Sola Scriptura

[Thinkingstuff]

Satan has no interest in destroying his own works. He wants to promote them and disperse them. Why would he destroy them?

Luke 11:17-18 But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth.

18 If Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? because ye say that I cast out devils through Beelzebub.

So by implication Satan is more powerful than the word of God? Yeah right.

 

[Dr. Walter]

None. I was listing the three characteristics together that eventually characterized the Catholic church beginning in 150 A.D. with water regeneration:

"All I said was that from 150 A.D. forward do we have clear evidence of apostasy in regard to water regeneration." - DW

What christian group in 150 AD or CE killed other christian groups? At this point you didn't have that type of thing what you did have were excommunications. In fact, there are no references to ordinance believing groups in existance. And there is good argument for the NT churches believing in Sacramental baptism as you call it.

 

[Dr. Walter]

In my first sentence I use the word "Anabaptist" as Rome does, a general term inclusive of the Donatists, Montanists, Novationists.
The last part of your argument is circle reasoning. You admit the existence of the Montanists, Novationists, and Dontatists which range in history from 150 A.D. to 700 A.D. and as movements overlapped and intermingled with each other - these are the ancient Anabaptists. Then you turn around and use the name "Anabpatist" and Baptist and demand what evidence is that they even existed. They are one and the same as the term "Anabaptist" is the general term used by Rome for all these ancient groups.

The problem with your theory is that the Montanist and the Donatist were not inclusive but exclusive. Your baptist exclusivity matches the Montanist and the Donatist and a same result should have occured. However, there is no evidence for the elusive Anabaptist. Primarily because this group is a fiction much like the snipe. Today baptist are the most prolific of writers.
Now logically we see that even during their missionary journies and persecution and evengelizing the Roman Empire The apostles still had time to compile their memoirs known as the NT. Matching the Prolific writing of the baptist today and the prolific writings of the apostles we can assume there is a great body of work from these "anabapitst" in the first century. The problem is there is 1) no evidence of them though we have evidence for the Montanist and the donatist and the gnostics whom the catholic church did have a scorched earth policy against and note that 2) even before nag hammurabi there were referrences of gnostic works in other writings. We don't even have this benefit for the mysterius baptist. There is only one conclusion their existance much like the touted lost tribe of Israel in North America before the Europeans came is a fantasy. There aren't even any 3) Archeolgical finds supporting the existance of this group. Even Atlantist (a fictional city) has mention in Plato. No such thing for this early ana baptist group. Therefore, we can only conclude is the infeasability of their existance.

 

[Dr. Walter]

One does not have to believe that Satan is "more powerful than the word of God" to believe there is a great apostasy and persecution where Satan dominates the world scene. Just look at the book of Revelation in chapters 12-18 and however, you want to interpret it, Satan is dominating the world scene.

Look at the world now. Christianity is the minority in contrast to the rest of the world population and in comparison to the combination of the other world religions. Look at professed Christendom. Some have speculated there are as many as over 30,000 different denominations within Christendom and God is certainly not the author of such confusion and division.

So by implication Satan is more powerful than the word of God? Yeah right.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

In my first sentence I use the word "Anabaptist" as Rome does, a general term inclusive of the Donatists, Montanists, Novationists.
The last part of your argument is circle reasoning. You admit the existence of the Montanists, Novationists, and Dontatists which range in history from 150 A.D. to 700 A.D. and as movements overlapped and intermingled with each other - these are the ancient Anabaptists. Then you turn around and use the name "Anabpatist" and Baptist and demand what evidence is that they even existed. They are one and the same as the term "Anabaptist" is the general term used by Rome for all these ancient groups.

They are only Anabaptist in the sense that they were again baptizers. They did not hold to baptist distinctives. Montanist were also sacramentalist, false prophets, and charasmatic in the sense of Pentecostal Holiness. These could not be the precursors to modern baptist unless you believe in evolving beliefs. So also with the Dontatist. They were not so much as again baptizers as they were exclusionist. They excluded the majority of the church but still held a sacramental view of worship and practice. They were indistinguishable from the Catholic Church at that time save whom they accepted. These also do not hold to baptist distinctives and cannot be consider to be the father of the modern day baptist.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

One does not have to believe that Satan is "more powerful than the word of God" to believe there is a great apostasy and persecution where Satan dominates the world scene. Just look at the book of Revelation in chapters 12-18 and however, you want to interpret it, Satan is dominating the world scene.

Look at the world now. Christianity is the minority in contrast to the rest of the world population and in comparison to the combination of the other world religions. Look at professed Christendom. Some have speculated there are as many as over 30,000 different denominations within Christendom and God is certainly not the author of such confusion and division.

Satan has since the begining attempt to destroy the word of God. Yet to this day we still have the bible and the works of Christians and saints that have gone on before us. Satan has not been able to obliterate Christianity nay nor even the Jews whom have given themselves over to his power. To therefore imagine that He was successfull in obliterating any reference to the Early Church goes beyond what we know to be true of history and the scripture.

 

[Dr. Walter]

This is Catholic interpretation of the Montanists. BTW even the Catholics are not united in their interpretation of the Montanists and other historians reconcile the conflicts between Catholics concerning the Montanists in Baptistic style.

They are only Anabaptist in the sense that they were again baptizers. They did not hold to baptist distinctives. Montanist were also sacramentalist, false prophets, and charasmatic in the sense of Pentecostal Holiness. These could not be the precursors to modern baptist unless you believe in evolving beliefs. So also with the Dontatist. They were not so much as again baptizers as they were exclusionist. They excluded the majority of the church but still held a sacramental view of worship and practice. They were indistinguishable from the Catholic Church at that time save whom they accepted. These also do not hold to baptist distinctives and cannot be consider to be the father of the modern day baptist.

 

[Dr. Walter]

That is precisely why each of these groups claimed apostolic origin as the apostolic New Testament churches. This is why they overlap and mixed with each other up to the Paulicians who in turn mixed with the Waldenses and the Waldenses with the Anabaptists and Baptists.

Satan has since the begining attempt to destroy the word of God. Yet to this day we still have the bible and the works of Christians and saints that have gone on before us. Satan has not been able to obliterate Christianity nay nor even the Jews whom have given themselves over to his power. To therefore imagine that He was successfull in obliterating any reference to the Early Church goes beyond what we know to be true of history and the scripture.

 

[Dr. Walter]

The earliest charges made against Monatus were not made until 50 years after his death. Those who made the charges contradicted each other whether Monatus claimed to be the Holy Spirit or claimed to be The Father or merely claimed to be spiritual.

Nearly all historians concede the Monatists were orthodox in doctrine in that early period. Roman Catholic interpretation of "orthodox" is read BACK INTO that history as the meaning of "orthodox."

Most historians admit that only the two women with Monatus claimed the spirit of prophecy while the churches called Monatists did not claim such or do such.

No one can prove that the churches called Monatists believed or followed the peculiar traits charged to the person of Monatus and his two prophetesses or that this was used to simply discredit the churches who practiced holiness.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The earliest charges made against Monatus were not made until 50 years after his death. Those who made the charges contradicted each other whether Monatus claimed to be the Holy Spirit or claimed to be The Father or merely claimed to be spiritual.

Nearly all historians concede the Monatists were orthodox in doctrine in that early period. Roman Catholic interpretation of "orthodox" is read BACK INTO that history as the meaning of "orthodox."

Most historians admit that only the two women with Monatus claimed the spirit of prophecy while the churches called Monatists did not claim such or do such.

No one can prove that the churches called Monatists believed or followed the peculiar traits charged to the person of Monatus and his two prophetesses or that this was used to simply discredit the churches who practiced holiness.

The reasons for "Nearly all Historians concede the Montanist were Orthodox" is for two primary reasons. They were consistant with the catholic church on specific aspects of their doctrine. And we know what types of things they believed because of Tertullian who was a montanist convert. We have his writtings and he himself was orthodox. However, its also pretty consistant with Charistamtic Holiness (Pentecostal) type beliefs. What is under scrutiny with the prophetesses in that sect is not the false prophesy (we have it recorded) but whether the accusations that they were

taking gifts under the guise of offerings... painted their faces, dyed their eyelids with stibium...wore ornaments and played at dice

 

[DHK]

So by implication Satan is more powerful than the word of God? Yeah right.

I simply quoted you Scripture, the very words of Jesus. Do you question them? It was his position that I gave you, which I happen to agree with.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Quote:
taking gifts under the guise of offerings... painted their faces, dyed their eyelids with stibium...wore ornaments and played at dice

You proved my point that Romanists are divided against each other. Other Roman historians claim the very opposite that they were zealots for holiness while this quotation has them as theifs and ungodly in character. Indeed, most historians claim they were not only orthodox, which probably meant they did not oppose anything in the so-called Apostles creed, but went to the extreme on demanding holiness from church membership. As I have studied this subject I find that usually what is true is the very opposite of what Roman Monkish historians accuse their enemies. It is like politics today in America. When you listening to charges made by liberals against conservatives it is usually a caracture of the very opposite. When the liberal charges the conservative as in bed with the rich, what it really means is that the conservative believes in supporting the capitalistic system that provides jobs provided by those who are making profit from their companies. When the liberal charge the conservatives with not being pro-choice what they really mean is the conservative is pro-life. This is exactly the game played by Rome with their enemies in order to sustain secular grounds for legalized killing.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You proved my point that Romanists are divided against each other. Other Roman historians claim the very opposite that they were zealots for holiness while this quotation has them as theifs and ungodly in character. Indeed, most historians claim they were not only orthodox, which probably meant they did not oppose anything in the so-called Apostles creed, but went to the extreme on demanding holiness from church membership. As I have studied this subject I find that usually what is true is the very opposite of what Roman Monkish historians accuse their enemies. It is like politics today in America. When you listening to charges made by liberals against conservatives it is usually a caracture of the very opposite. When the liberal charges the conservative as in bed with the rich, what it really means is that the conservative believes in supporting the capitalistic system that provides jobs provided by those who are making profit from their companies. When the liberal charge the conservatives with not being pro-choice what they really mean is the conservative is pro-life. This is exactly the game played by Rome with their enemies in order to sustain secular grounds for legalized killing.

In some ways your are right. Early Monk historians provided caracture of people they disagreed with. However, we have close to unaminity with regard to Their Holiness requirement, Style of Prophesy, Charisma, Establishment of their societies. Again we can refer reliably to Tertullian a convert. Those I listed were the specific charges that were in doubt. Just to clarify.
Also note that in our society the liberals try to paint conservative in a certain manner but note they have not nor can obliterate traces of conservatives our our actual thoughts which can be assertained by 1) the liberal persepective of them 2) Our own words by the same media. Ie books, tv, radio, and music. This would be true of early disenters of the Catholic Church.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I simply quoted you Scripture, the very words of Jesus. Do you question them? It was his position that I gave you, which I happen to agree with.

Use of scripture is nice. I'm glad you know scripture. However, its the use and context of scripture that I have a problem with here. This is your statement.

Satan has no interest in destroying his own works. He wants to promote them and disperse them. Why would he destroy them?

Luke 11:17-18 But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth.

18 If Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? because ye say that I cast out devils through Beelzebub.

The context of Luke 11:17 is that Jesus was being accused of being the head devil when he healed. It has nothing to do with the early writings of the gnostics. However, supposing your right satan preserved his works are you saying God can't preserve his works? Just because you quoted a text that had to do with the character of Jesus doesn't mean that you've made a point that landmark baptist works were entirely obliterated. That would question the ability of God over satan. The truth is that no matter where or who you are you leave a mark in the world that is discoverable. If its not discoverable it never existed.

 

[Dr. Walter]

In some ways your are right. Early Monk historians provided caracture of people they disagreed with. However, we have close to unaminity with regard to Their Holiness requirement, Style of Prophesy, Charisma, Establishment of their societies. Again we can refer reliably to Tertullian a convert. Those I listed were the specific charges that were in doubt. Just to clarify.
Also note that in our society the liberals try to paint conservative in a certain manner but note they have not nor can obliterate traces of conservatives our our actual thoughts which can be assertained by 1) the liberal persepective of them 2) Our own words by the same media. Ie books, tv, radio, and music. This would be true of early disenters of the Catholic Church.

This is because we live in a republic governed by laws founded upon Christian principles. However, in Marxists/Communistic countries not only are opponents to Communism destroyed systematically but their literature is removed from the public and destroyed and forbidden to be read.

The very things you deliniate as characteristics of the Montanists are also hotly debated as to their proper understanding and application.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

This is because we live in a republic governed by laws founded upon Christian principles. However, in Marxists/Communistic countries not only are opponents to Communism destroyed systematically but their literature is removed from the public and destroyed and forbidden to be read.

The very things you deliniate as characteristics of the Montanists are also hotly debated as to their proper understanding and application.

I happen to know a bit about communist Russia and know they couldn't get rid of all the disenting works from their populace as well. It didn't work for them and it certainly didn't work for Rome. And I suggest they aren't that hotly debated. Maybe only with regard to extent not practice.

 

[Dr. Walter]

The very essence of Biblical Christianity is defined in the essentials of discipe making in Matthew 28:19-20 and Acts 2:41-42.

This is inclusive of congregations of baptized believers in the TRUE gospel of Jesus Christ.

No church or churches in secular history that preach "another gospel" can be regarded as "true" churches as the Bible demands they be regarded as "accursed" churches.

Either you have to believe that Rome is the "TRUE" church, meaning, it preached the TRUE gospel of Christ between the fourth and sixteenth century OR those characterized "heretics" by Rome have the "true" churches among them OR New Testament Christianity as described in the Great commission cease to exist from 150 A.D. to 1500's.

Where there is not true gospel there can be no true churches.

Where there is no true gospel baptism there can be no true visible churches of Christ.

Where there is no true essential New Testament Faith (which necessarily includes the two items listed above) and order there can be no true churches of Christ.

 

[DHK]

Use of scripture is nice. I'm glad you know scripture. However, its the use and context of scripture that I have a problem with here. This is your statement.


The context of Luke 11:17 is that Jesus was being accused of being the head devil when he healed. It has nothing to do with the early writings of the gnostics. However, supposing your right satan preserved his works are you saying God can't preserve his works? Just because you quoted a text that had to do with the character of Jesus doesn't mean that you've made a point that landmark baptist works were entirely obliterated. That would question the ability of God over satan. The truth is that no matter where or who you are you leave a mark in the world that is discoverable. If its not discoverable it never existed.

God does preserve his works, just not in the way that you want him to.
This is true of many different areas. I believe it is true in textual criticism also: that oldest is not always the best MSS, just because it is closest to the "source." It may well be the closest because it wasn't used and left on the shelf so to speak, preserved with all its errors.

Speaking of the "power of God" and what he could have done, Jesus rebuked Peter for drawing his sword and cutting of the servant of the high priest's ear. After restoring it he told Peter to put up his sword and said to him: Don't you know I could have called 12 legions of angels from my Heavenly Father. 12 legions of angels is 72,000; one legion being 6,000. What can just one angel do?

2 Kings 19:35 And it came to pass that night, that the angel of the LORD went out, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses.
--One angel killed 185,000 men. What would 72,000 angels be capable of doing?

The point is, that God is capable of doing whatever he deems necessary.
But he doesn't have to do things your way or the way you think things should be done. It seems to us that the enemy often wins. David thought the same thing:

Psalms 73:2-4 But as for me, my feet were almost gone; my steps had well nigh slipped. For I was envious at the foolish, when I saw the prosperity of the wicked. For there are no bands in their death: but their strength is firm.

The wicked prosper. The poor man, the righteous man fails. He is persecuted. See the patience of Job. God allows it to be so. Biblical Christianity has always been in the minority.

"Yea all who live Godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution."
That is a promise.
God allows it to be so, that we might be conformed to the image of his son. While we are being persecuted the enemy writes books often accusing us of false doctrine. I don't believe that this is far off the mark.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

God does preserve his works, just not in the way that you want him to.
This is true of many different areas. I believe it is true in textual criticism also: that oldest is not always the best MSS, just because it is closest to the "source." It may well be the closest because it wasn't used and left on the shelf so to speak, preserved with all its errors.

Speaking of the "power of God" and what he could have done, Jesus rebuked Peter for drawing his sword and cutting of the servant of the high priest's ear. After restoring it he told Peter to put up his sword and said to him: Don't you know I could have called 12 legions of angels from my Heavenly Father. 12 legions of angels is 72,000; one legion being 6,000. What can just one angel do?

2 Kings 19:35 And it came to pass that night, that the angel of the LORD went out, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses.
--One angel killed 185,000 men. What would 72,000 angels be capable of doing?

The point is, that God is capable of doing whatever he deems necessary.
But he doesn't have to do things your way or the way you think things should be done. It seems to us that the enemy often wins. David thought the same thing:

Psalms 73:2-4 But as for me, my feet were almost gone; my steps had well nigh slipped. For I was envious at the foolish, when I saw the prosperity of the wicked. For there are no bands in their death: but their strength is firm.

The wicked prosper. The poor man, the righteous man fails. He is persecuted. See the patience of Job. God allows it to be so. Biblical Christianity has always been in the minority.

"Yea all who live Godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution."
That is a promise.
God allows it to be so, that we might be conformed to the image of his son. While we are being persecuted the enemy writes books often accusing us of false doctrine. I don't believe that this is far off the mark.

But what about the gates of hell not prevailing agianst his church? Surely, there would be evidence of it surely, yet there is not.

 

[DHK]

But what about the gates of hell not prevailing agianst his church? Surely, there would be evidence of it surely, yet there is not.

The Bible says: "The Lord knows them that are his."
There will always be those that are true to him on this earth; they will never be in the majority; but always in the minority. Ever since the foundation of Christianity they have been in the minority. There is no such thing as a Christian nation. Biblical Christianity is a minority. When Christians came to America to escape persecution they were only persecuted by others. That is what you will find in a history of the Baptists.