Studying Baptist history can be challenging, and we are immediately confronted with two critical questions. First, where do we begin? For the fullest understanding of Baptists, we should go back to the New Testament, if not the Old Testament, and work forward to the present day. Long before there was a formal Baptist church, Baptist doctrines and practices appeared both in Scripture and throughout church history. Since that approach isn’t feasible, we must choose a point in time. So what do we select as our starting point?
The second question is, what exactly is a Baptist? Before any of us say, “I know what a Baptist is,” it’s worth remembering that Baptists have never been a monolithic people. Over the last 400 years, there has been significant diversity among Baptists: Calvinistic and Arminian Baptists, strict-communion and open-communion Baptists, missionary and anti-missionary Baptists, revivalistic and confessional Baptists.
Most of us would answer the question, “What is a Baptist?” by pointing to baptism. But even that requires clarification. Are we talking about the proper subjects of baptism—believers versus infants—or the proper mode of baptism? Surprisingly, the first Baptists in England did not baptize by immersion but by affusion, or pouring. Then there is the question of who is authorized to baptize. This became an early controversy because the first Baptists could not simply locate a Baptist church and be baptized there. Who baptizes when no Baptist church exists, and when other pastors are unwilling to negate one’s infant baptism in favor of believer’s baptism?
Even a fundamental question like “What is a Baptist?” is more complex than it first appears. Still, I want to provide what I believe is a historically accurate definition of Baptist identity.
Years ago, I belonged to a Baptist denomination born out of the anti-missions movement of the early 19th century. They also held views often associated with Landmark Baptists, though they were technically distinct. They believed they were the true church of Jesus Christ, maintaining an unbroken succession back to the apostolic church. In their view, they did not come out of the Catholic Church, nor did they emerge from the Protestant Reformation. Their group, they believed, had always existed, faithfully believing and practicing what the New Testament teaches.
When I began questioning some of their doctrines, I was forced to study church history to test their succession claims. That proved less difficult than expected, since their own historians traced their lineage back to the Particular Baptists of England and the Reformation. But that journey compelled me to wrestle seriously with the question of Baptist identity. Who are we? What makes a Baptist a Baptist?
The challenge today is that I’m not sure we could form a coherent definition of Baptists simply by looking at the 21st century. We could not even point confidently to Scripture alone as a universal Baptist conviction. As early as the 19th century, in the days of Charles Spurgeon, Baptist churches were already drifting toward theological liberalism and away from Scripture alone. So where do we look for a clear understanding of Baptist identity?
Our most precise understanding comes from the 17th century. The Baptist movement began in the 17th century, matured throughout that century, and was refined through persecution. Apart from certain debates in soteriology, Baptists were almost entirely unified in orthodox doctrine and in Baptist distinctives such as believer’s baptism.
In the 17th century, we see the beginnings, maturation, refinement, and remarkable unity of Baptists. Beyond that century, defining Baptist identity becomes increasingly complicated as unorthodox teachings arise and various factions develop. Even believer’s baptism, the most defining Baptist distinctive, becomes surrounded by new practices in the 18th century, such as baby dedications—almost an attempt to come as close to infant baptism as possible without actually baptizing infants.
In short, once we move beyond the 17th century, defining Baptist identity becomes much harder. It may even be impossible if we start in the 21st century.
Orthodox and Evangelical Identity
So, what is a Baptist?
Orthodox
First, Baptists are thoroughly orthodox. While this may not be true of every group using the Baptist name today, in the 17th century, and for most of Baptist history, Baptists have been doctrinally orthodox. They have agreed with historic church creeds and confessions such as the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed. They have affirmed the authority of Scripture, the doctrine of the Trinity, human sinfulness and the need for regeneration, salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, and two ordinances—baptism and the Lord’s Supper—as opposed to the seven sacraments of the Catholic and Anglican churches. Yes, there have always been both Arminian and Calvinist Baptists, but historically, Baptists have shared a solid biblical orthodoxy with other Protestant denominations.
This is important for a couple of reasons. When we consider the beginning of the Baptist story, particularly with John Smyth, we must not think Smyth invented a new religion or that the Baptist church appeared without connection to the larger church. This is nothing like Joseph Smith claiming a new revelation, contradicting Scripture, and beginning a movement with unorthodox doctrine. The Mormon church rejects the eternal nature of God, the Trinity, and the full deity and humanity of Christ. That is entirely different from the Baptist story. John Smyth and the early Baptists were thoroughly orthodox. The Baptist movement was not the start of a new religion but a further refinement and natural continuation of the Reformation.
It is also essential to recognize this orthodoxy because, as we will see throughout the 17th century, Baptists consistently emphasized their unity with other orthodox Christians—Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Puritans, and sometimes even Anglicans. They were not a radical sect or strange cult trying to separate themselves from the broader Protestant world. They had distinctives, certainly, but they remained orthodox.
Evangelical
A Baptist is first orthodox and, second, evangelical.
By evangelical, I mean a Christian who centers everything on the gospel of Christ, trusts the Bible as the authoritative Word of God, insists on personal conversion and new birth, and is active in spreading and living out that faith.
I’m not sure many Baptist histories explicitly stress the evangelical character of the Baptist movement—perhaps it is assumed—but I believe it should be emphasized because it firmly places Baptists in the mainstream of orthodox, gospel-centered Protestant Christianity rather than on the fringe with a few unusual practices. Baptist identity is centered on the gospel, not merely on baptism. Even the Baptist view of baptism is grounded in the need for genuine repentance and conversion, not the act of baptism itself. This ties Baptists even more closely to the broader Protestant and Reformed world, despite specific differences.
Reformed Baptists?
From time to time, I’ve heard people say, “You can’t be Reformed if you’re a Baptist. There is no such thing as a Reformed Baptist,” often with baptism as the main argument. They point out that historically Reformed churches practiced infant baptism and did so because of their understanding of the covenant of grace. We may return to that discussion later, but for now it is enough to say that most 17th-century Baptists fully embraced Reformed soteriology and shared much of Reformed confessional theology, except for baptism.
It would be like looking at my daughter, who has blond hair, while my wife and I have brown hair, and concluding she cannot be ours. She may resemble us in almost every other way. We may have a birth certificate stating she belongs to us. We may insist she is our daughter. But someone fixates on the one difference and declares she cannot belong in our family.
Baptists do have distinctions from other Reformed groups, but as we will see, the differences are often more minor than many assume.
What Distinguishes Baptists from Other Protestants?
To further define Baptist identity, we need to understand what makes Baptists distinct from other 17th-century Protestants.
Believer’s Baptism
Many would expect that definition to begin with baptism, and in one sense it does. But before baptism itself, we must understand why Baptists held their view. When they examined the New Testament, they saw the church consistently described as a body made up of regenerated, repentant, professing believers. Since only such believers were baptized into the church, infants were necessarily excluded.
That may seem obvious to many of us today, but historically it was not. For centuries, the Catholic Church functioned under a “parish” model in which church and state were closely connected. If you lived in a region, you belonged to its parish. If you were born in that region, you were baptized into that parish as an infant. This continued even after the Reformation. In England, once the church became Anglican, people were still baptized into the local parish soon after birth. Later, when Puritans and Separatists moved away from the Anglican Church, they kept infant baptism but framed it in covenantal rather than civic terms.
When Baptists emerged from the same Puritan-Separatist world, they objected. According to the New Testament, a person is not baptized into the church involuntarily or as a matter of regional identity. Baptism follows personal faith in Christ. Scripture does not present a category of unbelieving, unregenerate church members or a pattern of infants being baptized. So while every other major church was baptizing infants, Baptists dissented, insisting that the church should consist only of regenerate believers.
Calvinists?
I would love to add, “Baptists are Calvinists,” and a strong case could be made from the overall momentum of the 17th century, but I cannot quite go that far. The Baptist movement did not begin with Calvinists but with Arminians.
However, the list is not finished.
Congregational Polity
Baptists also believe in local church autonomy and a congregational polity. In simple terms, Christ alone is the head of the church, and each local church should govern itself according to Scripture without outside interference. This means no denominational hierarchy, church courts, or ruling boards dictating a church’s actions. From the beginning, Baptists practiced elder-led congregational rule with a strong preference for a plurality of elders when possible, which clearly distinguished them from Presbyterians and others.
Local autonomy would later become complicated in American Baptist history. While Baptists always affirmed autonomy, they also formed associations for fellowship and cooperative ministry. At times, those associations blurred the line between cooperation and denominational control, creating occasional controversy.
Liberty of Conscience
Most of us recognize baptism as a Baptist distinctive, and many would identify congregational polity as well. But there is another Baptist distinctive that may not immediately come to mind. Yet, it lies at the heart of the entire Baptist movement in England and early America: liberty of conscience.
In what became the most enduring Baptist confession, the 1689 Second London Confession, Baptists wrote, “God alone is Lord of the conscience and has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men that are contrary to, or not contained in, His Word.” God alone rules the conscience. Therefore, the magistrate has no rightful authority to coerce religious belief or worship because the conscience belongs to God.
Later, the Confession states, “Civil rulers must not assume the administration of the Word and sacraments or interfere in matters of faith. They are to protect the church so believers may worship God freely.” Civil government is ordained to preserve justice, peace, and social order, but it has no authority to shape church doctrine or practice. Church and state have distinct jurisdictions under God.
Here, Baptists parted ways with other Reformed churches. The Westminster Confession allowed magistrates a supervisory role in church affairs, but Baptists explicitly rejected that position. They understood, both biblically and experientially, the dangers of church-state entanglement.
If this final point feels surprising, it will soon become clear why religious freedom became a defining mark of early Baptists. In fact, we have early American Baptists to thank for the religious freedom we enjoy today. We will come to that in time.
Setting the Stage For the Baptist Story
For now, let’s consider the beginning of the Baptist story.
In 1517, Martin Luther nailed his Ninety-Five Theses to the church door in Wittenberg, marking the beginning of the Protestant Reformation. Luther and the Reformers challenged the authority of the pope, rejected the sacramental system of salvation, and insisted that Scripture alone is our final authority and that sinners are justified by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. As these doctrines spread, entire nations were affected, including England.
England’s reform, however, developed uniquely. In 1534, King Henry VIII, primarily motivated by politics, passed the Act of Supremacy, declaring himself “Supreme Head of the Church of England.” The Church of England was still essentially Catholic at that point. Henry was not seeking religious reform; he wanted the church under his control rather than Rome’s. But over time, the theology of the Church of England gradually reformed until it was no longer Catholic but distinctly Anglican.
This was not a smooth process. Each time a new monarch came to power, the nation either moved further toward Protestantism or attempted to pull back. By 1559, Queen Elizabeth I declared that reform had gone far enough. The Church of England was now Protestant, and in her view, it did not need further change.
Many disagreed. Though Protestant in doctrine, the Church of England still looked and sounded very much like Rome. From these concerns emerged the Puritan movement, which sought to further purify and reform the Church of England from within.
Eventually, some Puritans concluded that the church was beyond reform and chose to separate. These became the Separatists.
From the Puritan movement would grow Presbyterians and Congregationalists. From the Separatist movement would come other Congregationalists, the Pilgrims who traveled to America, and, eventually, the Baptists. That trajectory sets the stage for where the Baptist story truly begins.
John Smyth and the Road to Separation
Jumping ahead a few years, we meet John Smyth, a well-educated, Cambridge-trained minister in the Church of England. He was a serious man, not a religious radical, but he came under Puritan convictions that the church had not gone far enough in reform. As he studied Scripture and observed the state of the church, he became convinced that the Church of England would never reform comprehensively. He eventually left, became a Separatist, and joined a Separatist congregation in Gainsborough.
But late 16th- and early 17th-century England was a dangerous place to be a Separatist. In 1593, Queen Elizabeth passed the Act Against Seditious Sectaries, specifically targeting them. When King James I took the throne in 1603, he continued to enforce it. Separatist meetings were raided, pastors and members were heavily fined, often to financial ruin, and many were imprisoned for long periods under harsh conditions. Smyth himself spent a year in prison for preaching without a license.
Around 1608, Smyth and his congregation fled to Amsterdam, where there was significantly more religious freedom. One of Smyth’s former professors, Francis Johnson, was already there, pastoring a Separatist church, and Smyth intended for his congregation to join them. It did not work out that way.
Smyth and Johnson soon clashed over several issues. They disagreed on church leadership. Johnson believed in three distinct leadership offices, while Smyth saw only one in Scripture—pastor or elder—though he did believe in a plurality of elders.
They also disagreed over the use of man-made aids in worship, such as the Book of Common Prayer. Smyth rejected the use of any human-written liturgical material. He went so far as to oppose Bible translations, arguing that since God inspired Scripture in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and since he believed people were capable of learning those languages, translations were unnecessary.
Finally, they disagreed about government financial support. Amsterdam paid English settlers for contributing to the economy, and Johnson’s church received that aid. Smyth argued that churches and ministers should be supported solely by the voluntary giving of their members, not by the state, and that accepting such funds corrupted the church.
The First English-Speaking Baptist Church
Smyth and his congregation left Johnson’s church, but they did not return to England. Around 1609, Smyth became convinced that the New Testament taught only believer’s baptism. He laid out his argument in a treatise titled The Character of the Beast. In it, he argued, first, that baptism symbolizes the baptism of the Spirit, which applies only to believers. Second, Scripture never commands or teaches the baptism of anyone other than believers. Third, the Bible provides no example of anyone but a believer being baptized.
He went further. Smyth called infant baptism a “mark of the beast,” believing it symbolized false religion by granting to unbelievers what belonged only to believers. In his view, it created churches filled with unregenerate people.
This created a serious dilemma. If every church practicing infant baptism were a false or apostate church, where could they go? Catholics baptized infants. Protestants baptized infants. Puritans and Separatists baptized infants. Surrounded by churches he believed were invalid, Smyth concluded he had no choice but to baptize himself.
Critics objected, saying self-baptism was not biblical either. Smyth appealed to the same reasoning Separatists used in forming new congregations: a true church does not need to be planted by another true church. Otherwise, the Protestant Reformation itself would never have progressed. The Separatists argued that as long as believers faithfully followed Scripture, they could separate from a false church and constitute a true one.
This also counters the later Landmark Baptist idea that Baptists must trace an unbroken visible succession back to the apostles without passing through “false” churches. Just as Separatists planted churches without Anglican approval, Smyth argued he did not need an existing minister to baptize him when no such minister existed.
So Smyth baptized himself by affusion, pouring water over himself, and then baptized the rest of the congregation the same way. With this small group of about fifty people, the first English-speaking Baptist church was formed—the first among the Separatists to commit to a regenerate church membership, where identification with the church was reserved for those who had personally embraced the gospel and professed faith.
In this group, we see four of the five Baptist marks already present. Smyth was orthodox, evangelical, and Calvinistic—his writings from 1603 and 1605 strongly defended what we call the doctrines of grace—and the church affirmed regenerate membership expressed through believer’s baptism. The only element not yet clearly articulated was religious liberty, though even that was implied in their decision to leave England in pursuit of freedom to worship according to conscience.
Smyth’s Departure and the Rise of Thomas Helwys
Most church historians identify John Smyth as the starting point for Baptist history. That does not mean there were no earlier believers practicing something like believer’s baptism, biblical church government, or a biblical understanding of church and state. But when we speak of the Baptist Church as we know it today, Smyth is generally the best point of origin.
However, Smyth would not be the man to carry the Baptist movement forward. If the movement depended on him alone, it would have died with him, because he ultimately left it.
In the years following his self-baptism, Smyth first became persuaded of Arminianism. Arminian theology was strong in Amsterdam, and after listening to many debates, he changed his views. He embraced a general atonement—that Christ died for everyone rather than only for the elect—and resistible grace, meaning sinners can reject God’s saving call.
Second, through his growing connection with local Mennonites, Smyth came to regret baptizing himself. He concluded that his decision had been hasty. Since his theology now aligned more closely with the Mennonites than with his Puritan-Separatist background, he reasoned that he should not lead a new church when the Mennonites already existed as what he considered a true church that also practiced believer’s baptism. So he proposed that his congregation join the Mennonite church and receive baptism there. For the most part, they agreed.
The one notable exception was Thomas Helwys. Helwys was a wealthy lay member of the church, possibly the one who funded their move to Amsterdam, and a thoughtful, independent student of Scripture. He followed Smyth to Amsterdam and even followed him into Arminianism, but he refused to follow him into the Mennonite church. Among his reasons, the most significant was the Mennonite denial that Christ received his true humanity from Mary. They taught that Jesus possessed “celestial flesh,” not genuine human flesh.
In time, Smyth drifted further into serious doctrinal error and eventually abandoned orthodoxy. Helwys avoided that trajectory.
Helwys, along with perhaps a dozen others, chose to separate from Smyth and eventually return to England. Despite the danger of persecution, Helwys was convinced that if the Baptist movement was to take root, it needed to be planted in England.
We will pick up that part of the story next time.
