How Old Is Your Church?

EWTN ^ | not given | EWTN

[Salvation]

How Old Is Your Church?

If you are a Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex- monk of the Catholic Church, in the year 1517.

If you belong to the Church of England, your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the Pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to remarry.

If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded by John Knox in Scotland in the year 1560.

If you are a Protestant Episcopalian, your religion was an offshoot of the Church of England founded by Samuel Seabury in the American colonies in the 17th century.

If you are a Congregationalist, your religion was originated by Robert Brown in Holland in 1582.

If you are a Methodist, your religion was launched by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1744.

If you are a Unitarian, Theophilus Lindley founded your church in London in 1774.

If you are a Mormon (Latter Day Saints), Joseph Smith started your religion in Palmyra, N.Y., in 1829.

If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1605.

If you are of the Dutch Reformed church, you recognize Michaelis Jones as founder, because he originated your religion in New York in 1628.

If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865.

If you are a Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year in which your religion was born and to Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy as its founder.

If you belong to one of the religious organizations known as 'Church of the Nazarene," "Pentecostal Gospel." "Holiness Church," "Pilgrim Holiness Church," "Jehovah's Witnesses," your religion is one of the hundreds of new sects founded by men within the past century.

If you are Catholic, you know that your religion was founded in the year 33 by Jesus Christ the Son of God, and it is still the same Church.

[wardaddy]

You know....I really try to be nice and objective, love your pope (this one and the last one too) and all and pray that Catholics voted as well as Southern Baptists do because if they did liberalism would be dead on arrival here in the US.

The GOP would win by 70% of the vote.

but ya’ll don’t and some of you are extremely arrogant and condescending about your faith.

Why is that?

is it some sort of fraternity?

unlike we Prods unless someone goes through a big rigamaroll and converts or joins the Catholic church you have to be born into it.

No wonder Charismatics are taking your turf out from under you in the third world.

I don’t go around picking on Catholics, even have some in my family but your the fact that you guys can trace directly to Peter doesn’t make you superior.

you guys should really spend more time getting your house in order and stop preening and picking fights where none should exist to begin with

[wardaddy]

Glad to know my salvation is based on my relationship with Christ, not membership in a particular church.

Salvation post of the day.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Since those who were baptized in Acts were not baptized by the triune formula, were they part of the Church? They were baptized by Peter, and he did not use the triune formula (Acts 2:38).

[Petronski]

Is Acts 2:38 a baptism, or an instruction to be baptized?

[PugetSoundSoldier]

An instruction to be baptized in the name of Jesus. Not triune. One assumes that Peter also baptized people with that approach, since that is what he told other Christians to do.

[Petronski]

One assumes that Peter also baptized people with that approach...

I don't assume that.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

OK, so Peter instructed people to baptize incorrectly, and thus those early Christians were not part of the Church. Peter did not practice what he preached, so to speak...

[Petronski]

See, I’m just not interested in fencing with you. Gotcha games are of no use to me.

Believe what YOU want or believe what the Church founded by Christ teaches, but don’t come to me to play games or score forensic speaking points.

[dixiechick2000]

"Believe what YOU want or believe what the Church founded by Christ teaches"

See...even though we aren't Catholics, we believe in the Bible, and Christ's teachings.

That doesn't make us the Catholic's enemy, though some Catholics seem to want it to be thus.

I'm not talking about you...;o)

[Petronski]

I’m all for a conversation where A says “we believe X” and B says, “oh, wow, we believe not(X)” and A says “Hmmm. Interesting.”

Great stuff (despite my description).

But when A says “Catholics believe X and that’s from the devil” and B says “No, we believe not(X)—” and A says, essentially “Don’t try to lie about it...”

Well, that’s a kind of assault, and I’m going to correct it and fight it, because it’s a misrepresentation of MY faith.

Beyond that—beyond the “Catholics are WRONG!!!!!” garbage—I’m a laissez-faire guy. Men and women of good will can agree to disagree, pray for each other, and hope for the best.

[dixiechick2000]

"Well, that’s a kind of assault, and I’m going to correct it and fight it, because it’s a misrepresentation of MY faith."

I totally understand, as my faith has been assaulted at times, too.

It works both ways, FRiend.

"Men and women of good will can agree to disagree, pray for each other, and hope for the best."

As a Southern Baptist I will say, unequivocally, that I like your style.

Thank you. ;o)

[Petronski]

Be well and God bless.

[dixiechick2000]

Blessings to you, as well.

[Cronos]

ELCA, LCMA, PBS, whatever, just another split from another split from another split.

There isn't anything called "Romanism" by the by, we're The Church with various rites -- ever seen a Catholic Syro-Malabar rite mass?

[Cronos]

Let’s see the “persecutions” as you put it — do you mean the religious frenzy that occured in the 15th - 17th centuries right up until the Peace of Westphalia? If you check it, you’ll find grievances on BOTH sides. Should I blame Anglicans of today for the massacre of Catholics under William and Mary? NO, that would be silly.

[Cronos]

RCC = Radio Controlled-car Club. I know, it really puzzles me when Protestants disparage that club. Very strange. And then they say we’re part of that club, but I don’t own any radio controlled cars. I AM a part of The Church, yes, but that seems different from this RCC the protesters are protesting.

[bronxville]

“Furthermore, another account of this meeting is found in Galatians 2.”

Acts 15 [13-35] Some scholars think that this apostolic decree suggested by James, the immediate leader of the Jerusalem community, derives from another historical occasion than the meeting in question. This seems to be the case if the meeting is the same as the one related in Gal 2:1-10. According to that account, nothing was imposed upon Gentile Christians in respect to Mosaic law; whereas the decree instructs Gentile Christians of mixed communities to abstain from meats sacrificed to idols and from blood-meats, and to avoid marriage within forbidden degrees of consanguinity and affinity (Lev 18), all of which practices were especially abhorrent to Jews. Luke seems to have telescoped two originally independent incidents here: the first a Jerusalem “Council” that dealt with the question of circumcision, and the second a Jerusalem decree dealing mainly with Gentile observance of dietary laws (see Acts 21:25 where Paul seems to be learning of the decree for the first time).
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/acts/acts15.htm#v13

“However, IMHO, it doesn’t establish the hierarchy such as the Catholic Church.”

I didn’t realize that was the objective. I’ll get right on it...lol

Meanwhile, here’s a very brief history that might interest you...or maybe not...

St. Peter was bishop of Rome having traveled there in A.D. 42, when he was forced to flee Palestine after escaping from prison and the persecution of Herod Agrippa (see Acts 12). In Acts 12:17, it says that Peter fled to “another place” and, according to Eusebius, Jerome, and some other fathers, this “other place” was Rome.

Then, in A.D. 49, exactly seven years later, according to both the Roman historian Suetonius and Acts 18:2, the Roman Emperor Claudius expelled all the Jews from Rome because of a riot over someone who Suetonius calls “Chrestus” - clearly, a mis-hearing of “Christus” (”Christ”). So, apparently there was some kind of major conflict between the pro-Christian and anti-Christian Jews in Rome at this time; and the imperial authorities dealt with this by exiling all the Jews from Rome. St. Peter would have been among the Jews who were expelled; and, oddly enough, it is at this very time (A.D. 49) that St. Peter reappears in the Acts narrative, where he is inexplicably present at the council of Jerusalem.

Apparently, St. Luke saw no need to explain where Peter was between Acts 12 (A.D. 42) and Acts 15 (A.D. 49), but assumes that his original readers know where Peter was. Then, only after the council of Jerusalem (with the question of Gentile membership settled) did Peter settle in Antioch, where he became the first true bishop of that city-church. Sometime after the death of Emperor Claudius, when the Jews were finally permitted to return to Rome (Emperor Nero’s wife Pompea was a pro-Jewish “God-fearer”) did Peter return to Rome —the city-church which he had established earlier (as its first true bishop); and it was at Rome that Peter concluded his earthly ministry.

Rome’s primacy comes, NOT from the fact that Peter was the bishop of Rome (since Peter was the bishop of quite a few places - e.g. Jerusalem, Antioch, etc.), but rather from the fact that Peter, in addition to being an Apostle (like all the other Apostles) and a bishop (like all other bishops) was also invested with a special and exclusive ministry by Christ - that is, the ministry of “Rock” and “Key-bearer” for the universal Church, with the duty and responsibility for maintaining the entire flock in unity and orthodoxy (e.g. Luke 22:31-32; John 21:15-19, etc.).

While Peter lived, he took this ministry with him wherever he went. For example, while Peter was clearly the leader/bishop of the infant Church in Jerusalem, when he left Jerusalem, the ministry of “Rock”/”Key-bearer” did not remain with the church of Jerusalem (or pass on to St. James the Just, the first post-Apostolic bishop of Jerusalem), but remained with Peter personally. And, likewise, when Peter left Antioch to end his days in Rome, his Christ-given ministry of Rock and Key-bearer did not remain with Antioch (that is, with St. Evodius or St. Ignatius - the second and third bishops of Antioch, respectively), but was taken with Peter to Rome. It was at Rome that Peter laid down his life and concluded his earthly ministry. This is why his ministry of Rock and Key-bearer was passed on to his earthly successor(s) at Rome, and not those at Antioch or anywhere else.

The ancient Church didn’t believe that Antioch had equal primacy with Rome which can be seen the testimony of the ancient Antiochians. The Eastern Church fathers called Peter the Rock - will cite them if you so wish.

This was accepted without dispute by both the Bishop of Antioch and by St. Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, who presided over the Council of Ephesus. The second see after Rome was not Antioch, but Alexandria. In other words, Alexandria was second in primacy among the original three (Apostle-established) patriarchs, which were: Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch —in that order of primacy. We see this again and again in the patristic record, and both the Eastern fathers and the Western fathers testify to this fact. For example, writing in A.D. 382, Pope St. Damasus I (writing to defend Alexandria’s Traditional primacy in the East after the imperial-backed bishop of Constantinople tried -unsuccessfully - to usurp Alexandria’s authority at the Council of Constantinople I in A.D. 381) outlines the true Tradition.

Pope St. Damasus says ...

“Although all the Catholic churches spread abroad throughout the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of the churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, Who says: ‘You are Peter ...(Matt 16:18-19).’ In addition to this, there is also the companionship of the vessel of election, the most blessed Apostle Paul who, along with Peter in the city of Rome in the time of Caesar Nero, equally consecrated the above-mentioned holy Roman church to Christ the Lord; and by their own presence and by their venerable triumph, they set it at the forefront over the others of all the cities of the world. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman church, which has neither stain nor blemish, nor anything like that. The second see is that of Alexandria, consecrated on behalf of the blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and an Evangelist, who was sent to Egypt by the Apostle Peter, where he preached the word of truth and finished his glorious martyrdom. The third see is that of Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed Peter, where he dwelled before he came to Rome, and where the name ‘Christians’ was first applied, as to a new people.” (Decree of Damasus # 3, 382 A.D.)

So, Rome was recognized by all to be St. Peter’s actual see - his “base of operations” and the successor to his Christ-given ministry as “Rock” and “Key-bearer” (i.e., the final, earthly “court of appeal” for the universal Church). Alexandria was recognized to be second in authority because of its ties of discipleship between St. Peter and St. Mark, who was Peter’s chief disciple and the first Bishop of Alexandria. And Antioch was recognized to be third in authority because it once belonged to Peter.

But Rome itself was clearly the final court of appeal and the universal primate. No honest student of Church history (not even Eastern Orthodox scholars like Ware and Meyendorff) denies this.

[Cronos]

“Believe and you may be baptized”

That doesn't imply that baptism will be denied to infants. It just says that you can be baptised if you believe. The Church initiates baptised adults into the Church via the act of Confirmation through which they learn about the Church and are members of this. Why did we go for infant baptism? Because of the question of infant deaths and the conundrums that opened. The Church deemed that baptism of infants was proper (The Church as a whole as the entire body of believers) with confirmation at the point when a person has reached sapience.

Note that in The Apostolic Church you need to be confirmed to be a member of The Church, to get married in Church, to become a priest etc.

THAT meets the issue you talk about -- namely, does The Church just consider Christians people without their consent or does it want you to voluntarily accept Christ -- the sacrament of Confirmation DOES that and answers the tricky question I referred to earlier.

There was a lot of debate (read St. Cyrian) about whether baptism forgives sins and if yes, then what about sins AFTER baptism?

Holy Baptism holds the first place among the sacraments, because it is the door of the spiritual life; for by it we are made members of Christ and incorporated with the Church. And since through the first man death entered into all, unless we be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, we can not enter into the kingdom of Heaven, as Truth Himself has told us.

The absolute necessity of this sacrament is often insisted on by the Fathers of the Church, especially when they speak of infant baptism. Thus St. Irenæus (Against Heresies 2.22): "Christ came to save all who are reborn through Him to God — infants, children, and youths" (infantes et parvulos et pueros). St. Augustine (On the Soul, Book III) says "If you wish to be a Catholic, do not believe, nor say, nor teach, that infants who die before baptism can obtain the remission of original sin." A still stronger passage from the same doctor (Epistle 28) reads:"Whoever says that even infants are vivified in Christ when they depart this life without the participation of His Sacrament (Baptism), both opposes the Apostolic preaching and condemns the whole Church which hastens to baptize infants, because it unhesitatingly believes that otherwise they can not possibly be vivified in Christ," St. Ambrose (II De Abraham., c. xi) speaking of the necessity of baptism, says:" No one is excepted, not the infant, not the one hindered by any necessity."

The Catholic Church, however, maintains absolutely that the law of Christ applies as well to infants as to adults. When the Redeemer declares (John 3) that it is necessary to be born again of water and the Holy Ghost in order to enter the Kingdom of God, His words may be justly understood to mean that He includes all who are capable of having a right to this kingdom. Now, He has asserted such a right even for those who are not adults, when He says (Matthew 19:14): "Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come to me: for the kingdom of heaven is for such." It has been objected that this latter text does not refer to infants, inasmuch as Christ says "to come to me". In the parallel passage in St. Luke (18:15), however, the text reads: "And they brought unto him also infants, that he might touch them"; and then follow the words cited from St. Matthew. In the Greek text, the words brephe and prosepheron refer to infants in arms.

Moreover, St. Paul (Colossians 2) says that baptism in the New Law has taken the place of circumcision in the Old. It was especially to infants that the rite of circumcision was applied by Divine precept. If it be said that there is no example of the baptism of infants to be found in the Bible, we may answer that infants are included in such phrases as: "She was baptized and her household" (Acts 16:15); "Himself was baptized, and all his house immediately" (Acts 16:33); "I baptized the household of Stephanus" (1 Corinthians 1:16).

Theologians also call attention to the fact that as God sincerely wishes all men to be saved, He does not exclude infants, for whom baptism of either water or blood is the only means possible. The doctrines also of the universality of original sin and of the all-comprehending atonement of Christ are stated so plainly and absolutely in Scripture as to leave no solid reason for denying that infants are included as well as adults.

To the objection that baptism requires faith, theologians reply that adults must have faith, but infants receive habitual faith, which is infused into them in the sacrament of regeneration. As to actual faith, they believe on the faith of another; as St. Augustine (De Verb. Apost., xiv, xviii) beautifully says: "He believes by another, who has sinned by another." As to the obligation imposed by baptism, the infant is obliged to fulfill them in proportion to its age and capacity, as is the case with all laws. Christ, it is true, prescribed instruction and actual faith for adults as necessary for baptism (Matthew 28; Mark 16), but in His general law on the necessity of the sacrament (John 3) He makes absolutely no restriction as to the subject of baptism; and consequently while infants are included in the law, they can not be required to fulfill conditions that are utterly impossible at their age.

Where unbelievers came into the Church there are NT texts dealing with baptism that can be interpreted to include children and even infants. The use of the "household formula" St. Paul writes (50’s): "I baptized the household of Stephanus...," (1 Cor. 1: 16). In Acts where Lydia was Paul’s first convert in Europe it says: "She and her household was baptized," (Acts 16: 15). When the jailor in Philippi became a believer "he and his whole household were baptized," (Acts 16: 33). It is hard to believe that in these households there were no children below the age of moral accountability or no infants

[Cronos]

Ancient churches are not called Protestant churches and many Baptists do not refer to themselves as protestants. They did not arise out of the protestant reformation. Therefore to say Baptists are protestants is historically and theologically incorrect. Our rise did not come out of protesting the Catholic church, rather out of affirming what Scripture taught. The fact that much of that entailed being in opposition to what the established church taught does not make us protestants, however, for the root is not in the establishment but in Scripture.

I must disagree -- let's check the facts -- there were no people calling themselves or doing the teachings of Baptists prior to the 17th centuries. Baptists are descendents of the Puritans, influenced by Anabaptists and secondary formations from the REformation. They broke away from the first Protestants, so protesting protestants (or as I call it Gen2 like Methodists as opposed to Gen 3 -- Christians scientists etc. or Gen 4 - extreme diversions like unitarians, mormons, jehovah's witnesses.)

The fact that you broke away chronologically FROM the first Protestants doesn't make you not Protestants, the baptists ARE protesting protestants.

[Cronos]

Re-baptising also includes Cathars who held the view that everything on earth was evil, hence the proper thing was for everyone to die as it would mean leaving this evil world created by the demiurge.

Don't tell me Baptists believe in a demiurge creating the world and lording over it in the OT just to have the higher gods get angry? If that is what you believe, that is Gnostic teaching just like the Cathars, Waldensians etc.