The Early Church was it...

[Agnus_Dei]

Roman Catholic, Orthodox Church (One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church) or _______ Baptist Church? Also the Church of Christ makes a claim, as well as other cultic religions.

I’m picking up this discussion from a pervious thread which made the claim as follows: (Not to single out "Not_hard_to_find", I'm positive many Baptists believe this to be a factual statment...)

Is the “Old-Time” phrase more in light of US history and not Church history?

Can't speak for others, but for myself, that's how I interpret it. More like the song, "Give me that old-time religion!"

However, beyond that particular reference, Baptists do believe they are not Protestant, but are New Testament churches, but that's another thread.

Before we discuss Early Church Doctrine, we need to identify which Baptist church is making the claim of not being “Protestant”? Is it American Baptist, Southern Baptist, Missionary, Freewill, Primitive, Landmark, Seventh Day Baptist, Independent…etc.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Roman Catholic, Orthodox Church (One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church) or _______ Baptist Church? Also the Church of Christ makes a claim, as well as other cultic religions.

As a member of a church in the Baptist Convention of Ontario and Quebec who believes that Baptists are indirect protestants, I would say none of the above.

I would say the early church eventually became and adopted the title of "The One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" in 3rd century ecumenical councils. I would say that entity gradually schismed between East-West divisions and culminated the schism in 1054 resulting in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches.

 

[Not_hard_to_find]

(Not to single out "Not_hard_to_find", I'm positive many Baptists believe this to be a factual statment...)

Oh, I don't mind being singled out. Not at all -- and I wish I could find the thread that carried that subject! Titled something such as: Do Baptists Go All The Way..." and headed a forum list for so long that someone got tired of reading just that portion of the full title, so they started a different thread. Will keep looking.

As for my personal opinion, Christ was a member of no denomination. I find it convenient to be one while worshiping Him, but it is not necessary for my -- nor anyone else's -- salvation.

I know you'll get a variety of responses. I hope you'll enjoy them!

EDIT: Ahhh, here it is: http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=33644

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Hi Gold Dragon

...Baptists are indirect protestants, I would say none of the above.

Given the above quote, that Baptists are indirect protestants, what role if any, did the _____ baptist church play in early church history that eventually schismed in 1054 as quoted below?

I would say the early church eventually became and adopted the title of "The One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" in 3rd century ecumenical councils. I would say that entity gradually schismed between East-West divisions and culminated the schism in 1054 resulting in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Hi Gold Dragon

[/i]

Given the above quote, that Baptists are indirect protestants, what role if any, did the _____ baptist church play in early church history that eventually schismed in 1054 as quoted below?

[/i]

I would say none. But many baptists disagree with me.

 

[dispen4ever]

The doctrine of the Southern Baptist churches more closely resembles the accounts taught in scripture. That's what they are saying. Obviously, there were no Southern Baptists between 1 and 90 a.d. But there were plenty of Christians! Southern Baptists identify with them. Therefore, they consider themselves not part of the protestant movement of Calvin or Luther or anyone else who protested the Catholic Church interpretation and application of scripture. The Catholic Church came along long after the message of Christ to the Jews, and the message of Paul to the Gentiles, both applicable to your eternal life and mine.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

The doctrine of the Southern Baptist churches more closely resembles the accounts taught in scripture. That's what they are saying. Obviously, there were no Southern Baptists between 1 and 90 a.d. But there were plenty of Christians! Southern Baptists identify with them.

Studying early church doctrine, I can’t see the connection. Can you compare the Early Church father’s teachings with that of the Southern Baptist of today?
Particularly the Sacraments of: Holy Communion (Eucharist) and that of Baptism.

Obviously, there were no Southern Baptists between 1 and 90 a.d. But there were plenty of Christians! Southern Baptists identify with them. Therefore, they consider themselves not part of the protestant movement of Calvin or Luther or anyone else who protested the Catholic Church interpretation and application of scripture.

So you are saying that there were two separate religions so to speak, a “catholic” and another entity that represented what Protestants now refer to as Southern Baptists. Then, Calvin and Luther protested the Catholic Church, and thus other Protestant Churches were born.

Where does in your opinion the Orthodox church fall in the mist of this history?

Blessings

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Oh, I don't mind being singled out. Not at all -- and I wish I could find the thread that carried that subject! Titled something such as: Do Baptists Go All The Way..."

EDIT: Ahhh, here it is: http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=33644

Thanks for the link, but unfortunantly, I'm Methodist and not allowed to participate in that discussion.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

I would say the early church eventually became and adopted the title of "The One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" in 3rd century ecumenical councils. I would say that entity gradually schismed between East-West divisions and culminated the schism in 1054 resulting in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches.

I agree that there was one Church in the infancy of Christianity, which later schismed into the Eastern (Orthodoxy) and Western (Roman Catholic) in 1054 and later the Reformers protested the Roman Catholic Church.

Would it be safe to assume that the Church Christ established and the Apostles gave birth to would be either Orthodoxy or Roman Catholic?

Therefore, in your opinion who would have better understood the Apostles teachings better; the early church fathers or the reformers some 1500 years later?

 

[dispen4ever]

Studying early church doctrine, I can’t see the connection. Can you compare the Early Church father’s teachings with that of the Southern Baptist of today? Particularly the Sacraments of: Holy Communion (Eucharist) and that of Baptism.

Early church fathers? The Early Church (capitalized or not) was the followers of Christ, those who heard the message from his disciples, and those who heard from Paul et al. They formed the home churches, they held the meetings, public and private. Clearly, the Lord's Supper and baptism are identified in the NT. Southern Baptists identify with those teachings, found only in the New Testament, not in any Catholic dogma, nothing written by so-called "early church fathers," if thereby you mean someone other than those I have mentioned.

So you are saying that there were two separate religions so to speak, a “catholic” and another entity that represented what Protestants now refer to as Southern Baptists. Then, Calvin and Luther protested the Catholic Church, and thus other Protestant Churches were born.

Where does in your opinion the Orthodox church fall in the mist of this history?

Your summation is in error. There were not two separate "religions" between a.d. 1 and a.d. 90. Furthermore, Christianity is not a religion. Period. The only faith-based Christian organization was the church of Jesus Christ, made up of those I mentioned, above. "Other" protestant churches? One is either aligned with those of the protestant persuasion, or one is not. There were no "other" protestant churches born out of the apologetics of Calvin and Luther, versus a "protestant" church at the time of Christ. The only "Orthodox" church is the one found in the Bible, as enunciated by Christ, his followers, along with Paul and his followers (who were, indeed, still following the teachings of Christ himself.) The writings of the New Testament are most closely understood by those who call themselves Southern Baptists, they say. There was never a need for one who agreed with and clearly understood scripture to protest it! What was protested was the gruesome aberation of scripture fomented by the Roman Catholic Church.

Would it be safe to assume that the Church Christ established and the Apostles gave birth to would be either Orthodoxy or Roman Catholic?

NO! Define "Orthodox".

 

[Gold Dragon]

Would it be safe to assume that the Church Christ established and the Apostles gave birth to would be either Orthodoxy or Roman Catholic?

I would say that the Church Christ established includes Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism and Protestantism.

Therefore, in your opinion who would have better understood the Apostles teachings better; the early church fathers or the reformers some 1500 years later?

The early church fathers had the advantage of cultural similarity to the apostles. But that doesn't preclude 16th century reformers or modern Christians from being able to understand the apostles. I have great respect for the early church fathers, the reformers and modern Christians as fallible Holy Spirit indwelt Christians with valuable things to contribute to my understanding of God.

 

[Not_hard_to_find]

I would say that the Church Christ established includes Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism and Protestantism.

The early church fathers had the advantage of cultural similarity to the apostles. But that doesn't preclude 16th century reformers or modern Christians from being able to understand the apostles. I have great respect for the early church fathers, the reformers and modern Christians as fallible Holy Spirit indwelt Christians with valuable things to contribute to my understanding of God.

You not only said it better than I've been able to express, but it is concise and complete. May I quote you in the future on this statement?

 

[El_Guero]

Roman Catholic, Orthodox Church (One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church) or _______ Baptist Church? Also the Church of Christ makes a claim, as well as other cultic religions.

I’m picking up this discussion from a pervious thread which made the claim as follows: (Not to single out "Not_hard_to_find", I'm positive many Baptists believe this to be a factual statment...)

[/I]

[/I]

Before we discuss Early Church Doctrine, we need to identify which Baptist church is making the claim of not being “Protestant”? Is it American Baptist, Southern Baptist, Missionary, Freewill, Primitive, Landmark, Seventh Day Baptist, Independent…etc.

If you do not know where Baptists come from . . . I would suggest a couple of good seminary courses on Baptist history . . .

 

[Not_hard_to_find]

Thanks for the link, but unfortunantly, I'm Methodist and not allowed to participate in that discussion.

True -- but is it available for your perusal? I was under the impression some Baptist background would be helpful in your discussion here.

 

[EdSutton]

I'm so very sorry to upset some of ...

"NOT!" - Language Cop

"Language Cop! It's very impolite to interrupt someone when he or she is speaking! Try and show a litle courtesy, please! " - Ed

Where was I? Oh, yeah! ...upset some of these suggestions about this, but I have the definitive answer.
The answer is:

The Church of Jesus Christ

Organized A. D. 33 at Jerusalem

That is the final word on this. And the reason I know this to be true , is 'cause I have seen these 'zact words, with my own two eyebones :thumbsup: , on the sign in a church yard located here in my home county, and within ten miles of my home.

:tongue3: :laugh:

Ed

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Early church fathers? The Early Church (capitalized or not) was the followers of Christ, those who heard the message from his disciples, and those who heard from Paul et al. They formed the home churches, they held the meetings, public and private. Clearly, the Lord's Supper and baptism are identified in the NT. Southern Baptists identify with those teachings, found only in the New Testament, not in any Catholic dogma, nothing written by so-called "early church fathers," if thereby you mean someone other than those I have mentioned.

What I’m saying is that the Early Church fathers studied at the very feet of the Apostles and the Apostles studied at the feet of who as St. John described in 1 John, as having heard, seen and handled as being that of Jesus Christ.

So when these Early Church fathers write about Holy Communion and Baptism; we see a conflict in interpretation with that of the Southern Baptist, regardless of the Southern Baptist “identifying” with the teachings found in the N.T.

Someone had to interpret those teachings found in the N.T.

Your summation is in error. There were not two separate "religions" between a.d. 1 and a.d. 90.

I agree, but you made it sound as though there were 2 separate entities. Thus you stated that the reformers protested the Catholic Church (1 entity) and that the Southern Baptist identified themselves with the “early Christians” (2nd entity).

The writings of the New Testament are most closely understood by those who call themselves Southern Baptists, they say.

Again, you’ll have to quote some Early Church fathers that can collaborate that what the Southern Baptist believes today in regard to Christian doctrine as the same as the early Church.

NO! Define "Orthodox"

Are you serious? Have you studied the early church without the Southern Baptist spin on it?

 

[Amy.G]

Pardon the intrusion of a not so smart as you guys person but wasn't the 1st church called "The Way". I think we should have stuck with that!:thumbs:

 

[Gold Dragon]

You not only said it better than I've been able to express, but it is concise and complete. May I quote you in the future on this statement?

Go right ahead.

 

[dispen4ever]

http://www.answers.com/topic/orthodoxy

Notice all the "orthodox" categories!

The only "orthodox" church, the only "orthodox" Christianity, is found in the writings of the New Testament. One identifies it ONLY through spiritual discernment, not through discussions by "early church fathers" outside of Holy Writ. See 1 Corinthians 2:4-16. No commentary can match the original.

Do not seek orthodoxy in organized religion. Organized religion is contrary to the pure and simple message presented to us by Jesus and Paul.

Roman Catholicism is the epitome of the distortion of the Gospel.

 

[Darron Steele]

The Early Church was it...Roman Catholic, Orthodox Church (One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church) or _______ Baptist Church? ...

All the above, plus Methodist, plus non-hardline Church of Christ, plus Independent Christian, plus Disciples of Christ, plus Pentecostal, plus...

Explanation:
I am about to get myself into so much heat for this. Hebrews 10:25 is often used in Christian circles to admonish or guilt-trip people into coming to church and never miss even under dire circumstances. What is often missed is the purpose of even meeting as churches explained in the previous verse – Hebrews 10:24. Let us read the two verses together:

“and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, |not giving up| our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the day drawing near” (NASB|TNIV|NASB).|

The purpose of church meetings is for Christians to encourage each other to live Christian lives of love and doing good deeds. This purpose is stated before the command to not abandon church assembly, and the purpose is again mentioned afterward. That purpose repeated: encourage each other to live Christian lives of love and doing good deeds.

I remembered something very important from my childhood when I was teaching Vacation Bible School in 2005. During that week, a child asked a question about what churches do regarding baptism. The class had children of multiple denominations. I recalled my own childhood and responded as so: “Some churches…; other churches…” because to most children, churches are churches, and I was entirely unwilling to dis-educate them otherwise, which would only have confused them and created an unneeded distraction.

Most children get the Hebrews 10:24-5 purpose for church congregations when they hear the message `go out and obey God and follow Jesus and do what is good and be nice’ at nearly all church congregations. We adult Christians have forgotten to notice the same in our different church congregations.

Most church congregations, regardless of denomination, tell us to go out and do good deeds, as Hebrews 10:24-5 indicates the primary purpose of church congregations is to do. In this most basic regard, we are all like the New Testament church congregations. That is the reason I wrote my initial answer.