Baptists aren't Protestants?

[technomage]

Reformed Baptist? That would be quite bizarre, since Baptists aren't Protestant. ../forum/images/smilies/huh.gif
Source. (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1052484&postcount=49)

RightIdea, if you're talking history, then I believe you're incorrect ... but rather than assuming, let me ask you to clarify the above, if you would please.

Justin

[Xavier]

Source. (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1052484&postcount=49)

RightIdea, if you're talking history, then I believe you're incorrect ... but rather than assuming, let me ask you to clarify the above, if you would please.

Justin
Seems like a common Baptist tactic... I've yet seen one been able to actually pull of full confession out from before the Reformation... Wonder why... :hehe:

[themuzicman]

Source. (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1052484&postcount=49)

RightIdea, if you're talking history, then I believe you're incorrect ... but rather than assuming, let me ask you to clarify the above, if you would please.

Justin
Baptists claim their historical roots in the Anabaptist movement, which was perscuted by the Catholic church, and supposedly can trace it's roots back to the days of the apostles.

Michael

[eudyptes]

Baptists claim their historical roots in the Anabaptist movement, which was perscuted by the Catholic church, and supposedly can trace it's roots back to the days of the apostles.

Michael
I remember a booklet that we studied when I was still in jr high. I believe it was called "Trail of Blood", it was supposed to be a quick history of how the Baptists come from a direct line of one of the early churches.

I don't remember if the booklet touched on the Anabaptists or not, it's been a long time ago. Plus I found it boring, and a nonissue to me, so I wasn't paying to much attention at the time anyway.

[Amazing Rando]

Baptists claim their historical roots in the Anabaptist movement, which was perscuted by the Catholic church, and supposedly can trace it's roots back to the days of the apostles.

Michael

Not exactly. I'm an Anabaptist (just got re-baptized, in fact!) and I've no problem considering myself a Protestant.

[Amazing Rando]

Not exactly. I'm an Anabaptist (just got re-baptized, in fact!) and I've no problem considering myself a Protestant.

To be specific, Anabaptists are usually considered to be part of the "radical reformation" in that they didn't believe that Luther went far enough.

[Meh_Gerbil]

Doesn't Protestant basically mean 'not Catholic' in Christian circles anyways?

Plus, I really, really hate the whole 'we trace our beliefs back to an early church' argument anyways. So your heresy is older than mine -- what does that prove exactly? It must really amuse the Jewish folks in the room to see a Baptist claim something so trivial.

[Amazing Rando]

Doesn't Protestant basically mean 'not Catholic' in Christian circles anyways?

For most people, yeah. If you're not Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox, then by default, you're a Protestant. Some people get all self-righteous and say, "I'm not a Protestant! I'm a biblical Christian!" Makes me kinda ill.

[themuzicman]

Doesn't Protestant basically mean 'not Catholic' in Christian circles anyways?

Plus, I really, really hate the whole 'we trace our beliefs back to an early church' argument anyways. So your heresy is older than mine -- what does that prove exactly? It must really amuse the Jewish folks in the room to see a Baptist claim something so trivial.

Technically, protestant would be a denomination that descends apostolically from Luther.

Michael

[technomage]

Depends on whose definition of "technical." After Luther, there were many groups that split from Catholicism (the Anglican church being, perhaps, the most famous) that are considered Protestant, yet who have no apostolic continuity to Luther.

[Amazing Rando]

Technically, protestant would be a denomination that descends apostolically from Luther.

Michael

Not neccesarily. Reformed Churches are most definitely non-Lutheran, yet they're usually deemed Protestant.

[Meh_Gerbil]

Well, I no longer feel safe calling myself a Protestant since the term seems to have no fixed meaning. I wouldn't want to communicate the wrong information -- and possibly offend someone by claiming to be Protestant while attending a Baptist Church.

I need a new title -- something vague that melds a hodge-podge of beliefs with no known roots -- something that updates my image, yet retains the gloss of antiquity.

*ponders*

Ah, I got it.

Call me a Wiccan.

:wink:

[technomage]

Well, I no longer feel safe calling myself a Protestant since the term seems to have no fixed meaning. I wouldn't want to communicate the wrong information -- and possibly offend someone by claiming to be Protestant while attending a Baptist Church.

I need a new title -- something vague that melds a hodge-podge of beliefs with no known roots -- something that updates my image, yet retains the gloss of antiquity.

*ponders*

Ah, I got it.

Call me a Wiccan.

:wink:
Watch it, bud ... keep on going like that, and I'll be calling you gator chow.

[themuzicman]

Not neccesarily. Reformed Churches are most definitely non-Lutheran, yet they're usually deemed Protestant.

Maybe that was a bit specific. IT would be break aways from the Catholic church during that day. I always assumed that Calvin broke from Luther.

Michael

[Amazing Rando]

Maybe that was a bit specific. IT would be break aways from the Catholic church during that day. I always assumed that Calvin broke from Luther.

Michael

Ever heard of the Marburg Colloquy? Zwingli and Luther debated the presence of Christ in communion/eucharist. I believe the year was 1526, though I can't be certain. Zwingli founded the Reformed churches completely independantly of Lutheran influence. I suppose we'd also have to classify the Anglican tradition as Protestant as well. The Anabaptist movement broke with Zwingli's Reformed church in 1525- so while not directly breaking from the Catholic church, it followed very soon after Zwingli's break.

[rmwilliamsjr]

Maybe that was a bit specific. IT would be break aways from the Catholic church during that day. I always assumed that Calvin broke from Luther.

Michael

Calvin is 2nd generation reformer, born 1509
Luther kicks off the Reformation in 1517.

Calvin probably converts to Lutheranism in 1530 or 1531. it is called evangelicalism in France, not Lutheranism except in anger by the Roman Catholics.

The majority of his contra work is directed at RCC, with a substantial amount addressed to Servetus and the Radical Reformation-the Anabaptists. In Institutes he only takes on the fringe of Lutheran theologians, i don't remember a bad word about Luther in the book.

Luther and Melanthon saw eye to eye on almost all topics but the Lord's Supper, and as was pointed out earlier, the Marburg Colloquy is important.
http://17.1911encyclopedia.org/M/MA/MARBURG_COLLOQUY_OF.htm

although in the history of reformed and lutheran interaction the Westphalia Treaty is more important





The sacramental controversy between Luther and Zwingli was apparently solved by the middle theory of Calvin, Bullinger, and Melanchthon, and had found a symbolical expression in the Zürich Consensus of 1549, for Switzerland, and even before that, in the Wittenberg Concordia of 1536 and in Melanchthon’s irenical restatement of the 10th article of the Altered Augsburg Confession of 1540, for Germany. Luther’s renewed attack upon the Swiss in 1544 was isolated, and not supported by any of his followers; while Calvin, from respect for Luther, kept silent.

from: http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/hcc8/htm/iv.xv.xv.htm
nice short chapter from schaff on the topic.

[themuzicman]

Well, I don't consider the Anglicans to be protestant, per se, since they weren't part of that movement. They were formed out of a ... er... different motivation.

Michael

[Dave G]

RightIdea has made this claim before to tizzidale and me before, laughing at our lack of historical knowledge of this "pure" Baptist strain, and he never backed it up. He said he had given Patroclus the info.

[rmwilliamsjr]

Well, I don't consider the Anglicans to be protestant, per se, since they weren't part of that movement. They were formed out of a ... er... different motivation.

Michael

the 39 articles are reformed.
not lutheran
not anabaptist or radical reformation.

.....

[Findo]

Many Anglicans hold 'protestant' theology though... like most Baptists.. surely it is the theology that is the determining factor?

[One Bad Pig]

I dislike the term "Protestant", because it doesn't describe my theology per se - it only denotes why I'm not OCC/RCC. I'd rather use the label "Evangelical".

[Findo]

From what I gather, Evangelical doesn't mean much these days either...

[Amazing Rando]

I dislike the term "Protestant", because it doesn't describe my theology per se - it only denotes why I'm not OCC/RCC. I'd rather use the label "Evangelical".

One could perhaps use the term "evangelical" to denote a specific subset of "Protestants?"

[One Bad Pig]

One could perhaps use the term "evangelical" to denote a specific subset of "Protestants?"
Yes, although there are evangelical Catholics and Orthodox as well.

[Amazing Rando]

Yes, although there are evangelical Catholics and Orthodox as well.

Good call! :yes:

[Krusader]

the 39 articles are reformed.
not lutheran
not anabaptist or radical reformation.

.....

This is correct. The 39 Articles of the Episcopal Church derive from Calvinist views. Right now the Episcopal Church is basically apostate, however there are groups of believers in either Anglican breakaway groups or who remain in ECUSA. These believers are divided between "Catholic" and "Protestant" thinking. The AMiA, a growing breakaway group, is charismatic, protestant and catholic. Those in the "Traditional Anglican Communion," are bent on returning to Rome. Tension exists between these believers.

[johnnybanano]

Technically, protestant would be a denomination that descends apostolically from Luther.

Michael

Does that mean that technically, Methodists, Wesleyans, Nazarenes, and Kezwickians are not Protestant?

[Anoetos]

The word "Protestant" originally referred to those Lutheran princes who "protested" the decision of the Diet of Speyer (1529)that communities with Lutheran churches should be free to keep such churches, and that until the meeting of a Church council no new innovations should be made, also that the Catholic Mass should not be forbidden. A corrollary to this was that the Catholics in a given region continued to be free to proselytize while the Lutherans were not.

Since then it has come to refer to any (generally western) Christian church which is not specifically Roman Catholic and which at least originally affirmed the soteriological and magisterial doctrines articulated by the Reformers.

"Evangelical" originally referred only to the Lutherans, at least ecclesially, although by extension it refers to anyone who believes that salvation is solely by grace operating through faith alone in the finished work of Jesus Christ.

As such, technically, it is not available to Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox persons unless of course they repudiate concurrently the soteriology of their respective churches.

But, this will not stop them from using it, so why quibble?

[Findo]

This is correct. The 39 Articles of the Episcopal Church derive from Calvinist views. Right now the Episcopal Church is basically apostate, however there are groups of believers in either Anglican breakaway groups or who remain in ECUSA. These believers are divided between "Catholic" and "Protestant" thinking. The AMiA, a growing breakaway group, is charismatic, protestant and catholic. Those in the "Traditional Anglican Communion," are bent on returning to Rome. Tension exists between these believers.

The Sydney Anglicans (http://sydneyanglicans.net/) are thoroughly evangelical... the most solidly growing denomination in Australia.

[Krusader]

Depends on whose definition of "technical." After Luther, there were many groups that split from Catholicism (the Anglican church being, perhaps, the most famous) that are considered Protestant, yet who have no apostolic continuity to Luther.

Many Anglicans squirm if you lump them together with Protestants. Actually, when Henry made himself head of the church in the Pope's stead, he never changed any of the body of received Catholic doctrine. Edward, his son, was much influenced by the reformers, but died before being able do much about it. Under Bloody Mary, England was again submitted to the papacy, but with her death, Elizabeth I brought reformation back into favor, with the Queen as head of the Church. In Anglicanism you have three streams of tradition: evangelical (fairly Calvinistic in its views), High Church (via the Oxford movement), and the Broad Church which is essentially liberal and which currently controls the American branch of Anglicanism, the Episcopal Church. Interestingly, however, is the fact that the official name of ECUSA is "the Protestant Episcopal Church."

[The Curtmudgeon]

Baptists claim their historical roots in the Anabaptist movement, which was perscuted by the Catholic church, and supposedly can trace it's roots back to the days of the apostles.

That's partly correct, but it doesn't go far enough. When I was growing up, it was commonplace for Baptists to disclaim the "Protestant" label because the Baptist faith goes back to roots older than Luther and the 16th century Protestant Reformation -- but very often, individual Baptists not deeply interested or studious in history couldn't have named those roots, and sadly I do know of Baptists who were absolutely astounded to learn that we don't trace our beliefs back to John the [Southern] Baptist.

Whom we do trace back to, prior to the Anabaptists, were primarily John Wycliffe and John Hus. These men would not have known the "Baptist" label in their time, but many of their teachings were specific sources for the beliefs that later became labelled "Baptist". (Of course, other denominations besides the Baptists also trace back to Wycliffe & Hus; Luther himself used a lot of Wycliffe's teachings, I believe.) From Wycliffe & Hus, the traditions gained a huge impetus from the non- (or perhaps less-) radical Anabaptist splinters, especially Menno Simmons (albeit we've never really been grouped with the Mennonites, there's a lot of common ground). In England under Elizabeth and then the Jacobite kings, early Baptists rubbed figurative (and sometimes literal) shoulders with other Dissenter groups, and rounded out the fundamentals of Baptist beliefs with some input from Congregationalists and the like. (Since many of these groups who influenced or shaped the direction of the Baptist movement can be fairly called Protestant in their own right, it seems to me fairly silly to insist that we as Baptists are not. And truly, you hear much less about that in Baptist churches--although, perhaps not in our seminaries--now than a few decades back.)

An early Calvinist influence brought about the first major Baptist split, into General and Particular Baptists. By the time the Baptist faith was getting settled into the BNA Colonies, much of the G/P split was being papered over, and Calvinism went mostly underground among American Baptists until fairly recently. We're now seeing nearly as much vituperation over the "Calvinist" label among Baptists as hasn't been seen for over 300 years.

The (hope that this is helpful) Curtmudgeon

[One Bad Pig]

I've been reading The Reformation: A History by Diarmaid MacCullough. Among other things, I've learned that the term "Protestant" was for quite a while limited to German dissenters; the reformers called themselves "evangelicals".

[Joe Gofish]

Baptists claim their historical roots in the Anabaptist movement, which was perscuted by the Catholic church, and supposedly can trace it's roots back to the days of the apostles.

Michael
Baptists claim their historical roots in the Anabaptist movement, which was perscuted by the Catholic church, and supposedly can trace it's roots back to the days of the apostles. JUST OUT AND OUT WRONG

[Joe Gofish]

Baptists claim their historical roots in the Anabaptist movement, which was perscuted by the Catholic church, and supposedly can trace it's roots back to the days of the apostles. JUST OUT AND OUT WRONG
Will you please give us your FACTS

[The Curtmudgeon]

Will you please give us your FACTS

Actually, any good, thorough history of the Anabaptists will show that they were persecuted by not only the Roman Catholics, who were at that time persecuting and executing dissenters of all stripes, but by the "mainstream" Protestants -- Lutherans and Zwinglians, and Anglicans in England -- as well.

Anabaptists were pretty much persecuted whereever they showed up, by whoever was the majority sect in that area, Roman or otherwise, unless they took root and grew quickly enough to become the local majority before the persecutions got going good. This was primarily due to the nature of the two main ideas that separated the Anabaptists from the other denominations at this time: Believer's Baptism, and Separation of Church and State. Romans, Lutherans, Zwinglians/Calvinists and Anglicans were all state-sponsored (or state-sponsoring, depending on your point of view) denominations, tightly linking their church with the political order of their area, and using Pedobaptism to unite the whole polity within their denomination. Anabaptists would have no part with this: Only people mature enough to understand the principal of Christ's atonement for the remission of sins should or could be baptised, and the state had no authority to force anyone to join any particular sect or creed -- Christianity had to be willingly and intelligently chosen by each person for himself, or was meaningless. That put them on the wrong side of pretty much every Christian denomination in the early and mid-16th century.

Here's a pretty good summary of the various persecutions of the Anabaptists: Anabaptist History - Persecutions (http://www.anabaptists.org/writings/excerpts/meneu-1.html).

The (persecution is good for the Church, but not when it's the Church doing the persecuting) Curtmudgeon

[Pursuing_Truth]

Baptists claim their historical roots in the Anabaptist movement, which was perscuted by the Catholic church, and supposedly can trace it's roots back to the days of the apostles.

Michael

Contrary to popular belief, Baptist origins come from the Puritans not the Anabaptists. While the Puritans were still in Holland, many of them began to move away from infant baptism to believers baptism by immersion. Roger Williams, a Puritan, was exiled from the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1635 and started the colony of Providence, RI. He was exiled due to his criticisms of the MBC for not seperating enough from the Church of England, taking Indian land without compensation, and their alliance between church and state. Williams planted the first Baptist congregation in 1639 with Welsh and other immigrants. Williams went on to reject the Baptists as he repudiated all visible forms of the Church. The rejection of infant baptism may have come from Anabaptist influence by the Baptists do not have Anabaptist origins. Their origins are English Puritanism.

[Pursuing_Truth]

And, by the way, Baptists are and always have been Protestants.

[The Curtmudgeon]

Contrary to popular belief, Baptist origins come from the Puritans not the Anabaptists. While the Puritans were still in Holland, many of them began to move away from infant baptism to believers baptism by immersion. Roger Williams, a Puritan, was exiled from the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1635 and started the colony of Providence, RI. He was exiled due to his criticisms of the MBC for not seperating enough from the Church of England, taking Indian land without compensation, and their alliance between church and state. Williams planted the first Baptist congregation in 1639 with Welsh and other immigrants. Williams went on to reject the Baptists as he repudiated all visible forms of the Church. The rejection of infant baptism may have come from Anabaptist influence by the Baptists do not have Anabaptist origins. Their origins are English Puritanism.

Over-simplification, I'm afraid. If anything, it might be better to say that Baptists trace descent from both the Puritans and the Anabaptists, but I look more to the Anabaptists mainly because American Baptists owe more of their current beliefs to the General Baptists, who were primarily Anabaptist-influenced, as opposed to the Particular Baptists who were more like the Puritans. While the earliest Baptists in the American colonies still showed some of the prevailing English split between GB and PB, the split disappeared, or perhaps was papered over, rather soon over here with more of the Generalist beliefs prevailing than otherwise.

But in fact, saying that the Baptists had their origins in the Puritans is like saying that they had their origins in the Roman Catholic church -- it speaks only for the historical placement of religious movements in Christianity without addressing the origins of beliefs. The Baptists were really an outgrowth of the Separatist movement, those Christian communities who had essentially given up on "Purifying" the Anglican church (which is the origin of the name Puritan, of course) and had determined on Separation as the only hope of restoring True Worship. Although the Puritans would eventually move more in a separatist direction themselves, originally their intention (like Luther's) was to reform and purify from within the Established Church. And from the very earliest Baptists, they deliberately looked to the pre-Lutheran martyrs Wyclif and Hus as embodying the principles on which they would stand. And like the Pilgrims, English Baptists were forced to spend years in Holland (or the Low Countries, as it was mostly known at that time) where they very definitely came under the direct influence of the Anabaptists.

While Roger Williams is certainly looked up to by American Baptists for forming the first Baptist congregation over here, he could not be considered with Baptist origins except strictly on that local basis. The Baptists had been in existence for at least a half-century before his time, and the lines of our beliefs were already laid down.

The (but the one thing Baptists are supreme at is arguing among ourselves) Curtmudgeon

[The Wolf]

Technically, protestant would be a denomination that descends apostolically from Luther.

Michael

Luther was an apostle?
Protestant are the ones protesting, needlessly these days, against The Church.

[Joe Gofish]

The Anabaptist was started in 1521 by Storch and Munzer.

The Baptist was started in 1609 By Smith.
Both are man made churchs,one 1485 and the other 1397 years after the death of Christ.

[One Bad Pig]

The Anabaptist was started in 1521 by Storch and Munzer.

The Baptist was started in 1609 By Smith.
Both are man made churchs,one 1485 and the other 1397 years after the death of Christ.
Christ died in AD 124? :huh:

[Okieshowedem]

As an Exbaptist I can say Baptist are more like Catholics.
They have the same God, they observe most the same holidays.
Both fight against the Laws written in their own Bibles.
Both have changed the Sabbath to Sunday with out any Scriptural authority what-so-ever.
Since the Catholic Church is called the great whore in Rev.17:5 and the Protestants are her daugthers
I would say that make the Baptist her sister..;o)

Okieshowedem

[One Bad Pig]

Your interpretation of Revelation is sadly lacking.

[technomage]

Your interpretation of Revelation is sadly lacking.

I thought for a moment you were talking to me. :smile:

[One Bad Pig]

I thought for a moment you were talking to me. :smile:
I haven't seen your interpretation of Revelation yet.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Seems like a common Baptist tactic... I've yet seen one been able to actually pull of full confession out from before the Reformation... Wonder why... :hehe:Actually I think it's a very uncommon baptist tactic. There is a teeny tiny handful of internet Baptists who try to spin this one.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Actually, any good, thorough history of the Anabaptists will show that they were persecuted by not only the Roman Catholics, who were at that time persecuting and executing dissenters of all stripes, but by the "mainstream" Protestants -- Lutherans and Zwinglians, and Anglicans in England -- as well.

Anabaptists were pretty much persecuted whereever they showed up, by whoever was the majority sect in that area, Roman or otherwise, unless they took root and grew quickly enough to become the local majority before the persecutions got going good. This was primarily due to the nature of the two main ideas that separated the Anabaptists from the other denominations at this time: Believer's Baptism, and Separation of Church and State.It was not separation of church and state that caused so many issues. It was the separation of church and society, and the independence of Christian communities from the state.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Ever heard of the Marburg Colloquy? Zwingli and Luther debated the presence of Christ in communion/eucharist. I believe the year was 1526, though I can't be certain. Zwingli founded the Reformed churches completely independantly of Lutheran influence. I suppose we'd also have to classify the Anglican tradition as Protestant as well. The Anabaptist movement broke with Zwingli's Reformed church in 1525- so while not directly breaking from the Catholic church, it followed very soon after Zwingli's break.Right, and there were people who could be called Protestant in some sensible sense of the word before Luther too (e.g. Wycliffe).

[technomage]

Rest assured I'm not going to go around spouting "Sacred Name" nonsense. :lmbo:

[Amazing Rando]

As far as I'm concerned, all Christians who are neither Orthodox nor Catholic are Protestant. And yes, that includes me.

[technomage]

Actually I think it's a very uncommon baptist tactic. There is a teeny tiny handful of internet Baptists who try to spin this one.

More common than you may think, Theo. It goes back at least as far as 1931, to the publication of The Trail of Blood (http://users.aol.com/libcfl/trail.htm) by J. M. Carroll, where Carroll claims that the Baptists went all the way back to before Tertullian. It's common in some of the independant Baptist churches like the ones I grew up with.

[Solly]

Actually, any good, thorough history of the Anabaptists will show that they were persecuted by not only the Roman Catholics, who were at that time persecuting and executing dissenters of all stripes, but by the "mainstream" Protestants -- Lutherans and Zwinglians, and Anglicans in England -- as well.

Anabaptists were pretty much persecuted whereever they showed up, by whoever was the majority sect in that area, Roman or otherwise, unless they took root and grew quickly enough to become the local majority before the persecutions got going good. This was primarily due to the nature of the two main ideas that separated the Anabaptists from the other denominations at this time: Believer's Baptism, and Separation of Church and State. Romans, Lutherans, Zwinglians/Calvinists and Anglicans were all state-sponsored (or state-sponsoring, depending on your point of view) denominations, tightly linking their church with the political order of their area, and using Pedobaptism to unite the whole polity within their denomination. Anabaptists would have no part with this: Only people mature enough to understand the principal of Christ's atonement for the remission of sins should or could be baptised, and the state had no authority to force anyone to join any particular sect or creed -- Christianity had to be willingly and intelligently chosen by each person for himself, or was meaningless. That put them on the wrong side of pretty much every Christian denomination in the early and mid-16th century.

Here's a pretty good summary of the various persecutions of the Anabaptists: Anabaptist History - Persecutions (http://www.anabaptists.org/writings/excerpts/meneu-1.html).

The (persecution is good for the Church, but not when it's the Church doing the persecuting) Curtmudgeon

Contrary to popular belief, Baptist origins come from the Puritans not the Anabaptists. While the Puritans were still in Holland, many of them began to move away from infant baptism to believers baptism by immersion. Roger Williams, a Puritan, was exiled from the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1635 and started the colony of Providence, RI. He was exiled due to his criticisms of the MBC for not seperating enough from the Church of England, taking Indian land without compensation, and their alliance between church and state. Williams planted the first Baptist congregation in 1639 with Welsh and other immigrants. Williams went on to reject the Baptists as he repudiated all visible forms of the Church. The rejection of infant baptism may have come from Anabaptist influence by the Baptists do not have Anabaptist origins. Their origins are English Puritanism.

Over-simplification, I'm afraid. If anything, it might be better to say that Baptists trace descent from both the Puritans and the Anabaptists, but I look more to the Anabaptists mainly because American Baptists owe more of their current beliefs to the General Baptists, who were primarily Anabaptist-influenced, as opposed to the Particular Baptists who were more like the Puritans. While the earliest Baptists in the American colonies still showed some of the prevailing English split between GB and PB, the split disappeared, or perhaps was papered over, rather soon over here with more of the Generalist beliefs prevailing than otherwise.

But in fact, saying that the Baptists had their origins in the Puritans is like saying that they had their origins in the Roman Catholic church -- it speaks only for the historical placement of religious movements in Christianity without addressing the origins of beliefs. The Baptists were really an outgrowth of the Separatist movement, those Christian communities who had essentially given up on "Purifying" the Anglican church (which is the origin of the name Puritan, of course) and had determined on Separation as the only hope of restoring True Worship. Although the Puritans would eventually move more in a separatist direction themselves, originally their intention (like Luther's) was to reform and purify from within the Established Church. And from the very earliest Baptists, they deliberately looked to the pre-Lutheran martyrs Wyclif and Hus as embodying the principles on which they would stand. And like the Pilgrims, English Baptists were forced to spend years in Holland (or the Low Countries, as it was mostly known at that time) where they very definitely came under the direct influence of the Anabaptists.

While Roger Williams is certainly looked up to by American Baptists for forming the first Baptist congregation over here, he could not be considered with Baptist origins except strictly on that local basis. The Baptists had been in existence for at least a half-century before his time, and the lines of our beliefs were already laid down.

The (but the one thing Baptists are supreme at is arguing among ourselves) Curtmudgeon


Gnerally right.

The English baptists did come out of the separatist movement, but the first group, who were Arminians, went to Holland to get baptised by the Mennonite anabaptists, and there were anabaptists in England - working and worshipping and being persecuting from time to time. The particulars started a bit later, but didn't hook up with the anabaptists because the particulars were Calvinist. But there was crossover, as many baptists went to Holland to escape persecution by the Anglicans.

Baptists were persecuted by one and all in the American colonies, by the very people who had fled Britain to escape persecution by the government and King.

If one describe Protestant technically, they they are not, since in England they were against the government controling religion, not against the Catholic Church as Luther and Calvin were. If one describes it generally, for which the word Evangelical is now used, then they are. What does it matter?

Solly *sllly
Baptist.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

More common than you may think, Theo. It goes back at least as far as 1931, to the publication of The Trail of Blood (http://users.aol.com/libcfl/trail.htm) by J. M. Carroll, where Carroll claims that the Baptists went all the way back to before Tertullian. It's common in some of the independant Baptist churches like the ones I grew up with.Yeah, I'm familiar with the book, and the practices of independent Baptists. But I would hate for anyone to think that it's a common thing for Baptists to say. By far most Baptists would never say such a thing, and I'd be somewhat bothered if someone were led to think that independent Baptists were the norm.

[technomage]

Yeah, I'm familiar with the book, and the practices of independent Baptists. But I would hate for anyone to think that it's a common thing for Baptists to say. By far most Baptists would never say such a thing, and I'd be somewhat bothered if someone were led to think that independent Baptists were the norm.

I didn't think "norm" and "independant Baptists" beloned in the same paragraph. :lol:

[shunyadragon]

Technically, protestant would be a denomination that descends apostolically from Luther.

Michael

As noted by others, Luther was a part of the general movement at the time in Europe that is loosely called Protestant. This movement does not descend form Luther, Luther was a part of that movement.

[Amazing Rando]

As noted by others, Luther was a part of the general movement at the time in Europe that is loosely called Protestant. This movement does not descend form Luther, Luther was a part of that movement.

Though perhaps one could say he helped initiate it. There were other dissenters before him (Huss and Wycliffe) but none who formally severed ties with the Catholic Church.

[shunyadragon]

Though perhaps one could say he helped initiate it. There were other dissenters before him (Huss and Wycliffe) but none who formally severed ties with the Catholic Church.

Well, there was a movement in Europe, as you noted that other theologians were involved before and after Luther as a general reformation movement. I am not sure whether calling Luther being the first to break away works. Did Luther actually form a church with his name? I believe he did not initially want to break away necessarily, but intended to reform the Roman Church.

[One Bad Pig]

Well, there was a movement in Europe, as you noted that other theologians were involved before and after Luther as a general reformation movement. I am not sure whether calling Luther being the first to break away works. Did Luther actually form a church with his name? I believe he did not initially want to break away necessarily, but intended to reform the Roman Church.

:yes: He initially only questioned the sale of indulgences, and had no desire to leave the Roman Catholic Church. When confronted by the authorities, he chose to accept excommunication rather than compromise on his reform efforts.

[Urizen]

I remember a booklet that we studied when I was still in jr high. I believe it was called "Trail of Blood", it was supposed to be a quick history of how the Baptists come from a direct line of one of the early churches.

I don't remember if the booklet touched on the Anabaptists or not, it's been a long time ago. Plus I found it boring, and a nonissue to me, so I wasn't paying to much attention at the time anyway.

Certain Baptists, generally of the Landmarkist variety, attempt to create weird sort of history back to the time of the Apostles by attempting to claim various schimatic groups as the forebearers.

The problem of course is that many of the groups are quite heretical by the standards of any Christian. The little booklet you mention, written by James Milton Carrol, in particular includes such groups as the Cathars (who were essentially Gnostics) as proto-Baptists. Basically it gets to a point where any group which baptized adults and ran into conflict with the Roman Catholic Church becomes Baptist regardless of their theology.

[tq958]

Seems as if there is such a wide verity of Baptist sects that the name is the only question here. I went to Cornerstone University which was Grand Rapids Baptist College when I was there. It is a mixture of mostly dispensational theology. Spurgeon, and Strong had Calvinist theology as did the puritans. I am not a Baptist yet have many friends who are.

[Jaltus]

Anabaptism has roots older than some are allowing. Remember that there was an anabaptistic controversy in the 200s due to the mass "apostasy" during periods of persecution and the original need to rebaptize covered those who had "left" the church during this time.

[Amazing Rando]

Anabaptism has roots older than some are allowing. Remember that there was an anabaptistic controversy in the 200s due to the mass "apostasy" during periods of persecution and the original need to rebaptize covered those who had "left" the church during this time.

You sure about that? I don't recall any calls to rebaptize those who had denied the faith during the years of persecution (and I say this as a genuine Anabaptist myself!). Can you point me to any discussion in the Church Fathers from that era?

[One Bad Pig]

You sure about that? I don't recall any calls to rebaptize those who had denied the faith during the years of persecution (and I say this as a genuine Anabaptist myself!). Can you point me to any discussion in the Church Fathers from that era?
Perhaps Jaltus is referring to the Donatists (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05121a.htm) (4th century, not 3rd).

[Amazing Rando]

Maybe- though I'm not sure if the Donatists practiced rebaptizing. I thought he was referring to the 3rd century controversy involving those who had renounced the faith rather than be killed by the imperial persecutions. Cyprian had a lot to say on that one about extending grace to those who had succumbed under pressure.

[One Bad Pig]

Maybe- though I'm not sure if the Donatists practiced rebaptizing. I thought he was referring to the 3rd century controversy involving those who had renounced the faith rather than be killed by the imperial persecutions. Cyprian had a lot to say on that one about extending grace to those who had succumbed under pressure.
The Donatists held that the Catholic church had perished, and required Catholics who wished to join them to be rebaptized.

[Jluk]

Guys, why is everyone so concerned with denomination? Shouldnt we be more concerned with saving people that dont know our redempter Jesus Christ? Shouldnt we have more post talking about how to engage those who do not know Jesus?

[undead]

I doubt that there are any true protestant churches outside of the Free Presbyterian church of Northern Ireland and "God hates fags" etc.

Protestant means "protest". If you are not protesting against Catholicism, or something else, then you are not "protestant" no matter whom you claim descent from.

As for Baptist churches, I don't hear much protest from them about anything these days.

[ravenlorre]

Why do so many people want to distance themselves from Protestantism? The fact is, like it or not - if you accept Luther's doctrine of sola scriptura (and if you do not, you are either Catholic or some offshoot of Protestantism like LDS or JWs) then you are a Protestant.

If it quacks like a duck......

blessings

[One Bad Pig]

Why do so many people want to distance themselves from Protestantism? The fact is, like it or not - if you accept Luther's doctrine of sola scriptura (and if you do not, you are either Catholic or some offshoot of Protestantism like LDS or JWs) then you are a Protestant.

If it quacks like a duck......

blessings
Perhaps because they'd rather be identified as standing for something rather than against? :shrug: Anyway, I'm Orthodox now rather than Baptist.

[pablo]

you must all know that catholicism is not the only one Christian denomination here on earth and to think that all the church (which they call themself Christians) outside catholicism are protestants nor came from protestantism nor born from reformation. the problem is RC is so successfull that they manage to embed to many people mind that if your not a catholic, you must be a protestant.

there are churches which, in anyhow, they were not involved in catholicism even from the time when constantine called a national meeting of all religion to unite all religions in his empire just to save his power. that is the very reason why even after the roman empire converted to Christianity (as they said), they still persecuting alot of Christians that are not involve in they newly founded Christian denomination which they latter called catholicism.

if your a Christian, you will not prohibit your men or anyone to read the Bible. but these roman catholicism founded by constantine actually deny his people to read or even to own a Bible. what is in the Bible that they dont want their people to read?

[COPLAND 3]

Christ established the Catholic Church 2000 years ago, not Constantine (rediculous!). Clement of Rome was a Catholic, Ignatius of Antioch was Catholic, as well as the those who taught them such as the 12 Apostles.

It is true that many denominations are not necessarily offshoots from the Reformation in the sense of being in a succession of denominations because some denominations now are Americanized inventions created in someone's home. Anybody can go and start a denomination, many have. But there is one true Church, and that is the Catholic Church, any denomination is an organized religious group that is outside of the Church that Christ established.

[one_lost_coin]

Guys, why is everyone so concerned with denomination? Shouldnt we be more concerned with saving people that dont know our redempter Jesus Christ? Shouldnt we have more post talking about how to engage those who do not know Jesus?

which denominations version of how to be saved?

that's why.

[one_lost_coin]

you must all know that catholicism is not the only one Christian denomination here on earth and to think that all the church (which they call themself Christians) outside catholicism are protestants nor came from protestantism nor born from reformation. the problem is RC is so successfull that they manage to embed to many people mind that if your not a catholic, you must be a protestant.

there are churches which, in anyhow, they were not involved in catholicism even from the time when constantine called a national meeting of all religion to unite all religions in his empire just to save his power. that is the very reason why even after the roman empire converted to Christianity (as they said), they still persecuting alot of Christians that are not involve in they newly founded Christian denomination which they latter called catholicism.

if your a Christian, you will not prohibit your men or anyone to read the Bible. but these roman catholicism founded by constantine actually deny his people to read or even to own a Bible. what is in the Bible that they dont want their people to read?

There are some points here I find very interesting. The Catholic and Orthodox both identify themselves and recognize each other as churches not denominations as each properly has maintained Apostolic Succession and the Seven Sacraments. There are no denominations that can demonstrate Apostolic succession and none that maintain the seven sacraments.

I have always found it interesting that the absence of these two things are unique to communties that established themselves from the 1500's on. Yet are always found in churches that can trace their existance through the actual laying on of hands from the very Apostles who received their commision from Jesus Christ Himself.

You are rather shortsighted with your RC fixation. The Catholic Church is larger than the Church of Rome. There are in fact around 20 churches all that can trace back 2,000 years that make up the Catholic Church all in unity with each other as exemplified by being in unity with the Chair of Peter. only the church at Rome has protestant factions this phenomenon is unknown to the catholic churches of the east and to the orthodox.

As the Christian Church spread throughout the Empire and beyond, five major administrative centers developed into the first Patriarchates: Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Rome and finally, in the 4th Century, Constantinople. The Bishop at each of these five centers was known as the Patriarch, and the Patriarch of Rome was considered "first among equals" by the others.

I myself am not Roman Catholic but am a Catholic of the Church at Antioch the very one where in Acts they were first called Christian. Yes, it is still alive and well. We are an Eastern Catholic Church in full unity with Rome. There is also another term coined in Antioch attributed to the Bishop of Antioch St. Ignatius, St. Ignatius knew the Apostle John personally and learned the Christian faith straight from St. John's lips. The term he coined was "Catholic".

"Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" - St. Ignatius of Antioch (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

You may note and should note this is well before Constantine or his father or grandfather were even born.

All Catholic Churches since they all believe the same things they believed 2,000 years ago are truly united to each other today as well as united through time to the church of the first century. I as an eastern catholic can walk into any catholic church to worship, pray, receive the sacraments and listen to the daily readings of the Sacred Scriptures as I often do and they can walk into ours as they often do.

So you say you know of some communities that were not catholic in the first centuries, so does everyone else so did St. John when he wrote 1 John 4:6 We belong to God, and anyone who knows God listens to us, while anyone who does not belong to God refuses to hear us. This is how we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit. There were many heretical groups the gnostics, the arians, the nestorians... to which of these do you refer?

Very much in constrast to what you believe the catholic church reads scripture daily as it has for 2,000 years. Far from being kept from reading the bible it has been in fact continuously read. You can see for yourself walk in to any daily mass and you will hear the large portions set aside for the reading for that day.

The catholic church does very much discourage and frown upon some of the poor translations that existed then and those that exists even today and has and still does reject them as any Christian community should.

[anglicanformary]

Well, according to http://www.yourdictionary.com the term 'protestant' has the following defintions:

1. History: any of the German princes and free cities that formally protested to the Diet of Spires (1529) its decision to uphold the edict of the Diet of Worms against the Reformation.

2a.. any member of the various Christian churches established as a result of the Reformation

2b. loosely any Christian not belonging to the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Church

[one_lost_coin]

Well, according to http://www.yourdictionary.com the term 'protestant' has the following defintions:

1. History: any of the German princes and free cities that formally protested to the Diet of Spires (1529) its decision to uphold the edict of the Diet of Worms against the Reformation.

2a.. any member of the various Christian churches established as a result of the Reformation

2b. loosely any Christian not belonging to the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Church

I would not consider those definitions adequate. Protestants are a unique occurrence in the western Church. There are no protestant equivalents in the Eastern Church where heresies of that type do not exists.

[Kelp]

You mean like nonsacerdotal, "low church" type sects? The Nestorians still exist as an Eastern heresy though they are sacerdotal/liturgical as I recall.

[technomage]

I would not consider those definitions adequate. Protestants are a unique occurrence in the western Church.

Technically speaking, Protestants are not considered "heretics" by the Catholic Church (as Protestants have not received a baptism that the RCC considers "valid"). Some of the teachings of Protestantism would be considered heretical, and most Protestant churches are considered "deficient" in at least one of several areas, but "heresy" is not (quite) an accurate term.

There are no protestant equivalents in the Eastern Church where heresies of that type do not exists.

Actually, I would point to the Nestorians, and to the confession of Cyril Loukaris, as examples of heresy "of that type."

[technomage]

Why do so many people want to distance themselves from Protestantism?

Because if you distance yourself from Protestantism, you can claim to be "the original church" or "descended from the apostolic beliefs," as some Baptists (such as J. H. Carroll) have done.

[hedrick]

>Protestants have not received a baptism that the RCC considers "valid"

This is generally not the case. There are formal agreements between the RCC and some churches (e.g. the Methodists) recognizing each other's baptism, but informally the RCC will not normally rebaptize most Protestants. Because anyone can administer baptism, the same issues don't exist with it that exist with communion.

[technomage]

>Protestants have not received a baptism that the RCC considers "valid"

This is generally not the case. There are formal agreements between the RCC and some churches (e.g. the Methodists) recognizing each other's baptism, but informally the RCC will not normally rebaptize most Protestants. Because anyone can administer baptism, the same issues don't exist with it that exist with communion.

Excuse me--you are quite correct, and thank you for your gentle correction to my error. :smile:

[one_lost_coin]

Technically speaking, Protestants are not considered "heretics" by the Catholic Church (as Protestants have not received a baptism that the RCC considers "valid"). Some of the teachings of Protestantism would be considered heretical, and most Protestant churches are considered "deficient" in at least one of several areas, but "heresy" is not (quite) an accurate term.



Actually, I would point to the Nestorians, and to the confession of Cyril Loukaris, as examples of heresy "of that type."

Actually the Catholic Church has properly identified which protestant beliefs are heretical. I would refer you to the council of Trent. Protestantism is defiecient because its foundational beliefs are heretical. The term heresy has dropped from the vocabulary only because it is no way to enter into any sort of useful dialogue with our seperated brothers and sisters.

You are also wrong about baptism Catholics recognize most protestant baptisms as valid when done with water in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit. Which is still mostly the case except with the minority of some of the pentecostal movements that do not accept the doctrine of the Trinity.

I myself am a convert from protestantism and my baptism was considered most valid.

[harmonmsp]

The term heresy has dropped from the vocabulary only because it is no way to enter into any sort of useful dialogue with our seperated brothers and sisters.

If this is true, it's a bit disturbing. What else should I be skeptical of as far as vocabulary, when/if in a meaningfully seeking conversation with a Catholic?

[one_lost_coin]

If this is true, it's a bit disturbing. What else should I be skeptical of as far as vocabulary, when/if in a meaningfully seeking conversation with a Catholic?

It is merely an observation of my own not some formal strategy. You can relax.

People have in fact stopped calling each others beliefs heresies when in fact where there are two different beliefs someone is in fact wrong and that erroneous belief/teaching is in fact a heresy. I can only imagine this was an unproductive way to begin a true dialogue in search for the truth and has been replaced by a prayerful openness to listening to what each other is saying and to the truth of what God is saying.

During my conversion to Catholicism I was most surprised that most of what I had been taught about what Catholics believe they do in fact not. Yet I grew up hearing nothing but inaccurate information about their heretical beliefs similar to the one posted above that I thought deserved clarification. Turns out some of what I believed was heretical and yet I was not able truly know what another believes until I could learn to respectfully listen and allow another truly express their beliefs as accurately as possible.

If you want to know what any Catholics believe so that you may have a more meaningful conversation try reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church as it clearly and painstaking presents the beliefs of Catholics on everything. It can be read for free online or purchased at any books a million or barnes and nobles

So that we can all know St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas". "The right Christian faith consists in giving one's voluntary assent to Christ in all that truly belongs to His teaching. There are, therefore, two ways of deviating from Christianity: the one by refusing to believe in Christ Himself, which is the way of infidelity, common to Pagans and Jews; the other by restricting belief to certain points of Christ's doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure, which is the way of heretics. The subject-matter of both faith and heresy is, therefore, the deposit of the faith, that is, the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church. The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the Church; the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own approval. The heretical tenets may be ignorance of the true creed, erroneous judgment, imperfect apprehension and comprehension of dogmas: in none of these does the will play an appreciable part, wherefore one of the necessary conditions of sinfulness--free choice--is wanting and such heresy is merely objective, or material. On the other hand the will may freely incline the intellect to adhere to tenets declared false by the Divine teaching authority of the Church. The impelling motives are many: intellectual pride or exaggerated reliance on one's own insight; the illusions of religious zeal; the allurements of political or ecclesiastical power; the ties of material interests and personal status; and perhaps others more dishonourable. Heresy thus willed is imputable to the subject and carries with it a varying degree of guilt; it is called formal, because to the material error it adds the informative element of "freely willed".

[RBerman]

Actually the Catholic Church has properly identified which protestant beliefs are heretical. I would refer you to the council of Trent. Protestantism is defiecient because its foundational beliefs are heretical. The term heresy has dropped from the vocabulary only because it is no way to enter into any sort of useful dialogue with our seperated brothers and sisters.
Similarly, anathema is no longer proclaimed, so Trent is effectively vitiated of its penalties, albeit not the doctrinal stance for which anathema was formerly pronounced. Trent was the product of a time where people cared whether or not they were part of the Roman church. Unfortunately, the Roman church of that day was so corrupt that large groups of people discovered that anathematization was not so bad after all. All that was being accomplished by mass excommunication was the encouragement of a religious power base separate from Rome.

So in more recent years Rome has turned the rhetoric toward reconciliation instead of punitive separation. Rome still teaches that there's no salvation outside the Church, meaning itself. But that idea is almost entirely (though not quite) sapped of its force by the simultaneous proclamation that it only applies to those who are rebelliously separated from Rome, and that Protestants on the whole are simply uneducated, not rebellious. Thus does Rome try to save face, having its cake while eating it too. The sort of "separated brothers and sisters" language that Lost Coin uses would have gotten him/her strung up on a Papal gibbet in the 16th century, though.

[anglicanformary]

Someone upstream asked about the concern with denominations when we should be worried about saving souls

The Commission is to preach the Gospel, in season and out of season, nothing more, Now, one could argue that we are to preach the Gospel unto the salvation of souls, but the focus of preaching is on Jesus, not salvation and sanctirication considered as an end in itself. The end of all preaching and witnessing is, and should bem Jesus Himself.

Now, with that said, here are my thoughts and responses:

Denominationalism (denominations and denominational spriritual traditions) how contemporary Chritstians express their committment to the Lord Jesus socially among other believers, how they express their identity as professed Chritstians in community, it serves serves as an identity-in-community for people in today's world, sort of a modern counterpart to pre-modern tribal identity (since at least the advent of the modern Nation State in the mid-seventeenth century). It fufills a sociological function: that of socializing new Christians and Christian families

QUOTING: one_lost_coin
I would not consider those definitions adequate. Protestants are a unique occurrence in the western Church. There are no protestant equivalents in the Eastern Church where heresies of that type do not exists.

Well, the definition was meant as descriptive and historical, not as a theological definition. And it is true about the Eastern Church, but the relationship between Church and State in the eastern Church under the Byzantine emperors and their successors the Ottomans was materially different than in the West, not a lot of independent mindedness if you will. On the other hand, most heresies in the early Church sprang from the Eastern portion, the patriarchates of Antioch and Alexandira being quite fruitful in that regard; very few heretics came out of the West (Pelagius and possibly the Donatists -though they were more in North Africa) excepted).

Historically a Protestant was one who agreed with the protest against the Diet of Spires and the Diet of Worm,: now this quickly veered off into "Lutheran-ism", "Reformed" (which morphed into "Calvinism") and eventually "Anglicanism" (with its own Dissenters and Nonconformists, and Remonstrants), but the principle remains the same.

QUOTING Silen Running
Technically speaking, Protestants are not considered "heretics" by the Catholic Church (as Protestants have not received a baptism that the RCC considers "valid"). Some of the teachings of Protestantism would be considered heretical, and most Protestant churches are considered "deficient" in at least one of several areas, but "heresy" is not (quite) an accurate term.

I thought it was more like the RCC accepts Bsptism in the name of Christ using the trinitarian formula as valid; it is Protestant orders-ministers- that are considered invalid (in particular Anglican Holy Orders). And I thought the RCC makes a distinction in Canon Law betwee Formal Heresy and Material Heresy, with the distinction being that, a material heretic, is not aware of the gravity of his mistake, like being born into the Protestant heresy, whereas a formal heretic is one who is aware that his holding to certain beliefs is contrary to the Catholic Faith...i.e. one who leaves the RCC for a Protestant body,

And the Eastern Church doesn't even go in for the Roman concept of 'validity' holding it as too juridical and artificial.

[Alucard]

Anabaptism has roots older than some are allowing. Remember that there was an anabaptistic controversy in the 200s due to the mass "apostasy" during periods of persecution and the original need to rebaptize covered those who had "left" the church during this time.

The controversy there was over whether or not those who had apostatized lost the sacramental grace that they received from their baptism, not the Anabaptist idea that a baptism is only valid if it's coupled with a confession of faith from an adult believer. The Anabaptists were baptized again because they believed their earlier baptism were never at all valid, not the idea of those who advocated a second baptism for those who had lapsed. On a related note, the Church rejected that idea :tongue:

And another group that some Baptists claim to be descended from (also claimed in the Trail of Blood lecture) are the Novatianists, who held that nobody who apostatized during the persecutions of Diocletian could be re-admitted into the communion of the Church.

And wasn't the Donatists' only beef with anyone the fact that they believed that a clergyman's character determined the validity of the sacraments that he performed? So that meant that priests who apostatized, in their view, couldn't perform valid baptisms and Eucharists? Not that people themselves had to be baptized again...

[one_lost_coin]

Similarly, anathema is no longer proclaimed, so Trent is effectively vitiated of its penalties, albeit not the doctrinal stance for which anathema was formerly pronounced. Trent was the product of a time where people cared whether or not they were part of the Roman church. Unfortunately, the Roman church of that day was so corrupt that large groups of people discovered that anathematization was not so bad after all. All that was being accomplished by mass excommunication was the encouragement of a religious power base separate from Rome.

So in more recent years Rome has turned the rhetoric toward reconciliation instead of punitive separation. Rome still teaches that there's no salvation outside the Church, meaning itself. But that idea is almost entirely (though not quite) sapped of its force by the simultaneous proclamation that it only applies to those who are rebelliously separated from Rome, and that Protestants on the whole are simply uneducated, not rebellious. Thus does Rome try to save face, having its cake while eating it too. The sort of "separated brothers and sisters" language that Lost Coin uses would have gotten him/her strung up on a Papal gibbet in the 16th century, though.


I think it would be far more accurate to say no new anathemas have been promulgated because there are none that need to be promulgated at this time.

The anathemas of Trent are very much in force as the heresies identified in them are not tolerated within Catholicism. The teaching they properly identify and those who taught them have been removed and now the work of listening and reconciliation can begin.

Reunification will be a long road I imagine but the Holy Spirit wants this and it will be done according to God's will.

[hedrick]

The whole concept of anathema is of dubious relevance to this situation. After all, Protestants are by (Catholic) definition not in communion with the Catholic Church in the first place, so excommunication doesn't seem to have much meaning.

There are discussions on particular areas, some of which have gone further than others. One major cause of conflict was justification by faith. But the Catholic/Lutheran dialog has pretty much settled that. Now that the Catholics have a Lutheran Pope, that particular conflict seems settled in favor of Luther.

There are also a number of bilateral agreements on Baptism between Catholics and various Protestant group.

However disagreement on the nature of the Church is more difficult. This of course involves the validity of orders and by implication communion. However the agreements on Baptism typically amount to de facto recognition by both parties that the other party is a real church.

It's clear that these discussions are continuing. I think in the end we will have agreements between the Catholic Church and moderate representatives of most Protestant traditions. These agreements will probably cover most major areas of theology. But I suspect they will not settle the basic question of validity of orders. I think we'll end up with a de facto recognition by Catholics that Protestant churches are valid, and probably even that their communion is a channel of grace, but I don't see the formal position on orders changing.

[THIEF]

I've always thought that if you're an orthodox Christian but not Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, or Assyrian, then you're probably a Protestant.

(Are Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian considered orthodox? No one else has mentioned them in this thread and I know next to nothing about them.)

[One Bad Pig]

No, they are not. the Assyrian Church is Nestorian (disagreement with the hypostatic union), and the OO are monophysites - or miaphysites, depending on who you ask (disagreement that the Son has two explicit natures). That's a vast over-simplification, but essentially both groups are not orthodox in their Christology.

[draw2much]

Going back to the original post: Are Baptist's Protestant?

Based on this (http://www.reformedreader.org/history/pbh.htm) and this (http://www.allaboutreligion.org/baptist-church-history-faq.htm) link I would say that they are. This seems more realistic to me than what I read in the Trail of Tears.

What do others think of what I linked? Are they presenting historical facts truthfully? I've never much been interested in Baptist churches (even though I go to one...) so I never got deep into their history.

[EllisKing]

Historically Baptists are a Protestant schism, their main attempt being to place a great emphasis upon scripture. However just as many faiths do as they grow the Baptist Church has tried to shed its Protestant ties and become some-what freestanding.
Since this the Baptist church itself has seen numerous changes and schisms within itself.
As is always the case this is all very debatable as modern Christianity has become in most parts of the west so free that you no longer deal with a single idea rather a collection of many from numerous believers.