The True Origin of Baptists?

nice conversation but what does any of that have to do with True Christianity & the conditions we live in today?

 

I do not think the origins will ever be solved with evidence. We know there has always been a New Testement church somewhere, named something. The Catholics claim origins back to Peter, which is baloney. It is evident we did not come out of the Reformation. The best we can say is that there may have been a loose connection through the years from modern day Baptists back to before the Reformation, along side the Catholic church. It may have been a different group, or series, but the beliefs are similar and connect Baptists to the early church.

The Catholic, Protestant, and Baptist faith has three distinct models.
Catholics adhere to a visible, universal church.
Protestants adhere to an invisible, universal church.
Baptists adhere to a visible, local church.

It seems to me the Baptist model most closely resembles the early church in Acts.

 

No, we will never settle this argument because there is simply not enough historical information, especially from the middle ages. There is no unbroken line of "biblical" Christianity outside of the Catholic church, though there were various groups at different times that practiced believer's baptism. Unfortunately most of them had other views most baptists today would not accept.

I do think it is clear that early Baptist resemlble HEAVILY both Reformation (protestant) and anabaptist views on many issues. Many early baptists were very influenced by the protestants, especially the puritans. That they also were influenced by anabaptists is also undeniable. But there is simply not evidence to say, "this group started hear, and eventually through unbroken succession, became this group of baptists."

I don't think it's that easy to separate protestants from Baptists, especially not in the way proposed, since protestants believe in local churches...and most baptists would say they believe in the universal church (defined somehow).

 

So when did the name"Baptist" come about as far as a denomination or church?

 

Well several SWBTS profs (McBeth & Estep) went at this issue for their entire careers and didnt come up with a workable solution.

I'm a English Separatist for Baptist origins. The Anabaptists might have had some worthy influence, but beyond believers baptism it is limited. It appears ( to me) that English Separatism is the better school of thought here.

The Trail of Blood, or Organic Successionism, was also developed by a SWBTS prof but it clearly is error laden and you've got to wade through too many obviously heretical sects to get from Jesus to Smythe.

It's a good discussion but I think the present regime has a political point at play in pushing the Anabaptist, Radical Reformation piece. Not a bad thing just a point.

 

The only thing one can say about that is that most Baptist churches act in an autonomous manner, and most main line Protestant churches act under a heirarchy, such as a Presbytery. The universal church is not emphasized in most local Baptist churches, and in Prostestant churches, it is in their creeds, such as the Apostles Creed. However, it is a fact that modern Baptists are much closer to Protestants than Catholics. Also, in certain cases, some Baptists are closer to some Protestant churches than to each other. For example, one might say a reformed Baptist church is closer to a Presbyterian Church of America than a General Baptist Church.

 

I think you have to distinguish which Baptists you're talking about when considering origins. The General Baptists were clearly influenced by the Anabaptists and Mennonites, whereas the Particular Baptists were influenced more by English Separatist Puritanism.

 

Then we have some that say Baptist go back to the Apostles, the way, Christians, Donatist, Paulicians, Arnoldists, Perobrusians and other groups. Because all these didn't believe in pedo-baptism, and originally held to the truthes of scripture and got of track in the end.

So no it will not be settled on this side of eternity.

 

I hold to the English Separatists view. As was pointed out earlier, there is so little "evidence" about this topic that it makes hard to say exactly when. Interestingly enough, we do have enough information to be able to eliminate some ideas, "Trail of Blood" for example.

Good point also in mentioning that this Anabaptist thing had more to do with being anti-Calvinist then most anything.

 

I had a divine revelation last evening, and the point of origin of the Baptist faith is the first pot luck. This is backed up in modern Biology books. After classifying all the different genus and species on earth, there is a chart that goes from most plentiful to rarest life form. At the very bottom of the chart the rarest life form on earth is listed as a thin Baptist preacher.

 

That might be Adam!!!!! LOL

 

Baptists may claim kinship with New Testament churches because are basic doctrines and practices are the same.

I don't think anybody here is claiming that there were no baptistic churches from the second century until the 16th. To hold such an idea is to concede that the gates of hell did prevail against the church Jesus established (and built) during his earthly ministry.

A former pastor of mine said that it's difficult to establish a succession of baptistic/Baptist churches, but that it's not unreasonable to believe so.

He gave an example. If you see wagon tracks going into a river, and you see wagon tracks coming out of the water, you may safely assume that there was a wagon and that it went through the water.

Successionism maybe a hard case to make; perpetuity, however, at least has some scriptural undergirding ("the gates of hell will not prevail against it.").

By the way, what's the problem with the Petrobusians, the Paulicians and the Donatists?