A look at Matthew 16 vs dogma

[Dr. Walter]

I understand why you react the way you do because of your Catholic background and therefore how you approach scripture. However, let me just ask you a few questions:

Do you think that Christ commissioned anyone then or now or in between then and now to go preach ANOTHER gospel than what He himself preached and delivered to be preached in this commission "til the end of the world"?

If you do, then what will you do with Galatians 1:8-9? or 2 Cor. 11:3-4?

Do you think that Christ commissioned anyone then, or now or inbetween then or now to administer ANOTHER kind of baptism than what he Himself submitted to, administered through his disciples and was available when he made this commission "till the end of the world"?

If so, then what do you do with Luke 7:29-30 and Ephesians 4:5??? Remember, the baptism in the Spirit is time restricted (Acts 1:5; 11:15-16).

Do you think that Christ commissioned anyone then or now or inbetween then and now to teach what he never commanded or deposited unto them to teach?

If so, then what do you do with Acts 20:27-31 and 1 Tim. 4:1; Jude 3; 2 Thes. 3:6; Rom. 16:17 and Acts 2:42?

If as you say, the apostolic church no longer exists then what who is the plural "you" being promised that Christ will be with them "all the days" until the end of the age? What do you do with Matthew 16:18 and Ephesians 3:21.

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.

 

[BillySunday1935]

snip...

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.

Hey doc - I am of the Baptist persuasion. Just FYI...

Peace!

 

[Dr. Walter]

Hey doc - I am of the Baptist persuasion. Just FYI...

Peace!

Why in the world are you defending Catholic dogma if you are Baptist in persuasion? What kind of Baptist?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I understand why you react the way you do because of your Catholic background and therefore how you approach scripture. However, let me just ask you a few questions:

Do you think that Christ commissioned anyone then or now or in between then and now to go preach ANOTHER gospel than what He himself preached and delivered to be preached in this commission "til the end of the world"?.

No, one gospel. But I think many have changed the definition of what the gospel message jesus preached. However I'm not sure why your using til the end of the world in this context. It was an admonishion of Christ that he would be with us until the end of the world.

If you do, then what will you do with Galatians 1:8-9? or 2 Cor. 11:3-4?

Why would I believe there is another gospel there is none.

Do you think that Christ commissioned anyone then, or now or inbetween then or now to administer ANOTHER kind of baptism than what he Himself submitted to, administered through his disciples and was available when he made this commission "till the end of the world"?

This is a loaded question. Before Jesus death and resurrection what baptism did his disciples give? However, I agree with Peter in Acts

38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call."

If so, then what do you do with Luke 7:29-30 and Ephesians 4:5??? Remember, the baptism in the Spirit is time restricted (Acts 1:5; 11:15-16).

(All the people, even the tax collectors, when they heard Jesus' words, acknowledged that God's way was right, because they had been baptized by John.

one Lord, one faith, one baptism;

You seem to be using scripture against yourself here. Unless you abhore those who have been been baptised multiple times. I know I don't. Nothing I've said contradicts one Lord, one Faith.

Do you think that Christ commissioned anyone then or now or inbetween then and now to teach what he never commanded or deposited unto them to teach?

I've already answered that above

If so, then what do you do with Acts 20:27-31 and 1 Tim. 4:1; Jude 3; 2 Thes. 3:6; Rom. 16:17 and Acts 2:42?

N/A

If as you say, the apostolic church no longer exists then what who is the plural "you" being promised that Christ will be with them "all the days" until the end of the age? What do you do with Matthew 16:18 and Ephesians 3:21

I never said the apostolic church no longer exist I said it evolved. two different things. I also said the teachings are the same but emphasis and practices have changed. so the rest is irrrelevant.

 

[BillySunday1935]

Why in the world are you defending Catholic dogma if you are Baptist in persuasion? What kind of Baptist?

I am defending the teachings of the ECF's. If they happen to have been Catholic, then there is nothing I can do about that. I believe that Thinkingstuff said it best:

"And If something is truthful, no matter if I want it to be or not, I accept it."

Amen!

 

[DHK]

Hey doc - I am of the Baptist persuasion. Just FYI...

Peace!

Do you think any one here believes that.
Consider this carefully. Study this passage of Scripture out.

John 1:11-13 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

In verse 11 it says that Christ came to his own, that is the nation of Israel, but they received him not. They rejected him and had him crucified. They hated him and his message and had him outright put to death.

In verse 12 we see the message of salvation by faith alone. "As many as received him...they became the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name. Those, who by faith, believed on Christ became the children of God. This is the new birth. This is what John is speaking of here. Notice that there is no water involved in the new birth. Notice also it is a gift to be received. "As many as received him..." Christ is simply to be received, no questions asked. He is received by faith, by believing on him.

Now notice verse 13 very carefully. Look again:
John 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
--which were born not of blood--you cannot be born of a blood line. Your genealogy doesn't count. It doesn't matter if you were born in a Christian family, a Baptist family, if your father was a Baptist preacher, or your heritage was Baptist or Christian--all of that doesn't matter. You cannot be born again through blood. Your blood relationship doesn't matter. Your relationship to any of your family doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if you are born into a Christian family. That doesn't matter a hill of beans to God.

--"nor of the will of the flesh" Any carnal thing that you might to is carnal in God's sight--baptism, confirmation, taking communion, etc. Those are things that are done in the flesh. They cannot save you. One is not born again by things done in the flesh. Salvation is not done by doing; it is by believing.

--"nor of the will of the mind" It is useless to think that you are a Christian because you mentally assent to its doctrines. "The devils believe and tremble. Christianity is not a mental exercise. You are not a Baptist because you think you are, because you say you are. It is not of the will of the mind.

"But of God." The verb is at the beginning of the verse. "born of God." This is speaking of the new birth. By faith one is "born of God: not of blood, not of the will of the flesh, not of the will of the mind; but he is born of God. He is born again by putting his faith in Christ and the work of Christ. This is the new birth.

Now apply that to what you have been saying on this board.
If you were a Baptist you would post Baptist doctrine.
If you were a Baptist you would post doctrine in accordance with the statement of faith of the SBC church listed in your profile, but you don't.
In fact you post doctrine that is entirely against the Bible, doctrine that is not of a Christian but of an unbeliever. One cannot be born of God and believe that the agency of the new birth is water, as you have previously stated. That is a heresy that contradicts what salvation is. If you believe that you cannot be saved. That is just the plain simple facts. It is like saying that if you deny the deity of Christ you cannot be saved. There are some facts which cannot be denied and still claim to be a Christian.

There are some facts that can't be posted and still claim to be a Baptist. You aren't a Baptist no matter what heritage you have, no matter what church you attend. The facts speak for themselves.

 

[Dr. Walter]

You are not answering these questions in the light of your assertion that the Apostolic church has evolved because you either include the Roman Catholic church from its inception in that evolution, and thus recognize it as the church of Christ, and take their position that all others were heretics between Constantine to the Reformation or you must reject them as fit objects of Matthew 28:19-20 on the grounds of their gospel, baptism and doctrine.

Are you accepting Rome as the true apostolic Church which then evolved into Reformed Roman Catholics (Protestants) as the true apostolic church which now has evolved into something else???

You overlooked "the counsel of God" in Luke 7:30. The baptism of John was the baptism of Jesus, the baptism of his disciples and was the only existent baptism when Matthew 28:19-20 was uttered and so could not have reference to any other baptism.

The promise of Christ in Matthew 28;19-20 is not with "christians" but with "disciples" who are obedient in these three areas (same gospel, same baptism, same faith and practice). For example, Not all "Christians" have been baptized. Not all professed "Christians" believe the true gospel. Not all "Christians" are like faith and order with essential apostolic Christian doctrine and practice.

His promise is not to GENERIC Christianity with all their chaotic doctrine and practice and confused and divided denominations. Scriptures like 2 Thes. 2:15 with 2 Thes. 3:6 and Rom. 16:17 demonstrate this is simply not a promise given to "Christians" in general.

No, one gospel. But I think many have changed the definition of what the gospel message jesus preached. However I'm not sure why your using til the end of the world in this context. It was an admonishion of Christ that he would be with us until the end of the world.



Why would I believe there is another gospel there is none.



This is a loaded question. Before Jesus death and resurrection what baptism did his disciples give? However, I agree with Peter in Acts






You seem to be using scripture against yourself here. Unless you abhore those who have been been baptised multiple times. I know I don't. Nothing I've said contradicts one Lord, one Faith.



I've already answered that above


N/A


I never said the apostolic church no longer exist I said it evolved. two different things. I also said the teachings are the same but emphasis and practices have changed. so the rest is irrrelevant.

 

[quantumfaith]

Do you think any one here believes that.

I do.
:null::null::null::null:

 

[DHK]

I do.
:null::null::null::null:

If you believe that BillySunday whose posts are 100% Catholic, all the while he adamantly claims to be a member of a SBC church, and a Baptist (not a Catholic) you are the only one that I know that believes him.

 

[quantumfaith]

.

In fact you post doctrine that is entirely against the Bible, doctrine that is not of a Christian but of an unbeliever.

So say You!

 

[Dr. Walter]

What does the acronym ECF's stand for?

I am defending the teachings of the ECF's. If they happen to have been Catholic, then there is nothing I can do about that. I believe that Thinkingstuff said it best:

"And If something is truthful, no matter if I want it to be or not, I accept it."

Amen!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You are not answering these questions in the light of your assertion that the Apostolic church has evolved because you either include the Roman Catholic church from its inception in that evolution, and thus recognize it as the church of Christ, and take their position that all others were heretics between Constantine to the Reformation or you must reject them as fit objects of Matthew 28:19-20 on the grounds of their gospel, baptism and doctrine.

Are you accepting Rome as the true apostolic Church which then evolved into Reformed Roman Catholics (Protestants) as the true apostolic church which now has evolved into something else???

You overlooked "the counsel of God" in Luke 7:30. The baptism of John was the baptism of Jesus, the baptism of his disciples and was the only existent baptism when Matthew 28:19-20 was uttered and so could not have reference to any other baptism.

The promise of Christ in Matthew 28;19-20 is not with "christians" but with "disciples" who are obedient in these three areas (same gospel, same baptism, same faith and practice). For example, Not all "Christians" have been baptized. Not all professed "Christians" believe the true gospel. Not all "Christians" are like faith and order with essential apostolic Christian doctrine and practice.

His promise is not to GENERIC Christianity with all their chaotic doctrine and practice and confused and divided denominations. Scriptures like 2 Thes. 2:15 with 2 Thes. 3:6 and Rom. 16:17 demonstrate this is simply not a promise given to "Christians" in general.

I don't write history around my beliefs but by facts. The closest answer I can come to that you have supplied is this one

Are you accepting Rome as the true apostolic Church which then evolved into Reformed Roman Catholics (Protestants) as the true apostolic church which now has evolved into something else???

And the chruch continues to evolve and will evlove further. Just look at baptist. You have the southern germany ana baptist under Zwigli that have changed some in favor of Calvin's reformed ideas and others with Menno's views and others still with other views. You have Anglicans that were influenced by Knox who became the Puritans and combined views with baptist they found in Holland and Denmark. When they came to the Americas Baptist again were different then just previously in Europe and even Mr. Smyth's Baptist are different from the baptist today as well as Roger Williams. Look at the SBC that I'm a part of how much they've changed. They supported Slavery and white supremeacy at the First Baptist Church of Agusta during the civil war now look at them. I'm certain that the Augusta baptist would disdane the modern SBC. But there you go evolution in the church.

 

[DHK]

So say You!

Yes I do, and every Baptist I know of would say that Baptismal Regeneration is one of the first heresies to enter into the Church, a heresy that has and is leading people to hell, even to this day. That is one of many heresies that he believes. Do you believe it as well?

 

[DHK]

What does the acronym ECF's stand for?

Early Christian Fathers

 

[quantumfaith]

If you believe that BillySunday whose posts are 100% Catholic, all the while he adamantly claims to be a member of a SBC church, and a Baptist (not a Catholic) you are the only one that I know that believes him.

:thumbsup:

 

[Dr. Walter]

So say You!

Will you or Billy supply a Baptist Confession of Faith that teaches baptism is essential to be a Christians since you as well as Billy claim you can believe baptism is essential to be a Christian?

Remember, he is claiming to be a "Baptist" and according to his profile a SBC kind of Baptist and the SBC do have confession of faith that defines what SBC beleives and do not beleive.

What is the difference between Billy claiming to be a Baptist and 87% of Americans claiming to be born again Christians?

 

[quantumfaith]

Will you or Billy supply a Baptist Confession of Faith that teaches baptism is essential to be a Christians since you as well as Billy claim you can believe baptism is essential to be a Christian?

Remember, he is claiming to be a "Baptist" and according to his profile a SBC kind of Baptist and the SBC do have confession of faith that defines what SBC beleives and do not beleive.

What is the difference between Billy claiming to be a Baptist and 87% of Americans claiming to be born again Christians?

Dr. Walter.

I do not share this belief, if in fact it is as you say with respect to "Billy's" postion on baptism. I currently hold a membership in a SBC church, but I now attend a non-denominational church. (Wiregrass Church, a campus of Northpoint: Andy Stanley being the pastor)

 

[Dr. Walter]

I can understand why you take this position because you accept the historical perceptions provided by Rome and those historians who accept them.

Such, give you the basis to look at the history of Baptists as you do. However, I more than willing to admit that the term "Baptist" as well as its earlier epitaph given them "Anabaptist" covers more than New Testament Christianity.

Third, you fail to distinguish between essentials and non-essentials. There are absolute essentials that must be present for a person to be regarded a true Christian and there are absolute essentials that must be present for a group of Christians to regarded a true New Testament church. There are relatively non-essential differnces that differ from Christian to Christian as well as from N.T. Church to N.T. Church.


Slavery is not an essential of the faith once delivered the reception or rejection of which is essential to salvation or the the essentials of a N.T. Church. This was a real problem in the New Testament times as well. I believe the scriptures provide principles that eventually destroy slavery just as God gave principles that eventually destroyed polygomy among the people of God in the Old Testament.

As long as you accept the accusations and misrepresentations of history by Rome and those who do, you certainly will be a wandering "evolving" kind of guy for the rest of your life.

I don't write history around my beliefs but by facts. The closest answer I can come to that you have supplied is this one And the chruch continues to evolve and will evlove further. Just look at baptist. You have the southern germany ana baptist under Zwigli that have changed some in favor of Calvin's reformed ideas and others with Menno's views and others still with other views. You have Anglicans that were influenced by Knox who became the Puritans and combined views with baptist they found in Holland and Denmark. When they came to the Americas Baptist again were different then just previously in Europe and even Mr. Smyth's Baptist are different from the baptist today as well as Roger Williams. Look at the SBC that I'm a part of how much they've changed. They supported Slavery and white supremeacy at the First Baptist Church of Agusta during the civil war now look at them. I'm certain that the Augusta baptist would disdane the modern SBC. But there you go evolution in the church.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Dr. Walter.

I do not share this belief, if in fact it is as you say with respect to "Billy's" postion on baptism. I currently hold a membership in a SBC church, but I now attend a non-denominational church. (Wiregrass Church, a campus of Northpoint: Andy Stanley being the pastor)

I appreciate you being straight forward in this. I was trained in an independent Baptist College but received seminary training in a Southern Baptist Seminary.

As a fellow Baptist, can you honestly defend a person to be a born again Christian if their rule of faith is determined by the "Early Christian Father's" and in addition claim baptism is essential for salvation? That is exactly what can be found in the ECF as Billy refers to it as.

I can say a person may be saved and confused or misled into such an error. However, it is difficult to maintain you can treat them as saved if they staunchly defend such an error.

 

[quantumfaith]

I appreciate you being straight forward in this. I was trained in an independent Baptist College but received seminary training in a Southern Baptist Seminary.

As a fellow Baptist, can you honestly defend a person to be a born again Christian if their rule of faith is determined by the "Early Christian Father's" and in addition claim baptism is essential for salvation? That is exactly what can be found in the ECF as Billy refers to it as.

I can say a person may be saved and confused or misled into such an error. However, it is difficult to maintain you can treat them as saved if they staunchly defend such an error.

Let me say, kindly and with respect. Are you implying that your knowledge and wisdom is greater than that of the early church fathers? I admittedly am not a theologian, nor am I seminary educated. I see Billy's postion(s) as different than mine, but in all honesty, only God Himself knows the correct answers. When we leave the "essentials' of christianity, we often resort to speculation and opining with pride and self assurance. You and I probably agree (at least intellectually) on most things.