how do Protestants explain history?

[metis]

I believe I am a Baptist so I looked up the origin in Wikipedia. An Anglican pastor named John Smythe is credited with starting the denomination. He was ordained in the Anglican Church so he must have had some religious training. However it was reading the Bible that led to his belief in believers baptism that characterizes the denomination. I haven't had a run in with a Catholic about this but I made a Congregationalist neighbor very angry by espousing it.

What do you mean that you "believe I am a Baptist"? And, yes, I am at least somewhat familiar with the early history of that denomination.

In the case of the CC, baptism was divided into two sacraments, namely baptism and confirmation. In the early church, adult baptism was the norm, but we also know that whole families were sometimes baptized, which shows up in Acts and also some 2nd century documents. When one of the major plagues hit Europe, parents wanted their children to be baptized because so many of them were dying, thus leading to the decision to split the sacrament into two.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

how do Protestants explain history?

Probably to the tune of "Three Blind Mice."

I mean, if they're serious about explaining history, that is.

 

[siti]

I believe the reality is that this was one of the parts of Roman Catholicism that was rejected. Certainly none of the Protestant writers accepted the Pope's authority.

I believe I am not sure this is the difference between X an Y but if it is then I would say when my spirit was revived by receiving Jesus it was not due to an apostolic succession but from reading the Bible.

I believe this is true to some extent with Luther and Calvin but others went straight to the Bible and completely ignored church teaching. Even with Luther and Calvin what remained from Roman Catholicism may very well be less than what was new.

Yes - agreed - as a Baptist, apostolic succession is not an important/accepted doctrine - this is the case with most "Protestant" denominations - and I think where we went a bit off track earlier...because that was not the point of the discussion. The point of the discussion was not whether a current Church has succession from 1st Century Christianity as a key doctrine or (as the others including Baptists have) replaced it with some notion of revival of the spirit of 1st century Christianity. The question was about history - and the point (clearly established IMO) is that ALL Protestant Churches, by definition, trace their actual history back through Roman Catholicism to the early Church and (perhaps, possibly - but this part is factually unclear) to the Apostles themselves. For most "Protestants" this is, as I think you are suggesting, entirely irrelevant to their faith (although Anglicans and Episcopalians officially retain Apostolic succession doctrinally).