If it's new it ain't true

And no Calvinists in your church existed before Calvin!
But we do have some pretty aged people sitting on those pews.

There is plenty of evidence, especially taking into consideration the meaning of the name: ana-baptist--to baptize again. It was given out of hatred and disparagement. Those that baptized again (after conversion) were persecuted, and that happened hundreds of years before the Reformation, and for that very reason. These same people were also known as the Albigenses and Waldenses. The testimony of Cardinal Hosius is that the Waldenses existed for these last 1200 years right back to the Apostles. For being Bible-believers, Christians, Innocent III tried to wipe the Albigenses off the face of the map. There are many other groups but that is enough for now.

I am not an SBC, nor do I subscribe to all their beliefs whatever they may be.

That again means nothing to me. It is a claim you make. I don't know why. Which reformer do they come from?

We are independent. We are fundamental.
An individual came here and started this church. There is no successionism involved. The local church was started by a church planter (like Paul), and thus it exists. Most of the churches in our area have been started that way. We are independent, autonomous, not belonging to any denomination, association, etc. You can't try and associate us with "roots" because we don't have any, and neither did the churches that Paul started. Their foundation was the Word of God. The head of each church was Christ. This type of church has existed all throughout history.

Then you shouldn't be condemning premillenialism, dispensationalism, etc. Diversity is good. BTW, taken into the general scheme of things these doctrines are not that new. Premillenialism is simply a natural outgrowth of the ECF's belief in Chiliasm.

This is where you are dead wrong. It is where you need to study.
The origins of the Catholic Church are closely tied to Constantine, and thus did not start until the fourth century. There was corruption in the early churches. Not all of them, but some of them. That is the reason Montanus (ca. 150) separated from them. His emphasis was on purity. He emphasized to his followers the importance of living a pure life separated from the corruption of the world. If you remember Tertullian became a Montanist near the end of his life.

Now you are playing a game of semantics. We aren't using the word that way are we.

No it doesn't. Are you advocating the ecumenical movement. I don't believe in the universal church. I believe in churches, as the word ekklesia means--or assemblies.

Your theology is flawed. There is no one Catholic body.

The word may mean 'universal' in some cases, but we haven't been using it that way.

We were not discussing the word "catholic". We were discussing the RCC. There have always been opponents of the RCC, many of whom have been Baptistic in nature, right from the Apostles onward. That you don't seem to accept. Baptists don't come from the Reformation. From which reformer do you think they came from?? They were well before the Reformation and have always protested against the heresies of the RCC.

 

Wow Luke, I understand a lot more about you after this post. I too was raised for a time in the FreeWill Baptist Church and even considered attending college at the Nashville campus. But by that time, I was already rejecting the overt attempts at legalism that was invading the denomination (early 80s). My grandfather in fact had been an itinerant Free Will preacher (among other things) during my mother's childhood (40's & 50'). As a child I sat for many hours just out of sight of the men listening to them argue over this point or another of doctrine. Then as I got older and began to read the scriptures for myself, I learned they were ALL wrong on one point or another. And it didn't matter if they were Free Will or not (and quite a few of my uncles were not!)

"He who disregards history is doomed to repeat it." (Churchill?) But while this is a good point, you can't say that just because a people have believed something for centuries or millenia even that everything they espoused can be held sacred. We have a Guide Book that we are to compare our doctrines and our beliefs too. And while we can consider what the ancients thought, we have to determine for ourselves whether or not they were or rather are still correct.

Cultural understandings change. Just as those early theologians believed heartily that the earth was flat, they may also be just as wrong in how they hold more important doctrines/beliefs.

The RC is a good example of bad doctrine evolving over 2000 years of history. But where they went wrong was on doctrines that were CLEARLY opposed to the scriptures. The RC continued on, because during those times they had the power, the military might to force their beliefs on people who didn't know any better.

We can't just look back and say, "well this doctrine is x amount of years old so it must necessarily contain some truth". We also can't reject a doctrine just because the RC was the first to propose it. We must compare all doctrine, new or old, to the plain reading of scripture and the guidance of the Holy Spirit within us.

 

I think church history is important for many reasons, but the first place we should go to scrutinize doctrines is to the word of God. What does God say? Then we can research the historical teachings.

 

The response was:

I believe this is accurate. Why does the modern day Calvinist refuse to acknowledge this fact. Both Luther and Calvin were Catholics.

I believe the true church goes back much farther than this. It goes back through the Apostles all the way to Jesus and the doctrine he preached. It's true that Luther started the Reformation with his 95 thesis, but he only returned to the idea of justification by faith, which the true church had never left.

Other than this, both Luther and Calvin did little except muddy the waters and start an elitist sect that continues to this day. Some here on this site constantly mention how important advanced theological education is to the point of disdain toward those who disagree. It is almost like a return back to the Catholic Church from whence some of their doctrine came. Next these posters might be advocating a return to infant baptism, something both Luther and Calvin never got away from.

 

Hey Ruiz

Ruiz, ask Luke if there was any church other than the RCC for 1200 years.

You ask me for one example...here it is.

John the cultist

 

This is why I don't respond to posters like Luke2427, it is a waste of time to argue with someone who is as devoted to advanced theological education as much as to the simple teachings of the Word of God.

I don't believe God needs any help; you would think a Calvinist would agree. The reason the don't is obvious. According to some we would not be able to read the Word of God and be saved. We need their theological help to even believe the Gospel. We both know that few, if any, would read the bible and come up with Calvinism without outside influence. Unfortunately, this is true of many things served up as necessary by the church today.

Personally I believe that God is able to bring conviction through the preaching and reading of the Word of God without any help at all from man. Perhaps that is the difference between a theology that relies upon our educational ability and one that doesn't.

 

...same here.

How someone can call the Word of God "simple" seemingly hasn't done much real study of it. The more you learn, the more questions you have, and the more complex it becomes.

 

There is so much to address on this issue. First, while Luther and Calvin began as Catholics, no one can doubt they left the church and were willing to die for their doctrines.

Next, to say that they were an elitist sect goes beyond all the historic evidence. Rather, if you read Calvin you note that he is meticulous to tracing his doctrine both historically and Biblically. Calvin agreed that if there was not a historic understanding of these doctrines, that he invented them, then he needed to reconsider his view.

I don't think they muddied the waters, but clarified them. Have you read the Institutes or Luther's Bondage of the Will? Extreme care and detailed clarity exists in these works.

As for Paedo-Baptism, I disagree with both of them. However, I do not view their belief as Catholic as it predated the Catholic church by a long stretch. Calvin's and Luther both rejected the Catholic view of Baptism, but they kept paedo-baptism.

Yet, all this is begging the question. If it is new, it is not true.

While Calvin and Luther rejected adamantly the Roman Dogma, they embraced theology that was historic.

While I believe there were true churches in existence when the Reformation began, I also believe God brought out true Christians from the Catholic church at that time too.

 

Some believe this is a strictly calvinistic experience, but I got this from Liberty where I attended Seminary.

Secondly, are we advocating that new theology is acceptable? Really?

We will embrace something that has not been scrutinized throughout history?

 

I agree 100%.