Jump to content
Online Baptist

How about discussing protestant churches that confuse politics with Christianity?


Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, Bouncing Bill said:

Seems to me there are churches who confuse both their culture and politics with Christianity. What do you think?

I think that you have not provided enough information for us to understand the primary point or contextual purpose of your question. 

Do I think that such confusion sometimes occurs?  Yes.  Do I think that such confusion necessarily occurs?  No.  Do I think that some might accuse others of such confusion, but actually be wrong in their accusation?  Yes.  Do I think that my "politics" should be completely separated somehow from my Biblical Christianity?  NO, GOD FORBID!!!!  In fact, I would forcefully contend that my "politics" and my discernment of "politics" should EVER AND ALWAYS be submitted to my Biblical Christianity.

In truth, BIBLICAL Christianity IS my culture (since, as a child of God, I am NOT of this world, even as my Savior is not of this world); and the culture of this present, evil world around me is by foundational nature in OPPOSITION to my BIBLICAL Christianity. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members

If a church isn't holding a campaign from it's pulpit or pressuring members to vote a certsin way then I don't see a problem. But with the obsession with politics today I would prefer to not hear about it when I go to church. Church should be a time to focus on the Lord.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
3 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

I can't reply to this myself. I am an Independent Baptist, so I don't visit "Protestant Churches".

I was using 'protestant' as a generic term. Thus, I consider independent churches, not Catholic or Orthodix, of any strip protest protestant in this discussion.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators

I do understand that the word "Protestant" is used as a generic term by many. Personally I object to it simply because it implies that anything not Roman Catholic is Protestant. This is probably true for most, if not all Protestant Christian churches, but is definitely not true for Baptist churches.

The world wants to lump Baptists in with Protestants, which they are not and never have been. So, I am very cautious when someone tries to teach that Baptists are Protestants.

But I don't want to drag your thread off topic, so I will leave it with these two quotes showing why I object to the term "Protestant" in regard to Baptists.

John Clark Ridpath, Methodist, author of that monumental work Ridpath’s History of the World, in a letter to Dr. W.A. Jarrell (Baptist Church Perpetuity, pg. 59) says: “I should not readily admit that there were Baptist churches as far back as A.D. 100, although without doubt there were Baptists then, as all Christians were Baptists.”

Professor Wm. C. Duncan, of the Department of Greek and Latin, University of Louisiana: “Baptists do not, as most Protestant denominations, date their origin from the Reformation of 1520. By means of that great movement they were brought out of comparative obscurity into prominent notice. They did not, however, originate with the Reformation; for long before Luther lived; yea, long before the Catholic Church itself was known, Baptist and Baptist churches flourished in Europe, Asia and Africa.”

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
10 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

I do understand that the word "Protestant" is used as a generic term by many. Personally I object to it simply because it implies that anything not Roman Catholic is Protestant. This is probably true for most, if not all Protestant Christian churches, but is definitely not true for Baptist churches.

The world wants to lump Baptists in with Protestants, which they are not and never have been. So, I am very cautious when someone tries to teach that Baptists are Protestants.

But I don't want to drag your thread off topic, so I will leave it with these two quotes showing why I object to the term "Protestant" in regard to Baptists.

John Clark Ridpath, Methodist, author of that monumental work Ridpath’s History of the World, in a letter to Dr. W.A. Jarrell (Baptist Church Perpetuity, pg. 59) says: “I should not readily admit that there were Baptist churches as far back as A.D. 100, although without doubt there were Baptists then, as all Christians were Baptists.”

Professor Wm. C. Duncan, of the Department of Greek and Latin, University of Louisiana: “Baptists do not, as most Protestant denominations, date their origin from the Reformation of 1520. By means of that great movement they were brought out of comparative obscurity into prominent notice. They did not, however, originate with the Reformation; for long before Luther lived; yea, long before the Catholic Church itself was known, Baptist and Baptist churches flourished in Europe, Asia and Africa.”

Yes, I understand that historically Baptist and Anabaptist were established as a protest that Luther and others did not go far enough. You are right, most people lump Baptist's and Anabaptist's  into the Protestant Camp. Most people lump all Orthodox churches into either the Greek or Russian Orthodox church. That is also inaccurate. Most folk know little or nothing about the violence of early Baptist's and Anabaptist's, such as the Münster rebellion. More know about the violence in Geneva when Calvin was 'in charge'. 

I believe throughout history people have confused their culture with Christianity and politicians have used Christians, manipulated them is probably more accurate, To me this has been very evident in our country throughout our history and especially recently. And teachings and emphasis changes as time goes by. 

I grew up in a rural Southern Baptist Church. We were taught tolerance of others even to the point of defending another right to be wrong. But we expected the same tolerance in return. That certainly has changed during my lifetime to intolerance of others. Looking back I can see that the southern culture I grew up in was confused with Christianity. While Roman Catholics were look down upon the worst person, in religious terms, was a Norther Baptist. Also, when I was a kid a Black person would not have been welcomed into that little rural church. The older generation were people of their time just as we are people of our time. But, they were basically good people and they laid the foundation on which I stand today ... even thought many would no longer agree with my beliefs. One of the greatest gifts they gave me was their unconditional love as I grew up. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Bouncing Bill said:

Yes, I understand that historically Baptist and Anabaptist were established as a protest that Luther and others did not go far enough. You are right, most people lump Baptist's and Anabaptist's  into the Protestant Camp. Most people lump all Orthodox churches into either the Greek or Russian Orthodox church. That is also inaccurate. Most folk know little or nothing about the violence of early Baptist's and Anabaptist's, such as the Münster rebellion. More know about the violence in Geneva when Calvin was 'in charge'. 

I believe throughout history people have confused their culture with Christianity and politicians have used Christians, manipulated them is probably more accurate, To me this has been very evident in our country throughout our history and especially recently. And teachings and emphasis changes as time goes by. 

I grew up in a rural Southern Baptist Church. We were taught tolerance of others even to the point of defending another right to be wrong. But we expected the same tolerance in return. That certainly has changed during my lifetime to intolerance of others. Looking back I can see that the southern culture I grew up in was confused with Christianity. While Roman Catholics were look down upon the worst person, in religious terms, was a Norther Baptist. Also, when I was a kid a Black person would not have been welcomed into that little rural church. The older generation were people of their time just as we are people of our time. But, they were basically good people and they laid the foundation on which I stand today ... even thought many would no longer agree with my beliefs. One of the greatest gifts they gave me was their unconditional love as I grew up. 

I agree somewhat with you. While I'm disgusted with all the monument destruction going on and oppose the removal of them unless there can be a consensus I did recently hear a preacher say that an attack on a Confederate memorial is an attack on Christianity which baffled me. Does he even know that Robert E. Lee opposed these things (at least statues of himself) on the basis that they would be divisive? I understand pride in your heritage (though pride goes before a fall) but that was a ridiculous statement, IMO. Incidentally, the "Christian monument" was an obelisk and we all know what that represents.

Edited by SureWord
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
5 hours ago, SureWord said:

I agree somewhat with you. While I'm disgusted with all the monument destruction going on and oppose the removal of them unless there can be a consensus I did recently hear a preacher say that an attack on a Confederate memorial is an attack on Christianity which baffled me. Does he even know that Robert E. Lee opposed these things (at least statues of himself) on the basis that they would be divisive? I understand pride in your heritage (though pride goes before a fall) but that was a ridiculous statement, IMO. Incidentally, the "Christian monument" was an obelisk and we all know what that represents.

I certainly think the preacher you mentioned was incorrect in comparing a statue of Lee with Christianity. That is a good example of confusing culture/history with Christianity. He probably would not appreciate my saying that Christ, while on earth, was neither White nor an American from the South. I can speak more about the southern culture being confused as being Christian as I grew up in the South. I can't speak about the North or West. Surely they have their own problems.

I was in the same platoon at Ft. Gordon, GA with a full blooded Nez Perce Indian. He told me of the white prejudice against Native Americans and the discrimination they suffered in Idaho. I've lived long enough and traveled enough to know there is no region in our country that does not have such problems in one way or another. 

I have traveled enough to know there are similar problems in every country. For instance I was in Europe, I won't say which country as it is very widespread, and heard a person say, "Hitler did not do a good enough job killing the Roma, (gypsies). In that country I came to believe that if a train hit a chicken a Roma would be accused of killing the chicken. 

I look at history and around the world and cannot fathom how people who call themselves Christian can defend and support exceedingly immoral people as their leader. 

On statues, they have never bothered me one way or the other. I did not view them as celebrating but as remembering. Perhaps I have had a blind spot. To me the statues and buildings commemorating Woodrow Wilson should be removed. He was a complete racist. When he went into office the Civil Service was integrated. He had all the African Americans fired and made it illegal for the Civil Service to hire any person of color. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators
19 hours ago, Bouncing Bill said:

Yes, I understand that historically Baptist and Anabaptist were established as a protest that Luther and others did not go far enough.

Baptist and Anabaptist were well established long before Luther and the reformation. They were certainly not established as a protest to Luther. They preached against Luther because his movement retained most of the Roman Catholic heresy; but they predated Luther by 1520 years.

Matthew 16:18 (KJV) 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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
6 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

Baptist and Anabaptist were well established long before Luther and the reformation. They were certainly not established as a protest to Luther. They preached against Luther because his movement retained most of the Roman Catholic heresy; but they predated Luther by 1520 years.

Matthew 16:18 (KJV) 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.

Just curious. Where do you put Jan Huss on the theological spectrum?

 

1 minute ago, Bouncing Bill said:
7 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

Baptist and Anabaptist were well established long before Luther and the reformation. They were certainly not established as a protest to Luther. They preached against Luther because his movement retained most of the Roman Catholic heresy; but they predated Luther by 1520 years.

Matthew 16:18 (KJV) 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.

 

In your view, where and when did the Baptist and Anabaptist begin?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators
6 hours ago, Bouncing Bill said:

Just curious. Where do you put Jan Huss on the theological spectrum?

 

In your view, where and when did the Baptist and Anabaptist begin?

I was not familiar with Jan Hus, so had to look him up. It would seem that he was an 'early" reformer and as such was not associated with what we know as "The Reformation of 1520' led by Matrin Luther. In doing some brief research concerning him, it would seem that he, just like the later reformers, held to most Catholic dogma, while refuting certain other Catholic beliefs and practices. As such I could never consider him in any line of Baptists. It seems as though he remained a Priest for the rest of his days.

Baptists began with John the Baptist, so proclaimed by inspiration of the God, The Holy Spirit. Baptist was his title, not his name, so he was named by God Himself.

Matthew 3:1 (KJV) In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea,

The name Anabaptist was given to certain people and churches by their enemies, namely The Roman Catholic Church. They were so called because of their firm belief that anyone that came to them after first having been baptised in the Roman church, or not Scripturally baptised must then be rebaptised.
Ana = re, so then "baptized". Anabaptist, or rebaptiser.

Anabaptist is a generic term that was applied to any and all who would not recognise the baptism of the Roman Church as valid. Many times they were called by the names of their leaders, such as, Waldenses, Bogomils, Donatists, But the Roman authorities categorized then all as Anbaptists.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
13 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

I was not familiar with Jan Hus, so had to look him up. It would seem that he was an 'early" reformer and as such was not associated with what we know as "The Reformation of 1520' led by Matrin Luther. In doing some brief research concerning him, it would seem that he, just like the later reformers, held to most Catholic dogma, while refuting certain other Catholic beliefs and practices. As such I could never consider him in any line of Baptists. It seems as though he remained a Priest for the rest of his days.

Baptists began with John the Baptist, so proclaimed by inspiration of the God, The Holy Spirit. Baptist was his title, not his name.

Matthew 3:1 (KJV) In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea,

The name Anabaptist was given to certain people and churches by their enemies. They were so called because of their firm belief that anyone that came to them after first having been baptised in the Roman church, or not Scripturally baptised must then be rebaptised.
Ana = re, so then "baptized". Anabaptist, or rebaptiser.

Well, I respectfully disagree with your history on John the Baptist being the first "Baptist." Many believe he was an Essene. The Essene's practiced baptism. He did baptize and that is why he was call the baptist. Probably a better translation would be "John the Baptizer." I am not a Greek scholar, so I am surmising this. Indeed I have read that some traditions call him by that term. Also he has been called John the Immerser.  John is revered by Christians, Muslims, the Bahai and the Mandaeisms. The Jewish historian, Josephus, mentions him. I wish the Bible had more about him. Indeed, there are many people, areas, and occurrences that I wish the Bible have more about. There is nothing that I know of in any literature about any group called Baptists or Anabaptistsfrom that era until the 16th century. 

Jan Huss was a powerful preacher. Unfortunately he trusted the Pope's promise of safe passage to the Council of Constance to defend his beliefs. He was, in my opinion, murdered in Konstanz, Germany by his Catholic opponents. This led to the horrible Hussite wars. There is more, but I don't want to bore you. 

I do not consider myself an expert historian. I do find history interesting and usually am reading a book on some era in the past, sometimes religious history, and sometimes secular. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
On 7/11/2020 at 1:49 PM, Jim_Alaska said:

John was named The Baptist, by  God before he ever baptized anyone. He was not named such because of what he did.

Regarding Jan Hus and his unfortunate life and demise, he was never a Baptist by any stretch of the imagination.

I respectfully disagree. I do not know of any reference to John being a Baptist, a baptizer, yes. Yes he did baptize people. Yes, he preached that someone greater was coming and that he was not the messiah.  

In what way was he a Baptist?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators

This is not difficult to understand, John was the first Baptist, so named by God, The Holy Spirit and affirmed by Jesus Himself.

Matthew 3:1 (KJV) In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea,

Matthew 11:11 (KJV) Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Matthew 17:13 (KJV) Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.

So then, John was the first Baptist; he baptised Jesus, making Jesus a Baptist; Jesus started the first church; making the first church a Baptist Church.

Matthew 16:18 (KJV) 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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 29 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...