How many of you are Baptists, and if Baptist know our history?

This is a "just for the heck of it discussion". How many of you know the buried history of the Baptist brethren. Perpetuity if you will. A history that has been buried by history revisionists and the like. How many of you would admit that we were called Anabaptists at one time?

 

Well of course all baptists were called anabaptist at one point. That's not exactly a secret, is it?

 

An even though I was raised baptist and ordained as a baptist, and even though I have recently started attending a baptist church, I don't use the label.

 

It is to the history revisionists today. And you and I are now standing alone on that opinion, save for a few others. It doesn't matter to them that C.H. Spurgeon quoted that fact from countless historians down through the centuries, or that our enemies unwittingly admitted to our perpetuity. Or that countless people of renown in centuries past admitted our existence even to the end of the first century. Here's one of my favorites from a book from the 19 century.


The Tri-lemma


Look at the bottom of page 302 also. Plenty of goodies there.
Baptist Church Perpetuity


The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit

 

I would wear that label happily RK. Just after the title Christian.

 

I'll be the first Christian-but-not-a-Baptist.

Grew up Pentecostal; currently attend a Presbyterian church. I don't identify with either. Not too familiar with the history, but well aware of the... unique relationship between history and various theological thought, theologians, etc.

 

I have attended a few Baptist churches In was raised, and still attend a United Methodist. I was a Methodist before we were United. In fact I have lately been worshipping electronically with the same church which is approaching 200 years old.

 

Not a Baptist. Reformed. I think there is something in the Heidelberg Catechism about those "damnable anabaptists" Been to a few Baptist churches over the years.

I recall some massive thread over at BF years ago where you were presenting something along these lines.

 

That would have been me Teddy. It was years ago and I believe it was named "those hard headed Baptists".

 

For all my appreciation for baptist theology and, to some degree, church polity, I cannot agree that "baptists" were never a part of the Roman Catholic church. I mean, for pity's sake, even John Huss was a Roman Catholic, albeit probably the first reformer or protestant, long before Martin Luther got carried away with door nailing.

There is simply no historical record, either from the New Testament or from the ECF, to indicate that "baptist" as a group identifier existed way back then. The NT is silent as to child baptism, as the indication from the NT is always believer's baptism ( notwithstanding the singular reference to the Philippian Jailer [you shall be saved, you and your OIKOS]. There is limited suggested in the ECF (Origen, Augustine, Iraneus, Cyprian, Hippolytus) that a significant portion of the NT church at least post 200 AD was practicing infant baptism; however, the record is not clear that there was any separate sect that was anabaptist (baptizing again) as an identifier of a group.

Hus, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli -- all of the European early Reformers (including Arminius) practices paedo-baptism. You really only see Anabaptists arising in the context of the Dutch and English separatists movements of the mid to late 16th and 17th centuries.

As to Waldenianism? While greatly persecuted by the RCC, there is still a significant historical gap between those guys and the early church fathers. The RCC of the dark and middle ages was an equal opportunity heretic hunting group... the RCC was then as political as theological (Competing Popes in Rome and Avignon, for instance).

I find the "Baptists succession" argument as compelling as the similar claim of Campbellites and 7th day Adventists.

it is not, however, something I have any significant interest in either arguing about or even engaging in a long conversation about.
I understand that our friendly neighborhood Parson is of a different opinion, and respect his right to that opinion.

I find the issue to be of, perhaps, quaternary, quinary, senary, septenary, octonary, nonary, or even denary importance, right up there on the same theological or ecclesiastical plane with "should the carpet in the aisle be red for the blood of Jesus or blue like the water or baptism", and "should children in Vacation Bible School be given red or green Koolaid to go with either their Ritz crackers or Vanilla Wafers?"

 

Oh, don't drink the Koolaid my friend...

 

Al Gore is a Baptist. Jesse Jackson is a Baptist. Saying you’re Baptist doesn’t say much more than you are a human. Just like Methodist,
Lutheran, Presbyterian. The liberal/conservative split had happen so many times in each that more question are always required of a church.

 

Give them a few minutes. If you can give an offering, baptists can come up with a Jewish Baptist denomination!

 

John the Baptist was a Jewish Baptist.

 

See, I told you so, Fenris.

The National Association of Jewish Baptists aka The Churches of St. John the Divine (The Dunkerites) is hereby established.
Statement of Faith:
1. Diet shall consist solely of locusts and honey. (Chocolate covered locusts and mead permitted by the "liberal" dunkers.)
2. Clothing shall consist solely of camel hair. (Camel hair colored cashmere topcoats permitted as well by "liberal" dunkers.)

 

That’s awesome! Good job!

When asked about Calvinism & Arminianism John is reported as saying “what are those things? I just preach repentance.”