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

I don't doubt your sincerity. However, you are sincerely wrong and ignorant of the Biblical way of salvation. Any who claims that Rome teaches the correct way of salvation and that those who embrace her saramental salvation are saved is completely duped by demons (1 Tim. 4;1) and has absolutely no comprehension of the biblical doctrine of salvation whatsoever.

However, Rome is more consistent than your Lutheranism. You want it both ways - remission of sins in connection with baptism and remission of sins apart from baptism. There is only one gospel, one way of salvation, one Savior and one covenant of eternal redemption. Infants are saved just like others - they are brought to cognance of the gospel as was John the Baptist in the womb without any preconditions. "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

 

Being a calvinist in regarding Sotierology, would agree that cathoics who have been elected by God to receive eternal life in Chrsit are indeed saved, but its NOT due to their RCC doctrines, but in spite of them!

And once saved, need to come out from the midst of that church!

 

There are some plain facts that are intentionally overlooked when it comes to evaluating historical sources.

Roman Catholicism from the fourth century dominated every government in the world of recorded "church history." All others were deemed "heretics" by Rome and the secular arm of government incorporated and applied ecclesiastical laws such as the Laws of Theodosia.

Rome CONTROLLED the selective processes in gathering all historical data for "church history" for nearly the first 1000 years.

Rome has been caught red handed in crafting fake historical sources.

The Post-Nicene Fathers are logically consistent with the Nicene Fathers but how many Protestant historians accept the Post-Nicene Father's and their counsels as authoritative for their own church doctrine and practice??? All other denominations draw a line at some juncture where they totally reject "The Father's" as valid for determining their own denominational doctrine and practice.

Baptists are the only ones consistent which reject all the "Father's" as the carefully selected and preserved history of apostasy by the state church apostacy.

 

I already gave you a URL describing what the Baptist churches at that time were like. That is totally unlike any Catholic church, who loved their liturgy, pomp, arrogance and glory.

All Baptist churches were patterned after apostolic churches. So let's assume for the time being that the apostolic churches were Baptist in faith and practice. Thomas was "The Apostle to India." It is said the Barnabas went with him, in some books. Thomas did a great work there, and many churches were started. In the end Thomas was martyred; a Hindu Brahman thrusting a spear through him. Obviously it wasn't the Roman government that killed Paul and Peter, but it was the religious authorities in Hindu, the highest religious caste in India. Every apostle died of martyrdom except one, John, and he was exiled to the Isle of Patmos.

Baptist churches are independent and don't dare interfere in the affairs of another church. Why should they? They didn't in the NT either. Not one church interfered with the affairs in any other church. The common thread was the Apostle Paul who gave advice as a missionary to the many churches he started. As a missionary I do the same thing. There is no denomination. Paul, in his lifetime, went on three different missionary journeys and established about 100 churches. The most communication we have between any of these is: 1. The sending of greetings to each other, 2. The sending of helpers to one another, 3. The collection of funds at the suggestion of Paul, for the poor in Jerusalem. And that was totally voluntarily, not by force.
Most of the churches had no communication with each other except through Paul. The discipline of the member in 1Cor.5:1-5 was nobody's business but the Corinthian church.

The doctrine is well laid out in the Bible. Why should they discuss it with any other church. They were independent of each other.

Look at the example of Timothy living with Eunice and Lois. They lived in extended families. Perhaps you are not acquainted with that concept. You could have 3 to 4 generations living in one household. They still do in eastern nations. No need to write a letter.

You haven't looked on planet earth. Don't be absurd again. Statements like this are for the trash can.

They are and you can't prove otherwise. The RCC did not even begin until the fourth century. The church flourished in "churches" not in denominations. Normally "churches" don't write their history down. Ours doesn't.

 

RCC: Church traditions and counsels are the tools of the Magisterium to interpret the Scriptures.

Lutheran Church: Church traditions and counsels are the tools of Lutheranism to determin Biblical interpretations.

Baptists: The Scriptures are the tool to interpret the scriptures under the leadership of the Spirit to determine doctrine and practice.

Really not much difference between RCC and Lutheranism but words but much the same in procedure.

 

No one, not even the elect are brought to salvation by a false gospel (2 Thes. 2:13-14). If they are saved, and I do believe many are genuinely saved, they are saved in spite of the false gospel, and they are saved through hearing the Word of God as empowered by the Holy Spirit (1 Thes. 1:4-5).

 

As can be seen from history RCC distinctives were long before the 4th Century and continue to this day a very good argument for their originally being the infant church.

The incarnation was God become flesh! God made us flesh! God interacts with man materially as well as spiritually! And the fact that the church is made up of people and not an etherial consept their existance is not only a fact but evidence of them should be evident through out all ages! Baptist don't have this to fall back on. But the RCC can show its existance in all ages from the times of the apostles.

Oh certainly my reasoning is sound. What is in question is your line of reasoning! You contradict yourself! You yourself said William Carey wrote thousands of articles about his baptist beliefs and faith. Today Baptist are very prolific writers everything from 40 days of every thing from Rick Warren Saddle Back Church to How to make desert loving the Lord cookbook! By your own reasoning both William Carey and the many baptist today are heretics! Since I know you don't believe that then it stands to reason that your reasoning isn't very sound. And since Baptist today and in the not too distance past are very prolific writers then we know that would have been the case in the early church. But we find there is not on MSS fragment that tells us of baptist distinctives, theology, or thought.

And you've read every book of both topics? This is the accusation you through at me about William Carey! So if you can't be consistant in your reason then try accusing with out being hypocritical.

You have proven my point though you don't know it. Cardinal Hosius lumped all heretical sects that baptized people again as Anabaptist or (again baptizers). Not all again baptizers held Anabaptist beliefs. We know this because there is evidence of not only the existance of each of these groups but there exist also their beliefs. We know from Tertullian that he became a Montanist because certain Catholic Clergy were not disciplined in their faith and allowed for certain moral colapses. He felt the Church wasn't strict enough so he became a more strict moralist in the Montanist movement. However, we have their writings and his writings about them. Not only did Montanus included his prophesy equal with scripture and added to scripture his statements but they had a liturgy, celebrated the Eucharist, and said their members should not get married. Are these baptist distinctives? No. So it is with all the other again baptizers. You'll find that none of the groups Hosius mentions hold to all baptist distinctives or all of their theology not even the Anabaptist who's modern day decendants are Amish and Mennonites. Modern day baptist are an amalgamation of different protestant thoughts from the reformation. Which is why the SBC currently is fighting groups within its ranks about whether or not to retain reformed theology leaning churches or not or how to combine the reformed groups to its other groups. So Hosius isn't attesting to what you know as baptist but all groups who again baptize despite Pauls teaching in Ephesians that we are one faith and have one baptism (a very Catholic idea).

I expect them to write "why are you so upset about us believing that we must not get married have prolific sex outside wed lock holding to a gnostic theology that only our spirits can be saved but the material world is evil and suicide is a good thing"... Wait they did write that as we have documents that give witness to them. My time among baptist have revealed to me that these aren't baptist distinctives.

Oh yeah! just add to scripture. Where does it say in Acts of the Apostles that the Church located in Jerusalem was the "Jerusalem First Baptist Church" Or maybe you mean the "Jerusalem Zion Baptist Church" or how about "Jerusalem Camel Back Baptist Church". The church was not baptist there! And we know that in Acts 15 they told the Antioch church what they should believe about gentiles with authority. And not only to Antioch but the other established churches in Turkey! Why because it was a universal church with one faith and one baptism. Note I know many baptist who were baptised half a dozen times. Almost as if they believe it didn't take the first time.

You are clearly misinformed about what is believed about Mary. Catholics don't attribute Omniscience, Omnipotence, or Omnipresence with Mary. They equate those attributes with God alone. The reason Mary is allowed to hear the saints prayer for her to pray for them is because God makes it such that the prayers are brought to her for her to pray and lift them up to God. And since she is outside time/space both time and space do not matter to her but to us. Unlike you Catholics believe that when you leave this temporal life that we still are very much involved in the Kingdom of God making prayers on behalf of those here still struggeling.

Again against Scripture because Jesus mentions that he would build his church not churches.

Jeremiah was an entirely different case. He's talking about them worshiping Ishatar a female deity whom they made star shaped bread in their worship practices. That is the queen of heaven they worshipped. Not one Babylonian prayed to Mary to pray for them. They did pray to Ishtar that by Ishtars power she would grant them stuff. Catholics do not hold that Mary has any power of her own. But that she's disposed to pray for those still struggeling here that God may convert them to Jesus Christ. The queen of heaven the catholics are talking about is the one described in the book of revelation

ie a heavenly queen mother who acts like the queen mother did to Solomon making request on behalf of other people

 

If you sought out and submitted to a Lutheran Minister for baptism then you have publicly identified with the Luthern Ministry. If you sought out and submitted to a Methodist Minister for baptism then you have publicly identified with the Methodist Ministry.

Jesus sought out and submitted to John "The Baptist" and thus not merely identified with the "The Baptist" ministry but perpetuated the very same ministry (Jn. 4:1-2) and identified his own authority with the baptism of John (Mt. 22:25).

The selection of another candidate to fill the church office of Apostle, must be a witness beginning with "the baptism of John" (Acts 1:21-22). The origin of the gospel ministry by the church at Jerusalem is with the baptism John preached (Acts 10:37).

All the members publicly identified with and submitted to the counsel of God, which was the baptism of John (Lk. 7:29-30).

John's name was not "The Baptist" but it is a descriptive noun that defined his message (Jn. 3:36) and his mission (Lk. 1:17b) and his ministry (Jn. 3:29). This is the same message, mission and ministry of the first church at Jerusalem (Mt. 28:19-20) and Paul's ministry (2 Cor. 11:2 "betrothed").

Throughout Roman Catholic selective history those who opposed Rome were called by their enemies as Baptists (CataBAPTISTS; AnaBAPTISTS, etc.).

The great mennonite Reformation scholar Rolland Bainton noted that the Anabaptists complained about the suffix "ana" and preferred to call themselves simply "Baptists."

If a whole church as well as its first Pastor all submitted "The Baptist" ministry of John then they would be "Baptists." However, there were no other denominations to be compared with and so no name was necessary to distinguish them from others. However, they were Baptist in doctrine and practice.

 

Oh Boy! gentlemen, sorry to say but nothing in the world is an end in itself, including Church, priests, pastors, bishops, deacons, elders, popes, laws etc---nothing! Only God is an end: everything else is a means. Only God can save us.

Constant bickering achieves nothing. DHK, instead of argueing why the RCC is incorrect (I would personally say apostate...but thats my opinion) why not attempt to flesh out why ThinkingStuff has doubled back to the Faith of his childhood....what are his reasons. You may find out he was attempting to explore Baptist Christian Theology but was tripped up by a corrupt Pastor. You might find out things about the mans past that needs to be revisited & reevaluated. You & I both know the emotional connections of family members etc. Personally, I think you need to go deeper into it than continual back & forth banter.

And ThinkingStuff needs to really face things head on that I will not go into & perhaps even look with new eyes at ....well I will just say "Stuff"

Both you guys are intelligent people who sincerely are directed at a certain way to both believe & worship, but you are passing each other outa conflict rather than developing a synergistic relationship. Just my observation.

 

How odd ... so your telling me Mennonites & Pennsylvania Dutch are really Baptists?

 

This is really just a pipe dream. The same people that brought error into the church you take the error and make it doctrine. Ludicrous. Look at the churches in the NT itself. No such error exists. The early churches did not practice the RCC heresies. They followed the Bible. Certainly there were heresies and heretics that abounded with their writings. Why should we trust them? They are not supported by the Word of God, and yet this is what you want to premise your teaching on.

We are spiritually beings. If the flesh remains flesh, and is not born from above then you have that which is carnal, evil, wicked, and of Satan; exactly what you describe. Spiritual churches are run by spiritual men that are composed of spiritual members, people who have been indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God, and live according to His Spirit. You will find those churches vastly different than the ones labeled with the RCC title. If you are not born again by the Spirit of God (not baptism) you will never understand.

William Carey was the founder of the modern day missionary movement of the Baptists. He was opposed by Catholics and Anglicans alike, as well as the government of India, India being a protectorate of the Commonwealth of Great Britain. Carey found opposition even there. It is not that books were not written. Bibles were not in the hands of the common person. The RCC would never do that for the common person. They are against that. They believe it is anathema. They burned the Bibles of William Tyndale, if you remember. They even purchased them in order to burn them. Carey was a prolific writer, but a writer of evangelic material, not Catholic literature. Being a Baptist, a Baptist that started a college, and a scholar himself, he no doubt would have researched with no bias the true Biblical history of the evangelicals in India from the time of Thomas onward.

Carey was in India, at a much later date than the Ryland's manuscript. Other history attests to Baptist history much earlier than Carey.

I have never made the claim and never will make a claim that says that I have read ALL the books on either subject. But I have been to: libraries, studied at a secular college and both Christian colleges and a University. It is easy to ascertain that far more books have been written on the subject on evolution than Creation. Even a google search will tell you that.

The more you write the more you prove my point but not knowing it. You regard baptismal regeneration as truth. It is a heresy of the utmost poison. You believe to be "baptized again" is a heresy. They didn't have any other choice if they were true believers. Those truths which we consider biblical you consider heresy. You believe "new birth = baptism." That is another heresy. And on and on we go. And so you label these groups as heretical because they don't line up with RCC doctrine, when in truth they line up with Biblical doctrine.

There was a great variety of "anabaptists." It is true that some were heretics, such as "Mormons" which would be classed in the same category. The RCC would have taken groups like this and smeared every group with the same heresy. Their revisionist type of history is known for such smear campaigns.

Again, I believe you have distorted the Montanist's beliefs. You make them fit into RCC beliefs, when on the other side of your forked tongue you previously called them heretics.

Your lack of Baptist knowledge is astounding. First no Baptist claims that all Baptists adhere strictly to all Baptist distinctives. We are independent. Being independent we vary from church to church. Is that not evident to you even from your own observation on this board? No ancient Baptist is going to match up with all distinctives of modern day baptists. How close are they going to be? That is the question that we ask ourselves?

Even Hosius admits it was far before that. He just refers to them as heretics because they didn't hold to RCC doctrine, Duh!

Calvinism, although can be divisive, doesn't have to be. It really is a minor issue. It is we (Baptists) that allow among ourselves to major on the minors and minor on the majors. It isn't such a big deal. In England the same controversy was traced back to the General Baptists and the Particular Baptists. And that was centuries ago. Both were Baptists.

 

You have been brainwashed. If you read carefully 1Cor.7 and understand the last few verses, why Paul was giving advice for the single to remain single, then you will have your answers. But you need to understand the context, especially the historical context of the times.

They were Baptist because they were baptist in doctrine, not Catholic.
I know of a girl that was baptized about four different times too. The first time she was baptized because it was under pressure of a well meaning Sunday School teacher. The second time it was to please her parents. The third time it was to please her pastor. It wasn't until the fourth time that her profession in Christ had become real and genuine and that she had actually trusted Christ. Then, after that confession her baptism was accepted as genuine. You see, a baptism isn't a baptism unless the person is genuinely saved. Thus the first three don't count. One must "believe" and be baptized.

Your Gnosticism allows you to believe such. The Bible doesn't teach it; but your Gnostic knowledge has revealed it to you.

Pure Gnosticism without Biblical support. Actually it comes from pagan practices.

The word "ekklesia" is a singular word used in a generic sense to represent many.

There is no deity in the RCC that is worshiped any more than Mary.

Mary is also known as the "Queen of Heaven" in many of the RCC prayers.

They hold that she has great power. That is why they pray to her. They ask her to intercede for them in order that she might go to Christ for them. Are they afraid to go to Christ directly?? He alone is our Great Intercessor.

Mary nor anyone else can convert an unsaved person to Jesus Christ. They must come on their own. It is the Holy Spirit working through the Word of God that they come to Christ. Mary has no part or parcel in their conversion. What pagan religion do you get this from?

That queen of heaven doesn't make request for anyone, but is persecuted by the dragon, helped by the earth in the end, and only a small remnant is saved. It describes true Biblical Christianity who are a minority in every nation, persecuted by the RCC, the dragon.

 

Church history is decidedly on your side.

 

I think you need to reread what I said. I simply stated that a Mennonite scholare admitted that 16th century evangelical Anabaptists preferred to call themselves simply "Baptists." That is all I said and that is all Bainton admitted to.