The Theological Unity of All Christians?

[Wolfeman]

Many important points have been raised and made. However we've gotten away from the main question.

What I mean by this is: is it or is it not important that what we as Christians, in or outside of denominations and Churches, believe is consistent with each other?


So my question in regards to all this is: how can we all say we have the mind of Christ when one man's, one church's, or one episcopacy's mind contradicts another?

Is it important that what we as Christians believe is consistent with each other?

Yes. But it will never happen. Sin nature means we will always interpret things with our own self getting in the way. Study and prayer means we can get closer to God's mindset but until we are perfect we will always get in our own way.

We have the mind of Christ by having Christ in our heart thru salvation. As is obvious, different groups have different beliefs according to what Salvation requires. Because of this, some will stand before Christ and hear "Begone, I never knew you".


Who is right and who is wrong? It depends on who you ask.

Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it

This is a very important verse to both the Independent Baptist and the Catholic Church because it shows where Christ started the Church and who he gave Authority to. Catholics view Peter as receiving this authority and then passing it on down thru the line of Popes. Baptist view the Church as receiving this authority and passing it down thru the Church itself. Protestants have either gotten away from the issue of Authority or have minimalized it in relation to other aspects of the church.

Obviously, someone is right, someone is wrong. But each group will tell you they are right and everyone else is wrong based upon their own interpretation of the above verse. So we continue in our relationship with Christ hoping he will either show us the error of our ways (and our pride allows us to accept that we are in error) or that closer fellowship with Him will ease the burden of our doubts.

More often than not, debating points does little more than fall into a "I"m right and you're wrong because this is what this verse says" type of conflict. The Bible tells us that the ways of a fool are right in their own eyes. This plus pride makes it very difficult to either change someone else's mind or to accept when we are wrong.

It's always good to discuss and hope for unity of the Body. But ultimately, that will only come after the corrupt flesh has been replaced.

 

[Lloren]

I'm surprised no one has brought up Orthodox Christianity yet. The Catholic/Protestant wing is way more related and unified than we imagine in light of our Orthodox brothers.

I think it's awesome though. God works through seemingly (to the world's viewpoint) weak vessels. He can take small things and make big things. He can take insignificant groups and make them do amazing things for Him. This is His story and we are blessed to able to partake in it.

 

[Patriot]

Protestants have either gotten away from the issue of Authority or have minimalized it in relation to other aspects of the church.

Inaccurate and unnecessarily broad generalization.

And forgive my ignorance, but how does the Independent Baptist church fall outside of the umbrella of protestantism? Do they not adhere to Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Solo Christo, and Soli Deo Gloria?

 

[Wolfeman]

Inaccurate and unnecessarily broad generalization.

My appolgies. I'm not sure how I'm inaccurate or unnecessarily broad but I'm sure you are correct. I'm very sorry for my ignorance.

And forgive my ignorance, but how does the Independent Baptist church fall outside of the umbrella of protestantism? Do they not adhere to Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Solo Christo, and Soli Deo Gloria?

Protestants by definition protested out of something. It began with the Lutherans protesting out of the Catholic Church and continued down. Some groups protested out of the Catholic Church and some protested out of groups that protested out of the Catholic Church.

Baptist never protested out. They have been in existence since Christ started the Church. Therefore they are not Protestants. And yes they do adhere to the five Sola but they did not need a council to declare it.

There is the belief that the Independent Baptist started with the Ana-Baptist of the 16th century but I'm of the group that view them to have Apostolic succession thru various groups all the way back to Christ.

Since shortly after the 1st church there have been two Christian groups in existence. One is the Catholic Church. The other has stood against the concentrated authority, baptism for non believers and other tenets of the Catholic Church.

Because Jesus promised the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church, it must have always existed in some form since it was formed. In the beginning it must either be Catholic church or the groups that stood against it.

My comment about Matthew 16:18 being minimalized by Protestant Churches comes from this . If the Catholic church was the true chruch, why protest out of it. If the Independent Baptist were correct, why not join them. Unless, the promise of Christ in this verse was not that important. (my train of thought)

 

[Wolfeman]

Reading back thru, some of my comments could come across in a way I didn't mean them to.

Please understand I am trying to explain my point of view and not condem others. I believe the way I do because of the research and prayer I've put into the topic.

I'm sure people who believe differently from me have done the same and come to their conclusion the same way.

Please forgive me if I've offended anyone in any way.

 

[Patriot]

Protestants by definition protested out of something. It began with the Lutherans protesting out of the Catholic Church and continued down. Some groups protested out of the Catholic Church and some protested out of groups that protested out of the Catholic Church.

Baptist never protested out. They have been in existence since Christ started the Church. Therefore they are not Protestants. And yes they do adhere to the five Sola but they did not need a council to declare it.

There is the belief that the Independent Baptist started with the Ana-Baptist of the 16th century but I'm of the group that view them to have Apostolic succession thru various groups all the way back to Christ.

Since shortly after the 1st church there have been two Christian groups in existence. One is the Catholic Church. The other has stood against the concentrated authority, baptism for non believers and other tenets of the Catholic Church.

Because Jesus promised the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church, it must have always existed in some form since it was formed. In the beginning it must either be Catholic church or the groups that stood against it.

My comment about Matthew 16:18 being minimalized by Protestant Churches comes from this . If the Catholic church was the true chruch, why protest out of it. If the Independent Baptist were correct, why not join them. Unless, the promise of Christ in this verse was not that important. (my train of thought)

Thank you for the explanation. I think the term protestant has come to encompass more than those who originally were protesting the RCC, that was the reason for my confusion. I tend to lump most non-RCC churches (with the exception of orthodox and episcopalian) into the protestant category regardless of their origins (I'm not talking about cults: Mormons, JW's, etc.).

 

[Abba San]

Patriot - you are in line with most people and church history writers. The three main Christian groups are Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant - which includes the various Baptist ilks. Most people include as Protestants any group based on Sola Fide (faith alone for salvation), Sola Scriptura (scriptures as authority) and priesthood of believers.

 

[ewoksrule]

For the side tangent on Baptists, I found this article very informative.:
A primer on Baptist History
One quote I found especially interesting was:

This Successionist view has been presented in a little booklet called The Trail of Blood by J.M. Carroll. This booklet tries to show that “according to History...Baptists have an unbroken line of churches since Christ.” This book and others like it have stressed that John the Baptist represents the denominational start and that Jesus formed it and promised that it would never fail. They have made arrogant statements like “the real church is Baptist” and “all Christian communities during the first three centuries were of the Baptist denomination.” These types of views are based upon inadequate sources and upon more of a polemical mindset than a historical one. They make large assumptions where evidence is lacking. This hard-core position arose in a time (1800's) of intense denominational competition, when people believed faith was something that came from within themselves and not a wonderful gift of God’s grace. Many thought that this type of view would bring back a security that had been lost with the emergence of modern-day society.14

 

[RiverTigress]

It was my impression that the main practical difference between Baptists and Protestants is that Baptists in general (though of course there is variation) don't follow the pro-individualism idea put forth by Luther. Baptists beliefs as far as my understanding goes (which I'm sure is by no means perfect) assert the literal authority of the church over the home, which is not without biblical basis, but not something most who would consider themselves as Protestants would take kindly to.

For example, a pastor of a Baptist church could assign a job to a congregant within the church something that might not be within the natural talents and interests of the congregant just on the basis that it needed to be done by someone, and the congregant may not like it or may try to re-negotiate it, but in general they are not going to be as offended by it or view it as a violation of their personal rights as a Protestant would.

I think that's what Wolfeman was getting at in where he was stating the difference of view in authority between the Baptist and Catholic church quite literally stems from opposing interpretation of that one exact verse, and that Protestantism generally doesn't have a clear unified stance on authority in that manner. But what is being referred to there is specifically governmental authority, not spiritual or theological authority, and that's one of the difficulties of this thread I think, in that the question of authority is being brought up, but there are multiple types of authority that people can be talking about.

For my part I have been interpreting the original question as asking by what spiritual authority do Christians outside of the Catholic church feel they can safely reject the governmental authority of the Catholic church, which personally I find a perfectly valid question, just hard to dicuss cross-denominationally where scriptural foundations differ.

 

[Wolfeman]

Inaccurate and unnecessarily broad generalization.

Patriot - you are in line with most people and church history writers. The three main Christian groups are Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant - which includes the various Baptist ilks. Most people include as Protestants any group based on Sola Fide (faith alone for salvation), Sola Scriptura (scriptures as authority) and priesthood of believers.

Thank you! This was exactly the point I was trying to make that Patriot labeled as inaccurate and a broad generalization.

The issue of Heaven given authority and it's transfer thru the church is an important part of Baptist and Catholic theology. Protestants have either ignored or minimalized this part of our beliefs. If Heaven given authority and the perpetuity of the church are no longer important theological points, it makes no difference if your church started with Luther, John Wesley or John the Baptist. Authority is yours to pick up where God drops it instead of being transferred to you from your parent.

I think that's what Wolfeman was getting at in where he was stating the difference of view in authority between the Baptist and Catholic church quite literally stems from opposing interpretation of that one exact verse, and that Protestantism generally doesn't have a clear unified stance on authority in that manner.

That is exactly what I'm referring to. Thank you.

For the side tangent on Baptists, I found this article very informative.:
A primer on Baptist History
One quote I found especially interesting was:

I have tried very hard to respect the beliefs of others. I state my beliefs and why I believe this way. I don't believe I have recently made any statements or arguments as to why others beliefs are wrong or mistaken. We all have our beliefs and I've tried to respect that. If I have made statements that appear to attack anothers beliefs I am truly sorry. However, I feel this article is a direct attack on my beliefs. It serves no purpose but to contradict what I've posted about how I (and Independent Baptist) believe. To me it is no different than a Catholic posting a bunch of articles showing how wrong Protestants are for what they believe and how ignorant they are for leaving the Catholic church.

 

[ewoksrule]

However, I feel this article is a direct attack on my beliefs. It serves no purpose but to contradict what I've posted about how I (and Independent Baptist) believe. church.

Well the article is regarded as a very solid and accurate work by many including http://www.spurgeon.org

I don't mean to attack you with it, but if we are going to run a thread on Baptists (I have been one for like 39 years now) I feel its appropriate to bring to the table an article that, I thought, does a great job in laying out the history of them. It is not an attack but certainly a counter point.

 

[Patriot]

Thank you! This was exactly the point I was trying to make that Patriot labeled as inaccurate and a broad generalization.

Apparently, we were speaking of different authorities.

The issue of Heaven given authority and it's transfer thru the church is an important part of Baptist and Catholic theology. Protestants have either ignored or minimalized this part of our beliefs. If Heaven given authority and the perpetuity of the church are no longer important theological points, it makes no difference if your church started with Luther, John Wesley or John the Baptist. Authority is yours to pick up where God drops it instead of being transferred to you from your parent.

So what happens if there is no one to transfer authority?

 

[ewoksrule]

My comment about Matthew 16:18 being minimalized by Protestant Churches comes from this . If the Catholic church was the true chruch, why protest out of it. If the Independent Baptist were correct, why not join them. Unless, the promise of Christ in this verse was not that important. (my train of thought)

Because some believe that the Church is being built on the Rock in vs 16 not the rock in vs 18. With that understanding there is no need for some succession line because we have direct access to the Great High priest. Also the reformation was not about protesting out of the Church it was about Reforming the church wasn't it?

 

[GenghisKhan44]

...I feel this article is a direct attack on my beliefs. It serves no purpose but to contradict what I've posted about how I (and Independent Baptist) believe. To me it is no different than a Catholic posting a bunch of articles showing how wrong Protestants are for what they believe and how ignorant they are for leaving the Catholic church.

You make a claim that requires more than the Bible to verify. It requires all of Christian history. Such a gigantic claim - that your church is the Church Christ founded, and that its beliefs are the beliefs of the Apostles - has got to be substantiated by history.

So instead of complaining that ewoksrule has challenged your beliefs, step up to the challenge. Back up your claims - that the First Church was an Independent Baptist church, if I understand correctly - with historical evidence.

 

[GenghisKhan44]

I felt this needed separating from my reply to Wolfeman.

I shall make this challenge to ewoks, too. And to Patriots. And indeed to all Christians. Trace Christianity all the way through history - through the Modern Era, the Enlightenment, the Reformation, the Renaissance, the High Middle Ages, the Dark Ages, the Twilight of the Roman Empire, all the way back to the Apostolic Age - back to its roots. What was Christianity, throughout all of history? What is the "faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all" (qtd. Vincent of Lerins)?

I will provide my own conclusions. But first I would like to see what you guys have to offer.

And since the goal of this is unity, my strong suggestion to everyone - including myself - is to try not to get into "I'm right; you're wrong" details unless history definitely necessitates that. Just tell history, working backwards from today to the Apostolic Age.

That is my challenge. Take as much time as you wish.

 

[Abba San]

I am just now getting back to this thread - a busy day.

Thank you! This was exactly the point I was trying to make that Patriot labeled as inaccurate and a broad generalization.

Wolfeman - my point was that I agreed with Patriot. I think your statement was inaccurate and a broad generalization as it related to Baptist beliefs.

When you say:

The issue of Heaven given authority and it's transfer thru the church is an important part of Baptist and Catholic theology.

and:

Baptist view the Church as receiving this authority and passing it down thru the Church itself.

That is inaccurate. Two of the basic tenets of almost all of the various Baptists denominations is that authority comes from scripture - NOT from the church - and that individual churches are autonomous entities. Baptist do not hold that Jesus gave authority to any person or denomination to be passed down from generation to generation or from church to church.

Check the major Baptist denominations (Southern, Northern, American, Baptist General Conference, Conservative Baptist, Independent, Free Will, Seventh Day, National, Missionary, et al) and you will find they hold to Biblical authority, Autonomy of the local church, and Priesthood of believers among their top tenets of church polity.

 

[Patriot]

What was Christianity, throughout all of history? What is the "faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all" (qtd. Vincent of Lerins)?

History is only as good as the person recording it. More of history was not recorded than was. I could argue which group seemed to have the most believers, but that is a logically flawed argument as numbers do not indicate correctness of doctrine (appeal to majority).

 

[Wolfeman]

I could go out and get thousands of experts and scientists. I could find reams of scientific data, experiments and proof. I could quote numerous people both inside and outside the Christian community. I could point out that more than half the US Christian population belive in some form of Evolution.

That doesn't make it true.

All it proves is people will believe what they want to believe. Usually, it's the first thing they are taught and then pride keeps them from admitting they are wrong. The Bible tells us that the way of a fool is right in his own eyes. If you are right and I'm wrong, chances are, I"m going to foolishly stick to my beliefs anyway. If you're wrong and I'm right, chances are, nothing will change as well.

If you want to believe Baptist history written by people who hate them. Feel free. Just don't attack me with it or try to debate me about my beliefs.

If you want to believe Evolution. Feel free. Just don't expect me to agree with you no matter how much "proof" you have.


This thread was spinning along quite well with different people expressing their beliefs. Questions were asked and clarifications were given. Until my beliefs were attacked as not being credible.

If we refuse to listen to each other in a nonthreatening way. If we refuse to hear and instead always argue. If we lack the common decency to respect anther's beliefs tho they be different from ours. We truly fail to be the Non-Denominational group we profess to be.

I understand that Christ took a stand for what He believed (knew) and called us to take a stand as well. If we were a denominational group that would be expected. But we are a fellowship group. Arguments and debates rarely lead to better fellowship.

You want to hear what I believe and tell me what you believe? That is what I'm looking for. You want to tell me how wrong I am and how right you are? I can go to the world for that.

 

[Lloren]

Wolf, you bring up some good points. I don't think anyone here is intending to be threatening or attacking in anyway. Let's all work towards being gracious about areas where we differ in our understanding of the scriptures.

For those stronger: Paul tells us to carry the weaker brother in his weakness. Not to point out "You don't eat food used for idol worship!!?? Idiot!". No. Recognize and let the love of Christ compel you to grace instead of correction. We aren't the Holy Spirit . God will reveal Himself correctly to His children (1 John)

For the rest of us: Remind ourselves that sharing is a two way street. We don't go to church to have everyone tell us "yes" and affirm our wrong beliefs. All of us can use more wisdom and understanding. Let's agree to be humble here and listen and not take it as a personal offense or attack, but rather an opportunity to learn other points of views even though we may not subscribe to them.

Cheers.

 

[ewoksrule]

If you want to believe Baptist history written by people who hate them. Feel free. Just don't attack me with it or try to debate me about my beliefs.

Only thing posted here about Baptist was by Baptists who are trying to be clear on their history. If you don't want to debate your beliefs fine, but I am allowed to defend my beliefs about Baptists and point out that your views have issues and might not be accurate. My Grandpa was an Independent Baptist from age 7 to age 98. I was born and raised into a Baptist church. I have as much right to talk about this as you do.

You can freely post your beliefs here but if they present a version of History that affects how others look at my history as well, then I am going to point out error as I see it.