Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Cronos: I wouldn't put it quite that way
I wouldn't put it that way either, but Jesus did. We are left to ponder why; however the analogy of sheep needing a shepherd is very strong in the Gospel. It is not to be taken as insult, as Chrsit Himself is likened to a lamb, and we are called to imitate Him.
You go on to say that we are encouraged to ask questions. That is very true: Christ enjoyed the debate and took time to answer questions, even questions put to Him in order to trap Him. I try to answer every question put to me from the perspective of my shepherd; however, I am not blind to the fact that some questioners are not interested in hearing the answer.
I was talking about the "excommunicated members purporting to be proto-Baptists", and I meant 1-2 century of Our Lord, in the context of the Trail of Blood theory. I know that the Baptist theology of the modern era is on record, with all its diversity, and it, of course, usually resembles the rest of the Reformed theology.
I was explaining how candidates for membership in my church evidence their faith. One method is a statement of faith. Then I said this "seems to be consistent with".... The timing issue is irrelevant since we believe salvation is a single event. Repeating "the event" is evidence that it has occurred, although it does not "re-save".
Please note that while some of the information looks valid there are scant historical references to substantiate some of the claims being made. Don't yell at me for his views but the views are interesting.
Yes, there is love:
John 14:23-24 "23 Jesus replied, "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. 24 He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.
Love is giving (freely of ourselves in service to Christ), not taking orders (with a maliced heart).
Reading it... thanks. What, me yell?
7. During the period that we are now passing through the persecuted were called by many and varied names. Among them were Donatists, Paterines, Cathari, Paulicians, and Ana Baptists; and a little later, Petro-Brussians, Arnoldists, Henricians, Albigenses, and Waldenses. Sometimes one group of these was the most prominent and sometimes another. But some of them were almost always prominent because of the persistency and terribleness of their persecution.8. Let it not be thought that all these persecuted ones were always loyal in all respects to New Testament teachings. In the main they were. And some of them, considering their surroundings, were marvelously so.
There is never a concrete example of those "persecuted ones" who were "in the main" "loyal in all respects to New Testament teachings". The teachings that the author mostly concentrates on revolve around praxis and meaning of baptism but he fails to link them to any historically recorded opinions. The views that he names form a disparate group of heresies that stood in no relation to the theology the author approves of, except that they, too, denied authority. His mentioning of "Ana Baptists" in the same 5-6 century context as Donatists and the like is either ignorant or deliberately misleading; www.anabaptists.org, for example, states that "January 21, 1525, is generally considered the birthdate of Anabaptism".
His naked assertion that prior to Emperor Constantine the churches generally did not recognize the authority of bishops and in particular the bishop of Rome is false; a casual reading of the letters of Irenaeus, Pope Clement or Ignatius, just to name a few, would dispriove that.
The author is either unfamiliar with the wealth of historical evidence available on the entiore history of the Church, or purposely decides to avoid making specific references.
This book is worthless.
That very concept refutes the whole idea of "absolute assurance" of salvation.
I thought I would get tagged on that one. :) I was speaking as a third party, and I know that I am not supposed to pass judgment on anyone else's salvation status. Only the person and God CAN KNOW whether the person is saved.
My idea of absolute assurance is that it is true and knowable, although not all saved people understand this yet. When I was saved I had no detailed theology behind me beyond the required basics. At that moment I did have assured salvation, but I didn't know it. Later, through sanctification, I came to know the truth that I may have absolute confidence in God's promises concerning salvation.
I fully understand how this can "sound" harsh. I really do. My understanding is that the underlying theme is the supreme sovereignty of God. He is the potter and it is not for us to question, etc.
As I learn more about this it seems to me personally that the issue of perspective is very important. From God's point of view everything is already a done deal, He already knows which names are and which are not in the Book of Life. However, from our perspective we have no such knowledge. That is why we are to spread the Word and minister to the whole world as if all were the elect. So, even with this (new for me) view, I will carry on as a Christian pretty much the same way.
I wouldn't exactly say that. Much of the author historical information seems to jive with other things I know to be true. If you read to the bottom you'll find a very detailed laundry list of references materials which the author claims to be the basis for his history. Trouble is there are no footnotes to compare against. You don't know where specifically he got his information.
There are some assertions (e.g. 500 million Baptists dying over ...) I would challenge him on. I agree with your assessment that there is never a concrete example of the persecuted people. The "Baptists head on a pole for 30 miles" seems a little incredulous to me even for the Middle Ages. This wasn't 4th century Rome.
My understanding is the author considers all "believers" outside organized Church/church from the conception of the Church to be Baptists (not just Ana-Baptists). This seems to be a rather broad brush treatment. I'm not sure if I'm convinced that all these "loose" Christians represents Baptist beliefs even by the author's definition. That being said it would seem equally incredulous to me to believe that there was a period of time (after the 2nd century) when everyone who called themselves Christian was a member of the existing Church. What would one call them? By the author's VERY LOOSE definition (e.g. believe church and state should be separate, immersion baptism, loose denominational structure) you could almost fit anyone into that category.
Even though some of the information is questionable, the author presents some valid points and his history seems to be about accurate. I wouldn't dismiss the entire history. That being said I noticed he left out the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1610. I questioned why he didn't go into this important document from the Baptist perspective. It would seem to me the Baptists must have start forming before the time he seems to indicates.
Again, I disagree -- if God wanted pure slaves, He would have done so.
He did, and has done so:
Romans 6:16-32 "16 Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. 18 You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness. 19 I put this in human terms because you are weak in your natural selves. Just as you used to offer the parts of your body in slavery to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer them in slavery to righteousness leading to holiness. 20 When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. 21 What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! 22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life."
God WANTS us to decide, He revels in our unpredictableness.
In that case, my God can beat up your God! :)
Oh, I thought you wrote a few days ago that "if how you explain Catholicism is correct, we are closer than I thought" or something to that effect. Hmm. Let's start again. Well, we agree that Christ rose from the dead, right?!
Regards
The more I have meditated on this "God doesn't want pure slaves", the stranger it sounds. Wouldn't and shouldn't it be every Christian's desire to have his/her heart so transfix on our Lord Jesus that we are in total submission to His every call? If we are not in God's perfect will then we are in sin. God does want us to be "slaves to righteousness".
Augustine
Is that St. Augustine? I thought St. Ignatius of Loyola said that (or was he quoting Augustine?)
Regards
Hmmmm...I don't know. Several quote sites attributes it to Augustine. I'm not sure where the reference is found.
Seriously, do you think ANYONE who believes in the "absolute assurance" of salvation believes that THEY have not been saved, that their "altar call" didn't "stick"? Truly, the whole idea of "absolute assurance" of salvation attempts to place salvation entirely into the hands of the Christian. By pointing to an event in the past, they can "prove" that they are saved, regardless of their future actions. Ironically, "absolute assurance" is a works doctrine! One has 'earned' their salvation, and nothing can take it away!
At that moment I did have assured salvation, but I didn't know it.
With all the mention of perseverance, holding out to the end, ethical exhortations, carrying one's cross, and following the narrow path, do you sense that the Scripture teaches we are saved irrefutably by one event in the past? I believe there is tons of evidence that shows that salvation is a process, rather than a one-time event that ends upon "accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior" - for example, read Matthew 7:21.
Later, through sanctification, I came to know the truth that I may have absolute confidence in God's promises concerning salvation
Salvation doesn't depend on "confidence", but on love. I can have all the faith in the world, even enough to move mountains, but without love, I am nothing - 1 Cor 13:2. You will not join God in heaven without love. Focus on love, brother, and you will have fulfilled the commandment of Christ.
Regards
The central point, -- that communities most closely resembling Baptists in theology and outside of communion with Rome existed more or less continuously since the days of the Apostles is not substantiated, as you yourself agree. What is accurate, -- that the councils he mentions took place, Constantine was the Emperor and a convert, John the Baptist had followers, Rome is in Italy -- is also common knowledge, and so is his exposition of Baptist beliefs.
If I wanted to "prove" that Americans descended from Mars and wrote a tract that asserted that but also gave accurate astronomical data on Mars and on the US Constitution and government, then no matter how accurate my astronomy and political history would be, my tract would be worthless because of the central thesis remaining without proof.
I am sorry Forest, what you state is diametrically opposite from what I, and all other Catholics and Orthodox believe.
This is what I have been learning over the last several weeks. I suppose that I am personally attracted to this belief system because it minimizes us for the purpose of glorifying God. "He must become greater, I must become less (John 3:30). I have always found that the more I rely on God, and the less I rely on myself, the better off I am.
Well, you're the one who asked for information on the belief-not me. I can't argue whether it is true or not simply because I have not read through the stacks of books. All I'm doing is trying to look at the material objectively.
I have some doubts and have express them but I don't think you or I have the evidence necessary to totally reject the author's premise. To accurately verify his information we would have to trace every single Christian group and their beliefs throughout the history outside of the Church-an impossible task. I can't even keep my telephone numbers organized. This is like tracing the lost tribe of Israel or Noah's Ark in my mind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.