Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Are you not a little confused?
The subject is not TS but YOU and WALTER! Walter said that he is thinking about returning to Rome and you chimmed in with him.
Originally Posted by Walter
snip...
Tell me TS.....I having 2nd thoughts about remaining Baptist (principally because of these BB People) & because of some people in my own little church behave allot alike. If you were advising your own son or brother....what would you do?
You are not alone my friend.
WM
You mean all of those Non RCC sect/groups/churches since the time of jesus were n ot real, even though history states they existed?
No... you made me the subject, but I'm not playing along and that's what has you all tourqed up. Get over it.
Well, if by historic you mean in the last 400+ years (which is about as old as the Baptists are), then yes I agree that the position is not Baptist - BECAUSE - for the first 1500 years the Church and christians everywhere taught it, believed it, and died for it WAY BEFORE there was a Baptist church. You
can deny it all you want, but that doesn't change the historical facts.
Honest? Hmmmm.... I am being honest. I am Baptist and I believe in the baptism as stated in scripture. So what? This is the "Other Denominations" section you know. Further, you'll notice that I rarely venture out of the area...
WM
That's the problem... history states the opposite. Excluding the heretics that is. You don't consider them to have been Baptist do you?
WM
No, that there were saved christians in the RCC during times, as they held to what would be called "baptist doctrines", not those held by the RCC!
And the RCC was NOT teaching full blow heresy during the early times, as it took the formal Council of trent to have the RCC do that!
Ohh and just for the record...
To which I replied...
Any honest reader can see the Walter did not state in any way that he was converting to Catholicism, he simply wrote that due to the behavior of some people in his church and some here at BB, he is considering leaving the Baptist faith. Last I looked, there are many Protestant denomoinations to choose from.
You really are a piece of work there Dr. Walt... errrr... I mean The Biblicist.
TM
I think it's about time that you really own up to the fact that you're really a roman catholic.
You've lost your ability to discern Apostate church is from real true churches
Perhaps.... So, convince me of my error.
WM
Perhaps.... So, convince me of my error.
WM
And you sir are a deceiver! Whether he left for the Catholic church as the clear inferrence was with the reference to TS or some other denomination what I said about him and you is TRUE! Neither are "Baptist" in doctrine but in "NAME" only as Baptist do not believe that regeneration occurs in baptism and no Baptist confession of Faith teaches that as YOU WELL KNOW! You sir are being deceptive and that is the mark of a deceiver.
I can see that being proven wrong doesn't agree with you. Oh well...[
WM
No man can "convince" a person who is deceptive and dishonest and set upon interpreting the scriptures every way possible to avoid the truth!
Right back at ya!
WM
snip...
Rome says that circumucision is sacramentally equal to baptism but Paul denies circucmision is sacramental as it does not convey justifying grace to Abraham or anyone who walks "in the steps" of Abraham. Rom. 4:11-12) and all who are justified are justified by faith as was Abraham.
That's the problem... history states the opposite. Excluding the heretics that is. You don't consider them to have been Baptist do you?
WM
I'm not an expert, but I'm not sure that they hold circumcision equal to baptism. I think it's more that circumcision was a foreshadowing of baptism. However, it doesn't matter to me because I believe it from scripture and from the fact that all of Christendom (with the exception of a few heretics) believed it for the first 1500 years, and a majority of Christians still do today.
From the OT:
Ezekiel: 36 25-27: 25Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
26A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
27And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
What do we have here? We have someone sprinkled with water and through that action, they are made clean from their filthiness, and they receive God’s spirit. This passage from the Old Testament shows us that God, by his own design and not that of men, uses an outward sign to bring about an inward change in his people – a foreshadowing of baptism in the New Testament. Notice how God in the old covenant was preparing use for what he gives us in the new covenant.
And now, let’s move on to the New Testament to see the correlation.
Acts 2:38 38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
See? Plain as day from scripture - born of water and the spirit.
Acts 22:16 16And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
Scripture plainly tells us that Baptism washes away sin; and through Baptism, we receive the Holy Spirit.
1 Corinthians 12:13 13For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body [the body of Christ], whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
Galatians 3:27 27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Clearly, baptism makes us members of the Body of Christ and thus is the entrance into the new covenant with God, just a circumcision was the entrance into the old covenant with God. Scripture makes this connection for us in the following:
Colossians 2:11-12 11In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
12Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
Baptism is the entrance into the new covenant as explicitly stated in the scripture above. So, is baptism salvific? Once again, let’s go to scripture.
1 Peter 3: 20-21 20Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
21The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
Just as Noah and his family were saved by water, water baptism now saves us. There it is; explicitly stated in the Bible. Further, let's look at Jesus’ own words in John’s gospel…
John 3:5 5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Further, let’s read on in context as follows a few verses later, after he finished his talk with Nicodemus…
John 3:22 22After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.
What did Jesus do immediately after telling Nicodemus how he can be saved? He sent the apostles went out baptizing with water. See the context? Baptism is the context in which one must be born of water and the spirit. Further, look at all of the accounts in the gospels about Jesus’ own baptism. Jesus is baptized with water and look what happens to him when he comes up out of the water (or is sprinkled)... the spirit descends upon him – water and the spirit.
In Matthew 28:19 what did Jesus say in his final instructions to the apostles? Go therefore and make disciples of all nations getting them to accept me into their hearts as their personal lord and savior? No. It says:
19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Why is baptism given such paramount importance in Jesus’ final instructions to the apostles if it is only symbolic? Because it is salvific! Scripture simply does not support a symbolic view of baptism
WM
Hmm... How about the Montanists, the Waldensians, the Albigenses, the Cathars, the Hussites, the Anabaptists, and other Dissenters whom the RCC and later the Protestant Magisterial Reformers persecuted and murdered in the name of Jesus, some to the point of near-extermination? Do they count? Of course, the Montanists didn't suffer the same fate as these later groups because the Romanist state church killing machine had not been formed yet.
Heretics? Who is a heretic depends on the one using the word, as can be seen on this forum. I have been called that so many times here that I don't doubt had I lived in the middle ages, I would have been put to the stake or the guillotine, probably even by some good "Baptist" brethren here, had they lived then.
All of the above is not true, and no doubt comes from one of those revised RCC sources.Anti-Catholics like to play up the times when Catholics killed heretics, but they usually don't notice the times when the heretics attacked the Catholics. Some on this board have clamed that the Albigensians (a particularly pernicious, nasty, anti-human cult) were poor, innocent, and harmless who were just minding their own business when the bloodthirsty Catholics barged in and started slaughtering them.
Albigensianism was not a mere Christian heresy but a non-Christian religion with elements of Christianity and Manichaeanism thrown into the mix.
Among the things they believed are:
1. Jesus was only "apparently" born of Mary.
2. They believed that Christ never had a real human body, and He never really suffered, and His apparent sacrifice was merely instructive, nothing more.
3. There is no resurrection of the body, because all flesh is evil.
4. They considered suicide as commendable since they considered the human body as evil and hence liberation from "matter" is the aim.
5. Matrimonial intercourse is evil, since it propagates the imprisonment of souls in new material bodies. Abandonment of the wife by the husband is good, and so is the reverse. Concubinage is thus preferrable to marriage. In relation, even animal generation is unacceptable.
Can you imagine what it would be like if they would become the majority in any society, especially their last two beliefs mentioned ? Some would say the crusade was a just one.
The disruption it would cause is simply too serious to ignore.
I wonder how the Reformers like John Calvin and Martin Luther would have dealt with them had such groups appeared within Protestantism. Probably no differently.