A look at Matthew 16 vs dogma

[BillySunday1935]

You admit he is quoting the writer without disapproval and admit that you don't know the context but then you go right ahead and assume a position that the very words do not support. "

I assume nothing - that would be your position. I take his words at face value in which he neither supports nor denies what was written by the author he quotes. The inference is yours, my dear doctor.

Why would Zwingli acknowledge the same thing, especially when Zwingli was no friend of Anabaptists.

I have no idea.

Even you must admit that Roman monk historians spoke of the Novationists, Donatists and Paulicians as "Anabaptists" as it is in their own history. Where do you think the term "Anabaptist" originated? Those being called "Anabaptists" hated that term and rejected it. It was Rome's term invented to condemn these people under Theodosius and the laws called "the codes of Justinian."

Rolland Bainton the Mennonite scholar in his book "The Reformation and the 16th Century" writes on page 99 that those called Anabaptists repudiated that name as it was given to them Rome but perferred to call themselves simply baptists [Roland H. Bainton, The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, (Beacon Press, Boston), 1956, p. 99].

There are two things that I have said.

1. The history of the Anabaptists is not supportable by a single Hosius quote. They do have a history - one need only look to the councils to see that. I never said anything to the contrary.

2. What I find unsupportable is the Baptist succesionist claim to some sort of ancient liniage using heretical groups to hop-scotch their way through history. If you wish to take exception to my postings - fine. However, please do so with what I write. This seems to be a habit of yours.

Don't you know your own Catholic history? Are you completely ignorant of the inquisitions? It is the Catholic Monks that called these people "Anabaptists" because they rejected the ordinances of Rome and "re-baptized" those who came to them.

Oh please - stop with the smarmy attitude. It's not my "Catholic" history - it is the history of the Church and thus, as christians, it is OUR history.

Peace!

 

[Dr. Walter]

Ok, you admit that Hosius does not deny 1200 years history and you admit that history is real because you say it is there in the counsels of the Church at Rome - so, wouldn't Hosius be a first class idiot to deny what his own counsels reveal to be a solid history of them all the way back to at least the Novationists if not Montanists????? You don't deny Zwingli said the same thing but you are willing to make the president of the counsel of Trent, which was convened in part to denounce the Anabaptists, a possible historical idiot of his own churches previous counsels that go all the way back at minimum of 1200 years from his point in time, by saying he quotes something HISTORICALLY ACCURATE but that does not mean he either believed it or denied it????? The assumption of the quote is that he believed it or else he would not even quote it unless to disprove it. I have read the context and he is not attempting to disprove it but confirm what every previous counsel confirmed - their obvious presence.

The history of Anabaptists is supportable by the Hosius statement, it is you that are ignorant of its context - I HAVE READ it. You admit that the church counsels prove their history but you are willing to make Hosius an historical IDIOT concerning his own church history and counsels - Get a grip on your own mind.

I assume nothing - that would be your position. I take his words at face value in which he neither supports nor denies what was written by the author he quotes. The inference is yours, my dear doctor.



I have no idea.



There are two things that I have said.

1. The history of the Anabaptists is not supportable by a single Hosius quote. They do have a history - one need only look to the councils to see that. I never said anything to the contrary.

2. What I find unsupportable is the Baptist succesionist claim to some sort of ancient liniage using heretical groups to hop-scotch their way through history. If you wish to take exception to my postings - fine. However, please do so with what I write. This seems to be a habit of yours.



Oh please - stop with the smarmy attitude. It's not my "Catholic" history - it is the history of the Church and thus, as christians, it is OUR history.

Peace!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Ok, you admit that Hosius does not deny 1200 years history and you admit that history is real because you say it is there in the counsels of the Church at Rome - so, wouldn't Hosius be a first class idiot to deny what his own counsels reveal to be a solid history of them all the way back to at least the Novationists if not Montanists????? You don't deny Zwingli said the same thing but you are willing to make the president of the counsel of Trent, which was convened in part to denounce the Anabaptists, a possible historical idiot of his own churches previous counsels that go all the way back at minimum of 1200 years from his point in time, by saying he quotes something HISTORICALLY ACCURATE but that does not mean he either believed it or denied it????? The assumption of the quote is that he believed it or else he would not even quote it unless to disprove it. I have read the context and he is not attempting to disprove it but confirm what every previous counsel confirmed - their obvious presence.

The history of Anabaptists is supportable by the Hosius statement, it is you that are ignorant of its context - I HAVE READ it. You admit that the church counsels prove their history but you are willing to make Hosius an historical IDIOT concerning his own church history and counsels - Get a grip on your own mind.

You guys are going back and forth. The fact is that the name of the sepratist had beliefs and practices antithetical to modern baptist and they were no more baptist than lutherans were. As Far as the quote from Hosius the document it supposidly comes from does not exist Apud Opera. Which questions the validity of the statement.

 

[BillySunday1935]

Ok, you admit that Hosius does not deny 1200 years history.

That’s an argument from silence there doc – he neither denies anything nor admits anything.
Again – the inference is yours.

...and you admit that history is real because you say it is there in the counsels of the Church at Rome.

Yes – they have a history; however, I have not stated what that history is.

- so, wouldn't Hosius be a first class idiot to deny what his own counsels reveal to be a solid history of them all the way back to at least the Novationists if not Montanists?????

The councils reveal no such thing! There is little if any historical connection between the Anabaptists and earlier sects such as the Henricians, Waldenses, Albigenses, and Bohemian Brethren.

You don't deny Zwingli said the same thing but you are willing to make the president of the counsel of Trent, which was convened in part to denounce the Anabaptists, a possible historical idiot of his own churches previous counsels that go all the way back at minimum of 1200 years from his point in time, by saying he quotes something HISTORICALLY ACCURATE

So you continually say yet, ironically, you never provide any proof that the Council of Trent (or any councils for that matter) proved any such thing. I wonder why…

...but that does not mean he either believed it or denied it????? The assumption of the quote is that he believed it or else he would not even quote it unless to disprove it.

And that, my dear doctor, would be YOUR assumption.

I have read the context and he is not attempting to disprove it but confirm what every previous counsel confirmed -their obvious presence.

The history of Anabaptists is supportable by the Hosius statement, it is you that are ignorant of its context - I HAVE READ it.

No need to shout – so have I.

You admit that the church counsels prove their history but you are willing to make Hosius an historical IDIOT concerning his own church history and counsels - Get a grip on your own mind.

Sweet… I said that they have a history. However, nowhere did I ever state that their history went back 1200 years before Hosius and the Council of Trent. Again, please slow down – take a deep breath – say a prayer and READ what I write. Is that too much to ask? Apparently!

Peace!

 

[BillySunday1935]

You guys are going back and forth. The fact is that the name of the sepratist had beliefs and practices antithetical to modern baptist and they were no more baptist than lutherans were. As Far as the quote from Hosius the document it supposidly comes from does not exist Apud Opera. Which questions the validity of the statement.

Yes - Apud Opera is fantasy. However, I think the good doctor will claim that the quote can be found here:

The letters of Cardinal Stanislaus
Hosius, Liber Epistolarum 150, titled "Alberto Bavariae Duci" in about 1563 A.D.

Even with that source, I cannot attest to its validity. Thanks for pointing it out though.

Peace!

 

[Dr. Walter]

The quotation by Hosius has been well researched and the original Latin has been translated by the head of the Latin department at Oxford. I have read the context in which this quotation is found and many others have since the late 1800's.

You guys are going back and forth. The fact is that the name of the sepratist had beliefs and practices antithetical to modern baptist and they were no more baptist than lutherans were. As Far as the quote from Hosius the document it supposidly comes from does not exist Apud Opera. Which questions the validity of the statement.

 

[Dr. Walter]

If you have read the context then why are you arguing with me as the context provides no negative rejection by Hosius of the writers statement?

Both you and Thinkingstuff base your interpretation of these groups on the statements of Roman Monkish historians when in fact the Roman Monks contradict themselves in many cases.

There are mutiltitudes of historians that have researched these references by monkish historians and point out the conflicting statements and point to another more consistent intepretation about these groups. There is sufficient evidence to demonstrate they were grossly misrepresented by Roman and distorted intentionally and there is evidence in some cases to prove it.

Capable historians have written extensively on these groups and they have provided another model of interpretation that better fits the data than the conclusions drawn by Roman historians.

The bottom line is that neither of you are willing to accept the fact that Rome was not objective in their descriptions of their enemies. Nor are you wiling to accept that Christ promised "all the days of the age" (Mt. 28:19-20) the continuance of a practical application of New Testament Christianity that continued to preach the gospel, administer baptism and teach the basic truths of Christ APART FROM ROMAN sacramentalism.

I can understand why you are sold out to Catholcism regardless of what they say and teach but I cannot figure out why anyone who has been converted to Christianity out of Catholicism can still defend them as "the church" between Constantine and the Reformation????????

That’s an argument from silence there doc – he neither denies anything nor admits anything.
Again – the inference is yours.



Yes – they have a history; however, I have not stated what that history is.



The councils reveal no such thing! There is little if any historical connection between the Anabaptists and earlier sects such as the Henricians, Waldenses, Albigenses, and Bohemian Brethren.



So you continually say yet, ironically, you never provide any proof that the Council of Trent (or any councils for that matter) proved any such thing. I wonder why…



And that, my dear doctor, would be YOUR assumption.



No need to shout – so have I.



Sweet… I said that they have a history. However, nowhere did I ever state that their history went back 1200 years before Hosius and the Council of Trent. Again, please slow down – take a deep breath – say a prayer and READ what I write. Is that too much to ask? Apparently!

Peace!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The quotation by Hosius has been well researched and the original Latin has been translated by the head of the Latin department at Oxford. I have read the context in which this quotation is found and many others have since the late 1800's.

The Document Apud Opera does not exist so there can be no quote from it. Most educated people in those days spoke and wrote in ecclesial latin. So a quote still could be misapplied.

The quote Billysunday refers to from Liber primus de Haeresibus goes

Est autem & haec Anabaptistarum secta valde
dissecta: Neque enim doctrine capitibus inter se conveniunt. fuit etiam Augustini seculo, & ficut aliae
pleraeque omnes haereses sic & haec statim ab initio multas in partes fuit divis. Nam alij vocabantur
Donatistae, alij Rogatistae, alij Maximianistae, Circenses alij, qui conversi tandem sunt a factione
Donatistarum ( hoc enim nomen caeteris erat celebrius) ad Ecclesiae Catholicae societatem.

which compared the number of divided heresies in Augustines time with the divided heresies of his day. Its like saying "in Augustines day there were many heretics which went by these names that were divided from each other; today the same type of thing is happening." the only comparison is the Donatist (who had catholic practices) but like the anabaptist were again baptizers. Not that they were necissarily the same as the present ana baptist. So Hosius is saying that there was sectarians practiced again baptising but they aren't the same with each other throughout history they had diveregent beliefs from each other and many held many Catholic Beliefs like the Donatist but ended up heretics.

 

[BillySunday1935]

If you have read the context then why are you arguing with me as the context provides no negative rejection by Hosius of the writers statement?

Both you and Thinkingstuff base your interpretation of these groups on the statements of Roman Monkish historians when in fact the Roman Monks contradict themselves in many cases.

Look - you claim that the findings of various Catholic Councils provide proof that the Anabaptists go back 1200 years before the time of Hosius and Trent. I am simply asking you to provide proof of that claim.

There are mutiltitudes of historians that have researched these references by monkish historians and point out the conflicting statements and point to another more consistent intepretation about these groups. There is sufficient evidence to demonstrate they were grossly misrepresented by Roman and distorted intentionally and there is evidence in some cases to prove it.

Capable historians have written extensively on these groups and they have provided another model of interpretation that better fits the data than the conclusions drawn by Roman historians.

Well, then provide said evidence.

The bottom line is that neither of you are willing to accept the fact that Rome was not objective in their descriptions of their enemies. Nor are you wiling to accept that Christ promised "all the days of the age" (Mt. 28:19-20) the continuance of a practical application of New Testament Christianity that continued to preach the gospel, administer baptism and teach the basic truths of Christ APART FROM ROMAN sacramentalism.

Show me where you can find the statement:

"...the continuance of a practical application of New Testament Christianity that continued to preach the gospel, administer baptism and teach the basic truths of Christ APART FROM ROMAN sacramentalism."

in the scripture that you quoted:

Matthew 28:19-20
19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Those would be your words and NOT that of scripture.

I can understand why you are sold out to Catholcism regardless of what they say and teach but I cannot figure out why anyone who has been converted to Christianity out of Catholicism can still defend them as "the church" between Constantine and the Reformation????????

I'll have to let Thinkingstuff answer this one..

Peace!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I'll have to let Thinkingstuff answer this one..

Just study history. Note the Catholic Church today does not look like it did during Trent nor does it look like it did during Augustine and Ambrose nor does it look like it did during Constantine or during Justin Martyr or Clement. Nor did each period I mention look like the other period. The fact is that the chruch and Christianity has evolved from its beginings. There is no going back to the infant church. The reformation needed to happen. However, I do see consistencies through out history and I won't deny them. Ultimately, it was the catholic church as it was in the 4th century that compiled the library of books we call scripture. Thats not to say those books werent around before then but not necissarily compiled as we call it the bible. Christianity has evolved. I am certain of the words in scripture and understand they must be understood in their original contexts. As for the rest we can only rely on consistent sayings and referrences that go back. But an evolution of the church has occured. Yet my primary focus is and should always be Jesus Christ. And If something is truthful no matter if I want it to be or not I accept it.

 

[Dr. Walter]

When you say study "history" are you referring to the Roman Catholic representation of history?

When you say the church or Christianity has "evolved" are you referring to the Roman Catholic church and thus denying the promise made by Christ in Matthew 28:19-20 that "in all the days" till the end of the age there would be disciples being made in connection with the same gospel, baptism and teaching Jesus committed to the apostolic churches?????

When you say Romanism is responsible for the canonization of the Scriptures are your rejecting the canonization reflected in the early Syric and pre-Jerome Latin Vulgate???? Many scholars date these as early as 150 A.D.

In other words, are you swallowing hook line an sinker the Roman revisionist view of history that presents themselves as the true church and all those who opposed them as "heretics" between the fourth and fifthteenth centuries????

Are you accepting the charges that Rome made against these groups as historically accurate even when there is evidence to the contrary? Rome still charges the Paulicians to be dualists and Manicheans when we have "the key of truth" preserved that denies that charge and records preserved by Roman Monks who acknowledged they denied that charge and yet it is still being repeated in all history books today that rely on Roman Catholic historians. Mosheim denies they were Manichaeans (Moshiems Eccleisatical History, cent. 9, part I, section v.). Kurtz Church history denies it. Dr. William Jones who reseached them extensively and wrote two volumes citing sources denies it. Dr. W.A. Jarrel denies it and cites several sources and the list goes on and on concerning historians who have researched and denied it.

When I quoted Professor White of Oxford, I gave the correct bibliographical reference for the quote by Hosius. I just looked at my reference and noticed that I did not give any bibliographical information although I quoted it from a book that did. My Catholic friend did give you the correct bibliographic information.

Just study history. Note the Catholic Church today does not look like it did during Trent nor does it look like it did during Augustine and Ambrose nor does it look like it did during Constantine or during Justin Martyr or Clement. Nor did each period I mention look like the other period. The fact is that the chruch and Christianity has evolved from its beginings. There is no going back to the infant church. The reformation needed to happen. However, I do see consistencies through out history and I won't deny them. Ultimately, it was the catholic church as it was in the 4th century that compiled the library of books we call scripture. Thats not to say those books werent around before then but not necissarily compiled as we call it the bible. Christianity has evolved. I am certain of the words in scripture and understand they must be understood in their original contexts. As for the rest we can only rely on consistent sayings and referrences that go back. But an evolution of the church has occured. Yet my primary focus is and should always be Jesus Christ. And If something is truthful no matter if I want it to be or not I accept it.

 

[DHK]

Nor does Hosius endorse what he is reading as factual. All we can do is look at what he did say without inference:
Peace!

This is an escape goat. Why would your esteemed cardinal be lying or even quoting a liar. By making such a statement you are inferring that your esteemed cardinal is a liar himself.

 

[HankD]

I suppose technically I am a true "anabaptist" having been a former Catholic, baptised via the will of my parents as an infant then "re-baptised" as a result of my own volition as an adult in a Baptist local church from my personal faith in Jesus Christ.

However I reject "anabaptist" because the first so-called "baptism" was no baptism at all.

This debate can never be won by non-catholics because of an ancient instrument modernly called orwellian doublethink.

To know and not to know, ... to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, ... to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again:
Found online in the public domain at http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ns-dict.html

This I wrestled with priests until I realized the futility of it.

e.g. Two distinct doctrines taught by the Church of Rome: The "unbloody" sacrifice of the Mass and Transubstantiation.

I could not simultaneously hold both of them true without defiling my conscience or applying orwellian doublethink, which to me was a deception.

The same for "laltria" vs "hyper-dulia" to justify the worship of Mary.

As a child I was taught to pray to Mary who heard the millions praying to her simultaneously (omniscient/omipresent).
Later as a questioning adult I was told that these prayers were not the worship given to God but "veneration". More doublethink.

Then there was Mary as the co-redemptrix with Christ and mediatrix of all graces.

Of course I love and honor Mary as the mother of Jesus humanity and a woman, a sister in Christ of unparalleled faith but I could no longer worship her by praying to her as either "dulia" or "latria" - perfect examples of doublethink words.

This is a futility and will go on for 100's of pages.

HankD

 

[Thinkingstuff]

When you say study "history" are you referring to the Roman Catholic representation of history?

When you say the church or Christianity has "evolved" are you referring to the Roman Catholic church and thus denying the promise made by Christ in Matthew 28:19-20 that "in all the days" till the end of the age there would be disciples being made in connection with the same gospel, baptism and teaching Jesus committed to the apostolic churches?????

When you say Romanism is responsible for the canonization of the Scriptures are your rejecting the canonization reflected in the early Syric and pre-Jerome Latin Vulgate???? Many scholars date these as early as 150 A.D.

In other words, are you swallowing hook line an sinker the Roman revisionist view of history that presents themselves as the true church and all those who opposed them as "heretics" between the fourth and fifthteenth centuries????

Are you accepting the charges that Rome made against these groups as historically accurate even when there is evidence to the contrary? Rome still charges the Paulicians to be dualists and Manicheans when we have "the key of truth" preserved that denies that charge and records preserved by Roman Monks who acknowledged they denied that charge and yet it is still being repeated in all history books today that rely on Roman Catholic historians. Mosheim denies they were Manichaeans (Moshiems Eccleisatical History, cent. 9, part I, section v.). Kurtz Church history denies it. Dr. William Jones who reseached them extensively and wrote two volumes citing sources denies it. Dr. W.A. Jarrel denies it and cites several sources and the list goes on and on concerning historians who have researched and denied it.

When I quoted Professor White of Oxford, I gave the correct bibliographical reference for the quote by Hosius.

You miss represent Matthew 28 19-20. Those things are taught in every Christian Church they have not changed. How they are emphasised is a different issue. There was no pre 4th century canon which was more fluid at that time. There is speculation regarding the Old latin translation but that was not canon. and I review history as it is not revision. I follow credentialed historians I read source documents and many times history is just evident. And what I find interesting is secular historians with no stake in Romanism come to similar conclusions. Also many Christians historians non catholic have the same history. It seems only a faction holds to carrol.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Christ was not promising that VERSIONS of his command would continue "all the days" till the end of the age. He was promising that disciples would be made of the only gospel as all others are "accursed" (Gal. 1:8-9). He was promising "one baptism" as no other baptism existed than the one which was according to the counsel of God in Luke 7:29-30. The Scriptures condemn any other faith and practice as demon originating (I Tim. 3:15-4:1) as "the faith" was "ONCE" delivered (Jude 3).

I have a copy of the Old Syric translation that its translators date 150 A.D. and it is no different than my KJV. By the way, who says the Old Latin was not?????

Do the historians you read quote Roman historians as their sources without question or concern and assume their correctness?

You miss represent Matthew 28 19-20. Those things are taught in every Christian Church they have not changed. How they are emphasised is a different issue. There was no pre 4th century canon which was more fluid at that time. There is speculation regarding the Old latin translation but that was not canon. and I review history as it is not revision. I follow credentialed historians I read source documents and many times history is just evident. And what I find interesting is secular historians with no stake in Romanism come to similar conclusions. Also many Christians historians non catholic have the same history. It seems only a faction holds to carrol.

 

[Dr. Walter]

"To call these people Anabaptists, that is re-baptizers, was to malign them, because they denied that baptism was repeated, inasmuch as infant baptism is no baptism at all. They called themselves simply Baptists, not re-Baptists. The offensive name was fastened to them in order to bring them under the penalty of the Justinian Code against the Donatists." - Roland H. Bainton, The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, Beacon Press, Boston, 1956, p. 99

I suppose technically I am a true "anabaptist" having been a former Catholic, baptised via the will of my parents as an infant then "re-baptised" as a result of my own volition as an adult in a Baptist local church from my personal faith in Jesus Christ.

However I reject "anabaptist" because the first so-called "baptism" was no baptism at all.

This debate can never be won by non-catholics because of an ancient instrument modernly called orwellian doublethink.

This I wrestled with priests until I realized the futility of it.

e.g. Two distinct doctrines taught by the Church of Rome: The "unbloody" sacrifice of the Mass and Transubstantiation.

I could not simultaneously hold both of them true without defiling my conscience or applying orwellian doublethink, which to me was a deception.

The same for "laltria" vs "hyper-dulia" to justify the worship of Mary.

As a child I was taught to pray to Mary who heard the millions praying to her simultaneously (omniscient/omipresent).
Later as a questioning adult I was told that these prayers were not the worship given to God but "veneration". More doublethink.

Then there was Mary as the co-redemptrix with Christ and mediatrix of all graces.

Of course I love and honor Mary as the mother of Jesus humanity and a woman, a sister in Christ of unparalleled faith but I could no longer worship her by praying to her as either "dulia" or "latria" - perfect examples of doublethink words.

This is a futility and will go on for 100's of pages.

HankD

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Christ was not promising that VERSIONS of his command would continue "all the days" till the end of the age. He was promising that disciples would be made of the only gospel as all others are "accursed" (Gal. 1:8-9). He was promising "one baptism" as no other baptism existed than the one which was according to the counsel of God in Luke 7:29-30. The Scriptures condemn any other faith and practice as demon originating (I Tim. 3:15-4:1) as "the faith" was "ONCE" delivered (Jude 3).

I have a copy of the Old Syric translation that its translators date 150 A.D. and it is no different than my KJV. By the way, who says the Old Latin was not?????

Do the historians you read quote Roman historians as their sources without question or concern and assume their correctness?

wow your adding a lot to the simple verse

19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Catholics talk about one baptism yet you are supporting again baptising but contrarily you bring up one baptism. Then you bring up jude and make no reference to which teachings jude is speaking of but that which the catholics would call the Deposit of faith. then you bring up syriac translations but leave out the other books listed in not in your KJB them and fail to mention the Peshitta excludes certian nt text added later. And as for most mss there isn't significant change from modern bibles. so what are you trying to prove? Secular historians have no reason to take any side for their word.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Your betraying yourself. These posts have nothing to do with how Rome interprets the Matthew 28:19-20 or Jude 3 but with how YOU and I interpret these scriptures and yet YOU are using Rome's interpretations to counter mine. I can only assume you are still a proselyte of Roman doctrine and theology OR you have no idea what the scriptures are saying? Which is it?

wow your adding a lot to the simple verse
Catholics talk about one baptism yet you are supporting again baptising but contrarily you bring up one baptism. Then you bring up jude and make no reference to which teachings jude is speaking of but that which the catholics would call the Deposit of faith. then you bring up syriac translations but leave out the other books listed in not in your KJB them and fail to mention the Peshitta excludes certian nt text added later. And as for most mss there isn't significant change from modern bibles. so what are you trying to prove? Secular historians have no reason to take any side for their word.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Your betraying yourself. These posts have nothing to do with how Rome interprets the Matthew 28:19-20 or Jude 3 but with how YOU and I interpret these scriptures and yet YOU are using Rome's interpretations to counter mine. I can only assume you are still a proselyte of Roman doctrine and theology OR you have no idea what the scriptures are saying? Which is it?

I know exactly what Matthew 28 is speaking of. Its the great commission. To go and 1) make disciples 2) baptising them in the name of the father and the son and the holy Spirit. 3) and to teach them everything jesus taught them.

That is all it says you started adding Jude and one baptism which having knowledge of the Catholic church I found funny because I know many baptist who've been baptised multiple times but you were sounding catholic there and I showed you your inconsistency.

My point is and has been the infant church is gone. No more. The primary teachings are still taught throughout christianity and they are the same but christianity as a whole has evolved from that infant state and we will never go back. The infant church didn't use terms like trinity. Or persons when discusing the trinity. The infant church certainly didn't have communion once in a quarter. Nor did the infant church look anything like baptist churches today do. The only thing they would recognize is the reading of scripture and the pastors preaching of it. Even communion was different. And Certainly they knew nothing of Reformed theology or TULIP. They didn't quible over calvinism vs. armenianism or how predestination works. And they definately didn't do powerpoint presentations. How baptisms were done were different and they didn't have alter calls.

 

[Dr. Walter]

There is only "one baptism" mentioned in matthew 28:19-20 that is commissioned to be administered to believers (not infants) and there is explicitly defined doctrine and practice "whatsoever I have commanded you" which is later described as "the apostles doctrine" (Acts 2:42). Take note that Acts 2:41-42 is obedience to the very order given in Matthew 28:19-20.

Jude cannot possibly be instructing Christians to contend for anything other than what Christ commissioned in Matthew 28:19-20! There is an apostolic body of doctrine that was delivered to them ONCE in Matthew 28:19-20 and it is called "the apostles doctrine" in Acts 2:42 where that commission is being administered in the precise order it was given.

Paul repeatedly speaks of apostolic oral tradition "things handed down" consisting of doctrine and practice which they were to separate from any "brother" who departed from it (2 Thes. 2:15; 3:6,14). Paul wrote Rome and commanded them to mark and separate from those who were not in union with "the doctrine" they had received. Paul instructed Timothy and Titus to ordain those sound in "the faith" and to rebuke those who opposed "the faith." The church that Jesus built is characterized as "the pillar and ground of the truth."

I have just touched the surface of the evidence for a body of apostolic doctrine and practice that was given by Christ to the church and which the church was responsible to practice and defend as well as separate from those who did not.

wow your adding a lot to the simple verse
Catholics talk about one baptism yet you are supporting again baptising but contrarily you bring up one baptism. Then you bring up jude and make no reference to which teachings jude is speaking of but that which the catholics would call the Deposit of faith. then you bring up syriac translations but leave out the other books listed in not in your KJB them and fail to mention the Peshitta excludes certian nt text added later. And as for most mss there isn't significant change from modern bibles. so what are you trying to prove? Secular historians have no reason to take any side for their word.