Baptists origins

dlockcarr · Jun 7, 2010

I have heard many theorys on this but was wondering what yall thought

Dark_Lite · Jun 7, 2010

They showed up after the Reformation, along with all the other Protestant denominations. According to ye olde Wikipedia, "[h]istorians trace the earliest Baptist church back to 1609 in Amsterdam, with English Separatist John Smyth as its pastor."

I'm assuming the main reason you posted this is because of other theories (they're really more hypotheses) like the Trail of Blood, which tries to connect Baptists to the ancient Church. There's no credible historical evidence for such a story. Baptists came after the Reformation.

Texan40 · Jun 8, 2010

There were a number of churches that somehow existed before and alongside the Roman and Greek Catholics. Could "modern day" Baptist churches be somehow linked to them? Certainly, but not necessarily. I wouldn't summarily toss out the possibility but modern Baptists certainly have some distinctions in common with those early churches that are not common with most "Protestant" reformations. Because Catholicism was married with government and military states many ana-baptists and other sects of Christianity were marked for extermination and therefore not preserved historically in common literature.

Epiphoskei · Jun 8, 2010

Dark_Lite said:
They showed up after the Reformation, along with all the other Protestant denominations. According to ye olde Wikipedia, "[h]istorians trace the earliest Baptist church back to 1609 in Amsterdam, with English Separatist John Smyth as its pastor."

I'm assuming the main reason you posted this is because of other theories (they're really more hypotheses) like the Trail of Blood, which tries to connect Baptists to the ancient Church. There's no credible historical evidence for such a story. Baptists came after the Reformation.

I suppose that depends entirely on what continuity is considered to be.

From an institutionalist perspective, the above may be right, but of course Baptists weren't part of the magisterial reformation, so by definition we don't understand the Church as an organization/institution according to the Roman or magisterial definition.

The heritage of Baptist and Anabaptist ideas can be traced back to Bohemia in the 1300's in the writings of Peter of Chelchicky, and earlier to the Waldensians in the 1100's. Various important doctrines can be found variously throughout the rest of the first millennium.

Saint Polycarp · Jul 12, 2010

Epiphoskei said:
I suppose that depends entirely on what continuity is considered to be.

From an institutionalist perspective, the above may be right, but of course Baptists weren't part of the magisterial reformation, so by definition we don't understand the Church as an organization/institution according to the Roman or magisterial definition.

The heritage of Baptist and Anabaptist ideas can be traced back to Bohemia in the 1300's in the writings of Peter of Chelchicky, and earlier to the Waldensians in the 1100's. Various important doctrines can be found variously throughout the rest of the first millennium.

There are Waldensians that still exist today and they have no relationship to Baptists. Many heretical doctrines and cults are traceable even to the 1st century. That doesn't make them Christian and they definitely aren't of Apostolic origin.

Epiphoskei · Jul 14, 2010

Doctrinally they have a great deal in common: rejection of Roman sacramentalism, rejection of state churches, rejection of oaths, rejection of war - these are all historic anabaptistic beliefs. You can't analyze the relationship of non-Roman churches as if we had Roman ecclesiology; these things are sufficient for our understanding of what church heritage is.

And the matter of what constitutes apostolic teaching is rather one of the larger points in dispute, so I don't see what it adds to the discussion for you to repeat your church's claim to be the "real" church of apostolic origin. Obviously we don't agree.

Saint Polycarp · Jul 15, 2010

The Waldensians held to non-Christian beliefs and practices. If I were a Baptist I definitely would not claim to have been related to them doctrinally.

Texan40 · Jul 16, 2010

Saint Polycarp said:
The Waldensians held to non-Christian beliefs and practices. If I were a Baptist I definitely would not claim to have been related to them doctrinally.

They held non-Catholic beliefs, but not any non-Christian ones that I have ever found reading about them even on Catholic information sources. They didn't believe in purgatory, they were opposed to taking oaths, they were against war, the death penalty, or the shedding of any human blood by their hands. Doesn't really sound like a heretical sect in the light of today's reformed churches. What specifically makes them heretical or non-Christian?

Saint Polycarp · Jul 16, 2010

Sorry. I was mistaken. I keep confusing Waldensians with Albigenses.

Korah · Jul 17, 2010

Saint Polycarp said:
Sorry. I was mistaken. I keep confusing Waldensians with Albigenses.

You picked a good username. You really are a saint. Surprising how little admission of error we see here among Christians.

Saint Polycarp · Jul 17, 2010

Korah said:
You picked a good username. You really are a saint. Surprising how little admission of error we see here among Christians.

Thanks.
The sad thing is all of us are wrong sometimes. We should be able to admit our mistakes regularly and it's Biblical to do so too..

JM · Jul 17, 2010

Some denominations such as Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy claim to have older, more historic roots but modern Baptists find their roots in English Puritanism. With a return to scripture, a shedding of traditions took place and the church returned to biblical roots.

Journey Seeker · Oct 4, 2010

Growing up as a Southern Baptist we were taught that Baptists are not Protestants because we did not "protest," or breakaway, from the Catholic Church. Only half tongue - in - cheek, we were taught Peter was pastor of the First Baptist Church of Jerusalem and that everyone else strayed from us, ie, "scared" traditions, robes, the lituragy that was developed later, a place called "purgatory" which never appears in the Bible, priests not being allowed to marry or have families, priests having the power to forgive people of their sins, etc.

JM · Oct 5, 2010

Are your protesting being called a Protestant?

Rev18 · Oct 7, 2010

JM said:
Are your protesting being called a Protestant?

...and to think protestant comes from the word protest. Learn something new everyday

miller123 · Dec 7, 2010

I heard that Luther hated baptists. Is this true?

cajunhillbilly · Dec 7, 2010

Saint Polycarp said:
Sorry. I was mistaken. I keep confusing Waldensians with Albigenses.

The Waldensians were orthodox on most doctrines and were similar to the Reformers in many of their beliefs. The Albigenses were a Gnostic cult that denied many basic doctrines.

JM · Dec 7, 2010

miller123 said:
I heard that Luther hated baptists. Is this true?

Anabaptists, yes. So did Calvin. But the Anabaptists were broken down into a few groups, some advocated polygamy and rule by force, others did not. Luther and Calvin did not like the radical reformers.

jm

Phileoeklogos · Dec 7, 2010

I thought we just came up out of the primordial ozze

Julian of York · Dec 10, 2010

Thank you for your most interesting question!
A quote from Zwingli,the Reformer: The Ana-Baptists have caused the Church nothing but trouble for the past thirteen hundred years."From XTIMELINE.COM "A History of the Baptists". This quote is from 1525 A.D..

There was no Bible available in the early churches.Some portions of the New Testament and some portions of the Old were in circulation among the persecuted (i.e.those outside the Catholic Church).A strictly word-of-mouth oral tradition amongst believers was mostly what was available. Remember,outside of Latin, the Bible was not translated into the "vulgar" tongues.All copies were kept out of the hands of laymen.So Baptists would have looked very much like everybody else. With the following exceptions
1)No infant baptism
2)Adult baptism of believers only
3)Baptism a sacrament, but NOT required for salvation.
4)Local lay preacher ruler,with elders,of their own congregation
5)Lord's Supper sacrament observed as SYMBOLIC.
Other teachings are obscure,as these people were persecuted,hounded,and martyred. And they could only remotely follow the Teachings of the Bible by oral tradition. Therefore, it is not easy to trail these through the early centuries.

A very interesting site I found: medievalchurch.org/ukMany good references.

Yours for the Faith of the Fathers,
Julian of York

Baptists origins

Video Games For Jesus

Chewbacha

seeking wisdom

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Newbie

seeking wisdom

Newbie

Anglican Lutheran

Newbie

Confessional Free Catholic

Newbie

Confessional Free Catholic

Newbie

Newbie

Regular Member

Confessional Free Catholic

Alten Schule Baptist

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency