[Linux4christians] Baptists (was Re: Ex-Muslim's college speech disrupted by arson.)
tbutler at ofb.biz
Thu Dec 10 18:42:20 EST 2009
> That some choose to draw some sort of historical linkage
> between the momentary Baptist network of local fellowships and past
> organizations is interesting academia I suppose
> but tells one little to nothing relevant to Biblical
I (obviously) disagree. :-) After all, the Bible is a book of the
history and story of God's people. It traces the revelation of God
over time and his faithful interaction with his people. Likewise,
church history, though not inspired helps us to see God's faithfulness
over the centuries. It also gives us a great deal of advantage in that
we learn what has gone on in the past, what worked and what didn't.
Remember: "Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it."
I also think history helps to remind us of our humble estate. No one
today can really claim to accurately emulate the New Testament church
because we really don't know what it looks like. When I know only my
current history and what is all about ME, I can become centered on ME
and how MY tradition is right. When I see the development of
doctrines, I'm reminded of the many faithful believers who have run
the race before me, the great cloud of witnesses, and how my
tradition, my position is one of receiving many great things from
God's people, not a sort of a prior, dropped from the sky belief. (I
don't say that to suggest yours is, but to suggest that is the sort of
thing I do see a lot... and it isn't good.)
> The true "Church" (believers and local fellowships
> of believers) would be far healthier if every evidence
> of man's religious inventions between the time of the
> authorship of the NT and now would suddenly disappear
> and everyone was forced to rely upon the Bible and
> nothing but.
A lot of what the Patristics did was bump around looking for terms to
express things well. Hence, one fellow observed this morning on here
that the Nicene Creed could be seen as modalist. While I might beg to
differ somewhat, we also see that as things have worked (and not
worked) the Church has learned. The early patristics used all kinds of
sorts of weird ways of describing what we now call the Trinity. Why
reinvent the wheel?
Probably so, but I doubt any church one happens to fellowship with
actually would look much like it does now, if you did that. For example:
1.) Baptism: covenant child or just believer? Immersion or
sprinkling? The Bible doesn't say.
2.) Lord's Supper: Wafers? Loaves? A banquet at a table in the
3.) Sunday services or just a Bible study at a local believer's house?
4.) Scripture: which books? Canon was settled by the church.
5) Covenant theology? Dispensationalism? Etc. (The rapture in its
modern sense appears in the 19th century.)
As a wise fellow I know jokes: be careful in wishing to be the New
Testament church... you don't want to be Corinth or Galatia or...
More information about the Linux4christians