Sola Scriptura

Your very question is FLAWED? Your very question makes the ASSUMPTION that Jesus was not the founder of Baptist churches! Jesus restricted the choice of members out of which He built his church to those prepared by a "Baptist" minister - John the Baptist (Acts 1:21-22; Luk. 7:29-30; Acts 10:37). Hence, they were "Baptist" in regard to doctrine and practice.

However, tell us who it is that is the founder of your STATE CHURCH? There is not one syllable in the New Testament concerning such a church other than the description given the Great Whore of Revelation. There is not one syllable of evidence in your own history of apostasy for the first three hundred years of such a STATE CHURCH?

Your FOUNDER is theologically Augustine and functually Constantine the Great.

 

I showed you that already. You simply ignored my post. I don't think you had any answer for it.

Look again:
And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed. (Acts 14:23)
--Wherever Paul went he ordained pastors in every church; every local church that he started. He went on three different missionary journeys and started over a hundred different independent churches not united by any denomination, and completely independent from Rome. Later he was taken as a prisoner to Rome, and there kept until his death. His missionary journeys are recorded in the book of Acts, all previous to that. In his letter to the Romans he states his desire to come to Rome, for he hadn't been there yet.

He started those churches. He ordained the pastors. He had nothing to do with Rome. Where did his authority come from. It came straight from God. Those same churches propagated other churches. Where did they get their authority from when Paul or other apostles were not there? God!. That is how it has been all throughout history.

The same as above.

 

I am in general agreement with you. However, I believe the church at Rome originated among those who were discipled on the day of Pentecost that came from Rome (Acts 1:10). I don't believe that disciples are made directly by God but God uses previous disciples to disciple others (Mt. 28:19). In Matthew 28:19 there is a horizontal source "ye" that is placed between Christ and "them." I don't believe the lost can gospelize themselves any more than they can baptize themselves or teach themselves to observe all things commanded nor are they authorized in the commission to do so. Rather those identified as "ye" are authorized to "go" to them, baptize "them" and teach "them."

I don't know of one case in scripture where any were self-gospelized or self-baptized or self-taught or were self-organized into congregations apart from a prevous churched disciple.

 

I didn't say that. We have had a Bible Institute connected with our church. From our church we have had a number of pastors go out and establish churches. Churches in the NT were no doubt self-propagating. That is what they are taught to be on the mission field. That is what Paul taught Timothy:

And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. (2 Timothy 2:2)
--It is called "spiritual reproduction," and it is at the heart of missions.

 

Biblicist, you wrote the following: "He built his church to those prepared by a "Baptist" minister - John the Baptist (Acts 1:21-22; Luk. 7:29-30; Acts 10:37). Hence, they were "Baptist" in regard to doctrine and practice."

OH Really!!! You actually believe that ? Then you are admitting that you and all baptists aren't directly from Jesus via His Apostles. You are saying that you baptists are followers of the John and not of the Christ.Very interesting.

 

Ok! I agree with that! Had to make sure and ask though!

 

Let's see, if you submit yourself to a Catholic priest for baptism then you are a Catholic aren't you? If you submit yourself to a Methodist minister for baptism you are a Methodist aren't you. Who did Christ submit himself to for Baptism? Have you forgotten who Christ SUBMITTED himself unto for baptism?

1 ¶ In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea......13 ¶ Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.

Let's see. If all the members of the first church including the Head of the Church submitted unto a Baptist preacher for baptism, what kind of church would that make them? Oh yeah, a "Baptist" church!

Why don't you follow Christ and submit yourself unto a "Baptist" preacher for baptism and join a Baptist church like Christ did, Like Peter did? Like all the apostles and members did (Acts 1:21-22).

 

DHK, you wrote: "I didn't say that. We have had a Bible Institute connected with our church. From our church we have had a number of pastors go out and establish churches. Churches in the NT were no doubt self-propagating. That is what they are taught to be on the mission field. That is what Paul taught Timothy:

And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. (2 Timothy 2:2)
--It is called "spiritual reproduction," and it is at the heart of missions.


Sorry to inform you , but you're chasing your tail again. Jesus [ Remember Him , His Words are the most Powerful and most Authorative for Christians ,not those of John the Baptist ] And Jesus never told John the Baptist or any other "baptist" the following words :
"Jesus said to Simon Peter, " Feed my lambs .... feed my lambs ... feed my sheep " [ Luke 21: 15- 17 ]
And again I have to keep re minding you baptists that Jesus only told this to His Apostles [ not a baptist amongst them ] The "Words " of Jesus are as following: " He who hears you, hears me : and he who rejects you, rejects me; and he who rejects me , rejects him who sent me" [ Luke 10:16 ]. Only the Catholic/Apostolic Church can trace their religious lineage directly back to Jesus and His apostles through apostolic succession.

 

Again, if you submit to a Catholic Priest for baptism that makes you a Catholic doesn't it? Who did Christ submit to? Who did Peter submit to? Who did every member of the congregation Christ taught and lead submit to (Lk. 7:29-30; Acts 1:21-22)? Yep, a Baptist preacher? That would make them a Baptist church wouldn't it, if every member submitted to a Baptist preacher for baptism!

Not a single "catholic" among them! Not one sprinkled or poured by John? All immersed in water. Not one infant baptized by John! It certainly was a Baptistic church at minimum.

 

You Baptists are cornered and so now you're saying that Baptism is salvific, yes it is . So now you are saying that baptism is a very important sacrament, am I reading you correctly ???
And NO , Catholics aren't from John the Baptists. Catholics are Christians , as in Christian meaning from Christ. Baptists then are from John the Baptist hence 'Baptists" [ as you are proclaiming ] is a watered- down version of Christianity. Only the Catholic/Apostolic Church has the "Fullness of the Christian Faith ".

 

I only said Christ submitted to The Baptist for immersion. I never said a word about baptism being salvic.

So the disciples of John were not Christian (Jn. 1:29; 3:36; Acts 19:5)? Look at the message that John preached to his hearers in John 3:36? Can you find any difference than what Christ preached to his hearers in John 3:16? So Christ did not submit to Christ-like baptism?

Thanks for the confession that "catholics" did not come from the church Jesus built as it was composed of only those with "Baptist" immersion.

Just like Christ was, just like Peter, just like all the Apostles and just like any future apostle must be (Acts 1:21-22). No other baptism is according to the counsel of God (Lk. 7:29-30). Jesus administered the baptism of John - Baptist baptism (Lk. 7:29-30; Jn. 4:1) and commissioned the baptism of John - Baptist baptism (Mt. 28:19-20) as no other baptism was existent when he said this and Christ nor any of the apostles submitted to any other kind but "Baptist" baptism.

 

Biblicist,Church is what Jesus formed, John the Baptist never formed a Church. By your own admittance you are saying that you are not a member of the Church Christ founded and not a member of any church derived from it. So by your own argument , it means that you are not a Christian at all .

 

Biblicist, are you saying that John the Baptist was a Baptist?

 

Obviously you do not know the mission of John the Baptist! He was sent to prepare a people made ready for the Lord to form into the church. The Lord used only BAPTIST materials to build his Church, including Himself, as he submitted to John's baptism:

Lk. 1:17 And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.

All true congregations of Christ are constituted of the very same kind of "Baptist" materials as the Great Commission is given to a BAPTIST congregation to reproduced BAPTIST disciples and New Testament congregations of like faith and order.

Jesus used Baptist materials to build His church. What kind of materials do Catholics use???? I bet they don't build churches out of the materials used by Christ?

There is no STATE CHURCH in the Bible but the Great Whore (Rev. 19:1-5).

 

They had over 100 years to get their message across. I would hazard a more than educated guess that if they had rejected episcopacy and the sacraments, then Augustine their opponent would have made a lot of hay with them about that. The fact is that he didn't, which leads me to reasonably conclude that they had continued with both episcopacy and the sacraments.

 

One man's opinion about his enemies. Broad generalizations about many independent congregations. Sorry, but I don't give much stock to Roman Catholic hearsay.

Again, find me any STATE CHURCH in the New Testament other than the Great Whore? Augustine was the theological founder of the Catholic church and Constantine was its secular founder. The Great Harlot commits fornicaiton (illicit union) with governments of the world and rides upon their back (supporting her). She is the mother of all other "Christian" STATE CHURCHES.

 

To The Biblicist-- Nicea, July 24, A.D. 325, 7:20 p.m. "That was a powerful preaching Brother Biblicist. Powerful!Amen! I want to invite all brothers and sisters to approach the altar, right here, anf receive the Lord into your hrarts . Just come on up, we've got other brothers and sisters down here who can lead you through the Sinner's Prayer. Amen brother! Amen ! And now that this Council is coming to an end , I want to remind Brother Biblicist to bring the grape juice for tomorrow's closing communion service.... "

Oh sure, the Baptists at the Council of Nicea . Sounds silly, because it really is silly.
I ask you Biblicist this, why if every branch of Baptists bring up the fact that they depend entirely on the sole sufficiciency of Sacred Scripture for establishing the fundamental points of doctrine, why, then , do you or any other Baptists/ Protestant bother to bring up the fact that you were functioning back then in deciding which articles of Christian faith would be binding if none of these Councils had any "authority' be binding/ Canonical, if the Holy Bible [ it takes both the OT and the NT to be sufficient ] was not yet completed. It's simply this ,Baptists were never invented until some guy by the name of John Smythe [ spelling ] who started your church back in the 16th century.
Approximately 8:05 p.m. at the closing of the Council-- "Brothers and sisters, I want to announce to you all that we've saved 26 people up here tonight. I can see more of you up in the back, come on down. Let them through folks, Sister Edna, can you make your way to the piano and play " Onward Christian Soldiers '? It's the Emperor Constantine's favorite , you know .. "
Sad to think that some people actually believe that bunk, about ancient Baptists being around back then .

 

Biblicist, how could Baptists have ever existed way back then when you depend solely on the completed Holy Bible? The NT was neither written nor received as the Bible at first , but only gradually, so early Baptists [ being "Bible Alone" believers/ complete Holy Bible ] couldn't have believed in sola Scriptura like Baptists/ Protestants today, unless it referred to the OT alone.

 

GE:

Another and DIFFERENT 'state church', was that at Zuerich ... a PROTESTANT 'state church'.

They were NOT "The Great Harlot" or a daughter of hers.

But for a true Christian state church, you need the death penalty because we are still this side of the yonder side. Needless to say, the death penalty especially among the religious, is quite out of vogue ... Christianity too, has become Humanism. Therefore I cannot think of ANY ‘Christian church’ today that isn’t ‘state-church’.

 

GE:

... or 'ancient Sabbatharians' outside that council around back then ...