Celtic Christianity

[Irish Pete]

Michael, you said:
"It was; you know, original Baptist, like the kind described in the New Testament!"

Can you describe for me which of the "original Baptist" was "the kind described in the New Testament!"?

I know Baptists who are "five-pointers" and they claim to originate from Calvin.
I know "Independent Baptists" who claim they originate from Arminius.
I know other Baptists who claim "The Word of God" is the "King James version" only.
My brother in law is a Baptist Union minister who would not be a "five-pointer" nor Arminius nor a "King James only" but would believe in "eternal security".

There are baptists who are more favourable to the "dispensational" and there are those who are more favourable to "reformed".

So just to help me sort out in my mind your position. In your opinion: Which one of these (not to mention the many factions of Baptists which I missed) is the one closely related to "the kind described in the New Testament"?

Cheers!
Pete

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Pete,

Some Baptist principles which can be found in New Testament Christianity are: believer's baptism by immersion; independent local churches; priesthood of the believer; two church offices--pastor("bishop", "elder" "presbyter", "overseer"), and deacon.

Now, if you'd like me to point out RC doctrines which are NOT in the New Terstament, I can do that, too. I'm not trying to be mean-spirited, BTW.

 

[Irish Pete]

Hi Michael,
Oh, I don't think you're mean spirited at all, I'm just trying to nail down which of the Baptist churches were just like the "original" one which you mentioned.

Were the Apostles' "five-point Calvinist" types? Or "Arminianist" types? Or...
I guess what I am trying to ascertain is how many bodies does Jesus have?

If He is "The Truth", how does this work itself out with so many Baptist traditions, and not just Baptist traditions but other ones too?

"Now, if you'd like me to point out RC doctrines which are NOT in the New Terstament, I can do that, too."

Again, we would be coming from two different directions of this one and again as I said before, the New Testament never teaches
"Sola Scriptura" but it does teach that "the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth." (I Timothy 3:15b).

Again. What does this mean? Are The Scriptures "the pillar and foundation of the truth"? No! Even Scripture tells us that "the church", not "the churches".

Paul must of known of Jesus' words when He said that when He builds His Church, the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.
But according to Baptists and all protestants, Matthew chapter 16 should have read:
18 “And I tell you that you are Peter, but on the Bible, not you, I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will overcome it almost immediately, and the truth will be lost until the Reformation.
19 “I will give to every Christian the keys of the kingdom of heaven, that is, the Bible. The Bible is to be their only authority, and the only rule of faith and practice.”

And also,

John 16
12 “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear.
13 “But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. Not corporately, of course, but individually. Each Christian will be personally guided into all truth. Let each one be sure in his own mind that he is personally guided by the Holy Spirit, even if every other Christian interprets the Bible differently than he does.”(by Gary Hoge)

Now my intention here is not to mock, but before you take issue with any of the teachings of The Catholic Church, I would challenge you Michael to consider what each and every one of your Baptist colleagues believe. I'm sure the conclusions will be reached that this is indeed how The Scriptures should be interpreted, or least understood according to your thinking.

I think it grieves the heart of Christ that some would believe that it does not matter that His Body be divided, as long as they don't believe what The Catholic Church teaches.

I understand the mentality.
I was "Sola Scriptura" all the way.
I considered myself to be a fundamentalist.
I earned a Bachelor of Theology degree and taught and pastored for many years in Pentecostal, Baptist and Non-Denominational assemblies.

I would have been the least likely to convert to Catholicism, but the evidence is overwhelmingly clear that Jesus built His Church.

It was and is, One, Holy, Apostolic, and Catholic Church, and it has never died, amidst Her faults.

If you believe that the reformers had to depart from The Church in order to start a reformed version of it then you call Jesus a liar because His original intention failed.

What happens when your Baptist denomination fails Michael. What splinter from that will you join?

How will you know which one is the right one to join? Will Jesus' Body be divided yet again and again and again.......

I empathise with what you believe but I challenge you to bypass your biases and seek out the truth. The Early Church Fathers would be a great start to boggle your mind at what you really believe.

Sincerely,
Irish Pete

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Pete,

Let me first say that I don't hold to "Sola Scriptura"; I do believe that the Bible is the final external authority. I think reason, tradition, and experience are secondary authorities, as the Methodists and Anglicans teach; and, as the Quakers believe, the Spirit is really the ultimate authority, as the scriptures, traditon, reason, and experience are all derived from the Holy Spirit.

Further, let me state categorically that I am not now nor have I ever been a fundamentalist.

The problem that you and I have--and that exists between all Roman Catholics and Baptists--is our respective definitions of the church. RC's see the church as an outward, hierarchical institution which couldn't exist without that hierarchy. Baptists believe that the church universal is not an institution. It can never be identified with one particular denomination exclusively. In this sense the church is composed of those who are in Christ, the redeemed of every race, denomination, and nation. It cannot be destroyed, divided, or defeated. It is one and a present reality wherever redeemed people walk. BTW, I stated this in another post, but I think it bears repeating.

Actually, I have read much of the church "fathers"; they were wrong so often that it is dangerous to base doctrines on what they said. I could give examples, if you wish.

So, I am not biased; I've researched all of this thoroughly for more than two decades, and I'm convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that the RCC is not the church that Jesus and the apostles founded--it's not even close. Further, it's only a true Christian church to the extent that it follows the doctrine that Jesus and the apostles taught--and that doctrine can only be found in the New Testament or in sources which agree in fact or principle with the New Testament.

 

[Irish Pete]

Hi Michael,
I think that both of us are addressing many things in one reply without the other thinking through each of the issues, other than a general response with more issues.
I have put forth many questions but I personally feel the response to those questions are not being responded to. Perhaps someone else on this strand can address these with the thoroughness which I am looking for.
Thank you taking the time to respond though.
Irish Pete

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Pete,

I personally feel that I have been very thorough, but how about this: Ask one question and I'll try to respond to it alone. And then maybe we can continue in that way. Or, if you'd rather not, that's okay, too. Anyway, I've enjoyed it.