"Baptists are not Protestants"

[rmwilliamsjr]

an interesting essay defending "Why Baptists are not Protestants" at: http://www.picknowl.com.au/homepages/rlister/bibfund/baptists.htm
i wrote a short reply


The website essay you point to is an interesting example of the division between the magisterial reformation and the radical reformation. It points to the crucial elements that differentiate the two:

from the essay:


Quote:


Baptists believe with all their hearts that God's Word alone is sufficient for faith and practice. We read "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine..." (II Timothy 3:16). Various Protestant denominations have creeds, catechisms and assorted doctrinal standards. Baptists hold to the Bible alone.

this is a presentation of sola scriptura extremis
(see: http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=3&q=http://www.tektonics.org/solex.html&e=7627). Just me and my Bible, which is a misappropriation of the sola scriptura principle which actually puts the Bible on a level higher than any other writing. Those creeds, catechisms, doctrinal standards are more important than the masses of other human documents, but certainly on a plane lower than Scripture. Sola Scriptura had as its focus the traditions of the RCC and the institutional monopoly on grace. The image of Sola Scriptura is that nothing sits on the shelf with the Bible, not traditions, not the works of man, not the institutional church, but there can still be a place for respect and honor on lower shelves containing those creeds etc.


Quote:


Baptists believe that Christ and only Christ is the Head of the Church even as the Scripture says, "Christ is the head of the church" (Ephesians 5:23). There is no man who has the oversight of Baptist churches. Baptists have no denomination in the sense of an organization that controls local congregations. Each local church is autonomous and accountable only to Christ, who is its Head. A Baptist church, while fellowshiping with congregations of like faith and practice, has no earthly headquarters. Its headquarters is in Heaven..

this is the issue of church government. in fact, the descendents of the reformation fall in all 3 types: congregationalist, hierarchical, presbyterian.


Quote:


3. Baptists believe from their hearts in a free church in a free state. Christ plainly taught that the state and the church each had its own realm when he said, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things which are God's" (Matthew 22:21 ). Baptists are vigorously opposed to union of state and church and believe that a state controlled church is a wretched excuse for Christianity and a plain departure from Scripture. All of the Protestant Reformers fastened state churches upon their folIowers.


This is the first of the 2 key elements separating the magisterial from the radical reformation. But the distinction did not become apparent until the disestablishment of the churches during the American Revolution. He is in fact addressing erastian church-state relationships, when there are at least 3 types. State superior to church, Church superior to State, both equal. He is conflagating erastian=state controlled church with Augustine's doctrine of the two swords as seen through the Constantinian synthesis over 1000 years of European history. It is this element that he is consciously tracing through


Quote:


There were the Montanists (150 A.D.), the Novatians (240 A.D.), Donatists (305 A.D.), Albigenses (1022 A.D.), Waldensians (1170 A.D.), and the name Anabaptists came into prominence just before the time of the Protestant Reformation


what he is aware of is the believer's church, the called out church, the separated church. that denies the Constantinian synthesis and separates church and state.


Quote:





5. Baptist people furthermore have always held to believers' baptism. None of the Protestant Reformers held this Bible teaching. In the Scriptures, faith and repentance always preceded baptism. On the day of Pentecost Peter plainly told the people, "Repent and be baptized" (Acts 2:38). This obviously means that there is no infant baptism since infants are incapable of repenting. No unbelievers are to be baptized. The Reformers followed Rome in their teaching on baptism. Baptists have held stedfastly to the doctrine of Christ and His Apostles on this point.


6. Baptists, on the basis of Scripture, have always held to a regenerate church membership; that is, a membership that is made up only of people who give a credible profession of faith in Christ. In the apostolic church, only those who became believers, those who received the Word of God and who had repented of their sins, were baptized and received as church members (Acts 2:41). There was no automatic or formalistic membership in apostolic churches nor in Baptist churches today.

these are consequences of a believers church. more like subpoints of point 3. And have in fact been addressed historically in those churches with direct ancestors in the reformation, i am thinking of the half-way covenant in the Congregational Churches at the time of J.Edwards.

The problem with the essay is that it neglects all of systematic theology and concentrates on just a few issues of church polity, to the great neglect of salvation, who is Jesus, etc. All issues that Baptists believe like Protestants not like either RCC or Orthodox, so i see this as a form of tunnel vision which wishs to prove that the Baptists are the descendents of the remnant that God has kept faithful to the truth through all of history when everyone else calling themeselves Christians when apostate. Not as strongly as Joseph Smith put the issue but leaning that way.

thanks for an interesting essay.

[Amazing Rando]

Good analysis Richard. In my view, if you're a Christian, you're either Roman Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant. It seems to me that if you believe in most of the tenets of the Protestant revolution (sola scriptura, priesthood of all believers, salvation by faith alone, etc.) that makes you a de facto Protestant whether you like it or not.

In this thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21737), we decided by a vote of 22 to 4 that RightIdea is indeed a Protestant, despite his claims to the contrary.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Baptists have historically been influenced in their theology by more established protestant churches, reformed or lutheran. What made them Baptists was their dissent from the practices of the existing churches and their often persecuted status because of this dissent.

They've also traditionally been more pietistic, which puts a priority on changed lives over doctrinal agreement.

dlw

[rmwilliamsjr]

Baptists have historically been influenced in their theology by more established protestant churches, reformed or lutheran. What made them Baptists was their dissent from the practices of the existing churches and their often persecuted status because of this dissent.

They've also traditionally been more pietistic, which puts a priority on changed lives over doctrinal agreement.

dlw these essays bear out both of your ideas:
persecutation and dissent...
interestingly, i learned a few months back via a thread on TWeb that the anabaptists were primarily calvinist in their theology....surprised me.

I've had the opportunity to do a little more digging around the site where the essay came from. There is a page at: http://www.picknowl.com.au/homepages/rlister/bibfund.htm
which has several historical essays/booklets on it.
the trail of blood at:
http://www.picknowl.com.au/homepages/rlister/baphist/blood/trail.htm
our baptist heritage at:
http://www.picknowl.com.au/homepages/rlister/baphist/baphist.htm

both are worth the time to read.

Like the original essay they have a very interesting core of ideas that the author wishes us to accept.

the first is the idea of a faithful hidden remnant. This stems from a very natural human desire to trace your lineage back to the fountain and include all the good guys from history. The problem with this is 1)it falls prey to this enemy of my enemies is my friend error. In both essays they point to heretics like the Albigenses with whom the only thing in common is persecution for religious ideas. Baptists are not gnostic with levels of inititation, with secret knowledge, nor are they radical dualists who great depreciate the physical world in favor of a spiritual one where there exists an evil god very close in power to God. 2)the more interesting error is to presume that any group will be pure and unspotted from the world. the effect of sin is such that all are contaminated by it. this striving for a purity, this mining history for groups of extraordinary adherence to Biblical faith is a quest without success.


the second is a constellation of ideas about church-state relationships. Liberty of conscience. Recognization of the evil from the Constantinian synthesis and Augustine's involvement in it with the doctrine of the two swords is a common position in many different protestant churches. It is no longer the ideas of just the pacifist anabaptist, but rather from the disestablishment of churches in the US has been a creeping assent that the magisterial reformation did not go far enough in it's criticism of the cultural and social milieu that the RCC was but a part of. But the constant refrain in both essays is that this stems from hierarchical thinking when in fact it stems from a usage of political power by the church, and is justified (falsely) with the demand to silence heretics.

the third is a related group of ideas about a believers church.
Several things emerge at this level. Adult baptism, baptism only by immersion, baptism as a sign of incorporation into the community. All point to 1)the issue of purity 2)the issues of membership 3)a bias towards a particular type of regeneration experience-immediate, radical, intense.


Well, i recommend a read of these essays. Of course they are fundamentally wrong *grin* but show a passion and a desire that i find admirable.

as an aside anabaptist are NOT modern day baptist, the doctrines are very different. modern day anabaptists are menno-ites, amish maybe church of the brethren. not quakers who stem from private revelation via george fox and really dont have a core theology.

[rmwilliamsjr]

on my blog was posted a link to:
http://www.reformedreader.org/history/pbh.htm

A Primer on Baptist History
The True Baptist Trail

from the title i believe he is addressing the essays i quoted, but i am not positive.

where the author wrote:


The Separatists

This demand of conformity from the political and religious forces in England produced a group known as the “Separatists”. The principles behind this movement were the freedom of the Church from State rule, pure doctrine rather than a watered-down or compromising doctrine, and overall reform of the Church. The Separatists took the Bible seriously and they were determined to order their lives by its teachings. They stressed that the Church was only those who were the redeemed, not a body of politically-minded upstarts. They refused to believe that the Bible taught a hierarchical church government (rule from top down), instead calling for a church government that had some form of participation from the people (rule from the grass levels). They preferred a simple worship liturgy which emphasized a Holy God. They felt that the state forms and written aids of the Church of England led to the people’s focusing on the forms and not the Sovereign God; thus these types of “aids” were looked down upon.

It was out of this call for purity in the Church, both in worship and everyday practice, that “the Baptist denomination”, as it is known today, emerged by way of the English Separatist movement. The best historical evidence confirms this origin, and no major scholar has arisen this half century to challenge it.”3 (http://www.reformedreader.org/history/pbh.htm#endnotes) As we said earlier, Baptists emerged as two separate groups. Let us now turn our attention to exploring these two different groups.
...

Anabaptist Influence

Most Baptists are fooled into thinking that we come from the Anabaptists just because the word “baptist” is found in their name. But we must use great caution here. We must explore who the Anabaptists really were and ask the all-important question: Are they truly representative of Baptist beliefs?

Who are these people called “Anabaptist”? This group refers to a community of rebels during the Reformation period; they were considered to be the radical wing of the Reformation. Even within this group there were various views and camps. Two main separate camps can be identified: the “revolutionary Anabaptist” and the “evangelical Anabaptist.”11 (http://www.reformedreader.org/history/pbh.htm#endnotes) We really do not want to spend too much time on the revolutionary group for they hardly reflect a biblical approach to Christianity. They actually took on the form of a cult, holding to an extreme mystical experiential view and believing their leaders to be prophets (future-tellers). They were also quick to use violence to get their way.

However, the “evangelical” Anabaptists were a movement of a different type. And it is from this group that many say the Baptist movement was born. Thus, we need to take some time to examine them. This group, first of all, rejected the orthodox Christian view of sin. Instead of holding to sin as a bondage both of the nature and actions of mankind, they held that sin was “a loss of capacity or a serious sickness.”12 (http://www.reformedreader.org/history/pbh.htm#endnotes) The Anabaptists, in following Rome's view of justification, held that God makes us righteous and then accepts us on the basis of our righteousness. They also believed that Christ did not take His flesh from Mary but held to a heavenly origin for His flesh. When it came to the world, the Anabaptists believe we were to totally separate ourselves from it (although they did dip into it with a zealous evangelism on occasion). The Anabaptists rejected infant baptism and held to believer's baptism, but their mode for the most part was sprinkling, not pouring or immersion. Their view of interpreting Scripture was that of just strict imitation which led to large movements of legalism.13 (http://www.reformedreader.org/history/pbh.htm#endnotes)

When we look at the Anabaptists we must agree that there are some similarities with the early General Baptists, but overall these similarities are slight and not always relational. In the end, we must come to say that this group of Christians does not reflect the historical teaching of the Baptists. The large portion of Baptist history shows us that Baptists held to a strong position on sin, both in our nature and in our actions, not as just some mere sickness. Baptists have also held to a belief in the virgin birth and see that this is what points to the doctrine of the God-Man, not just some heavenly illusion. As well, Baptists have held strongly to the Reformation's recovery of justification - that it is based upon Christ's righteousness alone and not our righteousness because we have none. And finally, Baptists have always seen that the Scriptures are to be studied and applied to everyday life through the power of the Holy Spirit and are not to be followed just in blind imitation or by a leap of faith. So we must clearly reject, as history does, that the Baptist origins flow from the Anabaptists.
a very well written and persuasive essay that i think counters much of the error in the essays above. However i would still appreciate links to essays where the topic is:
are the modern baptist denominations descented from the anabaptists or better yet from the list of "heretical" movements:
There were the Montanists (150 A.D.), the Novatians (240 A.D.), Donatists (305 A.D.), Albigenses (1022 A.D.), Waldensians (1170 A.D.), and the name Anabaptists came into prominence just before the time of the Protestant Reformation

[Jude3b]

After reading the article by Vernon Lyons it Sounds to me like Baptists are true Christians and members of the church of God - the Body of Christ that we read about in the Bible. Praise the Lord!

The article of faith that was expressed gave me one area of concern though. You know that God is the only one who can place someone into His Body, the church of God. Therefore where does the Baptist faith gain the authority for formal church membership? I do not see any verses giving authority to men to accept or reject someones membership in the church of God - the body of Christ.

Also, since it appears that Baptists hold beliefs that are Biblical and thereby are true Christians, assuming the individual Baptist has received Jesus Christ as their person Lord and Savior - why than call yourself a Baptist? Why not call yourself a Christian, like they were known as in the Bible? Why take the name of John the Baptist, instead of Christ?

Why should it be known as the Baptist church, instead of God's church?

[Solly]

I am a Baptist, and do not use the phrase Protestant, because Baptists sought to carry out the Reformation in toto, not just a reformation of doctrine in a re-baptised Catholic ecclesiology. The Baptists as such started in England, when people separated from the Church of England to start Independancy/Congregationalism, and then when some separated from them, amicably, having become convinced of believers baptism. They had links with European anabaptism, particularly Menno Simons, but the predominant strain was Calvinisitic in soteriology, while the Arminian branches tended to keep dying out. In the UK the use of the phrase "protestant" carries certain overtones, to do with a Protestant Constitution, a Protestant Monarch, a Protestant Revolution [1688], and a Protestant rejection of Roman Catholicism politically and religiously. I myself do not associate myself with such ideas, and therefore do not use the term Protestant.

Why use the term Baptist? As usual in these things, we did not use the term, it was applied. Originally it was ana-baptist, or re-baptizers, since most people had been sprinkled in the CofE or RCC. It was a term of abuse. It stuck and we are happy to use it. However, we are just God's Church.

[Tye Porter]

Good analysis Richard. In my view, if you're a Christian, you're either Roman Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant. It seems to me that if you believe in most of the tenets of the Protestant revolution (sola scriptura, priesthood of all believers, salvation by faith alone, etc.) that makes you a de facto Protestant whether you like it or not.

In this thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21737), we decided by a vote of 22 to 4 that RightIdea is indeed a Protestant, despite his claims to the contrary.

This is interesting.
You believe that regardless of what a man believes, he is his past?
That despite what we are told, that we are a new creation, that we are our past?
So we can shed our hebrew and jewish roots, we can shed our gentile practices, and we can shed our past sins, our whoring and drinking and all that, but we are still all that?
I was a catholic, but now believe in Christ.
You would still label me a catholic?
or would you rather me still be a jew/hebrew because my more distant ancestor, Noah, was a drunken sailor, but a hebrew?
Wait, i think some of my American grandparents might have been slave owners, am I still a slave owner?
Or do I still rate that title, even though I am a Christian and find that we are all equal, because of God?

Your logic is unsound and rediculous.

I am not a protestant, nor a catholic.
Not a slaver nor a jew.

I am part of the Body, the Church.
Grafted into the Tree of Life.
A Christian.

If you wish to call black white and night day, that is fine with me.
But please leave God alone.
He is truth, and I would rather not be associated with the lies of the world's religions.
Please allow a man his Faith, his Christianity.

[Amazing Rando]

This is interesting.
You believe that regardless of what a man believes, he is his past?
That despite what we are told, that we are a new creation, that we are our past?
So we can shed our hebrew and jewish roots, we can shed our gentile practices, and we can shed our past sins, our whoring and drinking and all that, but we are still all that?

If you analyze historical trends of Christianity, then yes, you'll realize that the roots of your faith tradition go back to the Protestant Reformation. Prior to AD 1054 (I think?) when the Eastern Orthodox church split from the Roman Catholic church, there was only one church. From 1054 until Luther, there were two churches. Luther's reforms created a third tradition, the Protestant Christian tradition, of which I am a part. You are too, unless you're RCC or EO.

I was a catholic, but now believe in Christ.

I don't know a single Catholic who doesn't believe in Christ (except perhaps J.D. Crossan and his buddies :lol:).

You would still label me a catholic?

Not if you've left the Roman Catholic church.

or would you rather me still be a jew/hebrew because my more distant ancestor, Noah, was a drunken sailor, but a hebrew?

Do you believe the main tenets of the Hebrew faith, or are you Christian in doctrine?

Wait, i think some of my American grandparents might have been slave owners, am I still a slave owner?

Nope.

Or do I still rate that title, even though I am a Christian and find that we are all equal, because of God?

That's exactly the point. We're all equal in God's sight. All Christians are saved by grace- RCC, EO, and Protestants. All are members of the Body of Christ.

Your logic is unsound and rediculous.

So is your spelling. :rofl:

I am not a protestant, nor a catholic.
Not a slaver nor a jew.

I am part of the Body, the Church.
Grafted into the Tree of Life.
A Christian.

Me too! :cheers: But you're still a protestant! :hehe: Those are manmade divisions that God does not respect, but if you believe in the ideals of the Protestant reformation than you're de facto a Protestant, whether you like it or not.

If you wish to call black white and night day, that is fine with me.
But please leave God alone.
He is truth, and I would rather not be associated with the lies of the world's religions.
Please allow a man his Faith, his Christianity.


I do, and I embrace you as a brother in Christ.

[Tye Porter]

"...you're still a protestant! :hehe: Those are manmade divisions that God does not respect, but if you believe in the ideals of the Protestant reformation than you're de facto a Protestant, whether you like it or not.

I embrace you as a brother in Christ.

By your own admission, the division "protestant" is a division that God does not respect.
I am not one of these "nicer than God" Christians.
If God does not respect that division, neither do I.

I am not, nor ever held the title, protestant.

You said that if I believe in the "Ideals" of the protestant reformation....
I believe in a lot of ideals, that does not make me a lot of things.

What I believe in, is the Bible being the Word of God.
Many of those you would label "protestant" do not agree with the Word of God.
You would lump me in with them.

Blah!

There are no shades of "inbewteen".
You are Christian, or not.
Protestant is simply a word catholics still use so that they can avoid calling us Christians, inadvertantly admitting that their religion is not.

I am Christian.

We are told we will be known by His name.
His name is not Protty, Cathy, or Mormmy.
It is Christ.

[dizzle]

Actually "Christ" is not His Name, but His Title. His name is Yeshua, Jesus, or however it is varius translated into native tongues. Christ (Messiah) is a title.

Just picking a nit.

[nomad]

'Protestant' is a word. most people know what it means. if you fit that, then someone can call you 'protestant' and not be wrong, whether you like it or not. it's not a title, it's not like a degree or a symbol of aristocracy, it's an *adjective*.

that was the deal with right idea... he doesn't want to be called a protestant, but he uses protestant a certain way which was different than most of the other people on the thread. based on how everyone else actually USES the word, he's a protestant. and that's just how it is. for most people, AR is right... you're either catholic, orthodox, or 'protestant'.

it seems like 'protestant' is some sort of pejorative word to you; if so, i'm sorry. most people don't use it that way either.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

I am a Baptist, and do not use the phrase Protestant, because Baptists sought to carry out the Reformation in toto, not just a reformation of doctrine in a re-baptised Catholic ecclesiology. The Baptists as such started in England, when people separated from the Church of England to start Independancy/Congregationalism, and then when some separated from them, amicably, having become convinced of believers baptism. They had links with European anabaptism, particularly Menno Simons, but the predominant strain was Calvinisitic in soteriology, while the Arminian branches tended to keep dying out. In the UK the use of the phrase "protestant" carries certain overtones, to do with a Protestant Constitution, a Protestant Monarch, a Protestant Revolution [1688], and a Protestant rejection of Roman Catholicism politically and religiously. I myself do not associate myself with such ideas, and therefore do not use the term Protestant.

Why use the term Baptist? As usual in these things, we did not use the term, it was applied. Originally it was ana-baptist, or re-baptizers, since most people had been sprinkled in the CofE or RCC. It was a term of abuse. It stuck and we are happy to use it. However, we are just God's Church.

In the US, we baptists we didn't have the predominancy of the Anglican Church and its use of the term protestant. We inherited the ecumenism of Protestantism in the US from the 19th Ctry and so Protestant came to also include Baptists.

As I understand it, many African-American churches became Baptists because Baptists had lower education requirements for its ministers.

In the US, among Swedish Baptists(I don't know other groups so well.), now the Baptist General Conference, arminianism has remained stronger than calvinism and recently OVTheism has surged as an alternative to both. However, we have always been irenic, not letting such theological differences interfere with our unity in Christ.

dlw

[elysian]

I don't mind being referred to as a Protestant, as I am Christian but I am not RC or Orthodox, which by common definition and usage makes me a Protestant.

Weirdly enough some Lutherans object to the "Protestant" label although we were the original Protestants- the Reformation began with Martin Luther nailing the 95 Theses on the Wittenberg church door. The objection comes from the fact that when most people think of Protestants they think of the Reformed or Charismatic traditions. In the US, specificially the connotation attached to the word "Protestant" is "Calvinist." (this might be what some Lutherans object to, we share some aspects of Calvinism but we are not Calvinists) Lutherans are closer in practice in many ways to the Orthodox and RCC than most other Protestants excepting perhaps traditional Anglicans. Luther never really intended to "start his own church," but to reform the RCC- to bring the RCC back in line with Scripture. So the Lutheran view is that we are part of the catholic (small c- meaning universal) church, but we are not subject to the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome (yeah, that's how we refer to the Pope.)

Yes, Baptists are Protestants according to common usage (neither RC nor Orthodox) in the same sense that Lutherans are but the Baptist tradition is quite different and does not stem from the Reformation of the 16th century. The Baptists have been influenced by the Reformation but they were around, though persecuted, before it.

If one wants to be picky and say that Protestantism only includes those churches that directly sprang from the Reformation of the 16th century then you could technically only list Lutherans and Anglicans. :wink:

[Tye Porter]

'Protestant' is a word. most people know what it means. if you fit that, then someone can call you 'protestant' and not be wrong, whether you like it or not. it's not a title, it's not like a degree or a symbol of aristocracy, it's an *adjective*.

that was the deal with right idea... he doesn't want to be called a protestant, but he uses protestant a certain way which was different than most of the other people on the thread. based on how everyone else actually USES the word, he's a protestant. and that's just how it is. for most people, AR is right... you're either catholic, orthodox, or 'protestant'.

it seems like 'protestant' is some sort of pejorative word to you; if so, i'm sorry. most people don't use it that way either.Most people also say they believe in God.
According to most polls, 70 or 80 plus percent of American claim to be Christian.
Would you agree with both of these facts?

70%-80% of Americans are Biblical Christians?
All of those who claim belief in God, are sharing the same God?


See?
There are words that the world has twisted and redefined to fits it's own needs.
Folks may call me religious and protestant but that does not make me such.
I do not enjoy the association with those who do not share my Biblical beliefs.

[nomad]

yeah, i've seen that too, where 'protestant' is really used to mean 'non-liturgical'. but most people don't really think about it that far. kinda weird since in england it was the anglicans (decidedly liturgical) who were the protestants. and some people wouldn't lump the charismatics in with protestants either. but by either of these standards, baptists are still protestants :)

[nomad]

Most people also say they believe in God.
According to most polls, 70 or 80 plus percent of American claim to be Christian.


'I believe in God" is a statement that can be true or false, based on the 'normal' meanings for those words. So these are both red herrings. Truth or falsity has only peripheral relationship to semantic meanings. Most Christians, even the ones you don't agree with, call themselves Christians - and you even know what is meant by that, so you understand the meaning. And most non-Christians don't care about whatever theological fine line you are drawing. Regardless of whether you think those people deserve the title Christian or not, if you use it you're going to be associated with them. That's what most people associate it with. If you don't like it, all you can do is stop calling yourself one. And other people probably will still call you that. The only way people will change their understanding of what "christian' means is if the church shows them. I really have no personal knowledge to dispute those people who call themselves Christians anyways, even if I am sure i will have doctrinal disputes with most of them.


There are words that the world has twisted and redefined to fits it's own needs.


no. possibly that is true to SOME extent, but i don't think I, or most of the other people on here, translate 'Christian' as 'Someone who believes exactly like Tye Porter'. we translate it as 'Someone who believes in Christ as Lord and Saviour'. now, you can argue about whether the person does, in fact, believe in Christ, and there are lots of arguments about how 'Christian' REALLY adds all this other stuff to that and so some people don't have the right to use it. But it's clear to everyone what the word means.


Folks may call me religious and protestant but that does not make me such.
I do not enjoy the association with those who do not share my Biblical beliefs.


actually, while in the connotative sense it might not be true, in a denotative sense it will be true. if someone is calling you 'religious' as an insult, then i might agree with you. but, if someone is calling you 'religious' merely because you go to church consistently, on what basis will you disagree with them? that is what the word means. they might not even know they are insulting you.

it's sort of like the word 'American' - what does it mean? when most Americans (hehe) use the word American, they mean someone from the USA. And most of the world also uses it this way. Some people from central and south america object to this (i doubt any canadians do ;), because they are also 'from america', and could also claim the right to americans. But they would be foolish to call themselves Americans. The word has already cemented its meaning.

If all you have to offer is quibbling over the meanings of words, all you're going to accomplish is making the church look petty and foolish. just accept it, most people are going consider you a protestant without even thinking about it. and even if you can convince them you're not, the vast majority of people won't care. Focus on the reasons you don't think you deserve it, or why they don't deserve it, and

[rmwilliamsjr]

One theme that is strong in all the essays i read and linked to above, and apparently in some of the replies is the idea of a separated, pure, 'Christian' church. I think this is the motivation behind the desire to avoid labels and just be a plain Christian, not protestant, not baptists not anything else.

It is also a strong thread in the essays about baptist history. This idea of a separated, faithful, long suffering remnant people. Now the Constantinian synthesis gave rise to the parish ideal. Simply put it is the idea that everyone within earshot of the parish bell was because of where they lived a member of that parish. (Jews alone were excepted by law) Even in Calvin's Geneva, mandatory attendence at your parish church was noted and there were fines for missing church services. What this does, among lots of other rather bad things, is to see the church as a mixture of saved and unsaved. The distinctive noted by the Baptists is the separated quality, the ideal that the church is only made up of saved, regenerate, confessing Christians.

Because of these problems with a parish church the distinction between the invisible and visible church was made. For it was obvious from behavior that not everyone who sat in the pews was saved. Plus from history we realize that not everyone who confesses the name of Jesus dies a confessing Christian.

There seems to be two extreme errors to consider.
First is to closely identify the invisible with the visible. This is the logical outcome of the Baptist separation ideal. Striving for this purity, this separateness, is the ideal of making the visible church contain just saved people. That's an historical problem that really doesnt seem to have a good solution because it ends up with schism and disunity because people can't seem to draw these lines without great disagreement. And if the visible = invisible a split over theology is necessary to preserve the purity of your church. Fragmentation is the inevitable result. I suspect this is why Baptist are (AFAIK) always congregational in church government.

The other error is the magisterial error to confound the physical location with the religious belief. I see this as the problem in pre-Revolutionary America with the half way covenant and those associated problems. It seems to loosen up the visible church so as to take in anyone, thus effectively forcing theology in the long run towards some least common denominator. ugh.

What ever the outcome, these essays are good windows into the separatist argumentation process.....and so are the replies here, showing that the issues are alive and important in today's churches.

[rmwilliamsjr]

While doing some research on the distinction between the visible and invisible church i came across a book that i really like at:
http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/visible1.htm

The bulk of the references in this book are from the seventeenth century. There are three reasons for this. First, as mentioned above, there is probably no other generation in church history that devoted so much attention to the doctrine of the visible church. Second, the context was one of “extraordinary times” in both church and state. If ever an argument for exemption from ordinary rules could be made, it would be for seventeenth century England and Scotland. Finally, that noblest of reformation documents, The Westminster Confession of Faith, was born in the midst of this “brief and shining moment” of church history.
just to whet your appetite to read the book *grin*

and an essay at:
http://f2.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/8J-JQBkOMrc1Bf1Z04rlooEc7TG_2_FVHoes9BIbZRUkLGB5PxuWhdqgcb3WFcO0MYEii2HJJ0WuJyTOzRVfGugKfCF5noNYCLtL2w-4Eg/Ch%205%27%20Invisible%20Visible%20Distinction.doc

the essay may require membership in the yahoo group r-f-w, i don't know for sure.

the author quickly returned my note, showing me: http://www.fpcr.org/pdf/Pattern-S.pdf
which is the entire work _A Pattern in the Heavens_ by Dr. Richard Bacon. public thanks to him for making this book available online......


In either case they form some good reading on the topic for those who would wish to delve deeper into the topic.

if anyone finds essays from a separatist position i would love to see them.
everything i've read this afternoon has been reformed in origin because i am working on a sunday school lesson on the topic.
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24322

[Amazing Rando]

Protestant (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Protestant)

Prot·es·tant (P)Pronunciation Key(prt-stnt)
n.
A member of a Western Christian church whose faith and practice are founded on the principles of the Reformation, especially in the acceptance of the Bible as the sole source of revelation, in justification by faith alone, and in the universal priesthood of all the believers.

Do you:

1. Believe the Bible is the sole source of revelation and authority in the Church?

2. Believe in justification by faith alone?

3. Believe that all believers are priests, able to approach God directly in prayer?

If you answered yes to all three questions, Congratulations! You're a Protestant!

(And yes Tye, you're also a Christian too. Despite what you seem to believe, it is possible to be both. :rofl:)

[Tye Porter]

3. Believe that all believers are priests, able to approach God directly in prayer?

If you answered yes to all three questions, Congratulations! You're a Protestant!

(And yes Tye, you're also a Christian too. Despite what you seem to believe, it is possible to be both. :rofl:)
Thanks for that, Sir.
You actually gave me pause there, for a moment, and almost gave me a reason to end it all right here.
I searched and searched and cannot find any references to the saints being priests.
In fact, all I could find, was that Jesus is now our only priest.

You'll have to help me here and stick my nose in the correct chapters, if I missed some obvious text.

But for the moment, I believe I failed your protestant test.

It would appear that you cannot be both protestant and Christian.

I will agree with you on one of your points...

I am a Christian, thank you, Sir.

[Tye Porter]

I don't think I, or most of the other people on here, translate 'Christian' as 'Someone who believes exactly like Tye Porter'. we translate it as 'Someone who believes in Christ as Lord and Saviour'.
Christians agree with the Word of God.
Exactly.
I only believe what I've read in the Bible.
God is known to us through His Word.
The Word became Flesh.
In the beginning was the Word and the Word was both with God and is God.
Blah Blah Blah, the point is, not all who profess the Christ as Lord and Saviour agree with Him and His Word.
They choose to recreate Him in their image.
My translation of Christian is slightly different than yours.

Read Matthew 7:21.

[Amazing Rando]

Thanks for that, Sir.
You actually gave me pause there, for a moment, and almost gave me a reason to end it all right here.
I searched and searched and cannot find any references to the saints being priests.
In fact, all I could find, was that Jesus is now our only priest.

You'll have to help me here and stick my nose in the correct chapters, if I missed some obvious text.

But for the moment, I believe I failed your protestant test.

It would appear that you cannot be both protestant and Christian.

I will agree with you on one of your points...

I am a Christian, thank you, Sir.


4As you come to him, the living Stone--rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him-- 5you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

9But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.

From Revelation:

6To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father--to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.

10You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God,
and they will reign on the earth."

6Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.

There you have it, straight from Peter and John themselves. Thanks for playing, my fellow Christian Protestant! :wink:

[rmwilliamsjr]

Protestant (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Protestant)

Prot·es·tant (P)Pronunciation Key(prt-stnt)
n.
A member of a Western Christian church whose faith and practice are founded on the principles of the Reformation, especially in the acceptance of the Bible as the sole source of revelation, in justification by faith alone, and in the universal priesthood of all the believers.

Do you:

1. Believe the Bible is the sole source of revelation and authority in the Church?

2. Believe in justification by faith alone?

3. Believe that all believers are priests, able to approach God directly in prayer?

If you answered yes to all three questions, Congratulations! You're a Protestant!

(And yes Tye, you're also a Christian too. Despite what you seem to believe, it is possible to be both. :rofl:)

Sola Scriptura - Scriptures alone are our rule of life and faith. Soli Deo Gloria - Everything is to be done only for the glory of God. Solo Christo - Salvation is by Christ alone. Sola Gratia - Salvation is by grace of God alone. Sola Fide - Salvation is by faith alone. from: fivesolas.com

but i think the demarcation problem between Christian and not-Christian and between Protestant and not-Protestant is more difficult than simply adherence to these principles. the demarcation between Baptist and not-Baptist is yet another handful of principles, which from the reading above i am not sure even Baptists could always agree to .....

I'm not sure we can make universal lists like this, but rather in particular times and places we can addresses the issues of that day, like they did in the 17thC and make a list for them. But as time goes on and issues change and mutant, those lists seem to require revisions. Something that is not, nor probably can be done to creeds even......

[Amazing Rando]

Oops- I just realized- both of those quotes are from 1 Peter, not 2 Peter. My bad. I'll edit the post.

[Tye Porter]

4As you come to him, the living Stone--rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him-- 5you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

9But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.

There you have it, straight from Peter himself. Thanks for playing, my fellow Christian Protestant! :wink:
Slow down Mr. Protestant recruiter:

It's FIRST Peter, and the out of context verses you quoted were not to the "Gentiles" but to the Jews who had given up their families and lives to become Messianic.
Peter was in Babylon writing this to the pre 70 AD Messianic Jewish Church who were being persecuted for their conversion.
The Jews were being hunted, as well as the Christians at this time, and everything was eventually destroyed by 70 AD.
They were being told that they were being brought out of that darkness that awaited the nation.
They were coming out of a religion of priests and sacrifices to a new Faith, and Peter is telling them that they are no longer bound by those physical sacrifices and priesthoods.
The Jews were always refered to as God's Chosen Peoples, because of the promises made to Abraham.
You'll notice that this was reaffirmed to them by Peter through their conversion into the Messianic aspect of their Faith.


Try again Sir. Unless you want me to be Messianic, that did not support your beliefs that I am not a Christian but a protestant.

You know, in some weird way, because of the fact that I am protesting your belief that I am a protestant, that may just make me a protester (i.e protestant) :lol:

[Amazing Rando]

Tye, why in the world do you type everything in green? :huh:


Slow down Mr. Protestant recruiter:

It's FIRST Peter, and the out of context verses you quoted were not to the "Gentiles" but to the Jews who had given up their families and lives to become Messianic.
Peter was in Babylon writing this to the pre 70 AD Messianic Jewish Church who were being persecuted for their conversion.
The Jews were being hunted, as well as the Christians at this time, and everything was eventually destroyed by 70 AD.
They were being told that they were being brought out of that darkness that awaited the nation.
They were coming out of a religion of priests and sacrifices to a new Faith, and Peter is telling them that they are no longer bound by those physical sacrifices and priesthoods.
The Jews were always refered to as God's Chosen Peoples, because of the promises made to Abraham.
You'll notice that this was reaffirmed to them by Peter through their conversion into the Messianic aspect of their Faith.

Make sure you notice also- he is also calling them priests. :wink: Matthew Henry's Bible Commentary on 1 Peter chapter 2 says in reference to these verses: All true believers are a holy priesthood; sacred to God, serviceable to others, endowed with heavenly gifts and graces. But the most spiritual sacrifices of the best in prayer and praise are not acceptable, except through Jesus Christ.

From this site (http://www.gospelcom.net/eword/comments/1peter/mhc/1peter2.htm).

The Geneva Bible Commentary says in reference to 1 Peter 2:5, Continuing, he compares us now to priests, placed for this purpose in the spiritual temple, that we should serve him with a spiritual worship, that is, with holiness and righteousness: but as the temple, so is the priesthood built upon Christ, in who alone all our spiritual offerings are accepted.

From here (http://www.gospelcom.net/eword/comments/1peter/geneva/1peter2.htm)

C'mon man. Don't make me break out even more resources. All of the commentaries are quite clear- Peter is calling his readers a holy priesthood.

In addition, check out the three quotes from Revelation that I edited onto my previous post.


Try again Sir. Unless you want me to be Messianic, that did not support your beliefs that I am not a Christian but a protestant.

You know, in some weird way, because of the fact that I am protesting your belief that I am a protestant, that may just make me a protester (i.e protestant) :lol:

You're also a Protestant due to the fact that you protest many of the doctrines of the Catholic Church (that was, after all, the original use of the word).

[Tye Porter]

C'mon man. Don't make me break out even more resources. All of the commentaries are quite clear- Peter is calling his readers a holy priesthood.
As I pointed out, who were his readers, to whom he was writing?
Don't muddle the facts.


You're also a Protestant due to the fact that you protest many of the doctrines of the Catholic Church (that was, after all, the original use of the word).
No, I can illustrate the fact that the catholic religion holds believes that are contrary to the Word of God.
But I am protesting your name calling.
I am not insulting you, why do you continue to insult my Faith when I've already pointed out that Christians do not wish to be labeled protestant?
It means something less than Christian Faith and something still connected to the catholic religion.
At the Resurrection, we seperated ourselves from our religious binds.
We are now Christian, plain and simple.

[Amazing Rando]

As I pointed out, who were his readers, to whom he was writing?
Don't muddle the facts.


Oh boy- you're not a mid-Acts dispensationalist are you? If so, we've got an excellent discussion going on over here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24597) in Eschatology that we'd love to have you in on! :smile:

I ask because you seem to make the distinction that because of the original audience (Jewish Christians), the label no longer applies to us? Am I misrepresenting you? It seems you're suggesting that Jewish Christians are a priesthood while the Gentile Christians are not.

BTW I have three quotes from Revelation waiting for you when you get the chance. :teeth:


No, I can illustrate the fact that the catholic religion holds believes that are contrary to the Word of God.

I'm sure you can. I can too. But you are protesting their doctrine, aren't you?

But I am protesting your name calling.
I am not insulting you, why do you continue to insult my Faith when I've already pointed out that Christians do not wish to be labeled protestant?

I'm sorry if you find it insulting, Tye. As you've seen by the responses in this thread, many, many Christians are absolutely fine being referred to as Protestants. I'm one of them.

It means something less than Christian Faith and something still connected to the catholic religion.
At the Resurrection, we seperated ourselves from our religious binds.
We are now Christian, plain and simple.


Absolutely, the Body of Christ transcends all manmade divisions in the Church. But Protestantism is defined by what it is not, and it is most definitely not Catholic.

[Jude3b]

Most people also say they believe in God.
According to most polls, 70 or 80 plus percent of American claim to be Christian.
Would you agree with both of these facts?

70%-80% of Americans are Biblical Christians?
All of those who claim belief in God, are sharing the same God?


See?
There are words that the world has twisted and redefined to fits it's own needs.
Folks may call me religious and protestant but that does not make me such.
I do not enjoy the association with those who do not share my Biblical beliefs.


Dear Tye: If you do not mind me asking, what briefly are your Biblical beliefs?
Can you define the church for me. Thanks and God Bless, Jude 3b

[Tye Porter]

I'm sure you can. I can too. But you are protesting their doctrine, aren't you?
No, not protesting it, pointing out it's religion.
The fact that it stands in opposition to the Church (The Body) as a Church (Institution).




I'm sorry if you find it insulting, Tye. As you've seen by the responses in this thread, many, many Christians are absolutely fine being referred to as Protestants. I'm one of them.
Telling.
The preterists, mormons, methodists and penticostals enjoy the label "protestant", and their religions only slightly resemble the Christian Faith.
Do you revel in their company?




Absolutely, the Body of Christ transcends all manmade divisions in the Church. But Protestantism is defined by what it is not, and it is most definitely not Catholic.Is that ALL that it is not?

[Tye Porter]

Dear Tye: If you do not mind me asking, what briefly are your Biblical beliefs?
Can you define the church for me. Thanks and God Bless, Jude 3b
Are you asking me to read to you, as briefly as I can, the Bible?
If it is in the Word of God, I agree with it.
If some nun or priest was smoking crack and had a vision, saw pink elephants giving him special goggles or began worshipping the moon, I disagree with it.
I refuse to read extraBiblical "revelations".
Yes, I conceed that the catholic church cannonized the Bible that we read today, but that book was Divinely Inspired and would have come to us catholics or not.
The Church, when refering to the catholic religion, is the "Institution".
The whole business.
The Church when talking about Christains, is the Body.
A Church is a building we've constructed, relying on our jewish traditional heritage, to gather for worship, study and fellowship.

[dizzle]

[color=green]
Telling.
The preterists, mormons, methodists and penticostals enjoy the label "protestant", and their religions only slightly resemble the Christian Faith

Pray tell Tye (I am an orthodox preterist) how does my "religion" only slightly resemble the Christian faith? (and perhaps you meant there with preterist to refer to hyperpreterists, in which case I would have no dispute with you on that point though grouping methodists and pentacostals I would). I would daresay my beliefs fall much more in line with beliefs held historically by the Church then OVers or Acts9ers (and I don't know whether you hold those views, but I know you support those who do having taking a look at your webpage and seeing support for Bob Enyart). I am not slamming OVers or Acts9ers with that comment, we currently have many OVers in leadership and we have had people who support Enyart, I am just looking for consistency here.


Do you revel in their company?

Considering that Rando is a moderator here and I am an orthodox preterist as are several other members of leadership, including upper leadership, I would say he does. We also have at least one pentecostal and I am sure we have methodists. I don't attend a "pentecostal" church per se but they would be in that tradition though I myself am pretty agnostic when it comes to some of those things, though I have been called a sign-seeker (that is an inside joke - sorry about that).

for your reference Tye, in case you are not aware that there are different groups called "preterist" - the type in leadership do not deny the future resurrection or the Second Coming - we affirm in leadership that such would be foundational heresy - those are views held by "full preterists" "hyperpreterists" or my phraseology "Neo-Hymenaean" - check out the articles in my sig line for more information

[dizzle]

[color=green]
Are you asking me to read to you, as briefly as I can, the Bible?
If it is in the Word of God, I agree with it.

Me too.


If some nun or priest was smoking crack and had a vision, saw pink elephants giving him special goggles or began worshipping the moon, I disagree with it.

I agree.


I refuse to read extraBiblical "revelations".

Problematic. Reading that would not be a sin. We cannot be like Eve who said "and don't even touch it." The Biblical writers referred to truths thatcould be foudn in extraBiblical writings that others considered "revelations." Maybe you mean to say you don't hold them to be authoratative, that is a bit different than you don't "read" them.



The Church when talking about Christains, is the Body.

Yes of course. Of which even those nasty Methodists are a part :wink: I used to have the same bad view towards those sneaky Lutherans until God cured me of a major depression with the help of a whacky Lutheran movement called Via de Cristo.

[dizzle]

Tye, why in the world do you type everything in green? :huh:


Inquiring minds want to know! As Roobz would say, Tell me!!!! Tell me!!!!!

[elysian]

Of which even those nasty Methodists are a part :wink: I used to have the same bad view towards those sneaky Lutherans until God cured me of a major depression with the help of a whacky Lutheran movement called Via de Cristo.

Score one for the "whacky" Lutherans!
:ahem:

[dizzle]

Gotta love em. Some of the most caring Christian people in my life are Lutherans. The Lutherans brought my husband to Christ. I owe a huge debt of gratitude to those Lutherans.

[Tye Porter]

Pray tell Tye (I am an orthodox preterist) how does my "religion" only slightly resemble the Christian faith? (and perhaps you meant there with preterist to refer to hyperpreterists, in which case I would have no dispute with you on that point though grouping methodists and pentacostals I would). I would daresay my beliefs fall much more in line with beliefs held historically by the Church then OVers or Acts9ers (and I don't know whether you hold those views, but I know you support those who do having taking a look at your webpage and seeing support for Bob Enyart). I am not slamming OVers or Acts9ers with that comment, we currently have many OVers in leadership and we have had people who support Enyart, I am just looking for consistency here.
Considering that Rando is a moderator here and I am an orthodox preterist as are several other members of leadership, including upper leadership, I would say he does. We also have at least one pentecostal and I am sure we have methodists. I don't attend a "pentecostal" church per se but they would be in that tradition though I myself am pretty agnostic when it comes to some of those things, though I have been called a sign-seeker (that is an inside joke - sorry about that).
for your reference Tye, in case you are not aware that there are different groups called "preterist" - the type in leadership do not deny the future resurrection or the Second Coming - we affirm in leadership that such would be foundational heresy - those are views held by "full preterists" "hyperpreterists" or my phraseology "Neo-Hymenaean" - check out the articles in my sig line for more information
Thanks for clearing up, helping pin down, your specific beliefs.
Let me try to explain by example, and also answer the other questions at the same time, so that all understand more clearly.
Your question here actually helps do this.

An unbeliever, call him atheist, agnostic or what have you, hears the word "Christian" and assumes a few things.
That we believe in Jesus, Heaven and a few other "normal" things.
He also gets confusing messages from what he sees/hears.
The catholics tell him he must work for his salvation.
The mormoms tell him, well many freaky things.
The homos tell him that God created them that way.
The wacko leftists tell him that God wants to kill babies in the womb.
The mainline Christians tell him that if it is not in the Bible, all that is not true.
He sees priests raping young boys.
Wackjob mormons kidnapping little girls.
Christians telling him that the god of the muslims is also the God of the Christians.

It's a small wonder that we are told that many will call Lord Lord, but to the majority He will say, "I do not know you..."

Because of this fact, and because the world sees more than 38,000 "denominations" of Christianity, I am lumped together in this whole great big ball of wax the world calls Christianity.

While I cannot debate or explain to every single user of that word, or every single bearer of that Name, I can try to explain to a few "Christian" posters and to those lurkers out there who read and don't post, that not all of us agree with, nor condone what is going on under the banner of "Christiandom".

Now, to preterism.
To be more specific, the preteristic beliefs, as I understand them (I have a new talk show host at 7:30pm here in Denver who is a card carrying base preterist who's got me reading a book writen for us "futurists" to understand) is that the Bible was not specifically written to us in the future, but to the jews of that day.
This is part correct, but to the extreme he would have me believe is that even "salvation" was to the extent that Paul and the rest of the writters meant salvation from the impending destruction that was to occur by 70ad.
That according to revelation (which has already occured) 3:5, there is no thing as once saved, always saved.
That the Millenium has already come and gone and that we are now living in the Kingdom.
The preteris beliefs (according to the base preterist) changes the whole meaning of the NT and the message contained within.
When I say I am saved by Grace alone, thru Faith alone...he responds with "saved from what?".
According to the base preterist, Revelation occured between 68 and 70ad.
This was why I lumped preterism in with the methodists.
Both toss out the Revelation as irrelevant to the modern day Christian.
I appologize to you, but perhaps, if you do not agree fully with the base preterist view, and more with the "futurists" views, you are not a preterist, but simply a "Christian"?

This is my point, which I believe somebody else might have made, about a "Purist Baptist", that I don't change my views slightly from Biblical to be a penticostal, or methodist, or mormon or protestant.
I am a Bible based Christian.
I've no "denomination".
I've no title or affiliation.

As with most other groups, I agree with them that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Saviour.
You noticed Pastor Enyart.
I love him.
I don't agree with all of his beliefs, but I still love him.
With the Enyartians from where I just came, I love them too, but I don't agree with much of what they believe.

It may make my catholic relatives more comfortable to see me as a protestant now, instead of seeing me as a Christian.
A lot of my "Christian" friends call themselves Christian, yet don't believe in everything that they find in the Christian Bible.
They add and take away.
Maybe you, while enjoying the title Preterist, don't agree with everything they believe, but still keep that title, and get confused with the base believers, by those on the outside, as I just confused you with the base Preterist.

See how that works?

This is why I would rather have people on the inside, like folks who are supposed to be in the know and posting here, know the difference between all of our beliefs.

I am not a protestant, I am a Christian.

Apples and oranges, folks.

Inquiring minds want to know! As Roobz would say, Tell me!!!! Tell me!!!!!
I find it easier to find my own posts, to see when people quote me and are addressing their comments/questions to me.
It is easier to find their responses and easier for people to read.
Their quotes are in black, and my responses to them easier to follow, in another colour.

[dizzle]

Tye, thank you for your post. I hope to respond more later.

But just to assure you, I do not hold those beliefs you articulated to above (which is hyperpreterism), and neither does anyone in leadership, so we probably do not have a disagreement, but let me answer more in full later if I can. I am a notoriously inconsistent poster where I jump in and then disappear. Very very bad with that.

[dizzle]

[color=green]
Thanks for clearing up, helping pin down, your specific beliefs.

You're welcome.


Let me try to explain by example, and also answer the other questions at the same time, so that all understand more clearly.

I understand the post is more than just for my benefit so I hope you don't mind me skipping to the narrow part I was jumping in on....


Your question here actually helps do this.

An unbeliever, call him atheist, agnostic or what have you, hears the word "Christian" and assumes a few things.
That we believe in Jesus, Heaven and a few other "normal" things.
He also gets confusing messages from what he sees/hears.
The catholics tell him he must work for his salvation.
The mormoms tell him, well many freaky things.
The homos tell him that God created them that way.
The wacko leftists tell him that God wants to kill babies in the womb.
The mainline Christians tell him that if it is not in the Bible, all that is not true.
He sees priests raping young boys.
Wackjob mormons kidnapping little girls.
Christians telling him that the god of the muslims is also the God of the Christians.

It's a small wonder that we are told that many will call Lord Lord, but to the majority He will say, "I do not know you..."

Agreed in principle.


Because of this fact, and because the world sees more than 38,000 "denominations" of Christianity, I am lumped together in this whole great big ball of wax the world calls Christianity.

While I cannot debate or explain to every single user of that word, or every single bearer of that Name, I can try to explain to a few "Christian" posters and to those lurkers out there who read and don't post, that not all of us agree with, nor condone what is going on under the banner of "Christiandom".

You got that right.



Now, to preterism.
To be more specific, the preteristic beliefs, as I understand them (I have a new talk show host at 7:30pm here in Denver who is a card carrying base preterist who's got me reading a book writen for us "futurists" to understand) is that the Bible was not specifically written to us in the future, but to the jews of that day.

If this guy is a host on a Christian radio station, shame on that station because "full preterists" deny essentials of the faith and should not be given a platform in that medium IMHO. I campaigned here to have an ad put out by some NeoHyms off a local radio station and the owner of the station was grateful for the education on this heresy.



This is part correct, but to the extreme he would have me believe is that even "salvation" was to the extent that Paul and the rest of the writters meant salvation from the impending destruction that was to occur by 70ad.
That according to revelation (which has already occured) 3:5, there is no thing as once saved, always saved.
That the Millenium has already come and gone and that we are now living in the Kingdom.

Since I cannot know what this particular person believes (you have have misunderstood him) I realloy cannot comment except to this extent:

Most of the "end time" prophecies were written to first century people about first century events

"salvation" is a fluid term and there are times it does mean salvation from temporal judgment - no heretical preterist I know says it always means that so I think you are reading too much into him

Revelation is mostly fulfilled

The Millennium is NOW it is not over... if the person with whom you speak says it is over, he is indeed a heretical preterist



The preteris beliefs (according to the base preterist) changes the whole meaning of the NT and the message contained within.
When I say I am saved by Grace alone, thru Faith alone...he responds with "saved from what?".

If that is an accurate representation of his view, you are correct in your aversion of it. However, I do not think that is accurate. I am familair with heretical preterist belief and that is not what I have seen.

According to the base preterist, Revelation occured between 68 and 70ad.

I would agree that most of if did.

This was why I lumped preterism in with the methodists.
Both toss out the Revelation as irrelevant to the modern day Christian.

Fulfilled prophecy is not irrelevant, otherwise the fulfilled Messianic prophecies would be irrelevant. They are not.



I appologize to you, but perhaps, if you do not agree fully with the base preterist view, and more with the "futurists" views, you are not a preterist, but simply a "Christian"?

Handles such as preterism are a shorthand way of saying many paragraphs in one word. What you have described above is not "base" (not sure what you mean by base - basic or vile) - but very abherrant even for a heretical preterist, if you represented it correctly.

But let's just say you were dealing with a typical heretical preterist, I am using the correct terminology, they are not. The word "preterist" has never historically referred to the heretical group now going under that label. I view such efforts as no different then Mormons saying they are "Christian." Thus, I refuse to give up a historiclaly "good" title to those who would pervert it.

Anyways though, the titles represent a core belief, so it doesn't matter really if I say I am a ghiysi-ist... here is what I believe, and you will probalby have great problems with some of it, as I would have great problemms with some of you what think probably, but I would not divide over them:

I believe:

There is no radical distinction between the Church and the True Israel - they are one body - the Church is the continuation of the Israel of God

The Great Tribulation is over

The Millennium is now and will end with the bodily return of Christ to resurrect the saved and the damned after which follows the eternal state and the creation will be returned to paradise



This is my point, which I believe somebody else might have made, about a "Purist Baptist", that I don't change my views slightly from Biblical to be a penticostal, or methodist, or mormon or protestant.
I am a Bible based Christian.
I've no "denomination".
I've no title or affiliation.


I can understood your motivation for that, but titles are useful shorthand.

I could explain the Trinity or I could say I am a Trinitarian

I could go through counterfactuals and instantiation or I could just say I am a Molinist

I could explain how I help pay for the site and run it, or I just say I am one of the Owner

I think the eschewing of labels is well-intentioined but often wrong-headed.




As with most other groups, I agree with them that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Saviour.
You noticed Pastor Enyart.
I love him.
I don't agree with all of his beliefs, but I still love him.
With the Enyartians from where I just came, I love them too, but I don't agree with much of what they believe.

I do not know too much of Enyart, but he was very kind to send me his book The Plot when I could not afford to buy it. That was a very nice gesture.


So yes I am a Christian, certainly. When I am speaking with nonbelievers I don't get into all the fancy schmancy terms, but with other believers they are helpful as doctrinal shorthand.


I find it easier to find my own posts, to see when people quote me and are addressing their comments/questions to me.
It is easier to find their responses and easier for people to read.
Their quotes are in black, and my responses to them easier to follow, in another colour.

Okay just curious. I find that the quote tags which of course you are familiar with do that well. We have a lot of other cool formatting tags if you are interested as well.

You mentioned you are in Denver, yet I notice you posting very late... do you work late or just like to cruise the Net late? I am very nosey.

[Amazing Rando]

Ya know Tye, you're quite good at ignoring much of what I write. So I'll ask it again- are you a Mid-Acts Dispensationalist (AKA Acts 9 Dispensationalist, AKA Hyperdispensationalist, etc.)? I only want to know because it'll help me understand how you interpret Scripture. A simple yes or no will do! :teeth: I noticed you were from Denver. We have several members here from the Denver area who also happen to be Mid-Acts Dispensationalists and I just wanted to know if you were friends with them or something because you seem to interpret Scripture in a similar manner as them.


No, not protesting it, pointing out it's religion.
The fact that it stands in opposition to the Church (The Body) as a Church (Institution).


And yet you are protesting its doctrine. Protesting it by saying it's not Christian.




Telling.
The preterists, mormons, methodists and penticostals enjoy the label "protestant", and their religions only slightly resemble the Christian Faith.



Oh boy, this is rich. :lmbo: That's quite the lumping together of Christians. Dee Dee seems to have taken you to task about the preterists. I suppose I'll take you to task about the Methodists. I attend a United Methodist Church. So does one of our Admin Assistants, Xavier. I assure you, we're Christian, every bit as much as you. And yes, we're Protestants too. If I wasn't an orthodox Christian in every way I wouldn't be allowed to be a moderator. But if you'll notice, I am! :tongue: Now where do you think you come off telling us Methodists that our beliefs "only slightly resemble the Christian faith?" That's quite the serious accusation and I expect you to back it up.

And can you tell me exactly why being a Protestant is such a bad thing? It's a man-made term for a particular subset of Christianity that if you were knowledgeable about Christian history, you might understand.

Do you revel in their company?

With the exception of the Mormons, yes I do. :wink: I also revel in the company of the many oustanding Christians on this site, including my brothers and sisters in Christ in the leadership of this forum.

Is that ALL that it is not?


You seem to be insinuating that Protestants are not Christian. I think that's preposterous hogwash. Can you explain to me why you think that?

[Tye Porter]

If this guy is a host on a Christian radio station, shame on that station because "full preterists" deny essentials of the faith and should not be given a platform in that medium IMHO. I campaigned here to have an ad put out by some NeoHyms off a local radio station and the owner of the station was grateful for the education on this heresy.Ok, I gotta ask:
Are you the "Dee Dee" that used to work at my station?
Fortunately, this guy does not preach his beliefs over the air.
I am the buffer for the listeners.
He vents them onto me, then gets on the air and does relationship counseling.


"salvation" is a fluid term and there are times it does mean salvation from temporal judgment - no heretical preterist I know says it always means that so I think you are reading too much into him
I wish that I was.
He's actually confirmed my direct questions that "salvation" as viewed by us "futurists" is not what we think it is.
It was meant for the first century jews and meant "saved" from destruction.
We are given temporal grace, he tells me, and temporal because we can have our names blotted out of the Book of Life because of something we have done / may do.


The Millennium is NOW it is not over... if the person with whom you speak says it is over, he is indeed a heretical preterist
According to his view of events, the 1000 years ended in 1070 ad we are now living in the Kingdom.



Handles such as preterism are a shorthand way of saying many paragraphs in one word. What you have described above is not "base" (not sure what you mean by base - basic or vile) - but very abherrant even for a heretical preterist, if you represented it correctly.
I agree with you, that these "handles" are a shorthand summary of the person to whom you are speaking.
This was the exact reason I jumped into this thread, and continue with AR.
His misunderstanding of me, has caused him to label me with an incorrect shorthand handle.
I did not know the term, heretical.
Me using "base" was my way of saying orthodox or basic, pure, whatever.
You probably see him as an extreme.
I'll tell you what though, if I was a jew, I would be an extreme jew.
If I was still a catholic, I would be an extreme catholic.
I do not believe that these new fangled, reformed, groups are doing their religions/faiths any justice.
Why profess to be part of something, yet only go about it half butt?
That was why I asked you about your "shorthand" preterist.
But you've explained to me, that your belief is the correct one, and that his heritical beliefs are just that, and not representative of preterism.
The same as catholics and mormons not being representative of Christianity.


I believe:

There is no radical distinction between the Church and the True Israel - they are one body - the Church is the continuation of the Israel of God
Agreed!


The Great Tribulation is over

The Millennium is now and will end with the bodily return of Christ to resurrect the saved and the damned after which follows the eternal state and the creation will be returned to paradiseThis is where I used to say, "It's not a salvation issue, so believe this if it tickles your fancy, Christian Sister."
But this new heretical preterist has poisoned my views of the preterists.
I need to figure all of this out.


You mentioned you are in Denver, yet I notice you posting very late... do you work late or just like to cruise the Net late? I am very nosey.I work the night shift.
I get home late and so my posting is usually done either late in the nght from work or when I get home.



...are you a Mid-Acts Dispensationalist (AKA Acts 9 Dispensationalist, AKA Hyperdispensationalist, etc.)? I only want to know because it'll help me understand how you interpret Scripture. A simple yes or no will do! :teeth: I noticed you were from Denver. We have several members here from the Denver area who also happen to be Mid-Acts Dispensationalists and I just wanted to know if you were friends with them or something because you seem to interpret Scripture in a similar manner as them.
At the moment, I do not know any of the other posters here on this site.
For all I know, I could work with one or two.
I do not know the terms you are asking about.
I simply know that I believe in the Word of God.
You seem to enjoy the labels and misuse of them.
Whatever YOU think I am, you'll have to live with it, Sir.
Sorry I cannot answer you with a yes or no.


... Oh boy, this is rich. :lmbo: That's quite the lumping together of Christians. Dee Dee seems to have taken you to task about the preterists. I suppose I'll take you to task about the Methodists. I attend a United Methodist Church. So does one of our Admin Assistants, Xavier. I assure you, we're Christian, every bit as much as you. And yes, we're Protestants too. If I wasn't an orthodox Christian in every way I wouldn't be allowed to be a moderator. But if you'll notice, I am! :tongue: Now where do you think you come off telling us Methodists that our beliefs "only slightly resemble the Christian faith?" That's quite the serious accusation and I expect you to back it up.
Once I left the catholic religion, I came to the methodist church for quite a few years.
It was the most comfortable tradition wise and beliefs wise for somebody who has grown up in that religion.
I left catholicism because I read my Bible and found out that what was being taugh was not in the Bible.
As I got further into the NT, I found that I was running into the same things in my new church.
My Methodist "Reverend" told me that I did not need to read revelations, because it was irrelevant to Christians and should not have been included in the Bible.
He also told me that some of the old tenants of my old religion were also required of me.
That I needed to Tithe, confess and ask for forgiveness.
That if I failed to do these things, I would fall out of God's Grace.
None of this lined up with the Bible, so I left.
That was 1986.
Like DeeDee explained, this one "Reverend" may not have been representative of your church, but that is my experience and it's tough to argue with personal experiences.

...And can you tell me exactly why being a Protestant is such a bad thing? It's a man-made term for a particular subset of Christianity that if you were knowledgeable about Christian history, you might understand.
You seem to be insinuating that Protestants are not Christian. I think that's preposterous hogwash. Can you explain to me why you think that?
What I am knowledgable about is that protestants allow homosexuals to be pastors, reverends, ministers.
They allow women to pastor over men.
They allow homosexual marriage, and some (my old methodist-protestant church) supported "prochoice"/promurder groups.
The women were out at rallies at planned parenthoods fighting for the right for abortions/murders.
Forgive me, if I do not want to be associated with that man-made term for that subset.
I am a Bible believing Christian.
The "protestant" beliefs are not supported by that Word of God.
Not all of their beliefs are extra-Biblical, as you pointed out, but even one, when it is a salvation issue, is good enough to make me segregate myself from them.

[dizzle]

Ok, I gotta ask:
Are you the "Dee Dee" that used to work at my station?
Fortunately, this guy does not preach his beliefs over the air.
I am the buffer for the listeners.
He vents them onto me, then gets on the air and does relationship counseling.


Oh no Tye, I am quite sure we have never met. I have never been to Denver. Okay, since it is off-topic I will not pry further into the business of the station except only to say this. Hyper-preterism is a foundational heresy. Those who believe it are not Christians, and a known nonChristian should not be held out as someone qualified to give relationship counseling. I think you would agree, and if I am understanding you correctly you are not the decision-maker in those things.


I wish that I was.
He's actually confirmed my direct questions that "salvation" as viewed by us "futurists" is not what we think it is.
It was meant for the first century jews and meant "saved" from destruction.
We are given temporal grace, he tells me, and temporal because we can have our names blotted out of the Book of Life because of something we have done / may do.


From my experience, I can only tell you that the "salvation" thing is radically differnet from any hyper-preterist I have spoke to, so he would not be typical even of that heresy. However, something I have noticed about heresies is that they tend to breed further heresies, so that would not surprise me. But just to be fair to hyperpreterists, that particular thing there is not true of all.


According to his view of events, the 1000 years ended in 1070 ad we are now living in the Kingdom.


That also is very NOT typical of hyperpreterists though the result is the same. Most say that the Millennium ended in 70AD.

Let me just tell you as a orthodox preterist, the Messianic Kingdom is the Millennium and it is now, that is our belief. The consummated Kingdom awaite the resurrection.



I agree with you, that these "handles" are a shorthand summary of the person to whom you are speaking.
This was the exact reason I jumped into this thread, and continue with AR.
His misunderstanding of me, has caused him to label me with an incorrect shorthand handle.

Okay, then the presumption always is that we are claiming to be Christians, but Christians that beleive certain other secondary things.


I did not know the term, heretical.
Me using "base" was my way of saying orthodox or basic, pure, whatever.
You probably see him as an extreme.

History would see him as extreme. I know you would agree that someone heretical cannot simply abscond with a term that historically has meant something very different, in the same way that Mormons cannot abscond with the label Christian.


I'll tell you what though, if I was a jew, I would be an extreme jew.
If I was still a catholic, I would be an extreme catholic.

Extreme is relative to what it is extreme to, no? Liberal "Christianity" is extreme.



I do not believe that these new fangled, reformed, groups are doing their religions/faiths any justice.
Why profess to be part of something, yet only go about it half butt?
That was why I asked you about your "shorthand" preterist.
But you've explained to me, that your belief is the correct one, and that his heritical beliefs are just that, and not representative of preterism.
The same as catholics and mormons not being representative of Christianity.


I am glad we have an understanding on the preterist part, I have been steering clear of the other part since I do not have time to do it justice. This little conversation though I think will save you a lot of grief later on as you meet more people here cause there are a lot of orthodox preterists here.


Agreed!


That surprises me, Bob Enyart woudl vehemously disagree. I know you do not agree with everything he teaches, but I got the erroneous idea you were a dispensationalist (sorry for the label).

This is where I used to say, "It's not a salvation issue, so believe this if it tickles your fancy, Christian Sister."
But this new heretical preterist has poisoned my views of the preterists.
I need to figure all of this out.


Fair enough, but remember Mormons calling themselves Christians have confused a lot of people adn you would not want that held against you, so please don't hold heretical preterism against me. I am one of the most vocal people on the Net denouncing it. Check out my article here:

www.tektonics.org/hythere.html



I work the night shift.
I get home late and so my posting is usually done either late in the nght from work or when I get home.



Okay thanks for satisfying my curiousity. I hope to see you on some other areas of the forum I post in more. I don't get over to here too much, actually I don't get ot post as much as I would like to as adminsitrative matters keep me busy.

[Amazing Rando]

[color=green]
At the moment, I do not know any of the other posters here on this site.
For all I know, I could work with one or two.
I do not know the terms you are asking about.
I simply know that I believe in the Word of God.
You seem to enjoy the labels and misuse of them.
Whatever YOU think I am, you'll have to live with it, Sir.
Sorry I cannot answer you with a yes or no.


Okay, perhaps I was mistaken. :nsm: A Mid-Acts Dispensationalist is one who believes, aww I'll let them speak for themselves. Take a look at this post from truthman, one of the Mid-Acts Dispensationalists who posts regularly on the board.

I am an Acts 9 dispensationalist and will be very concise in my answer as I have very little time.

Acts chapter 9.

Saul of Tarsus got saved.

God had just begun the 'cutting off' of Israel in Acts chapter 7 after the stoning of Stephen.

God was weary of Israel's spiritual adultery.

So, God brings in a new dispensation and makes Paul the Apostle the steward of this dispensation.

This dispensation is called the Dispensation of Grace and continues to this day.

Meaning, the only way to come to God for salvation is through faith alone.

Meanwhile, back in Acts, from chapter 9 through chapter 28, God is progressively cutting off Israel.

So, James, John and Peter are preaching a different gospel than Paul at that time.

This gospel was a gospel of faith and works.

Two different gospels ~ one period of time.

Now there is only one gospel.

Acts 9 Eschatology simply says, God will not reinstate signs wonders or the gospel of faith and works until after the rapture.

After the rapture, Hebrews, James, 1, 2, and 3 John, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude, and Revelation will have instructive power again.

truthman

That's the basics of the movement. Can you tell me- Do you agree with most of what he said? If so, then you're a Mid-Acts Dispensationalist. Hope that helps you understand what I'm trying to figure out.


Once I left the catholic religion, I came to the methodist church for quite a few years.
It was the most comfortable tradition wise and beliefs wise for somebody who has grown up in that religion.
I left catholicism because I read my Bible and found out that what was being taugh was not in the Bible.
As I got further into the NT, I found that I was running into the same things in my new church.
My Methodist "Reverend" told me that I did not need to read revelations, because it was irrelevant to Christians and should not have been included in the Bible.
He also told me that some of the old tenants of my old religion were also required of me.
That I needed to Tithe, confess and ask for forgiveness.
That if I failed to do these things, I would fall out of God's Grace.
None of this lined up with the Bible, so I left.
That was 1986.
Like DeeDee explained, this one "Reverend" may not have been representative of your church, but that is my experience and it's tough to argue with personal experiences.

Yes, you're right, so I won't. I will however, point out that that is an aberration- the official UMC doctrine is against all of those things you just said, and yes, you're absolutely right that those things aren't biblical.


What I am knowledgable about is that protestants allow homosexuals to be pastors, reverends, ministers.

Some do, but not the UMC. Here's the official denominational statement on the matter of homosexual clergy: While persons set apart by the Church for ordained ministry are subject to all the frailties of the human condition and the pressures of society, they are required to maintain the highest standards of holy living in the world. Since the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching, self-avowed practicing homosexuals are not to be accepted as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church.

They allow women to pastor over men.
They allow homosexual marriage, and some (my old methodist-protestant church) supported "prochoice"/promurder groups.
The women were out at rallies at planned parenthoods fighting for the right for abortions/murders.

The official UMC position also disallows homosexual marriage. It forbids UMC pastors from performing these ceremonies, and provides for punishment of those who break the church laws in this area. Abortion is also strongly denounced. I can quote the relevant portions of the church law if you'd like.

Forgive me, if I do not want to be associated with that man-made term for that subset.
I am a Bible believing Christian.
The "protestant" beliefs are not supported by that Word of God.
Not all of their beliefs are extra-Biblical, as you pointed out, but even one, when it is a salvation issue, is good enough to make me segregate myself from them.

Just try to remember that not all protestants are the same in belief or practice just the same as all Republicans are not the same in ideology. We're not all evil anti-Christian "religionists" (as our friend Jude3b would say). :smile:

Hey Tye, I'm sorry for any animosity or ill-will I may have caused. While I do strongly disagree with you, this issue isn't at all important, so I'm willing to let it drop.

[Tye Porter]

Okay, perhaps I was mistaken. :nsm: A Mid-Acts Dispensationalist is one who believes, aww I'll let them speak for themselves. Take a look at this post from truthman, one of the Mid-Acts Dispensationalists who posts regularly on the board.

I am an Acts 9 dispensationalist and will be very concise in my answer as I have very little time.

Acts chapter 9.

Saul of Tarsus got saved.

God had just begun the 'cutting off' of Israel in Acts chapter 7 after the stoning of Stephen.

God was weary of Israel's spiritual adultery.

So, God brings in a new dispensation and makes Paul the Apostle the steward of this dispensation.

This dispensation is called the Dispensation of Grace and continues to this day.

Meaning, the only way to come to God for salvation is through faith alone.

Meanwhile, back in Acts, from chapter 9 through chapter 28, God is progressively cutting off Israel.

So, James, John and Peter are preaching a different gospel than Paul at that time.

This gospel was a gospel of faith and works.

Two different gospels ~ one period of time.

Now there is only one gospel.

Acts 9 Eschatology simply says, God will not reinstate signs wonders or the gospel of faith and works until after the rapture.

After the rapture, Hebrews, James, 1, 2, and 3 John, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude, and Revelation will have instructive power again.

truthman

That's the basics of the movement. Can you tell me- Do you agree with most of what he said? If so, then you're a Mid-Acts Dispensationalist. Hope that helps you understand what I'm trying to figure out.
If I understand this quote, it would seem that the write has confused himself.
On the one hand, yes, we are told that we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, not by works, lest any man should boast.
We are also told that faith without works is dead.
These are not contradictory.
Although one comes from the other.
Salvation/Grace causes works.
The fruits of our salvation.
Works cannot cause Salvation.
The writer of the article you illustrated gave me the impression that he feels (incorrectly) that they were preaching opposing gospels/doctrines.
If that was his message, he was mistaken.





We're not all evil anti-Christian "religionists"... :smile:
I would just like you to remember this statement.
I may come back to it in the future. :lol:

[dizzle]

Tye just a quick note... the quote of Rando above that you disagreed with on the two gospels (and I agree wholeheartedly with you) is exactly what Enyart teaches if I understand The Plot correctly.

[Tye Porter]

I am glad we have an understanding on the preterist part, I have been steering clear of the other part since I do not have time to do it justice. This little conversation though I think will save you a lot of grief later on as you meet more people here cause there are a lot of orthodox preterists here.

This will partly entertain me.
I've yet to see the light that the preterist position in Biblical.
I enjoy the grief.
In my own warped way, it is how I learn.
What most people see as attacking me, I merely see as class in session.
Peoples hearts reveal themselves when debates become "emotional".

Glad to know that I am in for a big learning experience.
Thanks, Ma'am.

[Tye Porter]

Tye just a quick note... the quote of Rando above that you disagreed with on the two gospels (and I agree wholeheartedly with you) is exactly what Enyart teaches if I understand The Plot correctly.
I've never actually read his book.
Like I've said, I don't agree with everything he teaches, but I do agree with much.
But it is good to see you do have some sense! :teeth:

[dizzle]

I've never actually read his book.
Like I've said, I don't agree with everything he teaches, but I do agree with much.
But it is good to see you do have some sense! :teeth:


Ha! don't let it get out that I have some sense, you will ruin my reputation.

Just be forewarned though about a misimpression you may leave, some people if they hear you agree with Enyart even in part that you are an Open View (and I have not asked that yet) - Acts9 dispensationalist. I think what you mean is that you agree with his political and social stances rather than certain theological doctrines. I get this impression from reading some of the stuff on your website.

[Tye Porter]

Ha! don't let it get out that I have some sense, you will ruin my reputation.

Just be forewarned though about a misimpression you may leave, some people if they hear you agree with Enyart even in part that you are an Open View (and I have not asked that yet) - Acts9 dispensationalist. I think what you mean is that you agree with his political and social stances rather than certain theological doctrines. I get this impression from reading some of the stuff on your website.
While I know AR is going to try to wrongfully label me a calvinist, I disagree with Enyarts "Anything can happen in the future" view and agree with the Biblical view that the Lord directs our steps.
As a Christian, we all have the same political and social stances, as directed and modeled in the Bible.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

As a Christian, we all have the same political and social stances, as directed and modeled in the Bible.

I wish!

[Tye Porter]

I wish!


I PRAY!

[One Bad Pig]

In the US, we baptists we didn't have the predominancy of the Anglican Church and its use of the term protestant. We inherited the ecumenism of Protestantism in the US from the 19th Ctry and so Protestant came to also include Baptists.
:shocked: I agree with you. I didn't know you were a Baptist. I prefer the term "Evangelical" to "Protestant", but that's a recent distinction.

As I understand it, many African-American churches became Baptists because Baptists had lower education requirements for its ministers.
Interesting. The AME church is pretty influential in the A-A communities near me.

In the US, among Swedish Baptists(I don't know other groups so well.), now the Baptist General Conference, arminianism has remained stronger than calvinism and recently OVTheism has surged as an alternative to both. However, we have always been irenic, not letting such theological differences interfere with our unity in Christ.

dlw
Amazingly for such a diverse group, an enduring Baptist stereotype persists. I'm a Southern Baptist (for three years now), but I don't know what my pastor's position is on the Calvinist-Arminian debate.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

an interesting essay defending "Why Baptists are not Protestants" at: http://www.picknowl.com.au/homepages/rlister/bibfund/baptists.htm
I wrote a short replyI didn't realise that I was subscribed to this thread, and I do not recall posting here. But I just got a notification that a post had been made, so I came and read the first post. Here is my 2c worth.

The essay is incorrect and misleading. Baptist are Protestants. Here are a replies to some of the specific points:
Baptists make no effort to trace a historical succession back to the age of the Apesties. Their only claim is that at every age in church history there have been groups that have held to the same doctrines that Baptists hold today. These groups may or may not have been connected and they have been known by various names. There were the Montanists (150 A.D.), the Novatians (240 A.D.), Donatists (305 A.D.), Albigenses (1022 A.D.), Waldensians (1170 A.D.), and the name Anabaptists came into prominence just before the time of the Protestant Reformation.The list varies from one person to another (since there are a number of people who make this argument, but any person with a reasonable knowledge of church history will immediately recognise that at least some of the groups mentioned here are not like Baptists in some crucial ways, and moreover they are groups with which a Baptist would not wish to be associated if he or she were to learn more about them and what they believed and practiced. Some of the more obvious example includs the fanatical Donatists and Novatians, and also the Montanists. I will not try to offer a full historical explanation of what these groups were (and neither did the writer of the article), but I ask the reader to do some homework on these groups, and I sumit that it will very quickly become obvious when you do so that these groups are not groups that a Baptist would associate himslf with if he had done his homework, as the writer of the article certainly has not.

At one point the author uses a clear double standard when surveying the historical facts:
It is also evident that the Baptists were not Protestants because they were fiercely persecuted by the Protestant Reformers and their followers.But on reflection this suggestion sems clearly absurd. The claims seems to be that "if a group is persecuted by Protestant groups, then that group is not a Protestant group itself." It is amazing that anybody hoping to be taken seriously could propose such a proposterous assertion. The fact is, unfortunately, some protestants were perscuted by other protestants! Why would the writer ignore other portestant groups that were persecuted by rival protestant groups, but make an exception for the baptists and assert that this means they are not protestants? This is a double standard.

The writer of the article claims that doctrinally, baptists are not Protestant, because "there are six striking differences" between Baptist doctrine and Protestant doctrine. In saying this at all the writer falls into the error of oversimplification, by implying that all Protestants held to one unified body of doctrine. It is pitifully inadequate to point to one point of difference between one protestant group other protestant groups in order to prove that the group in question is not protestant. After all, Lutheranism teaches consubstantiation, but other Protestant groups do not. Does this show that Lutheranism is not protestant?

Additionally, many of the six points listed are actually points that other protestant groups share as well. let's have a look at them now:
1. Baptists believe with all their hearts that God's Word alone is sufficient for faith and practice. We read "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine..." (II Timothy 3:16). Various Protestant denominations have creeds, catechisms and assorted doctrinal standards. Baptists hold to the Bible alone.This is highly misleading. Firstly, let's actually take a look at one of those "creeds," shall we? I'll take the Westminster confession of faith as an example. The very first chapter of this confession is about Holy Scripture, and it spells out in detail the view that Scripture alone is the infallible rule of faith and practice! How strange then, that one should distinguish creeds and confessions from the view that Scripture alone is the sole infallible rule of faith and practice, when this is exactly what those creeds say. The author of the article is merely re-writing the same view as expressed in the Westminster confession.

Moreover, it is also false that baptists themselves have not written creeds or confessions. The author is clearly ignorant of baptist history. Does he not know about the anabaptist Schleitheim Confession, or the 1689 Baptist confession?
Baptists believe that Christ and only Christ is the Head of the Church even as the Scripture says, "Christ is the head of the church" (Ephesians 5:23). There is no man who has the oversight of Baptist churches. Baptists have no denomination in the sense of an organization that controls local congregations. Each local church is autonomous and accountable only to Christ, who is its Head. A Baptist church, while fellowshiping with congregations of like faith and practice, has no earthly headquarters. Its headquarters is in Heaven..This is a misrepresentation of other Protestant groups, who likewise teach that only Christ is the head of the church. It is certainly false that baptist/anabaptist churches had no human pastors, and it is also false that other protestant churches had an earthly headquarters. See the Westminster confession of faith, chapter 25 paragraph 1:]The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of Him that fills all in all.[/quote][/size]

The author goes on:
Baptists believe from their hearts in a free church in a free state. Christ plainly taught that the state and the church each had its own realm when he said, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things which are God's" (Matthew 22:21 ). Baptists are vigorously opposed to union of state and church and believe that a state controlled church is a wretched excuse for Christianity and a plain departure from Scripture. All of the Protestant Reformers fastened state churches upon their folIowers.The author avoids using evidence, because to do so would be disastrous for him. The fact is, Protestantism did not teach union of Church and state. Granted, in Anglicanism this was a major issue, but to suggest that this is a "doctine" inherent to protestantism is simply not true. In fact, the Westminster confession explicitly denies this, saying (30:1) that those who hold office in a church are clearly distinct from civil officials, and in chapter 23 par. 3 it explicitly states that "The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven."

The author then movs on to a blatant falsehood:
[quote]4. Baptists believe strongly in individual accountability to God because the Scriptures clearly teach that "every one of us shall give account of himself to God" (Romans 14:12). A priest cannot answer for you, a church cannot answer for you to God. God-parents cannot answer for you. No one is saved because of what his parents believe. No one is ,saved because of his identification with any religion. He will account for himself to God. Protestants .generally do not hold this scriptural doctrine.Absolutely untrue. Protestants, including Baptists, uphold this doctrine. Period. The author needs to learn the habit of backing up his accusations with evidence.
5. Baptist people furthermore have always held to believers' baptism. None of the Protestant Reformers held this Bible teaching.None of the non-baptist reformers, perhaps. But one difference from other Protestants does not make baptists non-Protestants. Consider some of the baptistically oriented Puritans, like John Bunyan. Is the author going to insist that even though he is counted as a Puritan, he is not really a Protestant at all?

6. Baptists, on the basis of Scripture, have always held to a regenerate church membership; that is, a membership that is made up only of people who give a credible profession of faith in Christ. In the apostolic church, only those who became believers, those who received the Word of God and who had repented of their sins, were baptized and received as church members (Acts 2:41). This is a word game. As seen above in the Westminster confession, the church universal is only made up of those who are in Christ (refered to in the WCF as the elect). However, no Baptist would make the children sit outside while the parents sat inside and sang songs of praise! All churches at some point require a credible confession of faith. Catholic churchs do this at the time of confirmation. Reformed Churches have a time when a person is ld enough to make a public "profession of faith," at which time they become a voting member of the church. So it is just not true that baptists are uniwue in the way they regard full church membership.

Lastly here's just one more observation:
We differ from Protestants in our birthplace. Lutherans came from Germany, the Reformed from Switzerland and the Netherlands, the Presbyterians from Scotland, Episcopalians from England, but Baptists would have to give Palestine as their place of origin.This is plainly question begging. it just says "we are the original, you are not." Obviously all protestants, including baptists, claim to have their origins in the Christianity of the Apostles. That is what they look to as the rule of faith, the teaching set down in Scripture.

Baptists are Protestants. Like other protestants, they look back favouaby on thos before the 16th century who taught contrary to Rome and in favour of what we see as Scriptural teaching (Wycliffe being an obvious example). But it is the case that groups we think of as "Baptists" were in fact formally established at the time of the Reformation or thereabouts in Austria, the Netherlands, germany, and Switzerland. The author of the article here simply does not know his subject matter.

[spiritmech]

I didn't realise that I was subscribed to this thread, and I do not recall posting here. But I just got a notification that a post had been made, so I came and read the first post. Here is my 2c worth.

The essay is incorrect and misleading. Baptist are Protestants. Here are a replies to some of the specific points:
The list varies from one person to another (since there are a number of people who make this argument, but any person with a reasonable knowledge of church history will immediately recognise that at least some of the groups mentioned here are not like Baptists in some crucial ways, and moreover they are groups with which a Baptist would not wish to be associated if he or she were to learn more about them and what they believed and practiced. Some of the more obvious example includs the fanatical Donatists and Novatians, and also the Montanists. I will not try to offer a full historical explanation of what these groups were (and neither did the writer of the article), but I ask the reader to do some homework on these groups, and I sumit that it will very quickly become obvious when you do so that these groups are not groups that a Baptist would associate himslf with if he had done his homework, as the writer of the article certainly has not.

At one point the author uses a clear double standard when surveying the historical facts:
But on reflection this suggestion sems clearly absurd. The claims seems to be that "if a group is persecuted by Protestant groups, then that group is not a Protestant group itself." It is amazing that anybody hoping to be taken seriously could propose such a proposterous assertion. The fact is, unfortunately, some protestants were perscuted by other protestants! Why would the writer ignore other portestant groups that were persecuted by rival protestant groups, but make an exception for the baptists and assert that this means they are not protestants? This is a double standard.

The writer of the article claims that doctrinally, baptists are not Protestant, because "there are six striking differences" between Baptist doctrine and Protestant doctrine. In saying this at all the writer falls into the error of oversimplification, by implying that all Protestants held to one unified body of doctrine. It is pitifully inadequate to point to one point of difference between one protestant group other protestant groups in order to prove that the group in question is not protestant. After all, Lutheranism teaches consubstantiation, but other Protestant groups do not. Does this show that Lutheranism is not protestant?

Additionally, many of the six points listed are actually points that other protestant groups share as well. let's have a look at them now:
This is highly misleading. Firstly, let's actually take a look at one of those "creeds," shall we? I'll take the Westminster confession of faith as an example. The very first chapter of this confession is about Holy Scripture, and it spells out in detail the view that Scripture alone is the infallible rule of faith and practice! How strange then, that one should distinguish creeds and confessions from the view that Scripture alone is the sole infallible rule of faith and practice, when this is exactly what those creeds say. The author of the article is merely re-writing the same view as expressed in the Westminster confession.

Moreover, it is also false that baptists themselves have not written creeds or confessions. The author is clearly ignorant of baptist history. Does he not know about the anabaptist Schleitheim Confession, or the 1689 Baptist confession?
This is a misrepresentation of other Protestant groups, who likewise teach that only Christ is the head of the church. It is certainly false that baptist/anabaptist churches had no human pastors, and it is also false that other protestant churches had an earthly headquarters. See the Westminster confession of faith, chapter 25 paragraph 1:The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of Him that fills all in all.

The author goes on:
The author avoids using evidence, because to do so would be disastrous for him. The fact is, Protestantism did not teach union of Church and state. Granted, in Anglicanism this was a major issue, but to suggest that this is a "doctine" inherent to protestantism is simply not true. In fact, the Westminster confession explicitly denies this, saying (30:1) that those who hold office in a church are clearly distinct from civil officials, and in chapter 23 par. 3 it explicitly states that "The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven."

The author then movs on to a blatant falsehood:
Absolutely untrue. Protestants, including Baptists, uphold this doctrine. Period. The author needs to learn the habit of backing up his accusations with evidence.
None of the non-baptist reformers, perhaps. But one difference from other Protestants does not make baptists non-Protestants. Consider some of the baptistically oriented Puritans, like John Bunyan. Is the author going to insist that even though he is counted as a Puritan, he is not really a Protestant at all?

This is a word game. As seen above in the Westminster confession, the church universal is only made up of those who are in Christ (refered to in the WCF as the elect). However, no Baptist would make the children sit outside while the parents sat inside and sang songs of praise! All churches at some point require a credible confession of faith. Catholic churchs do this at the time of confirmation. Reformed Churches have a time when a person is ld enough to make a public "profession of faith," at which time they become a voting member of the church. So it is just not true that baptists are uniwue in the way they regard full church membership.

Lastly here's just one more observation:
This is plainly question begging. it just says "we are the original, you are not." Obviously all protestants, including baptists, claim to have their origins in the Christianity of the Apostles. That is what they look to as the rule of faith, the teaching set down in Scripture.

Baptists are Protestants. Like other protestants, they look back favouaby on thos before the 16th century who taught contrary to Rome and in favour of what we see as Scriptural teaching (Wycliffe being an obvious example). But it is the case that groups we think of as "Baptists" were in fact formally established at the time of the Reformation or thereabouts in Austria, the Netherlands, germany, and Switzerland. The author of the article here simply does not know his subject matter.
Baptists are double-Protestants. They protested the first protestants. Take that!
sm,
triple-Prot

[A Cup of No]

I needed to put this here.


Hmmm.... So would this be a good time (as one who was raised Baptist) to note that the biggest problems with Baptists is that they don't hold them under long enough?

:hehe:

[spiritmech]

I needed to put this here.
Yes, this is the silliest thread I've seen on here in some time.
sm

[Amazing Rando]

Why, oh why, did OBP resurrect it? :bawl:

[One Bad Pig]

Why, oh why, did OBP resurrect it? :bawl:
Why not? :hehe:

IMO, those Baptists who feel the need to trace historical roots outside the RCC/OCC back to early Christianity do so because they think that Baptists are the only true Christians.

[rmwilliamsjr]

Why not? :hehe:

IMO, those Baptists who feel the need to trace historical roots outside the RCC/OCC back to early Christianity do so because they think that Baptists are the only true Christians.

i think that works like _Trail of Blood_ and the ilk, which proport to trace the Baptists through medieval history have at heart a very particular notion of the church. for lack of a better label i call it the remnant mentality model.

the idea is that God has kept a remnant faithful to Him through history from the time of the Israelite Temple. What is necessary to prove in this context is that you are in this faithful line, hence the need to align your group with all those groups that fought and died contrary to the Roman church.

neat theory, impossible to disprove, something like _Holy Blood, Holy Grail_, secret, faithful, godly etc etc....

[Amazing Rando]

Why not? :hehe:

IMO, those Baptists who feel the need to trace historical roots outside the RCC/OCC back to early Christianity do so because they think that Baptists are the only true Christians.

That would be the impression I get too.

[Tye Porter]

That would be the impression I get too.

The catholics came after the Christians.
They don't represent us.
We may be double protesting:
1) The catholic representation of Christianity (Christ)
2) Being called protestant because the world assumes we're related to the catholic religion.

We're not protestants, catholics, religious nor decendants of catholics or protestants.

It doesn't matter the title there is only one Christianity and it's definition is found in the Bible. Catholics, mormons, protestants, etc (world religions) are not illustrations of that Biblical Faith.

Wow, talk about blast from the past.
Let this sleeping dog lie, folks.
Some of you trying to explain to a Christian what Christians are is like apples explaining to the orange what the apple tastes like.

:lol: Ha ha ha ha :lol:

[Contarini]

The catholics came after the Christians.
They don't represent us.

Catholics are Christians. To claim otherwise is to play dishonest and ridiculous games with language.


We're not protestants, catholics, religious nor decendants of catholics or protestants.

That is a lie. Baptists have a definite, discernable historical beginning in the early 17th century. They were radical Separatists who left the Church of England because they believed that it was still too close to Catholicism. You are one of the more radical Protestant groups, but you are clearly and demonstrably Protestant.

And of course you are religious. You go to church, you pray, you read a sacred text, you hold beliefs about God and the afterlife, you have a relationship with a savior figure. These are all characteristics of religion.

Opposing a relationship with Jesus to religion is like saying, "I don't eat food, I eat steak."

It doesn't matter the title there is only one Christianity and it's definition is found in the Bible. Catholics, mormons, protestants, etc (world religions) are not illustrations of that Biblical Faith.

So you believe. But the rest of us disagree with you, and you can't impose your definition on us in the face of normal historic usage.

Wow, talk about blast from the past.
Let this sleeping dog lie, folks.

No, as long as you make false claims, people will stand up to you and point out the absurdity of what you are saying.

In Christ,

Edwin

[dizzle]

w/b Tye

[Spirit-Filled]

To be quite honest denominations are not mentioned in The Bible.God started a Body or Fellowship of Christ.Man started the denomantional system.

[furay]

To be quite honest denominations are not mentioned in The Bible.
Yep. :yes:

God started a Body or Fellowship of Christ.
That He did and the Orthodox Church that He established still exists to this day. The gates of hell have not prevailed against it.

Man started the denomantional system.
Unfortunately this is true. Thankfully, Christ has kept His Church strong and visible and open to all. Glory to the All-Holy and Life-Giving Trinity!

[Tye Porter]

I don't mind that many of you disagree with the fact that the catholic religion is not Christianity.
I don't mind that many of you disagree with the fact the world's religions do not represent Biblical Christianity and that it is not a religion but a Faith, a way of life.
I'm sad that you believe that way and if I was able, I'd introduce you to Christ and to an eternity with Him.
I have a host of one of my live shows (we've talked about him some time ago) who is a preterist.
We've talked tons and we've agreed that the "understanding" that we have of the Bible is completely different from each others.
Where Christians believe that we are saved from damnation and presented with an eternal life in Heaven with the Lord after the death of our physical bodies, he explained to me that preterests believe that the Kingdom.Reign of the Lord is already here in place on the earth and that the Bible was not written for those of us living today but those pre-70 AD; that salvation was not from "sin" but from the death that was coming with the destruction. I asked him about the supposed lack of death and marriage in the millennial Reign he explained that the Word of God was not absolute but relative. Seeing as we are not dying in groves as they were back then, as we're not starving or being forced to marry, in prespective (relatively) there is not death, illness, hunger or marriage, like there was back then.
Etc Etc Etc
So we don't have the same beliefs, the same God.
I'm a Christian, he's a preterist.

I'm sure y'all will love that one....

(sorry Dee Dee - no disrespect to you and your faith, I'm simply taking a stab at the idiots who refuse to think with their brains on here)

[Jude3b]

Good analysis Richard. In my view, if you're a Christian, you're either Roman Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant. It seems to me that if you believe in most of the tenets of the Protestant revolution (sola scriptura, priesthood of all believers, salvation by faith alone, etc.) that makes you a de facto Protestant whether you like it or not.

In this thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21737), we decided by a vote of 22 to 4 that RightIdea is indeed a Protestant, despite his claims to the contrary.


Dear Amazing Rando:

I suppose everyone can hold their own opinion, however I take issue with making someone into a "de facto Protestant" as you call it.

I personally believe that the Bible is true and final authority given to us by God, I believe in the priesthood of all true believers, salvation by faith alone and that does not make me a Protestant - but rather a Christian and a follower of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

[Bob Marcaurelle]

an interesting essay defending "Why Baptists are not Protestants" at: http://www.picknowl.com.au/homepages/rlister/bibfund/baptists.htm
i wrote a short reply


The website essay you point to is an interesting example of the division between the magisterial reformation and the radical reformation. It points to the crucial elements that differentiate the two:

from the essay:

this is a presentation of sola scriptura extremis
(see: http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=3&q=http://www.tektonics.org/solex.html&e=7627). Just me and my Bible, which is a misappropriation of the sola scriptura principle which actually puts the Bible on a level higher than any other writing. Those creeds, catechisms, doctrinal standards are more important than the masses of other human documents, but certainly on a plane lower than Scripture. Sola Scriptura had as its focus the traditions of the RCC and the institutional monopoly on grace. The image of Sola Scriptura is that nothing sits on the shelf with the Bible, not traditions, not the works of man, not the institutional church, but there can still be a place for respect and honor on lower shelves containing those creeds etc.

this is the issue of church government. in fact, the descendents of the reformation fall in all 3 types: congregationalist, hierarchical, presbyterian.


This is the first of the 2 key elements separating the magisterial from the radical reformation. But the distinction did not become apparent until the disestablishment of the churches during the American Revolution. He is in fact addressing erastian church-state relationships, when there are at least 3 types. State superior to church, Church superior to State, both equal. He is conflagating erastian=state controlled church with Augustine's doctrine of the two swords as seen through the Constantinian synthesis over 1000 years of European history. It is this element that he is consciously tracing through



what he is aware of is the believer's church, the called out church, the separated church. that denies the Constantinian synthesis and separates church and state.

these are consequences of a believers church. more like subpoints of point 3. And have in fact been addressed historically in those churches with direct ancestors in the reformation, i am thinking of the half-way covenant in the Congregational Churches at the time of J.Edwards.

The problem with the essay is that it neglects all of systematic theology and concentrates on just a few issues of church polity, to the great neglect of salvation, who is Jesus, etc. All issues that Baptists believe like Protestants not like either RCC or Orthodox, so i see this as a form of tunnel vision which wishs to prove that the Baptists are the descendents of the remnant that God has kept faithful to the truth through all of history when everyone else calling themeselves Christians when apostate. Not as strongly as Joseph Smith put the issue but leaning that way.

thanks for an interesting essay.
As a Baptist, I believe we are Protestants in the sense that we were born, like a grandchild, out of the Protestant "Revolution". Church of England- Congregational Puritans (Protestant)- Baptists. We are a different kind of Protestant, in that we do not believe in any denominational controls over the local church. We say we do not have creeds, but we do. Spurgeon says the man who says he has no creed- that is his creed. Some of our churches require a minimum of belief to be baptized. Almost all churches require certain doctrinal beliefs of the Pastor. Many Associations require a church to subscribe to our statement of faith and practice. The same is true for denominal employees, missionaries and semimary professors. A required belief is a creed. Baptists are wierd to each other an to other people. When we say things like we are not Protestants, we are like the lady watching the band march. She turned to a lady beside her and said, "Look, my son is the only one in step." Bob Marcaurelle, Southern Baptist Pastor, retired

[Tye Porter]

As a Baptist, I believe we are Protestants in the sense that we were born, like a grandchild, out of the Protestant "Revolution".
The religous world would like you to believe that but we were not born of any of the world's religions.
We are followers of Christ.
While the book was cannonized by the religious, it was God/The Spirit which caused it to be so.
Don't give credit to any religion for the Christian Faith.
The Christian Faith has been around since the Crusifixion.
The catholic religion was an offshoot of the Christian Faith and protestants and the anglican religions are offshoots of the catholic religion.
The Christian Faith came BEFORE the catholic religion, so how can we, as Christians be protestants?

[Joe Gofish]

an interesting essay defending "Why Baptists are not Protestants" at: http://www.picknowl.com.au/homepages/rlister/bibfund/baptists.htm
i wrote a short reply


The website essay you point to is an interesting example of the division between the magisterial reformation and the radical reformation. It points to the crucial elements that differentiate the two:

from the essay:

this is a presentation of sola scriptura extremis
(see: http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=3&q=http://www.tektonics.org/solex.html&e=7627). Just me and my Bible, which is a misappropriation of the sola scriptura principle which actually puts the Bible on a level higher than any other writing. Those creeds, catechisms, doctrinal standards are more important than the masses of other human documents, but certainly on a plane lower than Scripture. Sola Scriptura had as its focus the traditions of the RCC and the institutional monopoly on grace. The image of Sola Scriptura is that nothing sits on the shelf with the Bible, not traditions, not the works of man, not the institutional church, but there can still be a place for respect and honor on lower shelves containing those creeds etc.

this is the issue of church government. in fact, the descendents of the reformation fall in all 3 types: congregationalist, hierarchical, presbyterian.


This is the first of the 2 key elements separating the magisterial from the radical reformation. But the distinction did not become apparent until the disestablishment of the churches during the American Revolution. He is in fact addressing erastian church-state relationships, when there are at least 3 types. State superior to church, Church superior to State, both equal. He is conflagating erastian=state controlled church with Augustine's doctrine of the two swords as seen through the Constantinian synthesis over 1000 years of European history. It is this element that he is consciously tracing through



what he is aware of is the believer's church, the called out church, the separated church. that denies the Constantinian synthesis and separates church and state.

these are consequences of a believers church. more like subpoints of point 3. And have in fact been addressed historically in those churches with direct ancestors in the reformation, i am thinking of the half-way covenant in the Congregational Churches at the time of J.Edwards.

The problem with the essay is that it neglects all of systematic theology and concentrates on just a few issues of church polity, to the great neglect of salvation, who is Jesus, etc. All issues that Baptists believe like Protestants not like either RCC or Orthodox, so i see this as a form of tunnel vision which wishs to prove that the Baptists are the descendents of the remnant that God has kept faithful to the truth through all of history when everyone else calling themeselves Christians when apostate. Not as strongly as Joseph Smith put the issue but leaning that way.

thanks for an interesting essay.
There are three religious truths:
a. Jews do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah.
b. Protestants do not recognize the Pope as the leader of the Christian faith.
c. Baptists do not recognize each other in the liquor store or at Hooters.

[Joe Gofish]

To be quite honest denominations are not mentioned in The Bible.God started a Body or Fellowship of Christ.Man started the denomantional system.
YES, And they started them because of Sola Scriptura with 32,000 and still getting stronger

[timspong]

I thought you might find this site interesting:

http://www.founders.org/

Trying to bring baptist back to their historic foundational principles.

[Zguy28]

So, with regards to the opening post, was he comparing Baptists with Montanists?

If so, the author is WRONG. Montanists believed that if you sin at all after being justified and baptized, there remained no forgiveness or cleansing whatsoever. This is the group that Tertullian fell into.

[Solly]

There are three religious truths:
a. Jews do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah.
b. Protestants do not recognize the Pope as the leader of the Christian faith.
c. Baptists do not recognize each other in the liquor store or at Hooters.



:rofl:

[ChrisChillin]

I thought you might find this site interesting:

http://www.founders.org/

Trying to bring baptist back to their historic foundational principles.

Only if you believe you have to be Calvinist to follow "historic Baptist principles."

[Maxentius]

Joe,

YES, And they started them because of Sola Scriptura with 32,000 and still getting stronger

This claim has been refuted:

http://www.ntrmin.org/30000denominations.htm

[Rusty T]

I don't know how many different denominations there are, but I do know that the Pentecostal tradition I grew up in has been fractured by denominationalism: Church of God, Church of God in Christ, Assembly of God, UPC, Jesus Name, the Apostolic Church, etc. etc. And the number of small, very insular denominations! Bible Holiness Fellowship, etc. Quite a large number who think the differences were great enough to start their own group.

rusty

[Solly]

Only if you believe you have to be Calvinist to follow "historic Baptist principles."

The Arminian baptists died out twice in England. The Calvinistic Baptists kept going from 1633-ish down to the present day, and provided a lot of input to America, ie, SBC, Primitives, etc. So it is not too far wrong to say this. Historically.

[Solly]

I don't know how many different denominations there are, but I do know that the Pentecostal tradition I grew up in has been fractured by denominationalism: Church of God, Church of God in Christ, Assembly of God, UPC, Jesus Name, the Apostolic Church, etc. etc. And the number of small, very insular denominations! Bible Holiness Fellowship, etc. Quite a large number who think the differences were great enough to start their own group.

rusty

The two biggest problems for prots: sin and ego; or, you're wrong, and I've got a call from God. But it must be recognised that a lot of denominations grew out of missional activity, or eparation from declining churches.

And the RCC just keep their denoms in house.

[ChrisChillin]

The Arminian baptists died out twice in England. The Calvinistic Baptists kept going from 1633-ish down to the present day, and provided a lot of input to America, ie, SBC, Primitives, etc. So it is not too far wrong to say this. Historically.

I'm uncertain as to what "second death" you have in mind for the GB. The only decline I know of was the fall into Unitarianism/Socinianism in the middle of the 18th century. Even then, they never fully "died out" although it was indeed a small number who drew together to form the New Connexion. The New Connexion did not disappear, but subsequently joined the Baptist Union. While the Particular Baptists, meanwhile, did not "die out," they also experienced decline and stagnation amidst hyper-Calvinism.

The main point, though, is that if the Founders Movement people call for a return to "historic Baptist principles" and essentially identify these as TULIP, then they play selectively with history and merely choose their favorites. They are not "far" wrong, but in that they are wrong.

By the way, are you in the BUGB?

[Solly]

I'm uncertain as to what "second death" you have in mind for the GB. The only decline I know of was the fall into Unitarianism/Socinianism in the middle of the 18th century. Even then, they never fully "died out" although it was indeed a small number who drew together to form the New Connexion. The New Connexion did not disappear, but subsequently joined the Baptist Union. While the Particular Baptists, meanwhile, did not "die out," they also experienced decline and stagnation amidst hyper-Calvinism.

The main point, though, is that if the Founders Movement people call for a return to "historic Baptist principles" and essentially identify these as TULIP, then they play selectively with history and merely choose their favorites. They are not "far" wrong, but in that they are wrong.

By the way, are you in the BUGB?

Hi Chris. As a denomination they died out. There was an earlier decline too. The new Connexion was a restart, from my historical reading.

The Particulars are still around, and not all affected by the HC you mention. The Grace Baptist Union is calvinistic, and unaffected. The Gospel Standard's are , and are on the way out.
Baptist Associationism is a bit complicated in the UK, as there were lots of groupos doing different things. The Baptist Union was a union of Particulars, of the likes of Ryland and Fuller, and the Arminians then joined them, leaving smaller groups like the Earthen Vessel group, separate, as well as the Norfolk and Suffolk Association. Some of these other groups came together to form the Grace Baptists. Spurgeon was an independent after he left the BU.

I am technically BUGB now, but we are something of a maverick congregation, as we have links with the local Anglican diocese too, and even host anAnglican home mission team.

[spiritmech]

Hi Chris. As a denomination they died out. There was an earlier decline too. The new Connexion was a restart, from my historical reading.

The Particulars are still around, and not all affected by the HC you mention. The Grace Baptist Union is calvinistic, and unaffected. The Gospel Standard's are , and are on the way out.
Baptist Associationism is a bit complicated in the UK, as there were lots of groupos doing different things. The Baptist Union was a union of Particulars, of the likes of Ryland and Fuller, and the Arminians then joined them, leaving smaller groups like the Earthen Vessel group, separate, as well as the Norfolk and Suffolk Association. Some of these other groups came together to form the Grace Baptists. Spurgeon was an independent after he left the BU.

I am technically BUGB now, but we are something of a maverick congregation, as we have links with the local Anglican diocese too, and even host anAnglican home mission team.

That's mighty complicated. I thought Orthodox jurisdictions were bad.
sm

[Solly]

:lol: Just go and take a look at what the Presbyterians do then...