Originally posted by Alliance
I said BORN AGAINS were more likely to support such actions, not evangelicals. That may also be true, but since evangelicism is a much broader movement, I didn't feel comfortable making that assessment.
In your first post in this thread you said that you most associated "born agains" with evangelicals. Your words were "usually evangelicals." Did I really make a gross error?
Though I am a bit confused about your understanding of born-again Christians. You seem to be saying that it's a movement of it's own. But it's really a concept that has perhaps been birthed by the evangelical movement in the United States but is used more generally.
Please don't forget that Hill was excommunicated from the Presbyterians church.
Yes. Because his beliefs were not compatible with Christianity. They were what you'd call damnable.
There is an increased incidence of such violence among conservative Christians.
Conservative Christian is a vague term. Have you actually compared what Eric Rudolph and Paul Hill believed to what most evangelical churches teach? There is a large disparity.
Maybe they are other factors involved...like *gasp* HISTORY.
Yes. That's why I didn't say it was because of their being evangelicals.
Baptists really start in 1689 with the Baptist Confession of Faith, but go back to 1609 and John Smyth. They are an extension of the Protestant church under most definitions. Ultimately though, the Baptists base a lot of their teachings on Tertullian, who was the man who devised Trinitarian doctrine around 200AD. Tertuallian was later excommunicated by the church. Apparently a document written by Cardinal Hosius from the Council of Trent calls Tertullian a baptist that suffered under the Catholic church.
"Were it not that the Baptist have been grievous tormented (by the Roman catholic Church) and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the reformers" (Apud Opera p. 112, 113)