Baptists not Protestant?

[Pax]

Ask any crediable theologian and they will tell you that the Catholic Church is the starting point of Christianity.

I think , rather, Christianity was the starting point for Catholicism. Then the Catholic church went one direction and those who didn't agree with them went another.

I don't understand why it is such a problem to think that everyone didn't march in lock step with the Catholics. Knowing human nature, do you really think that up until 1500 everyone thought just alike and suddenly Luther caused people to say, "Hey, wait a minute! I think I don't believe like them anymore..."

I just don't get that line of thinking at all.

Something to think about Island Rose is that Christianity was founded by Jesus Christ, correct? So any person who didn't agree with Jesus Christ went another way, and yes some did. You had the Arians, Dontists etc. Its just that in the 1500's you had a Martin Luther keeping many of the core beliefs of the early Church, but also dropping some. This was the major slplit in Cristendom.

The Great Schism of 1056 between the eastern and western Chruch was over the authority of the Pope. The eastern Church still kept all 7 Sacraments of the Catholic Church in there entirity. Luther kept two, Marriage and Baptism. Yes Lutherans still have what they call the Eucharist, but they believe that it is both bread and Christ. Catholics believe that it is the complete body of Christ. So you are basically correct in what you said.

[nebula]

So, Kittylover, was your question about the Baptists answered amidts all this Catholic apologetics?

[apothanein kerdos]

So, in our atempt to delegitimize Hitler, we point to the number of people he killed. Yet this is a wrong tactic when discussing the Catholic church?

I'm not saying Catholics are the equivalent to Hitler (though some popes could give him a run for his money), wht I am saying is why are Catholics uncomfortable looking to it as a legitimate response.

Fact is Pax, you did what you do in all other topics; you defaulted to rhetoric. That should get you thinking. I continued the discussion, showing why Augustine's beliefs (at least some) ran contrary to the Catholic church, meaning that in doctrine, he was not a Catholic. You instead chose to go the way of rhetoric. This shows more brainwashing than conviction from the heart....I know you can't be comfortable with that Pax.....

I resent the fact that you are using Hitler and the Catholic Church in the same sentence. This tells me alot about what you have been taught. I would never dream of using Hitler and any other denomination in the same sentence.

I am one of two Catholics on this board so of course I am going to have people say, hey you are brainwashed and all you ever do is use circular reasoning etc. I am completely comfortable with being Catholic. I was born and raised Baptist so I have been on both sides of the fence. In the future AK, don't put Hitler in the same sentence as another persons Church.....you won't get far with them.

You have yet to answer anything of substance Pax. You keep going, "Don't refer to our history!" and using distraction tactics whilst ignoring the issue at hand. It's a good comparison, the Catholic Church and Hitler, when looking to the history. I am not saying the Catholic church is like Hitler (I already said this) but that, when we try to look to why Hitler was evil, we often use the fact he killed millions of people as a justification. Thus, if we look to the Catholic church, why do you implore us to ignore the millions it has killed? Furthermore, I would use Hitler as a justified comparison to Lutherans, Baptists, Puritans, etc. The reason being is that all three (and more) have used the same tactics. Why is this not justified?

Secondly, you have yet to responded to the fact Augustine taught a distinctly protestant belief. This goes back to the original question of how old the Baptists are. I would say that their doctrines have been around since the second century, and I can back this up with numerous teachings from the church fathers. This is something you absolutely cannot refute because it is history, it is very black and white. This is why you keep skirting around the issue and not tackling it head on.

[kittylover0991]

So, Kittylover, was your question about the Baptists answered amidts all this Catholic apologetics?

lol.. in its own way.. I guess. I mean, I recently found out about two weeks this whole thing with Baptists and Protestants and the Catholic Church. I fear that the only reason I can possibly follow the discussion between AK and Pax is because I am currently in AP European History and we went from the Middle Ages and currently passed the Industrial Revolution. My favorite topic so far has been the Renassaince and Protestant Reformation as I found out about the break from the Catholic church and about Luther of whom I had never about. I knew that Protestants and Catholics completely different agreed on issues, but I never knew that that is where the Protestant churches came from.

As to whether or not my question was answered... It seems that Baptists don't want to recognized with the Catholic church and the Catholic church wants to say that they were the first church as any other religion would love to say... It is truly a special thing to be able to say that your religion goes back to the time of the first churches.. . The fact that many groups can tell the date when they began demonstrates that they founded other than when the Lord started the local church. I can see just how special that really is through Pax's passion about her church. Honestly, I have seen few who love their church as much as Pax and willing to stick up for it as biblical... especially one that is looked down upon so much as the Catholic Church.

As it is special for teh Cathlics to say that they were to first church, it is also special that the Baptists can say that they were never associated with the Roman Catholic Church(because of publicized unbiblical standpoints... whether true or not) and that they started with the first churches. It is something that seems as special as salvation itself... it seems to be the heart of church following salvation.. their roots... and their people... Those three things seems most important to church with doctrine weaved through it all. I feel that my question has been answered.. however, I guess I will have to do my own study to find out about more about this and have my own answers as to how the church began.

I must say, however, that this thread has been most interesting and deeply appreciate AK and Pax for really taking on the question and going into depths I coudl never have imagined would link. However, history is like almost like a play.. where one scene and act leads to a next. We are all on the Lord's stage I guess...

However.. I fear that by posting this... this thread will then end and will never hear conclusion of AK and Pax.. their lovely discussion of passion for history and for the church and Lord they love.... Maybe I shouldnt' have said all this.. but both of you have been an inspiration to study more indepth into the things of God and what has really happened in history.. not based on man's interpretations.. but rather fact.

Thankyou everyone(not just Pax and AK ) for posting on this thread and thankyou neb for asking

[Pax]

So, Kittylover, was your question about the Baptists answered amidts all this Catholic apologetics?

lol.. in its own way.. I guess. I mean, I recently found out about two weeks this whole thing with Baptists and Protestants and the Catholic Church. I fear that the only reason I can possibly follow the discussion between AK and Pax is because I am currently in AP European History and we went from the Middle Ages and currently passed the Industrial Revolution. My favorite topic so far has been the Renassaince and Protestant Reformation as I found out about the break from the Catholic church and about Luther of whom I had never about. I knew that Protestants and Catholics completely different agreed on issues, but I never knew that that is where the Protestant churches came from.

As to whether or not my question was answered... It seems that Baptists don't want to recognized with the Catholic church and the Catholic church wants to say that they were the first church as any other religion would love to say... It is truly a special thing to be able to say that your religion goes back to the time of the first churches.. . The fact that many groups can tell the date when they began demonstrates that they founded other than when the Lord started the local church. I can see just how special that really is through Pax's passion about her church. Honestly, I have seen few who love their church as much as Pax and willing to stick up for it as biblical... especially one that is looked down upon so much as the Catholic Church.

As it is special for teh Cathlics to say that they were to first church, it is also special that the Baptists can say that they were never associated with the Roman Catholic Church(because of publicized unbiblical standpoints... whether true or not) and that they started with the first churches. It is something that seems as special as salvation itself... it seems to be the heart of church following salvation.. their roots... and their people... Those three things seems most important to church with doctrine weaved through it all. I feel that my question has been answered.. however, I guess I will have to do my own study to find out about more about this and have my own answers as to how the church began.

I must say, however, that this thread has been most interesting and deeply appreciate AK and Pax for really taking on the question and going into depths I coudl never have imagined would link. However, history is like almost like a play.. where one scene and act leads to a next. We are all on the Lord's stage I guess...

However.. I fear that by posting this... this thread will then end and will never hear conclusion of AK and Pax.. their lovely discussion of passion for history and for the church and Lord they love.... Maybe I shouldnt' have said all this.. but both of you have been an inspiration to study more indepth into the things of God and what has really happened in history.. not based on man's interpretations.. but rather fact.

Thankyou everyone(not just Pax and AK ) for posting on this thread and thankyou neb for asking

Kittylover,

Church history is very interesting and something that you could spend a lifetime studying. I need to make a couple of comments about your post. First of all I am a guy, not a girl. Secondly, the reason I am so passionate about the Catholic Church is because I am a convert. I grew up Baptist and publically bashed the Catholic Church, especially in my college years. As I began to get interested in theology I started to study and this led me to the Catholic Church. My whole family are still Baptist and I resepct them and their beliefs tremendoulsy, however I don't believe they have the fullness of the truth and they are missing out on much, especially the Sacraments. You also made the comment that the Catholic Church is looked down upon.....maybe on the worthy boards which is primarily evangelicals and fundamentalist, who are for the most part are very anti-Catholic. But the Catholic Church has much respect worldwide. As I posted earlier, the Catholic Church numbers 1.2 billion worldwide and is the largest Christian denomination. Baptist (several different sects of Baptist such as Southern, American, National and numerous offshoots) number 100 million worldwide, roughly 12 times smaller than the Catholic Church. If you remember here recently John Paul II (who was a wonderful Pope) passed away and was replaced by Pope Benedict XVI. This process was covered extensively by the media worldwide. In fact millions people packed St. Peters square in Vatican City to watch Pope Benedict XVI be instilled as the 265th Pope to fill the seat of St. Peter and lead the Catholic Church. But the bottom line is that we are all Christians, it doesn't matter if you are Baptist, Catholic, Methodist, Evangelical etc. and we should treat each other with respect like Jesus commanded us to do. We are all Brothers and sisters in Christ who are all trying to reach heaven and take as many as we can with us. The reason I am on the worthy boards is to give people a better understanding about Catholicism.....there is so much misinformation out there its amazing. God Bless you.

Pax

[John3;16]

Pax

You went from Baptist to Catholic, I went from Catholic to Baptist, and through the transition I learned a lot about the R.C.C., it wasn

[Pax]

Pax

You went from Baptist to Catholic, I went from Catholic to Baptist, and through the transition I learned a lot about the R.C.C., it wasn

[Pax]

John 3:16,

I didn't answer your last question. How did I leave the Baptist religion? This could get quit long, so I will do the cliff notes version. I was born and raised Baptist and eventually married a Catholic women. Religion to me wasn't one of my priorities so I didn't care if we went to the Catholic Church. I never participated in mass but just watched. I would however make fun of the mass and the Church afterwards, very much to the dismay of my wife. As I continued to attend I realized that there was something special here that I had never expereinced in any other Church. I would later realize that it was the actual presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. I eventually went through very difficult times with my wife that brought me to my knees. I sincerely asked Christ to come into my life and help me. To my amazement he did in a big way. I now realized that God existed and I wanted to find out the truth. I went back to my old Baptist pastor and talked with him about the Baptist Church. I talked to Mormans......not for to long. I talked to my cousin who had just married a Muslim. I talked with other Protestant denominations. I eventually talked with a good young Catholic priest right out of the seminary. He could answer every question I asked. I then began to study Catholicism and compare it to other Churches and their teachings. I spoke frequently with my mother who is a devaut Baptist. In the end, the Catholic teachings held water and made complete logical sense. The others had elements of the truth, but not the fullness of the truth. One question that kept stumping me is, why would God leave us here with no direction. Yes we have the Bible, but when was the Bible completed in its entirety? 350 years after the time Christ had died. So what did all the Christians have to follow then for guidance during those 350 years after the time of Christ and before the Bible was completed. They had oral tradition passed down from the Christ through the apsotles and eventually some of it, but not all was compiled in the Bible. The Church came before the Bible. The Bible didn't come before the Church. Look at all the thousands of different denominations around the world teaching strictly from the Bible. If all we needed was the Bible then why isn't there only one Bible based Church teaching exactly from the Bible. Simply because they all don't teach the same thing from the Bible, so I ask you where is the truth. Would God leave us here on earth without the fullness of the truth? Not a chance, remember what Jesus says to us in Mathew 16:18. He promised that the gates of hell will never prevail against his Church. Notice that he says ONE church, not thousands of Christian denominations all teaching different things. The biggest argument against Protestantism is the splintering of thousands of different denominations. Would God want unity, one body, or thousands of different bodies all teaching different things. Is the devil going to be able to destroy one united Church, or is he going to be able to pick all these fractured denominations that can't agree on the foundations of faith and moral. The devil will never prevail against Christs Church as stated in Mathew. However, break off from this Church and you are easy pickings for the devil. The foundational dogma of the Catholic Church hasn't changed for 2,000 years and never will. It can't because this is the Church established by Christ. This is what eventually drove me to the Catholic Church. Hope this answers your question.

Pax

[kittylover0991]

I can't say that what you have said has made me think any differently about the Baptist church, but what you said was amazing. There are few things that the Catholic Church teaches/preaches such as purgatory, baptism of babies, and universal church(I believe in an autonomous church)... but what you said was amazing. It also amazes me that at least one part of the Catholic church actually teaches true salvation(from what you have said). There is a lady at my church who was born and raised Catholic and even brought her children up Catholic. She said that there was a lady(I am guessing at work) that continually tried to tell her about Jesus. She said it took a while, but one day, she finally relized that she wasnt' truly saved and accepted Christ. It seems weird to me that some woudl go from one religion to another, and others would go from that other religion, back to the one someone else just left. It amazes me that different churches.. or parts of the Catholic church, it seems, teaches different things then others. Many baptists are different than others, and it seems that differnt parts of the Catholic Church teach different things.

Some "churches" don't have God as the focus and they have false teachings because man is the center. These few churches seems to ruin the name of that church in so many ways. As to the doctrinal soundness of the Catholic church, I honestly have no idea other than those three areas that i previously mentioned. I hear so many different things from formet Catholics and so many different things from former Protestants who are now Catholic to know what Catholic Church really teaches. I am always told "Here, read this! It will tell you what the Catholic Church believes." Someone else will say, "Here, read this! That other book you have has errors. There are a few thigns the Catholic church doesn't agree with". There are so many people who will give you book after book as to what the Catholic church really beleives(given to me by Catholics).. and no one ever seems to fully agree with another. I think the problem isn't that one has to be Catholic to understand what the Catholic Church believes, it seems to me that there are enough people not teaching the pure word of God that it leaves confusion as to what is really believed. I am sorry Pax, but I just don't know what is true about the Catholic Church anymore and I don't know where to start looking for the answers to what the TRUE Catholic church believes.

With love in Christ Jesus,

Crystal

[IslandRose]

One question that kept stumping me is, why would God leave us here with no direction. Yes we have the Bible, but when was the Bible completed in its entirety? 350 years after the time Christ had died. So what did all the Christians have to follow then for guidance during those 350 years after the time of Christ and before the Bible was completed. They had oral tradition passed down from the Christ through the apostles and eventually some of it, but not all was compiled in the Bible. The Church came before the Bible. The Bible didn't come before the Church.

First of all, the early Christians had what we now call the Old Testament from the beginning. The final form of the OT was finally decided upon by Ezra and the members of the Great Synagogue in the 5th Century B.C. Those were the Scriptures that Christ used to teach.

As for what we now call the New Testament, No the church didn't come before the Bible, they were both brought up together. Those scripture were being written and shared among the churches from the beginning. I recently shared some things I have been learning in my Bible Doctrines class with a poster in a PM. I don't think he will care if I quote what I shared with him....

First, What is the meaning of the term canon? It comes from the Greek word kanon which refers to a measuring instrument. It originally meant creeds but came to mean the list of accepted books that made up the Bible. It means both the list of books that met certain tests or rules, it also means that the collection of books becomes our rule for life.

Much of the evidence of canonocity for the Old Testament is self authenticity. In other words, the book itself claims to be the Word of God. References throughout the OT pronounce the Law of Moses to be authoritative. The prophets claim to be speaking for God. ( I can give references for these things if you wish....)

Then Malachi 4:5 indicates that the prophetic witness would end with Malachi and not begin again until the coming of and Elijah-like prophet in th person of John the Baptist. (Matthew 17:11-12)

The canon of Old Testament was finally decided in the 5th Century BC by Ezra and the members of the Great Synagogue. This was confirmed in the first century AD by Flavius Josephus and later by several recognized Jewish historians in the 12th and 15th Centuries. When the dead Sea Scrolls were discovered they were found to contained every book of the accepted canon except Esther. They also had commentaries on every one of these book. There were other writings, but no commentary on any other book than those of the accepted canon, indicating that these were recognized to be special. The Dead Sea Scrolls were from the 2nd century BC. There are also many references in the New Testaments and Christ himself referred to the "Law and the prophets, " a recognized reference to the 39 books of the OT. There's more...but I'll let you off easy here..

Now to the New Testament. There were 3 basic test for Canonicity of the New Testament. (1) The test of authority. The book had to have apostolic authority. Peter stood behind the writings of Mark. Paul behind the writings of Luke. (2) The test of Uniqueness. The book had to show internal evidence of it's uniqueness as an evidence of it's inspiration. Though this test sounds subjective, remember that it had to be unanimously accepted. (3) The test of acceptance by churches. As the books were circulated they had to be universally recognized as canonical . None of the books were rejected.

During the time of the writing of the Word, The scriptures were recognized by the writers as well as the other apostles to be the Word of God to the people. (Col. 4:16; 1 Thes 4:15) Paul recognized Luke's writings as scripture ( 1 Tim 5:18) Peter recognized Paul's writings as scripture (2 Peter 3:16). during the period from 70-170 AD the church fathers extensively quoted the NT scriptures. To the extent we could completely reconstruct the NT from quotes from the early church fathers. The Council of Carthage (397) recognized the limits of the NT to be the 27 books already in use. It is important to note they did not chose the books, but simple recognized what was already accepted as the New Testament canon. ...

...

Final note. The book of Jude was one of the last books penned. We read in Jude 3:

Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

The phrase once delivered to the saints indicates once for all, complete not to be repeated. The Bible is complete. It is God's revelation to man and is not to be added to.

This site has more information about how long the scriptures were recognized before the Council of Carthage (397).

IR