Baptist history

[Sherlock]

I recently had an e-mail exchange with a Baptist, who claimed that "the only two churches that go back to Christ are the Catholic and the Baptist churches", and that Baptists were hunted down and "killed by the millions". Now, obviously "millions" is a ludicrous claim, but I was wondering if someone could shed light on Baptist history. I looked up Baptist and Anabaptist in the Catholic Encyclopedia, and from that source it would apear that they were yet another offshooot of Protestantism. That squared with what had been my understanding of their history, but of course he claims a secret underground church. He is more than a little off the wall (I got the whole "whore of Babylon" lecture delivered in all caps and many exclamation points) so rational discussion is not possible, however I am interested in knowing more of their history.

[PhilVaz]

<< Now, obviously "millions" is a ludicrous claim, but I was wondering if someone could shed light on Baptist history. >>

Best book is by McGoldrick Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History which deals with the "baptist successionist" thesis (baptists go back to John the Baptist claim, etc). McGoldrick (a Protestant church historian) concludes in his intro:

"It is the purpose of this book to show that, although free church groups in ancient and medieval times sometimes promoted doctrines and practices agreeable to modern Baptists, when judged by standards now acknowledged as baptistic, not one of them merits recognition as a Baptist church. Baptists arose in the seventeenth century in Holland and England. They are Protestants, heirs of the Reformers." (ibid, page 2)

And as any informed church historian would admit. There were no "ancient baptists" -- also McGoldrick distinguishes between these 17th century and modern Baptists and the "Anabaptists" of the 16th century Reformation period, which he says were not the first Baptists since the Anabaptists accepted "ongoing revelation" which modern Baptists (for the most part) do not.

Phil P

[Ellen]

Hi everyone, it's my first time posting here, but I'm a long time fan of Catholic Answers and subscriber to Karl's e-letter.

I post on another bb (a christian families board), and there are a couple of Baptists there ("Independent Fundamentalist Baptists") who also make that claim. They insist that they are not Protestants, as they "aren't protesting anything", that their church goes back "to the beginning." Obviously there is no historical proof of this (because it's not true!). My feeling is that they claim this b/c to admit to being Protestant means admitting that prior to the 16th Century, all of Christianity was Catholic, therefore Catholics must be Christians (which they deny-we're idol worshippers-deceived by the Church into being idol worshippers, but idol worshippers nonetheless, and we aren't "saved", as we worship Mary and don't consider Christ our "personal Lord and Savior"), an idea they find abhorrent.

I've used Scripture, Church History, reason, everything I can think of, nothing works. They continually point to their husbands and the many other former Catholics who read the Bible, for the very first time, apparently (what parish did they go to where they never heard the Bible b/f?), realized that the Church "deceived" them, "got saved" and are now Baptist. I just continue to pray that they will see the light some day (I realize it may be when they're in purgatory, but oh well).

Ellen

[Salmon]

Steve Ray put together a nice piece on this subject.

It can be found at:
Steve Ray's Writings

Look for: Trail of Blood: What About "Baptist Successionism"?

Peace in Christ.............Salmon

[Sherlock]

Thanks, all.

Ellen---yes, I've found that nothing works! Reason doesn't enter the picture, and he accused me of "intellectualism" when I tried to point out some of the contradictions in his claims. Here's a representative sample of his "argument" (spelling and punctuation his):

"The Catholics burned mulititudes and hid knowledge all down thru the ages, nevertheless we still have credilble history that proves without a shadow of a doubt that the church that Jesus built has ear marks that distinguish from the great whore drunken with the blood of the saints. By the way read Revelation 17, and remember when the book was written and where and the read in 17: 9 , here is the mind that hath wisdom, the seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. The city of seven hills is none other than ROME !!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

This was one of his tamer posts. Needless to say, further conversation was useless as the posts became more and more intense, culminating (of course) with me in hell looking at him in heaven, wishing I had listened.

Thanks, Salmon, I'll look up that Steve Ray piece.

[jhnsn]

I'm curious -
Do they explain how the bible was but together? They can't agree that their church just followed what the "whore of Babylon" created? Do they point to any "Baptist" church councils defining the canon?
Do they see the illogic in how could desparate groups of baptist come up with a canon? From what I understand each church is autonomous. I've got three different "Baptist" churches within a mile of eachother.

[phatcatholic]

here are some articles i have collected on this subject:
--History of the Baptists
--Anabaptists and Baptists: How Are They Related?
--Trail of Blood: What About "Baptist Successionism"?
--"Ancient Baptists" and Other Myths
--Were the Waldenses Proto-Baptists?
--The Church Christ Founded is Not Baptist
--The Church of the Council of Nicaea Was Not Baptist

for more on non-catholic religions, go here
for the entire reference section at phatmass, go here

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[BobCatholic]

Biblical Truth for Baptists:
http://members.aol.com/uticacw/baptist/bibletruth.html

[Shari]

Originally Posted by PhilVaz

<< Now, obviously "millions" is a ludicrous claim, but I was wondering if someone could shed light on Baptist history. >>

Best book is by McGoldrick Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History which deals with the "baptist successionist" thesis (baptists go back to John the Baptist claim, etc). McGoldrick (a Protestant church historian) concludes in his intro:

"It is the purpose of this book to show that, although free church groups in ancient and medieval times sometimes promoted doctrines and practices agreeable to modern Baptists, when judged by standards now acknowledged as baptistic, not one of them merits recognition as a Baptist church. Baptists arose in the seventeenth century in Holland and England. They are Protestants, heirs of the Reformers." (ibid, page 2)

And as any informed church historian would admit. There were no "ancient baptists" -- also McGoldrick distinguishes between these 17th century and modern Baptists and the "Anabaptists" of the 16th century Reformation period, which he says were not the first Baptists since the Anabaptists accepted "ongoing revelation" which modern Baptists (for the most part) do not.

Phil P

I think it would be kind of hard to go back to John the Baptist being that he was beheaded before Jesus's Cruxifiction. Just something to think about

Shari

[1962Missal]

Originally Posted by Shari

I think it would be kind of hard to go back to John the Baptist being that he was beheaded before Jesus's Cruxifiction. Just something to think about

Shari

At the risk of being labeled a pedant, the "crucifiction" is what atheists believe in. Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ died by crucifixion.

Justin

[1962Missal]

Originally Posted by Sherlock

"The Catholics burned mulititudes and hid knowledge all down thru the ages, nevertheless we still have credilble history that proves without a shadow of a doubt that the church that Jesus built has ear marks that distinguish from the great whore drunken with the blood of the saints. By the way read Revelation 17, and remember when the book was written and where and the read in 17: 9 , here is the mind that hath wisdom, the seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. The city of seven hills is none other than ROME !!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

When you get to that point, you must remember that obstinacy is not a function of the intellect but of the will. You cannot reason with the will.

Justin

[Carl]

"You cannot reason with the will."

Ah, so true! We can only hope and pray that people outgrow their bigotry.

My wife grew up in a small town in Oklahoma, where Catholics were vilified at every meal. She finally began to suspect that all of the mean things said about Catholic could not be true. She ended by learning that all of them were false. She is now more Catholic than our Bishop ... infinitely more Catholic than your average Jesuit.

[journey]

Hello!

I grew up in a missionary Baptist church. I was taught that the Baptist church was the one true church, going back to the time of Christ. As I became I older and had a few world history classes under my belt, I realized that it could not be true. After I married, my husband and I joined a Southern Baptist church. I can assure you that most Southern Baptists understand that the Baptist Successionist theory is a fallacy. After more careful study, I joined an RCIA group at my local parish, and I have been a Roman Catholic for over two years now (much to my husband's dismay, but that would be a different thread!). I guess I just had to find the truth on my own. I pray that your friend will do likewise.

BTW---did you know that there are hundreds of different types of Baptist denominations? and---many of them don't like each other!

--journey

[dday6750]

Sadly, I left the Catholic church and became a member of a Baptist church. My pastor gave me a book "Beliefs Important To Baptists" and this book made me question my decision on leaving the Catholic faith. The first page says "Baptists hold differing convictions about theology and INTERPRETATION of the Bible." The next page they quote Scripture (2 Peter 1:19-21) to justify the "Bible alone" theory, and how the Bible is inspired Word. If you read 2 Peter 1:19-21 it says "no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation." Very Contradictory!!!!

This book also states "Baptists developed in the early 1600's and SEARCHED Scripture for their model of church polity, they UNDERSTOOD the overall sense of Scripture to support a congregational model as they have today."
The whole book contradicts itself, and words like argued, wrestled with, should we?, etc. are used to describe how they struggled to develope the practices that they use today. It doesn't sound like the religion was developed by any help of the Holy Spirit!!

Abiding in His Love-

[phatcatholic]

dday.............i don't mean to take this thread off topic, but have you since returned to the fold?

hoping for a "yes,"
phatcatholic