s/o - Statements of Faith & Catholics

[Ellie]

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.

 

 

:huh:

 

I think it only matters to people who are looking for hairs to split...

[8circles]

 

 

:huh:

 

I think it only matters to people who are looking for hairs to split...

 

 

I think this is purposeful ignorance. The only people who care to paint them all with the same brush are those who wish to hurt people.

[Ellie]

I think this is purposeful ignorance. The only people who care to paint them all with the same brush are those who wish to hurt people.

 

 

I have no idea what you mean.

 

I find no purpose in defining/describing into subcategories such as "Evangelical" or "not-Evangelical." When something more specific than "Christian" is needed, the specific denomination (Southern Baptist, United Methodist, Reformed Presbyterian, etc.) works for me. Non-Catholic Christian works for me, too.

[EMS83]

 

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:

 

Honestly, I haven't the faintest idea what the specific parameters are for defining an evangelical Christian. Maybe it's not capitalized except in that article; I've never paid enough attention to know for sure. I'm sure an internet search would be helpful to me! I understand it as a descriptor. My pastor has referred to himself (and the congregation) as evangelical, and it may be some kind of cultural paradigm; honestly, I don't know. I just know I don't seem to be one. Or I don't seem to agree with certain Christian publishers...or something. I don't know what I am. This whole thread has had me ruminating for days now! I've been a Christian for 9 years and it's been a pretty busy 9 years in general. My efforts have been toward studying the Bible and tending to all my life's duties as biblically as I know how to do. Church history and all of the splits that are apparently quite real and current haven't made it onto my "things to know about" list. I don't even know if I'm in the right area of Christianity! So at least now I have all these things on my radar. Maybe in another 9 years, I'll get somewhere with it all. :D

[milovany]

I think it only matters to people who are looking for hairs to split...

 

Hi Ellie. Dharma here. :D

 

Evangelicalism truly is a movement within Protestanism. It's different from evangelistic as described above. Many of the main aspects of evangelicalism are ideals that can be considered worthy of pursuit, but there's more to it than that and it (as a movement) is a relatively recent development in the history of the Christian faith.

[LizzyBee]

Hi Ellie. Dharma here. :D

 

Evangelicalism truly is a movement within Protestanism. It's different from evangelistic as described above. Many of the main aspects of evangelicalism are ideals that can be considered worthy of pursuit, but there's more to it than that and it (as a movement) is a relatively recent development in the history of the Christian faith.

 

 

Here is part of the article you linked:

 

Evangelicalism de-emphasizes ritual and emphasizes the piety of the individual, believing that God works certain changes in the individual, including:

• Personal conversion, or being "born again" based on passages in The Gospel of John chapter 3 and 1:12-13

• Creating a high regard for biblical authority and an identification with the biblical story

• Drawing particular attention to teachings that proclaim the saving death and resurrection of the Son of God, Jesus Christ^[1] as forgiveness of sins and new life

• Motivating towards the active expression and sharing of the gospel

 

I grew up in an evangelical Lutheran Church (evangelical was part of the church's name), but it really wasn't as described above. The church is liturgical and considers the sacraments very important, so I wouldn't say it de-emphasizes ritual. There was no emphasis at all on personal conversion except for adults who became Christians; but for people who were born and baptized into the church, personal conversion was not considered necessary. There was definitely a high regard for biblical authority and the belief that the Jesus' death and resurrection was necessary for forgiveness and salvation, so I would agree with #2-3. For the fourth, active expression and sharing of the gospel, the pastor sometimes called on unchurched people in the community for the purpose of discussing matters of faith, but laypeople were not taught or encouraged to do that. Our synod supported missionaries, so it did support sharing the gospel to unchurched people in that way.

 

I've been Baptist for a long time and Baptists are generally evangelical, too. But it seems like evangelical is perhaps a term that means different things to different people. I have always thought that when Baptists and Lutherans (and the Catholic speakers I mentioned in an earlier post) use the term evangelical, they mean the same thing - that they desire to bring unchurched people into the Church. Sometimes on the boards, the use of the term seems charged and bordering on derogatory. Interesting article, thanks for posting it.

[8circles]

Sometimes on the boards, the use of the term seems charged and bordering on derogatory.

 

Yes, and that's what I'm talking about. Some people here use this term (& sometimes even the term "Protestant") to be derogatory or to illustrate how ignorant or uneducated people are about church history. If you mean people who hold a particular religious view or a specific subset of religious people, then you should be as specific as you can. People do this here who know better - because they've been told so much specifically. People who continue to paint people this way unfairly are intending to be hurtful.

[Alexigail]

People who continue to paint people this way unfairly are intending to be hurtful.

 

Maybe. Or maybe it's impossible for some people to keep track of who wants to be referred to which way and which picture goes with which screen name. There are plenty of people who are perfectly comfortable with a particular label while others are not, even if they come from the same church or belief structure. If, for instance, someone asked me not to refer to them as protestant, evangelical, etc etc I would do my best to respect that. Just like I don't want to be called an idolater or accused of worshiping Mary. It's common courtesy. On the other hand, I can't kid myself about what other Christians think of me. And I'm not personally offended by it because I recognize that these are not just petty insults, but points of real theological importance that for some people mean a great deal.

I'm not belittling what you're saying or your experience- I'm sure that there are cases where people are willfully ignorant about one another here just like there are anywhere. But to assume that someone like me, who is completely unfamiliar with the "denominal landscape" of the Christian world is being intentionally hurtful is unfortunate. Because even if it's been explained to me, I can never be sure about someone's individual experience. If you came online and referred to me as GO instead of Antiochian or OCA instead of ROCOR or whatever, I'm not going to be put out by it. Because how could you possibly be expected to keep track of those things when they're not a part of your world?

I've heard all kinds of things here and elsewhere about EO that are either untrue or misguided. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who think I'm probably going to hell for being EO (In fact I've been told as much). But even then, I don't think people are being intentionally hurtful. They probably think they're being loving or trying to save me or something. I am sorry if you've had bad experiences with this kind of thing. But it doesn't mean that people are always trying to be hurtful.

[*Michelle*]

 

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.

 

 

http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/how-we-teach/new-evangelization/

 

:001_cool:

[Avila]

Trying to have this conversation is like trying to nail jello to the wall.

 

If you try to be specific and label groups, you will immediately get people who identify as that group piping in to explain thatbtheir church does not teach whatever it is you are discussing. And they are right. But who can survey all the 33,000 groups and however many churches to be accurate about it?

 

If I say, when I was Baptist, the churches I went to taught and believed X, people still jump in to disagree. Or accuse me of misrepresenting them, even if all I am doing is descrbing what I believed when I self-identified as that.

 

If I try to be less specific and just try to discuss the doctrine, it still falls apart because there are fundamental differences in how we define things and we cannot agree on terms without people getting defensive and accusing whoever is trying to have the conversation of slandering them. Sola Scriptura can mean several different things depending on who you ask, for example. But just try to discuss it, and people get nasty, accusing you of tarring their beliefs if you want to talk about one subset and they belong to another.

 

Here, there is no way to approach it without people assuming the absolute worst motivations. I don't know why that is.

 

No matter how you approach it or what you call it, people get defensive and upset.

[Avila]

And it is a little different if we are discussing Catholics.

 

If you tell me that Catholics worship Mary and you know this because your neighbor (friend, aunt, lady at Walmart) Susie (who self-identifies as Catholic) says so, I can completely and authoritatively tell you the Catholic Church does not teach that. We have an official book, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, that explains what we teach and what all Catholics are called to believe. If Susie worships Mary, she has seriously misunderstood the Church on that and is speaking only for Susie. And I can show you in print exactly what it is the Church does teach about that.

 

If you are, for example, non-denominational, you can't really do the same thing. You can say that you don't believe X and that your local church that you attend does not teach X. And I will completely believe you. But you can't really say that non-denominational churches don't believe or teach X, because each pretty much decides that on its own.

 

That does mean we should use that as an excuse to misunderstand or misrepresent each other. And if you tell me that you don't believe whatever it is we are talking about, I will completely take you at your word. And if you say you are Christian, I will take you at your word on that too.

 

But I think that is a large part of how people end up defensive about it. And religion and beliefs are a very personal thing, after all.

[Crimson Wife]

 

 

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.

 

 

Sounds like wishful thinking on their part IMHO.

[Crimson Wife]

 

 

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:

 

 

Members of mainline Protestant denominations in my experience tend to not consider themselves to be Evangelicals. My mom's family is Episcopalian/Anglican and they definitely aren't Evangelical. Ditto for my IRL friends who are (non-MS) Lutherans, Congregationalists, Methodists, etc. They do not hold to a strict literal reading of Scripture, they do not see proselytizing as a big part of their Christian walk, and so on.

 

All Evangelicals are Protestant, but not all Protestants are Evangelicals.

[UrbanSue]

Usually, but not always, when a Catholic refers to him/herself as an "Evangelical" Catholic they are making a statement about how they live their faith. They mean: "I try to have a personal relationship with Jesus, and read my Bible, and work really hard at my faith." It is often used to distinguish themselves from "Cafeteria Catholics" or "Cultural Catholics."

 

This, at least, is how I've always heard it used.

[a27mom]

 

 

Sounds like wishful thinking on their part IMHO.

 

 

You really think there were no groups that opposed the ruling power in the church prior to 1500?

 

It certainly seems more logical that there would have been many of these groups in the 1000 plus year history of the church prior to reformation. Of course prior to the printing press it would have been significantly more difficult to organize and successfully oppose those who were the religious, political, and economic power of a continent.

 

Now to directly trace any current denomination to one of these groups doesn't seem possible. But the idea that these groups didn't exist is simply not logical. And it is highly plausible that these groups did have influence that was passed down no matter how hard the ruling power tried to squash it.

[LizzyBee]

Trying to have this conversation is like trying to nail jello to the wall.

 

 

I'm glad we try, though, because I always learn so much. We're not perfect here, but people generally are so much more gracious and kind than many other message boards.

[momtokea]

The word "Evangelio" is the Greek word for "Bible". I always think of the words "evangelical, evangelist, etc." as referring to the Bible.

 

I'm not sure why anyone would need to refer to themselves as an "Evangelical Catholic", or even an "Evangelical Christian", since all Christians believe in the Bible.

[Orthodox6]

:huh:

 

I think it only matters to people who are looking for hairs to split...

 

 

Either I do not understand what you meant to convey, or else I I do not agree with you. People who study the history of Christianity become aware of the various alignments, realignments, and movements within the Christian faith as a whole. I don't call the study of history "hair splitting."

[Orthodox6]

The word "Evangelio" is the Greek word for "Bible". I always think of the words "evangelical, evangelist, etc." as referring to the Bible.

 

I'm not sure why anyone would need to refer to themselves as an "Evangelical Catholic", or even an "Evangelical Christian", since all Christians believe in the Bible.

 

 

"Evangelion" is the koine Greek word for "gospel". When we speak of St. John the Evangelist, we are speaking of the author of the New Testament Gospel of John.

 

"ta Vivlia ta aghia" is the koine Greek for "the Holy Bible"

[UrbanSue]

The word "Evangelio" is the Greek word for "Bible". I always think of the words "evangelical, evangelist, etc." as referring to the Bible.

 

I'm not sure why anyone would need to refer to themselves as an "Evangelical Catholic", or even an "Evangelical Christian", since all Christians believe in the Bible.

 

 

Where I've lived (I went to a self-described Evangelical college but am now Catholic) it is a cultural statement about the way one's faith is lived. I agree that it shouldn't really be a necessary adjective but all the people I've ever known--of any denomination--use it as a way of saying, "I'm into the Bible, I'm serious about my faith, Jesus is a big part of my life."

 

I didn't realize it was such a foreign term to so many. Funny how we can get into our little bubbles and think certain terms mean the same thing to everyone.

[momtokea]

"Evangelion" is the koine Greek word for "gospel". When we speak of St. John the Evangelist, we are speaking of the author of the New Testament Gospel of John.

 

"ta Vivlia ta aghia" is the koine Greek for "the Holy Bible"

 

Greek is my first language. I did not have to look this up. It is the language I speak to my parents and grandparents. I speak modern Greek. If I were to ask my mother "where is my Bible?" I would say "Pou einai to Evaggelio mou?"

 

I am not saying you are wrong. "ta vivli ta aghia", in Greece today is directly translated as "the holy books", thus the Bible. But you will not find anyone in Greece referring to their Bible as "ta vivlia ta aghia."

The word "vivlia" means books in general, all books.

[Orthodox6]

 

Greek is my first language. I did not have to look this up. It is the language I speak to my parents and grandparents. I speak modern Greek. If I were to ask my mother "where is my Bible?" I would say "Pou einai to Evaggelio mou?"

 

I am not saying you are wrong. "ta vivli ta aghia", in Greece today is directly translated as "the holy books", thus the Bible. But you will not find anyone in Greece referring to their Bible as "ta vivlia ta aghia."

The word "vivlia" means books in general, all books.

 

Agreeing with much of that. I had asked my first-generation Greek husband, who gave that quick resonse. I knew that

 

Oh, never mind. This is not worth it.

[LucyStoner]

Usually, but not always, when a Catholic refers to him/herself as an "Evangelical" Catholic they are making a statement about how they live their faith. They mean: "I try to have a personal relationship with Jesus, and read my Bible, and work really hard at my faith." It is often used to distinguish themselves from "Cafeteria Catholics" or "Cultural Catholics."

 

This, at least, is how I've always heard it used.

 

Um, no. There are plenty of Catholics who are devout in their beliefs and active church members (as compared to cafeteria or cultural Catholics) who would not call themselves an "Evangelical Catholic".

[UrbanSue]

 

Um, no. There are plenty of Catholics who are devout in their beliefs and active church members (as compared to cafeteria or cultural Catholics) who would not call themselves an "Evangelical Catholic".

 

 

 

I know! I'm one of those. I don't call myself an Evangelical Catholic, either. It doesn't work both ways. But whenever I've heard someone say it about themselves, it's been in the way I described. If you've heard of people who use it to mean something else, please enlighten me! As I said a few posts up, I didn't realize "Evangelical" was such a confusing term in the Christian world.

[*Michelle*]

You really think there were no groups that opposed the ruling power in the church prior to 1500?

 

It certainly seems more logical that there would have been many of these groups in the 1000 plus year history of the church prior to reformation. Of course prior to the printing press it would have been significantly more difficult to organize and successfully oppose those who were the religious, political, and economic power of a continent.

 

Now to directly trace any current denomination to one of these groups doesn't seem possible. But the idea that these groups didn't exist is simply not logical. And it is highly plausible that these groups did have influence that was passed down no matter how hard the ruling power tried to squash it.

 

 

Considering how well-documented the early heresies were (Arianism, Nestorianism, etc.), I would think that any Christian group that formed independently and outside of the Church hierarchy during the time of Christ would have been referenced, at least in passing.

[Candid]

 

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.

 

 

I've heard this, too. I also would be curious to read solid information on this. Ancient writings would be helpful.

 

Groups that I am aware of that have solid claims to a pre-Luther split with the RC church are

 

A schism after Julian the Apostate's reign, Donatism. As far as I am aware all these folks disappear in the 7th century.

 

The Waldensians. I believe it is from them that you get the references that claim extension back to the apostles.

 

Also pre-Luther are the Moravians But they come only from John Huss.

[LucyStoner]

 

 

I know! I'm one of those. I don't call myself an Evangelical Catholic, either. It doesn't work both ways. But whenever I've heard someone say it about themselves, it's been in the way I described. If you've heard of people who use it to mean something else, please enlighten me! As I said a few posts up, I didn't realize "Evangelical" was such a confusing term in the Christian world.

 

The Evangelical Catholics I have known (including, for a short time, my parents) were called that because they believed in speaking in tongues, a different sort of worship music and evangelizing actively to others.

[UrbanSue]

Ah, okay. The ones I know like that call themselves Charismatic Catholics.

 

[EMS83]

I didn't mean to cause a stir. For what it's worth, if the characterization of Evangelical just means the four items quoted for their beliefs, and what one person said about being really into their Bible and keeping Jesus as a big part of their lives, then yes I'm Evangelical. At least, I work toward those things. But it seems like the word "Evangelical" has more meaning to it that I don't identify with (I guess more in the Protestant world). It is very prevalent where I live. I suppose I could rant a little about it, but I won't. Not because I want to bash other Christians, but because it is so very pervasive that I end up wondering what I am, and if I somehow grossly misinterpreted everything I've read in the Bible and heard in a sermon. How do all these people come to one conclusion and I come to another? Or have utterly inverted priorities from me? It's a culturally induced spiritual identity crisis and it's frustrating. And when someone confidently pronounces something I just find no biblical basis for, what do I do (without being false or rude)? That's my issue. I don't have a beef with anyone. I do have strong convictions, but I don't feel the need to apply them to others. I just want to know where God wants me, so I can go there. Or if, according to God, I'm way off base so I can fix it.

 

This thread in itself has been highly interesting. I've been exposed to terms and forms of Christianity I didn't know existed and as I said before, I find each perspective educational. It helps heighten my sensitivity. And I finally found our SoF. It mentions being born again, but the Bible is referred to as the inerrant work of God. I don't know if "inerrant" = YEC or not. I know there are individuals in that group that are not and I know there are several more who are. I have no idea if there's an official stance. FWIW

 

ETA: that version is a couple years old; can't pull up a current one. Maybe someone had an issue and they're changing it? idk. /sigh

[LucyStoner]

Ah, okay. The ones I know like that call themselves Charismatic Catholics.

 

I have heard that term too and come to think of it far more often than Evangelical Catholic :). My parents ended up migrating away from it into the Secular Franciscan Order (for anyone unfamiliar with the SFO, secular meaning able to be married and not called to the religious life of a nun or priest).

 

I think as others have demonstrated, it is really difficult to pin down all the MANY ways that people use the term "Evangelical". The vast majority of Catholics I know would not use that term to describe themselves, perhaps in part due to lingering distrust between some Catholics and some Protestants. Various protestant denominations seem to use the term to describe themselves in a way that is uncommon within the RCC.

[blondchen]

I'll state right at the beginning that I dislike all labels for myself except Christian (meaning a follower of Jesus, period), but I will nevertheless acknowledge that my beliefs fall into a conservative Presbyterian (but not ultra-Reformed) branch of Christianity. My DH is a pastor/theologian and while he has firm convictions about the major tenets of Christianity on which he will not budge, and also has less significant beliefs that identify him as Presbyterian, he is passionate about encouraging unity in the body of Christ (and yes, that includes Catholics!) by calling the church at large back to focusing on the essentials of the faith rather than all the secondary issues which divide us.

 

That said...

 

I could not sign that SOF, because Jesus is the Word of God. That is one major cornerstone of theology that I refuse to relinquish. :)

 

Amen. JESUS is the Word of God (John 1:1). The Bible is the divinely-inspired written Word of God, which is the testimony of God's self-revelation that is ultimately found in the person of Jesus Christ.

 

I believe that every word of the Bible is true and inspired. And that we interpret the Bible (to the best of our knowledge and ability) according to its meaning for the original recipients, and then apply it to our own time and context. All of it is important, all of it is relevant for us today, and most importantly, all of it testifies to the LIVING WORD - Jesus Christ.

 

Evangelical Christians (in general) believe the Bible to be literal and inerrant. (Whether they are young earth or old earth is a different issue.)

 

Really? That's never been my understanding of an evangelical at all. That sounds more like a "fundamentalist" to me (you gotta love all the throwing around of terms here without one agreed-upon definition for each - ugh). I prefer the list of four points quoted later in the thread (which I quote below). Anyway, I'm not sure you can interpret the Bible as "literal" and be an old-earth creationist. As far as I know, those who espouse a literal interpretation of Scripture require belief in six 24-hour days of creation. I could be wrong about that...maybe those who believe that the days are of indefinite length (and are therefore old-earth) consider that to be a literal interpretation as well.

 

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 know. This makes me crazy. DH and I marvel at the fact that a particular interpretation of the creation account is now the litmus test for who belongs to Jesus. Seriously? A 24-hour-six-day creation is the central belief of the Christian faith on which the whole Bible and everyone's salvation stands or falls? Sure, the Bible is adamant that God is the Creator, but it's pretty clear from the two different accounts of creation (written for different purposes!) that God is not really concerned with the age of the earth or the science behind how it happened. He is concerned with revealing Himself as the all the wonderful things that He is (which I cannot possibly list here!), and revealing His plan of redemption in Christ. How about making belief in the gospel of Jesus Christ the litmus test instead?

 

[by the way, I wonder what literalists think of God calling the moon a "light" (see Gen 1:14-18). The moon is not a light. It merely reflects the light of the sun. We know that now. Moses didn't know that - he only wrote what he understood according to his worldview, which was limited, of course. It doesn't affect who God is or what He requires of us or his plan of redemption, which is what the Bible is concerned with communicating. This is a fundamental hermeneutical (interpretive) principle that is crucial to understanding the Bible.]

 

Honestly, I haven't the faintest idea what the specific parameters are for defining an evangelical Christian.

 

I don't think that anyone really knows what an evangelical is anymore, if anyone ever did. In my experience in the last couple of years, what is now considered to be "evangelical" is a brand of Christianity that I am increasingly uncomfortable with...and it's not because I have changed my beliefs. As recently as several months ago, I would have considered myself firmly within evangelicalism as I understood it (see the list below). But seeing how the church culture is going, I think the term is being taken over by people whom I would consider to be "fundamentalist", who insist on making secondary issues primary ones and are less than charitable to those who don't share their beliefs.

 

Evangelicalism de-emphasizes ritual and emphasizes the piety of the individual, believing that God works certain changes in the individual, including:

• Personal conversion, or being "born again" based on passages in The Gospel of John chapter 3 and 1:12-13
  
• Creating a high regard for biblical authority and an identification with the biblical story
  
• Drawing particular attention to teachings that proclaim the saving death and resurrection of the Son of God, Jesus Christ^[1] as forgiveness of sins and new life
  
• Motivating towards the active expression and sharing of the gospel
  

 

I'm not so sure I like the first statement much, but I would agree that the four points are within my definition of an evangelical as I understand it.

 

"Evangelion" is the koine Greek word for "gospel".

 

This is more to the point. I have always understood evangelicals to emphasize the gospel, which is the power of God unto salvation for all who believe. (Romans 1:16)

 

 

And lastly, I forgot to quote the post (and it would take me too long to find it again!), but a big shout out to whomever recommended making the Nicene Creed the required statement of faith for Christians. GREAT idea.

[Crimson Wife]

As far as I know, those who espouse a literal interpretation of Scripture require belief in six 24-hour days of creation. I could be wrong about that...maybe those who believe that the days are of indefinite length (and are therefore old-earth) consider that to be a literal interpretation as well.

 

 

I have heard theological arguments that there may have been a gap between certain verses or books in Genesis and so the 6 days of Creation could be the equivalent of 144 modern hours, but still the Earth could be older than a few thousand years. Here is one version of the argument.

[milovany]

I'll state right at the beginning that I dislike all labels for myself except Christian (meaning a follower of Jesus, period),

 

 

Me, too! Except that I would substitute "The Trinity" for "Jesus" in the above statement. I wish that we were all just "the church," pre-denominational, like it was at the beginning, before the myriads of schisms.

[kristinannie]

 

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.

 

 

Really?!?!?!? The name of the church is Baptist. I guess this is shocking to me.

[Candid]

 

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.

 

 

Really?!?!?!? The name of the church is Baptist. I guess this is shocking to me.

 

Umm, and not technically true. Baptists have diverse theology and despite being organized into what appear to be denominations, each church is pretty independent. You can detect this in the denominational names "Southern Baptist Convention."

 

So saying the Baptists believe anyone one thing is not really the way I would ever go.

 

On baptism in particular this would be incorrect. I am aware of reformed baptists who believe in covenant theology. They would not make this sort of statement. They might come close to it, but there would be additional language. In particular they would discuss the covenant nature of baptism.

[SarahW]

Umm, and not technically true. Baptists have diverse theology and despite being organized into what appear to be denominations, each church is pretty independent. You can detect this in the denominational names "Southern Baptist Convention."

 

So saying the Baptists believe anyone one thing is not really the way I would ever go.

 

On baptism in particular this would be incorrect. I am aware of reformed baptists who believe in covenant theology. They would not make this sort of statement. They might come close to it, but there would be additional language. In particular they would discuss the covenant nature of baptism.

 

Yes, but what I said is true of the vast majority of Baptist churches in this country, whether they belong to the SBC or the GARBC or the IFBC or whatever. It is also true of the vast majority of non-denominational churches which simply refer to themselves as Evangelical. The Reformed Baptist group is absolutely tiny. Most Baptist and non-denominational groups explicitly reject Calvin on the issue of baptism.

 

If anyone doesn't know where their Baptist/evangelical church falls exactly, they can just go ask their Pastor, "Hey, does our church believe baptism is for the forgiveness of sins?" They should be able to tell you. :)

[mommaduck]

Even the Reformed Baptists would not agree with "baptism for the forgiveness of sins". They believe it is symbolic, a command, though, yes, they would say there is some kind of mysterious Grace imparted. But they are the minor exception, not the rule. Even the calvinistic baptists in the SBC have trouble with going that far.

[Candid]

 

Yes, but what I said is true of the vast majority of Baptist churches in this country, whether they belong to the SBC or the GARBC or the IFBC or whatever. It is also true of the vast majority of non-denominational churches which simply refer to themselves as Evangelical. The Reformed Baptist group is absolutely tiny. Most Baptist and non-denominational groups explicitly reject Calvin on the issue of baptism.

 

If anyone doesn't know where their Baptist/evangelical church falls exactly, they can just go ask their Pastor, "Hey, does our church believe baptism is for the forgiveness of sins?" They should be able to tell you. :)

 

Yeah, on the quoted part since Calvin continued infant baptism, but covenant theology is a post Calvin development.

 

Yes, to the forgiveness of sins part, I would be surprised to find reformed baptists saying anything different on that point. I was more focused on the symbol part which I think is too black/white in the statement I quoted.