Blog: Finite Reflections of Infinity: The Argument From (Dis-)Similarity

I read this great blog post today on Finite Reflections of Infinity. It was shared by Paul Pavao on his facebook page, Christian History for Everyman. Please take the time to read the blog, even though it's long. I thoroughly enjoyed it, especially the conclusion. The author's premise is that all churches/denominations are different from each other and from the original historical churches in leadership structure, worship services, theology, architecture, spiritual gifts, and devotional practices, therefore the argument that 'my church is best because it is most like the original church' is not a valid option for determining what the church should look like. Therefore, the author states, we have 4 options, of which the 4th is the only valid one according to his arguments. Please let me know if you agree with his conclusion. Enjoy!
P.S.: Here is the comment I left under the blog post, which also might be food for discussion.
 "paulfpavao and theophiletos,
I agree with Paul that this article is phenomenal. I like how you put it, Paul, that ‘the folks who embrace this conclusion of yours…will let the Holy Spirit out of the various cages we have put him in…’
Being concerned about unity in the church as a whole and hoping that the world will see us loving one another, rather than assuming the high ground and attacking one another, I keep making the statement in discussions with Catholics...that: Instead of seeing the diversity of denominations/groups within the church as a ‘bad’ thing, maybe one reason God has allowed this separation is to encourage us to love one another in spite of our differences, which I see as mainly over non-essentials.
theophiletos, I truly love your conclusion that the invisible qualities of loving one another as Christ has loved us, and the presence of the Spirit of God and His fruits and gifts, is the hallmark of the church. Thank you for this article, and Paul, thank you for sharing it."

Eddie Snipes: When Grace Becomes a Threat

My husband Eddie has a blog post up about one of his newest books, Abounding Grace:Dispelling Myths and Clarifying the Biblical Message of God's Overflowing Grace. There is much misinformation being spread around recently about the resurgence of grace teaching, calling it 'hyper grace' and saying that this is a danger to the body of Christ that must be stamped out with fierce attacks. I believe that this 'attack mode' is the danger, which causes division in the body of Christ because people then think they have a right and duty to spew hatred at other believers with impunity, because 'they think they are doing God a service' (John 16:2). I have been a part of this 'attack mode' thinking in the past, and I don't want to get caught up in it again. It is something that has been happening throughout church history, and is one of the greatest tools that the enemy has to render us ineffective as witnesses and lights in this dark world. When we fall prey to this, we become worse than useless. We become part of the darkness that plagues the world, which Christ died to dispel. At this time of the year when we remember Christ's death and resurrection, let's die to our own pride and our own works, and allow Christ to shine through us as we love one another. Jesus said "By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." (John 13:35)
Eddie writes about his book:

People like the idea of grace being a tool God puts into our hands, because this makes us the acheiver--which feeds our pride. It’s when you unveil the full teaching of God’s grace, which calls us to trust completely in what Christ has done, that people call grace hyper. People are not comfortable with being completely dependent upon Christ alone. Religious people would rather believe that God is proud of their efforts.
The truth that the only way we can please God is to trust and receive what He has accomplished is not palatable to religion. God is love, and because of His desire to express His love, God gave the gift of Himself through the promise, “His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness.” That is grace. Anything that replaces His gift of ‘all things’ has replaced grace with a cheap counterfeit. This substitute then denies God the pleasure of expressing love, and denies us the joy of experiencing all things. The counterfeit may call itself grace, but it is nothing more than a fading form of religion.

Happy Saint Patrick's Day!

For Saint Patrick's Day, here is the Confession of Saint Patrick, written in the fifth century, originally in Latin. I enjoy finding and reading things written so long ago by our elder brothers and sisters in Christ, and seeing in them the same struggles and joys, and the same love for Christ that we have as believers today.

Evanġeliku: Deep in Church History

Evanġeliku: Deep in Church History: "(Gospel e-Letter - May 2011) John Henry Newman wrote, ‘To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.’ Does this often quoted stat..."

Thoughts of Francis Turretin: Challenging Your Rome-Colored Glasses - Set Aside Your Anachronism

Here's an interesting post by Turretinfan. Basically, I think, helping to show that the Fathers were not Roman Catholics. Neither were they 'protestants' or 'evangelicals'. They were just themselves, and they, like us, were not perfect or infallible. I've only skimmed the comments there, but looks like there was a little spat going on based on a response by Scott to 'Natamallc'. I really like 'Nat' and he isn't easily annoyed, so hopefully it will be peacefully resolved.

Thoughts of Francis Turretin: Challenging Your Rome-Colored Glasses - Set Aside Your Anachronism

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Dutch Church History: Why Start a New Church?

Good post by James Swan:

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Dutch Church History: Why Start a New Church?

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: An Evangelical Introduction to Church History (Part 2)

Here's a great post by Ken over at Beggars All:

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: An Evangelical Introduction to Church History (Part 2)

Thoughts of Francis Turretin: Puritan Gem of the Day

Thoughts of Francis Turretin: Puritan Gem of the Day

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: “No coincidence that the first works of papal history are fictitious accounts written by the popes”

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: “No coincidence that the first works of papal history are fictitious accounts written by the popes”

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: An Evangelical Introduction to Church History

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: An Evangelical Introduction to Church History

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Scott Windsor (3): Defense of the Papacy from the Early Church

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Scott Windsor (3): Defense of the Papacy from the Early Church

Home Living Blog: Thanksgiving

Pilgrim's First Thanksgiving, by Jennie Brownscomb


Here's an interesting post on Lady Lydia's 'Home Living' Blog about the Mayflower Pilgrims. Lady Lydia posted an article written by Richard J. Maybury called "Why the Pilgrims Starved and Then Prospered".

The Pilgrim Church: The Conversion of Augustine

Here's another excerpt from 'The Pilgrim Church' by E.H. Broadbent, about the conversion of Augustine, which sounds similar to the conversion stories of St. Patrick (who was not Roman Catholic, but came from the Celtic line which descended from very early evangelism in the British Isles) and of Charles Spurgeon.

One of the great figures of history meets us at this period, Augustine (354-430),[17] whose teachings have left an indelible mark on all succeeding ages. In his voluminous writings and especially in his "Confessions", Augustine reveals himself in so intimate a way as to give the impression of being an acquaintance and a friend. A native of Numidia, he describes his early surroundings, thoughts, and impressions. His saintly mother, Monica, lives again in his pages as we read of her
prayers for him, of her early hopes, and of her later sorrow as he grew up in a sinful manner of life, of her faith in his eventual salvation, strengthened by a vision and by the wise counsel of Ambrose, Bishop of Milan. His father was more concerned for his material, worldly advancement.

Though seeking light he found himself hopelessly bound by a sinful, self-indulgent life. For a time he thought he had found deliverance in Manichaeism, but soon perceived its inconsistency and weakness. He was affected by the preaching of Ambrose, but yet found no peace. When he was 32 years of age and was employed as a teacher of rhetoric in Milan, he had reached a desperate state of distress, and
then, to use his own words: "I flung myself down, how I know not, under a certain fig-tree, giving free course to my tears.... I sent up these sorrowful cries, 'How long, how long? To-morrow and to-morrow? Why not now? Why is there not this hour an end to my uncleanness?' I was saying these things and weeping in the most bitter contrition of my heart, when lo, I heard the voice as of a boy or girl, I know not which, coming from a neighbouring house and oft repeating, 'Take up and read, take up and read.' Immediately my countenance was changed, and I began most earnestly to consider whether it was usual for children in any kind of game to sing such words, nor could I remember ever to have heard the like. So, restraining the torrent of my tears, I rose up, interpreting it no other way than as a command to me from Heaven to open the book, and to read the first chapter I should light upon.... I grasped,
opened, and in silence read that paragraph on which my eyes first fell--'Not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying, but put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.' No further would I read, nor did I need, for instantly, as the sentence ended--by a light, as it were, of security infused into my heart--all gloom of doubt vanished away."

This, his conversion, caused the greatest joy, but no surprise, to his praying mother Monica, who, as they were returning to Africa a year later, died in peace. Augustine was baptised by Ambrose in Milan (387) and became later Bishop of Hippo (now Bona) in North Africa (395).

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: The Reformation was not a "day", but an increase in understanding, caused by the opening of the Scriptures.

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: The Reformation was not a "day", but an increase in understanding, caused by the opening of the Scriptures.

'The Torch of the Testimony': 'Crystalized tradition' vs. the life of the Spirit

'The Torch of the Testimony' by John W. Kennedy is similar in message to 'The Pilgrim Church' and lists 'The Pilgrim Church' in its bibliography. Kennedy also begins his book with a description of the synagogue system as it relates to the early church. In the first chapter after discussing the synagogues, he relates the story of Stephen as an example of how 'crystalized tradition' such as that of the Jews is a barrier to the life of the Spirit. I believe this was what Jesus was speaking of in Matthew 9 when He said: "Nor do they put new wine into old wineskins, or else the wineskins break, the wine is spilled, and the wineskins are ruined. But they put new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved." The Jews had the word of God, but they had taken it and 'crystalized' it into a tradition that actually hampered the work of the Holy Spirit and 'made the word of God of no effect' in their hearts. Their own ideas about the word were outside of the true Spirit of the word. Here is an excerpt from chapter one of 'The Torch of the Testimony':

One of the believers in Jerusalem was a Greek speaking Jew named Stephen. We first meet Stephen as one of the seven deacons appointed to look after the needs of a section of the church which, it was alleged, was being unfairly neglected. It is soon a parent, however, that Stephen was also a gifted teacher and preacher with a particularly sharp, God-given insight into some of the implications of the Gospel as touching Jewish tradition (Acts 6 : 10). In one of the Jewish synagogues he preached a sermon which so stirred up the hot-head champions of Jewish orthodoxy, that he was seized and arraigned before the Sanhedrin on a charge of blasphemy.

The outline of Stephen's sermon is preserved for us in Acts 7. What was the main burden of his message? It was simply this, that the old, Jewish sacrificial order was destined from the beginning to pass away, and the time had now come for itsdeparture. With the revelation of Christ, all the traditional trappings of the Temple had become obsolete, and there could be no reconciliation of the two orders. Life and tradition could not carry on side by side. Judaism as it was could not contain Christ; it would have to give way to Christ or die a spiritual death in isolation. Stephen points out that the transitory nature of the traditional, sacrificial system was symbolized in the impermanence of the tabernacle, and that the building of a permanent structure in the Temple was out of accord with God's ideal (Acts 7 : 44-50). It is true that God honoured the devotion with which the Temple was built, but it was, nevertheless, man's idea (I Chron. 17 : 1), while the tabernacle was erected on the specific command of God Himself (Ex. 25: 8).

It is noteworthy that there was one eminent disciple of Gamaliel whose devotion to his master did not extend to accepting his master's advice of moderation in dealing with the followers of Christ. That disciple's name was Saul. The sentence passed upon Stephen met with his full approval. "And Saul was consenting unto his death " (Acts 8: 1). Saul, or Paul, as he was afterwards to be called, totally rejected Stephen's claim that Jesus was the Christ in whom all the law and the offerings were fulfilled, but he plainly recognized that, if Stephen's claim were fact, it would mean an end to all the tradition in which he had been nurtured, and for which he was so zealous. In the light of Saul of Tarsus' future ministry, it is of interest to see how, in his tacit compliance with the condemnation of Stephen, there was an awareness, probably shared at that time by few if any of the disciples themselves, that this new movement, the church, could not be confined within the limits of Judaism. Separation was inevitable.

Theoretically, it might be maintained that the synagogue could have become the church, but practically this was never the case. No doubt, as has already been shown, the synagogue, being free from the sacrificial ritual of the Temple and with the Scriptures as central to its life, was in a position to accept Christ as the fulfillment of the Word of God without having to undergo quite such a radical upheaval as such an acceptance would have occasioned in the life of the Temple, but it was never likely that a ruling majority of the synagogue adherents would accept this. Loyalty to the orthodox, Jewish tradition was too strong and too deep-seated to be thus rooted out. The Spirit of God had to' move elsewhere to start on fresh and more free ground. We see here but the beginning of a pattern of events which is repeated over and over again through the history of the church. When that which is revealed of God is crystallized into a tradition, rigidly held and propagated with purely human energy, it becomes an impenetrable barrier to the truth. The life of the Spirit can never be confined within the framework of religious tradition. God is much greater than man's thoughts concerning Him, and the plant of the church grows best in a soil uncluttered by the pretty hedgerows of man's limited understanding.

When that which is revealed of God is crystallized into a tradition, rigidly held and propagated with purely human energy, it becomes an impenetrable barrier to the truth. I've used the phrase 'crystalized tradition' myself when talking about traditions that I've seen in protestant and Catholic teachings. The main doctrine that showed me this principle and made me think of the phrase 'crystalized tradition (or doctrine)' is that of Calvinism, though there are many more examples that could be used. The principles of Calvinism come from the seeds of truth in scripture, but the doctrines that we call Calvinism are an extrapolation from these scriptural truths that are then hardened or crystalized into a doctrine that ignores some other parts of scripture and so becomes a barrier to truth and to unity in the body of Christ. We need to be forbearing with each other's differences that come from incomplete understanding of scripture, because we all have an incomplete understanding and can learn from each other if we exercise patience and love. It's one thing if the differences come from faith with an incomplete understanding, and another thing if the differences come from error and unbelief. I think, for example, that both Calvinists and Arminians are coming from love of God and His word, and from faith, so we should all exercise forbearance and love toward those in the body of Christ, as God commands us.

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Oscar Cullmann on the relationship between oral tradition and the canon of the New Testament, part 2

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Oscar Cullmann on the relationship between oral tradition and the canon of the New Testament, part 2

'The Pilgrim Church': The Union of Church and State

Here's an excerpt from 'The Pilgrim Church' by E.H. Broadbent in which we see the church uniting with the Roman State and then the fall of Rome:

This second period of the history of some of the churches, beginning with Constantine's edict of toleration in 313, is of lasting importance because it exhibits the experiment on a large scale, of the union of Church and State. Could the Church, by union with the world, save it?

The Roman world[16] had reached its greatest power and glory. Civilization had attained to the utmost of which it was capable apart from the knowledge of God. Yet the misery of the world was extreme. The luxury and vice of the rich were boundless; a vast proportion of the people were slaves. The public exhibitions, where the sight of every kind of wickedness and cruelty amused the populace, deepened the degradation. There was still vigour at the extremities of the Empire, in conflict with surrounding enemies, but disease at the heart threatened the life of the whole body, and Rome was helplessly corrupt and vicious.

As long as the Church had remained separate it had been a powerful witness for Christ in the world, and was constantly drawing converts into its holy fellowship. When, however, already weakened by the adoption of human rule in place of the guidance of the Spirit, it was suddenly brought into partnership with the State, it became itself defiled and debased. Very soon the clergy were competing for lucrative
positions and for power as shamelessly as the court officials, while, in congregations where a godless element predominated, the material advantages of a profession of Christianity changed the purity of the persecuted churches into worldliness. The Church was thus powerless to stem the downward course of the civilised world into corruption.

Ominous clouds, threatening judgment, were gathering. In distant China movements of the population, setting westward, led to a great migration of the Huns, who crossed the Volga, and, pressing upon the Goths in what is now Russia, forced them on to the frontiers of the Empire, which was by this time divided; the Eastern part, or Byzantine Empire, having Constantinople as its capital, and the Western, Rome. The Germanic or Teutonic nations came out of their forests. Pressed by the Mongol hordes
from the East, and attracted by the wealth and weakness of the Empire, Goths (divided into Eastern and Western under the names of Ostrogoths and Visigoths) and Germanic peoples such as the Franks, Vandals, Burgundians, Suevi, Heruli, and others, broke like the waves of some resistless flood over the doomed civilization of Rome. In one year great provinces such as Spain and Gaul were destroyed. The inhabitants, long accustomed to peace, congregated mostly in the cities for the sake of the ease and pleasure afforded there, saw the armies which had so long guarded their frontiers disappear; the cities were wiped out, and a cultivated and luxurious population, which had avoided the discipline of military training, was massacred or enslaved by Pagan barbarians. Rome itself was captured by the Goths under Alaric (410), and that great city was plundered and desolated by barbarian hosts. In 476 the Western Roman Empire came to an end, and in the vast regions where it had so long reigned, new kingdoms began to grow up. The Eastern part of the Empire continued, until, in 1453, nearly a thousand years later, Constantinople was captured by the Mohammedan.

"The Pilgrim Church": The Council of Nicea, The Canon of Scripture

Here's another excerpt from "The Pilgrim Church" by E.H. Broadbent, from page 20-22 in the online book:
The prominence of the Bishops and especially of the Metropolitans in the Catholic churches made for ease in communication between the Church and the civil authorities. Constantine himself, while retaining the old imperial dignity of chief priest of Pagan religion, assumed that of arbitrator of the Christian churches. The Church and the State quickly became closely associated, and it was not long before the power of the State was at the disposal of those who had the lead in the Church, to enforce their decisions. Thus the persecuted soon became persecutors.

In later times those churches which, faithful to the Word of God, were persecuted by the dominant Church as heretics and sects, frequently refer in their writings to their entire dissent from the union of Church and State in the time of Constantine and of Sylvester, then bishop in Rome. They trace their continuance from primitive Scriptural churches in unbroken succession from Apostolic times, passing unscathed through the period when so many churches associated themselves with the worldly
power, right down to their own day. For all such, persecution was soon renewed, but instead of coming from the Pagan Roman Empire it came from what claimed to be the Church wielding the power of the Christianised State.

The Donatists being very numerous in North Africa and having retained, or restored, much of the Catholic type of organisation among themselves, were in a position to appeal to the Emperor in their strife with the Catholic party, and this they soon did. Constantine called together many bishops of both parties and gave his decision
against the Donatists, who were then persecuted and punished; but this did not allay the strife, which continued until all together were blotted out by the Mohammedan invasion in the seventh century.

The first general council of the Catholic churches was summoned by Constantine and met at Nicaea in Bithynia (325). The principal question before it was that of the doctrine taught by Arius, a presbyter of Alexandria, who maintained that the Son of God was a created Being, the first and greatest, but yet, consequently, not on an equality with the Father. Over 300 bishops were present, with their numerous attendants, from all parts of the Empire, to examine this matter, and the Council was opened in great state by Constantine. A number of the bishops present bore in their bodies marks of the tortures which they had endured in the time of persecution. With two dissentients, the Council decided that the teaching of Arius was false, that it had not been the teaching of the Church from the beginning, and the Nicene Creed was framed to express the truth of the real Divine Nature of the Son and His equality with the Father.

Although the decision reached was right, the way of reaching it, by the combined efforts of the Emperor and the bishops, and of enforcing it, by the power of the State, manifested the departure of the Catholic church from the Scripture. Two years after the Council of Nicaea Constantine, altering his view, received Arius back from exile, and in the reign of his son Constantius all the bishoprics were filled by Arian bishops; the Government, now become Arian, persecuted the Catholics as formerly it had done the Arians.

One of those in high places, moved neither by popular clamour nor by the threats or flatteries of the authorities was Athanasius. As a young man he had taken part in the Council of Nicaea and afterwards became Bishop of Alexandria. For nearly fifty years, though repeatedly exiled, he maintained a valiant witness to the true divinity of the Saviour. Slandered, brought up before tribunals, taking refuge in the desert, returning to the city, nothing shook his advocacy of the truth he believed. Arianism lasted nearly three centuries as the state religion in a number of countries, especially in the later established Northern kingdoms. The Lombards in Italy were the last to abandon it as the national religion.

Not only the first, but the first six General Councils, of which the last was held in 680, were occupied to a large extent with questions as to the Divine Nature, the relations of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In the course of endless discussions, creeds were hammered out and dogmas enunciated in the hope that the truth would by them be fixed and could then be handed down to succeeding generations. It is noticeable that in the Scriptures this method is not used. From them we see that the mere letter cannot convey the truth, which is spiritually
apprehended, neither can it be handed from one to another, but each one must receive and appropriate it for himself in his inward dealings with God, and be established in it by confessing and maintaining it in the conflict of daily life.

It is sometimes supposed that Scripture is not sufficient for the guidance of the churches without the addition of, at least, early tradition, on the ground that it was by the early Church councils that the canon of Scripture was fixed. This of course could only refer to the New Testament. The peculiar characteristics and unique history of the people of Israel fitted them to receive the Divine revelation, to recognise the inspired writings, and to preserve them with an invincible pertinacity and accuracy. And with regard to the New Testament, the canon of inspired books was not fixed by the Church councils, it was acknowledged by the councils because it had already been clearly indicated by the Holy Spirit, and accepted by the churches generally, and this indication and acceptance has ever since been confirmed by every comparison of the canonical with the apocryphal and non-canonical books, the difference in value and power being evident.

'The Pilgrim Church': The Epistle to Diognetus

Here's another excerpt from 'The Pilgrim Church' by E.H. Broadbent, from chapter one, starting on page 16 of the online book:
Amidst the confusion of conflicting parties there were true teachers, able and eloquent in directing souls in the way of salvation. One, whose name is unknown, writing in the second century to an inquirer named Diognetus,[14] sets himself to answer the questions asked as to the mode of worshipping God among the Christians, the reason of their faith and devotion towards God and love to one another, why they neither worshipped the gods of the Greeks nor followed the Jewish religion, and
why this new practice of piety had only so late entered into the world.

He writes "Christians are distinguished from other men neither by country, nor language", living in such places "as the lot of each of them has determined, and following the customs of the natives in respect to clothing, food, and the rest of their ordinary conduct, they display to us their wonderful and confessedly striking method of life. They dwell in their own countries, but simply as sojourners. As citizens, they share in all things with others, and yet endure all things as if
foreigners. Every foreign land is to them as their native country, and every land of their birth as a land of strangers.... They pass their days on earth, but they are citizens of heaven. They obey the prescribed laws, and at the same time surpass the laws by their lives ... they are reviled and bless".
Then, speaking of God, he says, He, "who is almighty, the Creator of all things, ... has sent from heaven, and placed among men, Him who is the truth, and the holy and
incomprehensible Word, and has firmly established Him in their hearts. He did not, as one might have imagined, send to men any ... angel, or ruler, ... but the very Creator and Fashioner of all things--by whom He made the heavens--by whom He enclosed the sea within its proper bounds"--whom the stars obey. "This messenger He sent to them.... As a king sends his son, who is also a king, so sent He Him; as God He sent Him; as to men He sent Him; as a Saviour He sent Him." Not as judging us
He sent Him, though "He will yet send Him to judge us, and who shall endure His appearing?" As to the delay in sending the Saviour, God has always been the same, but waited in His long-suffering. He had "formed in His mind a great and unspeakable conception, which He communicated to His Son alone." As long as He concealed His own wise counsel He appeared to neglect us, but this was to make it manifest that of ourselves we cannot enter into the kingdom of God. But when the appointed time had
come, "He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the Holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for them that are mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness? By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet
exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! that the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors!"

Finally getting somewhere in reading 'The Pilgrim Church'

I've had a copy of 'The Pilgrim Church' (by E.H. Broadbent) since last Christmas, but until this week I only got a few chapters into it, even though the subject is very interesting to me. I am now about 2 thirds through it and I think it's an amazing perspective on church history which everyone interested in the subject should read, even if they don't agree with the doctrinal and theological perspective of the author. The book is very well documented, and gives many quotes and stories of men, and some women, who were great influences in the churches throughout the centuries in different regions, mainly Europe.
In reading the different thoughts of the men described and quoted, I see that I am most in agreement with the oldest forms of Baptists and those the author refers to as 'the Brethren', as opposed to the mainline protestant denominations. Also, the modern Baptists have only surface resemblance to those earlier believers and congregations. That is why when I first started blogging I hesitated to call myself 'protestant' because technically the Baptist beliefs and denominations did not come out from Roman Catholicism, though some of the people who became Baptists came out of it; the Baptist beliefs came from groups that existed at different times parallel to Roman Catholicism, and also the beliefs come straight from Scripture and not as remnants of Roman Catholic practices, as some protestant practices are. I use the term 'protestant' out of convenience only.
It's very interesting to see how similar the perspective of the author is to mine, in that he recognizes believers in all denominations, also seeing their strengths and weaknesses as groups. Also in that churches should not be united with the state and have temporal power; and should allow freedom of conscience for all believers, and encourage forebearance among believers toward each other's differences in doctrine if the doctrines are not against the truth of scripture.
More to come....