Working out Salvation with Fear and Trembling

Are Baptists Part of the Protestant Reformation?

On this day in 1517, Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the church door in Wittenberg, which sparked perhaps one of the greatest events in the history of the church of Jesus Christ, the Protestant Reformation. Protestants (who protested against the established church) sought a Reformation (a change in the church to return to the essence of the Scriptures) which has changed the face of the entire Christian church since then. A focus on the sources (ad fontes) of Scripture brought the church back to what became 5 pillars of a return to New Testament Christianity. These are:

1) Sola Scriptura - By Scripture Alone

2) Sola Gratia - By Grace Alone

3) Solo Christo - By Christ Alone

4) Sola Fide - By Faith Alone

5) Soli Deo Grloria - Glory to God Alone

Even while modern day Protestants trace their roots to the Reformation, there are many within Baptist circles that would argue that Baptists are not part of the Protestant Reformation. They would see a distinct difference in origin for Baptists than the Reformation. So, the question must be asked, are Baptists part of the Protestant Reformation?

Views on the Origin of Baptists

There are, to make it simplified, four different views on Baptist origins (please note I am indebted to my former Church History professor, Gerald Priest at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary for first presenting these truths to me). These are:

1) Strict organic successionist view.

There has always been a succession of Baptist churches throughout history beginning with the first Baptist church of Jerusalem. Dissenters from the earliest times were Baptists with different names.

2) Anabaptist kinship view.

Early seventeenth century Baptists were influenced by continental anabaptists.

3) Spiritual kinship view.

This is the continuation of biblical teachings view or spiritual successionism. There is a ontinuity of Baptist concepts. In other words, there is no “trail of blood” but there is a iscernable “trail of truth.”

4) British separatist view.

The Baptist denominations originated out of the Puritan Separatist Movement n seventeenth century England.

There is of course a mixing of these different views but these are essentially the normal views taken.

Historical Arguments for the British Separatist View

Now, this is a huge topic and one that could be devoted whole books to, but I will refer you to the recent presentation of this material by my former Church History professor here for more details. See him for a presentation of arguments against Baptists being derived from the Protestant Reformation. Briefly though, let me outline a few historical reasons FOR viewing Baptists as deriving from the Protestant Reformation (see Priest for biblical arguments regarding the universal church).

1. The church of Jesus Christ has existed since Pentecost. Just because it is difficult to find historically groups throughout history who maintain a pure commitment to the NT church does not mean they did not exist. Regardless, the purity of the church has been maintained in the universal body of believers, not necessarily always in local churches. This helps us then to not attempt to force heretical groups into a Baptist mold just because they performed baptism by immersion.

2. The Second London Baptist Confession (1688) affirms both the universal and local aspects of the church in article 26, sections 1 and 2. Since Baptists affirm the universal church, this means that it is not necessary for there to be visible manifestations of the universal body in local bodies at every single moment throughout church history.

3. Just because Anabaptists (who did not truly come from the Protestant Reformation) and Baptists practice a similar form of baptism does not make them the same. There are some very major differences like pacifism, nonparticipation in government, and unwillingness to take
oaths among other things makes a real difference between the two groups.

4. Just because Baptists did not directly come out of the Roman Catholic church does not mean they are not part of the Protestant Reformation. They come out of British Puritan Separatism (which can be demonstrated historically) and therefore, since they derive their origin from the Reformation, so we can as well.

5. The First and Second London Confession of Faith mention that they are not Anabaptists. The Confession or Declaration of Faith by the General Baptists says the same thing.

6. John Smyth inaugurated the practice of believer’s baptism among his Separatist ollowers in 1609. After repudiating his baptism and attempting to merge his church with a Mennonite community, Thomas Helwys, John Murton, and their followers rejected Smyth and returned to England to found the first General Baptist church there in 1611.

7. In the 17th century, when some argued for a successionist view of the Baptist origin they were looked upon with suspicion as it sounded very Roman Catholic.

8. There were many different varieties of Anabaptism in the 17th century, not all of it biblical. Today most Anabaptists have no fellowship with Baptists.

This has been rather brief, but it is good to get an overall historical view of something and use it as a jumping off point so that others can investigate the issues for themselves. In conclusion though let it be said that whatever the origins, Baptists have attempted to derive their theology and practice from the New Testament and only the New Testament. Yet, when looking at the historical evidence, it does seem primarily true, that Baptists come not from a long line of succeeding groups, nor from the Anabaptists directly (there may be some influence there) but from the British Puritan Separatists. And they take their origin eventually out of the Protestant Reformation. So therefore, Baptists are part of the Protestant Reformation.

If you are a Baptist this day (Reformation Day) take heart and rejoice in what God has done in history to rescue the truths of the Scriptures and bring them back into the church and thank God for the privilege of being part of that Reformation!

Happy Reformation Day!

October 31, 2007 - Posted by allenmickle | Baptist History, Protestant Reformation | , | 15 Comments

15 Comments »

  1. Allen, thanks for the article. That’s some very good information. In earlier years I was taught and was directed to materials that taught that Baptists are not Protestants. As though we were a cut above everyone else and wanted nothing to do with them. I’ve since come to see things differently.

    My hope isn’t in the absolutely pure lineage or succession of my denominational heritage, but in the promises of God, in the absolute perfection of Christ and His redemptive work. Isn’t that what the Reformation is all about? I’m glad to join with other believers and thank God for what He brought about through the work of the reformers.

    Comment by Tim Ashcraft | October 31, 2007

  2. Tim,

    Thanks for the great comment! I totally agree with you… that is what the Reformation is all about. And I am glad that I can continue to be part of a movement that is still reforming!

    Comment by allenmickle | October 31, 2007

  3. Allen,

    This is excellent. Thanks for posting it.

    Steve

    Comment by Steve Weaver | November 1, 2007

  4. Steve,

    No problem! Thanks for posting the Reformation resources on your blog!

    Allen

    Comment by allenmickle | November 1, 2007

  5. Good post, Allen. I’ve been doing some research lately on Landmarkism, and it’s very telling that the idea of a long line of Baptist succession is a relatively recent development. You don’t find it in the 17th century, when both Particular (1644, 1677/89 Confesssions) and General Baptists (Orthodox Creed) went to great lengths to identify with their Protestant brethren (and, for instance, deny connections to Anabaptists).

    Comment by Doug Smith | November 2, 2007

  6. One more thing - it certainly seems that Baptists do happen to be the group that carries the Reformation to its logical conclusion (regenerate church membership, believers’ baptism by immersion, etc. - as Tom Nettles calls it, a theologically-integrated ecclesiology), following the rule of Scripture and the reasonable conclusion of sola fide. That said, reformation is still needed in Baptist circles and in our own lives.

    Comment by Doug Smith | November 2, 2007

  7. Doug,

    I think you are exactly right on both fronts. Thanks for the warm comments about the post. I would like to develop it further in a series of posts (regarding each of the historical arguments for the 17th century British Separatist view). Your blog is great by the way!

    Allen

    Comment by allenmickle | November 3, 2007

  8. Excellent summary. I got out my “Baptist History” text which I used in College (thirty years ago) and intended to write something similar but was soon overwhelmed with the dates and different groups. You did an excellent job of summarizing and getting to the point.
    I was taught that Baptists pre-dated the Reformation and were, therefore, not to be identified in any way with the Reformation or Protestants. I’ve always felt that this was a bit too simplistic and perhaps even a bit naive.
    Baptistic groups may have existed before the Reformation but the Reformation certainly helped Baptists reform and refine the doctrines that we hold dear.
    Thanks for a good article.

    Comment by Tim | November 3, 2007

  9. Baptists are part of the Protestant Reformation, as they are not Anabaptists. And that is from a psalm-singing Presbyterian.

    Comment by Daniel Ritchie | November 4, 2007

  10. Tim,

    Glad you approve! I hope it is helpful to people. It needs to be expanded. Maybe that’s something for you to work on too!

    Daniel,

    Always good to hear from our Presbyterian friends! Glad you agree!

    Allen

    Comment by allenmickle | November 5, 2007

  11. Allen,
    Thanks for the summary. It is helpful.
    Thankful to be a Baptist,
    Pearson

    Comment by Pearson | November 5, 2007

  12. Pearson,

    Thanks. Not much original to me in it. Most of it derives from Dr. Priest. He was a good teacher!

    Allen

    Comment by allenmickle | November 5, 2007

  13. Thanks Tim…
    My Blog is in the making… Its a very popular thing these days to bunk succesion of a “True Line” of Christs Church. But It is something that deserves more than a casual study… Im glad your looking at it in depth… but dont declare the matter concluded… Christ is not back yet and he will have the final say.
    Maranatha

    Comment by Maranatha | May 30, 2008

  14. Greetings,

    This is Allen, not Tim but that’s okay. It may be popular to debunk the “true line” thought but it is nothing new as Baptists in the 17th century for the most part argued against a successionist position as being Roman Catholic. I study this as Baptist history is my main area of study, but perhaps unfortunately, I am very settled on the English 17th century Separatist approach.

    Blessings,

    Allen Mickle

    Comment by allenmickle | May 30, 2008

  15. http://thetrailofblood.blogspot.com/

    Comment by Maranatha | May 30, 2008

Leave a comment