OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 02, 2014, 02:44:23 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Baptists are not Protestant  (Read 2004 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« on: October 30, 2010, 09:21:17 AM »

Or so says this guy:

"In light of this history, it is proper for Baptists to remind ourselves that we are not, technically speaking, true Protestants. We are spiritually descended from a different reformation. Our ancestors did not break with Rome, but from the Church of England. As Baptist Christians, we should take this Reformation Day [31 October] to remember our own unique heritage, and to honor the Baptist reformers rather than forgetting their sacrifices and contributions."

It's true the one of the basic definitions of Protestantism limits itself to those bodies that broke away from the Latin Catholic Church of Rome. So, if that's the case, Baptists -- who broke away from the Church of England -- are not technically "Protestant".

« Last Edit: October 30, 2010, 09:22:31 AM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,014


"My god is greater."


« Reply #1 on: October 30, 2010, 09:35:21 AM »

Eh, so what. I've heard Lutherans, Anglicans, and Mennonites all say that they're not Protestants for some reason or other. *Yawn*
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
quietmorning
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,239


St. Photini


WWW
« Reply #2 on: October 30, 2010, 09:39:23 AM »

This means that I'll never ever hear another Baptist 'protest' the RC ever again, right?
Logged

In His Mercy,
BethAnna
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #3 on: October 30, 2010, 09:49:44 AM »

This means that I'll never ever hear another Baptist 'protest' the RC ever again, right?
That depends upon the individual Baptist. Cool
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #4 on: October 30, 2010, 10:06:43 AM »

Why are Protestants so obsessed with identifying themselves as "not Protestant"? As a child at Lutheran school me and the class were told by the pastor that Lutherans are not Protestant, which is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard since they are the original Protestants.
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #5 on: October 30, 2010, 11:16:34 AM »

Why are Protestants so obsessed with identifying themselves as "not Protestant"? As a child at Lutheran school me and the class were told by the pastor that Lutherans are not Protestant, which is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard since they are the original Protestants.

One thing that denominations hate to have is labels imposed on them. They are rebels by nature, and don't want anyone to tell them what or who they are, especially in form of generalizations.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #6 on: October 30, 2010, 11:19:25 AM »

Protestant means different things to different people, which is why there is such a word war about it.

To an Anglican or Lutheran, Protestant is meant literally, or "to protest the Papacy". To everyone else, Protestant is to identify with a specific ideology. Some of the possibilities include, sola scriptura, faith alone, once saved/always saved, etc.

That's why when you say "Protestant" on here, you can't speak generally. Because the word means two different things, and in one group, it can mean a whole range of beliefs.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 6,042



« Reply #7 on: October 30, 2010, 03:53:27 PM »

Technically, Lutherans aren't Protestant.  The term Protestant was coined to refer to those particular princes and their subjects who wanted to be neither Catholic nor Lutheran.  The Diet of Speyer, convoked by the Holy Roman Emperor, proclaimed that whatever religion the prince was, his subjects were to follow that.  Thus, it was hoped, that the rebels would only have a few places as strongholds.  However, the followers of Calvin and Zwingli were not included in the edicts of Speyer and so they protested, hence Protestant.

At the same time, i find that even educating people to the history is an exercise of futility.  Most Lutherans think they are Protestants, many Baptists think they aren't, Anglicans don't know, etc..  But really what does it matter?  They have cut themselves off from the Church Catholic (I.e. Orthodox Church) so what difference does it make to us what they call themselves.  THey can be quantum Presbyterians for all I care (kudos to anyone who understands that reference!).
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #8 on: October 30, 2010, 04:10:16 PM »

Technically, Lutherans aren't Protestant.  The term Protestant was coined to refer to those particular princes and their subjects who wanted to be neither Catholic nor Lutheran.  The Diet of Speyer, convoked by the Holy Roman Emperor, proclaimed that whatever religion the prince was, his subjects were to follow that.  Thus, it was hoped, that the rebels would only have a few places as strongholds.  However, the followers of Calvin and Zwingli were not included in the edicts of Speyer and so they protested, hence Protestant.

At the same time, i find that even educating people to the history is an exercise of futility.  Most Lutherans think they are Protestants, many Baptists think they aren't, Anglicans don't know, etc..  But really what does it matter?  They have cut themselves off from the Church Catholic (I.e. Orthodox Church) so what difference does it make to us what they call themselves.  THey can be quantum Presbyterians for all I care (kudos to anyone who understands that reference!).

I just love this post. Thank you, Scamandrius. Smiley
Logged

Love never fails.
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #9 on: October 30, 2010, 04:18:23 PM »

THey can be quantum Presbyterians for all I care (kudos to anyone who understands that reference!).
Is that reference from the Orange Catholic Bible? Cool
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #10 on: October 30, 2010, 06:01:05 PM »

Technically, Lutherans aren't Protestant.  The term Protestant was coined to refer to those particular princes and their subjects who wanted to be neither Catholic nor Lutheran.  The Diet of Speyer, convoked by the Holy Roman Emperor, proclaimed that whatever religion the prince was, his subjects were to follow that.  Thus, it was hoped, that the rebels would only have a few places as strongholds.  However, the followers of Calvin and Zwingli were not included in the edicts of Speyer and so they protested, hence Protestant.

At the same time, i find that even educating people to the history is an exercise of futility.  Most Lutherans think they are Protestants, many Baptists think they aren't, Anglicans don't know, etc..  But really what does it matter?  They have cut themselves off from the Church Catholic (I.e. Orthodox Church) so what difference does it make to us what they call themselves.  THey can be quantum Presbyterians for all I care (kudos to anyone who understands that reference!).


Though you are correct in the absolute origin, you have taken the term so far back as to me meaningless for today. As far as why the groups argue if they are not Protestant or not, the use developed after the letter of protestation against the decision of the Diet of Speyer is no longer relevant. The meaning it developed into, as I have described, is how the Protestant groups now see/use it.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,312

"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #11 on: October 30, 2010, 06:45:05 PM »

I think the term "heterodox" is sufficient. I'm sure the Baptists will love to hear us agree with them: "You're right. you aren't Protestant, you're heterodox."


Selam
Logged

"Those who have nothing constructive to offer are masters at belittling the offerings of others." +GMK+
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,645


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #12 on: October 30, 2010, 09:00:37 PM »

I had previously thought that Protestant was a general term for any church other than the Catholic, Orthodox and (possibly) the Anglicans, but I hadn't known some of the things about the distinctions mentioned in this thread. I'm not sure I agree with all the results, but it was interesting to learn.   Smiley
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #13 on: October 30, 2010, 10:22:42 PM »

Technically, Lutherans aren't Protestant.  The term Protestant was coined to refer to those particular princes and their subjects who wanted to be neither Catholic nor Lutheran.  The Diet of Speyer, convoked by the Holy Roman Emperor, proclaimed that whatever religion the prince was, his subjects were to follow that.  Thus, it was hoped, that the rebels would only have a few places as strongholds.  However, the followers of Calvin and Zwingli were not included in the edicts of Speyer and so they protested, hence Protestant.

At the same time, i find that even educating people to the history is an exercise of futility.  Most Lutherans think they are Protestants, many Baptists think they aren't, Anglicans don't know, etc..  But really what does it matter?  They have cut themselves off from the Church Catholic (I.e. Orthodox Church) so what difference does it make to us what they call themselves.  THey can be quantum Presbyterians for all I care (kudos to anyone who understands that reference!).

Yeah, the Lutherans were originally known as Evangelicals while the Reformed camp were seen as Protestant. ...by Rome. Also to the Lutherans, England was first seen as being too Roman Catholic, but then later they saw her as being too Reformed.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2010, 10:23:53 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 6,042



« Reply #14 on: October 31, 2010, 04:39:28 PM »

THey can be quantum Presbyterians for all I care (kudos to anyone who understands that reference!).
Is that reference from the Orange Catholic Bible? Cool

It's a Simpsons reference.  It's from one of the Treehouse of Horror Halloween episodes (can't remember which one right now).  The aliens Kang and Kodos come to earth so that Kang can get his daughter, who, it turns out is Maggie (marge is still the mother; but Kang is the real father).  Homer opens the door to them and says "Oh great, Mormons!"  Kang responds, "Actually we're Quantum Presbyterians."

There's another episode which shows the "Christianity" of Kang and Kodos.  They crash Homer's roast and say that they "have been watching earth ever since it was created, 5000 years ago by God."  They then proceed to cross themselves muttering what sounds like "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost."
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #15 on: November 29, 2010, 06:15:19 PM »

THey can be quantum Presbyterians for all I care (kudos to anyone who understands that reference!).
Is that reference from the Orange Catholic Bible? Cool

I wonder how many people caught this reference?

Kull Wahad!
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #16 on: November 29, 2010, 06:47:17 PM »

THey can be quantum Presbyterians for all I care (kudos to anyone who understands that reference!).
Is that reference from the Orange Catholic Bible? Cool

I wonder how many people caught this reference?

Kull Wahad!

Dune!
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #17 on: November 29, 2010, 07:31:13 PM »

THey can be quantum Presbyterians for all I care (kudos to anyone who understands that reference!).
Is that reference from the Orange Catholic Bible? Cool

I wonder how many people caught this reference?

Kull Wahad!

Dune!

Bless the maker and his coming...
Logged
NorthernPines
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 934



« Reply #18 on: November 29, 2010, 07:38:03 PM »

THey can be quantum Presbyterians for all I care (kudos to anyone who understands that reference!).
Is that reference from the Orange Catholic Bible? Cool

I wonder how many people caught this reference?

Kull Wahad!

Dune!

Bless the maker and his coming...

Long live Paul Atreides, the Voice from the Outer World! Smiley

Logged
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #19 on: November 29, 2010, 07:52:16 PM »

THey can be quantum Presbyterians for all I care (kudos to anyone who understands that reference!).
Is that reference from the Orange Catholic Bible? Cool

I wonder how many people caught this reference?

Kull Wahad!

Dune!

Bless the maker and his coming...

Long live Paul Atreides, the Voice from the Outer World! Smiley



Amen to that!
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #20 on: November 29, 2010, 09:39:51 PM »

At one time, the Spanish referred to all protestants as "Lutherans". Gotta love my ancestors.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #21 on: November 29, 2010, 09:42:59 PM »

At one time, the Spanish referred to all protestants as "Lutherans". Gotta love my ancestors.

So did Henry VIII.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #22 on: November 29, 2010, 10:04:12 PM »

At one time, the Spanish referred to all protestants as "Lutherans". Gotta love my ancestors.

So did Henry VIII.

Henry VIII was very Catholic, despite his dispute over the secular influence of the Pope. He didn't change anything about the faith of England except entering formal schism.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #23 on: November 29, 2010, 10:06:21 PM »

At one time, the Spanish referred to all protestants as "Lutherans". Gotta love my ancestors.

So did Henry VIII.

Henry VIII was very Catholic, despite his dispute over the secular influence of the Pope. He didn't change anything about the faith of England except entering formal schism.
So, universal papal jurisdiction was not part of the Catholic faith in the 1500s?
« Last Edit: November 29, 2010, 10:06:34 PM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« Reply #24 on: November 29, 2010, 10:23:33 PM »

I find this interesting, as many Baptists have claimed throughout history the opposite argument to make the same point, that is, that they are not Protestants and descend from a tradition that traces itself back to the Apostles.

This usually takes the form of Baptists being modern-day descendants of some early heretical group, but they were really the "true Church" that went into hiding, especially after Constantine messed things up by establishing clergy, writing liturgies and all of that extra stuff. Unfortunately on their part, Baptists aren't good with church history, and so they usually fall apart about here. Funny to listen to that, though.

It just strikes me as odd to hear an appeal to the same coming from the opposite direction. Most Baptists I've known simply call themselves Protestants or stick to some crazed theory like the above I described. I was originally baptized as a Missionary Baptist, and was always told we were Protestant. Of course, as the old joke goes (with its many, many variants), if you get 10 Baptists in one room, they'll have 11 different opinions on any given topic!
Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
laconicstudent
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Inquirer
Posts: 319


« Reply #25 on: November 30, 2010, 12:56:19 AM »

THey can be quantum Presbyterians for all I care (kudos to anyone who understands that reference!).
Is that reference from the Orange Catholic Bible? Cool

I wonder how many people caught this reference?

Kull Wahad!

Dune!

Bless the maker and his coming...

May His passing cleanse the world. May He keep the world for his people. Bi-lal kaifa.

Logged
Agabus
The user formerly known as Agabus.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Pan-American Colloquial Convert Hybrid Orthodoxy.
Jurisdiction: We are all uncanonical now.
Posts: 2,307



« Reply #26 on: November 30, 2010, 01:48:02 AM »


Henry VIII was very Catholic, despite his dispute over the secular influence of the Pope. He didn't change anything about the faith of England except entering formal schism.
...Except for instructing clergy to preach against the use of relics, pilgrimages and images in worship. He even had candles removed from some churches.

Early Henry was very Catholic. Late Henry was Catholic-lite.

EDIT: To give credit where credit is due, most of this was at the behest of Cranmer.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2010, 01:49:04 AM by Agabus » Logged

Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #27 on: November 30, 2010, 02:38:45 AM »


Henry VIII was very Catholic, despite his dispute over the secular influence of the Pope. He didn't change anything about the faith of England except entering formal schism.
...Except for instructing clergy to preach against the use of relics, pilgrimages and images in worship. He even had candles removed from some churches.

Early Henry was very Catholic. Late Henry was Catholic-lite.

EDIT: To give credit where credit is due, most of this was at the behest of Cranmer.

I'm not a wiki fan, but it seems to do the job ATM.
Quote
[edit]Reformation reversed
The abolition of papal authority made way not for orderly change but for dissension and violence; iconoclasm, destruction, disputes within communities which led to violence, and radical challenge to all forms of faith were daily reported to Cromwell, something which he tried to hide from the King.[41] Once Henry knew what was afoot, he acted.[42] Thus at the end of 1538, a proclamation was issued forbidding free discussion of the Sacrament[43] and forbidding clerical marriage, on pain of death. Henry personally presided at the trial of John Lambert in November 1538 for denying the real presence. At the same time, he shared in the drafting of a proclamation giving Anabaptists and Sacramentaries ten days to get out of the country. In 1539 Parliament passed the Six Articles reaffirming Catholic practices such as transubstantiation, clerical celibacy and the importance of confession to a priest and prescribed penalties if anyone denied them. Henry himself observed the Easter Triduum in that year with some display.[44] On 28 June 1540 Cromwell, his longtime advisor and loyal servant, was executed. Different reasons were advanced: that Cromwell would not enforce the Act of Six Articles; that he had supported Barnes, Latimer and other heretics; and that he was responsible for Henry's marriage to Anne of Cleves, his fourth wife. Many other arrests under the Act followed. Cranmer lay low.[45]
In 1540 Henry began his attack upon the free availability of the Bible. In 1536 Cromwell had instructed each parish to acquire "one book of the whole Bible of the largest volume in English" by Easter 1539. This instruction had been largely ignored, so a new version, the Great Bible (largely William Tyndale's English translation of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures), was authorised in August 1537. But by 1539 Henry announced his desire to have it "corrected" (which Cranmer referred to the universities to undertake). Many parishes were, in any case, reluctant to set up English Bibles: now the mood of conservatism, which expressed itself in the fear that Bible reading led to heresy. Many Bibles which had been put in place were removed.[46] By the 1543 Act for the Advancement of True Religion, Henry restricted Bible reading to men and women of noble birth. He expressed his fears to Parliament in 1545 that "the Word of God, is disputed, rhymed, sung and jangled in every ale-house and tavern, contrary to the true meaning and doctrine of the same".[47]
By 1546 the conservatives, the Duke of Norfolk, Wriothesly, Gardiner and Tunstall were in the ascendency and were, by the king's will, to be members of the regency council, on his death. But by the time he died in 1547, Edward Seymour, Earl of Hertford, brother of Jane Seymour, Henry's third wife (and therefore uncle to the future Edward VI), managed, by a number of alliances with influential Protestants such as Lisle, to gain control over the Privy Council and persuaded Henry to change his will and to replace them as his executors by his supporters.[48]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Reformation
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Dnarmist
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 88


Seems Uncertain


« Reply #28 on: November 30, 2010, 02:48:06 AM »

I think the term "heterodox" is sufficient. I'm sure the Baptists will love to hear us agree with them: "You're right. you aren't Protestant, you're heterodox."


Selam

LOL that is fantastic.
Logged
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #29 on: November 30, 2010, 09:03:14 AM »

I find this interesting, as many Baptists have claimed throughout history the opposite argument to make the same point, that is, that they are not Protestants and descend from a tradition that traces itself back to the Apostles.

This usually takes the form of Baptists being modern-day descendants of some early heretical group, but they were really the "true Church" that went into hiding, especially after Constantine messed things up by establishing clergy, writing liturgies and all of that extra stuff. Unfortunately on their part, Baptists aren't good with church history, and so they usually fall apart about here. Funny to listen to that, though.

It just strikes me as odd to hear an appeal to the same coming from the opposite direction. Most Baptists I've known simply call themselves Protestants or stick to some crazed theory like the above I described. I was originally baptized as a Missionary Baptist, and was always told we were Protestant. Of course, as the old joke goes (with its many, many variants), if you get 10 Baptists in one room, they'll have 11 different opinions on any given topic!

In Israel, they say six Jews equals 10 political parties. Of course, I live in a city that has five Orthodox bishops (for an Orthodox population of fewer than 50,000), four with the rank of metropolitan, so I'm not sure we're in much of a position to make fun of others.
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,477


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #30 on: November 30, 2010, 09:38:52 AM »

I find this interesting, as many Baptists have claimed throughout history the opposite argument to make the same point, that is, that they are not Protestants and descend from a tradition that traces itself back to the Apostles.

This usually takes the form of Baptists being modern-day descendants of some early heretical group, but they were really the "true Church" that went into hiding, especially after Constantine messed things up by establishing clergy, writing liturgies and all of that extra stuff. Unfortunately on their part, Baptists aren't good with church history, and so they usually fall apart about here. Funny to listen to that, though.

It just strikes me as odd to hear an appeal to the same coming from the opposite direction. Most Baptists I've known simply call themselves Protestants or stick to some crazed theory like the above I described. I was originally baptized as a Missionary Baptist, and was always told we were Protestant. Of course, as the old joke goes (with its many, many variants), if you get 10 Baptists in one room, they'll have 11 different opinions on any given topic!

In Israel, they say six Jews equals 10 political parties. Of course, I live in a city that has five Orthodox bishops (for an Orthodox population of fewer than 50,000), four with the rank of metropolitan, so I'm not sure we're in much of a position to make fun of others.

That must be 'the Burgh'  or is there yet another ?
Logged
Agabus
The user formerly known as Agabus.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Pan-American Colloquial Convert Hybrid Orthodoxy.
Jurisdiction: We are all uncanonical now.
Posts: 2,307



« Reply #31 on: November 30, 2010, 11:09:12 AM »



I'm not a wiki fan, but it seems to do the job ATM.
Henry never changed his views about the sacraments (which are definitely at the core of the Catholic faith), but he fudged many, many other things. His suppression of the monasteries, for example, was one part greed, one part power grab and one part anti-clericalism/iconoclasm.

Henry certainly wasn't Edward VI, but he laid more of a Protestant foundation for the COE than a lot of people give him credit for. That said, Cranmer -- one of the chief players in this -- was biding his time until the new king took the throne to enforce the true religion on the country.

It's best to keep in mind that Henry VIII was one strange cookie.

Thoughts?

Perhaps this discussion should be split off?
« Last Edit: November 30, 2010, 11:11:46 AM by Agabus » Logged

Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #32 on: November 30, 2010, 11:47:53 AM »



I'm not a wiki fan, but it seems to do the job ATM.
Henry never changed his views about the sacraments (which are definitely at the core of the Catholic faith), but he fudged many, many other things. His suppression of the monasteries, for example, was one part greed, one part power grab and one part anti-clericalism/iconoclasm.

I've haven't heard of his suppression of monasteries before, nor of any other things. However, I wouldn't be surprised with if being linked to his greed. D

Do you have any references available?

Henry certainly wasn't Edward VI, but he laid more of a Protestant foundation for the COE than a lot of people give him credit for. That said, Cranmer -- one of the chief players in this -- was biding his time until the new king took the throne to enforce the true religion on the country.

This is more of what I've read. The Calvinists and other reformers didn't start to make their move until the very young and impressionable Edward VI was crowned. The first BCP  was produced under Edward VI, but only 3 years later it was revised with more reformer thought inserted.

Quote
Although a formal break with the Papacy came about during the time of Henry VIII, the Church of England continued to use liturgies in Latin throughout his reign, just as it always had. However, once Henry died and the young Edward VI attained the throne in 1547, the stage was set for some very significant changes in the religious life of the country. And so a consultation of bishops met and produced the first Book of Common Prayer. It is generally assumed that this book is largely the work of Archbishop Thomas Cranmer (pictured below), but, as no records of the development of the prayer book exist, this cannot be definitively determined.

This Book of Common Prayer was not created in a vacuum, but derives from several sources. First and foremost was the Sarum Rite, or the Latin liturgy developed in Salisbury in the thirteenth century (MY EDIT: The Sarum was compiled in the 11th Century, didn't become official unti the 12th and widespread by the 13th), and widely used in England. Two other influences were a reformed Roman Breviary of the Spanish Cardinal Quiñones, and a book on doctrine and liturgy by Hermann von Wied, Archbishop of Cologne.

This prayer book was in use only for three years, until the extensive revision of 1552. However, much of its tradition and language remains in the prayer books of today, as may be seen by even a cursory examination of the text.
http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1549/BCP_1549.htm

This is when the fight over traditional vs reformed thought began in the Anglican church, including some churches' outright denial of the sacraments.

It's best to keep in mind that Henry VIII was one strange cookie.

Thoughts?

I won't deny that. I don't mean to defend Henry VIII. I just don't like Anglican's being wrapped up with other Reformers. Is there reformation thought in the Anglican church? Most certainly. It's not one big homogeneous group though. Part of the reason can be seen in it's origins. Those origins, not being religious, but political in nature.

Perhaps this discussion should be split off?

Probably. Mods?
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« Reply #33 on: December 01, 2010, 09:40:52 AM »

I find this interesting, as many Baptists have claimed throughout history the opposite argument to make the same point, that is, that they are not Protestants and descend from a tradition that traces itself back to the Apostles.

This usually takes the form of Baptists being modern-day descendants of some early heretical group, but they were really the "true Church" that went into hiding, especially after Constantine messed things up by establishing clergy, writing liturgies and all of that extra stuff. Unfortunately on their part, Baptists aren't good with church history, and so they usually fall apart about here. Funny to listen to that, though.

It just strikes me as odd to hear an appeal to the same coming from the opposite direction. Most Baptists I've known simply call themselves Protestants or stick to some crazed theory like the above I described. I was originally baptized as a Missionary Baptist, and was always told we were Protestant. Of course, as the old joke goes (with its many, many variants), if you get 10 Baptists in one room, they'll have 11 different opinions on any given topic!

In Israel, they say six Jews equals 10 political parties. Of course, I live in a city that has five Orthodox bishops (for an Orthodox population of fewer than 50,000), four with the rank of metropolitan, so I'm not sure we're in much of a position to make fun of others.

Truth, but those Bishops will all agree on faith, the Orthodox faith, The Baptists (and many other "denominations") will not.
Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,645


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #34 on: December 01, 2010, 09:30:32 PM »

I find this interesting, as many Baptists have claimed throughout history the opposite argument to make the same point, that is, that they are not Protestants and descend from a tradition that traces itself back to the Apostles.

That's really interesting.  Huh I wonder whom they would consider their founding saint? The Apostles "went everywhere preaching the Word." The Catholics say they can trace their leaders back to St. Peter, the faith was brought to India by St. Thomas, Egypt was evangelized by St. Mark, and so forth. So, who was the Baptists' Apostle of record, as it were?  Huh If they had one, any of them, why do the Baptists' teachings today not happen to coincide with the Church we know is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church? Maybe in a few matters they may have similarities, but not in others. That's all. 
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« Reply #35 on: December 08, 2010, 04:06:33 PM »

I find this interesting, as many Baptists have claimed throughout history the opposite argument to make the same point, that is, that they are not Protestants and descend from a tradition that traces itself back to the Apostles.

That's really interesting.  Huh I wonder whom they would consider their founding saint? The Apostles "went everywhere preaching the Word." The Catholics say they can trace their leaders back to St. Peter, the faith was brought to India by St. Thomas, Egypt was evangelized by St. Mark, and so forth. So, who was the Baptists' Apostle of record, as it were?  Huh If they had one, any of them, why do the Baptists' teachings today not happen to coincide with the Church we know is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church? Maybe in a few matters they may have similarities, but not in others. That's all. 

They wouldn't consider anyone their founding saint, because Baptists don't have a hierarchy or any true ecclesiastical unity to speak of. They have a few (very few) doctrines to which they all adhere (believer's baptism is the staple, but also a symbolic eucharist and usually a male-only pastorate are also baptist-typical). The rest is all personal opinion, and all of their churches are ran democratically by each individual congregation. Any "groups" that are baptists usually will even deny the claim that they are a denomination, such as the Southern Baptists in the US, who consider themselves a "free association" of churches, which the congregation may leave at any time if it desires. This is what they believe the Early Church was like.

And so, while they claim to be apostolic, they do not adhere to apostolic succession. They would consider it an innovative doctrine of medieval Christendom, along with church heirarchy, paedobaptism, the veneration of saints and their relics, liturgy and the sacramental priesthood. As I said, the baptists are not good church historians.
Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #36 on: December 08, 2010, 04:36:55 PM »

Also to the Lutherans, England was first seen as being too Roman Catholic, but then later they saw her as being too Reformed.

Hehe.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
dcommini
Tha mi sgulan na Trianaid
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,203


Beannachd Dia dhuit

dcommini
WWW
« Reply #37 on: December 08, 2010, 04:37:37 PM »

I find this interesting, as many Baptists have claimed throughout history the opposite argument to make the same point, that is, that they are not Protestants and descend from a tradition that traces itself back to the Apostles.

That's really interesting.  Huh I wonder whom they would consider their founding saint? The Apostles "went everywhere preaching the Word." The Catholics say they can trace their leaders back to St. Peter, the faith was brought to India by St. Thomas, Egypt was evangelized by St. Mark, and so forth. So, who was the Baptists' Apostle of record, as it were?  Huh If they had one, any of them, why do the Baptists' teachings today not happen to coincide with the Church we know is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church? Maybe in a few matters they may have similarities, but not in others. That's all. 

They wouldn't consider anyone their founding saint, because Baptists don't have a hierarchy or any true ecclesiastical unity to speak of. They have a few (very few) doctrines to which they all adhere (believer's baptism is the staple, but also a symbolic eucharist and usually a male-only pastorate are also baptist-typical). The rest is all personal opinion, and all of their churches are ran democratically by each individual congregation. Any "groups" that are baptists usually will even deny the claim that they are a denomination, such as the Southern Baptists in the US, who consider themselves a "free association" of churches, which the congregation may leave at any time if it desires. This is what they believe the Early Church was like.

And so, while they claim to be apostolic, they do not adhere to apostolic succession. They would consider it an innovative doctrine of medieval Christendom, along with church heirarchy, paedobaptism, the veneration of saints and their relics, liturgy and the sacramental priesthood. As I said, the baptists are not good church historians.

Not good church historians is an understatement! I know of a few baptist groups that go so far as to rewrite church history so they can make the claims they do. I'm glad I'm not a part of any of those groups any more.
Logged

Gun cuireadh do chupa thairis le slàinte agus sona - May your cup overflow with health and happiness
Check out my blog...
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.152 seconds with 65 queries.