Origin of the Baptist Church

[kslat]

I think that the movie is great. I believe that you should read the documents and understand what they say if you plan to convince anyone including yourself of anything. I believe if you have the documents read and want to engage someone the movie helps. The documents first then the movie.

Definitely! Thanks for leading me/us to them.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Hi. I have a friend (the best friend of my fiancé) who is a Southern Baptist, and he said that the Baptist Church has been around since the beginning of the Catholic Church, basically parallels the Catholic Church, and were persecuted by the Romans. He says they were originally called “anabaptists.” I’ve done research, because although I originally did not believe him, I thought I’d assume he might know what he was talking about. All I’ve found is that the Southern Baptist Convention was founded in 1845, and that the Baptist churches in general started in around 1609. The Anabaptists, who are unrelated, also weren’t around until the 1500s, not 2000 years ago.

I’m not so much looking for support of this answer as much as I’m looking for anyone else who has heard this, or believes it, or knows where it comes from. It seems to me like someone wanted their Church to sound more like the one true Church and is passing this information on to Baptists.

Thanks in advance for your (name removed by moderator)ut!

kslat,

I grew up in Southern Baptist Churches. I’m not familiar with Baptist history prior to the Reformation in England in the sixteenth century.

However, according to Wikipedia (I know–not the best source,) “Baptist secessionist have, at times, pointed to 16th century Anabaptists as part of an apostolic succession of churches (“church perpetuity”) from the time of Christ.” Though—this is marked “citation needed.” I haven’t really delved into this, so I can’t really say how much of this is fact.

I would say the burden of proof lies with your friend who claims “Baptist Church has been around since the beginning of the Catholic Church, basically parallels the Catholic Church, and were persecuted by the Romans.” Ask for specific sources.

Keep in mind, Southern Baptists were born out of a “pro-slavery” stance in the Civil War; and there is much in that history that is offensive.

The Southern Baptist Convention issued two resolutions in the 20th Century (both were a long time coming):

#1. Resolution On Racial Reconciliation On The 150th Anniversary Of The Southern Baptist Convention, June 1995 (sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=899).

#2. Resolution On Ku Klux Klan, June 1982 (link: sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=894).

The Southern Baptists have considered changing their name (plenty of obvious reasons for this consideration.) Link: sbcannualmeeting.net/sbc04/newsroom/newspage.asp?ID=34.

Hope this helps.
Anna

 

[James_Least]

For the record: the premise is wrong. i.e. There is no such entity as The Baptist Church.

True Baptists have no faith and practice connection with the Protestant Reformation of the Roman Catholic Church. The Protestants of the 16th century were Roman Catholics trying to reform the excesses of the Vatican. They were unsuccessful. To be sure, there were other religious groups out there, many meeting in secret for fear of their lives, who were never part of these ongoing religious proceedings. In fact many of these so-called heretics and dissenters were killed for refusing to bow to Rome and Wittenburg–primarily regarding the baptism of infants.

Tracing the history of all of this is difficult. The powers that be have succeeded in censoring much of the information by burning the authors and their books.

There is a book which settles much of the this matter: The Bible.

This will have to be Chapter 1.

There is at least one more chapter.

Peace,

James Least

 

[rinnie]

Hi. I have a friend (the best friend of my fiancé) who is a Southern Baptist, and he said that the Baptist Church has been around since the beginning of the Catholic Church, basically parallels the Catholic Church, and were persecuted by the Romans. He says they were originally called “anabaptists.” I’ve done research, because although I originally did not believe him, I thought I’d assume he might know what he was talking about. All I’ve found is that the Southern Baptist Convention was founded in 1845, and that the Baptist churches in general started in around 1609. The Anabaptists, who are unrelated, also weren’t around until the 1500s, not 2000 years ago.

I’m not so much looking for support of this answer as much as I’m looking for anyone else who has heard this, or believes it, or knows where it comes from. It seems to me like someone wanted their Church to sound more like the one true Church and is passing this information on to Baptists.

Thanks in advance for your (name removed by moderator)ut!

My favorite one is when I first started on this site that question was asked and someone answered John the Baptist To this day I still get a chuckle.

 

[JohnVIII]

So what if succession of the Baptist Church cannot be proven all the way back to the 1st Century. You cannot prove that St. Peter established either Rome or Antioch either! What I think can be proven is that the Apostles established at least 3 major groups of Christians, namely the Jewish Christians that were centered in Jerusalem and lead by St Jacob (i.e. St James), the Gentile Christians that were lead by St Paul, and the Christians of Samaria. All three groups saw the Christian faith in somewhat of a different way. With the rise of the Christian Roman Empire all versions of Christians other than Gentile Christians centered in Rome were suppressed. It was after this point that the idea that there is only one true Church came to be the opinion that won the day.

Baptists are true Christians!

 

[rinnie]

So what if succession of the Baptist Church cannot be proven all the way back to the 1st Century. You cannot prove that St. Peter established either Rome or Antioch either! What I think can be proven is that the Apostles established at least 3 major groups of Christians, namely the Jewish Christians that were centered in Jerusalem and lead by St Jacob (i.e. St James), the Gentile Christians that were lead by St Paul, and the Christians of Samaria. All three groups saw the Christian faith in somewhat of a different way. With the rise of the Christian Roman Empire all versions of Christians other than Gentile Christians centered in Rome were suppressed. It was after this point that the idea that there is only one true Church came to be the opinion that won the day.

Baptists are true Christians!

Here is my proof that St Peter established the Roman Church. He is STILL buried there.

 

[CopticChristian]

For the record: the premise is wrong. i.e. There is no such entity as The Baptist Church.

True Baptists have no faith and practice connection with the Protestant Reformation of the Roman Catholic Church. The Protestants of the 16th century were Roman Catholics trying to reform the excesses of the Vatican. They were unsuccessful. To be sure, there were other religious groups out there, many meeting in secret for fear of their lives, who were never part of these ongoing religious proceedings. In fact many of these so-called heretics and dissenters were killed for refusing to bow to Rome and Wittenburg–primarily regarding the baptism of infants.

Tracing the history of all of this is difficult. The powers that be have succeeded in censoring much of the information by burning the authors and their books.

There is a book which settles much of the this matter: The Bible.

This will have to be Chapter 1.

There is at least one more chapter.

Peace,

James Least

James the Least,

You might want to review these sites that record the history of what you say does not exist.

baptisthistoryhomepage.com/

baptisthistory.org/bhhs/

You might want to consider that Baptists were separatists, from the Anglican, to Baptist and not necessarily reformers. Some adopted Calvinistic beliefs.

The Bible was birthed in the Catholic Church, there are 27 New Testament Chapters so I believe that you may be wrong in you numbering. The Bible cannot be Chapter 1 in your paradigm. Baptists are nowehre mentioned in those Chapters, Josephus or Eusebius.

You might want to watch this video and then rethink your position.

Beginnings.

youtube.com/watch?v=Dx9eY_prQr4

Baptists in America

youtube.com/watch?v=b8Q2dUxqiIQ

Baptists born dissenter

youtube.com/watch?v=qKe9EqOWpr4

Smyth and Hellwood

youtube.com/watch?v=1mSItqj7cH0

Baptist in USA Roger Williams

youtube.com/watch?v=LAvY3OBXvZw

This is the Least you can do James as it appears that there is a problem with your formulation.

When someone is out of touch with reality we call them delusional. I believe that you are not delusional you are just misinformed. The solution. Get informed.

 

[MarkBrown]

For the record: the premise is wrong. i.e. There is no such entity as The Baptist Church.

True Baptists have no faith and practice connection with the Protestant Reformation of the Roman Catholic Church. The Protestants of the 16th century were Roman Catholics trying to reform the excesses of the Vatican. They were unsuccessful. To be sure, there were other religious groups out there, many meeting in secret for fear of their lives, who were never part of these ongoing religious proceedings. In fact many of these so-called heretics and dissenters were killed for refusing to bow to Rome and Wittenburg–primarily regarding the baptism of infants.

Tracing the history of all of this is difficult. The powers that be have succeeded in censoring much of the information by burning the authors and their books.

There is a book which settles much of the this matter: The Bible.

This will have to be Chapter 1.

There is at least one more chapter.

Peace,

James Least

Who is a “true baptist”? What are the aspect/beliefs/traditions/teachings/history of a “true
baptist”?

More importantly, who determines who or what is a “true baptist”?

Do be careful with using infant baptism as the plum line. Many heretics, beside rejecting infant baptism, also rejected many if not most of the establish christological beliefs.

Also, if they were meeting in secret and their documents/books burned, how do you know they were meeting or if they even existed?

Mark

 

[Anna_Scott]

Who is a “true baptist”? What are the aspect/beliefs/traditions/teachings/history of a “true
baptist”?

More importantly, who determines who or what is a “true baptist”?

Do be careful with using infant baptism as the plum line. Many heretics, beside rejecting infant baptism, also rejected many if not most of the establish christological beliefs.

Also, if they were meeting in secret and their documents/books burned, how do you know they were meeting or if they even existed?

Mark

Mark,

I think what is missing is source material for Baptist claims prior to the break with CofE. It is easy to make a claim. Supporting a claim–not so much.

Peace,
Anna

 

[MarkBrown]

So what if succession of the Baptist Church cannot be proven all the way back to the 1st Century. You cannot prove that St. Peter established either Rome or Antioch either! What I think can be proven is that the Apostles established at least 3 major groups of Christians, namely the Jewish Christians that were centered in Jerusalem and lead by St Jacob (i.e. St James), the Gentile Christians that were lead by St Paul, and the Christians of Samaria. All three groups saw the Christian faith in somewhat of a different way. With the rise of the Christian Roman Empire all versions of Christians other than Gentile Christians centered in Rome were suppressed. It was after this point that the idea that there is only one true Church came to be the opinion that won the day.

Baptists are true Christians!

don’t deny Baptist are Christians. I was born into a Baptist family, Grandfather was a Baptist Minister for 60 years. Trained in Seminary, leader of the Baptist Association (for our Catholic friends…Associational Directors are Baptist Ministers who loosely oversee a group of Baptist Churches in basically communion with each other. Think of a bishop without the power etc.)

I grew up and learned about Christ at the knee of this grandfather. What I am reading about baptists from some on this thread was and is not taught by baptists. Particularly Southern Baptists. They know, as I was taught in a Baptist seminary, the Baptist faith came out of the reformation. The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology dismisses any trail of blood or attempts to trace baptist history back through heretics to Jesus or John the Baptist. Again, what I was taught in Baptist Seminary.

Now as to what is purposed in this post. A basic reading of history, church or secular, will lead to this reaction . Unless this was in jest and a joke.

In both the East, more so, than in the West politics, ie Emperors interfearing in Church affairs was the norm. I am reading A History of Christian Thought. So far I find it fair and brings up some points and challenges held historical beliefs. In the 6-9th Century, Rome did not have the power to surpress anything in the East. To busy trying to survive the Moors, Islamic invasions and the Frankish Kings.

Prior to that, the first 4 centuries the entire Church was persecuted. Edict of Milan save the entire Church, not just one part. Shortly there after the power center of the Empire moved
Eastward. Rome lost influence as the political power. The Emperors work closely with the Patriarch of Constantinople more than anyone. That became the apparent base of power for secular authority, who then tried to make it the base of Church authority.

You also forget the groups of Christians outside the Empire not under the authority of any of the Sees of the Church. No one supressed them, well the Muslims did. Rome could not. Your assertion of only three bases of Christianity does not hold up to even the simpliest of history reading or evidence. The barbarians who destroyed the western church were in many ways Christians. Arian Christians to be sure. History also tells us the Apostles established Christian groups outside your three locations concurrently.

As to Peter in Rome or Antoich. There is more evidence from the early church fathers telling us this happened, Clements Epistle to the Corinthians for one, and none about the baptist. I do think a baptist seminary would teach that if it was true.

Mark

 

[MarkBrown]

Mark,

I think what is missing is source material for Baptist claims. It is easy to make a claim. Supporting a claim–not so much.

Peace,
Anna

Anna,

true. I was a Baptist minister and trained in a Southern Baptist Seminary.
John Carroll and his work was laugh at and dismissed. No one denied
they, Baptist, came out of the Reformation. In fact they were and are
proud of that fact. In my old Association, the only and I mean the only pastor who
held to the “we came from John the Baptist” was an older minister who never
went to seminary or recieved any formal training. When he went on about
this, if the younger pastors could roll their eyes any harder they would come out of their heads. We all quickly learned you could not reason with him and facts meant nothing,
unless it supported his error.

Mark

 

[JohnVIII]

Now as to what is purposed in this post. A basic reading of history, church or secular, will lead to this reaction . Unless this was in jest and a joke.

In both the East, more so, than in the West politics, ie Emperors interfearing in Church affairs was the norm.

I am not making a joke, are you? At least you concede that the Roman Emperors interfered in Church affairs.

In the 6-9th Century, Rome did not have the power to surpress anything in the East. To busy trying to survive the Moors, Islamic invasions and the Frankish Kings.

I don’t actually know when the Samaritan Christians vanished probably before the 6th Century. Jerusalem, as a Jewish Christian “Church” headed by a relative of the Holy Virgin (it was forbidden to have blood lines continue a line of bishops among any of the Gentile Churches!), vanished before the 6th Century. There was very little contact between any of the Gentile Churches and Jerusalem until the See was “restored” by the Greeks. It would be a real stretch to claim that the East and West Gentile Churches were “in communion” with Jerusalem during the maybe 4 or 5 Centuries that it continued as a Jewish Christian See. It is more likely that the Samaritan Churches were “in communion with” Jerusalem since they had more in common with them and both stated that James was the universal leader of Christians rather than Peter. I put “Church” in quotes because both Samaritans and Jews never called their Christian congregations “churches”, both called them Synagogues. There were many differences but I think it was a mistake to call these Christians “heretics”.

I think the Baptists could make a reasonable claim to stem from the Samaritan Christians, but some Baptists have no wish to make such a claim as those Samaritans were nasty Gnostic “heretics”.

Prior to that, the first 4 centuries the entire Church was persecuted. Edict of Milan save the entire Church, not just one part. Shortly there after the power center of the Empire moved Eastward. Rome lost influence as the political power. The Emperors work closely with the Patriarch of Constantinople more than anyone. That became the apparent base of power for secular authority, who then tried to make it the base of Church authority.

Constantinople was the center of the Roman Empire and the Church! The Christians in Constantinople called themselves “Romans”! East and West were joined at the hip and they really still are. Sure, East and West have minor differences but both are of one and the same heritage, that of the Gentile Churches that became the dominate version of Christianity and eventually virtually the only remaining version of Christianity. And this was because their union with the Roman Empire. Jewish and Samaritan Christians were not recognized as true (or legal) Christians by the Romans, only the Christians in union with the Roman Empire, which was centered in Constantinople of course!

You also forget the groups of Christians outside the Empire not under the authority of any of the Sees of the Church. No one supressed them, well the Muslims did. Rome could not.

Well yes the Muslims did! But did Jewish and Samaritan Christians get support from their Roman brothers or was it seen as more of an opportunity to rid themselves of these “heretics”? Rome (or Constantinople, really the same thing) could not or would not?

…{more}…

 

[JohnVIII]

…{more}…

Your assertion of only three bases of Christianity does not hold up to even the simpliest of history reading or evidence. The barbarians who destroyed the western church were in many ways Christians. Arian Christians to be sure.

Arian Christians were from the Gentile Churches, of the the same mold as the Orthodox/Catholic.

As to Peter in Rome or Antoich. There is more evidence from the early church fathers telling us this happened, Clements Epistle to the Corinthians for one, and none about the baptist.

The Fathers didn’t agree. The Apostolic Injunctions say that Paul established Rome. Eusebius said that “Peter” the first bishop of Antioch was NOT the same Peter who was of the 12 Apostles. I think a better case could be made that Barnabas established Antioch. The push to make a claim to St Peter was a political move that probably started because of the popularity of a man named Simon Magus. Simon Magus to the Samaritans was like Arius to the Romans. Simon Magus was a very popular heretic who had a strong following even in Rome. The story goes that Simon Peter confronted Simon Magus in a great magical battle and Simon Peter won. It was as if it were a battle between the orthodoxy of the Romans vs the heterodox of the Samaritans. Simon vs Simon. St Peter substituted Simon Magus as a way to capture the popularity of Simon Magus and transfer it to St Peter, or rather to the Roman Church. Thus a great political advantage was created by claiming to be founded by St Peter.

If there was ever a made up story in the history of Christianity the battle between St Peter and Simon Magus had to have been one. Simon Magus was said to be flying throw the air but by the power of St Peter he came falling down to his death. This great magical battle was supposed to happen in the City of Rome. But it is far more likely that St Peter never even went to Rome. He was a Jewish Christian who was called as an Apostle to the Jews (i.e. the Circumcision). He was under the authority of James (his name really was Jacob) in Jerusalem. St Peter probably never established what anyone would call a “Church”, but rather he established Christian Synagogues is places like Caesarea where he was sent to preach.

As for the Baptist, the very first Christians in the country of Armenia were NOT Orthodox/Catholic Christians. they were a certain group of Gnostics that were called “Paulists”. If the Baptists wanted to make the claim that they stemmed from this group of Christians that preceded the Catholics I would say all the power to them! The Paulists were very much like today’s Protestants in many of their beliefs.

The oneness of Christians that Christ prayed for in John 17 I don’t think is the oneness that either Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism fails to provide. I’m Eastern Orthodox but I now see that the Orthodox and Rome are forever joined at the hip whether we like it or not. I don’t have a problem with that, I am happy with both Rome and the Eastern Churches. But I no longer buy into the idea that we are all the Christianity that there is or has ever been. I rather think that God is behind our divisions because He would like us to learn to respect our differences rather than reject our brothers who seem different to us.

 

[john_portis]

Baptist make own rules Bible is up to each person to make what he can from it unless it is once saved always saved Catholic church is evil empire found in Rev-17 even though I never saw word Catholic in those chapter?Southern Baptist has to do with slavery,I never saw onced saved always saved either,I never found sinners prayer in Bible either/And they always sa yB ible is final authority and this is most important prayer you ever make? Mary is just another sinner needing to be saved do I need say more If you fell led to preach then start a church there are thousands down here in ms who claim to be called to preach that have other jobs and no time for preaching However there are many very humble seious down to earth men seeking to do the will of GOD I think if i am correct in my reshearh the came from purtians in the begining So make up your own opon is legal here excuse my typo msp etc’THE LORD B WITH YOU

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna,

true. I was a Baptist minister and trained in a Southern Baptist Seminary.
John Carroll and his work was laugh at and dismissed. No one denied
they, Baptist, came out of the Reformation. In fact they were and are
proud of that fact. In my old Association, the only and I mean the only pastor who
held to the “we came from John the Baptist” was an older minister who never
went to seminary or recieved any formal training. When he went on about
this, if the younger pastors could roll their eyes any harder they would come out of their heads. We all quickly learned you could not reason with him and facts meant nothing,
unless it supported his error.

Mark

Mark,

I appreciate your comment. It’s tough when you can’t reason with someone–well, maybe more sad than anything. It’s the same kind of thinking found in the King James-only Bible stance. History is there to prove them wrong, but they won’t consider the facts. There is a manipulation factor coming from pulpits—scaring the congregation with claims that all other beliefs are from Satan. It is tragic, but effective.

There are some Baptists who are very faithful to Christ. So, I really don’t want to sound like I am bashing Baptists. I’m sure you can draw from many good things in your background as a Baptist minister.

Peace,
Anna

 

[James_Least]

This is the conclusion; now let’s get the facts. Interesting–kind of like plotting a curve with an assumed beginning point, a not too obvious endpoint, and a lot of biased data points in between. A similar rationale is used in the world of Anthropology: since man evolved from monkeys there must be transitional forms. About all that has been dug up so far is man, ape, salted digs and pig’s teeth. Maybe we are related to pigs.

All of this true church argument boils to: who has the keys to the kingdom which were given by Jesus in the 16th of Matthew? All of the various claimants cannot be right–they could all be wrong. What is the standard of comparison? All of these groups are tooting a different horn–even Rome and Constantinople. They have had an unreconciled schism for many centuries–about papal authority.

If the keys were given through an apostolic succession, and the Holy See got them, all others are usurpers, without authority. We should all be bowing to Rome. If Rome is the usurper, so are her daughters. What is difficult about that? A lot of hallowed halls fell at the flood of Noah. God spared only eight souls.

Then there is “The Way” or “That Way”. Surf it in cyberspace. She is also found in the Book of Acts and the Pauline letters. They have been contending for The Faith, Once For All Delivered Unto The Saints, Jude 3, ever since Jesus walked the shores of Galilee and said, “Come, follow me; I will make you fishers of men.” This Faith and Practice has never been involved in the politics of empires or monarchies. They have been persecuted in every generation. Always called heretics; they died rather than recant. They are not reformed, nor were they part of the so-called Protestant Reformation of the Church of Rome. If fact, the so-called Protestants would persecute “The Way” as well. Heresy is a catch-all word too.

The connection to the term Baptist is this: There is no: The Baptist Church. There are many groups called Baptist; just as there many groups called Christian, the original term was of derision for the disciples of The Way started by Jesus of Nazareth, The Christ. Most people in Jesus’ did not believe who Jesus is–many still do not believe. Many of the distinctive practices called Baptistic can be traced back to the Bible and the promises of Jesus to send another Comforter to abide forever and lead in all truth–in the pillar and ground of The Truth through the gates of hell.

Jesus has kept His promise. God has preserved a remnant in every generation.

Amazing Grace–how sweet the sound–that saved a wretch like me…

God is faithful–even when we are not.

Peace,

James Least

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . . Many of the distinctive practices called Baptistic can be traced back to the Bible and the promises of Jesus to send another Comforter to abide forever and lead in all truth–in the pillar and ground of The Truth through the gates of hell.

James,
What are the “distinctive Baptistic” practices to which you refer?

Jesus has kept His promise. God has preserved a remnant in every generation. . . .

Are you saying Baptists are this remnant? Please clarify.

Peace,
Anna

 

[asd72]

This is the conclusion; now let’s get the facts. Interesting–kind of like plotting a curve with an assumed beginning point, a not too obvious endpoint, and a lot of biased data points in between. A similar rationale is used in the world of Anthropology: since man evolved from monkeys there must be transitional forms. About all that has been dug up so far is man, ape, salted digs and pig’s teeth. Maybe we are related to pigs.

All of this true church argument boils to: who has the keys to the kingdom which were given by Jesus in the 16th of Matthew? All of the various claimants cannot be right–they could all be wrong. What is the standard of comparison? All of these groups are tooting a different horn–even Rome and Constantinople. They have had an unreconciled schism for many centuries–about papal authority.

If the keys were given through an apostolic succession, and the Holy See got them, all others are usurpers, without authority. We should all be bowing to Rome. If Rome is the usurper, so are her daughters. What is difficult about that? A lot of hallowed halls fell at the flood of Noah. God spared only eight souls.

Then there is “The Way” or “That Way”. Surf it in cyberspace. She is also found in the Book of Acts and the Pauline letters. They have been contending for The Faith, Once For All Delivered Unto The Saints, Jude 3, ever since Jesus walked the shores of Galilee and said, “Come, follow me; I will make you fishers of men.” This Faith and Practice has never been involved in the politics of empires or monarchies. They have been persecuted in every generation. Always called heretics; they died rather than recant. They are not reformed, nor were they part of the so-called Protestant Reformation of the Church of Rome. If fact, the so-called Protestants would persecute “The Way” as well. Heresy is a catch-all word too.

The connection to the term Baptist is this: There is no: The Baptist Church. There are many groups called Baptist; just as there many groups called Christian, the original term was of derision for the disciples of The Way started by Jesus of Nazareth, The Christ. Most people in Jesus’ did not believe who Jesus is–many still do not believe. Many of the distinctive practices called Baptistic can be traced back to the Bible and the promises of Jesus to send another Comforter to abide forever and lead in all truth–in the pillar and ground of The Truth through the gates of hell.

Jesus has kept His promise. God has preserved a remnant in every generation.

Amazing Grace–how sweet the sound–that saved a wretch like me…

God is faithful–even when we are not.

Peace,

James Least

Are you a reader of the book ‘The Pilgrim Church’ by EH Broadbent by any chance?

 

[James_Least]

James,
What are the “distinctive Baptistic” practices to which you refer?

Are you saying Baptists are this remnant? Please clarify.

Peace,
Anna

---

Sola Scriptura was not originated by Luther. Put Sola Fidelis in there too. These are New Testament teachings followed by The Way. Many Baptists are known for such things as believer’s baptism(this one got them burned), freedom of conscience and separation of church and state in addition to the solas. Such things were not discovered by Luther, Calvin, etal. Church-states have persecuted many for practicing such things–Baptists were persecuted as well. This not about a name–it is a faith and practice once handed to the Saints–this does not mean apostolic succession. This faith and practice was handed to every generation, long before Constantine had an in hoc signo vinces. The stretch of evidence of apostolic succession from A.D. 33 to 325 A.D. is only verifiable in the writings of those who believe such Petrine primacy. They also happen to be in control. Find the rest of the story: read the Acts of the Apostles; follow the trail from the New Testament through today and compare the doctrines. Most of what is found today is man-made, including churches.

The remnant: is who ever is following the pattern of a New Testament Church as described in the Acts of the Apostles. The names of these groups have changed. The name Baptist is filled with ambiguity, starting with things called Arminianism and Calvinism–Protestant terminology. Salvation is of the Lord, the pattern was laid in the New Testament–See Ephesians 2:8-10, long before the 16th century reformations of Rome. The world of Christendom is still in three camps: saved by grace alone, saved by works, or saved by an admixture of grace and works. All of this cannot be of God.
Where will we be in a hundred years? Are we certain?

Peace,

James Least

 

[vontroster]

Hi. I have a friend (the best friend of my fiancé) who is a Southern Baptist, and he said that the Baptist Church has been around since the beginning of the Catholic Church, basically parallels the Catholic Church, and were persecuted by the Romans. He says they were originally called “anabaptists.” I’ve done research, because although I originally did not believe him, I thought I’d assume he might know what he was talking about. All I’ve found is that the Southern Baptist Convention was founded in 1845, and that the Baptist churches in general started in around 1609. The Anabaptists, who are unrelated, also weren’t around until the 1500s, not 2000 years ago.

I’m not so much looking for support of this answer as much as I’m looking for anyone else who has heard this, or believes it, or knows where it comes from. It seems to me like someone wanted their Church to sound more like the one true Church and is passing this information on to Baptists.

Thanks in advance for your (name removed by moderator)ut!

LOL