belgic Confession, both of which condemned the Anabaptist movement for its excesses in many areas, but, especially, in their rejection of infant baptism.


----------



## DMcFadden

Wow, Daniel. And to think that all of this time I just imagined that your stern demeanor in your avatar was the exception, not the rule! 

To paraphrase Sally Field's famous Oscar speech of some years back turned upside down: "You really hate us, you really do."

Perhaps my reading of Reformed theology is errant due to my Baptist genes, but I thought that the reaction by Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin to the Anabaptist enthusiasts might have had something to do with the fact that they were giving the Reformers a bad name by threatening to upset the social order with their radical notions of church vs. state. In this context, I always thought that the baptism issue was secondary to the epistemological and hermeneutical (and very real *political*) dangers associated with those Luther suspected had swallowed the Holy Spirit "feathers and all." Calvin's introduction to his 1536 edition of the Institutes went to great pains to differentiate the Reformers as the true heirs of the apostles, not to be confused with the radical revolutionaries flying their banner in places like Muenster.

If you really want to hang the Anabaptist moniker on the modern day Baptists, then you better put s_ola scriptura _in the pot as well. It was an unfortunate aspect of the movement that many of the more radical ones believed that the Holy Spirit delivered to them immediate revelation rendering secondary at best the Bible.


----------



## Poimen

Dennis:

I completely agree and I thought I had noted in my post that there were other issues concerning the Reformers rejection of the Anabaptist movement than infant baptism. But (as a paedo-baptist) one cannot do away (obscure) the importance of the baptism issue for Protestants because it is a central tenet of the movement (hence all Protestant confessions affirm infant baptism _contra_ the Anabaptists) and does not depend on how one might view these other issues.

Furthermore I did not mean to state or imply that modern day Baptists were, without exception, like the Anabaptists of old or even to be called Anabaptists. At the same time, one cannot help but note the similarity in their views in baptism (if not their sympathies).


----------



## DMcFadden

Maybe it is a definitional thing. But, if you add up the members of credobaptist churches known in dictionaries as "Protestant" and compare it with the number of those in paedobaptist communions, my guess is that the credobaptist "Protestants" outnumber the paedos by a significant number.

If your definition of a Protestant excludes all credobaptists, then you have a right to your definition. Just realize that it is quite different from the way the term is used generally.

*Appendix 3: Classification of Protestant Denominations
Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life / U.S. Religious Landscape Survey*

Detailed Summary of Protestant Denominations by Tradition and 
Family
The denominations listed below represent answers given by survey respondents. Some 
denominations were offered as explicit response options during the interviews, while others 
were volunteered by respondents. Respondents who gave vague denominational affiliations 
were assigned to a religious tradition based on their race and/or their response to a question on 
whether they would describe themselves as a “born-again or evangelical Christian,” as noted in 
italics. 
*Evangelical Protestant Churches*
*Baptist in the Evangelical Tradition*
Southern Baptist Convention
Independent Baptist (if non-black)
Baptist General Conference; Swedish 
Baptist 
Baptist Missionary Association (if non- 
black)
Conservative Baptist Assoc. of America 
Free Will Baptist 
General Association of Regular Baptists 
American Baptist Association
Baptist Bible Fellowship
Primitive Baptist (if non-black)
Reformed Baptist (Calvinist)
Fundamentalist Baptist (if non-black)
Seventh-Day Baptist
Baptist General Convention of Texas
North American Baptist
Slavic Evangelical Baptist Church
Full Gospel Baptist Association (if non- 
black)
“Evangelical” Baptist (if non-black)
United Baptist Church
Evangelical Free Baptist
Baptist, not further specified (if non-black 
and born again)
Baptist, ambiguous affiliation (if non-black 
and born again)
*Methodist in the Evangelical Tradition*
Primitive Methodist
Congregational Methodist
“Traditional” Methodist
“Evangelical” Methodist
Independent Methodist
“Missionary” Methodist (if non-black)
Methodist, not further specified (if non- 
black and born again)
Methodist, ambiguous affiliation (if non- 
black and born again)
*Nondenominational in the Evangelical Trad.*
Nondenominational evangelical
Nondenominational fundamentalist
Nondenominational charismatic
Nondenominational Protestant
Nondenominational Christian
Association of Bridge Churches
Interdenominational (if born again)
Community Church (if born again)
Federated or union church (if born again)
Nondenominational, not further specified 
(if non-black and born again)
Nondenominational, ambiguous affiliation 
(if non-black and born again)
*Lutheran in the Evangelical Tradition*
Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod
Lutheran Church, Wisconsin Synod 
Lutheran Brethren
Church of the Lutheran Confession
Free Lutheran
Apostolic Lutheran Church in America
Lutheran Congregations in Mission for 
Christ
Lutheran, not further specified (if born 
again)
Lutheran, ambiguous affiliation (if born 
again)
*Presbyterian in the Evangelical Tradition*
Presbyterian Church in America
Associate Reformed Presbyterian 
Cumberland Presbyterian Church 
Orthodox Presbyterian 
Evangelical Presbyterian
Reformed Presbyterian
Congregational Presbyterian
Bible Presbyterian Church
World Presbyterian Board
Conservative Presbyterian Church
Independent Presbyterian
Community Presbyterian Church in 
America
Presbyterian, not further specified (if born 
again)
Presbyterian, ambiguous affiliation (if born 
again)
*Pentecostal in the Evangelical Tradition *
Assemblies of God
Church of God Cleveland Tennessee
Four Square Gospel 
Pentecostal Church of God 
Pentecostal Holiness Church 
Assembly of Christian Churches 
Church of God of Prophecy
Vineyard Fellowship
Open Bible Standard Churches
Full Gospel (if non-black)
Calvary Chapel
Apostolic Pentecostal (if non-black)
Church of God not further specified
Nondenominational, Independent 
Pentecostal (if non-black)
Missionary Church
Elim Fellowship
International Pentecostal Church of Christ
“Evangelical” Pentecostal
Church of God of Kentucky
Church of God of the Midwest
Church of God of the Apostolic Faith
Pentecostal, not further specified (if non- 
black)
Pentecostal, ambiguous affiliation (if non- 
black)
*Anglican/Episcopal in the Evangelical Trad.*
Anglican Orthodox Church 
Reformed Episcopal Church 
“Conservative” Anglican
Anglican/Episcopal, not further specified 
(if born again)
Anglican/Episcopal, ambiguous affiliation 
(if born again)
*Restorationist in the Evangelical Tradition*
Church of Christ
Christian Churches and Churches of 
Christ 
Restorationist, not further specified (if 
born again)
Restorationist, ambiguous affiliation (if 
born again)
*Congregational in the Evangelical Trad.*
Conservative Congregational Christian
National Association of Congregational 
Christian Churches
Evangelical Congregational
Independent Congregational Church
Congregationalist, not further specified (if 
born again)
Congregationalist, ambiguous affiliation (if 
born again)
Holiness in the Evangelical Tradition 
Church of the Nazarene
Wesleyan Church
Free Methodist Church
Christian and Missionary Alliance
Church of God (Anderson, Indiana) 
Salvation Army
Wesleyan Methodist Church
Church of God of Findlay, Ohio
Pilgrim Holiness Church
World Gospel Mission, Holiness 
Missionary
Free Holiness
Church of God of Michigan
Holiness, not further specified (if non- 
black)
Holiness, ambiguous affiliation (if non- 
black)
*Reformed in the Evangelical Tradition*
Christian Reformed Church
Sovereign Grace
United Reformed Churches of North 
America
Evangelical Reformed
Evangelical Association of Reformed and 
Congregational Churches
Reformed, not further specified (if born 
again)
Reformed, ambiguous affiliation (if born 
again)
*Adventist in the Evangelical Tradition *
Seventh-Day Adventist 
Advent Christian
Sacred Name Churches
Worldwide Church of God 
Church of God in Abrahamic Faith 
Church of God of the 7th Day 
Church of God General Conference 
Philadelphia Church of God
*Anabaptist in the Evangelical Tradition*
Brethren in Christ 
Brethren Evangelical, not further specified 
(if born again)
Mennonite Brethren 
Mennonite, not further specified 
Amish
United Brethren in Christ
Apostolic Christian Church
*Pietist in the Evangelical Tradition*
Evangelical Covenant Church
Evangelical Free Church
“Pietist”
Evangelical Free Mission Church
Church of God Winebrenner Fellowship 
*Other Evangelical/Fundamentalist *
“Evangelical”
“Born again,” “Bible-believers,” etc.
Evangelical Bible Church
Bible, Gospel, Missionary churches
“Fundamentalist” not further specified
“Charismatic,” “Spirit filled”
*Protestant nonspecific in the Evang. Trad.*
Protestant nonspecific (if non-black and 
born again)
*Mainline Protestant Churches
Baptist in the Mainline Tradition*
American Baptist Churches in USA
Cooperative Baptist Fellowship; Baptist 
Alliance
“Liberal/Progressive” Baptist
Baptist, not further specified (if non-black 
and not born again)
Baptist, ambiguous affiliation (if non-black 
and not born again)
*Methodist in the Mainline Tradition*
United Methodist Church
Evangelical United Brethren
Methodist, not further specified (if non- 
black and not born again)
Methodist, ambiguous affiliation (if non- 
black and not born again)
*Nondenominational in the Mainline Trad.*
Interdenominational (if not born again)
Community church (if not born again)
Federated or union church (if not born 
again)
“Emergent church”
“Liberal” Nondenominational
Nondenominational, not further specified 
(if non-black and not born again)
Nondenominational, ambiguous affiliation 
(if non-black and not born again)
*Lutheran in the Mainline Tradition*
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America 
(ELCA)
American Lutheran Church
Latvian Evangelical Lutheran Church in 
America
Lutheran, not further specified (if not born 
again)
Lutheran, ambiguous affiliation (if not born
again)
*Presbyterian in the Mainline Tradition*
Presbyterian Church USA
Scotch Presbyterian
United Presbyterian
“Liberal” Presbyterian
Presbyterian Church of Canada
Other Presbyterian denomination (if not 
born again)
Presbyterian, not further specified (if not 
born again)
Presbyterian, ambiguous affiliation (if not 
born again)
*Anglican/Episcopal in the Mainline Trad.*
Episcopal Church in the USA
Anglican Church (Church of England)
Church of Ireland
Anglican/Episcopal, not further specified 
(if not born again)
Anglican/Episcopal, ambiguous affiliation 
(if not born again)
*Restorationist in the Mainline Tradition*
Disciples of Christ
Restorationist, not further specified (if not 
born again)
Restorationist, ambiguous affiliation (if not 
born again)
*Congregationalist in the Mainline Tradition*
United Church of Christ
Congregationalist, not further specified (if 
not born again)
Congregationalist, ambiguous affiliation (if 
not born again)
*Reformed in the Mainline Tradition*
 Reformed Church in America
Free Hungarian Reformed Church
Congregational Union of Scotland
Reformed, not further specified (if not born 
again)
Reformed, ambiguous affiliation (if not 
born again)
*Anabaptist in the Mainline Tradition*
Church of the Brethren 
Moravian Church 
Brethren, not further specified (if not born 
again)
*Friends in the Mainline Tradition*
Society of Friends
Friends/Quaker, not further specified
*Other/Protestant nonspecific in 
the Mainline Tradition *
Protestant nonspecific (if non-black and 
not born again; also includes 
“ecumenical”)
Metropolitan Community Church 
*Historically Black Protestant Churches*
*Baptist in the Historically Black Prot. Trad.*
National Baptist Convention
Progressive Baptist Convention
Independent Baptist (if black)
“Black” Baptist
Christian Baptist Church of God
“Evangelical” Baptist (if black)
Missionary Baptist (if black)
Full Gospel Baptist (if black)
Fundamentalist Baptist (if black)
Primitive Baptist (if black)
National/Progressive Baptist Convention
International Baptist
Baptist Bible Church
Baptist, not further specified (if black)
Baptist, ambiguous affiliation (if black)
*Methodist in the Hist. Black Prot. *
Tradition
African Methodist Episcopal
African Methodist Episcopal Zion
Christian Methodist Episcopal Church
Black Methodist
Reformed Methodist
Missionary Methodist (if black)
Methodist, not further specified (if black)
Methodist, ambiguous affiliation (if black)
*Pentecostal in the Hist. Black Prot. Trad.*
Church of God in Christ
Apostolic Pentecostal (if black)
World Gospel Mission
Church of God in Christ Holiness
New Testament Church of God
Nondenominational, Independent 
Pentecostal (if black)
United Pentecostal Church International
Full Gospel (if black)
United House of Prayer for All People
Pentecostal, not further specified (if black)
Pentecostal, ambiguous affiliation (if 
black)
*Holiness in the Historically Black Prot. Trad.*
Independent Holiness
Apostolic Holiness Church
Holiness Baptist
Holiness, not further specified (if black)
Holiness, ambiguous affiliation (if black)
*Nondenominational in the Hist. Black * 
Prot. Tradition 
Nondenominational, not further specified 
(if black)
Nondenominational, ambiguous affiliation 
(if black)
*Protestant nonspecific in the Hist. Black 
Prot. Tradition *
Protestant nonspecific (if black)


----------



## MW

DMcFadden said:


> Maybe it is a definitional thing. But, if you add up the members of credobaptist churches known in dictionaries as "Protestant" and compare it with the number of those in paedobaptist communions, my guess is that the credobaptist "Protestants" outnumber the paedos by a significant number.



That is probably correct, Dennis. The fact remains, however, that a thoroughgoing Baptist ecclesiology does not recognise the baptism nor the churches of the Protestant reformers.


----------



## shackleton

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).


----------



## Wanderer

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

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

YXU said:


> 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.


----------



## MrMerlin777

[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

> 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"?


----------



## YXU

smhbbag said:


> 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"?
Click to expand...


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

YXU said:


> 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

> 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

Hippo said:


> jambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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-----



Reformed Thomist said:


> YXU said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## YXU

smhbbag said:


> 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.
Click to expand...


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

YXU said:


> 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

smhbbag said:


> 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.






YXU said:


> 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

victorbravo said:


> smhbbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YXU said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Moderation
> 
> Please stay on topic everyone. The history of Rome's approach to baptism isn't part of this thread.
Click to expand...


So where can such history be discussed?


----------



## VictorBravo

YXU said:


> victorbravo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> smhbbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YXU said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Moderation
> 
> Please stay on topic everyone. The history of Rome's approach to baptism isn't part of this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So where can such history be discussed?
Click to expand...


Feel free to open another thread in Church History.


----------



## Reformed Thomist

kalawine said:


> Reformed Thomist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YXU said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please pardon me but OH BROTHER!  Even when I was a Baptist I wouldn't have made such a claim.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## rbcbob

"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

Reformed Thomist said:


> kalawine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reformed Thomist said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may read all about _John the Baptist_ in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please pardon me but OH BROTHER!  Even when I was a Baptist I wouldn't have made such a claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I probably should have added a smiley face to my comment.
Click to expand...


 I'm so bad about letting online sarcasm go over my head! Yes, you'd better use smilies for the sake of us dummies!  Sorry!


----------



## pepper

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.


----------



## Glenn Ferrell

This article (link provided in post above) was a helpful summary:

http://www.dbts.edu/pdf/macp/2007/Priest, Are Baptists Protestants.pdf


----------



## JBaldwin

Jen said:


> YXU said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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-----



shackleton said:


> 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

JBaldwin said:


> Jen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YXU said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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-----
> 
> 
> 
> shackleton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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?


----------



## Richard King

My Southern Baptist friends here don't like being refered to as Protestants.


----------



## Ivan

Herald said:


> 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?



No.


----------



## JBaldwin

> 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

JBaldwin said:


> 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.
Click to expand...


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

Joshua said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBaldwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And if it "doesn't matter," then Baptists shouldn't mind not being able to rightly call themselves Protestant.
Click to expand...


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

Joshua said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBaldwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And if it "doesn't matter," then Baptists shouldn't mind not being able to rightly call themselves Protestant.
Click to expand...


I certainly don't mind!  
Let the baptists say "amen," the protestants nod their heads, (Neh 8) , 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

Wanderer said:


> 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


----------

