Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

360watt

Baptists that came out of the Reformation

Recommended Posts

Greetings! I am new here.. but thought I'd start a thread :)

 

Here in New Zealand, when you say you are baptist..  it barely ever means you are independent baptist.  The Baptist Church of New Zealand is what I would call 'Bapti-costal' or 'Charis-baptist'

They will immerse believers only and only by full immersion, and supposedly believe in sola scriptura and most will believe in a young earth.. but that is about where the similarities end.

These baptist came out of the reformation.. although I am not sure  from what group.  Did they see real baptist churches and try and make themselves similar?

Anyway.. I was wondering what the experience you guys have had of these kind of baptists.  The origin for the NZ ones is from the Baptist Union in the United Kingdom.

In New Zealand.. IFB churches are rare as needles in haystacks.  You are lucky to get more than 2 or 3 in a whole city.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aussie baptist Union is similar in considering themselves protestant, and are pretty much soft and liberal.

Charismaniac influence is creeping in all over the place over here.

We found NZ to be far more "religious" than Aus, with seemingly most people having a "Christian" heritage, but had a hard time finding a church to go to for the Sunday we were there. Found one in Nelson (I think), but only after we missed the service......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are so many different varieties of Baptist churches in America it would be hard to list them all. Depending upon what part of the country a person is in depends upon what sort of church people think of when they hear the name "Baptist".

IFBs are few, and some of them have or are going a bad direction, but thankfully there are still many good ones left scattered around the country.

There are also very liberal Baptist churches, Seventh Day Baptists, Charismatic Baptists, Southern Baptists, Reformed Baptists, etc.

The only way to really know what any particular Baptist church holds to and preaches is to check them out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you know Garth and Lynnette Piper there in NZ

​Not yet.. although some of my contacts might know them.  I know  folks in Dunedin and Palmerston North who go to independent type baptist churches. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aussie baptist Union is similar in considering themselves protestant, and are pretty much soft and liberal.

Charismaniac influence is creeping in all over the place over here.

We found NZ to be far more "religious" than Aus, with seemingly most people having a "Christian" heritage, but had a hard time finding a church to go to for the Sunday we were there. Found one in Nelson (I think), but only after we missed the service......

​Yeah it's the way of it.

Here in Christchurch.. you look in a directory.. 'oh look at that.. a baptist church just round corner!' ... then go there.. and 'oh.. they believe you can lose your salvation... oh.. they practice all the gifts'.. oh .. they believe in a universal church'...  so you look again..  

- 'oh look at that.. baptist church in the next suburb!'  .. then go there.. and 'oh same again.. believe you can lose your salvation.. practice all the gifts " etc etc....

Here in New Zealand.. the Anglican, Church of England denomination is the most popular.  And like you say .. a whole chunk of the population will actually tick 'christian' in the religion box..  but then the ones that are actually saved people following Jesus.. is a far far less percentage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was my impression, and talking to expats over here (Son plays rugby, most of his team are Maori) tells the same story.

Aussies are obviously more honest about it - they don't even pretend to care about God............. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The UK Baptist Union is not a Reformation church group. They were in the forefront of the free churches departure from the faith in the 19th century. One church I know has the distinction of being the first Baptist church to welcome an RC bishop as guest preacher. 

The 1689 Baptist Confession is a Reformed statement of faith, and I think few churches holding to that confession would be charismatic. 

Two or three in a city sounds good! Encourage them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings! I am new here.. but thought I'd start a thread :)

 

Here in New Zealand, when you say you are baptist..  it barely ever means you are independent baptist.  The Baptist Church of New Zealand is what I would call 'Bapti-costal' or 'Charis-baptist'

They will immerse believers only and only by full immersion, and supposedly believe in sola scriptura and most will believe in a young earth.. but that is about where the similarities end.

These baptist came out of the reformation.. although I am not sure  from what group.  Did they see real baptist churches and try and make themselves similar?

Anyway.. I was wondering what the experience you guys have had of these kind of baptists.  The origin for the NZ ones is from the Baptist Union in the United Kingdom.

In New Zealand.. IFB churches are rare as needles in haystacks.  You are lucky to get more than 2 or 3 in a whole city.

 

 

​As Covenanter said, 2 or 3 in a city is actually quite wonderful.  There are some countries that barely have 2 or 3 good IFB missionaries.

 

Churches:

http://www.wayoflife.org/directory/newzealand.html

 

Edited by DennisD
Adding links

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of people in evangelical and mainstream Baptist churches have a limited knowledge of history and think that everyone who isn't Catholic is Protestant. Are the churches you are referring to be the same kind of people? As far as I know, Baptists did not originate with the Reformation. (Although I suppose you could have had groups which saw the truth and came out of Reformation churches to start a more Baptistic fellowship.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of people in evangelical and mainstream Baptist churches have a limited knowledge of history and think that everyone who isn't Catholic is Protestant. Are the churches you are referring to be the same kind of people? As far as I know, Baptists did not originate with the Reformation. (Although I suppose you could have had groups which saw the truth and came out of Reformation churches to start a more Baptistic fellowship.)

​There were many independent baptist (small 'b') churches before & after the Reformation. These were persecuted as "Anabaptists" as to re-baptise those baptised in infancy was seen as sedition against the state church & the state that authorised whichever church the rulers supported. 

A popular treatment is in the book "Trail of Blood" & a more scholarly treatment in "The Reformers & Their Stepchildren." A review of the Stepchildren book can be read on line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I suppose you could have had groups which saw the truth and came out of Reformation churches to start a more Baptistic fellowship.

​The few Baptist churches I've encountered where I've also looked at what they say about their own history have all traced themselves back to dissenters. At the end of the day, if history shows lots of churches calling themselves Baptist appearing in the UK at the same time as the reformation, doesn't it follow that either the majority of those must have been filled with ex-Catholics and ex-CofE or else the existing Baptists must have starting breeding like rabbits?

In any case, the last time we had a thread on this, the consensus view was that if a group of new believers came out of a false church and tried to form their own church, it would be illegitimate because it hadn't been planted by a true church. If this is true, then it may be that >90% of churches that call themselves Baptist in the UK are illegitimate, including the ones that have their teaching right.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In any case, the last time we had a thread on this, the consensus view was that if a group of new believers came out of a false church and tried to form their own church, it would be illegitimate because it hadn't been planted by a true church. If this is true, then it may be that >90% of churches that call themselves Baptist in the UK are illegitimate, including the ones that have their teaching right.

That was really the consensus? Wow. That's off. Having believers come out of false churches and start a true church is exactly what we should like to see happen. I mean, hey - even the Reformers had the right idea - they just didn't come out far enough and left in a lot of bad doctrine.  A church is not legitimized because it can trace its lineage back to 30 AD (as if any could), it is legitimized by its faith in the One Who is the cornerstone and head of the church and in His Word.

Maybe this thread needs to clarify its definition of 'coming out of the Reformation'. There were Baptistic congregations before the Reformation, and surely many started after, some perhaps because of the Reformation. That would have been a time of increased Bible searching, of doubt in established belief systems, and of decreasing Catholic influence (i.e. control). Surely this would have been fertile ground for the Truth to spread.   To my mind, though, Baptists are not counted as Protestants because there was no formal organization of them that began at the time of Reformation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the discussion--see Jim Alaska's posts in particular. A church being legitimite by virtue of it having been planted, or at least authorised, by an existing Baptist church and therefore being part of a lineal progression back to 30AD, whether a given church can show it or not, was exactly the claim being made. And quite a few folk agreed--maybe I was hasty to say it was a consensus. :-)

Not trying to rehash that thread but it seems pertinent to this discussion...

Edited by Alimantado
Link not working...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the discussion--see Jim Alaska's posts in particular. A church being legitimite by virtue of it having been planted, or at least authorised, by an existing Baptist church and therefore being part of a lineal progression back to 30AD, whether a given church can show it or not, was exactly the claim being made. And quite a few folk agreed--maybe I was hasty to say it was a consensus. :-)

Not trying to rehash that thread but it seems pertinent to this discussion...

​Wow, and that was only last year. I've got a bad memory. :( 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of people in evangelical and mainstream Baptist churches have a limited knowledge of history and think that everyone who isn't Catholic is Protestant. Are the churches you are referring to be the same kind of people? As far as I know, Baptists did not originate with the Reformation. (Although I suppose you could have had groups which saw the truth and came out of Reformation churches to start a more Baptistic fellowship.)

​I wonder whether the Baptist Union type churches have more of a connection with Mennonites.  I am under the impression mennonites had the universal teaching still there but had other baptist type teaching.

Edited by 360watt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

​The few Baptist churches I've encountered where I've also looked at what they say about their own history have all traced themselves back to dissenters. At the end of the day, if history shows lots of churches calling themselves Baptist appearing in the UK at the same time as the reformation, doesn't it follow that either the majority of those must have been filled with ex-Catholics and ex-CofE or else the existing Baptists must have starting breeding like rabbits?

In any case, the last time we had a thread on this, the consensus view was that if a group of new believers came out of a false church and tried to form their own church, it would be illegitimate because it hadn't been planted by a true church. If this is true, then it may be that >90% of churches that call themselves Baptist in the UK are illegitimate, including the ones that have their teaching right.

 

​I guess the new believers would need to be rebaptised by a pastor from a true baptist church? - I have wondered recently about what the process would be for people in a false church who want to become  a real church

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The UK Baptist Union is not a Reformation church group. They were in the forefront of the free churches departure from the faith in the 19th century. One church I know has the distinction of being the first Baptist church to welcome an RC bishop as guest preacher. 

The 1689 Baptist Confession is a Reformed statement of faith, and I think few churches holding to that confession would be charismatic. 

Two or three in a city sounds good! Encourage them. 

The 1689 Reformed Confession is Calvinistic, in my opinion they are no more Baptists than the NZ or Aussies churches that call themselves Baptists while they teach and practice all kinds of unbiblical hooey.

Calvinists are Calvinists who pretend to be Baptists because they know that Baptists in general are the group most concerned about strong and solid doctrine.  Reformed theology is all about intellectual pride, so the Baptist name is adopted in my opinion as nothing but a sales gimmick used to recruit more people over whom their leaders can elevate their pedestal of intellectual pride while they teach others to hold the same pride believing they have discovered some beautiful and special truth about "election" which makes them sooo special.

Edited by Saintnow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 1689 Reformed Confession is Calvinistic, in my opinion they are no more Baptists than the NZ or Aussies churches that call themselves Baptists while they teach and practice all kinds of unbiblical hooey.

Calvinists are Calvinists who pretend to be Baptists because they know that Baptists in general are the group most concerned about strong and solid doctrine.  Reformed theology is all about intellectual pride, so the Baptist name is adopted in my opinion as nothing but a sales gimmick used to recruit more people over whom their leaders can elevate their pedestal of intellectual pride while they teach others to hold the same pride believing they have discovered some beautiful and special truth about "election" which makes them sooo special.

No! Your opinion is only "your opinion." 1689 was the first year baptist could "go public" without being persecuted by the laws against dissenters - prison, fines, 5-mile act, etc. 

Reformed theology is all about believing & preaching the truths of Scripture. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the discussion--see Jim Alaska's posts in particular. A church being legitimite by virtue of it having been planted, or at least authorised, by an existing Baptist church and therefore being part of a lineal progression back to 30AD, whether a given church can show it or not, was exactly the claim being made. And quite a few folk agreed--maybe I was hasty to say it was a consensus. :-)

Not trying to rehash that thread but it seems pertinent to this discussion...

The word of God is the lineal progression of the church.  To me, a real Baptist is a Baptist like John the Baptist, like Jesus Christ who started His ministry with the words of John the Baptist; "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand", and like the apostles who were baptized according to John's baptism and set this same baptism as one of the necessities for whoever might be chosen to replace Judas as an apostle.  God has always preserved His word and even though they were not always called Baptists, I believe true saved believers were in doctrine and practice Baptists...not reformed, not Calvinists, not Armenians, not Protestant...Baptists from Adam forward, Adam being baptized in the bloody skin of an animal which pictured the necessity of the coming Baptism and resurrection of our Lord.

All the arguments about Baptist history focusing on Protestantism rather than on John the Baptist who as far as I know was the first Baptist who was named "Baptist" just about makes me want to puke.  The great Protestant leaders deserve a lot of credit and honor for the sacrifices and changes they made, but those who became Baptists were in no way the first and in no way cornered the market for being Baptists.

The history is interesting to a point, but it becomes boring when it just goes on and on and on ignoring the history of Adam and John the Baptist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No! Your opinion is only "your opinion." 1689 was the first year baptist could "go public" without being persecuted by the laws against dissenters - prison, fines, 5-mile act, etc. 

Reformed theology is all about believing & preaching the truths of Scripture. 

Hogwash.  Reformed theology is all about twisting the scripture to fit Calvinism, and then pumping up personal intellectual pride to boast of having special understanding.  Spurgeon is accepted in IFB non-Calvinistic circles because he was honest about the teachings of Calvinism being questionable and confusing, seeming to make the Bible self-contradictory.  Spurgeon leaned the right way toward what Calvinists proudly say is "hyper-evangelism".

 

That 1689 Confession is nothing but twisted scripture with a lot of pseudo intellectuals who place their own intellect on par with the word of God...using a lot of big words in their reasoning as they twist the scripture, so people are supposed to look up to them and follow them for their scholastic aptitude  mumbo jumbo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

those 1689 Confession framers deserve credit for standing up against Catholicism, but the Calvinistic oppression of John Calvin ruling Geneva and making the Calvinistic Geneva footnoted Bible and forcing everybody in Geneva to toe his line to keep a fortress protecting themselves for Catholic persecution was not Baptist.  I believe Calvin would have set Jesus up to be Crucified just like the Pharisees did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...