Are Baptist Protestants?

[trc123]

Of course not bgann. My statement that you are referring to was intended to show that the reason the early baptist were called "re-baptizers" is because they were re-baptized after they left the RCC. If they had existed apart from the RCC, there would be no need for a re-baptism.

Perhaps they were called "re-baptizers" because they made those "others" coming out of the RCC (even though they themselves had not) be baptized again as they held to what we would refer to "believer's baptism" and not baptizing infants who can not make a conscious choice for themselves.

[ptwild]

Perhaps they were called "re-baptizers" because they made those "others" coming out of the RCC (even though they themselves had not) be baptized again as they held to what we would refer to "believer's baptism" and not baptizing infants who can not make a conscious choice for themselves.

Perhaps, but what were those people (the ones who made those others coming out of the RCC be baptized again) called? Where was their church? Who were some of their leaders? The point is that those people, along with all those groups that Invicta listed, were all started by people who had at one time or another been members of what we know today as the RCC. I have researched most of those groups mentioned by Invicta and they don't even deny that they were once Catholic.

[trc123]

Sorry, but your statement, "The point is that those people, along with all those groups that Invicta listed, were all started by people who had at one time or another been members of what we know today as the RCC," assumes that the Roman Catholic Church was started way back to the time of Christ. You probably think it was Peter who started it. And that would be an erroneous supposition on your part (if indeed that is what you think). Christ started his Church and it wasn't the RCC, trust me!

[ptwild]

Sorry, but your statement, "The point is that those people, along with all those groups that Invicta listed, were all started by people who had at one time or another been members of what we know today as the RCC," assumes that the Roman Catholic Church was started way back to the time of Christ. You probably think it was Peter who started it. And that would be an erroneous supposition on your part (if indeed that is what you think). Christ started his Church and it wasn't the RCC, trust me!

I believe that the Apostles, based on the teachings, death and resurrecton of Christ, started the organized Christian Church. From a very early time, the members of the Christian Church disagreed with one another over certain matters, but they were all a part of one universal Church. As that church grew and views began to differ to a greater degree, certain movemants began within the church (all the while remaining part of the universal church). Finally, after years of disagreements, those movemants decided that if the Church didn't reform it's ways, they would form new churhces. That is, in a nutshell, the history of how we got to where we are today.

[holster]

Perhaps, but what were those people (the ones who made those others coming out of the RCC be baptized again) called? Where was their church? Who were some of their leaders? The point is that those people, along with all those groups that Invicta listed, were all started by people who had at one time or another been members of what we know today as the RCC. I have researched most of those groups mentioned by Invicta and they don't even deny that they were once Catholic.

ptwild... perhaps they were once RC and had to be re-baptized because someone forced them into that religion??? There was a state run church and people had no choice but to be "RCC" even if they did not practice it!

Not all people enjoy the freedom you and I have. Some people died so you and I did not HAVE to be RC. Some people died so they did not HAVE to have to have their infants baptized.

Have you ever read of heard of Mary Dyer? Right here in the good ol' USA she was killed for standing against "The Church" and infant baptism. In part, you owe your religious freedom to her and countless others who would not be forced into a state run church! You seem to read a lot. May I suggest that you read this book: IN CRIMSON RED

Here is Mary Dyers last words: "Nay, I came to keep bloodguiltiness from you, desireing you to repeal the unrighteous and unjust law made against the innocent servants of the Lord. Nay, man, I am not now to repent.

[ptwild]

ptwild... perhaps they were once RC and had to be re-baptized because someone forced them into that religion??? There was a state run church and people had no choice but to be "RCC" even if they did not practice it!

Not all people enjoy the freedom you and I have. Some people died so you and I did not HAVE to be RC. Some people died so they did not HAVE to have to have their infants baptized.

Have you ever read of heard of Mary Dyer? Right here in the good ol' USA she was killed for standing against "The Church" and infant baptism. In part, you owe your religious freedom to her and countless others who would not be forced into a state run church! You seem to read a lot. May I suggest that you read this book: IN CRIMSON RED

Here is Mary Dyers last words: "Nay, I came to keep bloodguiltiness from you, desireing you to repeal the unrighteous and unjust law made against the innocent servants of the Lord. Nay, man, I am not now to repent.

[HappyChristian]

Obadiah Holmes was beaten for his Baptist beliefs - in 1651 (or thereabouts). He, John Clark and John Crandall (my ggggrandfather) went to Mass from RI, at the request of a member of Clark's congregation who couldn't get to church,due to age and blindness, but wanted communion and some preaching. They came. And were IN HIS HOME. The meeting was broken up by church wardens (Puritan church) and the three men imprisoned. At their trial, one of the things that they were told was that teaching against infant baptism WAS WORTHY OF DEATH. They were not killed, but Obadiah Holmes was beaten - 30 stripes with a whip. By church people, on church order.

Mary Dyer was a Quaker at the time of her death. And it was her Quaker beliefs that got her killed...and it was the state. But remember: in Boston at that time, the state was run by the Puritan church and vice versa.

[holster]

And I've heard of Mary Dyer. And if my history serves me correctly, her death had nothing to do with infant baptism and was not carried out by the church, but by the state. Wasn't she the Quaker who was put to death for being within state lines after being exiled and for spreading "quakerism"?

Think... was there a difference between the "church" and the "state" or were they they the same? If the the "state" says you must join this "church" or be persecuted or killed, what is the diff? Yes, she was a "Quaker". My point is that she was killed for standing against the church. She did not believe in paying taxes to run the church, she did not believe in infant baptism, etc. For this she was killed.

Please, please read the book I suggested. I'm sure you can find one at the library.

[ptwild]

Think... was there a difference between the "church" and the "state" or were they they the same? If the the "state" says you must join this "church" or be persecuted or killed, what is the diff? Yes, she was a "Quaker". My point is that she was killed for standing against the church. She did not believe in paying taxes to run the church, she did not believe in infant baptism, etc. For this she was killed.

Please, please read the book I suggested. I'm sure you can find one at the library.

You may be right, but I thought she was killed here in the states, where we didn't have a state religion. And she was killed for breaking a state law, not a church law. And even it was the church that killed her, wouldn't it have been the Puritan Church, not the RCC?

[HappyChristian]

You may be right, but I thought she was killed here in the states, where we didn't have a state religion. And she was killed for breaking a state law, not a church law. And even it was the church that killed her, wouldn't it have been the Puritan Church, not the RCC?

She was killed on Boston Common, in Mass, before America was a country (1652). And yes, it was the Puritan Church, not the RCC - but a lot of the heirarchy and control in the Puritan Church transferred over to them from the RCC...

[ptwild]

Happy: sorry, I didn't see your response before I replied to holster. Before this discussion strays too far from where we are, I want to make it clear that I am not denying that people, whether they be Baptist, Presbyterian, Anglican . . . haven't been ill treated due to their beliefs. It just that in all my research, I haven't seen any evidence that any branch of christianity, as it exists today, ever existed apart from or alongside what became the RCC, prior to the Reformation. All of these groups, no matter their name, are off shoots of Catholicism (not the RCC we know today, but the one universal christian church).

What does it matter that the Puritan's heirarchy has roots in the RCC. Our country's governmental heirarchy has roots in ancient Greek, but we are far from having their beliefs.

[HappyChristian]

Happy: sorry, I didn't see your response before I replied to holster. Before this discussion strays too far from where we are, I want to make it clear that I am not denying that people, whether they be Baptist, Presbyterian, Anglican . . . haven't been ill treated due to their beliefs. It just that in all my research, I haven't seen any evidence that any branch of christianity, as it exists today, ever existed apart from or alongside what became the RCC, prior to the Reformation. All of these groups, no matter their name, are off shoots of Catholicism (not the RCC we know today, but the one universal christian church).

What does it matter that the Puritan's heirarchy has roots in the RCC. Our country's governmental heirarchy has roots in ancient Greek, but we are far from having their beliefs.

It doesn't matter = except that you asked wouldn't it be....

Have you ever read any of James Beller's books, pt?
Here's a link:
http://www.baptistink.com/James_Beller_s/285.htm
I think it might be the same book holster recommended. I know the man who teaches church history in our college highly recommends Beller's writings.

[ptwild]

It doesn't matter = except that you asked wouldn't it be....

Have you ever read any of James Beller's books, pt?
Here's a link:
http://www.baptistink.com/James_Beller_s/285.htm
I think it might be the same book holster recommended. I know the man who teaches church history in our college highly recommends Beller's writings.

Are baptist and quakers the same thing? I don't know much about the quakers.

[HappyChristian]

Are baptist and quakers the same thing? I don't know much about the quakers.

Oh, no - but they were both persecuted greatly here in America and in England. Because they both believed that God spoke to individuals, and that individuals had the right to make spiritual decisions....

Quakers believe(d) that each person is born with some divinity inside them. They were (are) pacifistic. They did join the Baptists in Rhode Island, because that was basically the only place where freedom really existed for a time in our country.

[ptwild]

Oh, no - but they were both persecuted greatly here in America and in England. Because they both believed that God spoke to individuals, and that individuals had the right to make spiritual decisions....

Quakers believe(d) that each person is born with some divinity inside them. They were (are) pacifistic. They did join the Baptists in Rhode Island, because that was basically the only place where freedom really existed for a time in our country.

Then how is the book you mentioned, which is about a quaker, supposed to shed light on Baptist history? Do the two groups have a shared history?