Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Baptists that came out of the Reformation


Recommended Posts

  • Moderators

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. :( 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

​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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Members

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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. 

I believe the first year Baptists could go public was in Acts 9:31, after Paul was converted and stopped persecuting the churches.  Those early Christians were Baptists, baptized following the Lord's command, according to the same baptism He submitted to under John the Baptist.  This teaching that Baptists emerged in the 15 or 1600's is junk history used by people who elevate themselves to be leaders.

Calvinistic SBC churches are falling all over the place thanks to charismatic and Emerging Church teachings.  Mosques are replacing them all over the South...why?  Because Calvinism has little if any life in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I believe the first year Baptists could go public was in Acts 9:31, after Paul was converted and stopped persecuting the churches.  Those early Christians were Baptists, baptized following the Lord's command, according to the same baptism He submitted to under John the Baptist.  This teaching that Baptists emerged in the 15 or 1600's is junk history used by people who elevate themselves to be leaders.

Calvinistic SBC churches are falling all over the place thanks to charismatic and Emerging Church teachings.  Mosques are replacing them all over the South...why?  Because Calvinism has little if any life in it.

All sorts of Baptists and others are falling over themselves to become charismatics. The early Christians were not called baptists, just Christians.  The 1689 was not the first English Baptist confession.  The first was in 1644 and was after the Baptists began in England after the Reformation.  They came from the dissenters exiled in Holland.  The main non charismatic, non ecumenical Baptists in England are the Grace Baptists who follow the 1689,  the 1646 and 1644 confessions were similar.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

All sorts of Baptists and others are falling over themselves to become charismatics. The early Christians were not called baptists, just Christians.  The 1689 was not the first English Baptist confession.  The first was in 1644 and was after the Baptists began in England after the Reformation.  They came from the dissenters exiled in Holland.  The main non charismatic, non ecumenical Baptists in England are the Grace Baptists who follow the 1689,  the 1646 and 1644 confessions were similar.  

Nope.  The first Baptist confession was when John the Baptist preached "repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand".  The next Baptist confession was when Jesus told John to baptize, and then He began His ministry by preaching "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand", and ended His ministry by commanding His disciples to preach the gospel to every creature, and baptize Him and it sure wasn't any kind of Reformed Calvinistic baptism.  It was the same Hell fire and brimstone baptism of John the Baptist.  Baptists followed from John through Jesus Christ.......they didn't evolve out of the mud of the dark ages, crawling out from under Catholic rocks until they grew enough backbone to protest Catholicism and Reform according to Calvinistic teachings which try to supplant the word of God.  Those 1600 confessioners abused the name of Baptists.  They should have just called themselves Calvinistic Reformers and been more honest about their intentions.

My faith has found a resting place, not in device nor creed (nor any extra-Biblical Baptist confession)

I trust the ever living One, His wounds for me shall plead.

I need no other argument, I need no other plea.

It is enough that Jesus died, and that He died for me.

I reject all of the 1600 Baptist confessions.  I have the Bible, I don't need any Reformation theology or any of it's confessions of faith. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

All sorts of Baptists and others are falling over themselves to become charismatics. The early Christians were not called baptists, just Christians.  The 1689 was not the first English Baptist confession.  The first was in 1644 and was after the Baptists began in England after the Reformation.  They came from the dissenters exiled in Holland.  The main non charismatic, non ecumenical Baptists in England are the Grace Baptists who follow the 1689,  the 1646 and 1644 confessions were similar.  

Maybe your sorts of Baptists are falling over themselves to become charismatic.  Real Baptists remain real Baptists the same as they always have been like John the Baptists.  They always have and always will.  I still say Calvinists are not real Baptist no matter what Baptist Confession they claim to stand by.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Maybe your sorts of Baptists are falling over themselves to become charismatic.  Real Baptists remain real Baptists the same as they always have been like John the Baptists.  They always have and always will.  I still say Calvinists are not real Baptist no matter what Baptist Confession they claim to stand by.

Nonsense.  Particular Baptist redemption teaching goes right back to the Bible.  Paul taught it, Jesus taught it, after Paul his associate Clement taught it.  It is the true Baptist teaching. And by the way, in the previous post to the above, you misquoted me..  

Link to comment
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.



×
×
  • Create New...