Baptist= non-protestant? [Archive]

daveleau

22nd July 2004, 10:15 PM

I was talking with my pastor today and he said something that shocked me. He said that the Baptist church does not technically fall under the label of protestant. He said that the Baptist lineage is tied directly back to the earliest church and that the churches formed during the Reformation were protestant. While we have similar beliefs to protestants, we are technically set apart. He also said that the Puritans were an offshoot of the anabaptist church. Interesting stuff. I am glad to be at my church, not because it is baptist, but because it preaches the Bible without pre-concieved non-Scriptural teachings.

Anyway, just thought this was interesting and was wondering if you guys had any input.

God bless you,
Dave

Sword-In-Hand

23rd July 2004, 01:18 AM

Yeah it's a common misconception that the Baptist faith came after the Reformation. The lineage of the Baptist church can in fact be linked back to the ealiest churches, even Antioch if I'm not mistaken.

23rd July 2004, 09:24 AM

Baptists are not protestant...

RED that's ME

23rd July 2004, 10:19 AM

MOD HAT ON

This thread is now reopened but I caution nonBaptist/AnaBaptist members to follow the rules of the Baptist/AnaBaptist Forum.

http://www.christianforums.com/t672766 (http://www.christianforums.com/t672766)

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.

4) No posts that denigrate a Christian denomination or Christian group will not be tolerated - these will be deleted and the poster will be warned.

Basically, we do NOT allow accusations that a particular Christian denomination or group is non-Christian. That is the bottom line. Debates regarding doctrine is allowed (for Baptist/Anabaptist members only). Accusations are not.

These rules are in addition to the original Christian Forums rules that have been written and set out before you by the Owner and Webmaster, Erwin.

MOD HAT OFF

23rd July 2004, 01:43 PM

I protest the claim that Baptists came from the protestants! :P

Crazy Liz

23rd July 2004, 02:05 PM

If you read the "Trail of Blood" thread and a few others, you will see there are a lot of Baptists that make this claim. There also is a lot of history establishing that the Baptist denominations arose out of the English Separatists (protestants) who had contact with the Dutch Mennonites (Anabaptists, radical reformation).

Some Baptists prefer to think of their church as the one established by the Apostle Paul or John the Baptist, or some other biblical figure, from whom everyone else apostatized, so they do not like the word "protestant." Some Anabaptists make similar claims, tracing their history back through the Montanists and others. While these fringe groups have always or nearly always existed, no thread of continuity between them has been established, so organizationally this is not a valid claim. As a literary heritage or comraderie of ideas with earlier groups, it is a defensible POV.

IOW, I don't think it can be said that either the Anabaptists or Baptists continuously existed as a group distinct from the catholic churches (RCC and EO) prior to the Reformation. In that sense, Baptists and Anabaptists are protestants.

I hope I've been fair in these statements. So far, the responses seemed to be unanimous, yet the consensus of historians is far from unanimous, with the majority tracing the history of the Baptists to or through the Reformation on the Protestant side.

Blackhawk

23rd July 2004, 02:16 PM

Baptists are protestants. Baptists arose out of either the english seperatists that were heavily influenced by the anabaptists or english sepratists that came to their beliefs without anabaptist influence in its earliest stages.

So I reject the successionist theories of baptist beginnings and hav not decided which nonsuccesionist theory to adopt.

@@Paul@@

23rd July 2004, 03:18 PM

I protest the claim that Baptists came from the protestants! :P
PROTESTants..... :D

So in some form,,, you are a protestant. :P

CrystalBrooke

23rd July 2004, 03:33 PM

from what i can remember when i learned about the protestant reformation a couple of years ago, and the review i had this past year, it does seem that we are Protestants...but since you're all so sure that we're not...would someone please PM me some information on it, or a website:) please and thank you:D

SumTinWong

23rd July 2004, 04:03 PM

Crazy Liz

23rd July 2004, 04:17 PM

SumTinWong

23rd July 2004, 04:27 PM

Lollard, do the mods know you're Baptist/Anabaptist?

They are getting touchy about non-Baptists disagreeing with Baptists these days. If you don't use the Baptist icon, you have to identify your denomination in your profile or you are not allowed to disagree with a Baptist here. I had to change my profile to indicate I consider myself Mennonite and/or Quaker. Yeah they should know by now. I have it in my profile that I attend a Baptist Church, and I said at the end of my post that I am a Baptist.

I am glad that they are getting heavy handed by the way.

Perhaps I was deleted because I agreed with Podromos, who isn't a Baptist? I got a PM saying that my post and his was deleted, but no reason why.

Anyway thanks for the heads up.

bleechers

23rd July 2004, 07:01 PM

Some Baptists prefer to think of their church as the one established by the Apostle Paul or John the Baptist, or some other biblical figure...

This is palpable nonsense. The claim that Baptists are distinct from "Protestants" has little do with any "founder". There is no such entity as "The Baptist Church" in the sense of "The RC Church". TBC is merely a convenient term, but that is all.

Baptists believe in individual salvation apart from any earthly organization, We require no "church" to either authenticate or assist in salvation. One of the pillars in what we call Baptist theology is the priesthood of the believer.

IOW, I don't think it can be said that either the Anabaptists or Baptists continuously existed as a group distinct from the catholic churches (RCC and EO) prior to the Reformation. In that sense, Baptists and Anabaptists are protestants.

It doesn't matter. We don't need a library of centralized works from which we can determine what we should believe or who was head of some "Baptist Church" in the 3rd century. You have the entirely wrong concept of the church.

"Protestant" is a RC term. In the US it applies to even Mormons. It is a manmade distinction that no Christian should take upon himself.

What if I attended a conference of Baptists and we voted to call anyone who diagrees with us from that day on "Contrarians". Should every group we've tagged "Contarians" suddenly start grouping themselves together? This is ridiculous.

I am not a "Protestant." I don't let a term that has no theological basis to it define me. It is not my term, it is not a biblical term. The evidence for individuals who met as Christians separate from the RCC and EO is readily available.

Truth is not determined by either history or by numbers. Salvation is not passed from one generation to the next. Each individual must decide for himself what he will do with the gospel. He must decide what he will do with the Word. It matters not what he labels himself or what his enemies label him. Either that individual accepts the gospel or he does not.

What on earth does "being a RC" mean anyway? That you adhere to a certain set of doctrines? What does that mean? Are you suggesting that absolutely nobody disagreed with the doctrines of the RCC for 1200 years? Even before the Reformation there were great movements and men like Hus and Wycliffe, etc.

Heck, if you randomly assemble 20 RCs in a room and go over the doctrines of just Trent and Vat2 I guarantee you'd get 20 different opinions. Are they "protestants"? Or are they not "Protestants" merely because they still call themselves RCs?

The term and the discussion are based on false premises from which you can only get false conclusions.

:)

23rd July 2004, 07:43 PM

Wow Bleechers you're getting a real work out on this topic today! LOL.

bleechers

23rd July 2004, 10:56 PM

Wow Bleechers you're getting a real work out on this topic today! LOL.

And I am physically worn out!

Everybody wants the church to be equal to "a group of people who met in a room a long time ago and voted on stuff... then they agreed that everybody who didn't agree with them were all heretics... whomever then had the most military power and the most money could then rule kingdoms and supress all dissent... They controlled the government, the military, the schools, the libraries... so any group not meeting in an approved building under an approved leader just doesn't exist and cannot be called 'a church', etc." If you did try to meet separately, you were rightly persecuted and called a heretic... if you ever get big enough to be loosed of control by the "real church" we'll tag you with another name and claim that you came out of the "real church" so you must be false.

:priest:

There are apparently no Christians in China. I know because I went to the official headquaters of the Communist party and read their history books. They told me that there were these little groups that meet around the country, but they're not really Christians, they're just "anti-Revolutionaries" who are rightly persecuted. Why should we believe the people who claim that there is a "Chinese Church"? They have no cathedrals or robes or rituals or palaces. They don't control government institutions. They don't even meet in big cities to vote on the latest changes in salvation doctrines... you could hardly call that a "church".

So when anybody claims that there are Christians in the Chinese empire, I correct them and say "No, those are just 'anti-Revolutionaries'." The Chinese government meets every year to call them criminals and accuse them of horrible crimes. So you see, everybody in the Chinese empire really thinks the same way. Since 1949, there has only been one, united Communist China.

Go ahead, read thier history books. You'll see I'm right.

;)

23rd July 2004, 11:10 PM

And I am physically worn out!

Everybody wants the church to be equal to "a group of people who met in a room a long time ago and voted on stuff... then they agreed that everybody who didn't agree with them were all heretics... whomever then had the most military power and the most money could then rule kingdoms and supress all dissent... They controlled the government, the military, the schools, the libraries... so any group not meeting in an approved building under an approved leader just doesn't exist and cannot be called 'a church', etc."

There are apparently no Christians in China. I know because I went to the official headquaters of the Communist party and read their history books. They told me that there were these little groups that meet around the country, but they're not really Christians, they're just "anti-Revolutionaries" who are rightly persecuted. Why should we believe the people who claim that their is a "Chinese Church"? They have no cathedrals or robes or rituals or palaces. They don't even meet in big cities to vote on the latest changes in salvation doctrines... you could hardly call that a "church".

;)
I hear ya brother, and I'm praying for you. To tell you the truth I find the whole situation a bit laughable myself. It reminds me of the Corinthians. Remember how they were all claiming this guy or that guy... "I'm from Paul, I'm from Appolos, and I of Cephas.." then one dude get's the ultimate one upance and says "I'm of Christ!" You see the years roll by, but people essentially stay the same. History (when accurate) is more often sad than anything else. I remember when I was a devote Catholic I often thought, "Why'd we kill all those people?" That doesn't seem right. It wasn't right and it was because the church was flawed, led by immoral people who kept "average Joe" in the dark. etc. etc. (all the points you made).

Brother don't let it get to you. Read my signature and understand the grand point of it all! :D

Razorbuck

24th July 2004, 11:18 AM

Hang in there Bleechers! You're in His strong right hand!

Excellent posts!

This place is so great. God's people are great when they lean on Him!

{Razorbuck belts out "A Mighty Fortress is Our God" at the top of his lungs!}

24th July 2004, 11:39 AM

Someone asked me ok what does the signature say...

Ok it says

Eye tis Fill-e-oh oo koo-ree-os Ee-aye-sous Kris-tos ay-toe ana-thema maranatha

(which is a transliteration ha ha ha)

In English

If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed, the Lord is coming!

daveleau

24th July 2004, 09:08 PM

:) I agree that in reality it doesn't matter. It was just something I had never heard before until my pastor mentioned it when we were talking about school. It's kind of like trying to figure out if the girl in Matt 9 is dead or in a coma. Either way, it doesn't really matter because the miracle is still profound either way (I believe she was dead but there was Scriptural evidence that she might not have been, although it was not conclusive). I am for the tearing down of any division in the Christian body, as I have stated before. I don't like the tags of Dispensationalist, or Covenantial; liberal or conservative; Calvinist or Arminian; Baptist or any other denomination. I think we should be one church, Christ's church, based on the Word.

But, as I said before, this was something I'd never heard of until Thursday. :)

Thanks for all of the thoughtful replies.
Dave

TheViolinist

24th July 2004, 09:50 PM

In my opinion the Baptists are protestant too because they were against the rules of the Roma`s church. Anyway all we are the same body, althuogh somethings we have differences but in the essential , we are equal. :)

24th July 2004, 09:59 PM

Rome is protesting us.

CrystalBrooke

26th July 2004, 07:59 AM

i dont think that all Baptists are Protestants. if you think about it, it makes more sense if you think of it as a personal preferance, i for one dont protest the Catholic church, i agree with them a lot, but not enough to be Catholic, then there are those of you who disagree with everything, you're protesting the church, therefore,*edit* IMO, id say you ARE a protestant. but that's just my 2 cents.

bleechers

26th July 2004, 09:11 AM

you're protesting the church, therefore, if you were to ask me, id say you ARE a protestant.

But that is their term. Why should I take it? It carries a lot of baggage and false claims. I'm also "protesting" Hinduism and Mormonism, is there a special term I should take for those positions?

It's a silly term that is predicated on a false understanding of both salvation and "the church". If some kid hears a gospel message over the radio in Pakistan and gets saved, he is now wedded to some organizational "church" that is "Protestant"? That is false thinking.

The true church doesn't need a headquarters. It is an organism. It's "sacred" document is the Bible. "The church" is not a sanctioning board that controls the elements of salvation, it is a Body consisting of born-again believers.

That kid in Pakistan and I are in the same "Church" no matter we call ourselves. If YOU want to label us "Protestants" that is your business, but I don't want any part of it. You can call yourself a Protestant, but leave me out of it. I don't take my cues from my enemies.

Mormons call the Jews "gentiles". Should Jews now start calling themselves "gentiles" merely because the "Prophet" in Salt Lake City has labeled them so?

By the way, how much do you agree with the Mormons? Do you also "agree with them a lot"? If so, how? If not, why not?

CrystalBrooke

26th July 2004, 09:46 AM

i didnt ask to get my throat slit bc you dont agree with me...i dont call myself a protestant, and im not specifically calling you a protestant, i dont care what you want to call yourself or what you want to call me, that was just my opinion. i dont see what agreeing with mormons has to do with anything..and i dont owe you an explaination for anything..i gave my opinion thats all...i didnt mean to offend you, i assure you that was not my intention.

bleechers

26th July 2004, 10:41 AM

OK

:) :D :)

CrystalBrooke

26th July 2004, 11:20 AM

i also said "if you were to ask me"...you didnt ask me...i was speaking to everyone in general, so specifically i was NOT calling you a protestant.

bleechers

26th July 2004, 11:48 AM

OK...

:clap:

CrystalBrooke

26th July 2004, 12:03 PM

i know what i wrote and i know what i meant by it...i dont need someone like you to twist my words to make yourself look good...give me a break, nice try tho. now if you'll excuse me i have better things to do than to waste it on you.

RED that's ME

26th July 2004, 12:03 PM

MOD HAT ON

Let's get off the personal and get back on track of the subject.

MOD HAT OFF

Crazy Liz

26th July 2004, 12:14 PM

Let me see if I understand. The proponents of this thread base their argument simply on their dislike for a word, not on the history this word represents.

OK...

@@Paul@@

26th July 2004, 12:21 PM

Let me see if I understand. The proponents of this thread base their argument simply on their dislike for a word, not on the history this word represents.

OK...
In order to PROTEST something, that SOMETHING must have been there first... Which in this case, "it" was not.... So yes, i dislike the history. :)

bleechers

26th July 2004, 01:37 PM

Let me see if I understand. The proponents of this thread base their argument simply on their dislike for a word, not on the history this word represents.

It's their word. Regardless of the history, why would I take on an epithet created by others. The historicity of the word is meaningless.

If I created a word for all non-Baptists (Mormons, RCs, animists) would they be under any obligation to take the word upon themselves, merely because I said so? What if I said that, Biblically, I trace my beliefs back to Paul, therefore, all other off-shoots calling themselves Christians are (a) in grave error (b) merely branches from the one, true organization (c) to assign to themselves a name that I will impose on them...?

I don't accept their premise and I won't take their word upon myself.

If they chose the word "heretics" instead of "Protestant" would we all go around calling ourselves "heretics"?

:)

Note: I realize that many solid men have used the term in historical terms in the past (I quote one on my CD), but in this age, it no longer makes sense. When Mormons and JWs are being lumped in, and as the "non-catholic" world can no longer be equated with an "anti-Catholic" world, the term has lost any usefulness to us. Once "Protestant" could be equated with "the resistance," but those days are long gone. When the NCC and the WCC represent "Protestantism," I wanna run as far as I can in the other direction.

BjBarnett

26th July 2004, 02:31 PM

If I created a word for all non-Baptists (Mormons, RCs, animists) would they be under any obligation to take the word upon themselves, merely because I said so?

well you call us Roman Catholic even though thats a name given to us from the anglicans... so if you dont call me roman catholic i wont call you protestant ;)

@@Paul@@

26th July 2004, 02:39 PM

well you call us Roman Catholic even though thats a name given to us from the anglicans... so if you dont call me roman catholic i wont call you protestant ;)
Thanks for the tip.

bleechers

26th July 2004, 02:42 PM

well you call us Roman Catholic even though thats a name given to us from the anglicans... so if you dont call me roman catholic i wont call you protestant

Deal... now can you get your higher-ups to stop using the term? On second thought, let 'em use it... it helps to illustate many of my points. ;)

There is one other difference... last I looked there aren't a whole lot of local churches calling themselves "protestant" (as in Centerville First Protestant Church) wheras the US is filled with thousands of churches calling themselves "St. Mary's Roman Catholic Church" etc...

I assume these churches have the OK from their bishops since most of the bishops have their seats in "St. Somebody's Roman Catholic Church" as well... and that includes some Cardinals :) Straighten out the Cardinals, then give me a call. ;)

BjBarnett

26th July 2004, 02:51 PM

Deal... now can you get your higher-ups to stop using the term? On second thought, let 'em use it... it helps to illustate many of my points. ;)

There is one other difference... last I looked there aren't a whole lot of local churches calling themselves "protestant" (as in Centerville First Protestant Church) wheras the US is filled with thousands of churches calling themselves "St. Mary's Roman Catholic Church" etc...

I assume these churches have the OK from their bishops since most of the bishops have their seats in "St. Somebody's Roman Catholic Church" as well... and that includes some Cardinals :)

really? i havnt never seen a church that had roman catholic in the name. but it could be possible cause its kinda like being called protestant. some people openly accept it and some people dont. but the term Roman Catholic was originally meant as an insult.

bleechers

26th July 2004, 03:11 PM

i havnt never seen a church that had roman catholic in the name

Really? In the US, this hard to imagine.

Here's just one of thousands: http://www.catholic-church.org/stmary-auburn/

@@Paul@@

26th July 2004, 03:19 PM

I knew this day would come... We must all change our church names to: Independant Protestant Baptist Church... Or maybe First Protestant Baptist Church of Hoboken... :doh:

:D

BjBarnett

26th July 2004, 03:50 PM

Really? In the US, this hard to imagine.

Here's just one of thousands: http://www.catholic-church.org/stmary-auburn/

hmm.. its probably because i live in a small town.

Filia Mariae

26th July 2004, 06:59 PM

hmm.. its probably because i live in a small town.
No Ben, it's just that some Catholic churches (unfortunately) put Roman in the title so that people know it is actually a Catholic church, and not some schismatic group. It's too bad they have decided to capitulate to the use of that insulting term.

Your original point, that those who do not want to be called Protestant should be respectful of what others would like to be called, is valid. Your girlfriend is an excellent example of someone who respects other people in this way, in love and charity. I wish everyone was as kind as she is.

bleechers

26th July 2004, 07:04 PM

It's too bad they have decided to capitulate to the use of that insulting term.

Have the Cardinals and bishops in those diocese "capitulated"? If so, do you realize that you have no right to question them?

:)

On second thought, perhaps you ought to take your questioning of the judgment of members of the Magisterium over to OBOB... I get in trouble here when I quote the Catholic catechism to Catholics. ;)

BBAS 64

26th July 2004, 07:09 PM

Good Day, All

Though for some the title of Roman Catholic seems unfair or an insult there are many places it is used on church buildings and in writing of the Roman Catholic Church.

Title Roman catholic

"Indeed, 'from the incarnate Word's descent to us, all Christian churches everywhere have held and hold the great Church that is here [at Rome] to be their only basis and foundation since, according to the Savior's promise, the gates of hell have never prevailed against her.'" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 834, http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/834.htm (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/834.htm) )

"I acknowledge the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church, the mother and mistress of all the Churches." (First Vatican Council, 2:12, http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM (http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM) )

Notice that, in the following quote, the universal church is referred to as "Roman":

"They adopted an attitude of opposition and, prodigal of their good name and enemies to their own honour, they strove to their utmost with pestilential daring to rend the unity of the holy Roman and universal church and the seamless robe of Christ', and with serpent-like bites to lacerate the womb of the pious and holy mother herself." (Council of Florence, session 9, http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM (http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM) )

"Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing. Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the True Church in order to gain eternal salvation." (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, 27, http://www.newadvent.org/docs/pi12hg.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/docs/pi12hg.htm) )

Peace to u,

Bill

Filia Mariae

26th July 2004, 07:12 PM

Good Day, All

Though for some the title of Roman Catholic seems unfair or an insult there are many places it is used on church buildings and in writing of the Roman Catholic Church.

Did you bother to read my post?:confused:

Filia Mariae

26th July 2004, 07:13 PM

Have the Cardinals and bishops in those diocese "capitulated"? If so, do you realize that you have no right to question them?

:)

On second thought, perhaps you ought to take your questioning of the judgment of members of the Magisterium over to OBOB... I get in trouble here when I quote the Catholic catechism to Catholics. ;)
I'm sorry you harbor such deep hatred for the Church. May the peace of Christ be with you.:pray:

Filia Mariae

26th July 2004, 07:16 PM

Have the Cardinals and bishops in those diocese "capitulated"? If so, do you realize that you have no right to question them?

:)

On second thought, perhaps you ought to take your questioning of the judgment of members of the Magisterium over to OBOB... I get in trouble here when I quote the Catholic catechism to Catholics. ;)
I'm sorry you harbor such deep hatred of the Church. May the peace of Christ be with you.:pray:

@@Paul@@

26th July 2004, 07:21 PM

I'm sorry you harbor such deep hatred for the Church. May the peace of Christ be with you.:pray:
Here lies the problem,,, IT is not "the Church".

@@Paul@@

26th July 2004, 07:32 PM

On second thought, perhaps you ought to take your questioning of the judgment of members of the Magisterium over to OBOB... I get in trouble here when I quote the Catholic catechism to Catholics. ;)

:D........... like if i say this is really disturbing!!
"I acknowledge the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church, the mother and mistress of all the Churches." (First Vatican Council, 2:12, http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM )

Notice that, in the following quote, the universal church is referred to as "Roman":
......I'll just be told, that's not what it "really" means.

Isn't a "mistress" someone your NOT supposed to be in love with? One verse in Rev. comes to mind... :eek:

bleechers

26th July 2004, 07:42 PM

I'm sorry you harbor such deep hatred of the Church. May the peace of Christ be with you

A. I don't see any hate in my post... referring back to the official doctrines of your own church is somehow "hate"? Could you be specific, where is my "hate" in that post?

B. The church in question tells me that I am "anathema" and that "hense there is no salvation for [me]" yet I am the one who "hates"? Why should I listen to a church that says what yours says in the Council of Trent or in Vatican II or in Unam Sanctam?

I shouldn't be disciplined for merely stating what those documents say.

Did you bother to read my post?

Yes, you stated that the use of the term "Roman" Catholic was not acceptable. We have just pointed to Cardinals and a Pope who have used the term (or at least an official translation from the Vatican). In Catholic theology, the Magisterium trumps you. My question is why don't you chastise your own Magisterium before coming here... which is a problem because you're forbidden to do so by your church...

Now, don't turn me in for just quoting to you from your own catechism. It's not my rule, it's your church's rules. Take it up with them or on OBOB... don't trouble us here with your dislike for your own church's semantics.

How is any of this either "hateful" or misleading?