Pope Gregory XIII...calendars...Easter and Baptist...oh my

You like arguments and disparaging church groups too much.

This comes from a non-Baptist Christian.

 

"When in Rome" right? So. The Paschal celebration though problematic in the early church didn't cause separation. The churches could have went with the Alexandrian Calander but stayed with the Roman except those primarily in Turkey and Syria that went with the traditional Jewish Passover. Isn't that right? The fact is that all protestants come fromt the Catholic church from one respect or another so it only makes sence that they keep certain aspects. For instance all protestant Churches hold to the Catholic view of the Trinity (to include the Filique). Not one holds the Orthodox view of the trinity.

 

You make a good point. And wouldn't they also be better versed in Greek than they are? :smilewinkgrin: However, wasn't the dispute between when celebration of easter occur in the 2nd century the Alexandrians had their calander and the Romans had their calander and there was disagreement with the Eastern churches in Turkey and Antioch when actually to celebrate easter? Long before 1582? Alexandria went along with Rome since they just a different variation of the same calander? I guess 1582 is when the current calander was standardize so you may have another good point. They went along with the degree after the reformation began. Landmarkist seem to be revisionist attempting a revisionist type of history for the Christian faith. The truth is disturbing that Landmarkest have to invent a fantastical history to very their faith. Which conserns me greatly.

 

I'm sorta curious. Why is it okay for the RCC to claim apostolic roots, the Orthodox to claim essentially the same thing, but it's not okay for Baptists to assert some apostolic roots?

 

Because there is no history of baptist churches in the early church. Unless you want to claim apostolic roots through the Catholic Church. But to do so would mean that from 325 AD to th 1500's true believers were mixed in with the Catholics until they felt free to leave because it was safe so then baptist had to be apochryphal (hidden) until the reformation. There are no documents or acheological finds to support an apostolic era baptist churches.

 

I understand that argument. Here is my argument. Since Jesus said he would build his church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it, I hold that there have always been New Testament churches from the first century until now. They were not always known as Baptists. And they were not part of the RCC. The fact that they may be difficult to identify by name does not mean they did not exist.

Further, I hold that the historic Baptist doctrines and principles are the same or similar to those of the first century NT churches. Thus Baptists may rightly claim a kinship with first-century churches. And they may rightly claim that they did not come of of the RCC, but that groups just like them have existed from then until now.

 

Jim1999, who is a regular poster on this board, asserts that there were identifiable Baptists in Wales prior to the reformation.

Jim, if you're around, you might join in this discussion.

 

Tom, if you bring this up to a RC who understands his church's teachings as well as you understand yours, he will tell you that the Catholic Church is the N.T. church; that it was guided by both written and oral Tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15); that it has continued from 33 A.D. to this day; that Jesus' promise in Matthew 16:18 has been kept in the continuity of the RCC; and that Baptists and other non-catholics are the apostate groups. History seems to be on their side. So how would you respond to this agument?

 

Obviously the RC church also says Peter was the first pope.........funny, Peter would have to go to Rome first to be the first pope.

Naturally they will claim authenticity, but this not bear out with scripture, which delineates what is a New Testament church.

If there were no biblical churches along the way, just whom did the RC church persecute burn at the stake and hang along the way?

Certainly the name baptist was not used until the later anabaptists, or rebaptizers.

As to the Gregorian calendar, it was a global change, and any country would be foolish not to accept it. Does date really matter? Get to my age and one hardly remembers what day it is, let alone the date! The date only matters to business.

Does t matter about Easter or Christmas? Hardly. We celbrate the resurrection every day and especially every Sunday. I only celebrate Easter and Christmas because the churches do it. It is an opportunity to preach Christ risen from the dead, and to declare His birth.

TheTrail of Blood is just that. A trail of the blood of Christ and a peoples who followed the trail. Accurate? Perhaps not, but is a decent historical guide. Much of history is tainted by Romanism and there are obvious bends and curves in all historical accounts.

Even St. Patrick himself was never catholic but was declared catholic after his death. Yet, look how that church has claimed him so dearly. He went to Ireland from Wales to evangelize the heathen in Ireland.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Here is where the Apostolic Fathers come into play ie Papias, Polycarp, and very possibly Ignatius. These people were trained by the apostles particularily John however the Orthodox and Coptic churches can identify different apostles for the establishment of their regional churches. How do they describe christianity? Does it match with Historic Baptist doctines? Clearly this is not the case. There are significant differences. The best baptist could do is associate their beliefs from the NT writings and say "see we formulated ourselves on these writings and this is what the apostles meant and only meant." Which, means that Christianity departed from Apostolic teachings immediately after they died and there was a period of time from 90 AD to 1500 that there was no church except for a few real believers that were in bondage to the Catholic Church whether Orthodox, Copitic, or Latin until the reformation. The fact is there is no early writings (apart from the claim of NT consistency), or archealogical finds to suggest that there were minority churches that followed historical baptist idiology in the first century. None. Which your quoted verse would seem to indicate was a lie. Of course we don't believe this. We must conclude then the church was hidden.
Or contend that the Lord was "patient" with misunderstanding of Christians and slowly (like in the OT) revealed himself until the printing press was developed and a bible could get into everyones hands and that he could lead people directly through his word.

Either way Landmarkist are playing with mythology.

 

No mythology unless you consider ALL of history to be a myth!

Cheers,

Jim

 

What evidence what writings can you present to show that baptist have been there since 33 AD until the present age? The series of sermons pamphleted after Carolls death? Clearly there are issues with it. Historical ones that we have documents for. What archeological finds do we have to support its hypothesis? None. But please provide them if you have them.

 

Which in the end conserns me. Because how to differentiate between those who hold a non-supported historical view and a cult like the Mormons? At least Landmarkist hold to the bible. But so claim the mormons who also like to re-write history.

 

Papias and Polycarp do not teach 'catholic' doctrine. Ignatius begins exalting the bishops, and Eusebius does not say he was tained by John, and even him having discourse with Polycarp does not mean his position on bishops is correct.

So was this "Rule of Nicaea" or the Gregorian calendar (whether used for Easter, or only for other feasts; why do you follow "the Pope" for even those then) one of those "traditions" that was passed down from the apostles?

You all claim the NT had liturgy because they came out of the synagogue, but if that's the case, why are they avoiding the date of the Jews' Passover? (Which two of those ECF's connected to the apostles, Polycarp and Polycrates, fought the bishop of Rome in defense of!)

Looks like there was a lot of stuff that came later, from the church's own authority. Hence, the RCC's "right" to switch to the Gregorian calendar!