Featured Do Baptists come under the unbrella of Protestants

Salty!

Your own denomination's leading scholar:

[Albert Mohler in The Anabaptists and Contemporary Baptists: Restoring New Testament Christianity (Broadman & Holman, 2013]

"I stand indebted to the Radical Reformation in ways that cannot fully be calculated. Though Reformed in soteriology, I recognize that my decidedly Baptist ecclesiology has far more in common with the Anabaptists. I stand with the Anabaptists in their insistence on the baptism of believers only and the necessity of the personal confession of faith in Christ. I reject Calvin’s understanding of church and state and side without apology with those who died at the hands of those used the state as an instrument of the church, or the church as an instrument of the state. I stand with them on the sole final authority of Scripture, even when it means standing against the received tradition."

 

I agree with the broad definition. The general public recognizes 3 branches of Christianity. Baptists certainly are not Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic so they fall into the broad category of Protestant. Some have said that Baptists are third-wave Protestants in that their theology is not like that of Luther and the other early reformers, and not like the Methodists and Presbyterians who sort of broke off from the Lutherans and the Church of England as the second-wave so to speak. In the 1980s or so the Pentecostals were saying that they were a fourth branch of Christianity but I could never see that they were anything but Protestant. Many Baptists say that they do not belong to one of the three branches, also. I just say okay. I call myself a Protestant so I would have to leave any church who was offended by my thinking on the subject. I was in two other denominations before I became a member of the SBC. I was trying to escape liberal theology. I suppose the neo-Calvinists and SJWs will eventually drive me out of the SBC. It doesn't matter; I learned long ago that churches change. I am looking at other denominations already.

 

No we are of a different descendancy - the bloodlines of Jesus Christ.

1 Peter 1
18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

 

They, as we are told were hideout the church.

The old Chronicler Stowe, A.D. 1533, relates: "The 25th of May — in St. Paul's Church, London — examined 19 men and 6 women. Fourteen of them were condemned; a man and a woman were burned at Smithfield, the other twelve of them were sent to towns there to be burned."

Froude, the English historian, says of these Ana-Baptist martyrs — "The details are all gone, their names are gone. Scarcely the facts seem worth mentioning. For them no Europe was agitated, no court was ordered in mourning, no papal hearts trembled with indignation. At their death the world looked on complacent, indifferent or exulting. Yet here, out of 25 poor men and women were found 14, who by no terror of stake or torture could be tempted to say they believed what they did not believe. History has for them no word of praise, yet they, too, were not giving their blood in vain. Their lives might have been as useless as the lives of most of us. In their death they assisted to pay the purchase of English freedom." Likewise, in writings of their enemies as well as friends, Dr. Carroll found, their history and that their trail through the ages was indeed bloody: Cardinal Hosius (Catholic, 1524), President of the Council of Trent: "Were it not that the baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers." (Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pp. 112, 113.)

The "twelve hundred years" were the years preceding the Reformation in which Rome persecuted Baptists with the most cruel persecution thinkable. Sir Isaac Newton: "The Baptists are the only body of known Christians that have never symbolized with Rome." Mosheim (Lutheran): "Before the rise of Luther and Calvin, there lay secreted in almost all the countries of Europe persons who adhered tenaciously to the principles of modern Dutch Baptists." Edinburg Cyclopedia (Presbyterian): "It must have already occurred to our readers that the Baptists are the same sect of Christians that were formerly described as Ana-Baptists. Indeed this seems to have been their leading principle from the time of Tertullian to the present time." Tertullian was born just fifty years after the death of the Apostle John.

III

 

Some were called, Anabaptist then but are different than Anabaptist today.
The basic beliefs of believers baptism and individual responsibility are constant

 

As a young man, I was taught from the pulpit of an American Baptist Church that Baptists are not really protestants. As others have said, we separated from the Church of England that had separated from Rome, out side of Martin Luther's protests.

But the umbrella, non-Catholics covers us as well.

 

SWhen they called me a heretic, my answer was. "Rome calls me a heretic, and as your futurism is a Jesuit teaching, I am not surprised that you do."

I do not beleive it is true that no baptists came from the Reformation. When the disenters were exiled from England after The Anglicans adopted the reformers teaching, they returned to Egland in the 1640's as Presbyterians but soon changed to Baptists on reading bible teaching on the subject. Some of my ancestors came from Norwhich, a town to which many of the English Baptists came (C B Jewson History of Baptists in Norfolk and another on those in Norwhich. I have never managed to get my eyes ona copy of the latter) Jewson said the first Baptists Churches in the county of Norfolk were all Particular Baptists, General Baptists came in later from outside the county. The first English Baptist Confession of faith was in 1644, updated 1646.

 

Apologies for wandering from the OP, but:
Rome teaches a-millennialism...

"Futurism" was first proposed to the Roman Catholic Church by Francisco Ribera, a Jesuit, in the late 1500's.
Prior to that, it was virtually unknown to the RCC, especially during the Middle Ages and before the "Protestant Reformation".

But elements of it existed in the early centuries of the church before it became the RCC that we know from the Middle Ages.
It has never caught on in that institution, as they hold to an Augustinian "eschatology" ( understanding of future events from the Bible ), but not an Augustinian "soteriology" ( understanding of how salvation is accomplished ).

I'm curious...
How do you see the coming millennium and Christ's return?



As for the rest of English Baptist history, I agree that many or most of the Baptists from the 1600's were "Particular Baptists".

 

Rome teaches what suits her at the time. She taught that the Millenium would end in AD 1000 and then would be judgement. Many rushed to hand over their properties to the church, hoping that it would stand them in good for the judgement. The Jesuit Alcasar taught preterism. Jesuits Balamine, Ribera, Walpole (aka Michael Chrostopherson) and others taught futurism. Their masterpiece of deception was Manuel Lacunza, A Jesuit from Chile who wrote under the false name of Juan Josafat Ben Ezra, a coverted Jew, who wrote a book entitled La Venida del Mesias en Gloria y Magestad ("The Coming of the Messiah in Glory and Majesty"), . Lacunza wrote under an assumed Jewish name to obscure the fact that he was a Catholic, in order to give his book better acceptance in Protestantism, his intended audience. Also an advocate of Futurism, Lacunza was deliberately attempting to take the pressure off the papacy by proposing that the Antichrist was still off in the future. His manuscript was published in London, Spain, Mexico and Paris.
Another deception was involved in the the book was placed ob Rome's banned list. This book was translated into English by Edward Irving who took up the teaching and futurism crossed over from the Roman church to the protestant churches. From Irving to Darby.

The Irvingites began to hold conferences from the late 1820's known as the Albury Conferences. Among those attending was Ladt Powerscourt, who began hosting similar conferences in he home at Powerscourt, Ireland. Among those attending were Irving and Darby. That is the connection. (or connexion if you prefer) ,

The main point of all these deceptions is to make Christians to believe that the Pope is not Antichrist.

Please give references. My reading from the early church is that they were premillenialist and believed in an orderly transition of the future, i.e. historicist.

 

This is my final reply on this topic...

David, what does your personal reading of Scripture, without the outside influence of historical books, lead you to conclude?

 

Well I was originally taught dispensationalism by the Plymouth Brethren. When I went there my dad said "Beware of the Brethren, their teaching on the second coming is false." I took no notice of my dad's advice. But while I was there I met my wife. We went to meetings on the subject, and once at out church one of the elders we speaking on one of the prophecies of Daniel. Afterwards my wife commented "He said this is going to happen and then that is going to happen and then tghis is going to happen. I was expecting to read it in my bible, but I just cannot see it there. I fread it through and said "You are right, it isn't" Then I remembered my dad's words and started to read the scriptures and comentaries from people who did not support the teaching that I had discovered was false. I discovered that the Waldensians were correct when the claimed that the pope is antichrist. Clearly revealed in scripture. I had become a premillenian historicist. However I am reviewing the last part of that as scripture says the saints will be raised on the last day and the judgemnt will be on the last day.

 

My personal reading of the scripture leads me to believe that Antichrist is not mentioned in Daniel 9 or Daniel 11, and that Lucifer is not Satan and Jacob's trouble is not future,

 

Just as in the first Exodus, a mixed multitude to their opportunity to leave with the second Exodus, the Reformation. There were radicals like the Anabaptists and the charismatic prophets at the time who Luther also contended with.

 

The old saying is that with the Book of Daniel and a quart of whiskey you can prove anything.

 

Well I don't drink whiskey or even whisky, and I take a literal understanding of those prophecies.