I posted this on another thread but I think it might be better addressed here?
I think you will find that some of the Baptists on this board admit that there is no evidence of their position in the Early Church. Some believe that the Catholic Church destroyed all historical evidence of the 'True Believers'. Others admit that there is evidence that baptismal regeneration was believed at the earliest of times but that is because it was one of the first 'heresies' to crop up. I have always wondered if it were thought to be a heresy and a controversy, why no evidence of any debate about it. There sure is evidence of heresies (Against Heresies-St. Iraneus) and I just don't understand why 'baptismal regeneration' was never challenged. Maybe it was and I just haven't heard about it?
Is there any historical evidence for the Baptist position on Baptism?
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Wittenberger, Jul 21, 2012.
Page 2 of 15
-
-
There is plenty of historical evidence regarding other heresies, for instance the Arians.
If infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, were a new doctrine, introduced to the Christian faith, by "Catholic" heretics, then why isn't there any record of it? It would have created a huge controversy in the Church. But yet, no evidence exists of such a controversy.
I am still waiting for one shred of historical evidence that the Baptist position on Baptism existed in the first few centuries, or for that matter, the first 1,000 years, after Christ's death. -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Tradition says Thomas preached in India but I would seriously doubt that he introduced 7 sacraments and infant baptism to any church he may have started. I don't believe that Thomas would have been preaching the gospel of Rome. The Roman Catholic Church did not come into existence until way after Thomas was dead and gone. -
As for the Catholic Church, it came into existence on the day of Pentecost. This is a truth that Baptists must distort or their doctrine collapses. -
-
-
Jesus said "upon this Petra I will build my Church." Had He said, 'upon this Petros I will build my Church', you might have valid cause to say that the Church was built on Peter, but He did not.
Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter,(Petros) and upon this rock (Petra) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. -
Before we get too far off topic let's remember what the question is in this thread: Is there any historical evidence for the Baptist position on Baptism? If the "true" Christians have always believed the same as the Baptists on this issue, there should be some letter, some document, some tombstone, some catacomb inscription which gives historical support.
As for which denomination I believe holds the true doctrines of the Faith: of course I believe it is the Lutheran Church or else I would be attending somewhere else.
Martin Luther was not trying to create a new denomination when he posted the 95 Thesis on the door of his Wittenberg church. He just wanted to correct some of the abuses in the Church. Pope Leo X excommunicated him, so he was forced to start his own denomination.
Luther's beliefs were not new. They were based on the Bible and on the teachings of the early Church fathers: salvation is by faith alone, in Christ alone. Good works such as being a monk, flogging yourself, crawling on bloody knees up church steps do not earn you God's favor. Salvation is a free gift. Salvation comes through the power of the Word of God alone.
Neither does salvation come by a sinner making a free will "decision for Christ", "accepting Christ", or asking Christ "into your heart".
God's does all the action of salvation: "Believe, repent, be baptized." None of those actions save the sinner. God alone saves the sinner.
For more details go to: http://www.lutherwasnotbornagain.com -
"Is there any historical evidence for the Baptist position on Baptism? If the "true" Christians have always believed the same as the Baptists on this issue, there should be some letter, some document, some tombstone, some catacomb inscription which gives historical support."
There is no need for a historical evidence to believe in, or try to rely on. The evidence can be found in the words of Jesus. It is a spiritual evidence, His word is spirit. -
The only "historical" evidence for the Baptist position on baptism IS Scripture. Check out Matthew 3:13-17 and Mark 1:9-10.
Baptism has never, nor will it ever, save anyone. -
Baptizing in the New Testament was immersion in the water. The Greek word used is 'baptizo', which means 'immersion, submerging".
There is an entirely different Greek word used for sprinkling, the word 'rhantizo'
Jesus was not sprinkled, He was immersed.
John had need of immersion.
Paul immersed the few he baptized. -
That is the point, you do not need historical, you need spiritual.
-
The CAC is the communion I founded. People try to pigeonhole me into this group or that, but it doesn't work. http://celtic-anabaptist-ministries.com/ -
Page 2 of 15