Featured The Crux

Fringe professors don't Count. What is the Actual consenses of Christian scholars? Certainly, not the fringe.

 

Thats a poor argument. The RCC couldn't even get rid of all the writings of the gnostic or their buildings how could they have been more effective with the supposed baptist? OH I know. They didn't exist then.

 

the earliest church would have practiced and held to baptist like doctrines, definitly not those espoused now by the RCC!

 

They actually didn't. Have you read the Didache? It was written around the same time as the Gospel of Mark and guess what. Its liturgical in nature. It is close to Catholic Teaching that baptist teaching. In fact we can see Liturgical referrences in the NT which certainly isn't baptist. NT believers used statements of faith (Ie creeds) which baptist are against any creed. Have you read 1 Clement showing the Authority of the Bishop because he was appointed by the Apostles? Have you read Ignatius who believed in the Eucharist? On and on it goes. And these were the early witness to the Church

 

exactly!!!

I originally set out to find evidence that the Early Church looked like the Baptist church I belonged to. I read (now re-reading) a book by a non-Catholic, Bonnell Spencer-'Ye Are The Body' and I found that the writings of the Early Church reveal a church that looked NOTHING like a Baptist church. It was liturgical, had a Catholic view of the Eucharist, taught baptismal regeneration, was creedal, etc, etc. Oh, and the ruins of the oldest churches show they always had an ALTAR in them. Apparently, recently there have been ruins discovered of a first century church in England. How much you want to bet they discover an altar for celebrating the Eucharist in it as well?

Sure, there were some writings by some of the Early Fathers that were not orthodox, but the overwhelming majority of the writings conform to Catholic faith and practice. Where is the historical evidence of Baptistic churches following the Apostles. Where are the documents that show these Baptist churches developing systematic theology. There are none because they never existed. Or are you going to say that those 'evil Catholics' must have destroyed all the evidence?

 

As far as the Waldensians being 'primitive' baptists, since when do Baptist administer sacraments? Waldensians had sacraments holding that the validity of the sacraments depends on the worthiness of the minister. They had the celebration of the Eucharist, frequent perhaps in the early period, soon took place only on Holy Thursday. The 'priest preached and enjoyed limited faculties for the hearing of confessions . . . .' Priests? Eucharists? Confessions?

'Waldo and his disciples upheld the orthodox Catholic belief in the Trinity and the two natures of Christ. The Waldenses did not imbibe Cathar dualism. The pope, in fact, commended Waldo for opposing the Cathars. Because Waldo's confession of faith is quite specific in its affirmation of loyalty to traditional Catholicism, it bears quoting at length:

"In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and of the Blessed and Ever-Virgin Mary. Be it noted by all the faithful that I, Valdesius, and all my brethren, standing before the Holy Gospels, do declare that we believe with all our hearts, having been grasped by faith, that we profess openly that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three Persons, one God....

"We firmly believe and explicitly declare that the incarnation of the Divinity did not take place in the Father and the Holy Spirit, but solely in the Son, so that he who was the divine Son of God the Father was also true man from his Mother.

"We believe one Church, Catholic, Holy, Apostolic and Immaculate, apart from which no one can be saved, and in the sacraments therein administered through the invisible and incomprehensible power of the Holy Spirit, sacraments which may be rightly administered by a sinful priest....

"We firmly believe in the judgment to come and in the fact that each man will receive reward or punishment according to what he has done in this flesh. We do not doubt the fact that alms, sacrifice, and other charitable acts are able to be of assistance to those who die.

"And since, according to the Apostle James, faith without works is dead, we have renounced this world and have distributed to the poor all that we possess, according to the will of God, and we have decided that we ourselves should be poor in such a way as not to be careful for the morrow, and to accept from no one gold, silver, or anything else, with the exception of raiment and daily food. We have set before ourselves the objective of fulfilling the Gospel counsels as precepts.

"We believe that anyone in this age who keeps to a proper life, giving alms and doing other good works from his own possessions and observing the precepts from the Lord, can be saved.

"We make this declaration in order that if anyone should come to you affirming that he is one of us, you may know for certain that he is not one of us if he does not profess this same faith." [12]

Sound Baptistic to you?

 

It doesn't matter if you don't consider these sources to be inspired. Actaully, wether or not they are inspired is irrelevant to their use. They are a witness to what early Christians believed and were discussing much like using Pliny the Lessor's view of christianity is a witness to how christians were behaving. Just like using Josephus Histories is a witness to what the Jews were thinking at that time. Just like Philo is a witness to certain Jewishs beliefs in his region. What you find is all witnesses to the early church to include the NT itself show what early christianity was like and it was liturgical and closer to Catholicism than baptist.

 

pretty basic here...

RCC NOT the Church jesus founded, for he builtup the Church, which was all saved by the teaching/preaching of true Gospel, since Rome repudiated that, NOT the true church!

 

So you say . . . .

 

You're still short on your history. You'll not find any baptist documents in the first or second century.

 

Fringe would be the minority. and you are misapplying Matthew 7 as you do most scripture.

 

More proof that the earliest christians practiced baptist doctrines than that jesus founded the RCC!

 

the Chuh jesus founded would teach Apostolic practices/doctrines, RCC does not, cannot be his church!

 

Where is your proof? You keep claiming to have it but don't provide it. Show me your proof. You have none. By having no baptist documents found or baptist like documents found in the 1st two centuries show they didn't exist at that time.

 

First century, the NT churches were administered and operated under the guidelines of the Apostles, so early Church was run as a baptist church would be, as Christ and the Word was prominent, not the "traditions of men"