1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

AV 1611 and the Church of Rome

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by HankD, Oct 16, 2004.

Top Posters
Page 6 of 6
  1. rsr

    rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    11,851
    Likes Received:
    1,084
    Faith:
    Baptist
    "Do you really believe what you wrote about 1 & 2 Esdras? "

    Good catch, gb.

    Only the Protestant Apocrypha includes both books; The Latin Rite canon includes only First Esdras; the Orthodox canon excludes both.
     
    #101 rsr, Oct 16, 2004
  2. michelle

    michelle New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    From the 39 Articles of Religion:

    "The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ."

    Given what we know about the practice of the church, this is self-explanatory
    --------------------------------------------------


    To this, I again reiterate what was posted earlier on this thread:


    --------------------------------------------------
    You are adding to what they have said, based upon your FALSE ASSUMPTIONS to prove your FALSE THEORY AND ORIGIONAL ARGUMENT.

    They clearly state " Young CHILDREN" not "BABIES". Does your church baptize young children when they are saved? What is the age of a young child or to be considered a young child?


    This also states:

    "Baptism is not only a sign of profession".


    Babies CANNOT profess anything and would be contrary to their statements of faith - all of them.

    --------------------------------------------------


    Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
    #102 michelle, Oct 16, 2004
  3. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    HankD
     
    #103 HankD, Oct 16, 2004
  4. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, Michelle, the articles of faith ADD it after they already explained Baptism. There was no need to add that if it only applied to those saved. It would have been obvious regardless of the age. You notice it doesn't say, "Baptism of old men is still accepted practice." :rolleyes:
     
    #104 Phillip, Oct 16, 2004
  5. rsr

    rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    11,851
    Likes Received:
    1,084
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I wish to correct a previous statement about I & II Esdras; from what I can gather, I & II Esdras, to the KJV translators, are what we know as Ezra and Nehemiah.

    Sorry about that. I apologize and should have known better.
     
    #105 rsr, Oct 16, 2004
  6. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    228
    Faith:
    Baptist
    For some unknown reason, certain posts in this thread are unable to be edited. This glitch has already resulted in one entire post being lost. As a result, I have no other recourse than to close this thread due to the fact that the editing feature is malfunctioning. I trust each of you understand.
     
    #106 Pastor_Bob, Oct 16, 2004
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 6 of 6
Loading...