The title should be, "Baptists Can Be Heirs of the Reformation" instead your title oversimplifies history, implying that Baptists naturally belong in the Protestant fold, while overlooking the key difference between the two movements: Separatism. Both John Smyth & Thomas Helwys pioneered a movement that, while rooted in reform, was distinct from the Protestant mainstream of their day. Protestants of that era were hardly separatists-they generally worked within existing church structures and maintained varying degrees of allegiance to state-sponsored churches. The Baptists, by contrast, were Separatists, championing an autonomous, local church model that diverged sharply from Protestant traditions; you know, being tied to state churches. Efforts to “recast the Baptist denomination to the Protestant fold” not only ignores the historical record but misrepresents what these early Baptists actually stood for. Helwys, for instance, founded the first General Baptist church, an early proponent of unlimited atonement-a doctrine that deliberately set them apart from Calvinist Protestant groups. By that logic, one could just as easily argue that modern Protestant denominations should be heirs to the Baptist movement, given the eventual triumph of separatist and congregational polity. Helwys and Smyth were against confessions, yet in this talk you all find solace in a confessional standard. Co-opting the legacy of two Christians (and what they stood for) in such a way is at the least ignorant, at the worst disturbing. Going back to the historical context, the Particular Baptists didn’t emerge until two decades later-a significant development left unmentioned here, suggesting conflation was intentional. Failing to respect these historical nuances is not just careless but misleading. The early Baptists forged their own path, and trying to blend this rich, distinct heritage with that of mainstream Protestantism is a disservice to both.
No significant development was left unsaid. We disagree that General Baptists formed Particular Baptists. That is an R Scott Clarkism that tries to ramrod all Baptists into Anabaptists. And he has to side with a slanderer to do it.
@@shawngillogly6873 I did not say General Baptists formed Particular Baptists. But to your statement, there actually there was a bit of significant development left unsaid in that Protestants of that day were not Separatists. Even if mentioned, the reality is their Separatist stances categorically distinguished the two groups in their day. This division is mended in this video by the principles both movements hold to. This argument does not hold water.
Always appreciate Dr. Nettles. Sadly, it's a challenge to find any genuine confessional church in the spiritual wasteland of the Chicago suburbs: one nominally Reformed church recommended by Founders has the owner of a tattoo parlor as a member who rationalizes his mutilation of the body because he tattoos the name "Jesus" all over people's bodies, as though Jesus needs such advertising.
We really need more Baptist history on TH-cam.
Yes!
This comes at an interesting time since I am going through Baptist History and Polity class. My comment is to boost the algorithm.
Love Dr Nettles!
#DispensationalismisDead
You guys should have Joel Webbon speak at your next conference!
Love that guy. You going to Christ is King conference?
The title should be, "Baptists Can Be Heirs of the Reformation" instead your title oversimplifies history, implying that Baptists naturally belong in the Protestant fold, while overlooking the key difference between the two movements: Separatism.
Both John Smyth & Thomas Helwys pioneered a movement that, while rooted in reform, was distinct from the Protestant mainstream of their day. Protestants of that era were hardly separatists-they generally worked within existing church structures and maintained varying degrees of allegiance to state-sponsored churches. The Baptists, by contrast, were Separatists, championing an autonomous, local church model that diverged sharply from Protestant traditions; you know, being tied to state churches.
Efforts to “recast the Baptist denomination to the Protestant fold” not only ignores the historical record but misrepresents what these early Baptists actually stood for. Helwys, for instance, founded the first General Baptist church, an early proponent of unlimited atonement-a doctrine that deliberately set them apart from Calvinist Protestant groups. By that logic, one could just as easily argue that modern Protestant denominations should be heirs to the Baptist movement, given the eventual triumph of separatist and congregational polity. Helwys and Smyth were against confessions, yet in this talk you all find solace in a confessional standard. Co-opting the legacy of two Christians (and what they stood for) in such a way is at the least ignorant, at the worst disturbing.
Going back to the historical context, the Particular Baptists didn’t emerge until two decades later-a significant development left unmentioned here, suggesting conflation was intentional. Failing to respect these historical nuances is not just careless but misleading. The early Baptists forged their own path, and trying to blend this rich, distinct heritage with that of mainstream Protestantism is a disservice to both.
No significant development was left unsaid. We disagree that General Baptists formed Particular Baptists. That is an R Scott Clarkism that tries to ramrod all Baptists into Anabaptists. And he has to side with a slanderer to do it.
@@shawngillogly6873 I did not say General Baptists formed Particular Baptists.
But to your statement, there actually there was a bit of significant development left unsaid in that Protestants of that day were not Separatists. Even if mentioned, the reality is their Separatist stances categorically distinguished the two groups in their day. This division is mended in this video by the principles both movements hold to. This argument does not hold water.
Always appreciate Dr. Nettles. Sadly, it's a challenge to find any genuine confessional church in the spiritual wasteland of the Chicago suburbs: one nominally Reformed church recommended by Founders has the owner of a tattoo parlor as a member who rationalizes his mutilation of the body because he tattoos the name "Jesus" all over people's bodies, as though Jesus needs such advertising.
It might be a little unfair to assume everything about a church based off of one member. Do you think tattoos are sinful?