Featured What does the RCC officially teach regarding Mary?

The word is ekklesia as you know. At that time there was one. It was Jesus and his disciples. He was preparing them. They made up the only ekklesia there was. In just a year or so that ekklesia would be 120 and in the very next day that ekklesia would be 3,000 greater. Then there would be many more churches. There would never be One Church.
The ekkesia that Christ referred to was a model for all assemblies, or churches.

That is right. Thus an impossibility for this to refer to the monstrosity of the RCC.

The RCC is not visible. Can you see it? Where? Can you see it in India, Africa, South America, etc.? No. Ekklesia always means a visible local assembly that can be assembled. The monstrosity of the RCC does not fit that bill.

Christ gave all his apostles the same authority. The authority was the gospel. All believers in Christ have that same authority today. You have skewed the meanings of those verses butchered them beyond any degree of semblance. The RCC was built, not by Christ or Peter, but by Constantine, and on a pagan foundation. Look to the real history of the RCC.

 

DHK,your lack of desire to look into history to substantiate the truth of your faith isn't very commendable. You probably have not read a single primary historical source to substantiate this claim of your"Baptist successionism." or" Non denominational Christian" Instead, you mentioned earlier in a previous post the booklet Trail of Blood by J.M. Carroll, which puts forth the ideas he passed on to you, or even a similar book.

Let’s examine the authors claims about the sects that he mentions. He claims descent from the Anabaptists, Montanists, and Novations, but was their theology of a Baptist slant?

The Anabaptists baptized babies, and so can in no way be considered the spiritual ancestors to the present-day Baptists. Novations taught that those who had fallen from the faith should never be allowed to repent and return to the fold, since God cannot forgive their sin. The same council that defined the divinity of Christ (Nicea in A.D. 325) condemned the Novations. Montanists were a movement centering around the false prophet Montanus, who taught that the heavenly Jerusalem would soon descend upon his home town, the Phrygian village of Pepuza, and that, to prepare for the imminent coming of Christ, one must practice severe asceticism.

For a person to reject the Baptist successionist view is actually a compliment to the Baptists. In fact, years after having written Trail of Blood, Mr Carroll wrote of himself, "Extensive graduate study and independent investigation of church history has, however, convinced [the author] that the view he once held so dear has not been, and cannot be, verified. On the contrary, surviving primary documents render the successionist view untenable. . . . Although free church groups in ancient and medieval times sometimes promoted doctrines and practices agreeable to modern Baptists, when judged by standards now acknowledged as baptistic, not one of them merits recognition as a Baptist church. Baptists arose in the seventeenth century in Holland and England. They are Protestants, heirs of the reformers"

 

Montanus clearly was not baptist. Since this false prophet brought mortal sins and venial sins into Christianity. .....where have I heard those words before???

I notice you brought up the other doctrine accredited to Montanus, but you left out the one up above this paragraph.

 

I have only used one quote from J.M. Carroll, and that is the quote of the persecution of Christians by the RCC--millions upon millions of Christians during the dark ages--That is the only quote I have used.
I did not quote about the Montanists, Waldenses, etc., from Carroll.

I also spent a very extensive post explaining to you how I don't believe in successionism. So why are you bringing this up again. Go back and read where I explained that to you already. We don't believe in successionism.

I have studied both Baptist History and have had a course in "church history." I quoted from my Baptist History books, but took note that many of my Baptist History Books quote directly from original source material that I don't have.

This is about the most unintelligent thing one can say.
The word "ana-baptist" means to "baptize again." "ana" means again.
The RCC would so persecute the Anabaptists that they would round them up, imprison them, and kill them (usually by drowning). Why? Because they "baptized again," that is they baptized adults or those that believed in Christ by faith were then baptized--even if they had been baptized as infants. (which the RCC took as a personal insult). Thus the name "anabaptist."
It was the RCC that baptized infants. The anabaptists "baptized again" 'adults.' Thus the name.

You don't document your sources. So I don't know where this stuff comes from that you are posting.
Here is what J.T. Christian says from his book, "A History of the Baptists."
Note also the sources he quotes:

This information is much more accurate and documented than what you have given to me.

I told you about the Montanists. Why must I repeat myself. The RCC has very inaccurate information.
Tertullian was a Montanist. One can learn much about them from him.

Last time I quoted Armitage. This time I will quote from J.T. Christian:

The attractiveness of Montanism to many was its strictness of living a pure life--what you term as asceticism. The fact is that we must all live sacrificial pure lives in preparation of the coming of Christ always realizing that he could come at any minute. That is what they believed, and that is what the Bible teaches. Why should you be surprised? Do you think you can take your bank account to heaven?

I don't know the veracity of this statement.
But I don't believe the successionist view and neither did Carroll. You are a typical RCC, slandering the Baptists without a proper knowledge of their beliefs. Go back where I have explained this and find out what he believed. I explained it to you. I am not going to do it again now.

 

Yeshua, you haven't a clue about early Church history. Why don't you check out what Jesus through His Apostles/Successors really taught the early Christians,

 

Yeshua, so your reading the Bible with the correct interpretation you say, then why are there 80,000,000 other Protestants reading a different interpretation than you???

 

Did you ask them all individually if they have a different interpretation?
Bad assumption on your part. Otherwise how would you know?
You are very bad with logic and thus reasonable debate.

 

Oh, my God! Where are you getting your history from? The Anabaptists certainly did not baptize babies! Where do you think the name "Anabaptist" came from? It was a name of derision given to them by their infant baptizing enemies which meant "to rebaptize". This was of course inaccurate, as Anabaptists believed that infant baptism was no baptism at all.