/christian/ - Christianity

Religious discussions and spirituality

SAVE THIS FILE: Anon.cafe Fallback File v1.0 (updated 2021-01-10)

/meta/ - Announcing the Anon.cafe Broadcasting System, an Internet Radio platform

Want your event posted here? Requests accepted in this /meta/ thread.

Max message length: 5120

Drag files to upload or
click here to select them

Maximum 5 files / Maximum size: 20.00 MB

Board Rules
More

(used to delete files and postings)


Ecclesiastical Polity Anonymous 04/27/2021 (Tue) 01:05:56 No.641
So anon, what form of church governance do you support?
Open file (18.70 KB 398x311 roger01.jpg)
Local congregationalism. As the New Testament church, according to the Bible, always has. See the Biblical-based beliefs of the peaceful church of baptist, "anabaptist," and various other names called (i.e. vaudois, petrobrusian, &c.) in history. They firmly held to local congregational polity through out history. What this means is no state-sponsored church or belief system (i.e. such as wokeness as we see today). Read the original petition for the colonial charter for Rhode Island as obtained for it in 1663 by Dr. John Clarke, who is also a minister of the church (and helped to initiate Christ's ministry in America, starting in 1638). The following is the version recorded in H.R. Doc. No. 546, 28th Cong., 1st Sess. (1844). >"That they might be permitted to hold forth a lively experiment that a most flourishing civil state may stand, and best be maintained, with a full liberty in religious concernments; and that true piety, rightly grounded upon gospel principles, will give the best and greatest security to sovereignty, and will lay in the hearts of men the strongest obligation to true loyalty." This statement is engraved on the side of the state house in Providence, Rhode Island today. It represents the concept, that was later enshrined in the Constitution, of "soul liberty" or "freedom of conscience." That is, the right of each individual to live, worship (and vote) according to their conscience, and not be forced to pay "church taxes" for any kind of preaching position that is paid for by taxes, as the "puritans" of Salem, as well as the church of England, originally had it. Today, the preachers of "woke" likewise need to step down from their positions.
>>662 >putting anabaptists in the same category as regular baptists and the vaudois What's the antidote to a congregation convinces itself of heretical and blasphemous things?
Open file (176.31 KB 780x200 1451941188676.PNG)
>>674 See Douglass, writing the following in A summary, historical and political, of the first planting, progressive improvements, and present state of the British settlements in North-America (1748), pp. 445-446. >The Anabaptists, at their first appearance in New-England, were enthusiastically troublesome; they chose among themselves the meanest of the people for their ministers; they call themselves Baptists by way of abbreviation of the name Anabaptists... >Some of them vainly imagine, that they ought to be called by that name in a peculiar manner; their baptism being the only scriptural baptism: they would not communicate with persons baptized in infancy only; if occasionally in a congregational meeting, upon a child's being presented for baptism, they withdrew, to the great disturbance of the congregation: fines were enacted; [Obadiah] Holmes, because he would not pay his fine, was whipped thirty lashes. As you can see here, the baptists in the time period of around 1534 (when the Münster Rebellion took place) until around 100 years later when some of their churches made a confession of faith (the 1st and 2nd London Confessions) in the following century. During the middle ages, the baptists were called all kinds of different names by the state church in order to malign them. One such name, especially after 1534 as we discussed, was "anabaptist" because it was easy to paint them as seditionists. The people behind the Münster Rebellion in 1534 were crazy people who believed that their leader received new revelations from God, but the rebellion was quickly crushed. Ever since then, peaceful baptists were associated with the doings of those men, and many were burned at the stake under this color by state authorities for their peaceful testimony of Jesus. Before 1534, they were called by various other names by their accusers. But in reality, they represent the ancient church of Jesus Christ from the first century, being the original branch from which the Roman church split away from at the Synod of Arles in 313. I would not confuse these men with either the rebels of Münster, who were madmen; or the modern-day people who also call themselves "anabaptists," which is a distinct group that formed later from the Swiss brethren, with separate beliefs and tenets apart from the Bible. It's confusing, I know. But the real Christians were called "rebaptizers" (not that they called themselves that) long before this, as early as the year 413, when they were outlawed as such by Honorius, who was one of the emperors and was pro-infant baptism. Hopefully, that all makes sense. Attached is an example of this usage of the term during the original counter-reformation against peaceful Christians and churches.

Report/Delete/Moderation Forms
Delete
Report

no cookies?