Questions About Baptists
In recent years there has been a push in some Baptist circles to awaken to our roots as Baptists and understand our history. As a result of this push, several people have risen up to write books and to teach others where Baptists came from, and where they fit in the history of the Church. Some have gone so far as to attempt to prove that the Baptist Church is the the only true Church, and have subsequently annihilated the idea of Biblical Christianity.
In this post I will address a series of questions posed to me by a Baptist Evangelist, Dan Goodwin; and hopefully I will be able to clear up some false teaching, and misconception concerning Baptists; and in the process also clear up some modern misconceptions concerning the true church that Jesus Christ started.
Question 1 – If you were alive in 150 A.D. and looking for a church that was baptistic… did it exist?
Of course this question implies that we all know what “baptistic” means. The answer to that depends on what baptist camp you are from. Judging from the rest of the questions this Evangelist asked, I am assuming that his questions are prompted from a Landmarker perspective. The Landmark Baptists believe that the legitimacy of their affiliation with the name Baptist lies in their ability to prove their historic roots to the Early Church. As far as the Landmark Baptists are concerned, a person is only legitimately Baptist if they have been Baptized by a legitimate Baptist… which in turn must have been baptized by a legitimately baptized person… and so on, all the way back to the Apostles. This teaching is called “Baptist Succession”, and it is on this basis that they claim the Baptists are the “true Church”.
There are two serious problems with this. First, the records of baptisms are so sparse that no-one could possibly trace their baptism back to the Apostles. From the 2nd century to the 16th century there are almost no records of any Church apart from Catholicism, so to prove a succession to the Apostles would be absolutely impossible. The second problem with Baptist Successionism is that water Baptism is not what saves us. Jesus Christ told the Apostle Peter in Matthew 16:18 “upon this rock will I build my church”; the interesting thing about that passage is that baptism was not even mentioned. The rock that Jesus said He would build His church upon was the revelation knowledge of who Jesus Christ is. So anyone whom the Father has blessed by revealing the person of His Son Jesus Christ is a part of this church. This agrees with the teaching of John in 1John 4:2-3.
Of course not all Baptists believe that their roots must be traced back to the Apostles. Most Baptists in fact believe that baptism by immersion as an outward sign of conversion is the biblical model of baptism, so over the course of the past two thousand years these people came to be known as “baptist”. In fact, before 1609, they were not called “baptist” they were called “ana-baptist” (meaning re-baptizers) because upon conversion the converts from other religions were “re-baptized” in the biblical mode. John Smythe (an ordained Anglican Priest) is usually accredited with founding the first church that carried the name Baptist in 1609.
The following acrostic, spelling BAPTIST represents a useful summary of modern Baptist beliefs.
- Biblical Authority (sola-scriptura)
- Autonomy of the Local Church
- Priesthood of all Believers
- Two ordinances (Baptism and the Lord’s supper)
- Individual Soul Liberty
- Separation of Church and State
- Two offices of the Church (Elder / Pastor and Deacon)
Although there were no Baptist churches before 1609, anyone who believes this acrostic represents the biblical Church model will obviously believe there were “baptistic” type Churches in existence in 150AD. But Baptist Churches of today vary in degrees of Biblical congruency to the early Church in other areas such as; Calvinism, separation, women in ministry, eschatology, hermeneutics, scripture translations used, missionary boards, open or closed communion, etc… If a Church disagrees on these areas it should by no means negate the above acrostic. Many Fundamentalists today view adherence to these secondary tenets to be just as important as the basic baptistic acrostic listed earlier; which of course is ludicrous.
Question 2 – How about the catholic church… did it exist in 150 A.D.?
That depends on what you view catholic to be. The word “catholic” is a transliteration of a Latin word meaning “universal”. The Catholic Church of today, the Ecclesiastical organization that it is, was not in existence in 150AD. The Catholic Church of today views itself as an ‘all ecompassing’ or “universal” Earthly organization that comprises all of Christ’s Church here on Earth. But that is not the only way to interpret the universality of the Church. The Apostle’s Creed, written around 150AD states that it believes in “the holy catholic church”. You’ll notice in that statement that neither the words “catholic” nor “church” are capitalized. This is because neither of these terms are intended to be interpreted as institutional.
The church of Jesus Christ is not an institutional organization, but rather all inclusive of all the saints who have ever lived, or “catholic” (universal). The subject of the universal church is another belief that many Fundamentalist claim is an unbiblical doctrine, but scripture verifies that the church is in fact universal; Hebrews 12:22-23 states that we who are alive now, are part of this universal church. In verse 23 the term “general assembly” is a translation of the Greek term πανήγυρις (pangyris) which means “universal gathering”. John Gill, a Baptist commentator said of this statement; “panegyris… is here used, by the apostle, for the church of God, consisting of all his elect, both Jews and Gentiles, and the meeting of them together: they met together, in the infinite mind of God, from all eternity; and in Christ, their head and representative..”
So my answer to this question would be yes, the catholic church did exist in 150AD… although not the ecclesiastic organization that exists today under the name Catholic.
Question 3 – How about later on, if you were alive in 1400 A.D. and looking for a baptistic church… did it exist?
Again, just as there are Churches today that make an attempt at perfect congruity with the Early Church model, there have most likely been Churches and sects throughout history that have tried to do the same. I realize that many Landmarkers, in an attempt to validate themselves as the true Church have done extensive research in this area to find the links between the 2nd century and the 16th century to tie together those Churches they believe are valid, but the fact remains we have no idea. In 1400AD we know the Waldensians were a sect that were referred to as Ana-baptist… but we also know that many Waldensians practiced infant baptism, and baptism by aspersion… so by Baptist standards (the acrostic listed above) they can not be considered to be baptist.
There were many other “ana-baptist” sects in 1400AD, most of which we know next to nothing about, including those in and around Switzerland and Germany; but I cannot say with certainty that they were “baptistic” and neither can any historian because the information about them simply is not there. Some Baptist historian such as Cathcart and Armitage have tried to find “baptistic” sects throughout this era, but what they have written about it mostly hear-say.
One sect called the Paulicians of the 7th and 8th centuries are typically considered to be “baptistic”, and they are one sect that we do have information about. The Paulicians were dualists and manichaeans, they rejected the book of Revelation and the Old Testament, and they claimed to have a copy of the letter to the Laodiceans which they considered to be scripture. So, again, they would not have been considered “baptistic” as they did not accept the Bible as authoritative as we baptists today accept the bible.
Question 4 – Is there a date you can prove that is the beginning of the baptist church?
Sure, 1609. If you can find the name “Baptist” in any writing before 1609 I’ll send you $20. The term “ana-baptist” was used as a name of scorn mainly by the Roman Catholics to describe those who would make proselytes of Catholics and “re-baptize” them upon conversion… but this wasn’t a name they would call themselves until John Smythe called his Church Baptist in 1609.
Now if you are asking when the Church of Jesus Christ started, it had it’s beginning in the book of Acts on the day of Pentecost. But we can’t ignore the truth that the Church of Jesus Christ is one in the same with the “Kingdom of God”. It should also be noted that this Kingdom is the same country that Abraham looked for while sojourning in Canaan (Heb. 11:10). We are also told in Hebrews 6:15 that Abraham received the promise, and that after his death. We know from Luke 16:22 that Abraham eventually resided in the Kingdom of God, which was the final realization of the promise God made to him in Genesis 15. The Church wasn’t instituted by Christ in the Old Testament times, but it was in existence in eternity. We who are saved today have entered into that eternal kingdom by the Holy Spirit. We have been grafted into the “true vine” which is the life giving source of all those who live in the Kingdom of God (Romans 11:16-17)
Question 5 – Do you believe John Wesley’s Methodist church to be the church Jesus started?
The true church is not an institution. The Roman Catholics have erred by considering the spiritual universal church to be institutional, and now many Fundamentalist Baptists are erring in the same way by claiming the Baptists are the institutional Church that Jesus started. The Church that Jesus started is a spiritual church as the olive tree illustration in Romans 11 implies. There are most likely true Christians in the Methodist Churches, just like there are most likely true Christians in Baptist Churches… and as much as you might not like it, there are most likely some Roman Catholics that are part of the true Church. By the same token, there are members of Baptist, Methodist, Catholic etc., Churches that are NOT saved and are NOT part of the true Church. Our goal should not be to make Baptists, but to invite lost sinners to the fellowship of the saints despite their denominational affiliation.
I would remind you that the Jews in Jesus’ day believed they were the elite crowd because of their Earthly origins. They believed they were elite because they were the children of Abraham. The Jews in Jesus day rejected gentiles because they didn’t have the circumcision which designated the elite crowd. I’m afraid modern baptists have made the same error as the Scribes and Pharisees by assuming their set of beliefs and doctrines, and their baptism makes them part of the elite crowd. For many Fundamentalists, Baptism is the new circumcision in the sense that it is the method by which the elite are made. Paul called out the Jews for their error concerning circumcision in Romans 2:28-29. Paul says that true circumcision is not of the flesh, but of the heart. A true Christian is not one that has been baptized properly or holds to all the Baptistic doctrines… but one who has been changed inwardly, and that can happen to anyone.
The Methodist Church is Arminian in doctrine. That doesn’t necessarily mean they can not be considered “baptistic” in nature. If they agree with the BAPTIST acrostic I listed above, then they can be appropriately labeled baptist. The truth be told, most Fundamentalists who would accuse the Methodists of not being baptistic are similar to the Methodists with their semi-pelagian theology.
Question 6 – Do you believe the church of England and Martin Luther’s church to be part of the church that Jesus started?
I think the answer to this question goes without saying if you have read my previous answers. I believe the Church of England was off on some things, mainly the institutionalization of the church… and Martin Luther never fully reformed from Roman Catholicism, but I have read Martin Luther’s writings and there is nothing in the world that would convince me that Martin Luther was not a Christian. Martin Luther fully understood the nature of the spiritual church, and the importance of that “inward circumcision”. In fact, his understanding of the spiritual church and the Priesthood of the believer is what drove Martin Luther to preach against the atrocities of the Roman Catholic institution. I don’t believe the corruption in the Catholic Church was so much what drove Martin Luther to reform.. I believe it was the propensity of the people to believe the lies of the Roman Catholic Church that made Luther realize that people were being blinded from the truth that they could have a relationship with Christ apart from the Roman Catholic institution.
Question 7 – Did the Baptist in the 1500’s fellowship with Martin Luther’s crowd?
Well, that would suggest that Baptists were around in the 1500’s, and of course they were not. It is a well known fact that Ulrich Zwingle, a close friend of Martin Luther and the leader of the Reformation in Switzerland was actually converted by associating with Ana-Baptists… so yes, Luther’s crowd did associate with ana-baptists.
Question 8 – In Revelation 17:5 who are the ‘harlots” that were spawned by the “great whore?”
It would seem from the general context of Revelation chapter 17 that the “mother” is either the Roman Catholic Church or Orthodox Judaism. The harlots spawned from the “mother” are those which commit adultery. It needs to be understood here that adultery in the spiritual sense in the “adulteration” of spiritual truths. The Orthodox Jews of Jesus’ day perverted the spiritual truths of the law and made themselves the elite crowd. The Roman Catholics adulterated the spiritual truth of the universal church and made it an abomination by institutionalizing it.
Fundamentalist Baptists today have done the same thing as the Scribes and Pharisees of Jesus’ day, and the same thing Roman Catholicism has done for the past 1600 years by institutionalizing the true church. Baptists today, as I have explained above have made a concerted effort to institutionalize the true church. Many baptists today would have the world believe that the “Baptist” Church is the true Church, and in order to be part of the Bride of Christ one must be a member of this man made institution called “Baptist”.
The harlots spawned from the Great Whore are those who have perverted the Word of God, and adulterated the spiritual truths contained therein to make the beautiful church of Christ into something vile; and to be honest with you… writing this article is not an easy thing for me to do, it makes me sick to force myself to come face to face with such harlotry and disgusting untruths.
So, to answer your question “who are the harlots spawned by the great whore of Revelation 17:5″? Anyone who perverts the truth of God concerning His Bride. Roman Catholics fit this mold, and so do many Fundamentalists, and so do many other denominations if they teach the only way to be a part of the Bride of Christ is to be part of their denomination. The marriage of Christ and His Bride is a beautiful relationship that many have perverted by committing adultery with the Bride of Christ through institutionalizing the spiritual body of Christ… therefore they are “harlots”.
Question 9 – Who are “protestants” and where did they get their name?
Protestants are those who have “protested” against the Catholic Church. Protestants have historically protested against the Catholic Church because they came to the realization that the church of Christ is not an earthly institution, but a spiritual economy of believers. Typically when a Catholic is saved, they will leave the Catholic Church. Some of those converts have historically protested against the abomination of the Catholic Institution when they learn enough to realize the detestable whoredom she represents. Martin Luther is the most prominent of these protestants, and most subsequent protestants have associated themselves with Martin Luther.
I do believe the label “protestant” can be extended to describe anyone who protests against the type of adultery that is exemplified by the Roman Catholic institution. There are many Christians today that have left the legalism and institutional Christianity that describes many Fundamentalist type sects and many of those people have chosen to “protest” against the legalism and harlotry they left. I personally consider myself a protestant, not because I left the Roman Catholic institution, but because I speak out against the harlotries of Baptists today.
Question 10 – Do you believe Baptists are protestants?
The Baptist Church is a denominational institution. Did they come out of the Catholic Church? Some baptists have, many have not. But if you are going to suggest that the Baptist denomination is the true Church of Jesus Christ you have already made the same mistake the Catholic Church did… so there is no answer to your question. By claiming that “Baptists” are the true Church, you have adulterated the spiritual nature of the church of Jesus Christ, and have made the Baptist Church something to be protested against.
Bonus question – In the Bible, who called John… “the baptist?”
Oooh! I get extra credit? The answer: Jesus. Why did Jesus call John “the baptist”? Very simply because he baptized people.
I get a chuckle out of people who try and try to prove that the Baptist Church is the true Church, eventually give up tracing the lineage of Baptists through history, then finally claim their legitimacy lies in the existence of John “the baptist”. John the Baptist was an Old Testament prophet… he wasn’t even part of the Church. The label “baptist” as it applied to John was not denominational affiliation, he was simply called baptist because he baptized people. Any fool teaching Church history that would claim John the Baptist was the origin of the Baptist denomination has no business teaching Church history.
If anyone has any further questions regarding the spiritual nature of Christ’s true Church, or the fallacy of modern Fundamentalist teaching on the true Church, you are welcome to comment below, join the discussion at Google Wave, email me, or call us using the Google voice applet in the sidebar at the top of this page.
Evang Dan Goodwin on 26 December, 2009 at 4:10 pm #
