I don't doubt your sincerity. However, you are sincerely wrong and ignorant of the Biblical way of salvation. Any who claims that Rome teaches the correct way of salvation and that those who embrace her saramental salvation are saved is completely duped by demons (1 Tim. 4;1) and has absolutely no comprehension of the biblical doctrine of salvation whatsoever.
However, Rome is more consistent than your Lutheranism. You want it both ways - remission of sins in connection with baptism and remission of sins apart from baptism. There is only one gospel, one way of salvation, one Savior and one covenant of eternal redemption. Infants are saved just like others - they are brought to cognance of the gospel as was John the Baptist in the womb without any preconditions. "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."
Why do Mormons and Baptists deny the need for historical evidence?
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Wittenberger, Aug 9, 2012.
Page 7 of 12
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
And once saved, need to come out from the midst of that church! -
RCC: the Bible and Church Traditions are the final authorities.
Lutheran Church: the Bible is the final authority.
Baptists: the Bible is the ONLY authority. -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
There are some plain facts that are intentionally overlooked when it comes to evaluating historical sources.
Roman Catholicism from the fourth century dominated every government in the world of recorded "church history." All others were deemed "heretics" by Rome and the secular arm of government incorporated and applied ecclesiastical laws such as the Laws of Theodosia.
Rome CONTROLLED the selective processes in gathering all historical data for "church history" for nearly the first 1000 years.
Rome has been caught red handed in crafting fake historical sources.
The Post-Nicene Fathers are logically consistent with the Nicene Fathers but how many Protestant historians accept the Post-Nicene Father's and their counsels as authoritative for their own church doctrine and practice??? All other denominations draw a line at some juncture where they totally reject "The Father's" as valid for determining their own denominational doctrine and practice.
Baptists are the only ones consistent which reject all the "Father's" as the carefully selected and preserved history of apostasy by the state church apostacy. -
Most of the churches had no communication with each other except through Paul. The discipline of the member in 1Cor.5:1-5 was nobody's business but the Corinthian church.
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Lutheran Church: Church traditions and counsels are the tools of Lutheranism to determin Biblical interpretations.
Baptists: The Scriptures are the tool to interpret the scriptures under the leadership of the Spirit to determine doctrine and practice.
Really not much difference between RCC and Lutheranism but words but much the same in procedure. -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Thinkingstuff Active Member
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
If you sought out and submitted to a Lutheran Minister for baptism then you have publicly identified with the Luthern Ministry. If you sought out and submitted to a Methodist Minister for baptism then you have publicly identified with the Methodist Ministry.
Jesus sought out and submitted to John "The Baptist" and thus not merely identified with the "The Baptist" ministry but perpetuated the very same ministry (Jn. 4:1-2) and identified his own authority with the baptism of John (Mt. 22:25).
The selection of another candidate to fill the church office of Apostle, must be a witness beginning with "the baptism of John" (Acts 1:21-22). The origin of the gospel ministry by the church at Jerusalem is with the baptism John preached (Acts 10:37).
All the members publicly identified with and submitted to the counsel of God, which was the baptism of John (Lk. 7:29-30).
John's name was not "The Baptist" but it is a descriptive noun that defined his message (Jn. 3:36) and his mission (Lk. 1:17b) and his ministry (Jn. 3:29). This is the same message, mission and ministry of the first church at Jerusalem (Mt. 28:19-20) and Paul's ministry (2 Cor. 11:2 "betrothed").
Throughout Roman Catholic selective history those who opposed Rome were called by their enemies as Baptists (CataBAPTISTS; AnaBAPTISTS, etc.).
The great mennonite Reformation scholar Rolland Bainton noted that the Anabaptists complained about the suffix "ana" and preferred to call themselves simply "Baptists."
If a whole church as well as its first Pastor all submitted "The Baptist" ministry of John then they would be "Baptists." However, there were no other denominations to be compared with and so no name was necessary to distinguish them from others. However, they were Baptist in doctrine and practice. -
Earth Wind and Fire Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Oh Boy! gentlemen, sorry to say but nothing in the world is an end in itself, including Church, priests, pastors, bishops, deacons, elders, popes, laws etc---nothing! Only God is an end: everything else is a means. Only God can save us.
Constant bickering achieves nothing. DHK, instead of argueing why the RCC is incorrect (I would personally say apostate...but thats my opinion) why not attempt to flesh out why ThinkingStuff has doubled back to the Faith of his childhood....what are his reasons. You may find out he was attempting to explore Baptist Christian Theology but was tripped up by a corrupt Pastor. You might find out things about the mans past that needs to be revisited & reevaluated. You & I both know the emotional connections of family members etc. Personally, I think you need to go deeper into it than continual back & forth banter.
And ThinkingStuff needs to really face things head on that I will not go into & perhaps even look with new eyes at ....well I will just say "Stuff"
Both you guys are intelligent people who sincerely are directed at a certain way to both believe & worship, but you are passing each other outa conflict rather than developing a synergistic relationship. Just my observation. -
Earth Wind and Fire Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
-
I know of a girl that was baptized about four different times too. The first time she was baptized because it was under pressure of a well meaning Sunday School teacher. The second time it was to please her parents. The third time it was to please her pastor. It wasn't until the fourth time that her profession in Christ had become real and genuine and that she had actually trusted Christ. Then, after that confession her baptism was accepted as genuine. You see, a baptism isn't a baptism unless the person is genuinely saved. Thus the first three don't count. One must "believe" and be baptized.
-
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Has anyone else following this discussion had this feeling: Baptists/evangelicals and Lutherans/Catholics/Orthodox seem to speak to each other as if “I can’t believe you just don’t get it! It’s right there in the Bible! Just open your eyes and you will see the Truth!”
Here is what I think the fundamental problem is:
I can’t speak for all orthodox Christians, but as a Lutheran I would never put my interpretation, or the Lutheran interpretation, on the same level of authority as the Scriptures themselves. My interpretation is human, therefore fallible. The Scripture is God’s Word and therefore infallible.
Since my interpretation of Scripture could be in error, I and other Lutherans look to earlier Christians to see how they interpreted Scripture. We look at the interpretation of the early Church Fathers to see what they were taught by the Apostles and the disciples of the Apostles. We look at Martin Luther and other “Lutheran fathers” to see how they interpreted Scripture. All three must be in harmony for us to believe the interpretation, with Scripture being the final authority.
On the other hand, each Baptist and evangelical seems to believe that “My interpretation IS Scripture. My interpretation and Scripture are one and the same, therefore I cannot be wrong.”
Read the following passage of Scripture where the apostle Peter discusses how some of Paul’s writings are difficult to understand. If understanding the true meaning of Scripture only takes being a “true” Christian, guided by an inner voice, the Holy Spirit, why would Peter say that some who are “unlearned” have trouble understanding it?
2 Peter 3:15-18
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever. Amen.
Understanding the true meaning of Scripture requires “learning”, not just an inner guidance of the Holy Spirit. Learn from the Church Fathers of the first three centuries of Christianity, before Christianity was the state religion or even legal; while it still was under persecution!
Don’t believe new, false teachings which have no evidence of their existence prior to approximately 1,000 AD! Be “learned”! Educate yourself on what the early Christians said the true meaning of Scripture really is.
The Bible is the FINAL authority, not the ONLY authority! -
I grew up as a Baptist being fed the same line: "We Baptists have always existed. We hid out in caves for 1,500 years until the Protestant Reformation in Europe. There is no historical evidence of us because the Catholics destroyed all the evidence."
This is a Baptist old wives tale!
You have no evidence that proves that Baptists have always existed except for your internal belief that "it just has to be so!". -
YOU refuse to answer the question: where is the proof that your interpretation of Scripture existed in the first six to eight hundred years after the Apostles. YOU CAN'T DO IT! So you contine to spin your web of Bible verses in the same manner that any well-trained Mormon or JW can do.
Wake up, brother! Your beliefs are new and false teachings, just like those of the Mormons and JW's. Just like these two cults you cannot provide any evidence that your beliefs existed in the early centuries after the apostles so you resort to the same line as they do: "We don't need historical proof. We have the Holy Spirit!" -
Don't make up doctrines based on generalities.
You Baptists criticize us orthodox for believing in infant baptism because it is not specifically mentioned in Scripture but then you go and make up this cockamamie belief! -
You keep referring to your interpretation of Scripture as your final authority. That makes your final authority on the Bible...YOU!
You have no more proof that your interpretation of Scirpture is correct than this Momon bishop:
http://dwhamby1.wordpress.com/2008/05/05/do-mormons-have-any-evidence-of-their-claims/
Page 7 of 12