Featured Why do Mormons and Baptists deny the need for historical evidence?

My oh my, where do I begin with this mess?? He did NOT follow any Jewish Traditions that were contrary to Biblical precepts and principles. What you cited are not Jewish "traditions" but scriptural precepts and principles. Jesus constantly and repeatedly violated the Jewish traditions for Sabbath keeping.

You do not understand that Apostolic "traditions" were simply inspired teaching handed down by men who were also prophets and later committed to writing as scripture.

The Ante, Nicene, Post-Nicene are not inspired writings by prophets but are like the oral traditions of the Jewish "elders" which were later written down as the "Mishnah." Apples verus oranges. You are one confused individual.

 

Baptists believe the Bible is totally sufficient in and of itself for all doctrine and practice (2 Tim. 3:16-17) and is the written summation and completion of all previous inspired oral tradition (Isa. 8:16-18). Everything that does not harmonize with written scriptures is to be rejected and everything that is merely repetitive is unnecessary.

Therefore, we believe it is sufficient to interpret post-Biblical uninspired, incomplete, and more often incorrect so-called "church history." The New Testament provides prophetic principles to evaluate all post-Biblical opinions, as well as, predicts and provides characteristics of post-Biblical apostate Christianity.

Rome and Reformed Rome fits the prophetic scriptural characteristics of apostate Christianity and that is why we not merely reject but characterize the whole "Father's" as records of apostasy. We do so by an INSPIRED basis - the scriptures.

 

Every time you say or even come close to saying "there is no evidence," it is a pretty close call to omniscience. There is no possible way that you can even come close to finding ALL existing evidence, let alone all past evidence. Be realistic about this please.

EACH of these writings! ALL of these writings!
He gave away thousands. There were thousands printed.

http://baptisthistoryhomepage.com/carey.william.html

It is an opinion, one of the most humorous that I have read yet :laugh:

You quote something (a prayer from one small MSS, Ryland's).
There are over 5,000 MSS supporting the NT. 5,000! And those are MSS (including Ryland's) which give credence to the accuracy of the NT.

Now, I am sure that among all that literature you can find many (Baptist-like) prayers to God through Christ. Your argument really isn't worth posting. It proves that there was heresy at that time, which is a shame. Bible believers every where prayed to God through Christ, of which I am sure there is ample evidence.

 

The goofiest Baptist tradition is the ban on drinking alcohol.

100 years ago "Christian" Sunday traditions were as goofy as Jewish Sabbath traditions. The goofiest might be calling Sunday, the Sabbath." Followed by not allowing children to play games on Sunday.

 

If there had been a Greek text or Fragment supporting baptist doctrine it would have been world news. It would have been researched and there would have been papers writen about it. But no. There is nothing like that.

Each writing inlcudes all writings. And they document the fact that in 1793 William Carey the plodding missionary went to India. That is evidence that he was there in India in the 18th Century. There is no similar such evidence found of baptist going anywhere during the early centuries of the Church.

Its not an opinion. Its a fact there is a papyrus fragment that dates back to 250 AD and 280 AD using the term Theotokos in reference to Mary. Laugh all you want but like the fragment at qumran were verified so is this fragment. No such Fragments exist for baptist.

Yes and it proves people were calling Mary theotokos (at least in egypt) in the 3rd Century!

Yes thats true and I haven't denied that. Good thing the Catholic Church maintained its scriptures!

Now you are trying to be funny. You will quote psalms a prayer by David and say that is a Baptist like prayer. Unfortunately for you it is a Catholic like prayer as well. You will not find a MSS indentifying Baptist distinctives and systematic theology. You do find it among the Catholics/Orthodox.

 

Wittenberger - The First Reformation occurred when the Bishop of Rome split from the Orthodox Catholic Church. Augustine and those of his era were not "Catholics." The Catholic Church conveniently forgets to remember this. A fragment from 350 is pre-Catholic.

 

Your whole line of reasoning is funny, or more accurately absurd. I can't believe that you are unable to see what you are doing.

All that you have documented is the beginning of the heresy of Mariolatry. That is not exclusive to the RCC. Others practiced it too. It is a pagan practice. As I have continued to maintain most heresies entered into Christianity via the ECF. Thus this one small MSS does not justify anything but the beginning of one of many heresies, one that is not exclusive to the RCC.

But prayers to God and Christ abound in early literature. That cannot be denied.

 

With this assertion, the thief on the cross went to hell and Christ lied to Him.

Wittnenberger, you have provoked me to think, and I appreciate that. However, your persistent demand for evidence on everything seems to reflect a lack of faith. I'm not saying we should blindly swallow everything. The Berean Christians are evidence of otherwise, yet it was the Scripture they searched not secular teachings.

 

I have other matters that are more important than debating on this forum.

I do not know where you get the silly notion that Baptists interpret scriptures by feelings??? Baptists as a people have never interpreted scriptures by feelings, especially, in comparison to the Mormon and a "burning in the breast" kind of idea!

You have been presented with Apostolic intepretation of external rites used in the Old Testament (Heb. 10:1-4; Col. 2:16-18). You have been presented with how Christ interpreted "for cleansing" or what was the purpose of making a ceremonial offering (Lk. 5:12-15). You have been presented how Peter interpreted how Old Testament saints obtained literal remission of sins (Acts 10:43). You have been presented how Paul interpreted circumcision in the case of Abraham which he says is the example for ALL WHO ARE OF OF FAITH - Rom. 4:11. You have been presented with Jeremiah's intepretation of ALL who are saved under the New Covenant which is confirmed by the writer of hebrews (Jer. 31:34; Heb. 8). You have rejected the plain statements of these Old and New Testament Prophets and insisted that external rites are involved in the LITERAL remission of sins when these scriptures plainly deny such a thing. Your mind has been corrupted by traditions of men so that you are unable and/or unwilling to accept the plain teachings of the scriptures.

From the very beginning God designed the "sign" of external rites to be accompanied by the language of redemption simply because the purpose of a "sign" is to convey that truth. However, from the begining God never designed "the sign" to particpate in the literal remission of sins, literal atonement, literal salvation but as in Abraham the rule for ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH has been literal salvation PRECEDES symbolic salvation as presented in the "sign" rites.

All of these are clear precepts and provide a clear understanding how God intended the ceremonial offerings to be received and understood. Instead, you have adopted the Phariseeical PRINCIPLE found in the interpretation of circumcision and ceremonial ordinances (Acts 15:2) which adoption is recorded first in the New Testament (Acts 15:2) where the external sign is demanded to obtain the literal and then this error has a Post-New Testament recorded history in the Nicene fathers.

 

The scriptures know of no such thing! Either universal visible or universal invisible. The earliest use of the term "catholic" simply conveyed one of two things:

1. Not confined to one race as opposed to Judaism but a commission to all nations.

2. One universally recognized apostolic kind of church with the same faith and doctrine.

In the writings of the "Apostolic Fathers" each congregation was called "the catholic church" in regard to both senses above but never a universal church with a centralized government. When Augustine debated the Donatists there were nearly 900 bishops and not one argued for an INVISIBLE church of any kind and when Augustine set forth the notion of a VISIBLE universal church he was charged with belieiving in TWO different kinds of churches and Rome and Reformed Rome has been unsuccessfully trying to answer that charge ever since. The 16th century Anabaptists made the exact same charge against Luthern's "invisible" church he invented to escape being unchurched by Rome.

The kind of church Jesus introduces in Matthew 16:18 is the very same kind he continues to talk about the next 22 times he uses that term thereafter - local visible assemblies who are one in kind and one in doctrine and practice.

 

You come on here and lump Baptist and evangelicals with Mormons. That is an insult.

You, being a Lutheran, are supposed to believe in the primacy of scripture, but you are taking the RC position and making tradition equal with scripture.

I have said this before, and I'll say it again: What do you do when tradition contradicts scripture? Which do you choose?

You say that Baptists and evangelicals have no historical evidence for their positions; they say you have no scriptural evidence for yours. An impasse? Hardly -- if you believe in the primacy of scripture. Baptists and evangelicals do; you obviously do not. I suggest you are in the wrong denomination; you should go on over to Rome since you want to make an idol of tradition and make it equal with scripture. Therefore, you are the one spouting false doctrine and betraying your own denomination's professed belief in the primacy of scripture.

 

Those whom Rome condemned as "heretics" were called "anabaptists" who practiced immersion of believers. Eastern Orthodox Catholocism argues for the historicity of immersion. Those labled "Anabaptists" practiced immersion.

There is absolutely no evidence of infant baptism in the so-called "Apostolic fathers" and there is no evidence that anything but immersion was practiced. That leaves only the practice of believers immersion during the period of the apostolic fathers. Infant baptism was a slow gradual adaption by apostate churches. Baptismal regeneration was the earliest error to creep in.

 

Is the Bible not a valid authority?

 

How would you explain the salvation of the thief then? He obviously was not baptized after he believed.