Baptists aren't protestants.

[Mike182]

hey everyone, i'll post this now:

if you want to debate this subject then we can either set up another thread in the debates section, or with the consent of the author of the OP, move this thread to the debates section, but as it stands at the moment, this thread is in DIR Baptists forum - no debating allowed

 

[des]

hey everyone, i'll post this now:

if you want to debate this subject then we can either set up another thread in the debates section, or with the consent of the author of the OP, move this thread to the debates section, but as it stands at the moment, this thread is in DIR Baptists forum - no debating allowed

Oh, sorry! OTOH, it seems a little more debatable than perhaps the OP poster intended. But sorry anyway. I'll try to behave myself.
:angel2:

--des

 

[sojourner]

Yes they did officialy break from Rome. Henry VIII broke the Church of England (which had always existed a contiuancy of the Church of Rome) from Rome when the Pope refused to annul his marriage.

And the Orthadox church was originally above the Roman Church. The Byzantine Emperor was also the head of the Christian Church which extended to the Patriarch of Rome (later the Pope of Rome). When emperor Leo III didn't assist Rome during the Lombard invasion of Italy, Rome effectively became independent, and did not pledge allegiance to the Eastern Emperor any more. Though the schism didn't occur until much later.



You are kidding right?

Church of England=Anglican Church=Episcopal Church!

That's an interesting take on it. The history of the Church in England is rather convoluted, because it just doesn't conform to the defining standards that others impose upon it. The C of E eschewed the authority of the pope, but did not intend to depart from the Roman Church in point of doctrine. That's why I said that the C of E were technically not Protestant.

There were Protestant factions within the C of E, and some of those even found significant voice. However, the Church never estranged itself from the historic episcopacy. As a point of fact, The Book of Common Prayer does a superb job of blending Protestant and Catholic flavors into a cohesive whole.

"Church of England = Anglican = Episcopal Church" is true today. But at the time of John Wesley, there was no such entity as the Episcopal Church. Methodism "began" in about 1720 in Oxford, as a movement within the C of E. The Episcopal Church was not begun as an autonomous entity until 1783, at a conference held at Annapolis, Maryland and formally adopted the name, "Protestant Episcopal Church." That same year, the Connecticut clergy elected Samuel Seabury as their prospective bishop.

 

[bible truth]

Historcally, Baptists have never claimed to be Protestant. A protestant Church is one that broke from the Cathcolic Chruch during the reformation: i.e. Anglicanism, Presbyterianism, Calvinism, Lutheranism, and Dutch Reformed. The Baptist Chruch dates back to the dark ages, maybe even to the time of the apostles. Of course the term "baptist" wasn't used until the 17th centruy, they were more commonly called "Free Churches"; i.e free of the Catholic Church. This of course won them the title of "heretics", and the presecution of Rome: this is the cause of the deep hatred of the Roman Church among Baptists today.

Another non-Protestant church is the Methodist Church. It broke from the Episcopal Church; not the Catholic Church.

Are you familar with Charles Spurgeon, Arthur Pink, John MacArthur, John Piper, or the London Baptist Confession?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Are you familar with Charles Spurgeon, Arthur Pink, John MacArthur, John Piper, or the London Baptist Confession?

I am... but what do they have to do with anything here?

 

[bible truth]

I am... but what do they have to do with anything here?

They are all Protestants (true protestors of Rome) who hold to the common baptist convictions.

 

[bible truth]

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/anonymous/bcf.html

Hey Luke,

Please read the London Baptsit Confession at the link above. This is sound Reformed Theology including Covenant Theology (not dispensational John Darby, Scofield Theology). In addition, the Southen Baptist Convention (largest denomination in USA) has Calvinism roots. The President of the Southern Baptist Convention Seminary is a staunch Calvinist. Therefore, the Southern Baptist Seminary is producing godly Pastors with strong Calvinist convictions (Reformed Theology - Solas!). BT

 

[1tim115]

I agree, Halcyon. You've made an excellent point with the canon. If Baptists did not share the Roman Catholic heritage up to the Reformation, they most certainly would have a different canon. Way to go.

I'm sure that most people who argue that Baptists are an ancient church have no understanding of history whatsoever, and don't even know that the ancient churches (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Coptic) have different canons, and they happen to have the Roman canon (and pretend that they protected it from Rome ).

Just curious how you call the the ancient churches "(Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Coptic)" since, I see no mention of those in the New Testament...no matter what cannon.

 

[1tim115]

Well my information in the book, Baptists in History, by W.D. Harvey, says they were ,going from now to then, Baptists, Annabaptists, Mennonites, Waldenses mistakenly as origin, but went back further, to the Vallenses or Vandois, having been named by the papacy Waldenses (after Peter Waldo of Lyons)to try to represent them as more modern in origin.

Zwingle the great Swiss reformer wrote," The institution of Anabaptism is NO NOVELTY, but for 1300 YEARS has caused great disturbance in the church, andhas acquired such a strength that the attempts in this age to contend with it appeared futile for a time."

Take 1300 from 1530, the date Zwingle wrote that and you get 230 A.D. a date reaching nearly to the apostolic age.

:clap
I wonder if some of your references are online?
What I see in the "Trail of Blood," appears to be around 370 A.D. but, I would gladly defer until a more perfect knowledge is come.

 

[1tim115]

I don't think you could take any church today and say it was anything at all like the early Christian church, because we have no idea what the early church was like. One thing we could probably say was that there were many christian churches and not one. Each little community had its own little church (rarely more than 50-100 people perhaps) and they had no scripture that would make them similar (the NT books were written 50-150 years after the Jesus taught-- perhaps more). Even then there was likely much difference-- they were probably congregational (with a lower c). But this about all we can say. Even if you say it came directly from the dark ages, instead of the earliest church is rather a stretch. It certainly is not even close to the same thing as someone noted. Perhaps there *may* have always been an early push for the priesthood of the believer (what was once a very strong characteristic of the Baptist church, but seems to be much less so today-- just take all the tenets fo the Southern Baptist convention).


To say that the Baptist church came directly out of the early church is fairly absurd. No church came out fo the early church that would be recognizable today-- not even Roman Catholic or Orthodox.

I don't know if technically we could say that Baptists aren't protestant as they didn't emerge out of the Reformation-- maybe that's true. But for sociological and other purposes they are protestant. I suppose many of the more fundamentalist or conservative evangelical churches also didn't come out of the reformation either, but I have never heard them called anything but Protestant.

OTOH, my understanding is that the UCC (United Church of Christ) came directly from two churches that were actively out of the reformation, but I don't think you see in it too much that would make it that similar to them anymore. Even the Congregational church doesn't look too much like the old Congregational church. Perhaps there have been more than one reformations-- perhaps many. The Baptist churches (note that there are now more than one) are really an example of this.

--des

"I don't think you could take any church today and say it was anything at all like the early Christian church, because we have no idea what the early church was like."

Don't forget about the N.T. epistles which gives us a good deal of information on the early Churches.

 

[1tim115]

Seems an odd request to make, but the Bible does mention Christian churches in Rome and in the East. The term "Catholic" just means "whole" and "Orthodox" means "true in practice", so I don't think they're really anything to get hung up on.

I don't recall any mention of Ethiopia in the Bible, but I wouldn't really expect to. Besides, "almost as old as the New Testament" is pretty darn ancient in my book, and the Coptic Church sure seems to fit that description.

No hard point of contention for me. I just didn't want anyone to confuse early with papal.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

No hard point of contention for me. I just didn't want anyone to confuse early with papal.

Ha! What kind of slug would do that?

 

[Katzpur]

Historcally, Baptists have never claimed to be Protestant. A protestant Church is one that broke from the Cathcolic Chruch during the reformation: i.e. Anglicanism, Presbyterianism, Calvinism, Lutheranism, and Dutch Reformed. Of course the term "baptist" wasn't used until the 17th centruy, they were more commonly called "Free Churches"; i.e free of the Catholic Church.

I see what you're saying, but it seems like a technicality to me. If the Baptist/Free Churches were "free of the Catholic Church," they had to have broken from Catholicism at some point. They may not be Protestant by the definition you gave (and I can agree, more or less, with that definition), but I'm not sure what your point is.

The Baptist Chruch dates back to the dark ages, maybe even to the time of the apostles.

You realize, I guess, that there is a huge difference here. "Maybe even to the time of the apostles" would be a hard claim to find evidence for.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You realize, I guess that there is a huge difference here. "Maybe even to the time of the apostles" would be a hard claim to find evidence for.

More like - impossible. Anyone who dates Baptists before the Reformation era is ignorant or a liar.

 

[1tim115]

I would say it's fairly simple since there were more local church Bishops who didn't attend the Nicene council meetings than did attend. Many were chased into the wilderness as I believe others already mentioned. I certainly wouldn't expect a catholic to understand much beyond dogma.

 

[Poet-Troll]

It took a Ph.D. to show
My ignorance in pew and row,
And Iie I have and do, since I
Am totally depraved. I try
However to recall the first
In record of Baptists uncursed,
And find in second Kings five that
Naaman was baptized in the vat
Of Jordan seven dunks to show
Emphatically he joined that row.
That puts the Baptists well before
Reformers' time. But let's deplore
Debate on this thread. It's for us
To comfort Baptists and not fuss.
On other hand, I've often seen
The Baptists fussing more than keen
About whether a new roof ought
To take up funds that should have bought
A trap-set for the music slot.

 

[IsmailaGodHasHeard]

This is interesting. I never knew this.

 

[SageTree]

This is interesting. I never knew this.

What did you 'learn' from this out of curiosity?

 

[e.r.m.]

Historcally, Baptists have never claimed to be Protestant. A protestant Church is one that broke from the Cathcolic Chruch during the reformation: i.e. Anglicanism, Presbyterianism, Calvinism, Lutheranism, and Dutch Reformed. The Baptist Chruch dates back to the dark ages, maybe even to the time of the apostles. Of course the term "baptist" wasn't used until the 17th centruy, they were more commonly called "Free Churches"; i.e free of the Catholic Church. This of course won them the title of "heretics", and the presecution of Rome: this is the cause of the deep hatred of the Roman Church among Baptists today.

Another non-Protestant church is the Methodist Church. It broke from the Episcopal Church; not the Catholic Church.

Yet Baptist churches today, (I broke away from them a long time ago - no offense intended), follow the protestant reformation teachings almost to the letter, specifically, those of Ulrich Zwingli and John Calvin (both were heavily educated in 16th century philosophical humanism). Zwingli put today's Baptists' belief about baptism (e.g.-act of obedience, public profession of faith, etc.) on the map & John Calvin was the first to write down the notion that a person is saved at the point in TIME when he/she puts their faith in Christ, a teaching which is not mentioned in the Bible. When you combine these two separate beliefs into one, you get most of the current Baptist theology (except that the "Accept Jesus as your personal savior" slogan did not appear in the literature until 1950. That innovation is fairly new.)

 

[Adamski]

Why are baptist so angry??

I have studied all the churches that can trace their roots to the apostles
St Thomas of India apostolic church
Ethiopian apostolic church
Eastern orthodox
Oriental orthodox; Coptic
Latin rite catholic
Eastern rite catholic

The main thing that binds them all even though they have developed sepretly is a complete understanding of the bible through the sacraments
Trinity baptism
Apostolic holy orders (acts 1)
Confession (john 21:23)
The holy Eucharist (john 6)
Marriage
Anointing of the sick
Confirmation

If anyone wants more detail I am writing a book, I am 100% the church in India and the one in Ethiopia developed indepently of Rome. I am a convert from a non denominational back ground to the catholic faith Matt 16:18