# Baptists are not Protestants



## Davidius

I know that some of the Baptists on the board get upset when some Presbyterians say that Baptists aren't Reformed. Well, it appears as though we're being quite lenient, and in comparison to _Baptists_, nonetheless! Recently I was looking at the websites of churches in Darmstadt, Germany and came across an article at the "Bibel Baptisten Gemeinde" (Bible Baptist Church) entitled "Baptisten sind keine Protestanten" (Baptists are not Protestants). Here is the link to a full English translation.

(note: I obviously think this is ridiculous. It's just funny and I wanted to share it because it is an example of Baptists who are trying very hard _not_ to be affiliated with the Reformed, for some silly and obviously bad reasons.)

I'll quote some particularly interesting passages:



> * Historically Baptists Are Not Protestants*
> Protestants date from the sixteenth century. They are the Lutherans, the Reformed and others who were once Roman Catholics and left the Roman Catholic faith to start denominations of their own. The Baptists never left the Roman Catholic church as did Luther, Calvin and Zwingli. They never left because they were never in. They did not begin their existence at the time of the Reformation but hundreds of years prior to the Reformation.
> 
> Baptists make no effort to trace a historical succesion back to the age of the Apostles. Their only claim is that at every age in church history there have been groups that have held to the same doctrines that Baptists hold today. These groups may or may not have been connected and they have been known by various names. There were the Montanists (150 A.D.), the Novatians (240 A.D.), Donatists (305 A.D.), Paulicians (650 A.D.) , Albigenses (1022 A.D.), Waldensians (1170 A.D.) and the name Anabaptists came into prominence just before the time of the Protestant Reformation.
> 
> Full historical data immediately refutes the view that there was only one religious group - the Roman Catholic church until the time of martin Luther. Anyone who claims this simply has not done his homework.
> 
> I wish to purposely introduce non-Baptist testimony to the great antiquity of Baptist people. Cardinal Hosius (1504-1579) was a Roman Catholic prelate who had as his life work the investigation and suppression of non-Catholic groups. By pope Paul IV he was designated one of the three papal presidents of the famous Council of Trent. Hosius carried on vigoriously the work of the counter-reformation. If anyone in the post-reformation times knew the doctrines and history of non-Catholic groups, it was Hosius. Cardinal Hosius says, "Were it not that the Baptists have benn grievously tormented and cut off with the knive during the past 1,200 years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers" (Letters Apud Opera, pp. 112,113). Note carefully that this knowledgeable Catholic scholar has spoken of the vicious persecution Baptists have endured, that he clearly distinguishes them from the Reformers and that he dates them 1,200 years before the Protestant Reformation.
> 
> It is also evident that the Baptists were not Protestants because they were fiercely persecuted by the Protestant Reformers and their followers. Uncounted, thousands of them lost their goods, their lands and their lives in these persecutions. Konrad Grebel died in prison in 1526. Felix Manz was drowned by the authorities at Zurich 1527. Noted baptist leader Balthauser Hubmaier was burned alive at the stake in Vienna March 10, 1528. Three days later his wife was drowned by being thrown over the Danube bridge with a stone tied to her neck. The facts abundantly attest that historically Baptists are not Protestants.
> 
> *Doctrinally Baptists Are Not Protestants*
> The viewpoint that Baptists share common doctrinal ground with Protestant groups is not an accurate reporting of the facts. There are six striking differences.
> 
> (1) Baptists believe with all their hearts that God´s Word alone is sufficient for faith and practice. We read "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine..." ( II Timothy 3:16). Various Protestant denomination have creeds, catechisms and assorted doctrinal standards. Baptists hold to the Bible alone.
> 
> (2) Baptists believe that Christ and only Christ is the head of the Church, even as the Scripture says "Christ is the Head of the Church" (Ephesians 5:23). There is no man who has the oversight of Baptist Churches. Baptists have no denomination in the sense of an organization that controls local congregations. Each local church is autonomous and accountable only to Christ, who is its Head. A Baptist Church, while fellowshipping with congregations of like faith and practice, has no headquarters in St. Louis, Nashville or New York City. Its headquarters is in Heaven.
> 
> (3) Baptists believe in their hearts in a free church in a free state. Christ plainly taught that the state and the church each had its own realm when he said "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar´s; and unto God the things which are God´s" (Matthew 22:21). Baptists are vigoriously opposed to union of state and church and believe that a state controlled church is a wretched excuse for Christianity and a plain departure from Scripture. All of the Protestant Reformers fastened state state churches upon their followers! Today Americans enjoy separation of church and state because of the vigor and vigilance of Baptists in the early days of our national history.
> 
> (4) Baptists believe strongly in the individual accountability to God because the Scriptures clearly teach that "everyone of us shall give account of himself to God" (Romans 14:12). A priest cannot answer for you, a church cannot answer for you to God. God-parents cannot answer for you. No one is saved because of what his parents believe. No one is saved because of his identification with any any religion. He will account for himself to God. Protestants generally do not hold this Scriptural doctrine.
> 
> (5) Baptist people furthermore have always held to believer´s baptism. None of the Protestant Reformers held this Bible teaching. In the Scriptures faith and repentance always preceded baptism. On the day of Pentecost Peter plainly told the people "repent and be baptized" (Acts 2:38). This obviously means that there is no infant baptism. since infants are incapable of repenting. No unbelievers are to be baptized. The Reformers followed Rome in their teaching of baptism. Baptists have held stedfastly to the doctrine of Christ and His Apostles on this point.
> 
> (6) Baptists on the basis of Scripture have always held to a regenerate church membership, that is a membership that is made up only of people who give a credible profession of faith in Christ. In the Apostolic church only those who became believers, those who received the Word of God and who had repented of their sins, were baptized and received as church members (Acts 2:41). There was no automatic or formalistic membership in apostolic churches nor in Baptist churches today.
> 
> From the review of these simple points it is more than clear that doctrinally Baptists are not Protestants.



If you click on "Sign our Guestbook" and then "Read Entires," you'll see that I linked them to the London Baptist Confession.


----------



## Pilgrim

Some Baptists identify with Protestantism and some do not.


----------



## Devin

Well shucks. I guess we don't get any of the buzz words


----------



## Grymir




----------



## Davidius

Devin said:


> Well shucks. I guess we don't get any of the buzz words



You get "Baptist."  At least they didn't say "No creed but Christ. No title but 'Christian'!"


----------



## Devin

I was kind of waiting for something to be said in the article about potluck dinners, actually.


----------



## staythecourse

*I am encouraged by this part*



> (3) Baptists believe in their hearts in a free church in a free state. Christ plainly taught that the state and the church each had its own realm when he said "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar´s; and unto God the things which are God´s" (Matthew 22:21). Baptists are vigoriously opposed to union of state and church and believe that a state controlled church is a wretched excuse for Christianity and a plain departure from Scripture. All of the Protestant Reformers fastened state state churches upon their followers! Today Americans enjoy separation of church and state because of the vigor and vigilance of Baptists in the early days of our national history



I like.


----------



## Davidius

staythecourse said:


> (3) Baptists believe in their hearts in a free church in a free state. Christ plainly taught that the state and the church each had its own realm when he said "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar´s; and unto God the things which are God´s" (Matthew 22:21). Baptists are vigoriously opposed to union of state and church and believe that a state controlled church is a wretched excuse for Christianity and a plain departure from Scripture. All of the Protestant Reformers fastened state state churches upon their followers! Today Americans enjoy separation of church and state because of the vigor and vigilance of Baptists in the early days of our national history
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like.
Click to expand...


From what I understand, the American colonists were Congregationalists and Presbyterians. Can someone provide any information about Baptists who were influential in the development of American politics?


----------



## Pilgrim

Davidius said:


> staythecourse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (3) Baptists believe in their hearts in a free church in a free state. Christ plainly taught that the state and the church each had its own realm when he said "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar´s; and unto God the things which are God´s" (Matthew 22:21). Baptists are vigoriously opposed to union of state and church and believe that a state controlled church is a wretched excuse for Christianity and a plain departure from Scripture. All of the Protestant Reformers fastened state state churches upon their followers! Today Americans enjoy separation of church and state because of the vigor and vigilance of Baptists in the early days of our national history
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which part do you like? The lie about the "vigor and vigilance of Baptists in the early days of our national history"?? The American colonists were Congregationalists and Presbyterians. Who are these Baptists who shaped American government??
Click to expand...


Isaac Backus was one. Baptists became much more prominent after the First Great Awakening.


----------



## Grymir

Baptists are not Protestants (can I say different Dispensations? ). Although they used to be Calvinistic. (Of course, so were alot of protestants). Presbyterian pot lucks are great, but I bet there's more homecooked food at Baptist's pot lucks! (hmm, used to be Calvinistic, great pot lucks, maybe they are more related than we think)

A short study of Church History will show that Baptist's have a different origin than the Reformation, but because of their following the Bible, there are similarities of Doctrine.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon

*Dates in Baptist History*

In 1525 Swiss Anabaptists broke with Zwingli.

1535 Anabaptists in Zurich were suppressed.

1537 Menno Simons became leader of the Dutch Anabaptists

1538 Efforts made to expell Anabaptists from England

1609 First English General Baptist Church formed in Holland

1611 Organization of First General Baptist Church in England

1638 The first Particular Baptist Church organized by Spilsbury

1638-39 Organization of the first Baptist church in America @ Providence RI by Roger Williams

1644 London Confession of 1644/ Organization of Association of London Particular Baptists.

------------------------------

But NO "Baptist" activity prior to Zwingli. Sounds like a product of the Reformation to me.


----------



## Davidius

Pilgrim said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> staythecourse said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which part do you like? The lie about the "vigor and vigilance of Baptists in the early days of our national history"?? The American colonists were Congregationalists and Presbyterians. Who are these Baptists who shaped American government??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isaac Backus was one. Baptists became much more prominent after the First Great Awakening.
Click to expand...


Well, all right. I guess I was thinking of earlier. Shouldn't they really be thanking the Presbyterians who revised the WCF for the separation of Church and State, though?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Actually, I believe I heard that Patrick Henry attended both Baptist and Presbyterian Churches. Both were heavily persecuted because they were not licensed nor supported by the King as the Church of England was the Official church of the state. 

Another thing.... It matters which Baptists you want to direct your point at. The Particular Baptists claim their heritage comes from the Reformers. Not the other groups the article claims. Confessional Baptists are Protestant in nature and their Confession addresses Catholicism as the Reformers does. At least that is how I understand it. 

Yes there are Baptists who claim they are not protestant because they had nothing to protest against since they didn't come out of Catholicism. What ever.


----------



## Pilgrim

Davidius said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which part do you like? The lie about the "vigor and vigilance of Baptists in the early days of our national history"?? The American colonists were Congregationalists and Presbyterians. Who are these Baptists who shaped American government??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isaac Backus was one. Baptists became much more prominent after the First Great Awakening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, all right. I guess I was thinking of earlier. Shouldn't they really be thanking the Presbyterians who revised the WCF for the separation of Church and State, though?
Click to expand...


Here is another article about Backus. Backus predated the revised WCF by decades and I don't think anyone on either side would disagree that the revision is much closer to his views than it is to the original. The revisions of the WCF came after the Constitutional Convention as well.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Baptists are mentioned in these articles... This is during the Revolutionary Times.

Religion and the Founding of the American Republic.

And here is a commentary of his defense of Baptist Preachers.

Patrick Henry on Religious Freedom.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

This is ErgunCaner's line. He wants no part of the Reformation.


----------



## Zenas

staythecourse said:


> (3) Baptists believe in their hearts in a free church in a free state. Christ plainly taught that the state and the church each had its own realm when he said "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar´s; and unto God the things which are God´s" (Matthew 22:21). Baptists are vigoriously opposed to union of state and church and believe that a state controlled church is a wretched excuse for Christianity and a plain departure from Scripture. All of the Protestant Reformers fastened state state churches upon their followers! Today Americans enjoy separation of church and state because of the vigor and vigilance of Baptists in the early days of our national history
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like.
Click to expand...


This is wrong. 80% of the Founding Fathers were evil, evil Calvinist Protestants.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon

*Dates continued*



Presbyterian Deacon said:


> In 1525 Swiss Anabaptists broke with Zwingli.
> 
> 1535 Anabaptists in Zurich were suppressed.
> 
> 1537 Menno Simons became leader of the Dutch Anabaptists
> 
> 1538 Efforts made to expell Anabaptists from England
> 
> 1609 First English General Baptist Church formed in Holland
> 
> 1611 Organization of First General Baptist Church in England
> 
> 1638 The first Particular Baptist Church organized by Spilsbury
> 
> 1638-39 Organization of the first Baptist church in America @ Providence RI by Roger Williams
> 
> 1644 London Confession of 1644/ Organization of Association of London Particular Baptists.
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> But NO "Baptist" activity prior to Zwingli. Sounds like a product of the Reformation to me.




1660 Organization of General Assembly of all Associations of General Baptists in London

1670 Organization of General Six-Principle Baptists in Rhode Island

1677 Baptist Confession of 1677 (a Baptist revision of WCF)

1689 General Assembly of General Baptists threatened by Arian teachings of Matthew Caffyn

1689 London Confession of Particular Baptists/ General Assembly of Particular Baptists organized in London

1707 Organization of Philadelphia Association of Baptists (first Baptist association in America).


----------



## Wannabee

Whoa! Wait a minute. What about the trail of blood that goes back to Noah? Wasn't he the first baptist? I know he had the first potlucks because he was the first one who got to eat meat. And obviously he and his household were baptized as believers when God sent the flood, ruling out paedobaptism. Don't any of you study historical theology?!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Presbyterian Deacon said:


> Presbyterian Deacon said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 1525 Swiss Anabaptists broke with Zwingli.
> 
> 1535 Anabaptists in Zurich were suppressed.
> 
> 1537 Menno Simons became leader of the Dutch Anabaptists
> 
> 1538 Efforts made to expell Anabaptists from England
> 
> 1609 First English General Baptist Church formed in Holland
> 
> 1611 Organization of First General Baptist Church in England
> 
> 1638 The first Particular Baptist Church organized by Spilsbury
> 
> 1638-39 Organization of the first Baptist church in America @ Providence RI by Roger Williams
> 
> 1644 London Confession of 1644/ Organization of Association of London Particular Baptists.
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> But NO "Baptist" activity prior to Zwingli. Sounds like a product of the Reformation to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1660 Organization of General Assembly of all Associations of General Baptists in London
> 
> 1670 Organization of General Six-Principle Baptists in Rhode Island
> 
> 1677 Baptist Confession of 1677 (a Baptist revision of WCF)
> 
> 1689 General Assembly of General Baptists threatened by Arian teachings of Matthew Caffyn
> 
> 1689 London Confession of Particular Baptists/ General Assembly of Particular Baptists organized in London
> 
> 1707 Organization of Philadelphia Association of Baptists (first Baptist association in America).
Click to expand...


General Baptists are not Particular Baptists. They have their roots in the Anabaptists and are arminian. They also had various doctrines from church to church. 

The 1677 was not a revision of the WCF but was a take off from the Savoy Declaration (which was a modified WCF by John Owen and Company) and was adopted in 1689 in London as the Confession of the Particular Baptist Churches to replace the 1644/46 LBCF.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Presbyterian Deacon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Presbyterian Deacon said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 1525 Swiss Anabaptists broke with Zwingli.
> 
> 1535 Anabaptists in Zurich were suppressed.
> 
> 1537 Menno Simons became leader of the Dutch Anabaptists
> 
> 1538 Efforts made to expell Anabaptists from England
> 
> 1609 First English General Baptist Church formed in Holland
> 
> 1611 Organization of First General Baptist Church in England
> 
> 1638 The first Particular Baptist Church organized by Spilsbury
> 
> 1638-39 Organization of the first Baptist church in America @ Providence RI by Roger Williams
> 
> 1644 London Confession of 1644/ Organization of Association of London Particular Baptists.
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> But NO "Baptist" activity prior to Zwingli. Sounds like a product of the Reformation to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1660 Organization of General Assembly of all Associations of General Baptists in London
> 
> 1670 Organization of General Six-Principle Baptists in Rhode Island
> 
> 1677 Baptist Confession of 1677 (a Baptist revision of WCF)
> 
> 1689 General Assembly of General Baptists threatened by Arian teachings of Matthew Caffyn
> 
> 1689 London Confession of Particular Baptists/ General Assembly of Particular Baptists organized in London
> 
> 1707 Organization of Philadelphia Association of Baptists (first Baptist association in America).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> General Baptists are not Particular Baptists. They have their roots in the Anabaptists and are arminian. They also had various doctrines from church to church.
> 
> The 1677 was not a revision of the WCF but was a take off from the Savoy Declaration and was adopted in 1689 in London as the Confession of the Particular Baptist Churches.
Click to expand...


Aware of the differences between General and Particular. My point was simply that the terms "Anabaptists", "Baptists" don't seem to be known in history PRIOR to Zwingli's time, making them a product of the Reformation era.

As for 1677 Confession, this is how it is described in A History of the Baptists by Robert G. Torbet (Judson Press), 1950.


----------



## Simply_Nikki

So what's the point of all this?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Simply_Nikki said:


> So what's the point of all this?



Some Baptists don't want to be classified with the Reformers in being called Protestants.

Someone seemed to think it was interesting that Baptists were not Protestants.

Particular Baptists are probably protestant. 

Someone thought Baptists were not involved with the beginnings of the United States but that just simply is not true. 

Sounds like some guys just want to slam on Baptists like they are second class citizens. Maybe Baptists are red headed step children who are just strong willed. Who knows?


----------



## Grymir

I hope nobody wants to slam Baptist's. They (and maybe me) are the real deal.

Here's the rest of the page from the OP that was left off:

"The Price of Unity

By Vernon C. Lyons 

Twentieth century theologians have streamlined Christianity by reducing all the virtues to one - unity. In our generation the most respectable "ism" is ecumenism. Few people discern that there is a false unity as well as a true unity and that each is purchased at a staggering price. 

False church unity, which is the most popular kind, is purchased with freedom as the price. Gospel liberty is obliterated and liberty of conscience becomes impractical, if not impossible. The communion of saints is forfeited for a communion of committees. The minority speaks for the mass and the conscience of the individual Christian is by-passed for the consensus of a committee. 

This kind of church unity is also attained at the price of truth. Those who major on mergers tend to believe very little and after merging believe still less. They are more noted for their compromises than their convictions. Their spiritual discernment having been dulled, they move in a doctrinal dusk that calls non-churches churches and regards unbelievers as believers. In the mania to merge, fixed truths become forgotten tenets. 

True church unity is also costly! It is to be optained not by compromise, but by conflict. The faith must not be diluted, but defended (Jude 3). It may cost a man his unscriptual creed and his man-made catechism. This kind of unity flows from a humility which is willing to reject human tradition and subject itself to divine truth, as stated in God's Holy Word. This unity is described by the words, "One Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph. 4:5). The beginning of this unity is one Lord. The basis of the unity is one faith. The badge of this unity is one baptism. 

This true unity will cost you your prejudice, your pride and perhaps even your popularity. 

Vernon C. Lyons has served the nationally-known Ashburn Baptist Church since 1951. Newsmen from NBC, CBS, ABC and WBC have videotaped at Ashburn Baptist as Lyons applied truth to current issues.

His articles have appeared in Moody Monthly, The Baptist Bulletin, The Sword of the Lord, The Biblical Research Monthly, Psychology for Living and The Christian Reader.

A champion of religious liberty, Pastor Lyons has testified before numerous legislative committees upholding separation of church and state. His church started thirty-four churches. 

Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1834-1892), a name that needs no introduction, stated: "We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther and Calvin were born: we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the Apostles themselves. We have always existed from the very days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel underground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents.

Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost every sect, yet there has never existed a government holding Baptist principles which persecuted others; nor, I believe any body of Baptists ever held it to be right to put the conscience of others under the control of man."



(From The New Park Street Pulpit, Volume VII, page 225) "

Now that's good stuff!


----------



## timmopussycat

Grymir said:


> Baptists are not Protestants (can I say different Dispensations? ). Although they used to be Calvinistic. (Of course, so were alot of protestants). Presbyterian pot lucks are great, but I bet there's more homecooked food at Baptist's pot lucks! (hmm, used to be Calvinistic, great pot lucks, maybe they are more related than we think)



Some of us remain Calvinistic even today.



Grymir said:


> A short study of Church History will show that Baptist's have a different origin than the Reformation, but because of their following the Bible, there are similarities of Doctrine.



A short study of Church History shows that the Baptists as opposed to the Anabaptists are so doctrinally close to the Protestants that they fully deserve the label.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Grymir said:


> Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1834-1892), a name that needs no introduction, stated: "We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther and Calvin were born: we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the Apostles themselves. We have always existed from the very days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel underground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents.
> 
> Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost every sect, yet there has never existed a government holding Baptist principles which persecuted others; nor, I believe any body of Baptists ever held it to be right to put the conscience of others under the control of man."
> 
> 
> 
> (From The New Park Street Pulpit, Volume VII, page 225) "
> 
> Now that's good stuff!



I think I will disagree with Spurgeon and I think Tom Nettles does also. I believe Nettles states that our heritage also starts around the 1600's.


----------



## DMcFadden

Davidius said:


> The American colonists were Congregationalists and Presbyterians. Who are these Baptists who shaped American government??



David, baptist John Leland actually helped get the Bill of Rights into the Constitution. On March 7, 1788 the Virginians met to discuss the ratification of the Constitution. Leland actually had more votes to represent the state than Madison (who had a large part in drafting it!). 

Here is how a baptist describes it . . .



> "Both Madison and Leland were candidates for the Virginia Convention on ratifying the Constitution. It was evident, however, that Leland had more votes than had Madison. Madison though having practically written the Constitution couldn't get an election from his own state for its adoption. They finally met under a certain oak tree near Orange which has been carefully preserved to this day, and fought it out. It was a battle royal with Leland insisting that there should be an article in the Constitution guaranteeing religious liberty. Madison, however, was afraid to put it in on account of the opposition of some of the colonies, Massachusetts in particular. A compromise was agreed upon. This was that Leland should withdraw and advocate the election of Madison. This, they thought, would ensure the adoption by Virginia. It was a tough battle but on the vote of 168 they won out by a margin of 10 over Madison's remaining opponents. . . . This agreement between Madison and Leland was conditioned upon Madison's joining Leland in a crusade for an amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing religious liberty, free speech and a free press." (J.M. Dawson, Baptists and the American Republic, Nashville: Broadman Press, 1956, p. 108-109 says the original manuscript of Bowen's account is in the manuscript division of the Library of Congress.)



And, here is how Madison expressed himself on the baptists in colonial America . . .

"The Episcopal clergy are generally for it. . . . The *Presbyterians seem as ready to set up an establishment which would take them in as they were to pull one down which shut them out. The Baptists, however, standing firm by their avowed principle of the complete separation of church and state, *declared it to be "repugnant to the spirit of the Gospel for the Legislature thus to proceed in matters of religion, that no human laws ought to be established for the purpose." (James Madison, Writings, II, 183-191.)


----------



## Simply_Nikki

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Simply_Nikki said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what's the point of all this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like some guys just want to slam on Baptists like they are second class citizens. Maybe Baptists are red headed step children who are just strong willed. Who knows?
Click to expand...


That's a bit how I feel.


----------



## DMcFadden

Grymir said:


> Baptists are not Protestants (can I say different Dispensations? ). Although they used to be Calvinistic. (Of course, so were alot of protestants). Presbyterian pot lucks are great, but I bet there's more homecooked food at Baptist's pot lucks! (hmm, used to be Calvinistic, great pot lucks, maybe they are more related than we think)
> 
> A short study of Church History will show that Baptist's have a different origin than the Reformation, but because of their following the Bible, there are similarities of Doctrine.



NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!



> Some see the Baptists as the descendants of the 16th century Anabaptists (which some view as a product of the Protestant Reformation and others view as a continuation of the older pre-Reformation non-Catholic churches) and *others see them as a separation from the Church of England in the early 1600s.*
> 
> *Puritan separatists John Smyth and Thomas Helwys are acknowledged by numerous historians as key founders of the modern Baptist denomination.* The early Baptists were divided into General Baptists who were Arminian in theology, and Particular Baptists who were Calvinistic in theology.
> 
> According to Baptist historian H. Leon McBeth, Baptists, as a distinct denomination, originated in England in a time of intense religious reform. McBeth writes, *“Our best historical evidence says that Baptists came into existence in England in the early seventeenth century. They apparently emerged out of the Puritan-Separatist movement in the Church of England."*



1. Origins of baptists: a. SOME say Ana-baptists; b. A FEW say pre-Reformational; SOME say Puritan Calvinists.
2. How does one decide? I side with McBeth on this one: "Our best historical evidence . . . they apparently emerged out of the Puritan-Separatist movement."

I won't EVER try to call a baptist "Reformed," if you all PLEASE NEVER EVER EVEN THINK of classing us with the nutty Anabaptists.

My theological forebearers were not Swiss kooks or "charismatic" Germans of whom Luther could only opine that he thought that they "swallowed the Holy Spirit feathers and all." Rather, the Magisterial Reformers were the ones to whom real baptists looked, at least until the both the Northern Baptists and Southern Baptists went Arminian in the wake of the Second Great Awakening.


----------



## Grymir

DMcFadden said:


> *Puritan separatists John Smyth and Thomas Helwys are acknowledged by numerous historians as key founders of the modern Baptist denomination.* The early Baptists were divided into General Baptists who were Arminian in theology, and Particular Baptists who were Calvinistic in theology.
> 
> According to Baptist historian H. Leon McBeth, Baptists, as a distinct denomination, originated in England in a time of intense religious reform. McBeth writes, *“Our best historical evidence says that Baptists came into existence in England in the early seventeenth century. They apparently emerged out of the Puritan-Separatist movement in the Church of England."*





> 1. Origins of baptists: a. SOME say Ana-baptists; b. A FEW say pre-Reformational; SOME say Puritan Calvinists.
> 2. How does one decide? I side with McBeth on this one: "Our best historical evidence . . . they apparently emerged out of the Puritan-Separatis movement."
> 
> I won't EVER try to call a baptist "Reformed," if you all PLEASE NEVER EVER EVEN THINK of classing us with the nutty Anabaptists.




Hi DMcFadden! 

The stuff you say in what I've quoted above is what I agree with. The Protestant's came out of the Roman Church. The Baptist's out of the English Church. That's what I meant by different origins. And I like the statement about classing us with the nutty Anabaptists. There is no way they could even be considered 'Baptist'. The influences that each drew from the church they left is apparent. That's why I don't think that Baptist's are Protestants. (Not all Reformed Theology is Covenant Theology, So when I was saying Baptist's used to be Calvinistic, I wasn't implying Covenant Theology).

I hope this clears up a little of what I said, but if I've made it worse, feel free to say so - Grymir.


----------



## DMcFadden

I'll give you Presbyterians this much: most baptists today are not much to write home about theologically. 
* The ABC has an evangelical wing and a liberal wing. But, most of the evangelicals are unreflective Arminians. Many of them actually hide behind the idea that they affirm both the "biblically based" teachings on God's sovereignty AND those teaching man's free will. The liberals actually WANT to be connected to the Anabaptists, weight of history notwithstanding, simply because it serves their ideological purposes.
* The SBC has long since left the Calvinistic fold as well. Ergun Caner is a bit off the reservation in terms of his rhetoric, but not in terms of his position. Praise God for raising up Al Mohler to turn SBTS around and start pumping out strong Reformational pastors who return to the colonial and English roots.


----------



## KenPierce

Interesting. This is the old "Baptist Trail of Blood" faulty view of Baptist history.

How quick they are to link arms with heretics to claim this. Montanus? You've got to be kidding.


----------



## refbaptdude

A helpful lecture by Prof Jim Renihan.

Westminster Seminary CA
Westminster Seminary California academics

Origin of the Reformed Baptists
SermonAudio.com - Origin of Reformed Baptists


Enjoy,
Steve


----------



## jaybird0827

I was SBC in Florida for awhile. One of the handouts they gave me when I joined stated that baptists were not considered protestant.


----------



## Davidius

Simply_Nikki said:


> So what's the point of all this?





Simply_Nikki said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simply_Nikki said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what's the point of all this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like some guys just want to slam on Baptists like they are second class citizens. Maybe Baptists are red headed step children who are just strong willed. Who knows?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a bit how I feel.
Click to expand...


I said at the beginning that I find the article ridiculous. What more do you want? Do you think that I was slamming Baptists, or that the article's author was?. You realize that this article was written by a Baptist, not a Presbyterian, don't you? 

Since there was another discussion of "Reformed" Baptists recently I thought this would expand the discussion some, since some Baptists don't even consider themselves to be within the broader scope of Protestantism, and therefore probably would shudder to be called Reformed. I stood up for you guys on the website's guestbook by linking them to the LBCF!


----------



## refbaptdude

Josh,

The new *Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies *page on the WTS site is nice also
Westminster Seminary California academics


----------



## Davidius

refbaptdude said:


> Josh,
> 
> The new *Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies *page on the WTS site is nice also
> Westminster Seminary California academics



It's ironic to me that the institution at which Dr. Clark, who just wrote a blog entry on why Baptists are not reformed, has an Institute for Reformed Baptist Studies.


----------



## Herald

Does everyone notice how I have stayed out of this discussion?  

Bye.


----------



## Davidius

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Does everyone notice how I have stayed out of this discussion?
> 
> Bye.



I hadn't noticed, actually. 

See ya!


----------



## JohnOwen007

Presbyterian Deacon said:


> In 1525 Swiss Anabaptists broke with Zwingli.
> 
> 1535 Anabaptists in Zurich were suppressed.
> 
> 1537 Menno Simons became leader of the Dutch Anabaptists
> 
> 1538 Efforts made to expell Anabaptists from England
> 
> [...]
> 
> But NO "Baptist" activity prior to Zwingli. Sounds like a product of the Reformation to me.



Well I know many (well-read) baptists who would argue that the Anabaptists are not baptists at all: classical baptists arose from Puritanism not Anabaptism. The latter had a different view of baptism (despite believing it was only for adults), salvation, ethics, church, etc. etc.

As I understand it, the link between the Anabaptists may be there, but can't be historically proved from primary sources.


----------



## Herald

Davidius said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does everyone notice how I have stayed out of this discussion?
> 
> Bye.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hadn't noticed, actually.
> 
> See ya!
Click to expand...


Well, not that I am THAT important of a baptist, but I am never shy of an opinion on threads like this. I think I'm on the "Who's Who" of notable baptists I am at the bottom of the list under the heading of, "We don't know him."


----------



## Davidius

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does everyone notice how I have stayed out of this discussion?
> 
> Bye.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hadn't noticed, actually.
> 
> See ya!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, not that I am THAT important of a baptist, but I am never shy of an opinion on threads like this. I think I'm on the "Who's Who" of notable baptists I am at the bottom of the list under the heading of, "We don't know him."
Click to expand...


I know, I know! Just trying to shake you up a little bit.


----------



## Stephen

KenPierce said:


> Interesting. This is the old "Baptist Trail of Blood" faulty view of Baptist history.
> 
> How quick they are to link arms with heretics to claim this. Montanus? You've got to be kidding.


----------



## VictorBravo

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Does everyone notice how I have stayed out of this discussion?
> 
> Bye.



Yes, Bill. First thing I thought of.


----------



## Stephen

staythecourse said:


> (3) Baptists believe in their hearts in a free church in a free state. Christ plainly taught that the state and the church each had its own realm when he said "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar´s; and unto God the things which are God´s" (Matthew 22:21). Baptists are vigoriously opposed to union of state and church and believe that a state controlled church is a wretched excuse for Christianity and a plain departure from Scripture. All of the Protestant Reformers fastened state state churches upon their followers! Today Americans enjoy separation of church and state because of the vigor and vigilance of Baptists in the early days of our national history
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like.
Click to expand...



The Westminister Confession of Faith and Catechisms clearly teaches the separation of powers between church and state. The Reformers, especially Calvin and Knox, did not force a state church upon the people. This is a faulty understanding of reformation history. Calvin strongly believed in a separation of the two but both the church and state had distinct roles. Calvin is the one who introduced the separation of powers, not the Anabaptist movement


----------



## blhowes

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Well, not that I am THAT important of a baptist, but I am never shy of an opinion on threads like this. I think I'm on the "Who's Who" of notable baptists I am at the bottom of the list under the heading of, "We don't know him."


You've done remarkably refraining from comment thus far, but I was just curious. Just between you and me, what's you're opinion about all this? Are you a protestant?


----------



## Herald

blhowes said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, not that I am THAT important of a baptist, but I am never shy of an opinion on threads like this. I think I'm on the "Who's Who" of notable baptists I am at the bottom of the list under the heading of, "We don't know him."
> 
> 
> 
> You've done remarkably refraining from comment thus far, but I was just curious. Just between you and me, what's you're opinion about all this? Are you a protestant?
Click to expand...


Nice try. Nice try.


----------



## blhowes

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Nice try. Nice try.


Came THAT close...


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

The way I have heard it put concerns those independent churches which broke away from the attempted hegemony of Rome, starting perhaps with the church in Milan, and eventually becoming what were known as the Waldenses (or Vaudois) and Albigenses, whose godly communities in the mountains of Italy and France were relentlessly persecuted by Rome for centuries. There was a claim that they were baptistic, which is not clearly documented to my thinking. And if they were at all, it may well have been in opposition to the flagrant perversion of the Biblical doctrine of infant baptism by Rome. This is how I have heard the "we are not protestants" by my baptist friends -- those who were of that mind, meaning they were descended from the Waldenses, not the Reformers who broke from Rome.


----------



## Wannabee

Stephen said:


> The Reformers, especially Calvin and Knox, did not force a state church upon the people. This is a faulty understanding of reformation history. Calvin strongly believed in a separation of the two but both the church and state had distinct roles. Calvin is the one who introduced the separation of powers, not the Anabaptist movement


I also had understood Calvin to see the state as the arm of the church. For instance, the state was to execute heretics. Can you point to where Calvin makes it clear that he sees a true separation here?
This, as I have understood it, is inherent in the reformation. The reformers desired to change the church, which was inherently a political entity. The anabaptists, however, didn't concern themselves with changing anyone, but with pursuing their religion separate from and regardless of the politics around them.


----------



## Simply_Nikki

Davidius said:


> Simply_Nikki said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what's the point of all this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simply_Nikki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like some guys just want to slam on Baptists like they are second class citizens. Maybe Baptists are red headed step children who are just strong willed. Who knows?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a bit how I feel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said at the beginning that I find the article ridiculous. What more do you want? Do you think that I was slamming Baptists, or that the article's author was?. You realize that this article was written by a Baptist, not a Presbyterian, don't you?
> 
> Since there was another discussion of "Reformed" Baptists recently I thought this would expand the discussion some, since some Baptists don't even consider themselves to be within the broader scope of Protestantism, and therefore probably would shudder to be called Reformed. I stood up for you guys on the website's guestbook by linking them to the LBCF!
Click to expand...


Sorry, my err. I thought it was the author. Thanks for your kind response in clearing up the matter for me.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

I think I once read AA Hodge say that Baptists are "the Protestants of Protestants" in Evangelical Theology, but then he turned round and proved them wrong.


----------



## DMcFadden

Daniel Ritchie said:


> I think I once read AA Hodge say that Baptists are "the Protestants of Protestants" in Evangelical Theology, but then he turned round and proved them wrong.



Hey, I never said we were *right*, merely that we were not $%#^@* Anabaptists. Frankly, thanks to PB, I'm seriously reconsidering my views on these issues anyway. I may learn how to baptize with a squirt gun yet.  No, really, the PB has been a wonderful place to re-think things held since childhood, but often without a whole lot of exegetical/theological reflection. The more Reformed literature I read, the more sense it makes as a comprehensive package. For now, however, I'm not Reformed, just confessional baptist.


----------



## shackleton

Didn't the Baptists take the Reformation a step further by revolting against the government by not baptizing their babies which was akin to not registering them as citizens. 

The original reformers reformed the church but baptists worked to completely seperate the church from the state. This is why they were punished were Luther and Calvin were not.


----------



## Iconoclast

*Reformed Baptists*

I see the Apostles as Reformed Baptists, as I see what is in the 1689 as what is taught in the Bible. I would not be in a Reformed Baptist Church if I did not believe this was the teaching of the Bible.
Padeo's look at the bible as if the Apostles taught what is summed up in the 1644, otherwise they should not be where they are doctrinally.
It is fruitless to look back to some of the various groups, Anabaptists, Montanists, Donatists, etc, and seek to link to them to prove your scheme is more truthful.
All those groups of people struggled to come to truth, or resist error in their day. They did not have all the advantages that we have. Heretics always come alongside the true work of God.
I am thankful to God for the Godly line of believer's he has preserved as he has promised he would. The Reformation was a time of restoration of much of the Apostolic teaching as being foundational. Not anyone of the men had all truth. To look back to church history and single out which men you link to sounds like the carnality Paul described in 1 Cor 3= I am of Paul, I am of Apollos


> 3For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
> 
> 4For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
> 
> 5Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
> 
> 6I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
> 
> 7So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.


 From Church history we can learn of which error's to avoid. To try and put our 2008 minds back to the dark ages by reading a few historical writings and think that we have a full grasp of what it was like to live at that time seems a bit futile. If believer's then held other views, but did not write as much as The Puritans , who would even know about them?
If people saw believer's baptism,but did not have as much light as some of the other men on other area's of theology so be it. Providentially God saw fit to have it happen that way.


----------



## Kevin

No matter how often I hear this theory, I am always amazed at the credulity of some people. 

Of course baptists are Protestant. They are not Orthodox. Neither are they Roman Catholic. They are not a cult.

Therefore, they are Protestant, QED.

My father in law, an ordained minister, and a member of the SBC is visiting for three days. I bet my wife even money that his visit will not end without him saying that "baptists are not protestants" at least once. 

Of course she declined. He may be a anti-historical-trail-of-blood-landmarkian-fanatic, but he didn't raise no fool!


----------



## Barnpreacher

Kevin said:


> No matter how often I hear this theory, I am always amazed at the credulity of some people.
> 
> Of course baptists are Protestant. They are not Orthodox. Neither are they Roman Catholic. They are not a cult.
> 
> Therefore, they are Protestant, QED.
> 
> My father in law, an ordained minister, and a member of the SBC is visiting for three days. I bet my wife even money that his visit will not end without him saying that "baptists are not protestants" at least once.
> 
> Of course she declined. He may be a anti-historical-trail-of-blood-landmarkian-fanatic, but he didn't raise no fool!


----------



## nicnap




----------



## aleksanderpolo

Iconoclast said:


> I see the Apostles as Reformed Baptists



Ya, and Jesus is Paedobaptist. Remember some people brought their child to Jesus, the "Reformed Baptist" apostles wanted to kick them away, but Jesus embraced them? 

Back to the OP, hey Davidius, your thread title is even more controversial than Piper's book title!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

aleksanderpolo said:


> Iconoclast said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see the Apostles as Reformed Baptists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya, and Jesus is Paedobaptist. Remember some people brought their child to Jesus, the "Reformed Baptist" apostles wanted to kick them away, but Jesus embraced them?
> 
> Back to the OP, hey Davidius, your thread title is even more controversial than Piper's book title!
Click to expand...


Not really,

Reformed Baptist would want the Lord to bless their children. We understand that children are just as important to the Lord as adults are. That is the truth of the passage.


----------



## Iconoclast

aleksanderpolo said:


> Iconoclast said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see the Apostles as Reformed Baptists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya, and Jesus is Paedobaptist. Remember some people brought their child to Jesus, the "Reformed Baptist" apostles wanted to kick them away, but Jesus embraced them?
> 
> Back to the OP, hey Davidius, your thread title is even more controversial than Piper's book title!
Click to expand...


I did not see where the baptism took place in the passage you refer to!
Oh, thats right- we do not need to see it in scripture just say it must have
Interesting , let's look at that passage;


> 2And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,
> 
> 3And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
> 
> 4Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
> 
> 5And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.
> 
> 6But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.


Verse 6 speaks of the little ones * which believe in me* The text takes notice of that- so do Reformed Baptists. Hopefully you do also. I personally see the foundation given through the Apostles to teach Reformed Baptist teaching. It looks like you see it differently at this point in time.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Just to pull us back on track.....

We are getting off topic here. If we want to debate Baptism lets do it in the Baptism threads.


----------



## shackleton

i know this is not really part of the original argument but if Baptists are not truly reformed or protestant could it not be said that neither are Anglican and their offshoot the Methodists, both of which came along much later but are still in the spirit of the reformation from Rome? 

Is it time that makes one a participant in the reformation or is it an ideology?


----------



## Davidius

aleksanderpolo said:


> Iconoclast said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see the Apostles as Reformed Baptists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya, and Jesus is Paedobaptist. Remember some people brought their child to Jesus, the "Reformed Baptist" apostles wanted to kick them away, but Jesus embraced them?
> 
> Back to the OP, hey Davidius, your thread title is even more controversial than Piper's book title!
Click to expand...


 Well, as I mentioned in the OP, I do not support the thesis. This is what some _Baptists_ in Darmstadt (and apparently in other places, too) think.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

