Non protestant baptists

[360watt]

????? Hmmmm.... Am I to understand that statement to say a person can be a member of the family of God and not be a member of Christ's body? Am I to read that sentence to say a "local" body of Christ" may not be a member of God's family?

Please come right out and answer those questions as directly as possible. Do not beat around the bush, delay, dodge, or obfuscate in any way.

I've been saying the same thing thru this thread. The body of Christ is a local body.. a NT church. The family and kingdom of God.. are the entities that have every believer.

So.. members of a local body of Christ are saved and baptised to start with. Members of the Kingdom and Family..before joining a local body of Christ.

 

[JoshebB]

I've been saying the same thing thru this thread. The body of Christ is a local body.. a NT church.

And you have been wrong to do so.

The family and kingdom of God.. are the entities that have every believer.

Which contradicts both the position the body of Christ is the local church and the position there is a distinction between the local body and the corporate body. That is all rank sectarianism that is nowhere found in scripture and openly repudiated in the letters to Corinth.

So.. members of a local body of Christ are saved...

Yes, and that is what constitutes their being ecclesia. That word simply means "called out." That is the literal definition, the denotative meaning of the word. Connotatively, in the context of scripture, the word means those called out of the world into service to God through His Son Jesus the Christ. That is the word we translate into English as "Church."

So, when Paul writes,

1 Corinthians 12:27
Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.

He is writing to the readers specifically in the congregations at Corinth, but he is not writing to the churches in Corinth. He wrote that letter to the Church (singular) in Corinth.

1 Corinthians 1:2
To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours:

Therefore, that is the established content for everything that followed in that letter. Every single use of the plural "churches," is to be understood under the auspices of the previously established singular church. Every mention of small groups of those who have been called out, occurs within the overarching context of all those in any given locale that are called out are inescapable members of the much larger group of those called out all over the then known world. Those called out in Corinth contained smaller groups of those who were called out that met in the houses of those called out. The "you" in 1 Corinthians 12:27 is ALL of the Christians in Corinth, not Christians of one group or another.

And because the epistles were circulated from city to city, congregation to congregation, their words were known, understood, and applied by all, not just the few Christians who met in any given house.

Doctrinally speaking, there is only one Church. We have twisted and perverted the word in English to assign it many different definitions, few of which exist in the Bible. We call buildings churches! We do that consciously even though we KNOW the Bible never uses the word that way. The ecclesia, the Church, is always people. When we speak of a "Catholic church, or a Presbyterian church, or a Baptists church, that is all hogwash, an invention of humans who are NOT following the example established in scripture. Doing so has become an accepted practiced with which we all abide but it is not what scripture teaches. There were no Catholics, Presbyterians, or Baptists in the Bible. There was only the ecclesia, those called out by God, the Church.

and baptised to start with.

You have already conceded not everyone in the Church was baptized (see Post 39). A saved person may not be baptized in water by immersion but still be a saved member of God's kingdom. You have to stop saying baptism is/was required for membership in Christ's body, the Church. You contradict your own posts (and scripture) every time you do so.

Members of the Kingdom and Family..before joining a local body of Christ.

Doctrinally sectarian nonsense.

Everyone in God's kingdom is also a member of Christ's body, the Church.* Conversely, everyone in Christ's body, the Church, is also a member of Gd's kingdom..... and while we are not all apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and/or teachers, we are all royal priests and priestesses in God's holy nation chosen by God Himself. There is only one Church. On every single occasion when the New Testament uses the word "churches" in its plural form we should understand the writer is referring to a congregation, not Jesus having multiple bodies.



* Technically, not everyone in God's kingdom is the Church because while every knee will profess Jesus as Lord (Php. 2), not all knees will bow and profess him as Savior. Because all power and authority has been given to Jesus and because his name is far above all other names and his rule above all other rules, he and he alone is King of all kings. He is King even over all the unrepentant sinners, all the God deniers, and all created creatures that have ever been created. There is only one Kingdom, and it is God's kingdom, and Jesus is the King of that kingdom. Ecclesiologically speaking, however, the kingdom of God is synonymous with the Church. Ecclesiologically speaking, not ecclesiastically speaking. Ecclesiology and ecclesiastic are not the same thing.
.

ecclesiology

 

[Overjoyed]

The term "non-Protestant Baptists" can refer to two main groups: those who consider themselves a distinct, non-Protestant branch of Christianity, and members of other denominations that are sometimes confused with Baptists but are, in fact, Anabaptists. Some Baptists reject the Protestant label to emphasize their belief in being a separate tradition that predates the Protestant Reformation, having broken away from the Roman Catholic Church independently. In contrast, Anabaptists are a distinct group of non-Protestant Christians who also believe in believer's baptism but are sometimes mistakenly grouped with Baptists.

Non-Protestant Baptists

• Historical argument: Some Baptists argue they are not Protestant because they did not break away from the Roman Catholic Church during the Protestant Reformation. Instead, they claim to have emerged as a distinct tradition with roots in the early church, emphasizing their belief in the separation of church and state and the priesthood of all believers.
• Rejection of "Protestant" label: This perspective is often used to emphasize their unique identity and history, which they believe is separate from the Protestant movement's origins.

Anabaptists

• Definition: Anabaptism is a distinct branch of the Protestant Reformation that emphasizes believer's baptism, and is often confused with Baptist churches.
• Beliefs: Anabaptists are known for their commitment to adult baptism, a literal interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount, and a belief in non-violence and separation from civil government.
• Examples: Major Anabaptist denominations include the Mennonites, Amish, and Hutterites.

How to tell them apart

• Baptist Churches: Typically adhere to a broader range of beliefs, including mainstream Protestant theology, but emphasize the importance of believer's baptism and the separation of church and state.
• Anabaptist Churches: Generally take a more distinct approach, emphasizing pacifism, a commitment to non-violence, and separation from civil government.

Ai is so cool

 

[360watt]

The term "non-Protestant Baptists" can refer to two main groups: those who consider themselves a distinct, non-Protestant branch of Christianity, and members of other denominations that are sometimes confused with Baptists but are, in fact, Anabaptists. Some Baptists reject the Protestant label to emphasize their belief in being a separate tradition that predates the Protestant Reformation, having broken away from the Roman Catholic Church independently. In contrast, Anabaptists are a distinct group of non-Protestant Christians who also believe in believer's baptism but are sometimes mistakenly grouped with Baptists.

Non-Protestant Baptists

• Historical argument: Some Baptists argue they are not Protestant because they did not break away from the Roman Catholic Church during the Protestant Reformation. Instead, they claim to have emerged as a distinct tradition with roots in the early church, emphasizing their belief in the separation of church and state and the priesthood of all believers.
• Rejection of "Protestant" label: This perspective is often used to emphasize their unique identity and history, which they believe is separate from the Protestant movement's origins.

Anabaptists

• Definition: Anabaptism is a distinct branch of the Protestant Reformation that emphasizes believer's baptism, and is often confused with Baptist churches.
• Beliefs: Anabaptists are known for their commitment to adult baptism, a literal interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount, and a belief in non-violence and separation from civil government.
• Examples: Major Anabaptist denominations include the Mennonites, Amish, and Hutterites.

How to tell them apart

• Baptist Churches: Typically adhere to a broader range of beliefs, including mainstream Protestant theology, but emphasize the importance of believer's baptism and the separation of church and state.
• Anabaptist Churches: Generally take a more distinct approach, emphasizing pacifism, a commitment to non-violence, and separation from civil government.

Ai is so cool

That is an accurate summary, although ana-baptist as a term.. can be also used by baptists.. seeing as it just means to re-baptise..which many independent baptist churches will do, for people who have been baptised the wrong way.. or with unbiblical teaching.

 

[mikesw]

I had read a book or pamphlet called The Trail of Blood twenty years ago but later heard it was not a reliable document. It tended to treat all the alternate Christian sects as the path of true believers not caught in the Roman Catholic and Protestant dogma. I think many of those groups would not even have doctrines that we could accept. Essentially the message is that the baptists were the only properly oriented independent group.
Sorry if this is not quite fitting for this discussion thread. It seems related --even if a improperly researched book that has been followed by better-researched books.

 

[360watt]

I had read a book or pamphlet called The Trail of Blood twenty years ago but later heard it was not a reliable document. It tended to treat all the alternate Christian sects as the path of true believers not caught in the Roman Catholic and Protestant dogma. I think many of those groups would not even have doctrines that we could accept. Essentially the message is that the baptists were the only properly oriented independent group.
Sorry if this is not quite fitting for this discussion thread. It seems related --even if a improperly researched book that has been followed by better-researched books.

Yeah I know this book..I've read it..there are other books that extend the references from that book out to show the real history.