HELP me convey to my Baptist friend that he is a Protestant!

  • Thread starter Thread starter JSmitty2005
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Your Baptist friend is definitely not a protestant. The founders of the Baptist were not Catholics before they became Christians so they were not protesting anything. The reformers were Catholics that were protesting the corruption and heresy in the Catholic Church.

forever Baptist
allischalmers
 
40.png
allischalmers:
Your Baptist friend is definitely not a protestant. The founders of the Baptist were not Catholics before they became Christians so they were not protesting anything. The reformers were Catholics that were protesting the corruption and heresy in the Catholic Church.

forever Baptist
allischalmers
Click to expand...
Trail of blood right?
Even baptists debunked that. :rotfl:

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
 
40.png
Nicene:
Trail of blood right?
Even baptists debunked that. :rotfl:
Click to expand...
In fact, years after having written Trail of Blood, Carroll wrote of himself, “Extensive graduate study and independent investigation of church history has, however, convinced [the author] that the view he once held so dear has not been, and cannot be, verified. On the contrary, surviving primary documents render the successionist view untenable. . . . Although free church groups in ancient and medieval times sometimes promoted doctrines and practices agreeable to modern Baptists, when judged by standards now acknowledged as baptistic, not one of them merits recognition as a Baptist church. Baptists arose in the seventeenth century in Holland and England. They are Protestants, heirs of the reformers” (Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History [1994], 1–2).
 
Sorry:
Not the trial of blood, Never read it.
“Are Baptist Reform” by Rev. Dr. Kenneth Good" YES

forever Baptist
allischalmers
 
40.png
allischalmers:
Sorry:
Not the trial of blood, Never read it.
“Are Baptist Reform” by Rev. Dr. Kenneth Good" YES

forever Baptist
allischalmers
Click to expand...
You mean “Are Baptists Calvinists?”

*‘The GARBC needs now to defend its original Calvinism with a vigor similar to that which characterized its original defense of its fundamentalism.’
*Kenneth Good, P. 190

Hrmm, Calvin, where did he come from again?

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
 
Sorry;
that’s another book. he also wrote “Are Baptist Reform”

forever Baptist and calvinist
allischalmers
 
40.png
allischalmers:
Sorry;
that’s another book. he also wrote “Are Baptist Reform”

forever Baptist and calvinist
allischalmers
Click to expand...
Should be interesting, however according to the notes he doesn’t claim they aren’t from that period he just claims their views are different from the reformed christians regarding organization, and scripture:

Are Baptists Reformed
*“To some the appellation Reformed Baptist is a contradiction in terms. To others it remains a valid name for Baptists who have espoused the essentials of Calvinistic theology, with the exception, of course, of its doctrines of paedo-baptism and the church. Various modifiers have been selected by Baptists who cling to the gospel of sovereign grace and the “Baptist Distinctives”: Particular, Regular, Conservative, Orthodox, Calvinistic, Independent, and others.
Are Baptists Reformed? Clarifies a number of important issues, especially those concerned with the Word of God and its application, and with the nature and manifestation of the church. With thoroughness and insightful historical perspective, Dr. Good probes the dilemma faced by many orthodox Baptists and concludes that Baptists do indeed differ from Reformed Christians in their view of Scripture and the church considered as organism and organization. Thorough discussion of these topics brings to light significant differences in bibliology and ecclesiology.
Although the historical perspective is present throughout, it comes to clearest focus in the final chapter. Of necessity the history of Baptists is in capsule form, but the survey clearly indicates the distinctive philosophy of church history that is the heritage of Baptists.”
*
How does this square with his quote above? Does he now abandon Calvin and calvinism? Or are you misrepresenting him?

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
 
40.png
Nicene:
Should be interesting, however according to the notes he doesn’t claim they aren’t from that period he just claims their views are different from the reformed christians regarding organization, and scripture
Click to expand...
This isn’t news, allischambers, baptists and anabaptists are often called the radical reformers. But they nonetheless cannot trace their roots back any further than the “reformation.”
 
I first meet Dr. Good in 1947 when he was called to be pastor of our church. He served there from 1947 thur 1954. He served at our church again as interim pastor in 1963 and 1964. In all the years that I know him he never waviered in his views of fundamentalism and calvinism.
I think that reading the whole book and not just the back cover you will discover that that founders of the Baptist movement where not protestant nor former Catholics

forever Baptist
allischalmers
 
40.png
allischalmers:
I first meet Dr. Good in 1947 when he was called to be pastor of our church. He served there from 1947 thur 1954. He served at our church again as interim pastor in 1963 and 1964. In all the years that I know him he never waviered in his views of fundamentalism and calvinism.
I think that reading the whole book and not just the back cover you will discover that that founders of the Baptist movement where not protestant nor former Catholics

forever Baptist
allischalmers
Click to expand...
So? :confused:
 
“To some people, saying Baptists are Protestants sounds strange, because they think Baptists are a category of Christians unto themselves. On the contrary, for many Baptists it is important to be seen as part of the Protestant family and Baptists have certainly made important contributions to the overall meaning of Protestantism.”

www.baptisthistory.org/contissues/brackney.htm

A Catholic response to “The Trail of Blood”:

www.turrisfortis.com/trail.html

Answers.com:

www.answers.com/topic/protestantism

For some of the major tendencies in Protestantism, see Adventists; Anabaptists**; **Baptists; Calvinism; Congregationalism; Lutheranism; Methodism; Pentecostalism; Presbyterianism; Puritanism; spiritism; Unitarianism.
 
I think encouraging him to read the Church Fathers might be a better way to go than trying to convince him he’s Protestant. Introducing him to the early Christian teachers can lead him to questions such as, “Why is it that the teachings of the Early Church so Catholic? And if these doctrines were corruptions of Jesus’ original teachings, then where are the writings of the people disputing this?” It is these kind of questions that could lead him to the Church. Try not to argue with him, especially out of an attitude of “i’m right and you’re wrong.” Otherwise, he may begin to see the truth, but simply refuse it because he doesn’t want to admit that what he believes is wrong. It is not an easy thing to do, trust me, I know.
Anyway, I took a brief look at that Trail of Blood page. I loved how he states so matter-of-factly that “Mariolatry” was a completly new idea that caused a lot of controversy in the Church and many people opposed, without showing any evidence that this is the case. If this is the truth, why not quote the early Christians that opposed “Mariolatry?” Oh well. At least they didn’t say, “We’d like to quote them, but the Catholic Church destroyed all of those documents.” That’s what I hate about conspiracy theories (both religous and secular, ie “Who Killed JFK?”). They base their evidence on the fact that they don’t have any evidence. :whacky:
 
Use the criteria that Tertullian used against heretics before he became a heretic. Ask him two questions. 1. Ask him if he can trace and verify Apostolic succession from his pastor (the one who ordained his pastor and so forth) back all the way to the apostles of whom were taught by Christ himself? 2. If any of their teachings contradict the Holy Scriptures like not confessing your sins before God and Christs validly ordained priests in Confession John 20:21-23, 2Cor 2:10, and James 5:14-16. And Salvation by faith and works in Christ. As clearly taught in James 2:14,17-18,24,& 26. Infact, the only place you see words Faith Alone in the Bible have the two words **NOT BY ** right in front of them!!! Therefore, any so called religion that teaches that you don’t need to go to confession and that you are saved by faith alone is clearly contradicting Jesus and his apostles whom he taught. Anything contradicting Jesus’s Teaching is demonic & anti-christian teaching!!! 👍
 
I would like someone to show me a record from the Catholic Church of the apostolic succession of a moderm day priest all the way back to an apostle, there is no such record.
The Catholic church does not even have a record of an unbroken line of popes back to the apostles simply because no bishop of Roman claimed supremacy or authority as pope untill nthe third century.

forever Baptist
allischalmers
 
Please do not send me to Catholic web sites to prove your point.
I want true history not twisted history. No bishop in the first three centuries claimed to be the leader of the whole of Christendom although a few centurys later some popes claimed to have authority over the whole world christians and non-christians alike. The thought they where mighter than kings and emperers which is what brought on the DARK AGES of the church.

forever Baptist
allischalmers
 
40.png
allischalmers:
I want true history not twisted history. No bishop in the first three centuries claimed to be the leader of the whole of Christendom
Click to expand...
St Irenaeus

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter **A.D. 180-190]).
 
40.png
allischalmers:
I would like someone to show me a record from the Catholic Church of the apostolic succession of a moderm day priest all the way back to an apostle, there is no such record.
The Catholic church does not even have a record of an unbroken line of popes back to the apostles simply because no bishop of Roman claimed supremacy or authority as pope untill nthe third century.

forever Baptist
allischalmers
Click to expand...
You said “The Catholic Church does not have” a record of an unbroken line of popes back to the apostles. You wanted the list the Catholic Church has but you don’t want it to come from a Catholic source? How does that make sense?
 
40.png
allischalmers:
Please do not send me to Catholic web sites to prove your point.
I want true history not twisted history. No bishop in the first three centuries claimed to be the leader of the whole of Christendom
Click to expand...
Can you prove this? Where is the evidence to back up this claim? Please post again with documented quotes from bishops or other members of the Early Church demonstrating that all of the bishops thought that they were equal. Furthermore, while Catholic websites and historical accounts may be biased in favor of Catholicism, ALL historical writings, whether Catholic, Buddhist, or Atheist, has a bias. Part of being an educated reader is identifying a writer’s bias, in whatever subject you’re reading. An educated reader will sometimes seek out writing with a completly different bias than his own, to educate himself on the opinions of the other side. It is rediculous to think that Baptists, or Catholics or Feminists or Marxists for that matter, hold a monopoly on unbiased historical writing.
40.png
allischalmers:
although a few centurys later some popes claimed to have authority over the whole world christians and non-christians alike. The thought they where mighter than kings and emperers which is what brought on the DARK AGES of the church.

forever Baptist
allischalmers
Click to expand...
I am a history major in college and I spent a year learning medieval history (intro to medieval history and the crusades) at a secular university. First of all, no reputable historian refers to the middle ages as the “dark ages.” Popular opinion seems to be that the “dark ages” stayed the same for 1,000 years, although historians divide the middle ages into three periods: early, high, and late. Europe DID undergo incredible changes during the middle ages. (I wish it didn’t; those classes would have been A LOT easier. :yup: )
Second of all, the popes were NOT these tyrannical leaders throughout the middle ages, subjecting poor kings to their will. In the earlier middle ages, kings actually had a lot more power over popes and religious leaders; the Frankish king of (what is now) Germany picked the pope when the papal election fell through in the 11th century, and kings could pick bishops and wealthy nobles could pick the heads of abbeys. In the 11th century the church decided that the kings could not give religous officials their power, which lead to massive reforms. So your statement that during the so-called “Dark Ages” the poor, pathetic kings were being terrorised by these super-powerful popes does not really reflect the entire medieval period and the struggle of Church and state.
BTW, read about the middle ages, if for no other reason, it is an EXCEPTIONALLY fascinating period in history.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top