Baptist Founded when?

[pm]

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]

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

John Smyth (1570–1612) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Pilgrim]

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]

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

 

[ManleyBeasley]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[Pergamum]

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

 

[staythecourse]

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]

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]

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."

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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

What Reformed church or leader doesn't believe in believer's baptism?

????

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

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

What Reformed church or leader doesn't believe in believer's baptism?

????

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

 

[Blueridge Believer]

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]

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]

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]

 

[staythecourse]

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]

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]

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]

What Reformed church or leader doesn't believe in believer's baptism?

????

Earlier you wrote:

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.

And you're saying it as if Reformed Paedobaptists don't practice believers baptism, when they do. They would have no reason to "deny that the hussites and waldensians practiced believers baptism," since Reformed Presbyterians, Anglicans, etc. etc. also practice believers baptism.

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]

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".

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.