Overrun with catholics

[Michael Wrenn]

Regardless of who preserved the church that Jesus Christ established, there is no excuse for hiding or diminishing the word Baptist. It is a label that invites a lost world to salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. If there is a denomination that should drop their title, it is the RCC. The name "The Pope's House of Magic Tricks" would be more appropriate.

Why is it Baptist is the only label one hears about hiding or changing their name? Has anyone ever heard of a Methodist or Presbyterian trying to change their name? If one cannot proudly be a Baptist because of everything it stands for, then maybe they should join a denomination that better suits them.

I agree, and I don't understand what it is that people are afraid others will find objectionable about a Baptist church. Maybe if I lived in a part of the country where there were none or very few Baptist churches, I would understand better. Are Baptist churches and baptists stereotyped in such places? If so, what are the stereotypes?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I agree, and I don't understand what it is that people are afraid others will find objectionable about a Baptist church. Maybe if I lived in a part of the country where there were none or very few Baptist churches, I would understand better. Are Baptist churches and baptists stereotyped in such places? If so, what are the stereotypes?

In the northeast, where the RCC rules, you can just imagine what the stereotypes are. The RCC is a sacramental/Mass type organized worship.....imagine being raised in that environment & then seeing the TV preacher types on the channel on Sunday morning....thats how they view baptists & then guys like the "Mouth from the South," that goofy character from Dallas with the perennial smile & all his books in the Walmart....his name escapes me. Or the Reverend Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.....just the antithesis of everything they are familiar with.

Then if your like, there are those like my wife who's religious upbringing is very white bred Dutch Reformed & Presbyterian.....she views Baptists as overtly emotional in the worship service....especially after viewing an Arminian alter call & group baptism that she calls a dunk session. Every once an a while she will chide me for being a baptist by yelling out "Glory Glory Brother Steve Glory Glory" & "When were you saved Brother Steve, when where you saved" ....see that isnt in her culture.

But I got the perfect church for you, a Hybrid mess of one I almost got involved with....luckily I spent time there & observed them closely. I first thought they were Baptists but Ive since learned that was only implemented by a vote that was won 3 to 2. Some still hold a grudge that they cannot sprinkle their infants. Next they are New Covenant Theology but they hide that until someone asks them directly. Lastly they are not friendly & most operate the way they did when they were Catholics. Yes they do go to Sunday service (its in the back of their minds you will go to hell if you dont) but dont ask them to be there 5 minutes after service ends & dont expect them to talk to the new guy loitering in the lobby.....let the Pastor do it ....there is a football game on for heaven sakes.:laugh:

 

[Thinkingstuff]

In the northeast, where the RCC rules, you can just imagine what the stereotypes are. The RCC is a sacramental/Mass type organized worship.....imagine being raised in that environment & then seeing the TV preacher types on the channel on Sunday morning....thats how they view baptists & then guys like the "Mouth from the South," that goofy character from Dallas with the perennial smile & all his books in the Walmart....his name escapes me. Or the Reverend Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.....just the antithesis of everything they are familiar with.

Then if your like my wife who's religious upbringing is very white bred Dutch Reformed & Presbyterian.....she views Baptists as overtly emotional in the worship service....especially after viewing an Arminian alter call & group baptism that she calls a dunk session. Every once an a while she will chide me for being a baptist by yelling out "Glory Glory Brother Steve Glory Glory" & "When were you saved Brother Steve, when where you saved" ....see that isnt in her culture.

But I got the perfect church for you, a Hybrid mess of one I almost got involved with....luckily I spent time there & observed them closely. I first thought they were Baptists but Ive since learned that was only implemented by a vote that was won 3 to 2. Some still hold a grudge that they cannot sprinkle there infants. Next they are New Covenant Theology but they hide that until someone asks them directly. Lastly they are not friendly & most operate the way they did when they were Catholics. Yes they do go to Sunday service (its in the back of their minds you will go to hell if you dont) but dont ask them to be there 5 minutes after service ends & dont expect them to talk to the new guy loitering in the lobby.....let the Pastor do it ....there is a football game on for heaven sakes.:laugh:

I would agree that the name "Baptist" for many Catholics connotes many stereotypical views for Catholics not familiar with baptist. Many, upon hearing the name "baptist" will envision a white racist, southern preacher shouting at the top of their lungs damnation upon everyone they meet, preaching a gospel not of love but of God's hatred of humanity save for a few. It is an unfortunate stereotype and unfair. But also it doesn't help for Westboro baptist doing things that get them plastered all over the news. Also Hollywood is also to blame in their depiction of baptist. However, the same can be said of Catholics. Ie people believe every priest is a pedophile, the Vatican runs the mafia, Jesuit priest are evil spies infiltrating all other Christian organizations under an assume identity even playing husband and wife with nun spies. So the stereotyping goes both ways and extreem bad people in both groups and Hollywood feed into those stereotypes. It seems that no matter what Christian group you are with Satan will use every opportunity to corrupt the image of those faithful to Jesus Christ.

 

[mont974x4]

Properly baptized believers covenant together to become a New Testament congregation under the authority of a preexisting church and/or its ordained representatives. It is these prospective members who select their own name, articles of faith and church covenant. There are no "founders" that arbritrarily select such things. They must demonstrate they are like faith and order with the church that oversees their constitution into a N.T. congregation.

So it is not technically accurate to use "founders" to describe the selection of such things as that is the first actions of self-constitution under the authority of a previous existent congregation.

If by "founders" he means the original membership then one must question the character of the church overseeing and constituting them into a congregation. Why would they reject the name "Baptist" unless that was also the position of the constituting church?

When a group of people reject the historical and Biblical designation of "Baptist" it usually is a strong indicator they are not "Baptist" in faith or order but are some kind of ecumenical hybrid that has departed from historic Baptist faith and practice.

I see. You based your comment on your opinion and just want to argue semantics because you did not like another persons word choice.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I would agree that the name "Baptist" for many Catholics connotes many stereotypical views for Catholics not familiar with baptist. Many, upon hearing the name "baptist" will envision a white racist, southern preacher shouting at the top of their lungs damnation upon everyone they meet, preaching a gospel not of love but of God's hatred of humanity save for a few. It is an unfortunate stereotype and unfair. But also it doesn't help for Westboro baptist doing things that get them plastered all over the news. Also Hollywood is also to blame in their depiction of baptist. However, the same can be said of Catholics. Ie people believe every priest is a pedophile, the Vatican runs the mafia, Jesuit priest are evil spies infiltrating all other Christian organizations under an assume identity even playing husband and wife with nun spies. So the stereotyping goes both ways and extreem bad people in both groups and Hollywood feed into those stereotypes. It seems that no matter what Christian group you are with Satan will use every opportunity to corrupt the image of those faithful to Jesus Christ.

Thats right TS, you have lived in both the South & the North....so why are RCC so dominant in this Region where you would be hard pressed to find a SBC or any Baptist Church for that matter up here. People here look at Baptists altogether as weird, sorry to say.

 

[Yeshua1]

Properly baptized believers covenant together to become a New Testament congregation under the authority of a preexisting church and/or its ordained representatives. It is these prospective members who select their own name, articles of faith and church covenant. There are no "founders" that arbritrarily select such things. They must demonstrate they are like faith and order with the church that oversees their constitution into a N.T. congregation.

So it is not technically accurate to use "founders" to describe the selection of such things as that is the first actions of self-constitution under the authority of a previous existent congregation.

If by "founders" he means the original membership then one must question the character of the church overseeing and constituting them into a congregation. Why would they reject the name "Baptist" unless that was also the position of the constituting church?

When a group of people reject the historical and Biblical designation of "Baptist" it usually is a strong indicator they are not "Baptist" in faith or order but are some kind of ecumenical hybrid that has departed from historic Baptist faith and practice.

the 'church" was founded by 2 Grads of DTS, who decided to plant a church into metro Detroit area, and whoe early membership was mainly converted catholics!

After few years of being in store fronts and high schools, bought own building and decided to split off into 2 seperate churches, and at that time the one that I am with joined the great Lakes baptist association for baptists!

Might not like use of the term, but the "originators" in the earthly sense of the church had that beginning!

 

[Yeshua1]

I see. You based your comment on your opinion and just want to argue semantics because you did not like another persons word choice.

Guess that we would not qualify as being really baptists, as we started with human being forming up the initial assembly!

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Ahhhh yea if thats what they want, but there are a ton of pissed off catholics who are searching for another church experience & consider Baptists too different from them.

Well, if the disaffected Roman Catholics don't want something 'too different', there are certainly the Eastern Orthodox or Anglican Churches (or Lutheran Church, for that matter).

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Well, if the disaffected Roman Catholics don't want something 'too different', there are certainly the Eastern Orthodox or Anglican Churches (or Lutheran Church, for that matter).

That has not been my experience. What I see is a search for an easy & modern & entertaining place but not with much literary.....up here emergent churches or churches that have turned into emergent like churches appear to attract. How long they keep em is another story altogether.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

That has not been my experience. What I see is a search for an easy & modern & entertaining place but not with much literary.....up here emergent churches or churches that have turned into emergent like churches appear to attract. How long they keep em is another story altogether.

Yeah, but aren't the worship practices in emergent churches pretty different than the RCC worship (I admit I'm not as familiar with their worship 'styles')? I was speaking of those RCCs that DIDN'T want something too different from what there were used too--these may be disaffected by the pedophile priest scandal, for instance, but otherwise like the comfort of the Liturgy/Eucharist. (This emphasis on traditional liturgy and Coummunion can be found in the Churches I mentioned in the post above)

Of course, for those who are dissastified with the Catholic worship experience in general, I agree that someting like emergent churches or seeker-friendly evangelical churches (mega-churches or in coffee shops) might be more appealing.

 

[mont974x4]

Actually emergent churches are adopting a lot of the rcc practices. This mainly concerns the worship of the elements, even calling it the eucharist, and practices of eastern mystics.

 

[billwald]

Originally Posted by The Biblicist
Properly baptized believers covenant together to become a New Testament congregation under the authority of a preexisting church and/or its ordained representatives.


Anyone baptized "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."

 

[mont974x4]

It is odd to me that people would be against brothers and sisters in Christ meeting together for formal corporate worship and deciding to organize in order to meet the requirements of the laws of the land as a church. This, in no way, goes against Scripture.

 

[WestminsterMan]

Regardless of who preserved the church that Jesus Christ established, there is no excuse for hiding or diminishing the word Baptist. It is a label that invites a lost world to salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. If there is a denomination that should drop their title, it is the RCC. The name "The Pope's House of Magic Tricks" would be more appropriate.

Why is it Baptist is the only label one hears about hiding or changing their name? Has anyone ever heard of a Methodist or Presbyterian trying to change their name? If one cannot proudly be a Baptist because of everything it stands for, then maybe they should join a denomination that better suits them.

You know very well that the RCC isn't a denomination. It is, however, part of THE Church founded by Christ - HIS Church built upon Peter.

WM

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Actually emergent churches are adopting a lot of the rcc practices. This mainly concerns the worship of the elements, even calling it the eucharist, and practices of eastern mystics.

See I really would not know that cause I have not gone to one...only viewed portions on the INTERNET. At the place I know in New Jersey, they (emergent church) caters to 20 to 30 somethings & their music is a mixture of rock & praise band. Im sure they would be receptive to interpretative dance as well.

But back to my original premise of the RCC being very dominant in the North East.....there are 5 in my little area alone & they attract many of the Latin peoples. The Priest down the block has specific services in Spanish for them, so they are growing from that prospective. Baptists are almost non existent (in any stripe).... WHY IS THAT?

 

[DHK]

You know very well that the RCC isn't a denomination. It is, however, part of THE Church founded by Christ - HIS Church built upon Peter.

WM

Albert Barnes was born in 1798. He (as well as I) would disagree with you.

Let's take a look at just one verse and then what Albert Barnes says about it:

Revelation 17:4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:

And filthiness of her fornication, The image here is that of Papal Rome, represented as an abandoned woman in gorgeous attire, alluring by her arts the nations of the earth, and seducing them into all kinds of pollution and abomination. It is a most remarkable fact that the Papacy, as if designing to furnish a fulfilment of this prophecy, has chosen to represent itself almost precisely in this manner--as a female extending an alluring cup to passers by. Apostate churches, and guilty nations, often furnish the very proofs necessary to confirm the truth of the Scriptures.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

You know very well that the RCC isn't a denomination. It is, however, part of THE Church founded by Christ - HIS Church built upon Peter.

WM

Let me congratulate you for stuffing such a large amount of untruth into two sentences -- quite an accomplishment.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Thats right TS, you have lived in both the South & the North....so why are RCC so dominant in this Region where you would be hard pressed to find a SBC or any Baptist Church for that matter up here. People here look at Baptists altogether as weird, sorry to say.

I don't know about hard pressed as I was a member of a SBC church for many years. In fact, I help build a couple of SBC up in this area as well as up in Maine. And I still recieve the news paper for the SBC. I don't know why they still have me on their mailing list since I made a public departure. However, I still like to keep tabs on what's going on and keeping appraised of whats happening. Certainly there are fewer SBC churches and they have to fight with other denominations for membership. It seems like the fastest growing denomination in this area is the AOG churches or Charismatic knock offs.

Why do Catholics dominate this area? Well, it has to do with a lot of History for this area. Many German immigrants originally established themselves here which is why there are large numbers Catholics, Lutherans, Amish, and Mennonites in our area. Also Catholics resupplied (so to speak) when many Irish immigrants came over during the famine in Ireland in the late 1800's. Not long after the Irish came the Italians. So large number of Catholics immigrated to this country and settled in the North East. Down south settlements originally were English and Scots and Northern Irish all with Protestant backgrounds and not as many of the Germans, Irish, Italians (Catholics) moved south when these groups immigrated. Out West Catholics numbers are due to the Hispanics living in that area. Also I've noticed that those diocese where Catholic Bishops don't water down the Catholic faith with the Liberal movement that took hold in 1962 at the Vatican II council are able to maintain Catholic Membership because they properly instruct their layity. Dioceses that do not loose their members because they aren't being faithful to Jesus Christ and the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church. And in the North East of the US there is a mixture of both types of diocese.

Does that answer your question?

 

[The Biblicist]

Originally Posted by The Biblicist
Properly baptized believers covenant together to become a New Testament congregation under the authority of a preexisting church and/or its ordained representatives.


Anyone baptized "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."

That is neither the definition of New Testament salvation, baptism nor a New Testament congregation nor is that obedience to the Great Commission.

"Anyone" includes unregenerate unbelievers but scripture rejects that.

"baptized" by Biblical definition rejects all modes but the type that identifies being "buried" with Christ - immersion.

"in the name" does not merely refer to a VERBAL FORMULA but to obedience to His instructions about baptism. Note no such VERBAL FORMULA can be found in the book of Acts. Indeed there is no consistent VERBAL FORMULA found in the book of Acts. Hence, this is more than a mere verbal formula but obedience to the commands of Christ in regard to baptism. Meaning, to be baptized "in the name" means that baptism is for believers only. That baptism is by immersion only. That baptism is administered by those authorized in the Great Commission only. That baptism precedes and is the necessary prerequisite to church member (Mt. 28:19 prior to verse 20; Acts 2:41 "added to").

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

That is neither the definition of New Testament salvation, baptism nor a New Testament congregation nor is that obedience to the Great Commission.

"Anyone" includes unregenerate unbelievers but scripture rejects that.

"baptized" by Biblical definition rejects all modes but the type that identifies being "buried" with Christ - immersion.

"in the name" does not merely refer to a VERBAL FORMULA but to obedience to His instructions about baptism. Note no such VERBAL FORMULA can be found in the book of Acts. Indeed there is no consistent VERBAL FORMULA found in the book of Acts. Hence, this is more than a mere verbal formula but obedience to the commands of Christ in regard to baptism. Meaning, to be baptized "in the name" means that baptism is for believers only. That baptism is by immersion only. That baptism is administered by those authorized in the Great Commission only. That baptism precedes and is the necessary prerequisite to church member (Mt. 28:19 prior to verse 20; Acts 2:41 "added to").

Then why do these Reformation based churches all reject Believers Baptism in favor of this sacramental stuff?

I had a Lutheran pastor fresh out of seminary tell me that the Sacrament of Infant Baptism is in fact "New Birth" ....that God provides the grace then. If Presbyterians, Anglicans, Methodists & Lutherans believe this are they not in fact walking lock step with Catholics? Then I would conclude that these folks (The Reformation Churches) have not broken away from scriptural faulty Catholic doctrine.....gee, the apostasy starts there from my reckoning.