Baptists are not Protestants

[DMcFadden]

I'll give you Presbyterians this much: most baptists today are not much to write home about theologically.
* The ABC has an evangelical wing and a liberal wing. But, most of the evangelicals are unreflective Arminians. Many of them actually hide behind the idea that they affirm both the "biblically based" teachings on God's sovereignty AND those teaching man's free will. The liberals actually WANT to be connected to the Anabaptists, weight of history notwithstanding, simply because it serves their ideological purposes.
* The SBC has long since left the Calvinistic fold as well. Ergun Caner is a bit off the reservation in terms of his rhetoric, but not in terms of his position. Praise God for raising up Al Mohler to turn SBTS around and start pumping out strong Reformational pastors who return to the colonial and English roots.

 

[KenPierce]

Interesting. This is the old "Baptist Trail of Blood" faulty view of Baptist history.

How quick they are to link arms with heretics to claim this. Montanus? You've got to be kidding.

 

[refbaptdude]

A helpful lecture by Prof Jim Renihan.

Westminster Seminary CA
Westminster Seminary California academics

Origin of the Reformed Baptists
SermonAudio.com - Origin of Reformed Baptists


Enjoy,
Steve

 

[jaybird0827]

I was SBC in Florida for awhile. One of the handouts they gave me when I joined stated that baptists were not considered protestant.

 

[Davidius]

So what's the point of all this?

So what's the point of all this?

Sounds like some guys just want to slam on Baptists like they are second class citizens. Maybe Baptists are red headed step children who are just strong willed. Who knows?

That's a bit how I feel.

I said at the beginning that I find the article ridiculous. What more do you want? Do you think that I was slamming Baptists, or that the article's author was?. You realize that this article was written by a Baptist, not a Presbyterian, don't you?

Since there was another discussion of "Reformed" Baptists recently I thought this would expand the discussion some, since some Baptists don't even consider themselves to be within the broader scope of Protestantism, and therefore probably would shudder to be called Reformed. I stood up for you guys on the website's guestbook by linking them to the LBCF!

 

[refbaptdude]

Josh,

The new Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies page on the WTS site is nice also
Westminster Seminary California academics

 

[Davidius]

Josh,

The new Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies page on the WTS site is nice also
Westminster Seminary California academics

It's ironic to me that the institution at which Dr. Clark, who just wrote a blog entry on why Baptists are not reformed, has an Institute for Reformed Baptist Studies.

 

[Herald]

Does everyone notice how I have stayed out of this discussion?

Bye.

 

[Davidius]

Does everyone notice how I have stayed out of this discussion?

Bye.

I hadn't noticed, actually.

See ya!

 

[JohnOwen007]

In 1525 Swiss Anabaptists broke with Zwingli.

1535 Anabaptists in Zurich were suppressed.

1537 Menno Simons became leader of the Dutch Anabaptists

1538 Efforts made to expell Anabaptists from England

[...]

But NO "Baptist" activity prior to Zwingli. Sounds like a product of the Reformation to me.

Well I know many (well-read) baptists who would argue that the Anabaptists are not baptists at all: classical baptists arose from Puritanism not Anabaptism. The latter had a different view of baptism (despite believing it was only for adults), salvation, ethics, church, etc. etc.

As I understand it, the link between the Anabaptists may be there, but can't be historically proved from primary sources.

 

[Herald]

Does everyone notice how I have stayed out of this discussion?

Bye.

I hadn't noticed, actually.

See ya!

Well, not that I am THAT important of a baptist, but I am never shy of an opinion on threads like this. I think I'm on the "Who's Who" of notable baptists I am at the bottom of the list under the heading of, "We don't know him."

 

[Davidius]

Does everyone notice how I have stayed out of this discussion?

Bye.

I hadn't noticed, actually.

See ya!

Well, not that I am THAT important of a baptist, but I am never shy of an opinion on threads like this. I think I'm on the "Who's Who" of notable baptists I am at the bottom of the list under the heading of, "We don't know him."

I know, I know! Just trying to shake you up a little bit.

 

[Stephen]

Interesting. This is the old "Baptist Trail of Blood" faulty view of Baptist history.

How quick they are to link arms with heretics to claim this. Montanus? You've got to be kidding.

 

[VictorBravo]

Does everyone notice how I have stayed out of this discussion?

Bye.

Yes, Bill. First thing I thought of.

 

[Stephen]

(3) Baptists believe in their hearts in a free church in a free state. Christ plainly taught that the state and the church each had its own realm when he said "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar´s; and unto God the things which are God´s" (Matthew 22:21). Baptists are vigoriously opposed to union of state and church and believe that a state controlled church is a wretched excuse for Christianity and a plain departure from Scripture. All of the Protestant Reformers fastened state state churches upon their followers! Today Americans enjoy separation of church and state because of the vigor and vigilance of Baptists in the early days of our national history

I like.

The Westminister Confession of Faith and Catechisms clearly teaches the separation of powers between church and state. The Reformers, especially Calvin and Knox, did not force a state church upon the people. This is a faulty understanding of reformation history. Calvin strongly believed in a separation of the two but both the church and state had distinct roles. Calvin is the one who introduced the separation of powers, not the Anabaptist movement

 

[blhowes]

Well, not that I am THAT important of a baptist, but I am never shy of an opinion on threads like this. I think I'm on the "Who's Who" of notable baptists I am at the bottom of the list under the heading of, "We don't know him."

You've done remarkably refraining from comment thus far, but I was just curious. Just between you and me, what's you're opinion about all this? Are you a protestant?

 

[Herald]

Well, not that I am THAT important of a baptist, but I am never shy of an opinion on threads like this. I think I'm on the "Who's Who" of notable baptists I am at the bottom of the list under the heading of, "We don't know him."

You've done remarkably refraining from comment thus far, but I was just curious. Just between you and me, what's you're opinion about all this? Are you a protestant?

Nice try. Nice try.

 

[blhowes]

Nice try. Nice try.

Came THAT close...

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

The way I have heard it put concerns those independent churches which broke away from the attempted hegemony of Rome, starting perhaps with the church in Milan, and eventually becoming what were known as the Waldenses (or Vaudois) and Albigenses, whose godly communities in the mountains of Italy and France were relentlessly persecuted by Rome for centuries. There was a claim that they were baptistic, which is not clearly documented to my thinking. And if they were at all, it may well have been in opposition to the flagrant perversion of the Biblical doctrine of infant baptism by Rome. This is how I have heard the "we are not protestants" by my baptist friends -- those who were of that mind, meaning they were descended from the Waldenses, not the Reformers who broke from Rome.

 

[Wannabee]

The Reformers, especially Calvin and Knox, did not force a state church upon the people. This is a faulty understanding of reformation history. Calvin strongly believed in a separation of the two but both the church and state had distinct roles. Calvin is the one who introduced the separation of powers, not the Anabaptist movement

I also had understood Calvin to see the state as the arm of the church. For instance, the state was to execute heretics. Can you point to where Calvin makes it clear that he sees a true separation here?
This, as I have understood it, is inherent in the reformation. The reformers desired to change the church, which was inherently a political entity. The anabaptists, however, didn't concern themselves with changing anyone, but with pursuing their religion separate from and regardless of the politics around them.

 

[Simply_Nikki]

So what's the point of all this?

Sounds like some guys just want to slam on Baptists like they are second class citizens. Maybe Baptists are red headed step children who are just strong willed. Who knows?

That's a bit how I feel.

I said at the beginning that I find the article ridiculous. What more do you want? Do you think that I was slamming Baptists, or that the article's author was?. You realize that this article was written by a Baptist, not a Presbyterian, don't you?

Since there was another discussion of "Reformed" Baptists recently I thought this would expand the discussion some, since some Baptists don't even consider themselves to be within the broader scope of Protestantism, and therefore probably would shudder to be called Reformed. I stood up for you guys on the website's guestbook by linking them to the LBCF!

Sorry, my err. I thought it was the author. Thanks for your kind response in clearing up the matter for me.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I think I once read AA Hodge say that Baptists are "the Protestants of Protestants" in Evangelical Theology, but then he turned round and proved them wrong.

 

[DMcFadden]

I think I once read AA Hodge say that Baptists are "the Protestants of Protestants" in Evangelical Theology, but then he turned round and proved them wrong.

Hey, I never said we were right, merely that we were not $%#^@* Anabaptists. Frankly, thanks to PB, I'm seriously reconsidering my views on these issues anyway. I may learn how to baptize with a squirt gun yet. No, really, the PB has been a wonderful place to re-think things held since childhood, but often without a whole lot of exegetical/theological reflection. The more Reformed literature I read, the more sense it makes as a comprehensive package. For now, however, I'm not Reformed, just confessional baptist.

 

[shackleton]

Didn't the Baptists take the Reformation a step further by revolting against the government by not baptizing their babies which was akin to not registering them as citizens.

The original reformers reformed the church but baptists worked to completely seperate the church from the state. This is why they were punished were Luther and Calvin were not.

 

[Iconoclast]

Reformed Baptists

I see the Apostles as Reformed Baptists, as I see what is in the 1689 as what is taught in the Bible. I would not be in a Reformed Baptist Church if I did not believe this was the teaching of the Bible.
Padeo's look at the bible as if the Apostles taught what is summed up in the 1644, otherwise they should not be where they are doctrinally.
It is fruitless to look back to some of the various groups, Anabaptists, Montanists, Donatists, etc, and seek to link to them to prove your scheme is more truthful.
All those groups of people struggled to come to truth, or resist error in their day. They did not have all the advantages that we have. Heretics always come alongside the true work of God.
I am thankful to God for the Godly line of believer's he has preserved as he has promised he would. The Reformation was a time of restoration of much of the Apostolic teaching as being foundational. Not anyone of the men had all truth. To look back to church history and single out which men you link to sounds like the carnality Paul described in 1 Cor 3= I am of Paul, I am of Apollos

3For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?

4For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

5Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?

6I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.

7So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.

From Church history we can learn of which error's to avoid. To try and put our 2008 minds back to the dark ages by reading a few historical writings and think that we have a full grasp of what it was like to live at that time seems a bit futile. If believer's then held other views, but did not write as much as The Puritans , who would even know about them?
If people saw believer's baptism,but did not have as much light as some of the other men on other area's of theology so be it. Providentially God saw fit to have it happen that way.

 

[Kevin]

No matter how often I hear this theory, I am always amazed at the credulity of some people.

Of course baptists are Protestant. They are not Orthodox. Neither are they Roman Catholic. They are not a cult.

Therefore, they are Protestant, QED.

My father in law, an ordained minister, and a member of the SBC is visiting for three days. I bet my wife even money that his visit will not end without him saying that "baptists are not protestants" at least once.

Of course she declined. He may be a anti-historical-trail-of-blood-landmarkian-fanatic, but he didn't raise no fool!

 

[Barnpreacher]

No matter how often I hear this theory, I am always amazed at the credulity of some people.

Of course baptists are Protestant. They are not Orthodox. Neither are they Roman Catholic. They are not a cult.

Therefore, they are Protestant, QED.

My father in law, an ordained minister, and a member of the SBC is visiting for three days. I bet my wife even money that his visit will not end without him saying that "baptists are not protestants" at least once.

Of course she declined. He may be a anti-historical-trail-of-blood-landmarkian-fanatic, but he didn't raise no fool!

 

[nicnap]

 

[aleksanderpolo]

I see the Apostles as Reformed Baptists

Ya, and Jesus is Paedobaptist. Remember some people brought their child to Jesus, the "Reformed Baptist" apostles wanted to kick them away, but Jesus embraced them?

Back to the OP, hey Davidius, your thread title is even more controversial than Piper's book title!

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I see the Apostles as Reformed Baptists

Ya, and Jesus is Paedobaptist. Remember some people brought their child to Jesus, the "Reformed Baptist" apostles wanted to kick them away, but Jesus embraced them?

Back to the OP, hey Davidius, your thread title is even more controversial than Piper's book title!

Not really,

Reformed Baptist would want the Lord to bless their children. We understand that children are just as important to the Lord as adults are. That is the truth of the passage.