Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by ventin, Oct 25, 2001.
as above. if not, are the Baptist from the ana-baptist line?
I am not a Protestant, and the Baptist church I pastor is not a Protestant church. However, I cannot speak for any Baptist other than myself and my church. We trace our heritage through the dissenter churches right back to the time of Christ. We were never in the Church of Rome so we never came out of it. The only difference the reformation made to my spiritual forebears was that instead of one "Church" persecuting them, there were 4 "Churches" persecuting them!
Ventin, Baptists are a branch among the many denominations that were born during the time of the Protestant revolution. Many Christians that generally championed soul liberty and believers baptism were attracted to the Baptist sect and formed churches. These churches were generally persecuted both in England and in the United States.
For a lot of great information, read The Baptist Heritage by Leon McBeth.
Moreover, I think it is wholly unnecessary to try to trace Baptist roots back to the time of Christ. God does not require it, and the only reason I can see for trying to link back through the ages is to try to convince people that we are the "one true" faith tradition. Which, excuse me, is ridiculus.
[ October 30, 2001: Message edited by: Houstonian ]
It seems a little bit inconsistent to me for Baptists who champion and insist on their version of doctrine as "correct and exact" in line with the Bible would also agree to allow their heritage to be traced through the murky twists and turns of the dissenting groups in the period of church history dominated in Western Europe by the RCC. All of these groups (Waldenses, Montanists, Donatists, Lollards, etc.) held to teachings and doctrines which were at the very least not consistent with the literalist approach of fundamentalist Baptists, and in many cases were extra-Biblical and even heretical in nature. In many cases, these groups were even further from the truth of scripture than the Catholic church at the time. The only way to reconcile them to Baptists of today is to find other Baptist authors who support that "trail of blood" view and have revised history related to these groups to suit their own view. No credible evidence exists to verify the claims made by people who hold to this view, at least not by any objective historical standard.
Baptist are separatists, with their origins in the Protestant reformation and its teachings, and were shaped and formed by the forces existing in the wake of that event. Though Baptists did not directly come out of the Roman Catholic Church directly (as the Anabaptists did), they originated as separatists from the Church of England and share a common historical heritage with the Puritans and Presbyterians, though they do not share a common doctrinal heritage. In effect, by the broad definition of the term, Baptists of all stripes are indeed "Protestants".
Our historical and geographical path shaped the acceptance of our distinctives, which are actually beliefs borrowed from other protestants of various groups.
Baptists came from the radical reformation in Switzerland. But who cares, we follow Christ.
I don't believe the Baptists came from all these earlier groups, either; as Ellis pointed out, there are too many differences in doctrine and practice.
But I have a very important question: What happened to those who adhered to New Testament doctrine, polity, and practice after the first century came to a close?
They continued on represented by some of those called Montanists, Novatians, Donatists, Britons, Celtic Churches, Paulicians, Petrobrussians, Albigenses, Waldenses, and some Anabaptists.
Can you prove that? I'm not trying to be contentious, I'm really trying to find out the truth. Didn't these groups, except the Anabaptists, have doctrines and practices which differed greatly from the Baptists?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Wrenn:
Didn't these groups, except the Anabaptists, have doctrines and practices which differed greatly from the Baptists?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Interesting question. What is it, exactly, that Baptists believe? We can see from this very board that Baptists believe, and practice, all sorts of different things, and I assume the above listed dissenters were no different. However, within those groups were believers who believed largely as I do. That can be seen from their own writings. I can recommend some titles, but unfortunately they are very rare and difficult to find. If there is a good theological library near you it may have some of the titles. A more readily available source would be through the second hand accounts of some of the more well known church historians such as Allix, Vedder, Faber, Christian, Mosheim, Newman, Hurlbut, and Cathcart.
Unfortunately, the nearest theological library is 90 miles away in Memphis, Tennessee.
I've read LOTS of church history, but I've never really read extensively about the beliefs of these groups; rather, I've only read what amounts to summaries of their beliefs.
It's real simple for me, the churches in the bible were indepentant churches and there were more than one church in each city, would you agree on that? ootayy, let's move on, if what i believe now is what those churches believed then, and the rcc didn't start it's false teaching until 320-400 a.d. depending on which historian you want to believe. that would mean the baptist i know didn't come out of the rcc because we (baptist) were already
there! so we didn't protest anything to come out of the rcc they left us and the true teaching of the scripture inwhich the independant churches of the N.T. taught and i still hold too
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
Interesting question. What is it, exactly, that Baptists believe? We can see from this very board that Baptists believe, and practice, all sorts of different things, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
See excellent article,
On Being Baptist
I believe that local assemblies of "Baptists" have existed from New Testament days until now, separate and distinct from the Catholic church. The heirs to this heritage should not have to be defined by their relationship (or lack thereof) to the Roman Catholic Church.
I do find the following observations interesting and somewhat contradictory: (1) those who argue for the acceptance of the widest diversity among Baptists usually will not recognize groups such as Donatists, Paulicians, and Waldenses as even being baptistic; and (2) those who argue for the recognition of these groups as "Baptists" often will not fellowship with or receive members from modern Baptists hold errors similar to those held by these ancient "Baptists".
Good point rlvaughn!
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
Interesting question. What is it, exactly, that Baptists believe? We can see from this very board that Baptists believe, and practice, all sorts of different things, and I assume the above listed dissenters were no different. However, within those groups were believers who believed largely as I do. That can be seen from their own writings. I can recommend some titles, but unfortunately they are very rare and difficult to find. If there is a good theological library near you it may have some of the titles. A more readily available source would be through the second hand accounts of some of the more well known church historians such as Allix, Vedder, Faber, Christian, Mosheim, Newman, Hurlbut, and Cathcart. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Would you concede, though, that the founders of the movement (Smyth, Helwys, et al) that produced the first baptist churches in America (those churches being the ones that produced the rest) were Anglicans seeking to reform their faith. Anglicans were originally Roman Catholics who rejected the authority of the Pope. Consequently, baptists are Protestant in origin.
Even if you reject this history (which seems to be the normative view among even conservative baptist historians - but not fundamentalist ones), the various heretical groups that are isted in the trail of blood were Protestant in that they rejected orthodox Christianity.
A Brief Survey Of Independent Fundamental Baptist Churches - What they are and what is their History
by Cooper P. Abrams, III
Dear Bro. Villines,
We need to remember that the General Baptists (Smyth and Helwys) are not the forefathers of modern Baptists. They all but died out by the late 1600's. All historians admitt the Particular Baptists are the real forefathers of modern American Baptists. These Particular Baptists have a continued succession from at least 1630 onward. Interesting enough these early Particular Baptists such as Kiffin, Knolly's, Spittlehouse, D'Anvers, and many others all claimed a succession with the earlier anabaptists groups. While some of them were converted puritans, others such as John Spilsbury appear to simply be earlier English anabaptists.
I appreciate the link; the article is interesting. But I wonder what all those early Christians based their beliefs/teachings on when there was no Bible as we have it today. The books of the Bible were all written before the close of the first century A.D., but these books had not been gathered together as a whole, nor had the canon been decided.
Also, the author's illustration of a Bible being dropped out of a plane among a tribe of natives leaves out one important point: such natives would be unable to read it.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ventin:
as above. if not, are the Baptist from the ana-baptist line?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If I may jump ahead in your question here...I would like to suggest that Baptist churches are not authenticated by looking backwards. We are authenticated by looking upward.
My church, Ashland Avenue Baptist Church in Lexington, KY, has as much claim to the teaching that a church is authenticated by its physical lineage as any church in North America. However, it is not our "church to church to church" chain that makes us an authentic Baptist church.