Religion question, non-PC

[Janeway]

I don't really understand your argument. Before Christ died, there was no Christian church. It was mostly groups of Jewish followers who mostly attended synagogues. When they were pushed out/left the synagogues, they mostly held meetings in private buildings & spaces. As Christianity spread, different interpretations spread, as well. Leaders gathered to create a consensus on what it meant to be a Christian. From this, the church was formed. That church was the catholic church.

Of course the above is an incredibly simplified version of what happened. Saying the Catholic Church was the original church means that it was the earliest church. That's all.

I am not my great time 1000 grandparent. The Vatican did not exist in the year 34 ad. Today's Roman Catholic Church is not what was around 2000 years ago. Even Martin Luther, Joseph Smith, John Wesley, all of them trace back to before the birth of Christ even. Every Christian church today has a heritage going to Christ and before. No church today is the same as "the original church" nor does any church today teach from the same teachings or with the same structure.

[brehon]

Janeway, have you read the writings of the early Fathers? The Didache? The epistles and letters from men like Polycarp of Smyrna, Clement of Rome, Ignatious of Antioch, etc? These are examples of the Apostolic Fathers. They are called this because tradition has them being taught by the 12 Apostles. I'm on my phone and can't easily scroll back and see what you've written.

 

If you haven't these might be a good resource for you to dig into, in addition to any other sources you're reading. They may answer some questions while at the same time posing new ones.

 

Edited because I can't type on my phone.

Edited October 3, 2016 by brehon

[ktgrok]

I am not my great time 1000 grandparent. The Vatican did not exist in the year 34 ad. Today's Roman Catholic Church is not what was around 2000 years ago. Even Martin Luther, Joseph Smith, John Wesley, all of them trace back to before the birth of Christ even. Every Christian church today has a heritage going to Christ and before. No church today is the same as "the original church" nor does any church today teach from the same teachings or with the same structure.

 

No, but they also have not splintered off of that church. There is a direct line, of unity. Other denominations have separated from that direct line. That's all it means. 

 

If my ancestors are all from France, but then I move to America and become an American citizen, renouncing my French citizen, that signifies a separation from France. The people still living in france are living a very different life than their french ancestors but they are all French. I, and my descendants, will be Americans. 

Edited October 3, 2016 by ktgrok

[Bluegoat]

No, but they also have not splintered off of that church. There is a direct line, of unity. Other denominations have separated from that direct line. That's all it means. 

 

If my ancestors are all from France, but then I move to America and become an American citizen, renouncing my French citizen, that signifies a separation from France. The people still living in france are living a very different life than their french ancestors but they are all French. I, and my descendants, will be Americans. 

 

I think this is often sticky, though.  It's not totally invalid, because I think we can talk about institutional life or sometimes clear changes in teaching and doctrine, and sometimes that is clearly happening.  But there are also quite a few cases where it isn't so clear that one group constitutes a splinter and another the orinigal body, and if we are taking a historical viewpoint rather than making a theological argument, it would probably be better to call it a schism.

 

It isn't just the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches that this applies to.  It would very easily be seen to apply to the schism with the Oriental Orthodox and the English Church.  And  you can make a good argument as well with many of the Reformation churches.  None of these are groups that saw themselves as setting up a really new institutional church.

[MaeFlowers]

I am not my great time 1000 grandparent. The Vatican did not exist in the year 34 ad. Today's Roman Catholic Church is not what was around 2000 years ago. Even Martin Luther, Joseph Smith, John Wesley, all of them trace back to before the birth of Christ even. Every Christian church today has a heritage going to Christ and before. No church today is the same as "the original church" nor does any church today teach from the same teachings or with the same structure.

I can't speak for others but when I say the Catholic Church was the original church, I mean in terms of it was the first organized body of people to follow a common belief system within Christianity.

 

I think we are looking at it differently.

[Katy]

I can't speak for others but when I say the Catholic Church was the original church, I mean in terms of it was the first organized body of people to follow a common belief system within Christianity.

 

I think we are looking at it differently.

 

Actually, the Orthodox church was.  The Catholic church splintered off from them.  Until Daesh, there were churches in Syria that were started by the apostles.  That still spoke Aramaic, the language of Jesus.  You don't get more original than that.  I don't know what's happened to them since then.

[ktgrok]

Actually, the Orthodox church was.  The Catholic church splintered off from them.  

 

Generally it is accepted that there was one church, and then it split into the RC and Orthodox churches. Not that the original church was one or the other. 

[MaeFlowers]

Actually, the Orthodox church was. The Catholic church splintered off from them. Until Daesh, there were churches in Syria that were started by the apostles. That still spoke Aramaic, the language of Jesus. You don't get more original than that. I don't know what's happened to them since then.

I was thinking that I should have put "that stuck" at the end of my sentence.

 

Also, I consider the Orthodox and Catholic churches to be sister churches. At the time we are speaking of, I think they would be the same church. That's why I didn't differentiate.

 

ETA: Okay. I looked it up. You could possibly argue that the Syrian orthodox church was first. I don't know if most scholars would consider them separate from the catholic church (little c) prior to the schism, though. That might be hard to defend.

Edited October 3, 2016 by MaeFlowers

[TranquilMind]

No, but they also have not splintered off of that church. There is a direct line, of unity. Other denominations have separated from that direct line. That's all it means. 

 

If my ancestors are all from France, but then I move to America and become an American citizen, renouncing my French citizen, that signifies a separation from France. The people still living in france are living a very different life than their french ancestors but they are all French. I, and my descendants, will be Americans. 

I presume you meant, "renouncing my French citizenship" here in this typo/autocorrect.

 

But the analogy to citizenship you are attempting to draw here did not occur.  Nowhere did the Christians renounce their Christianity when they moved to other places.  It was with them; it was IN them. 

 

The Orthodox claim they were first.  Even the Baptists claim they were first, as John the Baptist predates the death of Jesus.

 

 

Ultimately, it really doesn't matter.  One won't be judged by your denominational label, or what building one sat in on Sunday (or Saturday).  We will all be judged by whether we are "doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving ourselves." 

 

There is still a direct line of unity amongst all who are doers of the word, anywhere in the world. 

 

Edited October 3, 2016 by TranquilMind

[milovany]

I agree that the most congenial way to converse about the early church in mixed company (;)) is by saying that both Orthodox and Catholic were one and the same at the start (no Orthodox, no Catholic, just "the church") and then broke off from each other after several hundred years when the need (they felt) arose, but I also think that both the Catholic and Orthodox would say that theirs is the one today that stems from the original church. We Orthodox think the Catholics made changes to the already-established faith thereby excommunicating themselves with these changes, becoming the schismatic group, while Catholics think the Orthodox failed of follow the Pope's lead from Rome as doctrines and practices developed and so excommunicated themselves, becoming the schismatic group. 

 

I think I covered the way the Orthodox see it well, but if I misrepresented the way Catholics would see it, I'm open to correction! 

[TechWife]

I don't really understand your argument. Before Christ died, there was no Christian church. It was mostly groups of Jewish followers who mostly attended synagogues. When they were pushed out/left the synagogues, they mostly held meetings in private buildings & spaces. As Christianity spread, different interpretations spread, as well. Leaders gathered to create a consensus on what it meant to be a Christian. From this, the church was formed. That church was the catholic church.

Of course the above is an incredibly simplified version of what happened. Saying the Catholic Church was the original church means that it was the earliest church. That's all.

The universal Christian church has been in existence since the time of the first believers. This predates the New Testament. Abel, Noah, Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Moses, Daniel, etc. were all believers. See Hebrews 11. Christianity and the church are not organizations, but relationships.

[TechWife]

Even the Baptists claim they were first, as John the Baptist predates the death of Jesus.

 

This is not accurate. John the Baptist is not a founder of the Baptist denomination.

[fairfarmhand]

This is not accurate. John the Baptist is not a founder of the Baptist denomination.

 

 Who comes up with this stuff?

 

John the Baptist had his head whacked off LONG before Baptists were around.

 

The doctrine of Baptism is not the same as the Baptist denomination.

 

People can be so uninformed about religion and faith.

 

ETA: To clarify, this post is not directed at anyone in particular. I've heard comments made before where people assume that something they read or heard is the absolute truth and instead of studying the issue, they build a theology around it.

 

Denominations weren't around at the time of the apostles. That came hundreds of years later.

 

Sorry....my original post sounded ungracious and insulting. I hope this clarifies some stuff.

Edited October 11, 2016 by fairfarmhand

[ktgrok]

 

 

People can be so ignorant about religion and faith.

 

Yup, even smart people. My husband just today said something about not identifying as Christian partly because he likes to eat "unclean animals". Um..honey...you're thinking of Judaism or Islam, not Christianity. Sigh. He also said something about divorced people being an abomination in the church, despite me BEING divorced, attending church the whole time, and us having our marriage (my second) validated by the Catholic Church. 

 

I swear, I'm doing a horrible job on his religious upbringing  :lol:

[TranquilMind]

This is not accurate. John the Baptist is not a founder of the Baptist denomination.

 

I never said he was. 

 

What I said was that there are Baptists who believe that their faith dates from biblical times with Jesus, like Spurgeon (quoted below).  

John the Baptist preached Jesus.  (Matthew 3) 

 

In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, 2“Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.â€^a 3For this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah when he said,

“The voice of one crying in the wilderness:

‘Prepare^b the way of the Lord;

make his paths straight.’â€

 

4Now John wore a garment of camel’s hair and a leather belt around his waist, and his food was locusts and wild honey. 5Then Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan were going out to him, 6and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.

 

7But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8Bear fruit in keeping with repentance. 9And do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father,’ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham. 10Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

 

11“I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. 12His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.â€

 

Baptists do not believe they are "protestant" nor that they arose from the Reformation.   This is what I am saying and it is a relatively well-known part of church history.

 

CH Spurgeon:  We believe that Baptists are the original Christians.  We did not commence our existence at the Reformation, we were reformers before Luther or Calvin were born.  We never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves.  We have always existed from the very days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel underground for a season have always had honest and holy adherents...(Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, 1861, p.225)

 

http://baptisthistoryhomepage.com/chamberlin.bapts.not.prot.html

 

 

[TranquilMind]

Yeah! That is hilarious! Who comes up with this stuff?

 

John the Baptist had his head whacked off LONG before Baptists were around.

 

People can be so ignorant about religion and faith.

You might want to read a bit about church history:

 

http://www.reformedreader.org/spurgeononperpetuity.htm

[MaeFlowers]

The universal Christian church has been in existence since the time of the first believers. This predates the New Testament. Abel, Noah, Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Moses, Daniel, etc. were all believers. See Hebrews 11. Christianity and the church are not organizations, but relationships.

That's what I was trying to say in a later post. That I was speaking in terms of church as a unified group of people under a common belief system when speaking about the Catholic Church. I was trying to differentiate between church, a body of believers, and church, an organized body of believers. (Like when we talk about the Catholic church, the Baptist Church, etc.)

 

I obviously am not so good with words.

[ktgrok]

 

CH Spurgeon:  We believe that Baptists are the original Christians.  We did not commence our existence at the Reformation, we were reformers before Luther or Calvin were born.  We never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves.  We have always existed from the very days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel underground for a season have always had honest and holy adherents...(Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, 1861, p.225)

 

http://baptisthistoryhomepage.com/chamberlin.bapts.not.prot.html

 

Yeah....a lot of people would say this is just blatantly false, particularly the bolded. 

[TranquilMind]

Yeah....a lot of people would say this is just blatantly false, particularly the bolded. 

 

Your beef is with Spurgeon.

 

Actually, it is a defensible argument.  In the gospel of John, the first disciples, Andrew and Simon (Peter) were also with John the Baptist first:

 

The next day John was there again with two of his disciples. When he saw Jesus passing by, he said, "Look, the Lamb of God!" When the two disciples heard him say this, they followed Jesus.... Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, was one of the two who heard what John had said and who had followed Jesus. The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, "We have found the Messiah"

 

From John 1:

 

Now the Pharisees who had been sent 25questioned him, “Why then do you baptize if you are not the Messiah, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?â€

26“I baptize with^e water,†John replied, “but among you stands one you do not know. 27He is the one who comes after me, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie.â€

28This all happened at Bethany on the other side of the Jordan, where John was baptizing.

 

29The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30This is the one I meant when I said, ‘A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’ 31I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel.â€

32Then John gave this testimony: “I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. 33And I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’ 34I have seen and I testify that this is God’s Chosen One.â€^f

John’s Disciples Follow Jesus

35The next day John was there again with two of his disciples. 36When he saw Jesus passing by, he said, “Look, the Lamb of God!â€

37When the two disciples heard him say this, they followed Jesus.

 

Turning around, Jesus saw them following and asked, “What do you want?â€

They said, “Rabbi†(which means “Teacherâ€), “where are you staying?â€

39“Come,†he replied, “and you will see.â€

So they went and saw where he was staying, and they spent that day with him. It was about four in the afternoon.

40Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, was one of the two who heard what John had said and who had followed Jesus. 41The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, “We have found the Messiah†(that is, the Christ). 42And he brought him to Jesus.

Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas†(which, when translated, is Peter^g ).

 

So, it is pretty clear that Andrew and Simon were with John the Baptist first, so I think an argument can be made that the line to the apostles is unbroken. 

 

[AngelaNYC]

I found this on religioustolerance.com.  I don't think the website has ties to any particular religion.  It states who founded each of these religions/denominations and when.   Bowing out of this conversation now...

 

Listed below are the founder, starting date and starting location of a number of Christian faith groups and traditions. They are organized in chronological order. In some cases, the data is under dispute. 

Faith Group or tradition Founder Date (CE) Location

Roman Catholic Jesus, Peter ₁ Circa 30 ₁ Judea

Orthodox churches Jesus, Peter ₂ Circa 30 ₂ Judea

Lutheranism Martin Luther 1517 Germany

Swiss Reformed Church Zwingli 1523 Switzerland

Mennonites No single founder 1525 Switzerland

Anglican Communion King Henry 8 1534 England

Calvinism John Calvin 1536 Switzerland

Presbyterianism John Knox 1560 Scotland

Baptist Churches John Smyth 1605 Holland

Dutch Reformed Michaelis Jones 1628 Netherlands

Amish Jakob Ammann 1693 Switzerland

Methodism John Wesley 1739 England

Quakers George Fox 1647 England

Moravians Count Zinendorf 1727 Germany

Congregationalism John & Charles Wesley 1744 England

Swedenborg Emanuel Swedenborg 1747 Sweden

Brethren John Darby 1828 England

Latter-day Saints Joseph Smith 1830 NY, USA

Seventh Day Adventists Ellen White 1860 NH, USA

Salvation Army William Booth 1865 England

Jehovah's Witnesses Charles Russell 1870 PA, USA

Christian Science Mary Baker Eddy 1879 Pleasant View, NH USA

Pentecostalism Charles Parham 1900 CA, USA

Worldwide Church of God Herbert W. Armstrong 1933/1947 OR, USA 

Unification Church Sun Myung Moon 1954 South Korea

 

 

 

Edited October 3, 2016 by AngelaNYC

[barnwife]

 

 

So, it is pretty clear that Andrew and Simon were with John the Baptist first, so I think an argument can be made that the line to the apostles is unbroken. 

 

Okay,  I kind of hate to jump in here. But I am trying to understand.

 

I thought it was common knowledge that back in Jesus' time, people would find someone and follow him and learn from him. And yes, John the Baptist was a person that had such followers. And yes, John pointed those people to Jesus and explained that Jesus was who they should be following/learning from.

 

And they heeded the advice/teaching of their first teacher and moved on to learn from Jesus.

 

But...what does that have to do with the line to the apostles being unbroken? Did I miss a post?

 

 

[TranquilMind]

Okay,  I kind of hate to jump in here. But I am trying to understand.

 

I thought it was common knowledge that back in Jesus' time, people would find someone and follow him and learn from him. And yes, John the Baptist was a person that had such followers. And yes, John pointed those people to Jesus and explained that Jesus was who they should be following/learning from.

 

And they heeded the advice/teaching of their first teacher and moved on to learn from Jesus.

 

But...what does that have to do with the line to the apostles being unbroken? Did I miss a post?

 

 

Both Orthodox and Roman Catholicism claim an unbroken line of succession from the time of Jesus.  So do the Baptists, stating that the apostles were with John the Baptist when Jesus came on the scene...that was my only point. Possibly others as well. 

 

[maize]

Both Orthodox and Roman Catholicism claim an unbroken line of succession from the time of Jesus. So do the Baptists, stating that the apostles were with John the Baptist when Jesus came on the scene...that was my only point. Possibly others as well.

 

But how does their line get from the Apostles to the Baptists who emerged in Europe just a few hundred years ago?

 

We have historical records of the Catholic and Orthodox churches through the centuries, not of any Baptist churches.

 

Claiming that doctrine goes back to the time of Christ makes sense, but the denomination?

[barnwife]

But how does their line get from the Apostles to the Baptists who emerged in Europe just a few hundred years ago?

 

We have historical records of the Catholic and Orthodox churches through the centuries, not of any Baptist churches.

 

Claiming that doctrine goes back to the time of Christ makes sense, but the denomination?

 

I am so glad you were able to say this so succintly. I am just not following TranquilMind's point/line of reasoning. And I do want to understand. (I may or may not agree, but that's a different story.)

[TranquilMind]

But how does their line get from the Apostles to the Baptists who emerged in Europe just a few hundred years ago?

 

We have historical records of the Catholic and Orthodox churches through the centuries, not of any Baptist churches.

 

Claiming that doctrine goes back to the time of Christ makes sense, but the denomination?

 

You have to understand the Baptist mindset.  It isn't really about denomination. It is about whether you are saved or not. 

 

[TranquilMind]

I am so glad you were able to say this so succintly. I am just not following TranquilMind's point/line of reasoning. And I do want to understand. (I may or may not agree, but that's a different story.)

 

It isn't "my" reasoning.  Read the links I provided above explaining this.  I can go back and find it but not right at the moment. 

 

[MercyA]

Just my expression, but I would say that the core belief of Christianity is that Jesus is our means of salvation and that he died for that purpose.  Accompanying that core belief is imitating Jesus to the greatest extent possible in appreciation of his sacrifice.

 

Ultimately, it really doesn't matter.  One won't be judged by your denominational label, or what building one sat in on Sunday (or Saturday).  We will all be judged by whether we are "doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving ourselves." 

There is still a direct line of unity amongst all who are doers of the word, anywhere in the world. 

 

:iagree: with both of the above posts. There have always been those who have faithfully followed Christ, both inside and outside of "official" churches.

 

People can be so ignorant about religion and faith.

 

I hope this wasn't directed at anyone in particular. If so, it was a very unkind thing to say. Maybe I've misunderstood, though, and you're speaking in generalities--in which case I would tend to agree.

Edited October 4, 2016 by MercyA

[TechWife]

Yeah! That is hilarious! Who comes up with this stuff?

 

John the Baptist had his head whacked off LONG before Baptists were around.

 

People can be so ignorant about religion and faith.

 

Some people are not educated about religion and faith. I am not one of those people. Having read and studied  church history, I can tell you that the baptist denomination began in the early 1600's in London. John the Baptist had long resided in heaven at that time. John the Baptist was called "the Baptist"  because he baptized people, not because he founded the Baptist denomination. John the Baptist was and is part of the universal church, but not the baptist denomination. I did not "come up with this stuff." 

 

ETA: Not sure about the London part, my memory may be faulty on that. 

Edited October 4, 2016 by TechWife

[fairfarmhand]

Some people are not educated about religion and faith. I am not one of those people. Having read and studied  church history, I can tell you that the baptist denomination began in the early 1600's in London. John the Baptist had long resided in heaven at that time. John the Baptist was called "the Baptist"  because he baptized people, not because he founded the Baptist denomination. John the Baptist was and is part of the universal church, but not the baptist denomination. I did not "come up with this stuff." 

 

This is it exactly.

 

Denominations were not around at the time of the apostles and when Jesus lived.

 

I'm often surprised that people will read stuff and make an assumption. Like since John (the cousin of Jesus) was baptizing people that he was a "baptist."

[fairfarmhand]

:iagree: with both of the above posts. There have always been those who have faithfully followed Christ, both inside and outside of "official" churches.

 

 

I hope this wasn't directed at anyone in particular. If so, it was a very unkind thing to say. Maybe I've misunderstood, though, and you're speaking in generalities--in which case I would tend to agree.

 

Sorry, yeah , it wasn't a specific poster here.

 

I've heard similar statements my whole life by well-meaning religious people who read one small section of scripture and extrapolate something odd from it.

 

Then they';ll build a firm belief in what they assumed and will swear up and down that it's a fact and "My preacher agrees too!"

[TechWife]

I never said he was. 

 

What I said was that there are Baptists who believe that their faith dates from biblical times with Jesus, like Spurgeon (quoted below).  

 

 

 

 

 

The Christian faith dates from the time of creation, but the Baptist denomination does not. 

 

Spurgeon is of a theological school of thought known as "dispensationalism." It has been around for only 200-300 years. They believe the universal church (or "Church Age") began at the time of Christ. This belief if not true across different flavors of those in the baptist faith. There are those (I am one) who are "covenant theologians" that believe the universal church dates back to the times of Abraham, Issac, Jacob, et. al.. 

 

I think that Spurgeon intended to convey that what he sees as the start of the church was baptistic in nature, hence, the start of the "Baptists." I can't be completely sure as I have not studied him in detail, my intent is only to point out that Spurgeon is not a definitive source and that he had ideas about church history that are not universally held by those in various baptist denominations. 

[fairfarmhand]

You have to understand the Baptist mindset.  It isn't really about denomination. It is about whether you are saved or not. 

 

 

Some Baptists do not wish to be associated in any form with the Catholic church and they find it offensive to be linked in that way.

 

they think that the path of salvation couldn't have been linked with the RC church. At all, ever.

[TechWife]

I never said he was. 

 

 

 

 

Yes, you did. Right here: 

 

 

 

The Orthodox claim they were first.  Even the Baptists claim they were first, as John the Baptist predates the death of Jesus.

 

 

 

 

You might want to read a bit about church history:

 

http://www.reformedreader.org/spurgeononperpetuity.htm

 

I really do suggest that you branch out your church history reading. Spurgeon was not a church historian. He was a theologian and a preacher. His writing is not meant to convey the entirety of history, it is a particularly limited viewpoint, in fact. 

 

Yeah....a lot of people would say this is just blatantly false, particularly the bolded. 

 

Including most baptists. It's clear that historically, baptist denominations didn't exist until after the reformation. 

 

Both Orthodox and Roman Catholicism claim an unbroken line of succession from the time of Jesus.  So do the Baptists, stating that the apostles were with John the Baptist when Jesus came on the scene...that was my only point. Possibly others as well. 

 

 

No, baptists do not claim any such succession exists. According to baptist doctrine, there is no succession because doctrinally and theologically, none is needed. There is a difference between history and succession. 

 

But how does their line get from the Apostles to the Baptists who emerged in Europe just a few hundred years ago?

 

We have historical records of the Catholic and Orthodox churches through the centuries, not of any Baptist churches.

 

Claiming that doctrine goes back to the time of Christ makes sense, but the denomination?

 

Historically, the baptists see history, not a line of succession. One thing happened first, then another, etc. and authority isn't handed down successively. The history of the baptist denomination begins in the early 1600's. It does not go back to the time of Christ. 

 

You have to understand the Baptist mindset.  It isn't really about denomination. It is about whether you are saved or not. 

 

 

 

I'm just going to call you out on this. The "baptist mindset" is wide and varied. You are correct in that the baptist faith, at it's core, does not emphasize denomination. However, to distill it down to ""It is about whether you are saved or not" grossly oversimplifies baptist doctrine as a whole and, I think, the doctrine of salvation in particular.   

Edited October 4, 2016 by TechWife

[TranquilMind]

 

 

 

Spurgeon was not a church historian. He was a theologian and a preacher. His writing is not meant to convey the entirety of history, it is a particularly limited viewpoint, in fact. 

 

 

Including most baptists. It's clear that historically, baptist denominations didn't exist until after the reformation. 

 

 

No, baptists do not claim any such succession exists. According to baptist doctrine, there is no succession because doctrinally and theologically, none is needed. There is a difference between history and succession. 

 

 

Historically, the baptists see history, not a line of succession. One thing happened first, then another, etc. and authority isn't handed down successively. The history of the baptist denomination begins in the early 1600's. It does not go back to the time of Christ. 

 

 

 

I'm just going to call you out on this. The "baptist mindset" is wide and varied. You are correct in that the baptist faith, at it's core, does not emphasize denomination. However, to distill it down to ""It is about whether you are saved or not" grossly oversimplifies baptist doctrine as a whole and, I think, the doctrine of salvation in particular.   

*Some* Baptists believe that their origins in faith are from the time of Jesus, not that there is a direct line of leaders, a la Peter.  Better?  I thought I was clear about that, but apparently not.   *Some* Baptists claim that their beliefs arose at that time and continued in practice, which is what I meant by "succession".  I wasn't talking about a specific leader who passed down the torch in the same way, which I think the links I posted made clear.  You can call it a line of history if you prefer. 

 

My only point here in this thread is that Catholics and Orthodox are not alone in claiming roots back to the apostles. 

 

Who is talking about Baptist "denominations"?  I'm not.    Who cares about the denominational header?  I'm talking about the faith, the beliefs.   You admit yourself that the "baptist mindset" is wide and varied. 

 

I wouldn't minimize Spurgeon or his influence so much.  Theologian, but not historian? 

Um, ok.  He was a pretty influential theologian. 

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/borntoreform/2013/01/32-things-you-might-not-know-about-charles-spurgeon/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Spurgeon

 

Edited October 4, 2016 by TranquilMind

[goldberry]

Seriously... lots of religions that believe they are the "true" religion, believe their origins date back, because "true religion" dates back.  There is no point in arguing the legitimacy of that particular claim, because it is related to the issue of what is the "true religion".

 

That's different than arguing apostolic succession, which not all religions consider to be important in any way.

[TranquilMind]

Seriously... lots of religions that believe they are the "true" religion, believe their origins date back, because "true religion" dates back.  There is no point in arguing the legitimacy of that particular claim, because it is related to the issue of what is the "true religion".

 

That's different than arguing apostolic succession, which not all religions consider to be important in any way.

 

^{James 1:27} Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.

[shukriyya]

Christians don't have a monopoly on Jesus. Nor does any religion for that matter. How could such ineffability be contained? 

 

 

[Guest]

I think the "Baptists' Tracing Back to Apostles" is called the Trail of Blood by those who espouse and describe it. The proponents draw a line of succession back through various teachers of the faith.

 

The historicity of the theory may or may not stand up; however, that line of succession runs through a few splinter groups who held teachings that were disavowed at the time, as they would be by many/a plurality of modern Baptists.

[Hyacinth]

Christians don't have a monopoly on Jesus. Nor does any religion for that matter. How could such ineffability be contained? 

 

Who else wants him?

[FaithManor]

Who else wants him?

In the Muslim faith he is a great prophet, very important.

[Hyacinth]

In the Muslim faith he is a great prophet, very important.

 

Ah, I see. I guess I was thinking of Jesus as a savior and wondered why anyone not a Christian would care that Christians "monopolized" him that way. 

[QueenCat]

Actually, the Orthodox church was.  The Catholic church splintered off from them.  Until Daesh, there were churches in Syria that were started by the apostles.  That still spoke Aramaic, the language of Jesus.  You don't get more original than that.  I don't know what's happened to them since then.

 

Are they the Coptic Christians? I know there are still Coptic Christians in Egypt and Syria.

[Spy Car]

Both Orthodox and Roman Catholicism claim an unbroken line of succession from the time of Jesus.  So do the Baptists, stating that the apostles were with John the Baptist when Jesus came on the scene...that was my only point. Possibly others as well. 

 

 

That's false, as there is no unbroken line of succession or any other organized form of a practicing faith/church that is identifiable as "Baptist."

 

Bill

[MaeFlowers]

Are they the Coptic Christians? I know there are still Coptic Christians in Egypt and Syria.

I believe they are the Syrian Orthodox Church which split from the catholic church rather early (earlier than the EO).

[Guest]

There are a zillion Coptic Christians; they left after the Council of Chalcedon. There are big talks underway about reunification with EOxy. It turns out that it is very likely that the split was caused by misunderstandings which occurred in translation. Anyone who has ever been involved in or educated about translating work will not be surprised by this.

 

As it is at this moment, EO and Copt laity can commune in one another's parishes; the clergy cannot but they can attend one another's churches and vest as priests. This is a wonderful step toward unity.

[FaithManor]

There are a zillion Coptic Christians; they left after the Council of Chalcedon. There are big talks underway about reunification with EOxy. It turns out that it is very likely that the split was caused by misunderstandings which occurred in translation. Anyone who has ever been involved in or educated about translating work will not be surprised by this.

 

As it is at this moment, EO and Copt laity can commune in one another's parishes; the clergy cannot but they can attend one another's churches and vest as priests. This is a wonderful step toward unity.

This is what we learned when we were working in Egypt. Mamy of the Coptic Christians feel strongly that it is a translation issue due to the early church maintaining the use of ancient Egyptian well passed the time that most middle eastern churches were using Greek, Latin, or Arabic. It was fascinating listening to them talk about the subject.

[TranquilMind]

That's false, as there is no unbroken line of succession or any other organized form of a practicing faith/church that is identifiable as "Baptist."

 

Bill

 

Ok, well tell it to those who believe it.  I was simply stating that they are out there and make a claim. 

[TechWife]

*Some* Baptists believe that their origins in faith are from the time of Jesus, not that there is a direct line of leaders, a la Peter.  Better?  I thought I was clear about that, but apparently not.   *Some* Baptists claim that their beliefs arose at that time and continued in practice, which is what I meant by "succession".  I wasn't talking about a specific leader who passed down the torch in the same way, which I think the links I posted made clear.  You can call it a line of history if you prefer. 

 

My only point here in this thread is that Catholics and Orthodox are not alone in claiming roots back to the apostles. 

 

Who is talking about Baptist "denominations"?  I'm not.    Who cares about the denominational header?  I'm talking about the faith, the beliefs.   You admit yourself that the "baptist mindset" is wide and varied. 

 

I wouldn't minimize Spurgeon or his influence so much.  Theologian, but not historian? 

Um, ok.  He was a pretty influential theologian. 

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/borntoreform/2013/01/32-things-you-might-not-know-about-charles-spurgeon/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Spurgeon

 

No, you weren't clear at all, you were stating it as a given fact, representing "baptists." 

 

Carefully choosing words in a conversation about the origins of the church is very important. In this context, succession means a passing along of authority. The links you post, in fact, did not make that clear at all. I will continue to call it history, because using the word "succession" in the context of church history has a very specific meaning - that of passing along authority. 

 

If you are talking about "baptists" you are indeed talking about denominations. Christianity is general, baptist is a specific denomination that holds to Christian beliefs. 

 

Sure, Spurgeon was influential. So were hundreds of other theologians and historians. He is one person. I don't recommend putting him on a pedestal. I don't recommend putting any human on a pedestal.  If you're interested in expanding your horizons, I'll be glad to make some recommendations. 

[TranquilMind]

No, you weren't clear at all, you were stating it as a given fact, representing "baptists." 

 

Carefully choosing words in a conversation about the origins of the church is very important. In this context, succession means a passing along of authority. The links you post, in fact, did not make that clear at all. I will continue to call it history, because using the word "succession" in the context of church history has a very specific meaning - that of passing along authority. 

 

If you are talking about "baptists" you are indeed talking about denominations. Christianity is general, baptist is a specific denomination that holds to Christian beliefs. 

 

Sure, Spurgeon was influential. So were hundreds of other theologians and historians. He is one person. I don't recommend putting him on a pedestal. I don't recommend putting any human on a pedestal.  If you're interested in expanding your horizons, I'll be glad to make some recommendations. 

I'm talking about people who believe what Baptists believe.  (And they go by a variety of names).

I was just throwing it out there, since the discussion seemed wholly focused on Catholic/Orthodox.    That's all. 

 

From Wiki:

 

Apostolic succession is the method whereby the ministry of the Christian Church is held to be derived from the apostles by a continuous succession, which has usually been associated with a claim that the succession is through a series of bishops.

 

...

 

However, some Protestants deny the need for this type of continuity,^[1][7] and the historical claims involved have been severely questioned by them; Eric G. Jay comments that the account given of the emergence of the episcopate in chapter III of the encyclical Lumen Gentium (1964) "is very sketchy, and many ambiguities in the early history of the Christian ministry are passed over".^[8]These denominations, instead, hold that apostolic succession is "understood as a continuity in doctrinal teaching from the time of the apostles to the present."^[9]

 

 

[TechWife]

Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic bishops are part of a lineage that goes back to the time of the apostles, something that is impossible in Protestant denominations (most of which do not even claim to have bishops). 

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/apostolic-succession

 

I think I've said all I can say on this point, so I'm going to leave it here.