Protestant? RCC?

The Anabaptist name may have been established then but the true doctrinal line thru various other names goes all the way to the River Jordan... Read church history John The Revelator!... Brother Glen

[ June 05, 2002, 10:54 PM: Message edited by: tyndale1946 ]

 

Tyndale1946,

"Read church history..." according to whom?

The trend in some of the churches of the Nineteenth Century was to try to find a connection to the Early Church no matter what it involved.

Have you really looked at what the Donatists, Montanists, Albigenses and other heretics believed and preached?

Can you honestly say that you believe everything they taught?

I hope and pray that your answer is negative.

Aloha and God Bless

 

John the Revelator speaks:
Link?

 

Here are some links to follow:
Part #1:
http://www.pbministries.org/History/William%20R.%20McGrath/the_anabaptists_part1.htm

Part #2
http://www.pbministries.org/History/William%20R.%20McGrath/the_anabaptists_part2.htm

Proving that Baptists are linked with the Anabaptists, Waldenses, Donatists, Novatians, etc., is not too important. Of course, it is important that Baptists be linked with the church which has descended from Christ, but whether all (or any of) these groups named were the expressions of Christ's church in their day and age, we do not definitely know. No doubt some of the churches in these groups were not sound in the faith, just as many churches among Baptists today are not sound. But there is great possibility and strong indication from what history is recorded of them, that these Anabaptists and Waldenses and other groups held to the same truths for which the churches of the New Testament stood. That in some of these groups there were things which are not in harmony with what we believe to be New Testament teaching is not denied. But let us remember that what is recorded in history as being the position of a certain group does not mean that the entire group or even the majority of the group held to such. Furthermore, let it be remembered that right along side these groups who had some error mixed with truth we do not know that there weren't other churches that were entirely free from the error and held solely to the truth Today a person could go into a church called Baptist and hear many things which sound Baptists do not believe. If that person were to judge all Baptists by this one church he would have a wrong impression. Now this is exactly what happened in many instances in ages past, no doubt. When someone points to some inconsistency on the part of a certain group, we say, "Prove that all the churches held to that. Prove that there were not other churches standing against this error."
--The Baptist Examiner
http://www.pbministries.org/History/Origin%20and%20Perpetuity/origin_02.htm

 

The Montanists seem to have more in common with modern Charismatics than Baptists but I think it was a sincere effort to reform the Church at that time..though I don't believe they were viewed as heretics but schismatics by the Catholic churches. Though I may be wrong.(hmm) One of the Church Fathers even joined them -Tertulliam. It seems though that the Catholics were slightly more orthodox.

The Donatists according to Vedder were paedobaptists though they rightly saw how the papacy was beginning in their time.

The Albigenses may not be the heretics that Rome has made them out to be. Anglican Historian Peter Allix in the 1600's disputes the idea they were heretics as does Dr. James Strinzer at Master's Seminary in Sun Valley Ca. They may have been very similar to the Waldenses who were forerunners of the Anabaptists and later Baptists.

[ June 08, 2002, 09:59 AM: Message edited by: Kiffin ]

 

Glen Seeker than what you are saying is that when Jesus Christ told Peter upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it... That the doctrinal tracing that I mentioned cannot be done?... I say that if Jesus Christ set up a church that it is still here! Just because we can't see it does not mean it has ceased to exist. If the doctrinal line starts with the Baptist in America then you apparently have not gone far enough. There is a triumphant church of God and there is a visible church of God and the doctrinal line goes all the way to the River Jordan. The Catholics say they are the true church but they are 400 years to late. The Church Of Christ says there church is the one but their doctrine is unsound. Everybody wants to jump on the bandwagon and state they are the one but unless you can trace your doctrinal lineage through those mentioned don't bother. This might be of interest to you the enemies of those mentioned always showed them in a bad light. When they refused to follow the teachings of other men and instead followed Christ they were persecuted and slaughtered. You want to see the church read Revelation 12:13-17! I won't debate the point or defend it... Facts speak for themselves... but you brethren believe what you want!... Brother Glen

 

I beg your pardon? Correct me if I am wrong, don't the Baptists believe that Christ will come and reign a literal thousand years and that those alive AT THE TIME will be given a third chance?

Sidenote: Did not the Jews also have a schewed view of what the Christ would do when He came the first time?

J.R.

 

As far as a a literal thousand year reign there is no Baptist view on that. Baptists range from Premill, PostMill and Amill in eschatology. I have never heard of any Baptist believing that those alive at the second coming being given a third chance.

 

A third chance now where did that come from?... Must be a new age theological belief and it is sure not mine... And neither is the thousand year reign!... I'm an Amillennialist but that's another thread and forum!... Brother Glen

 

My apologies. I presumed premill to be the standard view. And of that view to be a third chance(Left Behind?).
As far as the Church of Christ, just like many Baptists we differ in beliefs slightly and sometimes very much so from congregation to congregation. What in particular do you find unsound though?

Pondering John

 

tyndale1946,

re: "... but you brethren believe what you want!..."

Are you suggesting that you think that a person has the ability to CHOOSE to believe that someone does or doesn't exist or that a certain proposition is or isn't true?