Baptists are No Protestants
On Oct 9, 2007, at 4:44 PM, Matt wrote:
Nathan and others,
I stated in my last post "I do believe Baptists are not protestants, and should not fellowship with pedo-baptists (baby-sprinklers) in church services." The reason why I said that is because I have done a little ( not thorough) research in Baptist history, and it is my conclusion that Baptists trace their heritage through the Waldensians, and others throughout the ages that have always held to true Bible doctrine and in the words of a well loved preacher of mine,
"We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther and Calvin were born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel under ground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents. Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost every sect, yet there has never existed a Government holding Baptist principles which persecuted others; nor, I believe, any body of Baptists ever held it to be right to put the consciences of others under the control of man. We have ever been ready to suffer, as our martyrologists will prove, but we are not ready to accept any help from the State, to prostitute the purity of the Bride of Christ to any alliance with Government, and we will never make the Church, although the Queen, the despot over the consciences of men." —Charles H. Spurgeon
The reason why I said I would not fellowship with pedo-baptist on a church level is because I hold immersion to be a Essential of the faith, not to mention most Protestants persecuted Baptists such as Luther, Calvin, and others. You can get some of this info from Reformed Reader. I was raised GARBC (Gerneral Association of Regular Baptist Churches) so I have fundamentalist leanings. Hope this answers your questions.
Matt
========
Brother Matt,
I believe your conclusion is historically correct.
The Baptists were NEVER part of the establishment church.
They trace their root back to the independent non-conformist free churches know by various names in church history. Protestants were daughters of the establishment church of Rome. That's why the Protestant churches were so much like their Mother Church in so many ways, including their hatred for and persecution against the free churches. Early American history is vivid proof of that. The First Amendment championed by the Baptists put a rein to that great evil in the new world.
One of the saddest things I observed (from personal experience) is that the RBs see church history through the eyes of the Protestants. How history has been rewritten! They are led to think that they are baptized Protestants, and are first cousins to the sprinkled Protestants. They are very familiar with, and quote readily the Protestant theologians in their writings and teaching - Berkhof, Hodges, Murray, Warfield, etc. Whatever has happened to the great theologians among the early particular baptists? Is John Gill any lesser than those mentioned combined?
Of John Gill, Dr Robert L. Reymond – a reformed Presbyterian, Professor of Systematic Theology, and author of “A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith.” - said, “John Gill, a Baptist puritan pastor who writes a thorough defense of Calvinistic theology.” But so many RBs treat Gill as dung!
sing in the south seas
----
Brother Matt,
Your quote from Spurgeon reminds of a note I put out some while ago:
sing in the south seas.
----------
Spurgeon and Gill
Dr Tom Nettles, a renowned historian among the modern RBs (i.e. relatively a new breed of Baptists in history) wrote an interesting 'Introduction' to the reprint of Dr John Gill's 'The Cause of God and Truth' - by The Baptist Standard Bearer.
In the introduction he expressed unreserved praise and admiration for Gill and his works. He provided many quotes from C H Spurgeon expressing the same.
Dr Nettles quoted from Spurgeon's Autobiography, these words, "My eminent predecessor, Dr Gill, was told by certain member of His congregation who ought to know better, that if he should published his book 'The Cause of God and Truth,' he would lose some of his best friends, and that his income would fall off. The old doctor said, 'I can afford to be poor, but I cannot afford to injure my conscience:' and he has left his mantle as well as his chair in our vestry."
Mr Spurgeon counted it his singular privilege and honour to wear the same mantle Dr Gill has worn and to occupy the same theological chair. I am puzzled why so many RBs admire Spurgeon but despise the old doctor whom he admired so highly.
"In his defense of Calvinism, Gill experienced some of his greatest friendship and support and engendered some of his greatest opposition and misrepresentation," observed Dr Nettles.
Why are so many RBs slandering Dr Gill as hyper-calvinist while he is actually defending the doctrine of grace, commonly known as 'Calvinism'. I fear such people are really only Arminians wearing a 'reform' label. Why do RBs admire Spurgeon but are hostile to Dr Gill? Probably out of ignorance and prejudice and poisoned minds. There are deliberate and calculated effort to poison people's mind towards Dr Gill - he is constantly written off as a hyper-calvinist [by both the protestants and misguided baptists]
Dr Nettles observed what Augustus Toplady thought of Dr Gill. (Augustus expressed desire to officiate Gill's burial at the grave was turned down.) But this is his written evaluation of Gill's contribution to the cause of the doctrine of grace: "Perhaps, no man, since the days of St. Austin, has written so largely, in defence of the system of Grace; and certainly no man has treated that momentous subject, in all its branches, more closely, judiciously, and successfully... it may be justly accommodated to our great Philosopher and Divine: who, so far as the distinguishing Doctrines of the Gospel are concerned, never besieged an error, which he did not force from its strongholds; nor ever encountered an adversary, whom he did not baffle and subdue."
