Dave, do you consider the Wikipedia to be a reliable source of truth? Who
wrote the article? Who are these "Christian church historians". Why is the
word "protestant" in quotes? This article has no credits and no citations.
Why should it carry any weight other than the fact that it mentions a few
points you are trying to make?
But, if you prefer Wikipedia for your source of truth, then perhaps you
should have read on...
"The name Protestant is rejected by some Baptists because Baptists do not
have a direct connection to Luther, Calvin or the Roman Catholic Church.
They do not feel that they are protesting anything and Landmark Baptists
believe they pre-date the Roman Catholic Church. Other Baptists accept the
Protestant label as a demographic concept that describes churches who share
similar theologies of sola scriptura, sola fide, the priesthood of all
believers and other positions that Luther, Calvin and traditional reformers
held in contrast to the Roman Catholic Church in the 1500s."
Notice that first line?
On the other hand, I prefer the term "Christian" to any other labels...those
who are members of the Body of Christ, regardless of from which tradition
they come, what "denomination" of fellowship they attend, and who get their
truth from the Word of God. This may also include personal revelation that
is in line with Biblical truths and principles. So, relying on heretical
extra-biblical works produced by or through a magic talisman bearing
peep-stone treasure hunter disqualifies one from the Body of Christ.
Perry
From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 23:45:56 -0800
DAVEH: Did you not read the WIKI definition I previously provided, Kevin?
DavidM has subsequently provided this one, also from WIKI........
/The word Anabaptism may be used to describe a "*Protestant*" group
baptizing Christians who were baptized in infancy and/or who come to them
from other bodies, any of the 16th century "radical" dissenters, or the
denominations descending from the followers of Menno Simons. The use of the
term Anabaptism does not necessarily imply claims to uniformity between the
groups thus denominated. Today the descendants of the 16th century European
movement (particularly the Amish, Hutterites, & Mennonites) are the most
common bodies referred to as Anabaptist. Yet other bodies (such as the
early English Baptists) were also referred to by their enemies as
Anabaptists, and are clearly Anabaptists in the generally accepted sense of
the term. The majority of Baptists further engage in a practice others
consider "rebaptizing" in that they usually rebaptize even adult believers
who were baptized by some mode other than immersion. _Christian church
historians generally believe that there is no historical continuity between
anabaptists in the first few centuries of the Christianity and later
anabaptist groups._/
..........Does that not explain the situation? Modern day Baptists are
Protestants.
----------
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you
ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
