# Baptist Founded when?



## pm (Oct 12, 2008)

My brother (who attends a Fundamentalist Dispensational Baptist Church) tells me that the Baptist Church goes back long before the Reformation. I just found an article where Pastor Jack Hyles claims that the first Baptist Church was founded on 31 A.D.

What Is a Fundamental Baptist Church? -By Pastor Jack Hyles

Is there any truth to this claim?


----------



## staythecourse (Oct 12, 2008)

Tom Nettles, a respected Baptist historian treats John Smyth as the first Baptist

John Smyth (1570â€“1612) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Pilgrim (Oct 12, 2008)

Smyth may be the first Baptist in the modern sense, but any Baptist who doesn't think his practice represents apostolic faith and practice should repent in sackcloth and ashes. The same goes for Presbyterians.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 12, 2008)

What no one here has read "The Trail of BLood"? It's all explained there!


----------



## ManleyBeasley (Oct 12, 2008)

Baptists do predate the reformation because the pre-reformers (Lollards, Hussites, and Waldensians) practiced believers baptism. They didn't call themselves baptist but believed the baptist distinctives.


----------



## Kevin (Oct 12, 2008)

ManleyBeasley said:


> Baptists do predate the reformation because the pre-reformers (Lollards, Hussites, and Waldensians) practiced believers baptism. They didn't call themselves baptist but believed the baptist distinctives.



Be careful with this brother. This is the "trail of blood/baptist sucession" heresy.


----------



## Kevin (Oct 12, 2008)

pmkadow said:


> My brother (who attends a Fundamentalist Dispensational Baptist Church) tells me that the Baptist Church goes back long before the Reformation. I just found an article where Pastor Jack Hyles claims that the first Baptist Church was founded on 31 A.D.
> 
> What Is a Fundamental Baptist Church? -By Pastor Jack Hyles
> 
> Is there any truth to this claim?



No.

This is only one of "Dr" Hyles many errors.


----------



## satz (Oct 13, 2008)

Kevin said:


> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> > Baptists do predate the reformation because the pre-reformers (Lollards, Hussites, and Waldensians) practiced believers baptism. They didn't call themselves baptist but believed the baptist distinctives.
> ...



Why is it a heresy to believe that christians with baptist beliefs predated the reformation?


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 13, 2008)

I like to differentiate between folks who are Big B Baptist and those of us who are baptistic (credo).....


----------



## staythecourse (Oct 13, 2008)

ManleyBeasley said:


> Baptists do predate the reformation because the pre-reformers (Lollards, Hussites, and Waldensians) practiced believers baptism. They didn't call themselves baptist but believed the baptist distinctives.




I don't think Manley nor I are trying to support any "Trail of Blood" argument. The historical record of believers baptism would show a large gap between full immersion in biblical/apostolic times (as we baptists read Scripture) and it's reappearance in the 16th century with John Smyth's controversial "self-baptism."


----------



## christianyouth (Oct 13, 2008)

Is there any debate as to what type of baptism was dominant in the post-apostolic period? Has there been any historical arguments for credo-baptism being prevalent in the post-apostolic period?

Thanks!


----------



## ManleyBeasley (Oct 13, 2008)

staythecourse said:


> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> > Baptists do predate the reformation because the pre-reformers (Lollards, Hussites, and Waldensians) practiced believers baptism. They didn't call themselves baptist but believed the baptist distinctives.
> ...



Very true. I don't support anything besides what I specifically said. Does anyone dispute that the groups I mentioned practiced believer's baptism? I've never heard any paedo's say differently. And there is the full immersion gap which isn't denied.


----------



## ManleyBeasley (Oct 13, 2008)

Kevin said:


> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> > Baptists do predate the reformation because the pre-reformers (Lollards, Hussites, and Waldensians) practiced believers baptism. They didn't call themselves baptist but believed the baptist distinctives.
> ...



I think you're throwing the "H" word around very carelessly. That heresy isn't the view of history (believers baptism practiced by the mentioned groups is well known) but the application. They were in error because they wouldn't allow paedo's to preach in their pulpits and in some cases wouldn't even allow other baptists to take communion in their churches. They didn't even believe paedo's were saved. No one has said anything like that here and I certainly don't believe that. If you have a problem with the statement that the Lollards, Hussites, and Waldensians practiced believer's baptism then the problem is one with history not a "baptist heresy".


----------



## Kevin (Oct 13, 2008)

First, the "well know" practice of credo-immersionism by these groups is not in fact well known.

The Lollards (perhaps it is not even fair to refer to any such group as "The Lollards") were a movement of reform organised around "12 conclusions". 

No mention of baptism, Except in the 11th conclusion that reproves the great sin of abortion, and killing "babies before they are baptised". Opps.

The reason I used the "h-word" is not because I believe that creedo-baptists are heretics, but because trail-of-bloodism denies the orthodox understanding of "one Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Church". In my understanding a denial of any part of the Apostolic creed is, by definition, heresy.

My warning was meant to point out that one danger of relying on secondary, partisan sources is that you rub shoulders with real heretics.

For what it's worth.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Oct 13, 2008)

pmkadow said:


> My brother (who attends a Fundamentalist Dispensational Baptist Church) tells me that the Baptist Church goes back long before the Reformation. I just found an article where Pastor Jack Hyles claims that the first Baptist Church was founded on 31 A.D.
> 
> What Is a Fundamental Baptist Church? -By Pastor Jack Hyles
> 
> Is there any truth to this claim?




Jack Hyles is one of the many Baptists that embarrass me of wearing the title baptist at times. He and the rest of those semi-pelagian arminian antinomians
at the sword of the Lord.


----------



## TimV (Oct 13, 2008)

> Lollards, Hussites, and Waldensians practiced believer's baptism then the problem is one with history not a "baptist heresy".



The problem is with extremist baptist history books, not history.


----------



## ManleyBeasley (Oct 13, 2008)

Kevin said:


> First, the "well know" practice of credo-immersionism by these groups is not in fact well known.
> 
> The Lollards (perhaps it is not even fair to refer to any such group as "The Lollards") were a movement of reform organised around "12 conclusions".
> 
> ...




The writings of John Wycliffe are limited (most were burned) but we know most of followers (including John Huss later) practiced believer's baptism. I've had paedo's on the PB argue that Wycliffe practiced believers baptism to justify their view that RC baptisms are legit (in another thread) so its not just a baptist view. Likewise, Ive never heard a paedo try to deny that the hussites and waldensians practiced believers baptism. 

Well, I guess I'm saying that your point is poor argumentation. To say that because I agree with some heretics on history (many Paedos also agree) means that I'm in danger of partaking with them is the fallacy of the slippery slope. I agree with JWs that its safer to look both ways before I cross the street but I don't deny the deity of Christ. I have never said that only a line of baptists are the true church and anyone who knows me on the PB knows I don't believe that. I have attended a PCA church and have presbyterian friends whom I consistently call "brother".


----------



## ManleyBeasley (Oct 13, 2008)

pmkadow said:


> My brother (who attends a Fundamentalist Dispensational Baptist Church) tells me that the Baptist Church goes back long before the Reformation. I just found an article where Pastor Jack Hyles claims that the first Baptist Church was founded on 31 A.D.
> 
> What Is a Fundamental Baptist Church? -By Pastor Jack Hyles
> 
> Is there any truth to this claim?



Yeah, this is pretty messed up.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Oct 13, 2008)

Even most IFBers know not to take Hyles seriously; you would be shocked in the stupid rules he placed on women in his Bible College not to mention the mess of his personal life.

And if you want to discuss the anabaptists, then we need to first discuss self-baptism.


----------



## ManleyBeasley (Oct 13, 2008)

Joshua said:


> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> > The writings of John Wycliffe are limited (most were burned) but we know most of followers (including John Huss later) practiced believer's baptism.
> ...



????


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Oct 13, 2008)

ManleyBeasley said:


> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> > ManleyBeasley said:
> ...



Paedos, of course, baptize believers as well as infants. They are not exclusively infant baptizers. He's just making a point.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Oct 13, 2008)

This from the Didache, which some conservative scholars put as early as 50ad and liberals date no later than 120. this is to show that pouring was done in certain instances. From ch. 7:

1. Concerning baptism, baptise thus: Having first rehearsed all these things, "baptise, in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," in running water; 
2. But if thou hast no running water, baptise in other water, and if thou canst not in cold, then in warm. 
3. But if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head "in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost." 
4. And before the baptism let the baptiser and him who is to be baptised fast, and any others who are able. And thou shalt bid him who is to be baptised to fast one or two days before.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 13, 2008)

> Likewise, Ive never heard a paedo try to deny that the hussites and waldensians practiced believers baptism.


1) I'm going to assume that this statement means that these groups are alleged to followed a practice of EXCLUSIVE believer's baptism. It was already pointed out in this thread that failure to point out that practically everyone practices "believer's baptism" creates a climate of presumption from the start of any discussion that makes communication more difficult.

I would add that once this fact is clarified, it also removes the prejudice that ancient references to the baptism of converts must themselves be EXCLUSIVE statements. If infant baptism is not explicitly _repudiated_ by some group, then it remains the burden of the believer's-baptism-exclusivist to show that such exclusivism is both possible and reasonable (so as to make his point for his own side) and the most plausible conclusion based on the evidence that is actually available (so as to make his point convincing to someone open to persuasion).

2) I'm not well read enough on the Hussites to make any statements, however on this very board, in response the the claim upon the Waldensians by Manley Beasely, I pointed any interested reader to on-line available research that lays out much of the evidence, and comes to a distinctly contrary position. Luther and Reformation - The PuritanBoard

Perhaps the single, major problem for the believer's-baptism-only position in claiming the Waldensians is that modern Waldensians (of the Piedmontese) themselves are not of that opinion, nor do they read their own history as if in the past they were once of that opinion.

3) Lastly, on the unrelated subject of "Trail of Blood" theory:
Although apparently written chiefly to address the particular errors of the Landmarkists, Dr. James McGoldrick's book, Baptist Successionism, critiques a certain strain of historic revisionism generally as he points out the dangers of reading history in order to find what you want to find there, rather than what actually is there. (retired prof. McGoldrick now teaches at GPTS).

Obviously this holds true whether one is a Reformed-paedo-baptist or a believer's-only-baptist. But there are occasional glaring examples of tendentious readings of the evidence by Landmarkists, and the willingness to claim for "orthodoxy" literally ANY group that opposed the RCC in bygone days, on the supposition that anyone that was persecuted by Rome _ipso facto_ MUST have been faithful in "doctrine" and "ordinances".


----------



## Theognome (Oct 13, 2008)

You're all wet. The first Baptist church went through the Red Sea with Moses. The Anabaptists followed in their chariots. So much for that doctrine...

*snicker*

Theognome


----------



## JM (Oct 13, 2008)




----------



## staythecourse (Oct 13, 2008)

Thanks J.M. Your post prompted me to be more informative on my source.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0805418326/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-link

I tried to show the table of contents.

The first section "In the beginning" has

1. John Smyth
2. Thomas Helwys
3. John Murton
4. Later General Baptists and
5. Thomas Grantham


----------



## Christusregnat (Oct 14, 2008)

pmkadow said:


> My brother (who attends a Fundamentalist Dispensational Baptist Church) tells me that the Baptist Church goes back long before the Reformation. I just found an article where Pastor Jack Hyles claims that the first Baptist Church was founded on 31 A.D.
> 
> What Is a Fundamental Baptist Church? -By Pastor Jack Hyles
> 
> Is there any truth to this claim?



Is he trying to trace his roots to John the Presbyterian?


----------



## Christusregnat (Oct 14, 2008)

ManleyBeasley said:


> Baptists do predate the reformation because the pre-reformers (Lollards, Hussites, and Waldensians) practiced believers baptism. They didn't call themselves baptist but believed the baptist distinctives.



Manley,

Can you please produce direct quotations from a source document? I don't consider 19th Century baptist or other historians to be source documents. I mean:

1. Wycliffe, Huss or Waldo's writings

2. Confessions written by them, or their followers

Cheers,


----------



## ManleyBeasley (Oct 14, 2008)

Joshua said:


> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> > Joshua said:
> ...


I was just using the normal phrase to describe the baptist view. I guess we should find a better phrase. Maybe believers only baptism or...


----------



## ManleyBeasley (Oct 14, 2008)

Contra_Mundum said:


> > Likewise, Ive never heard a paedo try to deny that the hussites and waldensians practiced believers baptism.
> 
> 
> 1) I'm going to assume that this statement means that these groups are alleged to followed a practice of EXCLUSIVE believer's baptism. It was already pointed out in this thread that failure to point out that practically everyone practices "believer's baptism" creates a climate of presumption from the start of any discussion that makes communication more difficult.
> ...



Its true the Waldensians changed their position to join the Geneva reformation but that was not their historical position. This is number 12 of their 1120 confession.

12 We consider the Sacraments as signs of holy things, or as the visible emblems of invisible blessings. We regard it as proper and even necessary that *believers* use these symbols or visible forms when it can be done. Notwithstanding which, we maintain that believers may be saved without these signs, when they have neither place nor opportunity of observing them. 

Here is number 7 of their 1544 confession which is even more clear.

7. We believe that in the ordinance of baptism the water is the visible and external sign, which represents to as that which, by virtue of God's invisible operation, is within us - namely, the renovation of our minds, and the mortification of our members through [the faith of] Jesus Christ. And by this ordinance we are received into the holy congregation of God's people, *previously professing and declaring our faith and change of life*.


----------



## TimV (Oct 14, 2008)

Anabaptist means those who re-baptize. One main objection to their thinking was that it is insulting. We have the same thing here in the US, where many churches, even churches represented here on this board, deny the validity of historical covenantal baptism, and force those who were baptized in, say, the PCA to get baptized again to become a member.


----------



## Kevin (Oct 14, 2008)

ManleyBeasley, Your claim that Wycliffe practiced creedo-immersion is a bald assertion. It can not be backed up by any historical evidence.

As far as the assertion that some of those who were influenced by him (his "followers" as you style them) did practice creedo-immersion, this is irrelevent to his practice.

Lollardy was a movement that had a great deal of variety of practice & belief. To the extent that it had some unity of creed (the 12 conclusions) it was NOT creedo-immersionist.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Oct 14, 2008)

TimV said:


> Anabaptist means those who re-baptize. One main objection to their thinking was that it is insulting. We have the same thing here in the US, where many churches, even churches represented here on this board, deny the validity of historical covenantal baptism, and force those who were baptized in, say, the PCA to get baptized again to become a member.



Which is why I've changed by board name from Blueridge Baptist to Blueridge Believer.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 14, 2008)

ManleyBeasley said:


> Its true the Waldensians changed their position to join the Geneva reformation but that was not their historical position. This is number 12 of their 1120 confession.
> 
> 12 We consider the Sacraments as signs of holy things, or as the visible emblems of invisible blessings. We regard it as proper and even necessary that *believers* use these symbols or visible forms when it can be done. Notwithstanding which, we maintain that believers may be saved without these signs, when they have neither place nor opportunity of observing them.
> 
> ...


It is your assertion that their position _*changed*_ that requires your demonstration.

These references prove nothing to your purpose whatsoever, and I wish you would provide any Waldensian writings that say otherwise. All we have in the above is that real, _believing_ Christians have access to the church's ordinances, something no paedo-baptist denies. But if it is the Christian PARENT's right to bring his child, then the statement has said nothing contrary to that. It is still a believer's ordinance, and non-believers have no right to bring their children to it, since they cannot come themselves.

The second quote says nothing different from what is found in about 95% of the WCF paragraphs on baptism. The theology of baptism presented there is completely in line with the WCF, which should be enough of a presumption that the REASON the Waldensians could embrace the Genevan reformation was that it didn't differ from their own basic beliefs. That is says nothing explicit about their children doesn't imply their exclusion.

Again, the Waldensians do not believe their own practice changed--that is your assertion. You would have us believe that with not a word of dissent, this group simply changed their position that they were alleged to hold contrary to the papists for centuries. Given the present baptist attachment to its form of ordinance, how is this credible? It is not.

Furthermore, you have ignored this statement from that same A.D. 1120 document (_The Spiritual Almanack_), passing over it entirely, and so giving a false impression:


> But this baptism is visible and material, which makes the person neither good nor evil, as in the Scripture we learn by Simon Magus and St Paul. And whereas baptism is administered in a full congregation of the faithful, it is to the end that he that is received should be reputed and held of all for a brother and a Christian, and that all may pray for him that he may be a Christian in heart, as be is outwardly esteemed to be a Christian: and *for this cause we present our children in baptism*; which they ought to do, to whom the children are nearest, as their parents, and they to whom God has given this charity.


So, what are we to make of this statement? Do you have any evidence that this statement is not reflective of early belief and practice? Again, it appears your argument is with the Waldensians themselves, not with me.


----------

