why "Baptist"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter water
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

water

Guest
I have a simple question. Why the Baptists call themselves Baptists?

Thanks!
 
In the Greek, baptismo, I think. The Baptism we understand was administered to Jesus involved immersion - the water covering Him up means He, and we who follow in that Baptism, are dead to sin (like you’re covered up with dirt = “too late Satan, this one’s out of reach”). The millions of Baptists tend to feel the repentance and baptism sequence is such a big deal that they made it the name of their churches. How many baptist groups are there, dozens?
(Some non-Baptist Protestants like to baptise infants, and do not immerse.)
 
water said:
I have a simple question. Why the Baptists call themselves Baptists?

Thanks!
Click to expand...
It’s actually short for “anti-baptists” because they believe that baptism is symbolic only, that it is optional, and that only fully competent adults can get baptized.

Some members of the Baptist church are never baptized in their whole lives, and others get baptized quite frequently; I once corresponded with a Baptist woman who got baptized every year on the Sunday nearest to her birthday.
 
interesting but confusing.:confused: …but I got it.
Thanks for your answers.
 
jmcrae said:
Some members of the Baptist church are never baptized in their whole lives, and others get baptized quite frequently
Click to expand...
:confused: A family member of mine is Lutheran. Her Lutheran parish closed due to lack of membership in the congregation. 😦 She decided to start going to a Baptist church in her neighbourhood because it was close by. The Baptist minister told her that she needed to get baptised in order to join the congregation. She told him that she already was baptised as an infant, and that the Bible clearly said “one baptism.” Then she left the Baptist church and found another Lutheran church, although she has to drive quite a bit farther now. She found the “re-baptism” thing to be completely contrary to what the Bible says.
 
lak611 said:
:confused: A family member of mine is Lutheran. Her Lutheran parish closed due to lack of membership in the congregation. 😦 She decided to start going to a Baptist church in her neighbourhood because it was close by. The Baptist minister told her that she needed to get baptised in order to join the congregation. She told him that she already was baptised as an infant, and that the Bible clearly said “one baptism.” Then she left the Baptist church and found another Lutheran church, although she has to drive quite a bit farther now. She found the “re-baptism” thing to be completely contrary to what the Bible says.
Click to expand...
I was baptized when I was in the third grade in a little Baptist church. As I grew older my search for God and truth led me to explore many other religions(although I never joined any)

When I rededicated my life to Christ, I started attending another small Baptist Church similar to the one that I went as a child. The pastor put a lot of pressure on me to get reBaptised because he said that my first Baptism did not count as I was apparently not really a Christian at the time. I got rebaptised but it felt wrong to me. 😦
 
I have a simple question. Why the Baptists call themselves Baptists?
Click to expand...
Why are Baptists so hostile on average, towards the Catholic Church?
 
I understood that they were called baptists because when they formed they went around rebaptizing converts.

If your first baptism is valid (In the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit) , you are just getting wet after that…
 
This re-baptising business gets Southern Baptists irritated with each other. Why ask someone to be Baptised if their previous Baptism was as a believer? You could make a bit more of a case for Baptising a person who had been sprinkled or whatever as a child, but, really, if the believer is convinced that they are now saved, why should a church ask for more of a public testimony than that? Many SB churches would be found on both sides of these questions. We used to have many “Landmark” Baptist churches who didn’t even recognize the same religion’s baptisms from a few miles away. My old church wanted to re-baptise a Church of Christ member because that group considers the baptism ceremony as necessary for salvation.

Just as Saddam, Hitler, Huey Long, and many other weaker minds have chosen to throw rocks at groups they hated, many preachers calling themsaelves Baptist have drummed up much local fervor throwing rocks at the Pope. Luther had his problems with indulgences and other faults of the Catholic Church, as any institution full of fallible (?) humans is going to develop over time. Elevating Mary may be this age’s most irritating characteristic of the HRCC for your everyday Protestant, but JP 2nd sure prayed to Her.
 
jmcrae said:
It’s actually short for “anti-baptists” because they believe that baptism is symbolic only, that it is optional, and that only fully competent adults can get baptized.

Some members of the Baptist church are never baptized in their whole lives, and others get baptized quite frequently; I once corresponded with a Baptist woman who got baptized every year on the Sunday nearest to her birthday.
Click to expand...
Could it be from “Anabaptist” (baptize again) referring to the groups that sprung up during the Reformation that denied infant baptism and so got re-baptized as adults?
 
curious35 said:
My old church wanted to re-baptise a Church of Christ member because that group considers the baptism ceremony as necessary for salvation.
Click to expand...
Do you know how old the Church of Christ member was was he originally was baptised?
 
Veritas41 said:
Could it be from “Anabaptist” (baptize again) referring to the groups that sprung up during the Reformation that denied infant baptism and so got re-baptized as adults?
Click to expand...
No - the modern-day successors to the Anabaptists are groups like the Mennonites, Quakers, Amish, Hutterites, Plymouth Brethren, Campbellites, etc.

The Baptist religion actually started off as a group of recovering alcoholics who were nominally Calvinist in Holland - this is why they forbid alcohol and public entertainments of all kinds, despite there being no evidence whatsoever that Jesus ever did. They started up a lay-led Bible study to build community among the ex-alcoholics, and ended up with a whole new religion.
 
jmcrae said:
No - the modern-day successors to the Anabaptists are groups like the Mennonites, Quakers, Amish, Hutterites, Plymouth Brethren, Campbellites, etc.

The Baptist religion actually started off as a group of recovering alcoholics who were nominally Calvinist in Holland - this is why they forbid alcohol and public entertainments of all kinds, despite there being no evidence whatsoever that Jesus ever did. They started up a lay-led Bible study to build community among the ex-alcoholics, and ended up with a whole new religion.
Click to expand...
That is really interesting. Do you have any links about their history?
 
Regarding re-baptism, especially of the Church of Christ convert, I guess I am a “liberal” enough thinker (let me duck here for a minute!!) to not have a clue except the Baptists are starting to pay more attention to who is baptising people.

A lot of religious groups went through liberalizing movements the past thirty years - the Methodists, Presbyterians, and especially the Episcopalians quit holding on to a lot of basics that they used to hold dear, to the point that the more “progressive” of these three are elevating gays and lesbians to higher posts, along with other liberalizations. The Southern Baptists played with this then had a quiet civil war ending in 1979 when as a group they decided to harken back to where they had been in a “conservative resurgence.”

The Church of Christ member had been originally baptised as a young adult but you could consider it a sinner’s repentant baptism. As it turned out, he declined the offer, which was a shame and a blessing - the back-benchers in that church would’ve never worked with him anyway. He is a good friend of mine and we see each other at Walk to Emaaus gatherings.

What is really so ironic is that Baptists have always considered their ability to disagree on peripheral issues while agreeing on the crucial issues as the reason for their success, which may seem incongruous given what else I’ve written. Mankind has this streak of going from sticking to the fundamentals to making every less important issue a fundamental, leading to greater strictness, more legalism, more separatism - blah!
Steve
 
I used to work with a guy who was a Baptist lay preacher.

He was actually a very nice guy. But he was so hostile towards me. I have no idea why. I do not know if it was because I am Catholic. I have really no idea. 😦
 
I have tried to keep abreast of how Protestant Churches and communities have evolved. They are after all our brothers and sisters in Christ. But I cant understand the link between Baptists and Congregationalists…

Any ideas please?
 
There is no link between the Congragationalist and the Baptist. The Ana-Baptist (rebaptizers) became Congrationalist and others. It has Nothimg to do with the present Baptist Denominations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top