Baptists are protestants by definition

[Crazy Liz]

This seems to be the official position of CF:

http://www.christianforums.com/t2305427-so-rule-12.html&page=70

While I agree that Baptists and Anabaptists are protestants, I know there are some here who adamantly disagree. I also know that some of our Baptist and Anabaptist mods are members of the Catholic-Protestant Review Committee.

As CF's rules seem to be getting more and more complicated, it seems like official judgments are being made about more and more issues. How does that sit with members of this forum?

Our "habits of the heart" were formed out of the Radical Reformation. We have a heritage that includes breaking fellowship over all sorts of differences of opinion, many of which I think most of us would admit have been quite trivial. A few months ago a group of Baptists left CF, seemingly over a rule change. Is B/A destined to become a ghost town?

Should we be making a case for fewer and simpler rules, rather than more complex ones? I've seen very little B/A contribution to the threads about the rule changes. What do Baptists and Anabaptists think about all this?

[thepianist]

This seems to be the official position of CF:

http://www.christianforums.com/t2305427-so-rule-12.html&page=70

While I agree that Baptists and Anabaptists are protestants, I know there are some here who adamantly disagree. I also know that some of our Baptist and Anabaptist mods are members of the Catholic-Protestant Review Committee.

As CF's rules seem to be getting more and more complicated, it seems like official judgments are being made about more and more issues. How does that sit with members of this forum?

Our "habits of the heart" were formed out of the Radical Reformation. We have a heritage that includes breaking fellowship over all sorts of differences of opinion, many of which I think most of us would admit have been quite trivial. A few months ago a group of Baptists left CF, seemingly over a rule change. Is B/A destined to become a ghost town?

Should we be making a case for fewer and simpler rules, rather than more complex ones? I've seen very little B/A contribution to the threads about the rule changes. What do Baptists and Anabaptists think about all this?

Look, the Baptist denomination didn't come out of any church, at any time. We did NOT protest any other denomination - plain and simple - we are not protestants. People need to take a look at the Bible....remember that man named John the Baptist??? Hello............there is the name, duh!

I do not like to be called a protestant, because I'm not one. And that, my friend, is my opinion on the subject. :thumbsup:

[eldermike]

This seems to be the official position of CF:


That thread was a 1.2 rule discussion (key word, discussion). Official positions are in the form of rules.

As a Baptist who is on staff I am involved in ongoing discussion that concern rule 1.2. But official positions will be reflected in the rules, not in statements made by staff members in discussion forums.

I hope this helps.
We need Baptists here, you are important to this forum and people will come here to discover our understanding on a broad range of issues. We need folks here that can address those from a Baptist's perspective.

[Sword-In-Hand]

By definition I guess we Baptists are "protestants", but not in the way that some denominatons came about from the split of the church. Baptists, as far as I know, for the most part protest against the teachings of the Catholic Church, particuarly the RCC. So by that standard, yes we are protestants, but we did come about by the split of the church when the thesis was nailed to the door.

As for the rules, some are just plain stupid...forgive my brashness. I mean we cannot discuss polygamy, but the Bible speaks of such things. What happens to the person who wants to know why multiple wives were permitted in the OT and not the NT? We can't answer because it violates some dumb rule.

There are people out there seeking the truth, but alot of it can't be told because of some violation. I mean I just found out that we can't discuss God's foresight which blows my mind.

Rules are needed, don't get me wrong, but dictators have rules too. Think about it.

[jcright]

This seems to be the official position of CF:

http://www.christianforums.com/t2305427-so-rule-12.html&page=70

While I agree that Baptists and Anabaptists are protestants, I know there are some here who adamantly disagree. I also know that some of our Baptist and Anabaptist mods are members of the Catholic-Protestant Review Committee.

As CF's rules seem to be getting more and more complicated, it seems like official judgments are being made about more and more issues. How does that sit with members of this forum?

Our "habits of the heart" were formed out of the Radical Reformation. We have a heritage that includes breaking fellowship over all sorts of differences of opinion, many of which I think most of us would admit have been quite trivial. A few months ago a group of Baptists left CF, seemingly over a rule change. Is B/A destined to become a ghost town?

Should we be making a case for fewer and simpler rules, rather than more complex ones? I've seen very little B/A contribution to the threads about the rule changes. What do Baptists and Anabaptists think about all this?

CL,

I think it's ridiculous to include all b/a as protestants (or any other protestant denom)...whether it can be historically proven that b/a broke away from the Catholic church or not. Reason being that not all of us today broke away from the Catholic church. The real protestants are those that actually broke away from the catholic church (whether in the present, past or in the future). I am not one of those people. If anything, I broke away from the Christian Science church. My choice to join the Baptist Church did not stem from wanting to reform the Catholic church...it's for the same reason that I didn't join the orthodox, lutheran, methodist, pentecostal, etc. church. I'm sure there are many people who have a similar type of story (whether breaking from a christian denom or a cult). The rest were born in the b/a church and so they didn't break away from anything either.

Having babbled all of that, I tend to find that taking the "protestant" name tends to be more out of spite. Conversely, I find that the use of protestant from a Catholic point of view tends to be derogatory (whether intentional or unintentional). Either way, I would encourage everyone to drop the idea of protestant. It's not going to get you anywhere. We aren't called to be antagonistic in that type of manner. That doesn't, however, mean that we can't teach and rebuke, etc. as described in IITim3:16 describes. Of course, it would have to be done in a loving manner.

Then again, I also don't believe in peace. That should be nothing new, I've said that many times on here. I hate to say it, but I definitely don't believe in the peace that is advocated on CF as if it will actually solve any problems. Sorry guys, I know you are trying to do your best, but I see the rules as a false peace. We won't truly have peace unless we are of one mind on all matters. Until we are mature enough to come to that conclusion, then we won't be mature enough to come to peace under the false (forced) concept. Which will never happen anyway because there are some people who just enjoy being nasty, others are too self defensive, some aren't christian at all, etc.

From what I can tell, this ghost town is a major cause of these rules and the enforcement there of. We aren't free to discuss topics like we should be able to and...more importantly, it seems that the wrong people are sticking their nose in what we say. I would have thought, in our own room, that we could discuss anything we wanted. After all, in a real church, you can fellowship as you want without the other denominations breaking in and making a fuss. If the other people don't like it, then oh well. They don't have to read in here. I hate to say it, but if we wanted their opinion, then we would have posted a question in their forum. I would expect that they would do the same in ours...of course, they wouldn't be given the chance for rebuttal. Ask and accept what you get whether you like it or not. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that we should be able to teach and fellowship as we see fit, not as others see fit. Just like the church is governed by the pastors, elders and deacons, our part of this site should be governed by...US!

Keep in mind, this freedom to fellowship and teach does not include promoting hatred, violence, etc. It would be appalling to say that we should hate a group for x, y and z reasons. It would be appalling to say that we should be stuck up, holier than thou, etc. because we think we have the answers and everyone else doesn't. Everything, as scripture dictates, should be done in a loving attitude. The problem will be in interpretation. People will say that we can't say this, that or the next thing because it promotes hate when really it is teaching (either our interpretation of the bible or the other denomination's interpretation). The exception would be when we teach something false about another denom. In that situation, I believe there is room for action, possibly the person can post what the truth really is.

Anyhow, this censorship needs to go (unless it is truly getting nasty). There's no reason to stick around here for fellowship if we aren't allowed to do just that...and I include teaching as part of fellowshipping. This is especially true when there are boards out there specifically for our denomin where we can actually talk freely.

Bottom line, we feel persecuted and it needs to stop. I have heard (although I consider the sources to be credible) that a lot of the "reports" are not done by the normal user but by moderators. Hence, there is an abuse by the moderators that has apparently proliferated to the point where we are losing our people. If we make a case for anything, it should be that we police our own without outside interruptions. Get rid of these ridiculous rules that hinder our ability to learn about the Word and each other.

Of course, there is another reason for people to leave, and that's the repetition of topics. I know i'm bored seeing the same questions on here. I know they are seeking answers, but I think seekers should start at the beginning of our threads and work their way back. They would find that there question is answered multiple times.

One thing I should point out is that I really haven't been paying attention to what goes on in here in many months. I just happen to take a peak in here because there is a useful part of this site where I don't have to worry about being censored...the computer forum:) Maybe the rules have changed. If we're still a ghost town, then I would assume it's becaues the rules haven't changed enough. I know at one point that rules were going to be under serious evaluation, but I didn't bother to see if anything came about from that.

There's my $.02:)

[MrJim]

As an anabaptist I like to think of myself as seperate from protestant & RC/EO but the reality is that protestant is an overarching definition for anyone that is not RC/EO.

On the "Big Picture" of Christianity baptists & anabaptists are lumped in with the protestants-stemmed out of the same movement though the baptists may be great great grandchildren of the reformers.

[ZiSunka]

This seems to be the official position of CF:

http://www.christianforums.com/t2305427-so-rule-12.html&page=70

While I agree that Baptists and Anabaptists are protestants, I know there are some here who adamantly disagree. I also know that some of our Baptist and Anabaptist mods are members of the Catholic-Protestant Review Committee.

As CF's rules seem to be getting more and more complicated, it seems like official judgments are being made about more and more issues. How does that sit with members of this forum?

Our "habits of the heart" were formed out of the Radical Reformation. We have a heritage that includes breaking fellowship over all sorts of differences of opinion, many of which I think most of us would admit have been quite trivial. A few months ago a group of Baptists left CF, seemingly over a rule change. Is B/A destined to become a ghost town?

Should we be making a case for fewer and simpler rules, rather than more complex ones? I've seen very little B/A contribution to the threads about the rule changes. What do Baptists and Anabaptists think about all this?

I hate when people who aren't even members of a particular organization start to pigeon-hole the organization based on outside sources and distant observations. If we don't want to be considered protestants, and our history and heritage bear out that claim (anabaptists predated protestantism by a couple decades).

Anyway, people didn't leave in stubbornness over a rule change, they left because they started to get too many warnings for things that were debateable, after being egged-on by one particular group who had it out for them. I'm sure you remember what was happening then. Yes the rules have gotten too complicated, mostly to protect the sensibilities of one group that thinks it is persecuted every time anyone looks cross-eyed at them, but that group is the one that needs to be dealt with. I for one have had plenty of their belly-aching about people persecuting them. Disagreeing is not persecution. Chains, imprisonment and execution is persecution. Plus, this particular group I am speaking of does more attacking, baiting and defaming than all other denoms represented at CF combined. They even attack their own if they feel that poster isn't toeing the official line!

Deal with the offenders, not the group that has been decimated by their attacks. And by the way, that group thinks of it as a great spiritual triumph that B/A is becoming a ghost town. They think it's a sign that the Lord loves them but not us.:sigh:

[ZiSunka]

Besides, I think it is GOOD that people are no longer allowed to use the words, "The One True Church" when discussing Catholicism or any other denomination. It is a self-proclaimed title on their parts, and nothing out of the Bible as far as I can see. I don't even see anything in the Bible that says you have to a member of any church in order to be a Christian or to be saved.

[Crazy Liz]

Besides, I think it is GOOD that people are no longer allowed to use the words, "The One True Church" when discussing Catholicism or any other denomination. It is a self-proclaimed title on their parts, and nothing out of the Bible as far as I can see. I don't even see anything in the Bible that says you have to a member of any church in order to be a Christian or to be saved.
Well, the rule is under discussion with staff, particularly CPR, I understand, and 2 or 3 of our own mods are on the CPR team, so maybe we should tell them what we think.

As it stands now, the phrase "one true church" is no longer prohibited. The rule has reverted back to its previous form. But Erwin's most recently proposed wording is:

Okay, take three - final draft - comments please:

Rule No. 1 - No "Flaming"
1.1 You may discuss another individual's beliefs or religious organization but you will not harass, insult, belittle, threaten, defame or flame the individual (member or non-member) as this is considered personal (ad hominem) attacks in posts, PMs and any other communication within the site. This includes calling famous individuals derogatory names (unless it is a well-known nickname) as this may be considered defamation.
1.2 You will not misquote another member regardless of context.
1.3 This is an ecumenical Christian site with Christians from all denominations. Therefore, to prevent flame-wars and misunderstandings, we first ask that member agree to disagree in an agreeable manner when it comes to differences in church doctrines. In addition:
a. You will not directly call another member a “cult member”, “heretic” or "apostate".
b. You will only post negative statements about another individual’s belief or religious organization (including non-Christian religions) with objective evidence provided. Members are allowed to say “The doctrines X church is false because of Y scriptures and Z other relevant evidence”.
c. You may post the historical and doctrinal views of your church or denomination that speak negatively of another church or denomination as long as it is supported by your church's authoritative historical documents or Scripture, and is not in violation of Rule 6.6a-e (evidence need not be provided). For example, this would permit such historical positions as a particular denomination being the "one true church" or "apostate" as acceptable views.
d. A signature is a affirmation of who you are, not a negative statement of who others are not. As such, any views in a signature that makes a negative statement about another member or church is not allowed.
1.4 You will not directly state or otherwise imply that another member is not a Christian if he or she falls under Rule 6.5 and 6.6 and he or she does not have a hidden faith icon without providing substantiation from scripture or doctrine or historic church writtings.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=19930071&postcount=642

It seems that the phrase "one true church" is allowed in signatures, since it is a positive affirmation. However, negative statements about other members or churches are not allowed in signatures.

Since this has gone through 3 or 4 iterations on CF support without much comment by B/A members, I'm still interested in your viewpoints. I think I will start a new thread there to continue the discussion.

[Adammi]

Is B/A destined to become a ghost town?


I love CF SOOOOOOO much! It is truly a blessing from God and I am not criticizing anyone but it is my opinion that all of CF is going to be a ghost town pretty soon.

[Crazy Liz]

OK, I started a new thread in CF Support to discuss this:

http://www.christianforums.com/t2311795-continuing-rule-1-discussion.html

[ZiSunka]

I love CF SOOOOOOO much! It is truly a blessing from God and I am not criticizing anyone but it is my opinion that all of CF is going to be a ghost town pretty soon.

Everything has a life-cycle. Maybe it's just about time for CF to come to an end, before even more divisions and cliques pop up. I've noticed that in a lot of the denom forums, even people in the same denom are starting to have divisions.

[Adammi]

Everything has a life-cycle. Maybe it's just about time for CF to come to an end, before even more divisions and cliques pop up. I've noticed that in a lot of the denom forums, even people in the same denom are starting to have divisions.
This is true but I hate to see division even here.

BTW I love your custom title.

[Project 86]

Let us see. There are 1312 people logged in as I type this. CF is far from coming to an end. I have been here since almost the start, when it was much smaller.

[ZiSunka]

Yes, I've been coming here almost from the beginning, too, and I have seen it go from being a pretty unified bunch of Christians from various denominations to being a conglomeration of divisions. In the beginning, there were no denominational forums and yet everyone got along much better than they do today. Even within denominations, there is getting to be a lot of divisions.

[Project 86]

I want to agree with you but then I remember that it's human nature to filter the past through rose tinted glasses. Was it really that great and troll free back then? My memory really isn't that good. ;)

Yes, I've been coming here almost from the beginning, too, and I have seen it go from being a pretty unified bunch of Christians from various denominations to being a conglomeration of divisions. In the beginning, there were no denominational forums and yet everyone got along much better than they do today. Even within denominations, there is getting to be a lot of divisions.

[ZiSunka]

I want to agree with you but then I remember that it's human nature to filter the past through rose tinted glasses. Was it really that great and troll free back then? My memory really isn't that good. ;)

Back then, the trolls were the atheists and homosexuals who came here because this site was THE place to address Christians. Now the trolls are Christians of other denominations who attack out of fear, jealousy or misguided zeal. Now WE are our own enemies.:(

[eldermike]

The seekers are why I am here. I can tolerate just about anything as long as God is using this tool for His purposes.

[MrJim]

As for the "one true church" ruling I have no problem with the RC/EO declaration of this. It is what they believe and part of this grand experiment is understanding what others believe.

The declaration of "one true church" rankles others much like TULIP rankles me, but I'm not going to cry about it. It's just one of the idiosyncracies of that group of believers (and, hey, they may be right--gosh those calvinists might be right too:doh: ). What is the sweat all about...they've been declaring for over a thousand years. Whether they are right or wrong is not my job to decide.

We accept them as brothers & sisters per CF rules-well, that's part of the package.

[PaladinGirl]

I hate when people who aren't even members of a particular organization start to pigeon-hole the organization based on outside sources and distant observations. If we don't want to be considered protestants, and our history and heritage bear out that claim (anabaptists predated protestantism by a couple decades).

Anyway, people didn't leave in stubbornness over a rule change, they left because they started to get too many warnings for things that were debateable, after being egged-on by one particular group who had it out for them. I'm sure you remember what was happening then. Yes the rules have gotten too complicated, mostly to protect the sensibilities of one group that thinks it is persecuted every time anyone looks cross-eyed at them, but that group is the one that needs to be dealt with. I for one have had plenty of their belly-aching about people persecuting them. Disagreeing is not persecution. Chains, imprisonment and execution is persecution. Plus, this particular group I am speaking of does more attacking, baiting and defaming than all other denoms represented at CF combined. They even attack their own if they feel that poster isn't toeing the official line!

Deal with the offenders, not the group that has been decimated by their attacks. And by the way, that group thinks of it as a great spiritual triumph that B/A is becoming a ghost town. They think it's a sign that the Lord loves them but not us.:sigh:

No offense intended but your opinions are not representative of that "denomination". Oh and you are totally misrepresenting that "denomination" too by the way.

[RED that's ME]

http://www.christianguitar.org/forums/images/smilies/cowgirl.gif ADMINISTRATOR HAT ON http://www.christianguitar.org/forums/images/smilies/cowgirl.gif



Just a reminder only Baptists/AnaBaptist can discuss/debate in the BA forum. NonBA members posts are subject to removal and any other staff actions. Please observe the CF congregational forum rules.


6.4 a. Postings in the “Congregation” category forums are restricted to those of that denomination except for posts for fellowship and earnest questions.
http://www.christianforums.com/rules (http://www.christianforums.com/rules)
Meaning:
Non-Baptist/Anabaptist members (eg. Catholic,Charasmatic, Weselyan, Lutheran, etc... members) can only post fellowship posts here or posts to ask a question regarding Baptist/Anabaptist doctrine. Once the question is answered, there shall be no debate over the answer in this forum by the Non-Baptist/Anabaptist members. Any debate posts by Non-Baptist/Anabaptist members will be deleted or moved to the appropriate forum. In other words, only Baptist/Anabaptist members can debate here.

Please respect the rules of the Baptist/AnaBaptist forum.
http://www.christianguitar.org/forums/images/smilies/cowgirl.gif ADMINISTRATOR HAT OFF http://www.christianguitar.org/forums/images/smilies/cowgirl.gif

[Joykins]

Meh, I picked the "Protestant" icon because there was no pretty icon for my specific denomination plus my affinity for my current denom. isn't really strong anyway. It never occurred to me that some Baptists or Anabaptists might not think of themselves as Protestant. In my Anabaptist school, we spent a LOT of time on Martin Luther. Like a whole semester.

[53Isaiah]

Sure we have Baptist out in front of our church, but I am a believer first and foremost. Why? There are some Baptist that do not endure sound doctrine:

2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

Remember, God sees individuals not denominations.

[JPPT1974]

God sees us as Christians
Not at all which denomination we worship
But if we accept Christ as our Savior & Lord
Putting our faith & trust in Him