MARKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH

I love my heros, and from two of them I got two leads as to the marks or sign of the true NT Church. First is Karl Barth who said that Christianity that not totally and unreservedly is eschatology, totally and unreservedly has nothing to do with Christ! The second is Juergen Moltmann who said that Christian Faith that is not Resurrection Faith, is neither Christian, nor faith!
And then - last but first - is John, and Jesus, and Paul, who all esteemed the suffering of the saints - for Jesus' sake - their most precious Distinctive.
What Sabbath Day does my Church believe, measured against these three criteria?

 

Baptism is not a sign of the NT Church; it was a sign of the FOUNDERS of the NT Church. The RCC held on to the rite of baptism because it held on to Apostolic succession.
The only incidence of Congregational baptism was that Sabbath Day when Paul baptised Lydia. All other cases of Apostles baptising new believers were isolated and individual - at most per private household. On ANY day - which shows it was executed not in Church-keeping circumstances. Baptism like the other "signs" the Holy Spirit "gave" the first planters of the Christian Faith, was a "sign" or "mark" for THEM, and them only. It no longer is a requirement to be a member or to become a member of the Church. That initiatory prerogative belonged to the Apostles and to no successors.

 

To make myself clear I must add that in the above I supposed "baptism", 'with water' /'in water'.
The baptism of Jesus - which is the new birth and gift of faith by the power of the Holy Spirit - of course today is as much a prerequisite to be a true member of the NT Church as it had been in the time of the Apostles.

 

John3v36
You' might have to.

link
1 basically credits the Waldenses as proto-baptists
2 doesn't work

Still looking into 3+4

 

Link 3 quotes Alexander Hislop, which is a big strike against it. It claims the RCC got it's start in the early 4th century, that's about 7 centuries to early.
On top of that it's completely irrelevant. It talks aboute the state church of the Roman empire, I already believe that it was around at the time. I asked about some proof about the mythical trail of churches that supposedly existed completely seperated from the state church of the Roman empire.

Link 4 confuses Waldenses, Albigenses and followers of the ideas of Berengarius of Tours. Anyways Berengarius started out as a member of the RCC. He is a proto-reformer not part of some church fully seperate of the RCC.

 

Why does 2 not work?

 

Why does 2 not work? </font>[/QUOTE]would the following work?

http://www.baptistpage.org/Distinctives/Trail_of_Blood.html

 

Quoting John3v36, Dec 17 04,
8. Its work--getting folks saved, baptizing them (with a baptism that meets all the requirements of God's Word), teaching them ("to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you"). (Matt. 28:16-20)
Says John of Jesus' baptism and his own, "I baptise WITH WATER, but there standeth (Jesus) ... that HE should be made manifest ... therefore am I come to baptise with water ... the SAME (Jesus) is He which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
There's just one baptism that "meets all the requirements of God's Word Jesus Christ: It is the baptism executed by HIM unto the regeneration of the sinner through the operation of the Holy Spirit. It is the ONLY baptism the Church should believe, teach and practice through the proclamation of HIM.

 

"Why does 2 not work? "
"
The 4 times I clicked on it, all I got was an error message.

 

"would the following work?"
"
The first quote put forth on that link as evidence of a trail of churches fully seperate from Catholicism/Orthodoxy (the cardinal Hosius one) is a wellknown forgery. So no.

 

To confuse Waldenses and Cathars is indeed a grave error.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

mioque

your going to thought out a complet book because you think it has one thing wrong with it and you give no proof that that one thing is wrong?!?!

 

Yes, big enough mistake.

The Waldenses started out as a movement within the RCC not unlike the followers of St. Franciscus of Assisi.
If an author can't even spot the difference between quasi-Franciscans and proto-baptists...

 

If the end up believing like baptist whats the diffence?

 

"If the end up believing like baptist whats the diffence?"
"
The Waldenses still exist nowadays and they are not baptistic in faith or practice.

 

THE WALDENSES WERE INDEPENDENT BAPTISTS

http://users.aol.com/libcfl2/walden.htm

 

.

 

were Waldenses or Albigenses Sabbath-keepers.

******************************************

and why do sunday-keepers never go into their litany about "we should worship God every day not just one day" until a discussion on the Sabbath Day arises? then all of a sudden, sunday-keepers want to keep everyday holy to God.

yet, before this, they are content to keep just their one day, Sunday.

 

"Many Baptist authors, too numerous to mention, who believe in a form of Baptist succession or perpetuity over the last 2000 years, have claimed the Waldenses as Baptists, an assertion which, if true, conveniently bridges a gap of 1200 years between the Baptists of Constantine's time and the Anabaptists of the Reformation era."
"
Conveniant indeed.