Why are Baptists called Baptists?

[NeedImprovement]

Given that the word anabaptize means to re-baptize , it would seem rather apparent that there is a connection.

Sources (links) and short excerpts in support of the following opinion are cited one post later, for the sake of coherence.

This would be my own limited opinion based on the information on hand :

I have some trouble being in total agreement with the statement that Baptists are called “Baptist” simply because they believed full immersion to be the sole valid mode of baptism. In fact, some confusion due to a reversal of the facts should be cleared up. Although full immersion quickly became a trademark of Baptists (possibly within the first 10 years of their evolution) , rather, the reason they were named Baptist, is because they insisted upon “believers’ baptism” and this, before full immersion became one of their trademarks, so to speak.

The sacreligious aspect of anabaptism is that we do not recognize the indelible mark the Holy Spirit gives to the soul at Baptism. One cannot be baptized again. Although we might say Catholics do not lean in the direction of OSAS (once saved always saved) , we absolutely believe that, once baptized always baptized. (And the Catholic Church recognizes both the Orthodox and the larger part of most Protestant denominations’ Baptisms as being valid.)

*Believers baptism *meant the believer was baptized as an adult ( commencing in the vicinity of the mid-teens and upward) and upon profession of their faith. The exclusivity of this belief meant they held infant Baptism to be invalid. Consequently many who were baptized as infants would have had to have been baptized again (anabaptized) to be accepted into the Baptist church.

General Baptists and Particular Baptists came into , “existence as two distinct groups, with somewhat different beliefs and practices, but with *believer’s baptism *in common.”

Although most denominations who practice *believers baptism *also consider its imperative mode to be that of full immersion, rejecting the mode of affusion, it is due to the believers baptism itself that Baptists received the name Baptist. The issue of full immersion does not appear to be the reason and is subsequent to *believers baptism *.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Sources cited in support of affiliation of Baptist and Anabaptist, and in support of believers baptism as reason why Baptists are called “Baptist.” as per previous post # 40 :

“…While in Holland, Smythe was heavily influenced by the teaching of the Mennonites and rebaptized himself and his group as Anabaptists. Together they formed the first English Baptist Church in 1609. His little flock would only follow him so far, however. When Smythe tried to get them to give up their English heritage and turn into Mennonites, they excommunicated him. Later the group went back to London, England, and still under persecution, they organized another Baptist church…”

zipworld.com.au/~lnbdds/home/baptist.htm

“…BEGAN: 1605 A.D. by John Smythe of England (Roger Williams 1639 A.D. in USA). The Baptist Church, originally called Anabaptist, is a movement which seceded from the Lutheran Reformation and embracing the holiness of the Puritan movement…”

whostartedyourchurch.com/baptist.html

Baptist Beginnings
by Leon McBeth

“…Our best historical evidence says that Baptists came into existence in England in the early seventeenth century. They apparently emerged out of the Puritan-Separatist movement in the Church of England. Some of these earnest people read the Bible in their own language, believed it, and sought to live by it. They formed separate congregations which accepted only believers into their membership, and they baptized converts upon their profession of faith. Their opponents nicknamed them “Baptists,” and the name stuck. This pamphlet will fill in some of the details of that story…”

baptisthistory.org/baptistbeginnings.htm

Believer’s Baptism
Jointly published by the Baptist History and Heritage Society
and the William H. Whitsitt Baptist Heritage Society

"…The radical reformers called “Anabaptists” insisted upon a “rebaptism” as believers. That restored some of the original meaning of baptism from the primitive New Testament context. The Anabaptists believed that becoming a Christian disciple was a radical step of separation from one’s past that required in baptism an act of high symbolism before the Christian community. Anabaptists stand historically just before the rise of the Baptists.

…Like their brothers and sisters elsewhere, Baptists in the United States also perfected the practice of believer’s baptism by immersion. Early colonial Baptists in New England followed English and Welsh Baptist precedents by baptizing only believers, while ensuring that it was a voluntary act of faith and not a routine of church membership…"

 

[brb3]

They first called themselves Baptist because they believed baptism was essential … but, many of them will now say that it isn’t.

 

[theoldman]

They first called themselves Baptist because they believed baptism was essential … but, many of them will now say that it isn’t.

Baptist were first called Baptist by other groups bacause they practiced Believers Baptism as taught in Acts chapter eight verses 34 and following.
Baptist did chose the name Baptist for themselves.

 

[rtconstant]

I’ll agree that there was later affiliation with the Anabaptist/Mennonites later in Smyth’s career. However, the Baptist denominations trace their origin to the Anglican’s directly not the Mennonites. Also, while he is famous for rebaptising himself, your siting above is only one I’ve ever seen that suggests he rebaptised himself as an Anabaptist.

However, with all that said, I do concede that the major issue for him was the “believers baptism” and not so much the form, though that came later.

newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/John_Smyth

levellers.wordpress.com/2007/08/28/john-smyth-1570-1612-puritan-separatist-baptist-mennonite/

Sources cited in support of affiliation of Baptist and Anabaptist, and in support of believers baptism as reason why Baptists are called “Baptist.” as per previous post # 40 :

“…While in Holland, Smythe was heavily influenced by the teaching of the Mennonites and rebaptized himself and his group as Anabaptists. Together they formed the first English Baptist Church in 1609. His little flock would only follow him so far, however. When Smythe tried to get them to give up their English heritage and turn into Mennonites, they excommunicated him. Later the group went back to London, England, and still under persecution, they organized another Baptist church…”

zipworld.com.au/~lnbdds/home/baptist.htm

“…BEGAN: 1605 A.D. by John Smythe of England (Roger Williams 1639 A.D. in USA). The Baptist Church, originally called Anabaptist, is a movement which seceded from the Lutheran Reformation and embracing the holiness of the Puritan movement…”

whostartedyourchurch.com/baptist.html

Baptist Beginnings
by Leon McBeth

“…Our best historical evidence says that Baptists came into existence in England in the early seventeenth century. They apparently emerged out of the Puritan-Separatist movement in the Church of England. Some of these earnest people read the Bible in their own language, believed it, and sought to live by it. They formed separate congregations which accepted only believers into their membership, and they baptized converts upon their profession of faith. Their opponents nicknamed them “Baptists,” and the name stuck. This pamphlet will fill in some of the details of that story…”

baptisthistory.org/baptistbeginnings.htm

Believer’s Baptism
Jointly published by the Baptist History and Heritage Society
and the William H. Whitsitt Baptist Heritage Society

"…The radical reformers called “Anabaptists” insisted upon a “rebaptism” as believers. That restored some of the original meaning of baptism from the primitive New Testament context. The Anabaptists believed that becoming a Christian disciple was a radical step of separation from one’s past that required in baptism an act of high symbolism before the Christian community. Anabaptists stand historically just before the rise of the Baptists.

…Like their brothers and sisters elsewhere, Baptists in the United States also perfected the practice of believer’s baptism by immersion. Early colonial Baptists in New England followed English and Welsh Baptist precedents by baptizing only believers, while ensuring that it was a voluntary act of faith and not a routine of church membership…"

 

[theoldman]

Baptist were first called Baptist by other groups bacause they practiced Believers Baptism as taught in Acts chapter eight verses 34 and following.
Baptist did chose the name Baptist for themselves.

correcting my last post — Baptist DID NOTchose the name Baptist for themselves

 

[NeedImprovement]

… Also, while he is famous for rebaptising himself, your siting above is only one I’ve ever seen that suggests he rebaptised himself as an Anabaptist…

I think I saw one other site which said it, but I didn’t save all the links while reading/researching.

Again, I am no expert and it was only my opinion, and the objective was to confirm affiliation of “Anabaptist” with “Baptist” - that’s all… to establish as my earlier post said, plausibility of an historical link. From that perspective, I thought the excerpt from the Baptist historians - [Jointly published by the Baptist History and Heritage Society and the William H. Whitsitt Baptist Heritage Society]; “…Anabaptists stand historically just before the rise of the Baptists…”, was the one which carried the weight, because it appears to confirm Fr. John Hardon’s entry in his Modern Catholic Dictionary :

“The Anabaptists principles were later adopted by the Baptists, their lineal descendants.”

For my getting a better general view of the origins of Baptists, I found the way you worded it in another thread to be most helpful:

rtconstant:

… As an aside, “Baptist” really isn’t a denomination in and of itself it refers to a particular common point of origin for several denominations who while sharing the name can sometimes have very different theological, or political views …

To concur with a sentiment posted earlier by theoldman and another previously by **Anna Scott **(posts #'s 38 &37 respectively), sometimes, I also just can’t help but shake my head at the way we humans get things so twisted. It really is remarkable how something which unites us as Christians (common Baptism) can be so divisive.

 

[Soldier_X]

No no no no no…I am only going to explain this once. My grandparents taught me that Baptists are named after St. Baptus. Everyone knows this. Don’t ever doubt it.

 

[Soldier_X]

But actually, it does seem that they were an offshoot of Anglicanism. A Lutheran pastor friend told me that when he was explaining that “all new teachings come from England.”

I did not have a good comeback haha

No offense meant to anyone of course…90% of my family is Baptist, and they are very fervent and devout in their faith. They bring glory to Christ, as do many Baptists.

 

[brb3]

correcting my last post — Baptist DID NOTchose the name Baptist for themselves

Possibly … but, they have embraced the name. However, why have many now come to reject the essential need & power thereof ?

Will the real Baptists stand up … and be re-united to the Mother Church ? How bout you OLDMAN ?

 

[csx333]

Exactly why I left the Baptist Church; baptism means nothing, communion is a symbol, if you are baptized you get to be a voting member. And salvation by emotion, wonder why Luther didn’t think of it? Why not join the Rotary Club?

The Roman Catholic Church has the fullness of God’s grace. I have crossed the Tiber along with many others.

 

[theoldman]

Possibly … but, they have embraced the name. However, why have many now come to reject the essential need & power thereof ?

Will the real Baptists stand up … and be re-united to the Mother Church ? How bout you OLDMAN ?

Yes! we have embraced the name Baptist. And we have not rejected the need baptism, we are commanded to do so by God, however we are not saved by it.
And No! I will remain a Baptist untill the day I die and thereafter

 

[theoldman]

Exactly why I left the Baptist Church; baptism means nothing, communion is a symbol, if you are baptized you get to be a voting member.

There you are wrong, Baptist take baptism and communion very seriously, even more seriouly than what I have seen some Catholics take them, It is more than just becoming a voting menber of a church, it is a profession of our faith. However it does not save us as only God has the power to do that.

I have crossed the Tiber along with many others.

Likewise, there have been catholics that have been baptized intoour Baptist Church and many other Baptist Churches

 

[fred_stoutland]

If Baptists don’t see Baptism as a sacrament and only an outward sign what is the purpose of being called a Baptist. Catholics are more Baptist since we fully understand its value as a sacrament. Hoping for any comments.

[hide]Part of a series on
Christianity

Jesus Christ
Virgin birth · Crucifixion · Resurrection · Easter · Christian views of Jesus

Foundations
Church · New Covenant · Apostles · Kingdom · Gospel · Timeline · Paul · Peter

Bible
Old Testament · New Testament ·
Books · Canon · Apocrypha

Theology
Salvation · Baptism · Trinity · Father · Son · Holy Spirit · History of theology · Christology · Mariology · Apologetics · Eschatology
History and traditions
Early · Constantine · Councils · Creeds · Missions · Chrysostom · East–West Schism · Crusades · Reformation · Counter-Reformation
Movements
[show]Catholic
Roman Catholic · Anglican · Independent Catholic · Old Catholic
[show]Protestant
Lutheran · Calvinist · Anabaptist · Arminian · Baptist · Methodist · Adventist · Evangelical · Holiness · Pentecostal
[show]Eastern
Eastern Orthodox · Oriental Orthodox (Miaphysite) · Assyrian

[show]Nontrinitarian
Jehovah’s Witness · Latter Day Saint · Unitarian · Christadelphian · Oneness Pentecostal · Iglesia ni Cristo

General topics
Preaching · Prayer · Ecumenism · Relation to other religions · Christian movements · Music · Liturgy · Calendar · Symbols · Art · Criticism
Christianity Portal

---

This box: view • talk • edit
In Christianity, baptism (from Greek βαπτίζω baptizo: “immersing”, “performing ablutions”, i.e., “ritual washing”)[2] is the ritual act, with the use of water, by which a person is admitted to membership of the Church.[3]

Let me begin with some overall comments. As we know, Jesus set the standard by being baptised in the River Jordan by his cousin, John the Baptist. After His death and resurrection, the usual form of baptism among the earliest Christians was for the candidate to be immersed totally or partially. While John the Baptist’s use of a deep river for his baptism suggests immersion, pictorial and archaeological evidence of Christian baptism from the 3rd Century onward indicates that the normal form was to have the candidate stand in water while water was poured over the upper body. But since the bible doesn’t dicate the method, other common forms of baptism now in use include pouring water three times on the forehead.

Baptism was seen as in some sense necessary for salvation, until Huldrych Zwingli, a reformer along with John Calvin and Martin Luther in the 16th Century denied its necessity based on his understanding of Scripture. Out of that thinking came th3e doctrine of “believers’s baptism.”

Martyrdom was identified early in Church history as “baptism by blood,” enabling martyrs who had not been baptized by water to be saved. Later, I believe the Catholic Church identified a “baptism of desire,” by which those preparing for baptism who die before actually receiving the sacrament are considered saved.

Virtually all Christians baptize “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (following the Great Commission). Some churches in Protestantism, like the Baptists, insist on submersion or at least partial immersion of the person who is baptized, others consider that any form of washing by water, as long as the water flows on the head, is sufficient

Most Christians baptize infants; others, like the Baptists, hold that only believer’s baptism is true baptism. That is, baptism doesn’t save; it is an important indication that a person has consciously asked forgiveness for their rebelliousness towards God, invited Christ to be their Lord and Savior, and decided to walk the way of righteousness under the power of the Holy Spirit, as defined by Scripture. Thus, baptism to them is a symbol of an individual’s conscious commtment to the Trinity.

Therefore, the label of “Baptist” has nothing to do with whether or not the rite is a sacrament. It has to do with defining people and groups who see Baptism as an outward sign of a previous transformation in which an individual publically declares their allegiance to the Lord Jesus Christ. Infants are incapable of doing this. Baptists further believe that infants and the mentally disabled are saved by God’s special grace becasue they are incapable of accepting or rejecting God. They use David’s attitude towards the infant son that was born out the adulterous affair he had with Bathsheba, another man’s wife. When God took the baby from them David said that he would eventually see his son in heaven.

Of the approximately 800 million Protestants, Baptists are a group of Christian denominations, churches, and individuals with a total of close to 100 million followers in the world through 200 plus denominations, making Baptists the largest Protestant group in the world.

 

[Zadkiel]

So in recap:
One is saved by an emotional transformation referred to as Salvation.
This itself is enough to guarantee one into Heaven.
If you want to be a member of a particular church and be able to receive communion, you must tell the congregation your Testimony of Salvation and then be received as a member granting all rights and privileges upon Baptism.
When you are Baptized, you are received as a full member and are allowed to receive communion and vote in church matters.

So for Baptists, the only things that require Baptism are communion and the ability to vote on church matters.

Hi, I am also a Baptist (better said on the way to it - I’ll have my baptism in Septembre).
But I have always recieved the communion so far, although I haven’t been baptised.
I have thought that Baptists have “open communion”, because it is only a sign of Christ’s love and not the real presence.

I guess the other points are okay.

Good post, thank you!

Zadkiel

 

[bgoins2]

jlhargus,

Thank you so much for this explanation!! I have been trying to show the link between infant baptism and circumcision for a while now, but I’ve never been able to explain to someone well enough. Since discovering that baptism in the NT replaces circumcision in the OT, I began to ask myself, if God insisted on having infants 8 days old circumcised in order for them to become apart of His family, then why wouldn’t He also want infants baptized in the NT? Thank you so much. Maybe I can take from your post to help me explain my position more.

My husband is Baptist, and we have had so many arguments over this topic. Unfortunately, he now belongs to a church that has a very anti-Catholic pastor, and at times, I have become very tired of my continual defense of the Catholic Church, especially since I have no theological/apologetic background. I can’t describe the pain I feel sitting in their services while they criticize Catholics over and over again, and yet they have no idea of my devotion and love of Jesus Christ. I don’t understand why they hate us so much. I’ve never been taught to hate any other group nor to judge their beliefs. I’ve always been taught that only Jesus Christ knows what is truly in someone’s heart, and therefore we are not to judge, no matter what denomination or religion.

 

[CathCountryMan7]

True that the Anabaptists led to the Baptists.

The Baptists have NOTHING to do with St. John the Baptist!

The Baptists are Donatists (believing that even a validly baptized Christian must be re-baptized). And note that Donatism is an early heresy.

So, Baptists believe in being ‘born-again’.

They and many other Protestants misinterpret Jesus’ Speech to Nicodemus in St. John’s gospel.

 

[jlhargus]

Let me begin with some overall comments. As we know, Jesus set the standard by being baptised in the River Jordan by his cousin, John the Baptist. After His death and resurrection, the usual form of baptism among the earliest Christians was for the candidate to be immersed totally or partially. While John the Baptist’s use of a deep river for his baptism suggests immersion,

JL: My understanding is the Jordan is not a deep river. It is about waist deep in some places and less in most places. The only way we know immersion was the usual form would be TRADITION. Spriture never gives the form of baptism as immersion or anyother way. Paul seems to have been baptized standing up by pouring as he was in a house, [Acts9:17 And ANANIAS went his way, and ENTERED into THE HOUSE; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. 18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, AND AROSE, AND WAS BAPTIZED. 19 AND when he had RECEIVED MEAT, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus.]

Baptism was seen as in some sense necessary for salvation, until Huldrych Zwingli, a reformer along with John Calvin and Martin Luther in the 16th Century denied its necessity based on his understanding of Scripture. Most Christians baptize infants; others, like the Baptists, hold that only believer’s baptism is true baptism. That is, baptism doesn’t save; it is an important indication that a person has consciously asked forgiveness for their rebelliousness towards God, invited Christ to be their Lord and Savior, and decided to walk the way of righteousness under the power of the Holy Spirit, as defined by Scripture. Thus, baptism to them is a symbol of an individual’s conscious commtment to the Trinity.

JL: Peter tells us baptism NOW SAVES, [1Pet 3:21 **The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also NOW SAVE US (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:] Peter also tells us baptism remits sins and we receive the Holy Spirit, Acts2:38 Then Peter said unto them, RREPENT, and BE BAPTIZED every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ FOR the REMISSION OF SINS, and ye shall RECEIVE THE gift of the HOLY GHOST. 39 For THE PROMISE IS UNTO YOU, AND to YOUR CHILDREN, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.] I have yet to see anyone post scriptural evidence that baptism is sign or symbol only. Maybe some Baptist here can show me.

Therefore, the label of “Baptist” has nothing to do with whether or not the rite is a sacrament. It has to do with defining people and groups who see Baptism as an outward sign of a previous transformation in which an individual publically declares their allegiance to the Lord Jesus Christ. Infants are incapable of doing this. Baptists further believe that infants and the mentally disabled are saved by God’s special grace becasue they are incapable of accepting or rejecting God. They use David’s attitude towards the infant son that was born out the adulterous affair he had with Bathsheba, another man’s wife. When God took the baby from them David said that he would eventually see his son in heaven.

JL: Could you tell me how David’s child went to heaven before Christ’s sacrifice, resurrection, atonement and ascension? David went to his child in Sheol not heaven. Sheol is were all souls went, good or bad, before Christ. The good souls went to the chamber called Abrahams Bosom or paradise and were taken into heaven when Christ ascended. The lost went to the chamber of torment, where they remain till the resurrection and then Sheol=Hebrew, Hades=Greek or Hell=English along with death will be thrown into the Lake of Fire… No one could go to heaven before Christ’s ascension, unless it was a miracle.

Of the approximately 800 million Protestants, Baptists are a group of Christian denominations, churches, and individuals with a total of close to 100 million followers in the world through 200 plus denominations, making Baptists the largest Protestant group in the world.

JL: I would not call 200 plus denominations A GROUP, they are NOT ONE they are MANY denominations using the word Baptist. They differ as much as anyother Protestant Denomination. I had a great aunt who was Free Will Baptist, she did not consider herself in union with OSAS Baptists.

 

[jlhargus]

jlhargus,

Thank you so much for this explanation!! I have been trying to show the link between infant baptism and circumcision for a while now, but I’ve never been able to explain to someone well enough. Since discovering that baptism in the NT replaces circumcision in the OT, I began to ask myself, if God insisted on having infants 8 days old circumcised in order for them to become apart of His family, then why wouldn’t He also want infants baptized in the NT? Thank you so much. Maybe I can take from your post to help me explain my position more.

My husband is Baptist, and we have had so many arguments over this topic. Unfortunately, he now belongs to a church that has a very anti-Catholic pastor, and at times, I have become very tired of my continual defense of the Catholic Church, especially since I have no theological/apologetic background. I can’t describe the pain I feel sitting in their services while they criticize Catholics over and over again, and yet they have no idea of my devotion and love of Jesus Christ. I don’t understand why they hate us so much. I’ve never been taught to hate any other group nor to judge their beliefs. I’ve always been taught that only Jesus Christ knows what is truly in someone’s heart, and therefore we are not to judge, no matter what denomination or religion.

JL: Thanks Bgoins, please feel free to use anything from any of my posts. If I can help you in anyway, with questions, PM me. I will pray for you and him.

 

[Anna_Scott]

JL: My understanding is the Jordan is not a deep river. It is about waist deep in some places and less in most places. The only way we know immersion was the usual form would be TRADITION. Spriture never gives the form of baptism as immersion or anyother way. Paul seems to have been baptized standing up by pouring as he was in a house, [Acts9:17 And ANANIAS went his way, and ENTERED into THE HOUSE; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. 18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, AND AROSE, AND WAS BAPTIZED. 19 AND when he had RECEIVED MEAT, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus.]. . . . .

jlhargus,

You’ve made excellent posts on this thread. As I said in an earlier post, I am a former Baptist. It is difficult to escape indoctrination. When one views Scripture through the filter of Baptist teaching about Baptism (and the Eucharist); entire sections of Scripture are dismissed, because they don’t fit the “indoctrination.” It is difficult to escape. I know that from personal experience.

Graces are definitely imparted during Baptism, as your posts explain–including the forgiveness of sin and entrance into the New Covenant with God. Baptism is, as you said, the “circumcision made without hands.”

Peace,
Anna