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

All the older posters on this forum know your charge is false. I have never denied original sin and indeed, I have been one of the most able and vocal advocates in the defense of that doctrine - ask anyone!

You simply do not understand what I am saying. The standard for judgement is clearly and repeatedly stated throughout the scriptures - according to thy works. I defy you to produce one scripture that says anyone will stand before God in the day of judgement and be condemned "according to Adam's works." Just produce the scripture? Eternal judgement is not based upon the Adamic sin.

Neither am I denying that all sinned in Adam. Nor am I denying that death passed upon all because all sinned in Adam as that is obvious - infants die.

What I am denying is that the eternal penal consequences (not temporal) for Adam's sin will be imputed to anyone including Adam (as I believe he was redeemed). Eternal judgement is repeatedly stated to be determined by INDIVIDUAL works rather than Adamic representative works.

"The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men" -Mt. 21:25


You are confusing ceremonial cleasning rites with baptism. Simply because articles of furniture and proselytes were ceremonially cleansed by dipping in water is not baptism. Again, Jesus repudiated the idea of the current Jews that ceremonial cleansing effects literal cleansing (Lk. 5:12-17). Your doctrine comes from apostate Judaism not Christianity. Christian baptism originated with John whereas apostate Judiastic ceremonial LITERAL cleansing originated with apostate Israel. Indeed, the whole Roman Catholic system of priests and sacraments originates with apostate Judaism.

Your ignorance of scriptures, your ignorance of the gospel, your ignorance of the blood of the everlasting covenant and your ignorance of salvation.

 

It is true, but not for the RCC. They didn't even exist until the fourth century. Jesus was not talking to or about the RCC. That was the furthest thing from his mind.

This whole line of reasoning is wrong. It is carnal, of the flesh. The Lord never promised a direct fleshly succession of churches. Neither did he ever promise for any denomination to exist through the ages. He used the word "church" which means "assembly." He simply meant that there would be assemblies of believers in every age from the apostles onward. And there have been, everyone of them existing outside of the RCC and opposing its existence.

Your reasoning is not sound. The most prolific writers are usually the heretics. They have the most to gain. For example, there are for more books written on evolution than there are on Creation.

The controversial Cardinal Hosius quote still points to the existence of: Waldneses, Anabaptists, Cathari, all back to the time of the Apostles. So don't say there are no documents. There are many. You just are reluctant to look at them and when you do you swallow the RCC lies that all of these were heretical groups. Even the Montanists which Tertullian joined were not as heretical as you would have people believe. They existed because many other churches were corrupt. They sought for purity.

That heretics wrote more than intinerant preachers and the poor proves nothing. When Pope Innocent III is out on his crusades exterminating the Albigenses, what do you expect them to write??

There were many heresies that existed early on, as stated. There were also many churches such as the "First Baptist Church at Jerusalem," which we today pattern ourselves after. Just because we pattern ourselves the Bible and have no need to write it down doesn't mean it did not exist. However a heretic must write his liturgy down for it departs from the Bible so much.

The very attributes of God are attributed to Mary: omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence. Those attributes are for God alone. When ascribed to anyone else then that one is a deity, for they are being given the attributes of a deity.

I don't know what you would be looking for. Isn't the First Baptist Church of Jerusalem good enough?

Baptists exist in churches, not a "Church". Your entire concept is wrong. No wonder you don't understand the Scriptures here.

Such paganism was practiced during the time of Jeremiah 700 years before the time of Christ. It is paganism, and nothing knew.

Jeremiah 7:17 Seest thou not what they do in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem?
18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.
19 Do they provoke me to anger? saith the LORD: do they not provoke themselves to the confusion of their own faces?
20 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, mine anger and my fury shall be poured out upon this place, upon man, and upon beast, and upon the trees of the field, and upon the fruit of the ground; and it shall burn, and shall not be quenched.
--The Lord has never been pleased with this worship that the Catholic Church does today.

Jeremiah 44:16 As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the LORD, we will not hearken unto thee.
17 But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil.
18 But since we left off to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, we have wanted all things, and have been consumed by the sword and by the famine.
19 And when we burned incense to the queen of heaven, and poured out drink offerings unto her, did we make her cakes to worship her, and pour out drink offerings unto her, without our men?
--Incense if often burned isn't it.

I agree. And they are still condemned.

 

The death of infants is by divine appointment just as the death of all men is by divine appointment (Heb. 9:27). God determines the day of their birth, the extent of their days and the appointed time of their death.

Infants do not die by accident. They are saved precisely as they were condemned to death - apart from individual cognant consent. Where sin abounded grace did much more abound. Christ removed the sin of the world - Jn. 1:29 in regard to its eternal consequences and therefore no human being will stand in judgement "according to Adam's works" and therefore dying infant stands in no danger of eternal judgment but is saved exactly as condemned by "one man's" obedience. That leaves the only basis of individual judgement to be INDIVIDUAL WORKS.

 

Says the man whose ignorance of Catholic Tradition is surpassed only by his hatred of all things Catholic.

Assuming for the sake of agrument that this is true, which it is not, the killing of Protestants is not and never has been a Tradition of the Catholic Church. Tradition is church doctrine that was given to the apostles by Jesus or, in the case of matters arising after His departure, that was decided by Church councils.

Absolutely yes! "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Matthew 16:19.

A lot more than these. You tried to give me two. One is not an example of Tradition at all and the other example is directly supported by scripture.

 

I was replying to TS, and in so doing giving the RCC revisionist history and logic that is often given by them. Much of history has already been revised by the enemies of true Biblical Christianity. You can't find records because you don't want to find records. You would rather look at what the RCC prints. The enemies of Biblical Christianity are not going to provide you with the truth are they?

Consider this description of early Christianity:

http://www.reformedreader.org/history/christian/ahob1/ahobc02.htm

 

I believe that you Baptists and other Protestants wish to follow the Spirit, and to properly interpret the scriptures, but it's demonstrable that you are wrong. The amount of fighting between Moriah, DHK, et al on this board makes me realize that none of you can agree as to how to interpret the scriptures correctly. Given this, why would I want to go back to become a protestant again? From where I am standing, I have a pillar of the truth, an unchanging source of reliable teaching. What I see on the other side is error and not a logical basis for certainty of doctrine. Recently I met a 'sola scriptura' sort who even did not know if Jesus was God or not. He did not believe that scripture settled the matter one way or another. Get that, by the Bible alone, he was not even sure who was God and who was not! I do not think I am any better than you. I do not think that I can follow the Spirit or interpret the scriptures better than any other person on this board. So, sincerely, why would I leave the Catholic Church to enter a system that has produced inconsistent and incorrect doctrine and countless denominations with more on the way each day?

 

The killing of Dissenters by the Catholic Church was a tradition sanctioned by the unholy alliance from hell of state and church. That "tradition" alone, which lasted for centuries, made the RCC apostate and the agent of hell, not the church that the Prince of Peace founded.


That verse you quoted does not in any way support even the existence of a pope, much less his infallibility. Papal infallibility is a blasphemous doctrine.

 

As I have pointed out, there is just as much doctrinal disagreement within the RCC, even more so, than among non-RCC denominations. The disagreement was partly handled by the founding of the various religious orders.

You really think the RCC has not changed over the centuries? It has constantly added man-made traditions to the scriptures -- mandatory priestly celibacy, papal infallibility, etc., etc. If you want a "Catholic" church that hasn't changed much, you should look at the EOC, or better yet, the Old Catholics. The EOC is still beset with some superstition and error, but at least they are descendants of Greek Christendom which has remained much closer to the scriptures than the RCC has.

There are only about eight denominational "families". That's a fact.

 

This will be my last post on this forum. I am leaving, for personal reasons.

I have often enjoyed the discussion.

Just to be clear: I hate no one. I wish you all the best.

Please remember me in your prayers from time to time, if you will. I'll remember you in mine.

God bless you all!

 

Find me any Baptist Confession of faith that condemns dying infants to hell? You cannot! Find me any Baptist Confession of faith that supports infant baptism for remission of sins? You cannot.

Baptists never considered dying infants to be at risk of eternal judgement simply because the scriptures never consider dying infants in danger of eternal judgment, and that is precisely why very few confessions ever address that subject, yet while consistently denying the need of infant baptism. Think about this last statement. If Baptists believed dying infants were at risk of eternal damnation due to original sin then they would have stated that in their confessions but not one confession states that.


3. Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. - 1689 London Confession of Faith, on election

Although the Bible very clearly teaches original sin it also teaches individual responsibility for personal actions and the scriptures uniformily teach that alone is the basis for eternal judgement. Paul argues on the basis of PERSONAL accountabilty due to internal and external light of nature men are without excuse (Rom. 1:20) but he makes no such argument in regard to dying infants. It also teaches that where sin abounded by the actions of one man - Adam - grace did much more abound by the actions of man - Christ. It also teaches that Christ died for the singular "sin" of the whole world (Jn. 1:29) thus removing eternal consequences for the singular sin of Adam leaving only personal accountability "according to their own works" on the day of judgment.

The Scriptures uniformily teach that infants are without ability to discern good from evil as in the case of those in Ninevah. David clearly expected his dying infant son to be in heaven even though conceived out of wedlock.

Unbaptized and uncircumcised infants are said to have been filled with the Spirit of God and enabled to respond to the gospel while still in the mother's womb (Lk. 1:15; Jer. 1:5) - thus totally invalidating both circumcision and baptism as pre-conditions for such a state. Without any pre-conditions of circumcision or baptism Jesus declared such are in the kingdom of heaven. The New Testament is totally silent about infant baptism, which if necessary for the salvation of dying infants, is unthinkably irresponsible. Instead the New Testament never addresses the subject nor even considers any kind of eternal danger of dying infants. You may rationalize circumcision among the Jews but the whole thrust of the New Testament is the salvation of gentiles and not one word is said about the baptism or damnation of gentile infants, which is inexcusable IF such were ever considered to be at risk.

In addition, what about the millions of infants murdered while still in the womb whose parents are not believers? How does your infant circumcision/baptism theory work for them? Nada! Zilch! nothing!

Furthermore, my position is based upon what the scriptures do say in regard to unbaptized/uncirucumcised infants (Jer. 1:5; Lk. 1:15; 1 Sam.) but your position is based upon pure silence of scripture and upon the view of apostate Judaism in regard to the salvic merits of circumcision - Acts 15:2

Finally, you cannot have your cake and eat it too! Either infant baptism is essential for remission of sins in the case of dying infants or it is not. Millions of aborted infants by unbelieving parents world wide has no comfort in your doctrine any more than Jeremiah and John the Baptist in the womb of godly parents provides any justification for your doctrine - case closed.

 

Bishop, I asked the question in RCIA how much can a person disagree with the teachings of the Church and remain a Catholic. The answer I got was something like: 'When person states they disagree with the Church it usually means the teachings of the Church'. It was pointed out that this becomes problematic since Church teachings are proclaimed by the Magisterium or teaching authority of the Church and therefore become binding doctrine which defines as our deposit of faith. This is derived from Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. It was pointed out that there are the rubrics and other areas where in house debates take place all of the time and Catholic theology remains in the pail of orthodoxy. There are also theological opinions that does not need to be adhered to for our salvation. If you believe, for example, that the Eucharist is merely symbolic or that mortal sin does not exist then you would be outside of Catholic teaching. If a person rejects doctrine then it rejects the Church that Christ founded and would result in one being in schism. I have never heard that any Catholic religious order rejected doctrine of the Catholic Church. Maybe you can explain what you meant by this.

The point in my post was that the doctrine of sola scriptura cannot be a unifying principle. It follows from this that the only real unifying principle is sufficient agreement with those who agree with one's own interpretation of scripture. But if that's the case, then it logically follows that sola scriptura logically collapses into solO scriptura. This shows that the only principle of unity is your own opinion. Again, look at the degree of disagreement between two evangelicals, Moriah and DHK. Both claim they adhere to 'sola scriptura' and both insist that the Holy Spriit has lead them to there conclusions.

 

To my understanding...

The Apostolic Church would have practiced and had doctrines in the SAME fashion that we baptists would have today, ONCE the Church firmly established that they were NOT to be a sect within judaism, but a new work of God under the new Covenant...

Once paul was chosen as the Apsotle to the gentiles forward, would have been firmly 'baptisitic" in doctrines and practices!

So regardless WHEn in history there is the 'first official" Baptist church, the ealiest Church was distinctly "baptist"...

 

You would make an excellent "demoncratic" politician as you avoid the bulk of the evidence I provided that proves your position is completely empty of Biblical matter. Both Jeremiah and John the Baptist simply destroy the whole basis for the necessity of either circumcision or baptism as a prerequisite for infant salvation.

The millions of aborted infants from the womb every day completely destroys the pre-conditions of circumcision/baptism both now and then.

You also ignore the fact that no baptist confession deals with that question yet without condemning dying infants to hell, while nearly every Baptist confession denies infant baptism.

Hence, the Baptist confessions are consistent in this area of soteriology as there are no precepts or examples in the New Testament for infant baptism or can there be found ANYTHING that even INFERS dying infants are in danger of hell. This fact completely makes the Lutheran/Catholic position null and void especially when it is noted that the bulk of the New Testament is written to GENTILES who never practiced circumcision and who are told that circumcision is not merely UNNECESSARY for them but are encouraged to completley IGNORE it while NOTHING is directed toward their children to replace it!!!!! That very SILENCE is like a dagger in the heart of your doctrine, because if your position had any validity the New Testament writings to Gentiles should be SCREAMING with commands to baptize their children in view of detouring them from circumcision (Acts 15).

Finally, no Baptist Confession claims universal salvation of all infants. We are dealing with only DYING infants not universal salvation for all infants.

 

Actually, we inherit as a result of Adam original Sin the sin nature, for God has passed unto all of his descendants the same verdict of both spiritual/physical death!

And infants, though under that judgement of being found sinners before Him, have ALL been elected by God to be saved by the basis of the Cross of Christ, as they have not yet become personally accountible to him for their sins as of yet...

 

The New Testament teaching concerning infant baptism and the overall Biblical teaching concerning the consequences of dying infants does not provide any kind of support whatsoever for the Romanist view of infant baptism.

1. Precepts and Examples of New Testament baptism of infants - ZERO

2. Overall Biblical precepts/examples/inferences of infant condemnation to hell - ZERO

3. Overal Biblical inferences for the salvation of dying infants
a. Christ paid for the singular "sin" of the world - Jn. 1:29
b. David's out of wedlock adulterious conception of a son and his death
c. Circumcision unnecessary for Gentile salvation while zero instruction/example for baptism of their infants
d. Eternal judgement based upon "according to your works"
e. Zero teaching about infants at the judgement seat
f. Uncircumcised infants Spirit filled and enabled from the womb
g. Jesus "such is the kingdom of heaven" without any pre-conditions stated - dry passages.

4. Common sense objections to Lutheran/Catholic position
a. Millions of aborted babies from the womb then and now
b. Can't have it both ways - remission of sins with or without baptism

 

Well I can't help the fcat that you have ignored the evidence presented can I