Are Baptists Protestants?

Some of my more landmarkish/baptist successionist brethren contend Baptists are NOT protestants. Is this correct?

The first English Baptist Church is 400 years old. AD1610. It did NOT arise from the first wave of protesting against errors of Catholicism (like the Lutheran or Presbyterian). Even the Anglican, a little late and for awful reasons, are in the group of real PROTESTANT denominations against Rome.

But there was a second wave of protesting, this time against the abuses of both Catholicism AND many of the first-wave Protestant churches. Here the English Baptists are included with separatists, puritans (somewhat) etc.

(BTW, to link English Baptists and our polity/doctrine with a host of older European groups that would NOT be even welcome in our churches today is truly fanciful. English Baptists are NOT menonite or albigensian or waldensian or donatist or montanist, et al.)

So in a very legitimate sense we ARE very much PROTESTANT.

The balcony is open . . .

 

Today, we have clear-cut "distinctives" of what makes up a Baptist Church. I know of NO churches (but agree that there probably has been an isolated congregation here or there somewhere in the world) that hold these as therir distinctive polity throughout "history".

In 1600 there is NO RECORD of an English-speaking Church that was known and characterized by these. In 1610 they began to organize. By 1630 they were spreading across London and into rural England. Even by 1640 the first English Baptist congregation developed in the American Colonies.

It is fanciful to try to "link" odd duck groups with our precious Baptist beliefs and polity. There is an actual "starting date" when they PROTESTED against the Anglican (and other) abuse and formed congregations just like ours.

I don't know of one group that would "fit" into our church today from before 1600; I know of thousands since.

*Note: Baptists historically have held to

• Bible is sole authority for both faith AND practice. Obviously could list many basic Bible truths here as well, but this is general principle
• Regenerated (salvation by grace alone) church membership
• Autonomy of the local congregation
• Priesthood of the believers
• Soul Liberty of each individual
• Immersion/Lord's Supper for believers as only two Ordinances (not sacraments)
• Separation of Church from State
• Ethical Separation from the "world"
• Ecclesiastical Separation from an admixture of error/heresy

100% different from Catholicism/Orthodox. 99% different from "first wave" of Protestant (calvin/luther). But characteristic of the "second wave" of Protestants take the Reformation to the next level.

That is me. Proud of the Reformation heritage, but taking it to the next level as a "Reformed Baptist".

 

Sadly, some churches "parade" as Baptist, but as you've shown, are not in line. Calling them Baptist truly hurts our heritage.

I stand with you, brother, in believing that a rare congregation here or there has ALWAYS stood faithfully on the teaching of the Word similar to what English Baptists have done as a MOVEMENT since 1610.

But prior to 1610 there was no "identity" as a group of churches with an identifying moniker like the name "Baptist". I was raised in the landmark/trail of blood fanciful world that made out some real strange birds to be just like Baptists today. Simply not true. I opt not to link my English Baptist heritage that can be proven to hold the same beliefs and practices for 400 years with the nebulous "kinda like baptist" groups of earlier church history.