Where did the Baptists come from?

[ShyBoy]

I've heard different storys about this question:

Are they a group of Christians that separated from the Catholic Church?

Are they a group of Christians that separated from other Protestant Churches such as the Anglican and Lutheran Church?

Or are they historical sucessors of John the Baptist?

Thanks.

ShyBoy

[~WildRoseCowgirl~]

As far as I know we are a church that seperated from the two main churches that were there in that period of time. The protestants and the catholics. I personally don't think the church came from John the baptist.

[seebs]

Well, you see, when a Momma Baptist and a Poppa Baptist love each other very much...

[Knight]

Well, you see, when a Momma Baptist and a Poppa Baptist love each other very much...
Funny, I thought most Baptists were hatched.... :P



Just kidding, guys.... :)

[stray bullet]

Or are they historical sucessors of John the Baptist?

ShyBoy

I've heard that 'theory' too, I would honestly love to see the supposed lineage I've heard people claim exists.

[CrystalBrooke]

i dont think our founder was John the Baptist..he was only called that bc he Baptised ppl..wasn't he? anyways i think we broke from the Protestant church since in an earlier thread, i saw that most of us (baptists) dont like to be referred to as Protestants, nor do we think of ourselves that way. but thats just my opinion.:)

[TwinCrier]

I've heard that 'theory' too, I would honestly love to see the supposed lineage I've heard people claim exists.Look up "The Trail of Blood . . ." in your search engine. ;)

[stray bullet]

i saw that most of us (baptists) dont like to be referred to as Protestants, nor do we think of ourselves that way. but thats just my opinion.:)

Well, unless one can prove their church/denomination did not come from breaking off with the Catholic Church or from another church/denomination that came from it, you are pretty much protestant IMO. I see it this way because Christians did not just spring up out of no where. They are either the descendents or converts of other Christians.... we are all the products of Jesus converting someone, converting someone else and so on.

That is why I am interested in the claims that the Baptists are not from the Catholic Church, but are either 'the true Church' referred in Matthew 16:18 or are from an earlier church not associated with the Catholics nor the lineage from Peter onwards.

[stray bullet]

Look up "The Trail of Blood . . ." in your search engine. ;)

Heard of that, I'll check it out :) I've read histories that show the baptists are a product of protestantism, but never any factual or reasonable claims they came from anywhere else.

[SumTinWong]

Well, unless one can prove their church/denomination did not come from breaking off with the Catholic Church or from another church/denomination that came from it, you are pretty much protestant IMO. I see it this way because Christians did not just spring up out of no where. They are either the descendents or converts of other Christians.... we are all the products of Jesus converting someone, converting someone else and so on. Okay in your opinion. Let me set the record straight in my opinion. In order to be protestant you would have to be given the choice of one or the other. Catholic or not. When I came to God on my knees begging for forgiveness I was not making a choice between Catholic and Baptist. When I went to a Baptist church for the first time I was not making a choice between Catholic and Baptist. When I joined the church, no where in my classes did it say I had to choose between the Catholics and the baptists.

In order for me to protest (or be protestant) I would have to be offered a choice. I wasn't. In fact it wasn't until after I was a Christian for a time being that I even thought of the Catholic church.

The early fathers of the protestant movement were in fact protesting the Catholic church, so in that regard they earned their title. But today I am not protesting the Catholic Church, I am just a Christian that belongs to a Baptist church. No do i hold to their teachings on the Bible and such? For the most part yes. I will not say that I hold the same opinions as Martin Luther did when talking of Jews and such, but the tenant that the Bible is my final authority is one that I believe in. If that goes against what the Catholic church believes then I guess I am a passive protestant.

That is why I am interested in the claims that the Baptists are not from the Catholic Church, but are either 'the true Church' referred in Matthew 16:18 or are from an earlier church not associated with the Catholics nor the lineage from Peter onwards. Whoever is claiming this is an idiot. Of course we are from the Catholic church. To say otherwise is garbage. What Baptists are claiming, or should claim is that they as well as many of their bretheren from other denominations(I know, I know, the Catholics do not consider themselves a denomination), are in fact members of the catholic (Universal) church.

[stray bullet]

Okay in your opinion. Let me set the record straight in my opinion. In order to be protestant you would have to be given the choice of one or the other. Catholic or not. When I came to God on my knees begging for forgiveness I was not making a choice between Catholic and Baptist. When I went to a Baptist church for the first time I was not making a choice between Catholic and Baptist. When I joined the church, no where in my classes did it say I had to choose between the Catholics and the baptists.

Didn't mean to make it sound that way. What I mean is, if a protestant converted 1000 Christians, left and they made their own church, that church would be protestant, as it traces itself back through the protestant who came from splitting off the Catholic Church. I am simply looking at this from a historical and technical standpoint, not who is right or wrong. Since I am not a Baptist, I can not debate the matter here, only give my opinion for the reason of wanting to know more about the claim the Baptists are non-protestant. I'm basically just defining the group for the purpose of asking my question (are they not of that group?) was all :)

[BronxBriar]

Funny, I thought most Baptists were hatched.... :P



Just kidding, guys.... :)
As a convert does that mean I was grafted onto you?;)

[SumTinWong]

Didn't mean to make it sound that way. What I mean is, if a protestant converted 1000 Christians, left and they made their own church, that church would be protestant, as it traces itself back through the protestant who came from splitting off the Catholic Church. I am simply looking at this from a historical and technical standpoint, not who is right or wrong. Since I am not a Baptist, I can not debate the matter here, only give my opinion for the reason of wanting to know more about the claim the Baptists are non-protestant. I'm basically just defining the group for the purpose of asking my question (are they not of that group?) was all :) Yeah I kinda knew what you meant, but it is just a matter that sticks in my craw. I love the Catholic people, and I believe more of them then not will be next to me (good Lord willing) in heaven. I don't protest them at all. In fact it if wasn't for all the grief that many Catholic people went through, we might not have the Bible.

The Baptist church came out of the Protestant/Reformation movement. Does that make me a protestant? I guess it technically does, but I aint protesting no one. Well I may protest that Michael Moore guy, or maybe even not being able to buy soda in glass bottles anymore... ;)

[GreenEyedLady]

http://www.homestead.com/cbclibrary/files/TRAILOFBLOOD/TrailofBlood2.htm

Here is a chart I found.
I think it is pretty intresting.
Although I have not read the book, Trail of Blood, I have a hard time believing that there was NO independent churches before the reformation.
GEL

[seebs]

The argument for calling some churches "non-Protestant" isn't that they didn't at some level stem from the Protestant separations, but rather, that they don't necessarily accept the premises that Luther advanced as alternatives to the Catholic Church at the time. So, for instance, a group that doesn't accept Sola Scriptura is probably not meaningfully Protestant, even if we can trace their heritage back to a Protestant church.

[BAChristian]

Well I may protest that Michael Moore guy...
I'm with ya on that one dude...

[stray bullet]

Yeah I kinda knew what you meant, but it is just a matter that sticks in my craw. I love the Catholic people, and I believe more of them then not will be next to me (good Lord willing) in heaven.

Good thing is, there won't be any Baptists in Heaven, nor Catholics...such words will be meaningless to us then, I'm sure.

Although I'll probably still be teasing Baptists in Heaven :)

[stray bullet]

http://www.homestead.com/cbclibrary/files/TRAILOFBLOOD/TrailofBlood2.htm

Here is a chart I found.
I think it is pretty intresting.
Although I have not read the book, Trail of Blood, I have a hard time believing that there was NO independent churches before the reformation. Rome was powerful, but not THAT powerful.
GEL

The chart isn't showing, it seems to have been deleted. :sigh:

This site seems a little fishy though- I've noticed that they referred to Matthew 16:18, "WILL BUILD MY CHURCH AND THE GATES OF HELL SHALL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST IT.", but they purposely left out the part where Christ gives authority of that Church to Peter. Interestingly enough, Catholics trace their Popes all the way to Peter... odd they mentioned only part of that verse then...

They claim Baptists are linked by these earlier groups, but the site starts Catholicism when it was formally estabilished by name in the 4th Century, not by the successors, so that seems hypocritical.

I'm quite interested in seeing an honest historical account of this (especially a secular one), but all I have seen in my life is manipulated and cleverly twisted facts. It doesn't affect me either way, whether their claims are right, but I'd like to see something less biased and honest if possible. I'm a bit of a history nut, totally addicted to the history channel :)

[seebs]

Er, maybe we could have this be a little less about Catholics vs. Baptists, and a bit more on the recent history of Baptists, and why they are or aren't considered Protestant?

[stray bullet]

Er, maybe we could have this be a little less about Catholics vs. Baptists, and a bit more on the recent history of Baptists, and why they are or aren't considered Protestant?

Are you referring to me? I didn't mean to seem to preach. Why they are or aren't considered Protestant is what i am interested in, not which is the one true Church or whatever... as this is the Baptist forum and it isn't my place to debate.

It is just that I've heard these claims that the baptists were from an earlier church, or was one of the first churches. Yet, I must admit all the information I've gotten were simple claims or came for sources that really manipulated/distorted facts.

I don't mean they are all that way, but I am sincerely interested in this from a historical standpoint. I have zero interest in discussing who is really right or the right church, only understanding and looking into these claims.
If anyone is bothered by me or my questions, I'll gladly be quiet and leave, I'm just curious :)
I'll try googling some more and looking into some of the things mentioned thus far though...

[SumTinWong]

Good thing is, there won't be any Baptists in Heaven, nor Catholics...such words will be meaningless to us then, I'm sure.

Although I'll probably still be teasing Baptists in Heaven :) Haha, Amen, and hopefully Baptists will have learned to take a joke by then :)

[SumTinWong]

If anyone is bothered by me or my questions, I'll gladly be quiet and leave, I'm just curious :)
I'll try googling some more and looking into some of the things mentioned thus far though... No bothers here mate, at least on my end.

Peace.

[Knight]

Perhaps a thread on Baptist history is in order?

I'd be interested in such a discussion myself....

[GreenEyedLady]

I tried posting a thread about Baptist history knight. No one seemed intrested. I am very intresting as I have heard differant Baptist belive differant histories.
I wanted to point out that it is a little hard NOT to talk about rome when we might have come from them in the first place, or maybe not. I am not sure. I have a couple of history books and things that I am currently reading. Both are from great sources, but they both differ.
So.......as I said before. I find it hard to believe that there were not any independent churches that paul started on his mission field. Whether they were Messanic, Baptist, or any other denomination I am not sure. I would just like to know if there were any independent churchs that were started with the Apostles or Paul on thier mission field.

[JVD]

Here is an interesting short baptist history.

http://www.baptisthistory.org/baptistbeginnings.htm

Basically it shows that the baptists came from different groups seperating from the Church of England. Doesnt' make sense to me why they wouldn't want to be called protestants.

A protestant church is any christian church organization formed after the reformation that disagrees enough with the Roman Catholic Church to keep itself out of the pope's authority.

There were indepedent churches before the reformation...the Waldensians were a case in point. They are interesting because way back in the 1170 they translated the Bible into their mother tongue called a "vulgar" language by the church. I have no idea whether this would have been the word of God since it came before the KJV. However they did use this translated bible and it was a major bone of contention and part of the reason they were excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church.

[GreenEyedLady]

Correct me if I am wrong, but the pilgrims and the puritains were different in thier heritages. Purtians came out of the church of England and the Pilgrims were from the waldenses.
Also, how would they be excommunicated from the RCC if they were independent from them?

[sunshinejennii]

Just my 2pence, i always thourght on a simple level the church divided into protestant and catholic and then depending on small differences in views you had several denominations all under the banner of protestant, ive now realised this view is wrong so im interested to follow this thread.

[JVD]

After the Waldensians were excommunicated...they continued spreading the word as they saw fit. It is after they were excommunicated that they became an independent group.

They continued in existence and under much persecution for more than 350 years before the reformation broke out. At that time they did join forces with John Huss and others. They did not lose their identity but did see in the "protestant" movement a kinship.

I am not aware of any connection between the Pilgrims and the Waldensians. I have not studied it that thoroughly so it is possible.

The Waldensians are generally hailed as good pre-reformation examples of what us protestants would consider to be new testement beliefs. And it all came from Peter Waldo hiring some scholars to translate the bible into the current local language. When the people saw what the bible said, they changed their ways.

[GreenEyedLady]

Ok,
From that chart that I posted on here. There is a group called the paulicians the donatists and the montanists. Apparently the reason why Baptist link themselves with them is because the core doctrines are the same such as salvation, believers baptism, etc. If we are linked up with Greek and Roman catholic, there must also be a place in history when the New Testement churchs doctrines changed from biblical to what roman and greek would concider "traditional: doctrines.
GEL
Ps. Any links would be of great help JVD!

[Iollain]

Ok,
From that chart that I posted on here. There is a group called the paulicians the donatists and the montanists. Apparently the reason why Baptist link themselves with them is because the core doctrines are the same such as salvation, believers baptism, etc. If we are linked up with Greek and Roman catholic, there must also be a place in history when the New Testement churchs doctrines changed from biblical to what roman and greek would concider "traditional: doctrines.
GEL
Ps. Any links would be of great help JVD!

They made these changes over history. I imagine anyone who disagreed was eliminated, from what i've read.

[GreenEyedLady]

They made these changes over history. I imagine anyone who disagreed was eliminated, from what i've read.
If doctrines changed over history, wouldn't there be record of it somewhere?
From what I have gathered, the New Testement churches were independent until Constintine 313 decided to have a meeting with all the churchs so that they could agree on the Niece Creed.
I have also read that if these so called independent churchs or "heretics" disagreed they were eliminated. My question is where these churchs heretics of the scriptures or of Rome?:scratch:
GEL

[JVD]

Here is a good link on the Waldensians. Interesting reading.

http://www.xenos.org/essays/waldo1.htm

I don't believe the baptists can be traced farther back than the puritans and pilgrims. That's apparently about where they started.

Any further link is as GEM said, based on a similar thread of doctrine but not the ealier people would not have been called baptists.

[GreenEyedLady]

Hmmm,

That is intresting information you have in your post.
What about the Jewish believers who were NOT invited to the meeting at Niecea?
The following were concidered "heritics" by the "church" and were either eliminated or forced to become a member of "the church" or just exsited outside the church that concidered Christ as the Son of God.
Nazarenes
Paulicians
Pasiginians
Bogomils
Ebionites
Patarines
Bulgarians
Cathars
Albigenses
Publicani
Sabatati/Insabatati
Waldensians
Hussites
Petrobrusians|
Henricians

I find it very intresting that the Roman and the Greek churchs both claim that they can trace thier roots back to the new testement and any new testement church that was not in thier "church" were concidered heritics. :scratch:

[P_G]

---MOD HAT ON ---
http://www.nehemiah-center.org/kippot.gif


A reminder to all of our NON BAPTIST - ANABAPTIST guests

2) Baptist/Anabaptist, as well as all members of the Congregational Forums can post fellowship threads here. Only Baptist/Anabaptist members are allowed to debate threads to discuss various doctrines to do with their own denomination and other denominations (including the Catholic church), as long as they are within our rules.

3) Non-Baptist/Anabaptist members (eg. Catholic,Charasmatic, Weselyan, Lutheran, etc... members) can only post fellowship posts here or posts to ask a question regarding Baptist/Anabaptist doctrine. Once the question is answered, there shall be no debate over the answer in this forum by the Non-Baptist/Anabaptist members. Any debate posts by Non-Baptist/Anabaptist members will be deleted or moved to the appropriate forum. In other words, only Baptist/Anabaptist members can debate here.


Certain posts have been removed as they do not fit the criterea of either a question or a fellowship post by a non Baptist.

As fascinating as you may find the subject this is not the forum for inter-denomination debates.

Thank you for you kind understanding


Pastor George

---MOD HAT OFF ---

[OrthodoxyUSA]

We were invited...
Can we continue somewhere else?

[P_G]

We were invited...
Can we continue somewhere else?


I would suggest if other denominations are being asked to join in that we move the thread to church History where it is more appropriate.

If the OP would PM me let me know if you would like this to happen
then I am cool with that.

Pastor George :wave:

[GreenEyedLady]

I would like for this post to stay here so that all Baptist/Anabaptist can learn where we came from.
Orthodoxy, I have a thread in the Messianic forum there. We are discussing their history as well.
GEL

[HiredGoon]

Most historians agree that Baptists originated in England during the early 17th century. At this point in history the Puritans were trying reform or purify the Church of England, while other groups known as Separatists, left or separated from the Church of England. The general and particular Baptists grew out of various Separatist congregations, the general baptists around 1608, and the particular baptists around 1633.

The Baptist History and Heritage Society has a good summary of Baptist early history here:
http://www.baptisthistory.org/baptistbeginnings.htm

[GreenEyedLady]

"Were it not that the baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers." (Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pp. 112, 113.)


The "twelve hundred years" were the years preceding the Reformation in which Rome persecuted Baptists with the most cruel persecution thinkable.



Sir Isaac Newton:



"The Baptists are the only body of known Christians that have never symbolized with Rome."

"During the first three centuries, congregations all over the East subsisted in separate independent bodies, unsupported by government and consequently without any secular power over one another. All this time they were baptized churches, and though all the fathers of the first four ages, down to Jerome (A.D. 370), were of Greece, Syria and Africa, and though they give great numbers of histories of the baptism of adults, yet there is not one of the baptism of a child till the year 370." (Compendium of Baptist History, Shackelford, p. 43; Vedder, p. 50; Christian, p, 31; Orchard, p. 50, etc.)

Here is what I am trying to decifer. I understand that some Baptist think we came out of the reformation and other Baptist have read we were on the outside of the Hierachy church the whole time. I think one of the reasons why some Baptist claim thier history though the dark ages is because these so called "heretic" churchs did not agree with the hierachy church's idea of Baptism. From what I have a read so far, there have been new testement churchs though out the hierachy church and the greek/roman chuirch history that practiced Salvation though faith and believers baptism. They might not have been called Baptist, but they practiced some of our doctrines.
GEL

[OrthodoxyUSA]

"Were it not that the baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers." (Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pp. 112, 113.)


The "twelve hundred years" were the years preceding the Reformation in which Rome persecuted Baptists with the most cruel persecution thinkable.



Sir Isaac Newton:



"The Baptists are the only body of known Christians that have never symbolized with Rome."

"During the first three centuries, congregations all over the East subsisted in separate independent bodies, unsupported by government and consequently without any secular power over one another. All this time they were baptized churches, and though all the fathers of the first four ages, down to Jerome (A.D. 370), were of Greece, Syria and Africa, and though they give great numbers of histories of the baptism of adults, yet there is not one of the baptism of a child till the year 370." (Compendium of Baptist History, Shackelford, p. 43; Vedder, p. 50; Christian, p, 31; Orchard, p. 50, etc.)

Here is what I am trying to decifer. I understand that some Baptist think we came out of the reformation and other Baptist have read we were on the outside of the Hierachy church the whole time. I think one of the reasons why some Baptist claim thier history though the dark ages is because these so called "heretic" churchs did not agree with the hierachy church's idea of Baptism. From what I have a read so far, there have been new testement churchs though out the hierachy church and the greek/roman chuirch history that practiced Salvation though faith and believers baptism. They might not have been called Baptist, but they practiced some of our doctrines.
GEL
Looking forward to your posts in the History Section....

[ShirChadash]

GEL, I didn't realize you were going to also start a thread on this in the history section ;), but if you dooooooo, could you post the link here so those of us interested in your discussion may also read there :)

Thankie kindly Luv.

~Z~

Editing to say:
Heh -- nevermind, I found the forum -- I don't roam around CF much and usually stick to the congregations!

[PaladinGirl]

Here is an interesting website that has 3 pages called the Baptist Story that tells what they believe about the history of Baptists:

http://gospelcenterchurch.org/baptiststory.html - Part 1
http://gospelcenterchurch.org/baptiststorytwo.html - Part 2
http://gospelcenterchurch.org/baptiststorythree.html - Part 3

These pages are from an Independent Fundamentalist Baptist church. The info is very lengthy but interesting.

[JM]

Baptists are not protestant and do not have roots in the catholic church, that is a lie.



http://www.pbministries.org/History/baptist_history.htm

http://www.pbministries.org/History/images/header_baptist_history.gif

[GreenEyedLady]

Baptists are not protestant and do not have roots in the catholic church, that is a lie.



http://www.pbministries.org/History/baptist_history.htm


Care to share street preacher, or discuss.
GEL

[JM]

Care to share street preacher, or discuss.
GEL
Sure, did you take a look at the link? I'm not great at apologetics by any means, but I'll defend my faith...:hug:

[HiredGoon]

Believers baptism does not a Baptist make. The Baptist denomination began in 17th century England, it was the product of the English Reformation. Trying to claim everyone throughout history who was ever baptized as an adult believer as a Baptist ancestor is not serious, objective, or scholarly history. This falls under the falacious logic that antiquity equals validity or truthfulness. This movement of trying to trace Baptist history back past the 17th century, is an effort of some who falsely believe that if they can prove that somehow Baptist beliefs have been around since the beginning of the Church, then that makes these beliefs more valid or credible. This is completely false. There is nothing wrong with having a history which originates in the 17th century, it is not any less valid than a denomination which dates to the 16th or 5th century. Baptist beliefs are based on Scripture, thats all you need.

[@@Paul@@]

Believers baptism does not a Baptist make. The Baptist denomination began in 17th century England, it was the product of the English Reformation. Trying to claim everyone throughout history who was ever baptized as an adult believer as a Baptist ancestor is not serious, objective, or scholarly history. This falls under the falacious logic that antiquity equals validity or truthfulness. This movement of trying to trace Baptist history back past the 17th century, is an effort of some who falsely believe that if they can prove that somehow Baptist beliefs have been around since the beginning of the Church, then that makes these beliefs more valid or credible. This is completely false. There is nothing wrong with having a history which originates in the 17th century, it is not any less valid than a denomination which dates to the 16th or 5th century. Baptist beliefs are based on Scripture, thats all you need.
If everyone split from Rome in the 17th century, then Rome must be right. :eek:

It's more than just baptism.

From a link someone shared:
A Catholic, Cardinal Hosius, President of the Council of Trent (1545-1563), wrote during the early years of the Reformation period, “Were it not that the Baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater numbers than all the reformers.” This should convince anyone that the Baptists are not a by-product of the Reformation, and are not even Protestants in the popular sense of the term.

[BT]

Baptists are not protestant and do not have roots in the catholic church, that is a lie.



http://www.pbministries.org/History/baptist_history.htm

http://www.pbministries.org/History/images/header_baptist_history.gif
Amen and AMEN. :clap:

[Palatka44]

Fox's Book of Martyrs has story after story how many people were cut off for not joining the Roman church as well as being excommunicated when Rome felt they were teaching heresy. Many of those that did not join in with Rome nor ever had association with Roman doctrine and traditions. They simply followed the Gospel of Christ unto repentence and baptized the believer upon their confession of faith unto repentence. Many of these groups may not have been called nor called themselves Baptist but still their rejection of Roman unity did prevail until we now have a group that shouts proudly I AM A BAPTIST. Because for having to move from place to place to have peace to worship it would be a hard trail to follow to prove once and for all that this is our lineage as Baptists for us today. However in my heart I believe this to be true, we (Baptist) never had any association with any church that came out of Roman Catholicism.

[JM]

Many of the groups often listed by catholics as teaching 'heresy' were lumped together with other groups in the same area. If one group denied the Holy Trinity but also believed in sola scriptura they were condemned along with the group that believed in the Trinity and in sola scriptura. (A History of the Christian Church by Williston Walker)

[@@Paul@@]

If anyone likes online sermons as much as I do... :)

Here are 4 sermons,,, about 45min. long.
History of the Baptist Church (http://www.learnthebible.org/baptist_history_session_1.htm)

[GreenEyedLady]

Bump