<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Working Progress</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.willkinchlea.com/blog/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.willkinchlea.com/blog</link>
	<description>Will Kinchlea</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Jan 2011 02:42:41 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Merry Christmas from the Kinchlea Kitties by Patman the Pat</title>
		<link>http://www.willkinchlea.com/blog/christmas-kitties/comment-page-1/#comment-2252</link>
		<dc:creator>Patman the Pat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Jan 2011 02:42:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.willkinchlea.com/blog/?p=297#comment-2252</guid>
		<description>are these your actual cats wearing real sweaters...

let us all tag this terrible... but funny</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>are these your actual cats wearing real sweaters&#8230;</p>
<p>let us all tag this terrible&#8230; but funny</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Evangelicalism Then and Now: Conversionism by Chris</title>
		<link>http://www.willkinchlea.com/blog/evangelicalism-then-and-now-conversionism/comment-page-1/#comment-2041</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Dec 2010 04:24:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.willkinchlea.com/blog/?p=121#comment-2041</guid>
		<description>Of course, NOW I realize that  you posted this 2 years ago (lol) and that the way you stated it, probably didn&#039;t mean what I thought it did (doh!).

That&#039;s what I get for originally coming across this blog from a Google search of &quot;Funny Church Signs!&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Of course, NOW I realize that  you posted this 2 years ago (lol) and that the way you stated it, probably didn&#8217;t mean what I thought it did (doh!).</p>
<p>That&#8217;s what I get for originally coming across this blog from a Google search of &#8220;Funny Church Signs!&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Evangelicalism Then and Now: Conversionism by Chris</title>
		<link>http://www.willkinchlea.com/blog/evangelicalism-then-and-now-conversionism/comment-page-1/#comment-2040</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Dec 2010 04:20:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.willkinchlea.com/blog/?p=121#comment-2040</guid>
		<description>Just a note...  actually, the sign is correct.  Baptists are not protestants.  Protestants are those who split from the Catholic church.  The Lutheran church is the best example, as it is derived from Martin Luther.  Another excellent example is the Presbyterian church as it is derived from John Calvin, who, while being trained for the priesthood as a Catholic, became enthralled with the reformation and left the church.  

The Baptist tradition is very different.  The oldest strand is the Anabaptist which, when Zwingli (a contemporary of Luther) was bringing about reformation in Switzerland, they went much further.  Luther, Zwingli, Calvin all reformed specific doctrines.  The anabaptists rejected the modality all together.  Hence, the term, &quot;Radical Reformation&quot;.  Hubmeir, Grebal, Manz, and Blaurock rejected the magisterial form of church, the liturgy, the infant baptism, etc.  In doing so, they rejected the protestant road, which kept magisterial govt.  There are still some of these anabaptists around.  They are known today as the Amish, Mennonites (actually the former is a subgroup of the latter), Brethren and Hutterites for the most part.  It should be stated, that the protestants persecuted the anabaptists as much as the catholics did.

The second strand which is of importance, is the birth of the baptist church which almost all American and English baptists are descended from.  The Church of England was never part of the reformation and as such, is not a &quot;protestant church.&quot;  Furthermore, the churches descendant from them also have nothing to do with protestantism.  From the English church came the Puritans-many of whom became separatists.  There was one out of this group named John Smythe.  He went to Holland and came under the influence of the teachings of the Mennonites (which were quite similar to the separatists).  He established the first baptist church in history.  A few years later he split with Helwys, who came back to England and ended up imprisoned.  It is assumed that the General Baptists descended from this group, though the history is murky.  The Particular baptists are most likely descended from the JLJ church in England.  However, where those in that church came from, is anyones guess.  Most likely, they either took a similar path as Smythe and Helwys, or they were actually descendent from Helywys&#039;s church.  

Either way, the Baptist movement is not part of the reformation.  The reformers rejected and killed many baptists (as did the Catholics and the Church of England).  Thus, It is VERY correct, to state that Baptists, are not protestants.  We did not protest workings within the Catholic church.  We completely separated ourselves from them.  That sign is absolutely correct, historically.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just a note&#8230;  actually, the sign is correct.  Baptists are not protestants.  Protestants are those who split from the Catholic church.  The Lutheran church is the best example, as it is derived from Martin Luther.  Another excellent example is the Presbyterian church as it is derived from John Calvin, who, while being trained for the priesthood as a Catholic, became enthralled with the reformation and left the church.  </p>
<p>The Baptist tradition is very different.  The oldest strand is the Anabaptist which, when Zwingli (a contemporary of Luther) was bringing about reformation in Switzerland, they went much further.  Luther, Zwingli, Calvin all reformed specific doctrines.  The anabaptists rejected the modality all together.  Hence, the term, &#8220;Radical Reformation&#8221;.  Hubmeir, Grebal, Manz, and Blaurock rejected the magisterial form of church, the liturgy, the infant baptism, etc.  In doing so, they rejected the protestant road, which kept magisterial govt.  There are still some of these anabaptists around.  They are known today as the Amish, Mennonites (actually the former is a subgroup of the latter), Brethren and Hutterites for the most part.  It should be stated, that the protestants persecuted the anabaptists as much as the catholics did.</p>
<p>The second strand which is of importance, is the birth of the baptist church which almost all American and English baptists are descended from.  The Church of England was never part of the reformation and as such, is not a &#8220;protestant church.&#8221;  Furthermore, the churches descendant from them also have nothing to do with protestantism.  From the English church came the Puritans-many of whom became separatists.  There was one out of this group named John Smythe.  He went to Holland and came under the influence of the teachings of the Mennonites (which were quite similar to the separatists).  He established the first baptist church in history.  A few years later he split with Helwys, who came back to England and ended up imprisoned.  It is assumed that the General Baptists descended from this group, though the history is murky.  The Particular baptists are most likely descended from the JLJ church in England.  However, where those in that church came from, is anyones guess.  Most likely, they either took a similar path as Smythe and Helwys, or they were actually descendent from Helywys&#8217;s church.  </p>
<p>Either way, the Baptist movement is not part of the reformation.  The reformers rejected and killed many baptists (as did the Catholics and the Church of England).  Thus, It is VERY correct, to state that Baptists, are not protestants.  We did not protest workings within the Catholic church.  We completely separated ourselves from them.  That sign is absolutely correct, historically.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on A Gaelic Blessing by Will</title>
		<link>http://www.willkinchlea.com/blog/a-gaelic-blessing/comment-page-1/#comment-1515</link>
		<dc:creator>Will</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Mar 2010 21:04:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.willkinchlea.com/blog/?p=274#comment-1515</guid>
		<description>Ah Aisling,

I intend to - it is on my list of things I&#039;d love to do when my creative juices are not being sucked dry by an Honor&#039;s Thesis and 40 hours of marketing per week - expect something Mid-Mayish.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ah Aisling,</p>
<p>I intend to &#8211; it is on my list of things I&#8217;d love to do when my creative juices are not being sucked dry by an Honor&#8217;s Thesis and 40 hours of marketing per week &#8211; expect something Mid-Mayish.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on A Gaelic Blessing by aisling</title>
		<link>http://www.willkinchlea.com/blog/a-gaelic-blessing/comment-page-1/#comment-1514</link>
		<dc:creator>aisling</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Mar 2010 19:34:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.willkinchlea.com/blog/?p=274#comment-1514</guid>
		<description>Willfred. I am glad to see you have finally done another post... and that its focus is on the glorious irish! But seriously, you should post more. got it get it? good.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Willfred. I am glad to see you have finally done another post&#8230; and that its focus is on the glorious irish! But seriously, you should post more. got it get it? good.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
