Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know

[Dave Hansen]

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. Kevin Deegan wrote: Some folks claim baptists come from Holland and Roger Williams, but as I have shown quotes by even enemies of baptists that date them to before the reformation, it can not be so.   So who was the founder of the baptists? Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: DAVEH:   Then why are they defined as Protestants?   When did they first take on an identity? Kevin Deegan wrote: Of course they are not protestants they existed before the protestant movement. Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: DAVEH:   I was under the impression that Baptists are Protestants.  Here's a WIKI definition........ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptist .........Do you consider them non Protestant, Kevin? Kevin Deegan wrote: Would you say Baptists have a significant number?  Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: DAVEH:  Do any of them exist today in significant numbers? Kevin Deegan wrote: There are plenty of "groups" that pre date the protestants and therefore can not by any definition be considered "protestant" AnaBaptists Waldensians Montanists   Besides there was NO Catholic Church in 30AD. The RCC came along generations later. Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: DAVEH:  What puzzle?  My interest is the Protestant connection.  To which non-Protestant group are you referring, Kevin? Kevin Deegan wrote: Maybe you leave out a very important piece of the puzzle, when you leave the NON Protestant groups out of the equation. Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: DAVEH:   Dang.......you are sucking me in again, Kevin!        I don't see it as a limited apostasy, but rather a general apostasy that affected the entire Church.     It isn't that I believe the Protestants erred, but rather that they never had a solid (or live) root, and subsequently they merely adopted (such as the case of the Trinity Doctrine) or reformed (viz, baptism) the doctrinal principles of the RCC.     Those outside the RCC or Protestant realms do not particularly intrigue me, nor am I very knowledgeable about them.  My interests tend to focus on the Reformer's need to distance themselves from RCC authority, while at the same time feeling compelled to keep the theology, while modifying those doctrines they believed had devolved. Kevin Deegan wrote: So you see a limited Apostacy as it was only the RCC not the Protestants who ERRED? And what of those that continued as neither part of the RCC nor were they "protestants" since they existed before the protestants and contemporaneous to the RCC? They were the recipients of the terror of the RCC burnings etc. Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Are Protestants, Christians? DAVEH:  As much so as LDS folks.   My main interest is in Protestants because of their need to reform traditional theology (on the RCC level), yet deny the apostasy into which we (LDS) perceive the RCC fell.   I find that train of succession (for the lack of a better word).......or, evolution of religious thought to be interesting, and is the focal point of my participation in TT. Kevin Deegan wrote: Why do you draw a line between Protestants and LDS? Are Protestants, Christians? lick. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.