Is there any historical evidence for the Baptist position on Baptism?

Horse poop! You have been spanking that monkey ever since post #78 which is well before the OP attempted once again to bring the discussion back on track here in post #97 so don't give me that garbage. It wasn't until post #111 that the OP finally gave in to attrition and agreed to debate the topic from scripture. It's clear that you cannot even keep up with your own spew.

First... I didn't call you a nit whit... I said that your post was "nit whit garbage." You inferred that as a personal attack.

Second... Don't start whining about someone personally attacking you as you are the master of the ad hominem attack. I can't count the times (well actually I can, but its a complete waste of my time) that you have called myself and others here:

A liar
A deceiver
A blasphemer...

So Doc don't come at me with that attitude. It only makes you look... well... like you. :cool:

WM

 

Really? You have refuted Baptism as per the original OP by quoting Catholic sources that cover the first 300 years of the Church? As I said before - I doubt it.

WM

 

What people often fail to see is that within the Catholic Church there are many discenters from the faith trying very hard to ruin the church. In the ancient world they where known as gnostics, Montanist, Arians, etc... Today they still call themselves Catholic but certainly don't follow its teachings in the guise of being Catholics. Even Bishops and Arch-Bishops. Its called the liberal element. They got some traction during the Vatican II council which wasn't a dogmatic council but a pastoral one by using the line "in the spirit of Vatican II" this nebulous phrase was the key word to change hard teaching into nebulous teachings. Some priest joined forces with Budhist, others supported the immorality of Contraception and so on and so forth. Others decried the validity of Scriptures of which John Crossan was a priest for many years before leaving the Church and starting the Jesus Seminar. So many protestants turn to these self proclaimed Catholics (which really aren't) by quoting their works as if they were authoritative. They are not. Currently Benedict is attempt to reduce their influence by dismissing Bishops and other clergy by bringing in Orthodox clergy and re-asserting the faith. People like Nancy Pelosi and Catherine Sebalius don't like it. Too bad. They should just admit they're not Catholic.

 

Yet Jesus does exactly that. Do you want to know the truth? When you physically die in Christ you aren't dead. You are alive in Christ! And being in Christ you participate in his Kingdom and pray for those of us here. And all things are done through God to those who are in him while in the body or away from it.

 

Wha...What? I see my wife and I have a vision of beauty. Its really her I'm talking about! I really saw her not some phantom. Moses and Elijah were both there with Jesus. Peter wasn't having a halucination! Which is why he wanted to set up three alters.

So Jesus gave them a time machine vision? Man this is what happens when the only authority you have is your ability to interpret scripture. They spoke to Jesus about his upcoming sacrifice. So it was a present event clearly indicating they knew what was going on.

Prayer is a vehicle of communication as in "pray tell" it can be used for worship but that is not its only purpose. Bowing for instance can be used to worship it can also be a greeting.

 

No, but what I am saying is that apostasy had its roots within the latter half of the first century and it can be evidently seen in the seven churches of Asia.

No, you apparently do not believe the Waldensian historians and their own history. Apparently you believe Rome's view of Waldensian history. The Waldensesians claim they originate at the time of Constantine and trace themselves through the Paulicians, Albigensians.

Try reading Baptist Church Perpetutity by W.A. Jarrell, The History of Baptists by Thomas Armitage, A History of Baptists by J.T. Christian, Contending for the Faith by Robert Ashcraft and I could name a dozen more Baptist history books.

No, they left a trail of blood. Within Catholic controlled history there is evidence of their existence as they were characteristically called Anabaptists and then certain individuals (Montanus, Donatus, etc.) were used to characterize the whole movements.

No, I am saying the evidence was tampered with, and whole movements were slandered by the personal characterization of single individuals. The history shows contradictions in these whole sale characterizations.

The historians I previously referred you to provide the data.

There is no Biblical evidence (precepts or examples) of infant baptism. Those texts used by pedobaptists to INFER such are either DRY passages or passages based upon circumcision under the Old Covenant.

 

Since this OP is concerned about Roman Catholic history, I will open up a thread for our debate entitled "The Baptism debate."

 

Very good. I will go to your new thread to discuss "Baptism".

Just curious, though, if Baptists believe that the Church was apostate so early, and the participants of the Nicene Council were apostate, how can Baptists have any confidence in the Canon of the Bible?

The Canon came about by the Bishops of the major churches (Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Rome) coming to an understanding and acceptance of the current Canon. If these Bishops were all apostate, then your Bible cannot be read confidently as inspired Holy Scripture.

But, that is a topic for another thread.

 

The canon of scriptures was completed prior to Marcion and "from the beginning" in the first century according to Tertullian.

"Now, what is there in our Scriptures which is contrary to us? What of our own have we introduced, that we should have to take it away again, or else add to it, or alter it, in order to restore to its natural soundness anything which is contrary to us, and contained in the Scriptures? What we are ourselves, that also the Scriptures are (and have been) from the beginning? Of them we have our being, before there was any other way, before they were interpolated by you. Now, inasmuch as all interpoliation must be believed to be a later process, for the express reason that it proceeds from rivalry which is never in any case previous to nor home-born with which it emulates, it is incredible to every man of sense that we should seem to have introduced any corrupt text into the Scriptures, existing, as we have been, FROM THE VERY FIRST, and BEING THE FIRST, as it is that they have not in fact introduced it, who are both later in date and opposed (to the Scriptures). One man perverts the Scriptures with his hand, another their meaning by his exposition. For although Valentinus seems to use THE ENTIRE VOLUME, he has none the less laid violent hands on the truth only with a more cunning mind and skill than Marcion.- The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. III, "On Prscription againsst Heretics", Chapter XXXVIII, pp. 261-262

He claims that the "WHOLE VOLUME" had been with them from "the beginning" and they could neither subtract or add to it. The apostolic churches had copies of all the New Testament letters and circulated them (Col. 4:16). From the time of the death of Peter and Paul there was fifty years for the churches to compile copies and the apostle John was alive during that period and very capable of discerning and advising the churches as to all the gospels, Acts, Pauline Epistles, Peter's epistles, James and all other epistles written prior to his final epistles and revelation - all of which Tertullian mentions and includes.

 

Poor argument here is why. In this quote from Tertullian we do not see what scriptures are listed. Certainly when Jesus refered to scriptures he meant the Old Testament and not the New Testament. So do some of the letters of Paul as he referred to the Old Testament as scriptures this is what he praised the Boreans for. He didn't praise them for searching out the Gospels or the book of Revelation. And even when we see Tertullians writings when he refers to scriptures which books are he considering? The earliest list of all the NT books as scripture which we now have comes from Athenasius who lived after Turtullian. Canon seemed pretty fluid. Just considering the OT for instance which books are considered as Canon by Tertullian? Just the current Jewish Canon or the LXX? If the LXX then which Declension? Hermas was considered scripture by certain churches so were other texts. So Tertullian when mentioning Scripture may not have had the current biblical list. Afterall the autographs didn't have included a table of contents.

 

Bunk!
Christ alone has a mediatorial office and is able to intercede for the saints on earth as he sits on the right hand of the Father. Read Hebrews 4:14-16. There is no other person in heaven or earth that has such a ministry.

Those in heaven have not "been resurrected." They are spirit beings. Christ has his body. There is no evidence that any of them can see anything happening on this earth. To assume such is just that, a great assumption by blind faith--no basis in fact. The degree of faith that it takes to believe that the saints of heaven see and intercede for believers on earth is the equivalent to the Muslims' faith who strap bombs on themselves "believing" that they will go to paradise. Both have blind faith. They have no basis for what they believe.

Do you want to know the truth? Stick to the truth of the Bible and not TS's wild speculations that are not founded on the Word of God.

 

Bunk! It is a marvelous well precisioned argument that asserts that the "whole volume" which was received "from the beginning" could NOT be ADDED or SUBTRACTED from by apostolic churches or heretics. That is a FINISHED canon of scriptures.

Tertullian could not deny that apostolic churches can add to that "volume" if there were more to be added.

 

ARGUMENT ONE: What of our own have we introduced, that we should have to take it away again, or else add to it, or alter it, in order to restore to its natural soundness anything which is contrary to us, and contained in the Scriptures?

He denies "we" should either take away or add to "the scriptures" which he later calls "the whole volume."

ARGUMENT TWO: What we are ourselves, that also the Scriptures are (and have been) from the beginning?

Here he denies the Roman Catholic contention that there was not a complete canon from the beginning. He asserts the scriptures have been solid "from the beginning" right up to his time period. He asserts it was the heretics that denied the book of Revelation (pp. 350-351) and Peter's epistles. He quotes from every book in the New Testament but second and third John and Jude but that is no proof he denied them or questioned them. Irenaeus before him quoted from first and second John and Jude. Hence, they must have been included in "the whole volume" which they possessed "from the beginning" as he denies "we" apostolic Christianity has ever subtracted or added from that volume they possessed since "the beginning."

ARGUMENT THREE: For although Valentinus seems to use THE ENTIRE VOLUME, he has none the less laid violent hands on the truth only with a more cunning mind and skill than Marcion

He equates "the scriptures" with "the whole volume" or an accepted canon of scriptures that preceded both Valentinus and Marcion which was according to Tertullian with the apostolic churches "from the beginning."

 

You attack and blaspheme God in the most obscene and ungodly ways. This is totally unwarranted.
God doesn't "screw up." Are you even saved? Why would you even suggest such a thing? We are not as divided as you think. If you dig a bit you will find a lot of factions both in the RCC and in the Lutheran churches. Baptists are evangelical and agree on the gospel, as do most evangelical churches. Their polity is the same. The things you point out are quite minor.

Because we are not made into mindless automatons like the RCC has made their members, like Jim Jones had made his, like the Mormons, J.W.'s and every other cult. We use the Bible, think for ourselves, and believe in soul liberty--the right for every individual to THINK and BELIEVE what he believes the Lord is teaching him. We are not force-fed by man made doctrine created mostly by unsaved individuals.

How do you define this or that. It seems you don't have much knowledge of Baptist polity so you really should be quiet about those things you don't know much about.

That doesn't happen.

That is an ungodly exaggeration which in all my years of service has never taken place, and does not take place. The pastor is the appointed overseer of the church. The deacons are servants.

You were a teenager and probably didn't know what was going on. Your immature outlook on things was biased. You no doubt didn't have all the facts. You weren't a member of the deacon board, if indeed they had one. Most of the churches I know of don't have a "board" of deacons--deacons, but no board. You hadn't been to Bible College. You lacked understanding in many things. At the age of 18 you considered yourself a know-it-all in church matters. I can appreciate your insight. :rolleyes:

You obviously don't know what you are talking about with your countless years of experience.

We can tell. Ignorance is bliss.

You mean like:
Origen, the father of Arianism, who the RCC declared as a heretic.
Ireneus, that believed Christ lived til the age of 80,
Tertullian who changed his views on baptism, and eventually joined the Montanists.
And many of the others, from whom most of the early errors of the church entered in.

Apostate, no. Prone to error, yes. Did many of them err in doctrine? Yes.

It erred slowly. As far as the inception of a state church or the RCC it began at the beginning of the fourth century when Constantine married Christianity to the state. Christianity became paganized, and paganism became Christianized. Before that time there was no "church," only "churches." The word ekklesia means "assembly," and that is what they were, "assemblies" scattered throughout the known world.

That is right. The Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine. It is the first and perhaps most important Baptist distinctive. It is shown to be true throughout the pages of Scripture. The Scripture was used to teach the people, not the Church Fathers.

The Ethiopian Eunuch was traveling reading the Book of Isaiah. Philip came alongside and asked him, "Do you understand what you are reading." The Eunuch answered, "How can I understand unless someone shows me?" "Then Philip began at the same scripture, and preached to him Jesus."
We operate the same way. We expound the Scriptures, as Philip did.

No two men agree 100% on everything. If they did then it would be the blind leading the blind just like you have in the RCC.

 

That last sentence destroys your entire premise... you have no way of knowing what the THE ENTIRE VOLUME actually was. It's simply all speculation on your part. Besides it wasn't until the Church Councils in the 4th century that the matter was settled once and for all.

WM

 

Again a poor retort! The bible didn't become a singular volume until long after Tertullian. It is clear from the early writings that what was considered "scripture" was somewhat fluid. Certain things were never fluid like the four gospels. However, the other New Testiment books were often disputed and the New Testament developed over time. Even upon the final autograph of the book of Revelation was complete the New Testament canon was not established as canon. Disputes about canon often errupted over what was scripture. Note the Apostles themselves did not did not leave a defined set of scriptures. Certainly writings attributed circulated among the churches but so did other letters like Hermas. Scriptures as a whole wasn't canonized until the council of Carthage in 419. However an earlier date of 393 at the Council of Hippo as Augustine already considered the canon closed in the later synod of 419. We can see with the writings of Athenasius that though he held to the 27 books of the NT his OT canon differes from modern protestant bibles. We know the canon was fluid before this because of the Muratorian fragment which is copied from an earlier greek text that was probably penned around 170 AD ignores from its list of NT books Hebrews, 1&2 Peter, and James which means Tertullian, Born in 160 AD may indeed have had a different collection of books he considered scripture and is refering to them rather than your collection of scrpture.

 

That dosen't change the fact that while he was walking the earth before his death and resurrection he spoke with Moses, who had died centuries earlier, in front of 3 Apostles. He communicated with them.

Still doesn't change that fact and we can see in the Book of Revelation the Elders bringing the prayers of the saints before God.

It is clear from the passage that Moses and Elijah was speaking to Jesus about his comming trials.

So it certainly is clear that they knew what was going on.

 

And the resurrection still had not taken place. Samuel also had appeared to Saul. And the resurrection still had not taken place. God granted a special dispensation in each case to manifest his glory to certain individuals in history. Peter speaks of this experience and then makes a startling statement:

2 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
--We were eyewitnesses of power and coming and majesty of Jesus Christ. This is true. It is not something he is making up. It is not a cunningly devised fable. He is an eyewitness of this.

2 Peter 1:17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
--He saw that it was Christ that received the honor and glory from the Father. And he heard the voice from heaven from the Father, "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.

2 Peter 1:18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
--And to make no mistake he tells which event he is referring to--the transfiguration of Christ in the holy mount.
--This is an experience that he would never forget, that James and John would never forget, that any man would have had the same privilege would never forget. It is the most wonderful amazing experience that anyone could ever have--to see Jesus glorified, and Moses and Elijah standing with him in some kind of celestial body, but not a resurrected body.

But then Peter makes the most amazing statement:
2 Peter 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
--We have a more sure word of prophecy.
Greater than any experience then I have had, then you or I may ever have, is this book, the Bible. It is more certain. It is inspired of God. Its promises are sure and certain. He elevates the Word of God above his experience on the Mount.
God allowed these men to appear to others in special circumstances. It does not mean that they can see what is happening on earth. It does not say even there that they could see all what was happening on earth. In fact we would assume they could not. They appeared only before James, John and Peter, as the text says.

There are three times where such a scene is mentioned (actually twice).
Revelation 5:8; 8:3,4.
In the first scene the 24 elders offer incense.

Revelation 5:8 And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.
9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;
"bowls full of incenses" (Darby's translation)
--They did not offer prayer, they offered incense which is representative of prayer. Christ alone is the one who plays the part of mediator as the Bible specifically says. One cannot go against what the Bible says.
As the scene plays out, the 24 elders are primarily engaged in the worship of the Lamb. Read verse 9.

In the second scene, it is angels:
Revelation 8:3 And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne.
Revelation 8:4 And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel's hand.
--Again incense is offered, this time it is by angels. The incense is representative of prayers, but is not the prayers itself.

Luke 1:10 And the whole multitude of the people were praying without at the time of incense.
--When the priest offered incense, it was a time of prayer. It is all very symbolic.

 

Which proves my point. BTW people were resurrected long before Jesus' resurrection. Think of Elijah and the widow's son for instance in 1 Kings 17:17-24 . Jesus still spoke with Moses and Elijah. And the Elders in Heaven bring the prayers of the Saints before God.

"Are" does not mean representative.

 

Jesus was the first fruits of the resurrection! NONE were resurrected before Him, in the sens e they all died a physical death again, while he lives on forever in a glorified state!