s/o - Statements of Faith & Catholics

[Crimson Wife]

 

But Catholics believe that the sacrament itself effects the grace. Of course Christ is involved. Of course it would just be water without Christ. But Christ instituted the sacraments as a means of effecting grace. Could Christ save without Baptism? Sure. It's possible. He's God. But we don't presume that, as Catholics.

 

The RCC also believes in baptism by desire and baptism by blood. So while the physical sacrament is very important and under normal circumstances should be performed, it is Christ who saves (typically but not always through the actions of the priest during the sacrament).

[Alexigail]

It's funny, I find discussions like this both fascinating and exhausting. I think that it's because I was raised in the EO Church, so I feel like I'm speaking a different language a lot of the time. There are so many debates between Catholics and Protestants, Protestants and other Protestants etc etc that are absolutely foreign to me, like faith vs works, justification, original sin, literal or symbolic sacraments, etc etc. This just simply wasn't a part of my vocabulary.

My point is that I wonder if this is where a lot of our misunderstandings come from. We're talking about the same thing (Christianity) but speaking many different languages.

[JuanitaL]

 

Because Baptists don't believe that baptism has anything to do with the forgiveness of sin.

 

It's a sign or a "symbol" of the sinners prayer or the conversion prayer, when previous sins were forgiven, but the baptism itself does not do anything.

Thanks. I see now it was the word "for", I was looking at the "one baptism".

[JuanitaL]

 

Huh, I've never heard this before. So, baptists don't believe you are "reborn" through baptism, as in John 3:5?

 

I'm really very curious about this, I had no idea some Christians thought of baptism as a symbol.

 

 

From http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/basicbeliefs.asp

 

Baptism & the Lord's Supper

Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water. …It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer's faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer's death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus.

 

The Lord's Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members … memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming.

[Meriwether]

I've found the Baptist bashing in this thread to be quite...er...educational.

[mommaduck]

I've found the Baptist bashing in this thread to be quite...er...educational.

No, actually, I wasn't bashing. I was speaking from my experience of having been raised baptist in the military and in various baptist churches throughout the US. I did state that not ALL baptists fall under certain things...but I've found the different ones to be in the minority, so I'm speaking about the majority of my experience, combined with my husband's experience of being raised baptist and the son of a pastor. IFB and SBC for each of us. Most of my family is baptist. My best friend is baptist (she's a rarity amoung baptists). No bashing. I also speak towards what I myself believed at one time...including rededications (they were quite popular when I was a teen).

 

 

Maybe I'm a bit touchy because of things have been said about us living around a lot of baptists. I'm moving to a heavily baptist area.

[UrbanSue]

 

The RCC also believes in baptism by desire and baptism by blood. So while the physical sacrament is very important and under normal circumstances should be performed, it is Christ who saves (typically but not always through the actions of the priest during the sacrament).

 

Yes, but those are kind of emergency situations. Martyrs and the like. I'm not disputing AT ALL that it isn't Christ who saves, just pointing out the key difference between what Catholics believe about baptism and what Baptists (and most other Protestants) believe about baptism.

 

Could Christ save someone who wasn't baptized? Absolutely. He can save anyone He wants! And we believe that he can save those who die a martyrs death and those who died sincerely desiring baptism but unable to achieve it before death. But that doesn't change the fact that we also believe that the Sacrament of Baptism makes real the grace it signifies.

 

p.s. my computer doesn't play nice with italics, so my bolded is emphasis, not shouting. I should probably add that note to my siggy to prevent misunderstanding. I'm not a shouter.

[TracyP]

Meriwether, I don't see any Baptist bashing. (I was Baptist for several years; my brother and my best friend are Baptist) I am not well versed enough to know if the Baptist beliefs are being well represented, but I don't see bashing at all. If there are misconceptions about Baptists being expressed, maybe you could clear them up.

 

I am finding this thread to be very educational. :)

[mommaduck]

My apologies for those that I have offended by sharing my experiences of having been baptist. I know there are wonderful baptist people. Certain things other people said sometimes brings up memories of this or that. I was that teen/young adult that read chick tract, thought there was satanism associated with Catholics, believed that I had to share my faith with everyone, pitied everyone that believed differently, been "believer's baptised" multiple times, read cleaned up history from Abeka Books, had pastors that hid other versions of the bible in their offices for personal study while preaching (yelling) KJVO from the pulpit, etc. This was my history in Baptist churches and those are just the tips of the icebergs...

[UrbanSue]

I don't see any Baptist bashing. (I was Baptist for several years; my brother and my best friend are Baptist) I am not well versed enough to know if the Baptist beliefs are being well represented, but I don't see bashing at all. If there are misconceptions about Baptists being expressed, maybe you could clear them up.

 

I am finding this thread to be very educational. :)

 

 

Apologies if I came across as bashing at all. Certainly not my intentions. Just trying to elucidate theological differences.

[Ellie]

Really? Down here, "Baptist" means Southern Baptist (most people don't know that there are other types) and, hmm, I don't know how to say this nicely, Baptists don't have a very good reputation among other denominations and religions.

 

Well, I'm sure that's true in many places, but really and truly, there are at least that many faith groups which have the word "Baptist" in them, and their individual dogmas are not all the same. And some people don't know which one they are. A friend attends a "Baptist" church in San Jose, and she doesn't know which kind it is.

 

I have the utmost respect for the Southern Baptist denomination. Mr. Ellie grew up in it, and his father was a deacon; my brother is a Southern Baptist pastor. Furthermore, I never heard anyone in my Assemblies of God or independent/non-denominational churches speak badly of Southern Baptists. I'm sorry to hear that it is not the case where you live.

[Kathryn]

I've found the Baptist bashing in this thread to be quite...er...educational.

 

Sorry, I don't see it either. On the chance you're referring to my comment, I was remarking on what the perception of Baptists is around here, which I know not only from general conversations over the last three decades, but also because of reactions when my religious background was brought up (I come from a VERY long line of American Baptist ministers). In all my years, I've met ONE person down here who wasn't Baptist that knew that American Baptists are very different than Southern Baptists. My American Baptist family gave up trying to go to church when they visited us because they couldn't find a Baptist church that didn't leave them cringing.

[a27mom]

 

I think it's prudent to remember that people only have as much to go on as they know personally.

 

 

Yes this is my point. People were very upset that people thought Catholics might not be Christians. Yet my entire formative experience with Catholicism was primarily with "Catholics" who are not Christians. The many Catholics I knew personally mostly only attended church on holidays if then. They had a vague notion that Jesus died on a cross, but couldn't really tell you why. They had been baptized as infants so if the Catholic version of heaven existed they would go there, but they were free to believe anything they wanted, Buddhism, reincarnation( this was real popular with my catholic friends when I was in high school), agnostic etc... Since this was the Catholics I knew, I naturally assumed Catholics were not Christians. I lived in a majority catholic area.

 

I have since learned differently. I finally met some Catholics who had a clue in late high school. (This is also when i learned that the catholics in our area were told baptists were bad.) I now live in an area that is non majority catholic, so the percentage of cultural Catholics is low. And if you tell me you are a practicing catholic I presume you are a Christian unless I learn otherwise.

 

If you live in an area that is majority Protestant or baptist or whatever. You are probably going to run into a lot of people who declare a particular "christian" faith but are not truly Christians.

 

I admit though I don't necessarily think it is the intent of those on the thread. I believe people have been truly hurt, but a lot of the judgement seems to be generalized against evangelicals and/or baptists/non-denoms based on personal experience. Whereas people are, justifiably, upset when Catholics are judged on the same basis.

 

People on this thread say that, SoF, church membership lists etc...exist for the sole purpose of discrimination or tattling. While I am sure there are some groups that do use them badly and that is very sad. it is unfair to generalize based on those personal experiences

 

 

[a27mom]

 

 

But Catholics believe that the sacrament itself effects the grace. Of course Christ is involved. Of course it would just be water without Christ. But Christ instituted the sacraments as a means of effecting grace. Could Christ save without Baptism? Sure. It's possible. He's God. But we don't presume that, as Catholics.

 

For information, not argument:

 

So do you presume that those who are not baptized are not saved?

 

And does it matter if one is baptized by a priest or not? (Someone posted something about the priest I can't find it.)

 

[misty.warden]

I don't necessarily agree with my pastor on all points of Bible interpretation, so the idea that someone who is catholic would be unable to sign such a SoF simply based on being catholic is hard to wrap my head around.

 

 

 

So far as I know, as a Catholic I am required to agree with the teachings of the Church. You don't get to pick the parts you like and leave the rest. I would not sign my name to something that I didn't believe, it's like swearing an oath you have no intention of upholding all the terms. (OT, I think all SOF signing would exclude Quakers)

 

Ken Ham started teaching that if you don't believe in a literal 24hr/6day creation then the rest of your Christian faith and belief in the Bible falls apart because you are then calling God a liar and can't trust the Scriptures. Therefore, you can't be a real Christian without believing what he teaches, exactly how he teaches it.

 

 

I hear this a lot from evangelical friends, usually right after they're aghast about me having to believe *everything* the Church teaches. My Spock eyebrow just about shoots off in confusion.

 

 

For information, not argument:

 

So do you presume that those who are not baptized are not saved?

 

And does it matter if one is baptized by a priest or not? (Someone posted something about the priest I can't find it.)

 

 

I can't even get people on the apologetics board on catholic forums to discuss Extra ecclesiam nulla salus, I think it would be a bad idea to try here.

[SarahW]

For information, not argument:

 

So do you presume that those who are not baptized are not saved?

 

And does it matter if one is baptized by a priest or not? (Someone posted something about the priest I can't find it.)

 

 

Eh, I don't really want to get into the nitty gritty here but:

 

Your question doesn't work. In the theology of those who hold to the sacramental efficacy of baptism there is no such thing as "being saved" or being "not saved."

 

Salvation is more of a way of life, one which normally begins with baptism. Being baptized does not guarantee salvation, however. People can choose to "defect" from Christianity and it is upon themselves to utilize grace to align their soul with God or not.

 

The Catholics you grew up with who believed in reincarnation, could, indeed, not be Christians. But I have difficulty saying someone is not a Christian just because of things they may say or do, we're all sinners on a hard path to God, kwim? But if they were hardly ever going to church, and believing things contrary to the teachings of the church, then technically they would be "out of communion" and not Catholic anymore according to the RC Church. There's rules written somewhere outlining exactly how one falls out of communion, i.e. excommunicated, but the rules tend to change and they generally aren't applied very strictly. Most priests try to be pastoral to the "fringe" Catholics, hoping that something will spark them to take their faith more seriously, but since priests have some many parishioners to take care of (I think the average is around 600 families per priest here in America?) they can't take as much time as they probably should to have a real heart-to-heart with some people.

 

Personally, I think denominations who do not baptize at all (Salvation Army is one, and some other small ones, and the nondenominationals who just never "get around to it") are wrong. But I think God is big enough to deal with people who went about things the wrong way through no fault of their own.

[mommymilkies]

I certainly didn't mean to be offensive. Like I said, most of my maternal family is Baptist. But in many areas they do get a bad name. I have found that it is proportional to how south you go, though. They are not thought of as badly in KY where my family is compared to when we lived in NY, for example. Around here, we live by a very pushy one that gets a bad name for that. So I wouldn't let them go here because of it. Doesn't matter if they were JW or Hindu, it's the behavior in accepting no that gets many denominations a bad name. But there are sooooooo many different Baptist flavors, that what we have here is likely nothing like the one a county away, KWIM?

[UrbanSue]

For information, not argument:

 

So do you presume that those who are not baptized are not saved?

 

And does it matter if one is baptized by a priest or not? (Someone posted something about the priest I can't find it.)

 

I don't think I have the theological acumen to give this answer the nuance it probably deserves.

 

But to the first question: Catholics never presume to know the state of anyone's soul. Salvation is not for us the work of a moment. I'm not saying it is necessarily the work of a moment for Protestants. But as a former Evangelical, the theology I most often was around tended towards the idea that while we were supposed to always be working on becoming better Christians, our salvation was assured after making an act of faith. This just isn't the way it works as Catholics. We are always working out our salvation with fear and trembling. We are always striving for holiness. We should be always trying to avail ourselves of the grace the Church offers us through the sacraments (Baptism, yes, but on a regular basis Confession and the Eucharist). We mostly don't presume to know what has happened to the faithful departed, either. (Saints are an exception--the Church has a lengthy process for this). But most Catholics assume that we'll be heading for Purgatory after departing this world where we will be further refined.

 

But, most importantly: do we "presume"? No! Not for ourselves, not for anyone else.

 

Does Baptism requires a priest? The short answer is no. But a priest or ordained deacon is the norm and should always be done, if possible. In case of emergency any person (Christian or no) can baptize with any water using the words, "I Baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." If that person intends to do what the Church says Baptism is, you are baptized. Baptism has to be requested as well. We can't baptize against the will of a person who has reached the age of reason. But this is an emergency thing. And, as Crimson Wife pointed out earlier, we believe that there can be a Baptism of Desire where someone who sincerely desired Baptism died before being able to obtain it. The most common example of emergency baptism these days would be a doctor, nurse, or parent baptizing a baby at the request of the parents shortly after birth because death seems imminent.

[VeritasMama]

For information, not argument:

 

So do you presume that those who are not baptized are not saved?

 

And does it matter if one is baptized by a priest or not? (Someone posted something about the priest I can't find it.)

 

You do not need to be a priest to baptize, you must simply be baptized yourself. In an emergency situation, or a situation where a priest or deacon is not available, any baptized Catholic can perform a baptism.

 

The Catholic church also recognizes the validity of baptisms performed by other denominations. My husband was raised Lutheran, and he did not need to be re-baptized when he converted, his Lutheran baptism was considered just as valid as my Catholic baptism. There are a few churches where the Catholic church would not consider the baptism as valid, it is dependent upon the theology and doctrine espoused by the church concerning baptism. (For example, LDS baptisms are not considered valid by the Catholic church, and so an LDS convert would have to be baptized in the Catholic church. Not a dig on LDS, just an example to illustrate the teachings of the Catholic church).

[Orthodox6]

I both like and appreciate the EO take on this. For us, "Outside of the Church, we don't know what is going on regarding other people's ultimate salvation, or lack of salvation, because that is God's decision, not ours." If somebody asks me whether I believe that so-and-so is bound for a particular unwholesome destination, the only correct answer from me is "I don't know. It is not my place to know."

 

 

I can't even get people on the apologetics board on catholic forums to discuss Extra ecclesiam nulla salus, I think it would be a bad idea to try here.

 

[misty.warden]

I both like and appreciate the EO take on this. For us, "Outside of the Church, we don't know what is going on regarding other people's ultimate salvation, or lack of salvation, because that is God's decision, not ours." If somebody asks me whether I believe that so-and-so is bound for a particular unwholesome destination, the only correct answer from me is "I don't know. It is not my place to know."

 

 

I'm not versed in apologetics so I don't know if the EO and RC lines differ on that, but I hope (and say until I'm corrected) about the same thing. The problem starts when people say, "don't you think...because he..." and I say, "I don't know the state of anyone's soul," and they counter, "but [what he did] is a mortal sin/denounced in the Bible/Forbidden by Mosey the Pirate prophet of the Spaghetti Monster..." and then it devolves into "why won't you give me a straight answer?" and the fate of unbaptized babies. Very emotional and no one leaves satisfied.

[Orthodox6]

 

I'm not versed in apologetics so I don't know if the EO and RC lines differ on that, but I hope (and say until I'm corrected) about the same thing. The problem starts when people say, "don't you think...because he..." and I say, "I don't know the state of anyone's soul," and they counter, "but [what he did] is a mortal sin/denounced in the Bible/Forbidden by Mosey the Pirate prophet of the Spaghetti Monster..." and then it devolves into "why won't you give me a straight answer?" and the fate of unbaptized babies. Very emotional and no one leaves satisfied.

 

 

In general, EO refrain from demanding a detailed answer to every single question possible to pose. There are times when we consider it appropriate not to worry [about having an answer], because humanity is limited, whereas God is infinite. I often have wondered whether this way of approaching the world and God via humility, and with self-confidence in our inability to comprehend everything in existence using our created faculties, relates to the original choice of the Greek word mysterion for what we call in English "mystery". Other faith groups use the word sacrament. We refer to the "Mystery of Marriage", the "Holy Mysteries" (Holy Communion), etc.

[misty.warden]

In general, EO refrain from demanding a detailed answer to every single question possible to pose. There are times when we consider it appropriate not to worry [about having an answer], because humanity is limited, whereas God is infinite. I often have wondered whether this way of approaching the world and God via humility, and with self-confidence in our inability to comprehend everything in existence using our created faculties, relates to the original choice of the Greek word mysterion for what we call in English "mystery". Other faith groups use the word sacrament. We refer to the "Mystery of Marriage", the "Holy Mysteries" (Holy Communion), etc.

 

 

Sorry for the confusion if you thought I meant questioning by EO members, I don't know any IRL. I agree with this as well. Usually the "straight answer" demanding comes from the sola scriptura and evangelical crowd and those who think if you don't know or cannot explain all the answers that your faith cannot be complete. There are some teachings I have a hard time accepting because it would make my life easier if I did not, or they are not explained as easily as I would like. I see that as a problem with my understanding, not God and my teacher.

[serendipitous journey]

ALL Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans, Mennonites, etc. are Christians. The Nicene Creed contains the basic tenets of Christianity, and all these denominations agree with the beliefs espoused in it. Now if someone does not agree with everything in the Nicene Creed, then most people would agree that he/she is not Christian. Any theological controversy beyond the Nicene Creed is a disagreement between different types of Christians, not between Christians and non-Christians.

 

A real, but rare, case of Christians who do not espouse the Nicene Creed are Christian Quakers. Originally of course all Quakers were Christian; but modern Quakers may identify as non-Christian or other-than-Christian.

 

Quaker Jane is one such non-Nicene-Christian I am familiar with, who is very Quaker, very non-creed oriented, and very Christian.

 

(this is not a disagreement with the quote -- just a filling out of it, I hope)

[QuirkyKapers]

No,uh-oh. Just confusion.

 

Is it the old stand-by that Catholics aren't really Christians or that some people who profess Christianity really aren't.

 

I shake my head and wonder if people ever read a history book when confronted with the first.

 

 

Just have to say though that some Catholics do say they aren't Christian, they are Catholic. I have personally heard this said. So, has my dh. Not trying to cause a big todo. I am always surprised when I hear this since I consider Catholics to be Christian.

 

 

 

If you are a Christian, and not a member of the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches, then by definition you are a Protestant (leaving aside the whole controversy over the LDS church for simplicity's sake). You may be a non-denominational Protestant, but you are still one.

 

 

Actually, Anabaptists don't consider themselves Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox or Protestant.

Again, not trying to cause a stir. I have seen this said several times on the board. This doesn't mean that their aren't Anabaptists who don't identify as Protestant.

 

http://www.thirdway.com/menno/FAQ.asp?F_ID=26

 

http://www.cbc4me.org/articles/Baptist/04-McGrath.pdf

 

This is a great statement in the thirdway article:

Ultimately we are not so concerned with being Anabaptist, Catholic, or Protestant, but simply being faithful disciples of Jesus!

 

This is true for myself. So, I would say for me, the SOF is irritating because I don't think people's differing faiths should be nit picking one another but trying to be a faithful disciples of Jesus and trying to learn and grow on our journey of faith with one another. In my opinion, we focus too much on what our differences are and that separates us. Of course, I get that those differences is why we have different faith groups. It wouldn't have too separate us if we could ask questions and be open to hearing and learning more about the differences. It could be enriching. Since that doesn't seem to happen very often, I am not sure why we don't focus on our commonalities. There are so many things we have in common than our differences. .

[a27mom]

 

 

Usually the "straight answer" demanding comes from the sola scriptura and evangelical crowd and those who think if you don't know or cannot explain all the answers that your faith cannot be complete. There are some teachings I have a hard time accepting because it would make my life easier if I did not, or they are not explained as easily as I would like. I see that as a problem with my understanding, not God and my teacher.

 

 

Actually I think this is one of those areas where the paradigm difference makes it hard to communicate. So i am not offended. That first statement is definitely not accurate in the wider evangelical point of view.

 

In the "evangelical crowd" I am from/in there is no concept of faith being complete or incomplete. Faith is or isn't. Salvation is a free gift from God through Jesus death on the cross and resurrection from the dead. If you believe and accept that the basic requirements of faith are complete.

 

And yes evangelicals do expect a straight answer, because then there is assurance of salvation for the individual.

 

After that there can be a wide doctrinal variation, but that is not a salvation issue. So there is quite a bit of freedom to disagree in many evangelical circles (all the ones I have ever been in actually)

 

I realize that there are some so called evangelical groups that have run amok into pharisaical practices, that have turned assurance of salvation into judgement of others salvation, but that is not representative of the movement as a whole. Even though that might be what is most widely publicized. I certainly choose not to judge Catholicism as a whole based on their "publicity", the same consideration would be appreciated. :) This has not gone completely unnoticed, and is heart breaking to other evangelical groups. And yes many of these people homeschool because they are involved in this insular practice, but that is actually contrary to evangelicalism, which calls us to be out in the world being salt and light. (In fact I continually consider sending my children to ps, "for religious reasons". I do appreciate that God has not called us to that right now)

 

I have definitely learned a lot about the catholic paradigm through this thread. It has been very interesting. I can see why there is often so much misunderstanding on both sides. Thank you for sharing.

[Mom22ns]

I've found the Baptist bashing in this thread to be quite...er...educational.

I understand all the people who say it isn't bashing, but I have never heard all the negative opinions of Baptists before either. It has been eye opening. Here Baptists is the largest, most common denomination in this area and is generally known for getting along with all the other protestant denominations.

 

One thing that is different about Baptists than a lot of other denominations is that it a bottom up organization. That allows for a lot of difference at the local church level.

[mommaduck]

I understand all the people who say it isn't bashing, but I have never heard all the negative opinions of Baptists before either. It has been eye opening. Here Baptists is the largest, most common denomination in this area and is generally known for getting along with all the other protestant denominations.

 

One thing that is different about Baptists than a lot of other denominations is that it a bottom up organization. That allows for a lot of difference at the local church level.

This can be very true, depending upon the Baptist denomination, but how about how they get along with non-Protestants (Catholics, EO's, etc)?

[Ellie]

I understand all the people who say it isn't bashing, but I have never heard all the negative opinions of Baptists before either. It has been eye opening. Here Baptists is the largest, most common denomination in this area and is generally known for getting along with all the other protestant denominations.

 

One thing that is different about Baptists than a lot of other denominations is that it a bottom up organization. That allows for a lot of difference at the local church level.

 

Is that Southern Baptist? :-)

[Orthodox6]

If you are a Christian, and not a member of the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches, then by definition you are a Protestant (leaving aside the whole controversy over the LDS church for simplicity's sake). You may be a non-denominational Protestant, but you are still one.

 

Yes. This is the accepted definition (when expanded to include the non-Chalcedonian churches).

[mommaduck]

If you are a Christian, and not a member of the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches, then by definition you are a Protestant (leaving aside the whole controversy over the LDS church for simplicity's sake). You may be a non-denominational Protestant, but you are still one.

 

Yes, Anabaptist and some Baptist don't like the term "Protestant", but it is accurate. They are subsets of Protestantism. This is proven by history.

[QuirkyKapers]

Yes, Anabaptist and some Baptist don't like the term "Protestant", but it is accurate. They are subsets of Protestantism. This is proven by history.

 

 

It is true that by the dictionaries definition that Anabaptists fall under that category. However, Anabaptists don't identify themselves that way. They consider themselves separate and a third way of looking at faith. This is why there is a site called Third Way Cafe (http://www.thirdway.com/page.asp?Page=2423_About%20TWC). Just because someone categorized Anabaptists that way, doesn't mean that it is true historically or today.

 

Here is another article about differences specifically related to Evangelical faith communities:

 

www.anabaptistchurch.org/Differences.htm

 

I not trying to cause an argument for arguments sake. Just like other faith groups want their distinguishing beliefs clarified, I think this is important to clarify as well. Anabaptists get "lumped in" with the Protestants group. However, they are not. Like I posted eariler, Anabaptists wouldn't say they were Catholic or Protestant. Historically, they were persecuted by both faith groups because of their differences. Anabaptists embrace some things in the Catholic church and Protestant churches, but there are also differences which make Anabaptism a third way of living out faith. I will add that Anabaptists do "look" more Protestant than Catholic today.

[UrbanSue]

 

It is true that by the dictionaries definition that Anabaptists fall under that category. However, Anabaptists don't identify themselves that way. They consider themselves separate and a third way of looking at faith. This is why there is a site called Third Way Cafe (http://www.thirdway....=2423_About TWC). Just because someone categorized Anabaptists that way, doesn't mean that it is true historically or today.

 

Here is another article about differences specifically related to Evangelical faith communities:

 

www.anabaptistchurch.org/Differences.htm

 

I not trying to cause an argument for arguments sake. Just like other faith groups want their distinguishing beliefs clarified, I think this is important to clarify as well. Anabaptists get "lumped in" with the Protestants group. However, they are not. Like I posted eariler, Anabaptists wouldn't say they were Catholic or Protestant. Historically, they were persecuted by both faith groups because of their differences. Anabaptists embrace some things in the Catholic church and Protestant churches, but there are also differences which make Anabaptism a third way of living out faith. I will add that Anabaptists do "look" more Protestant than Catholic today.

 

 

I hadn't realized this before. It helps me better understand a friend of mine who really wanted to be Mennonite and Catholic--which might sound kind of silly when I say it like that--but it was a deep spiritual struggle.

[mommaduck]

It is true that by the dictionaries definition that Anabaptists fall under that category. However, Anabaptists don't identify themselves that way. They consider themselves separate and a third way of looking at faith. This is why there is a site called Third Way Cafe (http://www.thirdway....=2423_About TWC). Just because someone categorized Anabaptists that way, doesn't mean that it is true historically or today.

 

Here is another article about differences specifically related to Evangelical faith communities:

 

www.anabaptistchurch.org/Differences.htm

 

I not trying to cause an argument for arguments sake. Just like other faith groups want their distinguishing beliefs clarified, I think this is important to clarify as well. Anabaptists get "lumped in" with the Protestants group. However, they are not. Like I posted eariler, Anabaptists wouldn't say they were Catholic or Protestant. Historically, they were persecuted by both faith groups because of their differences. Anabaptists embrace some things in the Catholic church and Protestant churches, but there are also differences which make Anabaptism a third way of living out faith. I will add that Anabaptists do "look" more Protestant than Catholic today.

I know personally and very well how the Anabaptists view themselves. We nearly joined them at one time. We studied them, we lived amoungst them, we attended their churches, and we have family that are Anabaptist. Regardless how they view themselves, history speaks volumes and they try really hard to pretend part of their history does not exist and dismiss certain parts of their history when confronted with facts. Yes, I'm aware they see themselves as a "third way", but that is inaccurate (just as they inaccurately identify with the Waldenses...some of the Waldenses beliefs would curl their hair, but they try really hard to claim them as a predecessor). And yes, there are specifics about them that cause them to be considered heretics by even other Protestants.

 

BTW, historically, they also persecuted both of the other groups. Blood was on everyone's hands in those days...

[Crimson Wife]

If the Anabaptists started after the Great Schism of 1054 that divided the Western and Eastern church, then they are Protestants (whether they claim the label or not). AFAIK, the Anabaptists date to the Reformation era.

[Ellie]

Many Catholics use the phrase "non-Catholic Christians." :-)

[milovany]

That allows for a lot of difference at the local church level.

 

 

My comments to follow are not meant as a side by side comparison, just something I realized I was thankful for today. I was standing in a prayer service tonight, at a small little mission parish, with just four others in attendance (our priest, his wife, my son and one of the church "readers"). We lit candles, we stood holding holding our service books, we sang the service and we showed honor to the saint we were commemorating while worshiping the Trinitarian God. And I looked around and realized -- this service is the same service that's sung in all other Orthodox churches around the world, large and small. This nave (known by most as a "sanctuary" although that's not what we call it) is laid out, with the icon of Christ to the right of the altar and the icon of the Theotokos to the left, like all other Orthodox churches around the world, large and small. This priest leads the service and this laity joins him in response like in all other Orthodox churches around the world, large and small. All those other churches have candles, have a "great cloud of witnesses" praying with those gathered, have the same feasts commemorated at the same time through the cycle of the year, have people baptized using the same service, have people crossing themselves the same way whenever the priest or deacon says "In the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit," have people preparing with fasting and prayer to receive the Eucharist every week, etc. And when I talk about all those other Orthodox churches, I don't just mean today -- I mean throughout the last 2000 years. There's an amazing unity in all these churches throughout that world and throughout time which can only be ascribed to the Holy Spirit God, since none of this has ever been dogmatized in a formal way. It's Holy Tradition passed down throughout all generations, held together by something supernatural.

 

Anyway, your comment above (which I respect in the way that you mean it, even though it would not be my preference) made me remember what I was thinking tonight at church as I stood through the prayer service.

 

Probably off topic, but just thinking out loud ....

[milovany]

If the Anabaptists started after the Great Schism of 1054 that divided the Western and Eastern church, then they are Protestants (whether they claim the label or not). AFAIK, the Anabaptists date to the Reformation era.

 

 

From what I understand, there's a segment (someone can give me the right term) of Baptists who believe there were underground Christians separate from the united Catholic/Orthodox church from the early days; underground because they were persecuted by these other Christians. It's this "hidden" line of Christians from which this segment of Baptists comes. So they would say they predate even the great Schism, that they always were, that they have a direct/continuous line from the early church until now and that it's the Catholic/Orthodox church that was in error. I've not seen any historical writings that can show this to be the case, but would love to see some if there are any.

[8circles]

 

 

oh yes the old I know lots of bad ignorant catholics spiel. I know it well. So tiresome.

 

 

How is it different than the bad ignorant Protestant spiel? I think there are enough spiels to cover every religious group, no?

[Zebra]

Yes this is my point. People were very upset that people thought Catholics might not be Christians. Yet my entire formative experience with Catholicism was primarily with "Catholics" who are not Christians. The many Catholics I knew personally mostly only attended church on holidays if then.

 

 

Well, it does say in Hezekiah 11:24 "Proof that you are a Christian includes going to an organized church every week, fake Christians only go on holidays, or never. Also, do not let people who liked Harry Potter into your co-op."

[Pawz4me]

I guess I'm weird.

 

I think the man-made constraints and definitions we've put on who is or is not a Christian is much the same thing Jesus railed against the Sadducees and Pharisees about.

 

I don't personally think being a Christian or not has anything at all to do with religious affiliation, or whether or not one even has an affiliation at all. God is much bigger than that. I know people who I believe walk very, very closely with the Lord who rarely step foot inside a church.

 

And yes, I have issues with statements of faith.

[8circles]

I dont think its different. Which is why you wont find me belittling protestants for their faith. Tho I do often rail against those who must put down catholics in order to practice their faith, as if there is an 11th commandment stating "thou shalt warn others against catholics bc they dont (all) have a personal relationship with Jesus".

 

Well, I agree with you, then. But I think most people only pay attention to when their own group is put down & ignore the others. Sorry, but I think both Catholics/EO, Protestants (of all denominations), atheist, pagans, etc all get pretty equal billing here when it comes to put-downs & misrepresentations. Every time I point out the ones against mine I'm told I'm the ignorant one. You're right, it does get old. Unfortunately, if people want to misunderstand, they will. Doesn't matter how many times they're told otherwise.

[EMS83]

This has been fascinating. I appreciate the link to the Anabaptist vs. Evangelical beliefs article. I find I align more closely with Anabaptist views, yet I've never even met an Anabaptist. However, I'll say that I've attended 2 southern Baptist churches in the last 9 years and the pastors espouse more Anabaptist beliefs than Evangelical (at least if you want to just go based on that article). They strongly emphasize daily in depth Bible reading, on-going discipleship, and obedience as an indication of your faith-walk. However in talking with and listening to various members of the congregation, the emphasis flips to more Evangelical views. But I thought Baptists were Evangelicals. So I'm confused. And I didn't realize how much crossfire there is. I'm sorry so many have had bad experiences.

 

We've had a bad experience with a SoF at DH's work, but I'm evangelical enough I guess for our "county Christian homeschool group" SoF not to bother me.

 

ETA: I'm not YEC, though, and its existence was very interestingly made known to me when I asked the previously mentioned homeschool group about addressing the theory of evolution with the kids. Ken Ham was quoted (can't believe the rest of the Bible if you don't believe this) and I was referred to the website. I'm still not YEC.

[a27mom]

 

 

 

Well, it does say in Hezekiah 11:24 "Proof that you are a Christian includes going to an organized church every week, fake Christians only go on holidays, or never. Also, do not let people who liked Harry Potter into your co-op."

 

 

You might want to read the whole thread and make comments about posts in context. The only reason I pointed out these "Catholics" did not attend mass was to identify that they likely were not well versed in the catholic faith, and thus not representative of catholisicm as a whole. As I pointed out it was there lack of knowledge of Jesus and God that made one question their Christianity.

 

Your judgemental generalizations are pretty offensive, and I don't tend to be sensitive.

[Mom22ns]

This can be very true, depending upon the Baptist denomination, but how about how they get along with non-Protestants (Catholics, EO's, etc)?

I've never seen an EO church or met an EO person IRL. I'm guessing they would be as offended by Baptists as Catholics though. :blushing: I did say other protestants on purpose. Catholics are a minority here and generally don't play with the protestants.

 

Is that Southern Baptist? :-)

There are all flavors of Baptists here. SBC is the largest, but not at all the only. There are a lot of General Baptists and Independent Baptists too, both of whom tend to be more conservative and less friendly to outsiders than the SBC churches in the area. I don't know if that is at all true anywhere else.

[milovany]

I've never seen an EO church or met an EO person IRL. I'm guessing they would be as offended by Baptists as Catholics though. :blushing:

 

 

??? Just curious as to how you're connecting Catholicism and Orthodoxy in your thinking, in an attempt to understand why you think we'd be "just as offended by Baptists as Catholics" as you stated. They're two very different churches. (Not that I think Catholics are "offended by" Baptists, in the first place.) Again, just curious. You're welcome to PM me if you'd like.

[Ellie]

But I thought Baptists were Evangelicals. So I'm confused.

 

As am I. I don't know when "Evangelical" became a capitalized, recognized, non-Catholic denomination. Among my non-Catholic Christian friends, no one refers to other Christians--or himself--as "Evangelicals." Shouldn't all Christians be evangelical in their behavior? How do you differentiate between a Protestant and an Evangelical? a Southern Baptist and an Evangelical? :confused1:

[LizzyBee]

My apologies for those that I have offended by sharing my experiences of having been baptist. I know there are wonderful baptist people. Certain things other people said sometimes brings up memories of this or that. I was that teen/young adult that read chick tract, thought there was satanism associated with Catholics, believed that I had to share my faith with everyone, pitied everyone that believed differently, been "believer's baptised" multiple times, read cleaned up history from Abeka Books, had pastors that hid other versions of the bible in their offices for personal study while preaching (yelling) KJVO from the pulpit, etc. This was my history in Baptist churches and those are just the tips of the icebergs...

 

I know we all speak out of our personal experiences and you weren't bashing. But for another point of view, I've been Baptist since I was 18, and I've found the type of Baptist you describe above to be very much in the minority. Also, what you describe is what I've found in many Independent Fundamentalist Baptist churches. The Southern Baptist Churches I've been a part of or am familiar with are not at all like that.

[Orthodox6]

 

As am I. I don't know when "Evangelical" became a capitalized, recognized, non-Catholic denomination. Among my non-Catholic Christian friends, no one refers to other Christians--or himself--as "Evangelicals." Shouldn't all Christians be evangelical in their behavior? How do you differentiate between a Protestant and an Evangelical? a Southern Baptist and an Evangelical? :confused1:

 

I can't field the question using references, although I definitely recall reading materials that speak of the "Evangelical Movement" in terms that sound very much like an amorphous denomination. All Evangelicals are Protestant, but not all Protestants are Evangelicals. A basic online search should provide information for those interested.

[LizzyBee]

I can't field the question using references, although I definitely recall reading materials that speak of the "Evangelical Movement" in terms that sound very much like an amorphous denomination. All Evangelicals are Protestant, but not all Protestants are Evangelicals. A basic online search should provide information for those interested.

 

Hmm, I was listening to an online talk by a Catholic man this week and he called himself an Evangelical Catholic. I've also been listening to a book on CD by Scott Hahn, and he said that the Catholic church is Evangelical because the Catholic church is devoted to bringing people into the church.