Featured Why do Mormons and Baptists deny the need for historical evidence?

Your explanation above is irrational! There were no circumcision prior to Abraham and it was merely through faith in the gospel that one received remission of sins - Acts 10:43. There was no baptism prior to John.

You have one gospel of remission of sins for one set of people that does not fit for another set of people and the only reason you have such a dichotomy is to fit the unbiblical doctrine of infant baptism. Dying infants are not in any danger of hell as they have nothing to stand before the Lord to be tried for by the principle of "according to their works."

 

Here is part of a post I made previously; this is a good time to repeat it:

The Catholic Encyclopedia admits that infant baptism and other practices are simply based upon tradition:

"The designation of unwritten Divine traditions was not always given all the clearness desirable especially in early times; however Catholic controversialists soon proved to the Protestants that to be logical and consistent they must admit unwritten traditions as revealed. Otherwise by what right did they rest on Sunday and not on Saturday? How could they regard infant baptism as valid, or baptism by infusion? How could they permit the taking of an oath, since Christ had commanded that we swear not at all? The Quakers were more logical in refusing all oaths, the Anabaptists in re-baptizing adults, the Sabbatarians in resting on Saturday. (Bainvel J. Transcribed by Tomas Hancil. Tradition and Living Magisterium. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XV. Published 1912. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York)."


Twentieth century archaeologist and Catholic priest of the Franciscan Order, Bellarmino Bagatti correctly concluded that Judeo-Christians did not baptize infants, “following the example of the Lord” (Bagatti, From The church from the circumcision: history and archaeology of the Judaeo-Christians). Bagatti also found that the Apostle Peter was buried in the necropolis under the modern Dominus Flevit Church, in Jerusalem, at a similar time as the Pope claimed to have found evidence for Saint Peter's burial under the Vatican. Of course, this was embarrassing for the RCC, so they tried to keep it quiet. But that's another subject; back to the one at hand.

It is quite clear that it is infant baptism that was invented for two reasons: due to an erroneous view of original sin and how it affects infants, and out of superstition.

So, repent Lutheran brother, and return to the truth of the New Testament and the teaching and practice of the apostles. You have swallowed a lie.

Oh, btw, it was "tradition" to murder others in the name of Jesus for over a millenium, and your Lutheran spiritual ancestors continued that tradition with zeal, in spite of what Jesus said and taught in the NT. It is not a coincidence that the state-church murderers were also infant baptizers -- two "traditions of men" diametrically opposed to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles in the New Testament.

 

There is only ONE COVENANT of redemption and it is the "everlasting covenant" (Heb. 13:20). You are confusing the New Testament ADMINISTRATION of that covenant with the OLd Testament administration. The old covenant NEVER SAVED ANYONE at ANYTIME and NEVER WILL.

There has only been ONE GOSPEL since Genesis 3:15 and that is the same gospel Abraham trusted in (Gal. 3:6-8) and any other gospel is accursed (Gal. 1:6-8). That gospel has never depended upon external rites but only on faith in Christ - Acts 10:43.

There has never been any other way to heaven but "ONE" way - Mt. 7:14

There has never been given any other name under heaven whereby men must believe to be saved but the name of Christ - Acts 4:12; 10:43

There has never been any other Savior but Christ and no other way to come to the Father - Jn. 14:6

There has never been any other basis for salvation but by grace - Rom. 11:6

There has never been any rite provided for literal infant salvation because dying infants are not in danger of judgement because the basis of judgement is "according to thy works."

There has never been any other covenant of redemption but the everlasting covenant (Heb. 13:20) and all who were saved from Genesis 3:15 to cross were saved under that same covenant by faith - Rom. 3:24-26

 

NO, what was presented was an example of a prayer to Mary as evidence for the existence of RCC at that time. That is ridiculous, humorous, classical absurdity at its best.

So the example of one prayer to Mary can be produced in an early Ms. So what!
Everyone here knows (and it can be easily reproduced) that there are some very Godly prayers (not to Mary) by such early Christians by Polycarp and others during his time.
The Ryland MS was not Catholic as Polycarp was not Baptist.
To claim either one is absurd. But to say that the prayers of Polycarp were not "Baptist-like" is also absurd.

 

Unfortunately for you my line of reasoning is very sound. Jesus said he would "build his church" and that "the gates of hell" could not stand against it. Either this is true or not. Since we both agree that what Jesus says in scripture is true we accept that Jesus intended his church to last through the ages despite attacks againt it. Now that being the case if baptist were the infant church then not only would it have NT works revealing their existance but other writings, commentaries on scripture, discussions about baptist distinctives, and baptist systematic approaches to their beliefs. You would have pastors writing to their flock who were being mislead by early heresies and the rest. Since Baptist claim to model themselves after the infant church and currently they are prolific in books, commentary, discussions against percieved heresies, etc...we can safely assume this quality existed then and would have existed in every century. In short there would be evidence to support their existance. However, when one looks at archeological finds, MSS text discovered, ancient art work, etc... None of it points to early baptist in the early church. There are no fragments with baptist distinctives listed on it. No appeals to their systmatic theology. Nothing. There is a void of evidence for the existance of baptist in the early centuries. When one does look at the volumeous evidence of early christianity one sees all of these very items supporting a Catholic/Orthodox theology. In fact it isn't until the reformation or a short time just proceeding it does one find evidence for the beginings of baptist theology 1400 years after Christ! Therefore since this is the case the likelyhood of early church being baptist is nil. Whereas all of these things can be found to support the Catholic/Orthodox from the very begining.

First of all you've missed named the study its Mariology. And if you mean Mary Idolatry you are once again mistaken. Mary is not worshiped as God is worshipped. That asside. Let us assume for a moment you are correct and Marian prayers are heresy it is strange that we find a documented heresy in the third century of the Church yet we cannot find one baptist Fragment. One (a baptist that is) must conclude from this either the Church was defeated by Satan for 1400 years until the spirit moved men once again towards the truth making of Jesus a liar, or that all early christians were heretics in which case no one should be Christian.

The fact is there is evidence Marian prayers were practiced. That can not be disputed. However, there is no evidence of practicing baptist holding to their distinctives in opposition to these heresies. Its like there is a void of all things baptist in the early church. As to Marian Prayers being Pagan. No Pagan documents are shown that Pagans prayed to Mary they prayed to their female deities not to Mary.

And such prayers are still practiced from their ancient form to this very day. You can go to a Catholic Church or an Orthodox church read a prayer and find early documents showing this same prayer in the early centuries of the Church.

 

I get angry -- when some Baptists on here say that I don't have Baptist principles, and then when you come on here and say that my beliefs have no evidence and support, and you equate what I believe with Mormonism.

Well, if I didn't base my beliefs on the NT and instead based them on man-made tradition, they indeed wouldn't have any support or evidence. I believe in the primacy of scripture; if writings and traditions of men contradict the teachings of Jesus as found in the NT, I'll go with Jesus every time.

Oh, and I am definitely NOT Reformed. I am Anabaptist/Baptist and Celtic. I do not follow the Magisterial Reformers - the stepchildren of Rome.

 

The Didache is evidence of the NT teaching and practice of baptism -- and it doesn't support your view or the "Catholic" view.

 

Thanks for clarifying. You have given me some food for thought. I would not say I am convinced, but I try not to be close minded to differing views. If anything, you make "search the Scriptures" for my reasoning. Oh yes, and the by the way, you addressed me as brother in a previous post. I am a sister in Christ:laugh: