From: allenmk@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Allen Melinda Kay)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Billy Graham carrying message from the Pope
Date: 9 Apr 92 08:46:19 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

bernard@tourng.enet.dec.com (Dave Bernard) writes:

>	It's interesting that between the time Jesus died, and the first
>	Protestant (and we have to admit that Evangelical churches are
>	part of the Protestant tradition) churches were established, some
>	1500 years passed.  It seems like a cruel joke that the churches
>	that existed during that 1500 year period were only those of
>	the Catholic tradition, and that the Holy Spirit allowed this
>	travesty!

>	Incidentally, the Bible did come through the Catholic Church-
>	who else was there during that period?

Actually, I believe it's more accurate to say that the Bible came from Jews and
Messianic Jews, along with one Gentile (Luke).  They weren't Catholics yet. 
And if you look at the claims of the Anabaptists, you'll see that they said they
were worshipping as the first Christians worshipped.  Also, some Baptists of 
today claim that the roots of the Baptist denomination preceed Catholicism.  
Many Protestant groups we read of in my History of Christianity class broke off
from the Catholic Church with the claim that they wished to restore New
Testament Christianity.  From what I can tell in the Scriptures, New Testament
Christianity was probably a lot like Judaism had been for thousands of years,
but with the knowledge that the promises of the Messiah had been fulfilled in
Jesus.  It wasn't Catholic or Baptist or Presbyterian--it was simply Christian.
Too bad we all seem to like arguing too much to be like that again.

Melinda

Melinda Allen
-- 
Melinda K. Allen                  The LORD is close to the brokenhearted 
allenmk@ucsu.colorado.edu       and saves those who are crushed in spirit.   
allenmk@tramp.colorado.edu			               Psalm 34:18 

[Most of the emphases that led to Catholic Christianity are already
there in the Pastoral epistles.  And the full-blown thing is there
very soon thereafter, by say the early 2nd Cent.  The scholars I've
seen -- even Baptists -- generally don't take very seriously the
claims that there were Baptists before there were Catholics.
Certainly there were trends other than the Catholic ones at the same
time.  The best-documented seem to be Gnostics, but there apparently
were also groups on the other end, that didn't like the idea of
considering Jesus to be God.  But I think it's pushing it to claim
that any of these groups were Baptists.

What would it mean to talk about early Baptists?  You can certainly
find groups that, like the Baptists, did not like the growth of tight
ecclesiastical control.  Probably they had believer's baptism, and
were what was called in the 16th Cent.  a "gathered church".  The
problem is, the groups I can think of who fit this description were
Gnostics, which at the very least means that they weren't interested
in historical accuracy in their knowledge of Jesus.

I think the Baptists have two real hall-marks: being a gathered
church, and a commitment to Scripture.  In the early church I'm afraid
these things were generally associated with different groups.  As far
as I can tell, the Bible as we have it now is largely the product of
the Catholic Church.  It was the Catholic church that was interested
in making sure that all information about Jesus could be traced back
to one of the apostles.  To the extent that we have a Bible whose
information has been carefully sifted, I'm afraid that its "quality
control" is part and parcel of the overall Catholic emphasis on
doctrinal orthodoxy and control by a carefully-monitored hierarchy.

--clh]