David Kent
Continuing Historicist
- Aug 24, 2017
- 2,174
- 663
- 86
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- UK-Conservative
OK. I call myself baptist with a small b.Hi friend. With respect, I think you may have missed my question in this reply. The question isn't "Which modern group could these people be said to belong to?" (e.g., whether they are Presbyterian, Baptist, etc.), but rather "Why is there a need to identify groups who clearly originated before the 'official' start of Protestantism in the 16th century with later Protestant groups, despite any differences between the groups who are claiming them and these 'pre-Protestant' groups? What is wrong with just being whatever it is you are yourselves, without having to call these earlier groups your ancestors when your theology and praxis doesn't match?"
Is that clearer? I hope so. It is confusing to me because, as an example, when my Church declares some other group from outside of ourselves to be Orthodox (i.e., an individual non-Coptic saint, or a group of them, or an entire Church), it is a way of affirming that, for us, their faith and our faith is the the same. We see our faith in theirs. I don't see where that same connection is if, for instance, the group you are talking about has practices that reveal a fundamental difference in mindset to the group you are claiming that they are a part of, as in, e.g., The Liturgist's point regarding pedobaptism vs. credobaptism in post #157. To be sure, there are differences in praxis between the different Orthodox churches (most infamously, perhaps, the Armenian use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist as their normative way of making it, cf. the rest of the Orthodox using leavened bread), but they don't really reveal a difference in mindset once their reason is explored (for the Armenians, I'm told that leaven represents sin, and so as Christ has no sin, there is no liven in their Eucharist; I've heard the exact opposite from the Syrians, who were actually out of communion with the Armenians for several centuries over this and related issues, as they've explained to me that it is because Christ took upon Himself the sins of the world that their bread is leavened; you will note, I hope, that the explanation as to what leaven therefore represents is actually the same, so there is not actually a disagreement at the root of this difference in practice between the two ancient Orthodox churches in question). From what I understand, the differences between churches that practice credo- vs. pedobaptism in the non-Orthodox world are not really like that, as I have definitely dealt with Protestants of some kind on this very forum who have openly voiced the opinion that pedobaptism is not just wrong, but some kind of affront to God, or maybe even evil.
I don't know about you, but when I encounter another group with which my Church disagrees on matters of faith who also call us evil (or damned, or what have you) for what we believe and do instead of what they believe and do (heyyyyyy, neo-Chalcedonians! ), my first reaction is definitely not to say "These are our ancestors!"
Upvote
0