Baptists and the Christian Tradition (w/ Dr. Matthew Emerson)

This video is sponsored by Logos. For 10% off their incredible resources, visit: logos.com/gospelsimplicity logos.com/gospelsimplicityort...
verbum.com/gospelsimplicity
In this video, I'm joined by Dr. Matthew Emerson to discuss how Baptists can retrieve the Christian tradition. In it, we cover interesting topics like recovering liturgy, whether credo-baptism has historical roots, and more.
Dr. Emerson's book on Baptists and the Christian Tradition: amzn.to/3QcTLZH
Center for Baptist Renewal: www.centerforbaptistrenewal.com/
Support Gospel Simplicity:
Patreon: / gospelsimplicity
One Time Donation: www.paypal.me/gospelsimplicity
Merch: shop.gospelsimplicity.com
Follow Gospel Simplicity on Social Media:
Facebook: / gospelsimplicity
Instagram: / gospelsimplicity
About Gospel Simplicity:
Gospel Simplicity began as a KZbin channel in a Moody Bible Institute dorm. It was born out of the central conviction that the gospel is really good news, and I wanted to share that with as many people as possible. The channel has grown and changed over time, but that central conviction has never changed. Today, we make content around biblical and theological topics, often interacting with people from across the Christian tradition with the hope of seeking greater unity and introducing people to the beautiful simplicity and transformative power of the gospel, the good news about Jesus.
About the host:
Austin Suggs holds a BA in Theology from Moody Bible Institute and is currently pursuing an MA in Liberal Arts with a focus in Theology and Philosophy from St. John's College, Annapolis. He has served in the local church in a number of ways, including as a full-time staff member,, teacher, church planter, and more. Today, he resides outside of Baltimore with his wife Eliza.
Video Stuff:
Camera: Sony a6300
Lens: Sigma 16mm F1.4 amzn.to/2MjssPB
Edited in FCPX
Music:
Bowmans Root - Isaac Joel
YODRSIYIVB5B6QPM
*Links in the description may include affiliate links in which I receive a small commission of any purchases you make using that link.
OERNFF59LU4GEU5K
HHQQFUFIBM8K6UIK

[@thecatechumen]

Loved taking Baptist History with Dr. Emerson at OBU

[@abrahamdavidparker2233]

I met Dr. Emerson in the 2023 Southern Baptist Convention Annual Meeting in New Orleans! I pastor a local Southern Baptist church named Saint Martin’s Chapel of Bakersfield which combines liturgical worship, Contemporary Christian Music, and weekly communion. We are honored to be recognized and listed on the Center for Baptist Renewal Church Search webpage.

[@AthanGreen337495]

I took a couple of his classes at California Baptist University. LOVED his stuff

[@changjsc]

I feel like I’ve been waiting for this interview my whole life. Can’t wait. I hope this is the best interview ever referenced in the last Q&A.

[@GospelSimplicity]

I hope you enjoy it!

[@SchottischeSchotte]

Looking forward to listening to this! Enjoyed listening to Gospel Simplicity podcast for a while now. Can I suggest some future topics guests? Mez McConnell who set up 20schemes about the topic of social class/ planting churches in deprived areas might be interesting. David Robertson (who has a blog/podcast called the wee flea) might also be interesting to chat to as he wrote an influential book against Richard Dawkins and helped set up SOLAS (centre for public Christianity). Also would be interesting to hear from church planters from different denominations - how they do things differently, what they do that is the same etc.

[@actsapologist1991]

Well... I appreciated the different times he emphasized honesty, and biting the bullet on tough truths for Baptists.

[@toddvoss52]

Agree. An honest man

[@GospelSimplicity]

I found that refreshing. Trying to out-tradition more traditional groups isn't going to work

[@HannahClapham]

I actually thought he gave away too much. The very early church was somewhat liturgical but was otherwise more Baptist than Catholic. Catholics point back to the fifth century and say, “See how Catholic!” But then they ignore the extremely non-Catholic character of the first three centuries. If we’re going to be honest, ALL of us need to be honest!

[@goofygrandlouis6296]

I still don't understand the argument for Sola Scriptura. So for 15 centuries - FIFTEEN - all Christians practised their faith based on *traditions* , under the patronage of one founding Saint (St Marc, St Peter, ..etc). And everybody was happy. But then one German guy comes along, Luther, and declares : "Nah, you Christians have been all wrong from the start, I know better, and so I'm going to make a coup." uh. 🤨

[@HannahClapham]

@@goofygrandlouis6296. The “Sola” in Sola Scriptura confuses many people. Protestants don’t reject tradition at all. They simply want to make sure it is as apostolic as possible. There is so incredibly much that Catholics have added to the Apostolic Deposit! It’s like a whole new religion. We’re just trying to get back to what Christianity USED to be.

[@swimmerfish34]

The more I've studied history and tradition, the more secure I feel as a Baptist.

[@GospelSimplicity]

I'd love to hear more!

[@IIS-HS-NI-KA]

@Gospel Simplicity, how about talking for once about the Holy Light? Is it too big of a task?

[@toddvoss52]

I'm empathetic and understand where he is coming from in his use of "catholic". But - there is some messiness there. He uses Nicene Christianity as a touch stone of "what has always been believed" and even goes out another century to reference Chalcedon as to what Christians have "always believed." But there is no doubt as far as I can see that "Christians" both East and West in the 4th and 5th centuries (the time period he is referencing) believed in Apostolic Succession - and understood it in the way Catholics, EO, and OO still understand it. A Succession of Bishops from the Apostles who can then ordain other Bishops and Priests. I suppose there is a tortured way of reading the Fathers to fashion a different sense of Apostolic Succession but I find it ...well ...tortured.

[@catholicguy1073]

Yes he is deeply revisionist in his interpretation. To still not agree to baptize young children being one of them along with Apostolic Succession or the Pope etc. Those all existed form the beginning without a shadow of a doubt.

[@cheifdonkey149]

The Church Fathers didn’t believe in apostolic succession in the same way that EO and Roman churches believe today. Polycarp, the didache, shepherd of Hermas, and the New Testament all seemed to hold to a two office view. You see the monarchic episcopate emerge more with ignatius, but he still seems to believe the presbyters are the successors of the apostles and the Bishops have even higher authority than that. Jerome also centuries later undermined how apostolic succession is understood today. There’s nothing wrong with having a monarchical episcopate, it’s certainly worked well to a degree, but it seems an over reach to say it’s a necessary way of running the church implemented by Christ

[@catholicguy1073]

@@cheifdonkey149 Disagree you would have to substantiate that. The Early Church fathers held to Apostolic Succession. And Jerome who was not apart of the teaching magisterium of the Church in fact submitted to the authority of the Church regarding the deuterocan that he raised questions. So submitting to the authority of the Church bolsters it, it doesn’t undermine it. It’s fine to have questions and even in the Church to ask for clarification which Jerome did. He didn’t separate from the Church nor publicly challenge them and say they were wrong. So not sure how you get to undermining there. Regarding Apostolic Succession as late as the 6th Ecumenical Council what is called the Orthodox today affirmed the indefectability of the Pope to teach doctrine in matters of faith and morals.

[@toddvoss52]

@@cheifdonkey149 Yes I have viewed Gavin's arguments from Jerome and others and they are not persuasive to me. Note Polycarp himself was a Bishop and viewed as such in his lifetime. But I won't go into alot of detail in a YT comment. Just focusing on the Jerome point which was Gavin's best point - it still doesn't convince. Jerome was the sole Church Father articulating the explicit view that at some early point Bishops and Presbyters overlapped in various churches. But lets say Jerome was right. So what? He still adhered to Apostolic Succession himself. This can be seen in many of his writings (especially in Of Illustrious Men- I challenge you to read any fair chunk of it). He simply noted that in his view the those two offices were fluid in the New Testament Church in varying areas and perhaps into the second century for some churches (perhaps Corinth). So he believed in some development over geography and time but still believed that the Bishops were the successors to the Apostles (and hence any Presbyter-Bishops were also such successors). So his Letter 146 to Evangelus is part of his case for this early fluidity but that very letter also presumes Apostolic succession in several of his comments in it: “Wherever there is a bishop, whether it be at Rome or at Engubium, whether it be at Constantinople or at Rhegium, whether it be at Alexandria or at Zoan, his dignity is one and his priesthood is one. Neither the command of wealth nor the lowliness of poverty makes him more a bishop or less a bishop. All alike are successors of the apostles…In fact as if to tell us that the traditions handed down by the apostles were taken by them from the old testament, bishops, presbyters and deacons occupy in the church the same positions as those which were occupied by Aaron, his sons, and the Levites in the temple.” There are many other such evidences of his acceptance of both early fluidity and apostolic succession. If you search around the internet or YT you can find them.

[@cheifdonkey149]

@@toddvoss52​​⁠​​⁠ my point isn’t that bishops can’t be construed as the successors to the apostles in some way. I simply oppose the notion that the monarchical episcopate is of divine institution as there does seem to be development post New Testament. I’m happy to accept that this way of running the church was good and effective early on, and being able to track your churches history to the apostles was a great way to show clearly whether you were rooted in gospel truth or heresy. It gets more difficult however the further on you get in church history, the great schism for example, where you get two groups, both with validly ordained priests that can track their line of succession back down the the apostles ex communicating each other and also the fact that most groups that have splintered off from the Roman or Eastern church have also had validly ordained priests join their movement.

[@3tvclarkhome]

Literally me.

[@georgepatton5380]

Shouldnt it go without saying that you're not a "Nicean Christian" if you dont hold to the understanding of the Creed that the Fathers who wrote the Creed held...

[@EJ_Lion]

Would be nice to see Hank Hanegraaf on your show or You on his. 🙏🏻

[@Strongtower]

Hey Austin. I'm hoping you will see my question. I know that while you were at Moody, you visited a lot of different churches(Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, etc). My question is, are Moody students allowed to regularly attend non protestant churches? Like could I attend an Orthodox church every week and be a Moody student? Am I required to attend a protestant church while attending?

[@GospelSimplicity]

You are not required to attend a Protestant church every week. You are required to sign a pretty Protestant statement of faith.

[@Strongtower]

@@GospelSimplicity Thank you. Your channel has helped me a lot. I'm attending Moody this fall to study the Biblical languages.

[@emiliomendoza653]

Jesus Christ Frees us ❤

[@ryanturner8577]

I personally have never been more confused on religion in my entire life. I was baptized Christian as a baby. We stopped going to church when I was a kid after a lot of drama and condescension towards my family (covenant church that was swedish based), and I eventually became atheist/agnostic because of the experience of people within religion. Think liars and bible beaters that behind closed doors were knowingly sinners. That sort of stuff. I came back to religion and have strongly been leaning into faith starting again about 7 years ago. My problem? What church? What sect? I've been going to a local non-denominational Christian church that is a but modernized. I go for the sermon because they are usually pretty good with good pastors, but it feels too big churchy to me and the coldplay Jesus concert singing isn't for me at all. Should I just start going to a bunch of different churches and see what hits home for me the most? How do you go to a catholic or orthodox church as a Christian? Just go and do the mass but not take the eucharist? I've been reading a lot and listening a lot, and am sort of in the...."I can't make my mind up" phase of identifying my faith. Funny enough I am close to you and am in the southwest suburbs of Illinois. I might check out some of the churches you have experience around the Chicagoland area.

[@m-e567]

Just start attending church services and meet with the priest, and things will become clearer. Faith is a living thing. God bless you on your journey!

[@jacobticer1643]

“They [civil magistrates] are to discountenance and suppress impiety and irreligion; and to countenance and encourage religion and virtue; even Aristotle observes in his book of Politics, that the first care of government should be the care of divine things, or what relate to religion. ..Kings are the guardians of the laws of God and man; and Christian kings have a peculiar concern with the laws of the two tables, that they are observed, and the violaters of them punished;” -John Gill (1697-1771)… a baptist

[@elKarlo]

I’ve said this before on your channel I think it’s true here as well. I know you have a lot of issues with the Catholic and Orthodox churches but they clearly have the same doctrine and probably will have the same doctrine forever. My issue with a lot of these Protestant denominations that are trying to be more conservative or more high church or whatever have you, is that Kenny passed down the traditions generation after generation, or will they stop suddenly? I think I’ll good example of this is the Anglican church. I think it has a lot of awesome things to offer I got some very interesting middle ground positions, but it’s clearly deeply troubled and has a very questionable stances now. So like as in if you’re protestants do you think your grandchildren will be Christian still? Or do you think the church that you attend could become a Unitarian or a very weak almost heretical type of Christianity? It’s about being able to pass down the traditions generation after generation, and I am sorry but the Protestant churches do not have that ability.

[@carpediem5526]

Protestants don’t have the ability to pass down the gospel or solid doctrine? I disagree.

[@jmr10276]

I understand the concept of believer's baptism, but does it actually accomplish anything? If not, why not practice infant baptism; if so, what does it accomplish. Also, is it necessary for salvation from a Baptist perspective?

[@catholicguy1073]

Infant baptism is brining the infant to the faith and is an unmerited grace given to the parents by God. Just as St. Paul said that baptism replaces circumcision. Well circumcision if you know anything about Judaism is done on the 8th day of life of a newborn. Baptism is to die to sin and to rise to life. To be more filled by the Holy Spirit. We all need that regardless of age.

[@tbrickman]

From what I understand of the Baptist position, it is the outward sign of an inward belief. It accomplishes obedience to the biblical command, a public confession of one's commitment to Christ, and it marks the entry of a believer into fellowship with the church. It is an important sign of our salvation, such that when we say "we are saved through baptism," we refer to all that our baptism stands for.

[@huntz0r]

Baptists see baptism as the end of a person’s conversion, rather than the beginning.

[@catholicguy1073]

@@huntz0r yea that’s not biblical. That’s the entry to the faith not the end of it

[@davidvartanian]

Is there a biblical basis for differentiating from justifying grace and sanctifying grace? Those phrases are not in scripture. Justification and sanctification are two sides of the same covenantal coin.

[@bjw8806]

I will say this on the issue of baptism .. all sides need to be better and honest. Both argue FROM scripture and have legit reasons. If we take baptism of household, while we may not see explicit evidence of infants - it can go either way. BUT households as defined in the first century Greco Roman world went beyond our idea of nuclear . It involved servants, slaves , clients , adult children , grandchildren and sometimes other relatives . They did not even have to live physically in the same house . So if the head of the household made decision to one way religion wise …. Everyone HAD to do it . There was no say so and this was the norm and expected. It was accounted to the other household members . Likewise though we see clear evidence of baptism being a knowledgeable profession of faith by the person . So there is a tension , even without the involvement of infants … While we do see in the last 1000 years across all traditions- Protestants included- infant baptism is the Norm. Are we to accuse the Lutherans of not adhering to scripture? The OGs of sola scriptura ? What about the reformed ? The Anglicans? Moravians? Etc ? And yet again we see in the first 500 years that people coming from Christian households were not baptized until some age of knowledge . We see baptism being with held from infants and no condemnation for it . We can argue and say “ well it’s different reason than baptists “… nonetheless it was a valid recognized practice . Also we see in medieval times pagan Vikings and the likes being Baptized without clear faith and it being assumed they are saved . We see pagan babies being baptized and still growing up pagan and Christian leaders stating it doesn’t matter because they were baptized , they are destined for heaven even if they die .. so clearly their theology was wrong even with the valid practice of infant baptism For a baptist or anyone in favor of believer baptism I think it’s important to show the historical data , even if it’s in the minority,that valid Christians practiced credobaptism over padeo. There is your catholicity link with the Christian tradition.. a recover of a valid practice. Also emphasizing infant dedication as a type of sacramental . It’s biblical and was a practice in the church . Show that grace is present in dedication. Anoint the babies with oil , pray over the babies and family , dedicate them to God . Then when they come of due age having been taught the faith . Baptism them . This is how a Baptist or anyone pro believers Baptist can root themselves in the historical tradition of the church that rooted itself in scripture and not have to battle with those who oppose them as if it’s a new concept or new view of scripture ( even if they believe it’s the correct view )

[@GospelSimplicity]

Thanks for the well thought out comment!

[@cassidyanderson3722]

He uses a lot of the same language as Ortlund. Both speak of arriving at conclusions based on things like their conscious and what they, in their own reasoning, think. It’s a very interesting approach to apply to Christianity and I suspect it lends itself to the varied, and sometimes conflicting, views held by the various Baptist groups. Also, I’d love to see a Southern Baptist Church attempt to recreate one of the eastern liturgies. Can you imagine?😂

[@HannahClapham]

@cassidyanderson3722. Personally, though I’m heavy into theology and church history, I think we often overlook the benefits of evaluating the demonstrable spiritual fruit of each denomination: do they love their neighbor, do they feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and provide shelter for the homeless? Do they fight for justice for the widow and the orphan? Do they live holy lives? Are they vibrant in worship and steadfast in prayer? These things matter. Too often I see dead orthodoxy, intellectualized faith, and lifeless ritual. Tradition and heritage are great, but they are not the end all and the be all.

[@George-ur8ow]

Are they an obviously co-opted political movenent, whose central ideology is an unquestioning support of a middle eastern country?

[@carpediem5526]

Catholics make the same decision based on conviction and reasoning. 😊

[@cassidyanderson3722]

@@HannahClapham Please don’t take anything I said as suggesting that Baptist don’t have spiritual fruits. I was merely commenting on the novel, individualistic approach they apply to the faith.

[@cassidyanderson3722]

@@George-ur8ow There is definitely a stream of misguided thought and devotion re: the Jews that runs through some of their factions.

[@vinceplanetta8415]

“Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves, let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” The Apostolic Tradition (A.D. 215)

[@oboylebeast]

Not to say you are wrong, but what is your source for this? I have been wanting to see something that early thatbactually talks about baptizing children.

[@catholicguy1073]

@@oboylebeastyou can always reference the Diadache. That was the first teaching of the NT Scriptures by the Apostles. And infant baptism was taught and universally accepted in the early Church.

[@palermotrapani9067]

@@oboylebeast That quote is from Saint Hippolytus of Rome. You can find it free online. I would give you some sites but sometimes when I do that the post gets deleted.

[@toddvoss52]

@@oboylebeasthe literally gave you the source ?

[@oboylebeast]

I will have to reread didache. I didn't remember reading anything about children. The early acceptance of pedo baptism is something that is hard to reconcile with not seeing it explicitly in scripture. It just seem like it could be implied. Just trying to have a clean conscience with how I live my faith.

[@imjustheretogrill9260]

This was damning in many ways for Baptist retrieval.

[@elKarlo]

Bur the Bible shows infant baptism. Whole house were converted and the babies were baptized along with their family.

[@GospelSimplicity]

I think a Baptist would point out that there's no mention of babies in those passages.

[@catholicguy1073]

@@GospelSimplicitytrue but the word “entire households” implies everyone not just someone of a certain age. If that was the case that there was an age requirement for the importance of a Sacrament it would’ve been taught. That’s a reasonable conclusion to draw.

[@tbrickman]

​@@catholicguy1073 I think you're missing that it has nothing to do with an age requirement. It's about saving faith as a prerequisite for baptism. Many children are baptized in Baptist churches, but only those who have made a credible profession of faith

[@elKarlo]

@@GospelSimplicity Yes, but this is using modern lens to look at this. As families at that time were larger and probably would have had children that were teens all the way down to very young children, if not babies. Which is why the church fathers looked at this and were able to understand. Baptists have it wrong, and waiting until they are old enough can be a risk to their children's salvation. Which is weird as to many Baptists, Baptism is symbolic.

[@xpictos777]

@@GospelSimplicity Matthew 19:14. Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” We should baptising Children before even THINK about baptising adults. Adults are further from God.

[@Motomack1042]

I find it a bit odd, if Baptist are excepting of the Apostles creed, Nicene creed and Athanasius creed, and those creeds are not in scripture, but find their formation and development in the Sacred Tradition, then they are following sacred Tradition and not scripture alone. As we can see in the Christian universe not all believe in the traditional understanding of the Trinity but all claim to follow scripture. The view on justification is totally incorrect, and I do not see where the bible affirms the Baptist position. Who is to say authoritatively what the bible teaches? (Only the Church). The Sacred Tradition cannot be ignored because one might not see it in scripture clearly. Not everything is in the bible, and the bible states this, and this is what drives Catholics and Orthodox crazy!

[@catholicguy1073]

💯

[@tbrickman]

But did you catch WHY they accept the creeds? It's because they merely restate the truth contained in Scripture, not because they hold any separate authority. Many Baptist churches don't even learn these creeds, since they have no independent inspiration. Traditon is often great evidence of the truth, but not a source of it, to Baptists.

[@catholicguy1073]

He was wrong about Catholics regarding baptism. The CC teaches that baptism brings about Both justifying grace AND sanctifying grace. Baptist believe in one and deny the other.

[@toddvoss52]

He was using sanctifying grace in a different way than we understand the term.

[@catholicguy1073]

@@toddvoss52can you expand upon that for me? I didn’t catch that his definition of sanctifying grace was different than the CC on defining it.

[@toddvoss52]

@@catholicguy1073 We don't make such a sharp distinction between justifying grace and sanctifying grace. We believe that sanctifying grace is infused at initial justification.

[@jarrahe]

This understanding of "catholicity" is painfully revisionist. He clearly has no concept of what the early church meant by "catholic."

[@jarrahe]

Here is a list of primary sources from early church fathers that disproves this gentleman's whitewashed redefinition of the word "catholic." Please keep in mind this is not an exhaustive list, merely a sample platter: Ignatius of Antioch, (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8:2, c. A.D. 110) "Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Irenaeus of Lyons, (Against Heresies, c. A.D. 189) "It is within the power of all, in every church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the Tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were instituted bishops in the churches by the apostles, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew anything these [heretics] rave about.” Irenaeus of Lyons, (Against Heresies, c. A.D. 189) “…[W]e put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vanity, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings, by indicating that Tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every church agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, because the apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” Tertullian of Carthage, (Prescription Against Heretics, 30, c. A.D. 200) “[The heretics Marcion, Valentinian]…at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherius, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled.” Cyprian of Carthage, (Letters, 66[67]:8, c. A.D. 254) “…Peter, on whom the Church was to be built, speaks there, teaching and showing in the name of the Church, that although a rebellious and arrogant multitude of those who will not hear and obey may depart, yet the Church does not depart from Christ; and they are the Church who are a people united to the priest, and the flock that adheres to its pastor. You ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if anyone be not with the bishop, then he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priest of God, believing that they are secretly in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is one and catholic, is not split or divided, but is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere to one another." Cyprian of Carthage, (Unity of the Catholic Church, c. A.D. 251) “The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven…’ On him he builds the Church, and commands him to feed the sheep, and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, by which it is made clear that there is one Church and one chair…If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he think that he holds the faith? If he deserts the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he be confident that he is in the Church?” Clement of Rome, (Letter of Clement to James, c. A.D. 290) “Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the sure foundation of his doctrine was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was, by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom the Father first revealed the Son; whom the Christ blessed with good reason; the called, and elect.” Cyril of Jerusalem, (Catechetical Lectures, 18:23, c. A.D. 350) “[The Church] is called catholic, then, because it extends over the whole world, from end to end of the earth, and because it teaches universally and infallibly each and every doctrine which must come to the knowledge of men, concerning things visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly, and because it brings every race of men into subjection to godliness, governors and governed, learned and unlearned, and because it universally treats and heals every class of sins, those committed with the soul and those with the body, and it possesses within itself every conceivable form of virtue, in deeds and in words and in the spiritual gifts of every description." Cyril of Jerusalem, (Catechetical Lectures, 18:26, c. A.D. 350) “And if you are sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord’s house is (for the other sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens houses of the Lord), nor merely where the church is, but where the Catholic Church is. For this is the peculiar name of this holy Church, the mother of us all, the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God.” Augustine of Hippo, (The True Religion, 7:12, c. A.D. 390) "We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church, which is catholic and which is called Catholic not only by her own members but even by all her enemies. For when heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, willy-nilly they call her nothing else but Catholic. For they will not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name that the whole world employs in her regard.” Augustine of Hippo, (Faith and Creed, 10:21, c. A.D. 393) “We believe in the holy Church, that is, the Catholic Church; for heretics and schismatics call their own congregations churches. But heretics violate the faith itself by a false opinion about God; schismatics, however, withdraw from fraternal love by hostile separations, although they believe the same things we do. Consequently, neither heretics nor schismatics belong to the Catholic Church; not heretics, because the Church loves God, and not schismatics, because the Church loves neighbor." Augustine of Hippo, (Faith and Creed, 5:6, c. A.D. 393) “If you should find someone who does not yet believe in the gospel, what would you [Mani] answer him when he says, ‘I do not believe’? Indeed, I would not believe in the gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so." Augustine of Hippo, (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation”, 4:5, c. A.D. 397) “[T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in her [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15-17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house."

[@carpediem5526]

Have to take these in context, culture and what was taking place historically at that time.

[@jarrahe]

@carpediem5526 Forgive me but that seems like a dishonest take which is lacking any and all consistency with the texts. How else can these be read? How does context, culture, and history affect how we understand these very clearly exposited explanations of their own doctrine? "What was taking place historically at that time" was they were clearly discussing their teachings of Apostolic Succession, the Primacy of Peter, Church Infallibility, hierarchical ecclesiology, the necessity of unity with Rome, unity of doctrine with the Catholic episcopacy, etc, and your response is relativism? That is pure historical revisionism. Cyprian of Carthage explicitly says "...a primacy is given to Peter, by which it is made clear that there is one Church and one chair…If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he think that he holds the faith? If he deserts the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he be confident that he is in the Church?” Is seems undeniably clear to me ffom these texts that the apostolic tradition of the historical church most resembles the same Catholic Church as today. BECAUSE IT IS. It is the same in these texts as it is today. Cyril of Jerusalem says "“[The Church] is called catholic, then...because it teaches universally and infallibly each and every doctrine which must come to the knowledge of men..." Do Baptists believe that the Church itself has the charism of Infallibility like Cyril does?

[@Isaiah53-FL]

Some believe in the Holy Scriptures; some in the holy fathers

[@jarrahe]

@@Isaiah53-FL Catholics believe in the Word of God, both in written form (Sacred Scripture) and in oral form (Sacred Tradition). [2 Thessalonians 2:15]

[@JP-ri2or]

Glad to see it! It's a shame your Roman viewers are so ungracious and condescending towards anyone not Roman Catholic.

[@calebstarcher4934]

Baptist and tradition are two words that only fit together as the punchline of a bad joke

[@angelbonilla2255]

Wrong 😊

[@JohnD808]

That’s not really true, it’s just that American evangelicals have made their whole thing abhorring tradition of any kind. Now I think some of them are trying to change that

[@calebstarcher4934]

@@JohnD808 cope. Any ounce of seriousness is enough to take Baptists out of their denomination

[@catholicguy1073]

😅😂agreed. My father’s side of the family southern Baptists.

[@HannahClapham]

@@calebstarcher4934. So, then, maybe if you were to develop an ounce of seriousness, you’d switch sects, too.

[@kevinguidry4783]

I knew some friends that are Baptist and some of them are actually Non-denominational

[@briandelaney9710]

Pretty arrogant “we’re trying to instruct our brethren in the right practice “

[@calebdyer8694]

Its not arrogant to think your belief is correct, everyone who has ever disagreed on these topics thought they were right, otherwise they wouldn't believe it. Wanting to gracefully correct doctrine they believe is erroneous does not make one arrogant any more than someone trying to convince a Baptist that infant baptism is correct.

[@GizkaStew]

It’s not arrogant to share what you think is right. Especially not from one of the few traditions that hasn’t “instructed their brethren” through literal murder and war.

[@swimmerfish34]

This is literally what every Christian tradition seeks to do in relation to other traditions. There's nothing arrogant about desiring to lead other Christians into what you believe is true.

[@romanchavdar5004]

Baptist + Tradition = Catholic

[@catholicguy1073]

If true then that person would actually be in communion with the Catholic Church.

[@romanchavdar5004]

He just doesn’t know the history of the Church well 😉

[@EmmaBerger-ov9ni]

Why not Baptist + Tradition = Orthodox ?

[@TheScholarlyBaptist]

we have a lot more in common than people think minus infant baptism and \s\church hierarchy

[@catholicguy1073]

@@TheScholarlyBaptist such as confession, marriage and divorce, the last rites? So sure there is some things in common but in areas of salvation, essential doctrines there is disagreement