Since I'm sure some are wondering about me...

Lone Wolf --

What happens if you get a set of Jurgen's FAITH OF THE EARLY FATHERS and through reading the quotes there find out that the earliest Christians had doctrines very much like the Orthodox and Catholic churches?

Then what?

Excuse it as being "pagan influence" upon the Church and doctrinally in error, or study and try to understand why all those men wrote and believed such things.

Be careful.....a search like than can turn you into something you'd never imagine being.....

C*A*T*H*O*L*I*C

(Dat's whut happen to me)

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

(Actually, being Orthodox doesn't have quite the same feel that being a Latin Catholic does. We have nicer services and prettier churches!!! )

[ June 07, 2002, 12:02 AM: Message edited by: CatholicConvert ]

 

LW-

I'm a "baptist" and I don't where the Baptist label

I went from Catholic to Lutheran to Baptist. Mainly Lutheran to Baptist though. I was only Catholic until I was about 6 or 7.

Brother Adam

 

What it comes down to is this though:

We all have the same commission...

Matthew 28:19-20
[19] Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

 

We know. Brother Ed converted from something that was theologically sound (Baptist), and went to:


And
Theologically
Hamstrung,
Or
Lacking
In
Christology

 

Oh, well, liberals kinda get to believe whatever they want to

They are free to not have to say the Bible is exactly God's Words and exactly binding down to every last detail.

They might believe the Bible is man's fallible attempt to describe the Indescribable.

They might not believe Jesus is God but most of them believe he changed history and taught us important things about God and/or being who God wants us to be...

There are liberal Baptists posting on these boards.

You should read what Universalists believe before you write them off. Just to know. Some liberal Christians go to Universalist churches. Universalism was an offshoot of Christianity, once. Started by people who said "I'm never going to call myself an XYZ again".

I think you'd respect the 'freethought' aspects of liberalism/universalism even if you didn't agree with their beliefs (such as they can be pinned down).

About the only thing they reject is intolerance and exclusivism. They don't much like the "If you don't believe what I believe you're going to hell" message.

If I sound more positive than I'm supposed to, about them, well, just figure I think they've been maligned continually by conservative Christians who don't have a clue what the heart of them is about.

And that does bother me. They have a reason why they can't embrace conservatism and so do you - hey, could you have anything in common, do you think?

You may not share the same beliefs though. But being in a believing community goes way beyond doctrine, imo...it's about the culture too - am I allowed to decide for myself what to wear and what to think, or not?

Doctrine is related to these questions but culture and personality determines the answers took within each local believing community.

love
Helen

[ June 07, 2002, 08:25 AM: Message edited by: AITB ]

 

Lone Wolf,

I would hope you don't give up on us Baptists just yet. Legalism can burn you and anyone who has been through the fundy mill can testify to that. I pray God gives you guidance to the Church he has for you to work in.

 

I'm neither pro or anti- Baptist, btw. I believe each church should stand on its own merits, doctrine-wise and otherwise.

My church had it's first open-air service last fall, in the center of our village. I appreciated that when he spoke, our pastor said (in effect; I don't remember his exact words) our intention was not to try to get people to join 'our church' but, to share the hope we have in Jesus Christ with them.

Isn't that the point, though? Not "LW, please don't abandon us Baptists" but "Please don't walk away from Jesus".

Right?

 

Well, let's see here:We know. Brother Ed converted from something that was theologically sound (Baptist), and went to:

Ahhhhh, DHK!!!!

I can always count on the gratuitous insult from my fine Cannuck, can I not?

Nice acrosstic, by the way. You think that up yourself or did you see it somewhere?

If you consider me to be sound as having been a Baptist, then you really have to say that my first mistake was leaving Baptistry for the Presbyterian Church. It was in Presbyterianism that I learned of the Covenant of God and Sacramentalism, which things in turn paved the road into the Church.

Suppose we look at your little jibe:

--- Do I sound confused when I am defending what I have come to understand? I don't think so. I have had to study more in the last two years, first of all to understand the ancient Faith, secondly to get into the Faith, and thirdly, to grow in the faith, which is why I continue to read, study, and debate with others. Perhaps I don't know everything as I should, but that is true of every man. You probably have area in your defense of Anabaptistry in which you are not very strong. You simply have studied other areas in which you have more interest. This does not mean that you are confused regarding what you have been taught. And I am not confused either.

Theologically Hamstrung -- Hamstrung. As in "unable to function"? Does this mean that we have no theological, philosophical, or scriptural basis for our beliefs? You must be unaware of the massive amount of writings which go all the way back to the second century. There are literally thousands of books which are being written by converts which ably defend the historic universal (catholic) faith. Many is the honest man who has read these writings to oppose the Church and has found himself drawn into it. As G.K. Chesterton said:

The convert commonly passes through three stages or states of mind. The first is when he imagines himself to be entirely detached . . . that of the young philosopher who feels that he ought to be fair to the Church of Rome. He wishes to do it justice; but chiefly because he sees that it suffers injustice . . . I had no more idea of becoming a Catholic than of becoming a cannibal. I imagined that I was merely pointing out that justice should be done even to cannibals . . .

The second stage is that in which the convert begins to be conscious not only of the falsehood but the truth . . . It consists in discovering what a very large number of lively and interesting ideas there are in the Catholic philosophy . . . This process, which may be called discovering the Catholic Church, is perhaps the most pleasant and straightforward part of the business . . . It is like discovering a new continent full of strange flowers and fantastic animals, which is at once wild and hospitable . . . It is these numberless glimpses of great ideas, that have been hidden from the convert by the prejudices of his provincial culture, that constitute the adventurous and varied second stage of the conversion. It is, broadly speaking, the stage in which the man is unconsciously trying to be converted . . .

The third stage is perhaps . . . the most terrible. It is that in which the man is trying not to be converted . . . He is filled with a sort of fear . . . He discovers a strange and alarming fact . . . a truth that Newman and every other convert has probably found in one form or another. It is impossible to be just to the Catholic Church. The moment men cease to pull against it they feel a tug towards it. The moment they cease to shout it down they begin to listen to it with pleasure. The moment they try to be fair to it they begin to be fond of it . . .

All steps except the last step he has taken eagerly on his own account, out of interest in the truth . . . I for one was never less troubled by doubts than in the last phase, when I was troubled by fears. Before that final delay I had been detached and ready to regard all sorts of doctrines with an open mind . . . I had no doubts or difficulties just before. I had only fears; fears of something that had the finality and simplicity of suicide . . . It may be that I shall never again have such absolute assurance that the thing is true as I had when I made my last effort to deny it . . .

At the last moment of all, the convert often feels as if . . . he is look through a little crack or crooked hole that seems to grow smaller as he stares at it; but it is an opening that looks towards the Altar. Only, when he has entered the Church, he finds that the Church is much larger inside than it is outside . . .

There is generally an interval of intense nervousness . . . To a certain extent it is a fear which attaches to all sharp and irrevocable decisions; it is suggested in all the old jokes about the shakiness of the bridegroom at the wedding . . . He wonders whether the whole business is an extraordinarily intelligent and ingenious confidence trick . . . There is in the last second of time or hair's breadth of space, before the iron leaps to the magnet, an abyss full of all the unfathomable forces of the universe . . . That anything described as so bad should turn out to be so good is itself a rather arresting process having a savour of something sensational and strange . . .

Lacking In Christology -- This is so pathetic it is sad. Christ is the center of the entire Litugical celebration. His crucifixion is the reason we have the Eucharist. He is acknowledged as the unseen host and offering of the Eucharist. No Liturgy would be complete without a reading from one of the 4 Gospels of the words and deeds of our Lord. At the end, this book, containing only the 4 Gospels, is kissed by both priest and altar servers because within it are the life giving words of our Lord.

Every homily is an exhortation from those precious words to live our lives in accordance with those things which Jesus the Christ taught us to do.

It was the Catholic Church which protected the Trinity and defined the proper understanding of Christ's natures. All that Anabaptists have they have because these understandings were developed in councils over a thousand years ago. Anyone who departs from these teachings, such as our Oneness Pentecostal friends, is called a heretic by you, yet to make this accusation, you use a standard of Christology developed by the Catholic Church!!!

Like I said -- cute acrostic, but totally lacking in any substantive truth at all.

Brother Ed -- Unconfused, deeply Catholic, and ready to stand for, defend, love and honor Christ.

 

Hey Convert, my community had a lot of Russian people going to our Latin Rite Catholic church, and recently got up enough numbers to have a small Ukranian Rite church of their own.

You're right. They do have cool services. But have you been to a Spanish mass? Not bad, either. One Easter Sunday, we had a soccer tournament, and I didn't check the bulletin about Easter schedule, so we had only the Spanish mass to go to.

Kinda different. But the music was great. My 5 Y/O was dancing in the aisle, while her older sister pretended she didn't know us. Father P., who is Maltese, seemed to approve.

My wife is an Episcopalian, and they have cool churches, too. They like them sort of medieval looking, which appeals to me.

BTW,I didn't realize you could buy one of those "onion dome" things, the same way you can buy a fiberglass steeple. They converted a defunct ******* church when they got the parish started.

 

Your pastor is correct that our number one responsibilty is to share Jesus. However once one is converted to Christ it is of vital importance that person come under the nurture of a body of believers by
1. Being baptized
2. Taught the Word of God
3. Celebrating the Lord's Supper on a regular basis.
4. Have Christian brothers and sisters to fellowship with

If one does not try the get a new convert into the Church, then they are committing a grevious sin against that person and God. Commitment to a Church is essential to one's spiritual growth since Christianity is not a lone ranger affair.

As a Dyed in the wool Baptist, who believes the Baptist movement to be a return back to Apostolic Christianity,( That does not mean that I agree with all Baptists since each local church must stand on it's own merits...but I am speaking in a historical sense) I hope LW finds him a good Baptist church where he can grow. I however know that God may lead him to another Protestant Evangelical church and pray that wherever the Lord leads him he may grow strongly.

[ June 07, 2002, 12:38 PM: Message edited by: Kiffin ]

 

Dear Kiffin --

Simple request. Please show me any writings from the second century to about the 10th century which show that Baptist doctrine existed and was linked to the Apostles.

Thank you.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

 

Bro Ed,

The New Testament most of all plus the Didache, and the Apostolic Fathers all show a similarity to the Anabaptist/Baptist Reformation's view of the Church though Ignatius was the first to introduce the idea of monarchical episcopate. Uniformly correct theology however from the church fathers is not something you will find mainly because many were uneducated on the Jewishness roots of scripture and often put Roman ideas regarding government over the fact that the New Testament pattern of government is a plurality of elders ruling the church.

The Church of Rome itself was ruled by a plurality of elders up to A.D. 180. I am not claiming the early church was Baptists however! but that the Anabaptist/Baptist Reformation represented a return back to Apostolic principles (though we still fall short).

I am still waiting however for my RCC friends to explain where the pope was at Nicea when it was the Church of Alexandria leading the charge against the Arians. The obvious answer is that Roman Catholicism has it's origins in the 6th to 8th century as the ancient Catholic church of the first 500 years of Christianity fell into legalism, heresy and immorality.

 

Originally posted by Kiffin:

Your pastor is correct that our number one responsibilty is to share Jesus. However once one is converted to Christ it is of vital importance that person come under the nurture of a body of believers by
1. Being baptized
2. Taught the Word of God
3. Celebrating the Lord's Supper on a regular basis.
4. Have Christian brothers and sisters to fellowship with

If one does not try the get a new convert into the Church, then they are committing a grevious sin against that person and God. Commitment to a Church is essential to one's spiritual growth since Christianity is not a lone ranger affair.

I agree but no-one said anything about not joining a church. The point was, we weren't trying to steal believers from other places. Now you brought this up he doubtless said something like "If you don't have a church home already you're welcome to join us".

As a Dyed in the wool Baptist, who believes the Baptist movement to be a return back to Apostolic Christianity,

Funny how every Christian movement there ever was believes that...oh, excuse me for interrupting...

That does not mean that I agree with all Baptists since each local church must stand on it's own merits...but I am speaking in a historical sense) I hope LW finds him a good Baptist church where he can grow. I however know that God may lead him to another Protestant Evangelical church and pray that wherever the Lord leads him he may grow strongly.

See, I can much more understand you saying "Protestant Evangelical" (or perhaps conservative P.E.) than "Baptist".

I would have thought if anyone knew that 'Baptist' didn't imply 'conservative Christian doctrine' it would be the people on this board!

Thanks for your comments.

 

If one is a Baptist, Methodist, Episcopal etc..they should have the convictions of that Church or else go elsewhere. I even noticed that your Church's doctrinal confession though borrows much from Baptist theology Interesting

Who own here has said that? Traditional and historicaly Baptists are conservative however and if you would have read my posts I said every church must be judged on it's merits and not simply what's on the sign. Even Non Denominational Churches (If there is such a thing) owe their existance to the Baptists and the earlier Anabaptists since the free Church ideas expressed in your own Church's covenant and doctrine has it's roots in the Baptist theology. All Free Church evangelicals whether Non Denominational or not have their roots in either the Anabaptist stream of the Free Church movement or the Baptist stream of the Free Church movement because of the influence of these 2 great movements. Most Baptist bashers or denomination bashers forget that.

So don't bite at your heritage Your church has it's roots in the Baptist movement since the Free Church movement is rooted in the Anabaptist and Baptist movements

[ June 07, 2002, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: Kiffin ]

 

Originally posted by Kiffin:

If one is a Baptist, Methodist, Episcopal etc..they should have the convictions of that Church or else go elsewhere. I even noticed that your Church's doctrinal confession though borrows much from Baptist theology Interesting

Men look like Gorillas - hmmmm, interesting. Did one evolve from the other or is it that they both came from the same source?

Even Non Denominational Churches (If there is such a thing)

Huh? Are you inferring my Non Denominational Church is a Baptist church 'in denial'?

owe their existance to the Baptists and the earlier Anabaptists since the free Church ideas expressed in your own Church's covenant and doctrine has it's roots in the Baptist theology. All Free Church evangelicals whether Non Denominational or not have their roots in either the Anabaptist stream of the Free Church movement or the Baptist stream stream of the Free Church movement.

The church didn't start the when people coined the term Baptist, actually.

How about we go back further and say that all Bible-based churches go back to the Apostles?

I'm still missing why Baptist seems to be a bigger deal than Bible, around here...

I do appreciate your further comments, though.

 

The acrostic was my own Ed. I think over the posts (or is that months) that we have come to a mutual understanding of each other. I appreciate your testimony. I just feel badly that from my perspective that you went the wrong way. And no you certainly don't sound confused when you present yourself; but you do sound wrong on some issues. We all need more study, more in some areas than in other areas, as you rightly pointed out. May God give you a better understanding of the truth.
DHK

 

You know, folks, "going the right way" is whatever way leads you to Jesus. If that leads a man to Baptists, that's great. If some other Christian denomination, that's fine, too.

Only the cults tell you that there's only their way. God's bigger than anyone's theology.

 

Oh, Please spare me the pious comments No Baptist claims that (except for maybe Landmarkers) and in typical Non Denominational mode all Denominations don't believe the Bible

LOL, Did you get that from the London Baptist Confession of 1689 I believe all churches that practice the Apostles doctrine are apostolic churches. That is classic Baptist theology. You only help prove my point.

Baptist means "baptized believer's church" and your church has it's roots in Baptists doctrine ...you just are in denial it looks like Most would consider your Church "baptistic" in doctrine. When I read your Church's confession I could not help but notice some similarities between it and the New Hampshire Baptist Confession. Impressive website however and seems doctrinal sound.

I think it is typical of most so called Non Demonational people to mock and ridicule Baptists (or all denominations for that matter) yet it is a fact the Non Denominational churches such as yours have Baptist roots and would not exist without us. You would either be going to Mass this Sunday or attending a paedobaptist Ecclesiatical Protestant church. I suggest you read some Church history and see why all Evangelical free churches such as yours have roots in the Baptist movement or our sister movement the Anabaptist movement. Church history would make you appreciate your Church's roots.

 

Brother Kiffin --

The New Testament doesn't count, simply for the reason that there are so many distinctly different opinions on it. All denominations can point to it and say "THIS is our proof!" If I were a pagan and saw such behavior, I'd say Christianity is a religion of loons.

I would agree with one premies from the Didache, which is that we are told in it that IMMERSION is the method which they were teaching. I am a believer in deep water immersion as the best way of baptizing because it shows the reality of our being buried and raised to new life in Christ. The ordinance of circumcision showed something distinct regarding the coming of the Messiah (blood to be shed, flesh to be cut off). Likewise, baptism should show reality of what Christ has done and our partcipation in it.

One wonders why, since you have a respect for the Didache, you would gravitate to a "bare memorial" form of the Lord's Supper, since the Early Fathers were at least unanimous in their belief in the Real Presence. One also wonders why you do not accept the teaching regarding baptism which says that the one being baptized "goes down into the water dead and rises up from it in new life" Baptismal regeneration. But you don't accept that. Sounds like smorgasboard style quoting of the Early Fathers' writings.

Ahhhh....consistency....what a rare find it is!!

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed