WAJungleMonkey, I noticed you just joined last month. Welcome to the Baptist Board.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Baptist Succession
- Thread starter Strannik
- Start date
WAJungleMonkey
Member
ah yes, thanks!
Bassoonery
Active Member
1 Timothy 1:4 and Titus 3:9 (on endless genealogies) come to mind!
I fully appreciate the value of knowing more about our church history, and have devoted much time to my own family history research, but God's Word specifically reminds us that none of these have any bearing on our identity in Christ.
Sent from my SM-C900F using Tapatalk
I fully appreciate the value of knowing more about our church history, and have devoted much time to my own family history research, but God's Word specifically reminds us that none of these have any bearing on our identity in Christ.
Sent from my SM-C900F using Tapatalk
Strannik
Member
Well, many of these names are essentially the names of the same group of early Evangelical Christians.
As for the knowledge of the history of the Church, so here the matter is both simple and difficult at the same time.
We are often asked, " Show us Christians in the Early Church who believe just like you?" So we have to show not only the texts of Holy Scripture, but also historical facts on the practical life of the Church in the early centuries.
Strannik
Member
Are you by any chance from the СНГ countries?
Strannik
Member
I certainly agree with you, but still sometimes people have to show what exactly the ECB has continuity with the Apostolic Church of the 1st century.
WAJungleMonkey
Member
No, but I have knowledge and experience of the Eastern Orthodox Church families, including ROCOR.... but I grew up in Evangelical denominations.
It is hard to see which denomination from our modern day is exactly like the One Church in the beginning since the Church was not founded to be denominational. It would depend on how one interprets the Fathers, as there is a lot of disagreement among Christians. Many modern day theologians in the West do not even consider the Eastern Fathers much past Athanasius. Even the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, which claim apostolic continuity, have changed over the years. They would acknowledge that the basic structure is the same, but obviously their liturgies and theological explanations have developed and gained complexity, especially since the 4th century (more so on the Catholic side).
This next thought will probably rile some people who are following along, but I am just trying to re-evaluate things... For those of you who are tempted to feel "attacked"... I assure you, I mean no ill intent. I am also not uneducated, but have been a serious student of theology and Church history for about 20 years... while I may be wrong about some things, I do not speak flippantly.
I think the greatest strength of modern Evangelical denominations is in their tenacity in following the instructions in the Scriptures, and I commend them for that. However, I wouldn't say the modern Evangelical denominations as they exist today, are similar to the Early Church, other than being "evangelical" and having a grasp of basic theological matters like the Trinity, Incarnation, Cross, and the Resurrection (though some groups are maybe a little shaky on aspects of those too). I think their main fault is that they approach the Bible as a complete instruction manual, or legal document, for "how to do church"- as if the Church throughout history was silent on the matter or lacked any authority. There were a lot of instructions established that the Apostles didn't write down in their epistles (2 Thess. 2:15) because those letters were meant to deal with a specific spiritual problems in the local areas.
EDIT: I would even be willing to consider the question, "is it necessary for the Church today to look exactly like the Early Church in all manner of traditions?" ... Change is inevitable, and has potential to either be healthy or unhealthy (assuming we hold to the correct beliefs).
Last edited:
The problem is that many of the doctrines of some of the ECF were departing from the scriptures even during their time!
Paul from Antioch
Active Member
Paul from Antioch
Active Member
Although it's not a book, if you log onto www.firstbaptistharrison.org you will find a research paper "Baptism" in the KJV." This was a term paper to partially fulfill the requirements of Eng 202 that I took way back in the 1970s. I surveyed the history of Christianity in England up to & including the early 17th Century as it pertained to the baptismal mode, Then I cited how the word "Baptism" (or "to baptize") came to be from the ancient Greek to the early 17th century. Finally I outlined how the mode of immersion was almost always used up to the time that the KJV was translated, including a citation from the translators themselves AND English Baptists of that era. Conclusion: The charge that since the KJV translators uniformly practiced another mode in their baptisms, they merely coined this brand-new word "Baptism" to confuse and misdirect the KJV reader as to the biblical mode of this ordinance.......is FALSE. This paper isn't copyrighted, but as a courtesy to this church for having it on her website, I ask that a minimum donation of $5.00 be made to this church.
Paul from Antioch
Active Member
PS---Since it's been several years since Pastor Ronnie Wolfe posted my paper on First Baptist of Harrison OH's web page, their web address may have changed. If the address I've posted doesn't work, try using .com or .edu or some other similar combination.
Here is a direct link to Paul's paper:
"Baptism" In King James Version
"Baptism" In King James Version
Two points: firstly, if the 'instruction manual' is not in the Bible, where is it? The Roman Catholic Church claims to have the unwritten 'traditions' of the early church, but for the very reason that they were unwritten (presupposing that they existed in the first place) their origin is obscure (putting it as politely as I can).
Secondly, 2 Corinthians 3:17 tells us that the Scriptures are sufficient, 'That the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.' We actually don't need anything else. We might like more information on this or that, but we don't need it. We are thoroughly equipped by the God-breathed Scriptures.