Baptist church traced back to John the Baptist

Status
Not open for further replies.
shackleton

shackleton

Puritan Board Junior
I am hearing from more than a few people that the Baptist church can trace its roots back to John the Baptist. They say the Baptists did not need the Reformation because they were not a part of the Catholic Church.

I am not an expert in church history, but I thought EVERYONE was a part of the Catholic Church prior to the Reformation. I have read dissertaions from both Calvin and Luther against the Anabaptist movement. I realize the Baptists do not directly come from them, it is more the Mennonites and others, but I thought the Baptists definetely came about AFTER the Reformation. I thought ALL denominaitons trace their origin to sometime after the Reformation.

There is a group called the Landmark Baptists who claim they are direct descendants from John the Baptist.

Anyone with more knowledge than I care to respond.
 
Does this list start off like this, John the Baptist, Linus, Anacletus, Clement I, Evaristus … :D

Seriously, Landmark Baptists believe that there have always been faithful immersionist baptists since the time of John, and this thread of baptists is independent of the (Roman) Catholic church.

"And I also say to you that you are John, and on this rock I will build My Baptist church, and the gates of Hades and the paedobaptists shall not prevail against it."

Or something like that.
 
Just roll your eyes at them (ok, maybe just to yourself), disregard and move on. I've never heard of anyone believing that who turned out to be a semi-reasonable person to discuss issues with.
 
Brother, This is (sadly) a fairly common view in our day. My father in law (a baptist pastor) is a strong proponent of this view. It is often callled "trail of blood" after a nineteenth century booklet by the same name.

The short answer is that it is false.

In order to prove (sic) that Baptist have always existed the proponents of the theory must find pre-reformation groups that are outside of the Catholic church. They claim that these groups have adult baptism, a faithfullness to the scriptures, and congregationalism in common, thus making them "Baptist" according to the theory.

This theory is of course false. Many of the groups cited share only a slight similarity to each other and often have nothing in common with modern baptist groups except that they are "not catholic". It goes without stating that these groups have NO Connection with the church of the NT at all.

Many of historys most notorious, God hating, heritics have been re-cast as "Bible-Believing-Baptists" centuries after their death by well-meaning albeit misinformed modern christians. Some of these "new" baptists are Donatists, Paulicans, Cathars, Waldensians, and dualist of many stripes.

No legitimate Phd level historian of any type of Baptist holds to this view.
 
See this thread/post for one answer:
http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?p=6280&highlight=McGoldrick#post6280

Is it necessary to the truth of immersionism that there be immersionists all through history? The answer by all faithful baptists ought to be a resounding"NO!" I heard Dr. James Renihan (Director of IRBS, Westminster Seminary California) in the last few months answering to this issue on a radio program. And he also promoted McGoldrick's book I mentioned a couple years ago (in the thread linked above).

I do not believe in either immersion as the proper mode of baptism or of profession as sine qua non for its administration (re. infants of the faithful), but if I DID, I would not require a "succession" of credo-immersionists to validate the truth of my conviction. McGoldrick shows that the craving of successionists for a pedigree is essentially an empericist-historicist impulse, not a spiritual one. Groups that may have included ritual dunking, but taught strange and sometimes perverse doctrines, are included to prove the succession. The heresies are written off as Roman disinformation propaganda. The result is an elevation of immersion baptism to a status any baptism should have in NO church, namely the SURE sign of divine approval of that church.

For more on this discussion on the PB, use the search feature and look for such like: "baptist successionism" "landmarkism" "trail of blood"
 
I do not believe in either immersion as the proper mode of baptism or of profession as sine qua non for its administration (re. infants of the faithful), but if I DID, I would not require a "succession" of credo-immersionists to validate the truth of my conviction. McGoldrick shows that the craving of successionists for a pedigree is essentially an empericist-historicist impulse, not a spiritual one. Groups that may have included ritual dunking, but taught strange and sometimes perverse doctrines, are included to prove the succession. The heresies are written off as Roman disinformation propaganda. The result is an elevation of immersion baptism to a status any baptism should have in NO church, namely the SURE sign of divine approval of that church.
Click to expand...

Well put.

On a side note, I'm amazed at how many people hold to some form of landmarkism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top