. . . . and yet when one of your own attempts to mock or belittle one of us that is Catholic or is becoming Catholic by calling us names or 'little Catholic want to be' you and the moderators are silent and ignore it. Speaks for itself.
-
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!
The Crux
- Thread starter The Biblicist
- Start date
. . . . and yet when one of your own attempts to mock or belittle one of us that is Catholic or is becoming Catholic by calling us names or 'little Catholic want to be' you and the moderators are silent and ignore it. Speaks for itself.
Anybody can interpret the Holy Scriptures as they see fit and can come up with their own Doctrine and they can even say it’s biblical!…heck, history is full of men who did just that…just research any of the early Ecumenical Councils…there was always someone interpreting Holy Scripture contrary to what the Church had always believed and taught on an specific doctrine…
You can say that’s what you believe and that’s what your church teaches and sure…you can point to all the biblical commentaries that fill your bookshelf to prove it…but that doesn’t prove that that’s what the early Church believed and taught, because you have no proof…
As an Orthodox Christian, I can read what the Apostolic Church Fathers wrote…for they sat at the very feet of the Apostles of our Lord…they also wrote letters to area Churches leading them and correcting them looooong before there was a Bible like we have today…Then we have the Early Church Fathers, Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church…the Desert Fathers and Mothers of the Church, along with theologians of the Church…all point to historical NT Church that still exists to this day…and the their writings are jammed pack with Holy Scripture…
You can’t have Holy Tradition without Holy Scripture and without Holy Tradition, you wouldn’t have Holy Scripture today…We test all our doctrines with not only Holy Scripture, but also Holy Tradition…If it’s not what the Early Church taught and practiced…we don’t entertain it…pure and simple…
Thanks Walter…I’ve been a member of the BB for quite some time and as the number of posts indicate on my profile, I don’t post often…I’d like to, but I work, have a family and coach youth baseball…so I’m quite busy…
Like I said, I’ve seen the mocking play out here…it’s sad to see, but it’s going to happen…I normally post what I have to say, and I may follow up to some questions, or try to clarify, but what I’ve learned is that the more you engage in this type of debate setting, the more likely the discussion will turn south…so I normally just drop it at that point…
But I pray that God will also lead you on your journey just as he did me and bring you the peace you deserve, because I’ve been in your shoes and its nice when you finally arrive…
Since "Holy tradition" does not exist, in the sense as being on par with the sacred text itself...
Any doctrines there would seem to be mingled with truth AND error, especially regards to how we are right before God!
Yesua1…you can’t seriously say with a straight face that the Early Church in its infancy survived without Holy Tradition…you simply can’t fool yourself…Christ promised that He would send a Helper…that of the Holy Spirit…and that He would remind His Apostles of all thing and lead them in all truth…Christ didn’t instruct His Apostles to write a Book, neither did Christ leave His Apostles with any manual…
Actually, the Church would survive just fine if the Holy Bible simply disappeared…
Look no farther than the history of Russia to prove this point…for hundreds of year’s atheistic Russia burned bibles, murdered Orthodox bishops, priests and lay people…the Bible was outlawed…you got caught with a bible, and you paid for it dearly…
The Russian Orthodox Church survived…why? Holy Tradition…Our liturgical life of the Church cannot be taken…our Creed cannot be taken, our faith cannot be taken, because it’s burned in the hearts and minds of the faithful, especially those Russian Orthodox faithful…who had no Bible, had not Orthodox missal…what they had was Holy Tradition…
The Russian Orthodox Church survived not because of luck, but because of the promise Christ made to His Church and the Church survives today, even in the grips of Islam in the Middle East and will continue until Christ returns…
Actually the early Church was NEITHER the RCC or the Orthodox! It had the Holy Spirit giving to them thru Apostles/prophets inspired writtings and utterances...
Once John passed,the Holy spirit giving 'sign gifts/words/spoken revelation" ceased, as we now had a complete Bible, and the books/letters of it was being copies and passed around and read from the first century forward..
And IF there was NO Bible right now...
The people would be into spiritual darkness shortly!
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
You really should brush up on your history.
Well...
the early church was neither orthodox as in Greek/Rudssian, and the RCC was NOT as it is today!
In fact, could make a case that earliest christians were baptistsbefore catholics!
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
I can make a case to show you that they were Orthodox, Coptic and Catholic. Baptist didn't exist in the 1st century you can thank Adam Smyth for that.
Again, you never addressed this objection to your theory.
they were Apostolic, and by practice and doctrines baptist....
You have no way to prove the so-called writings from the so-called "Church Fathers" are any more legitimate than all the commentators you just trashed. You have no way to prove they correctly teach anything other than comparing it to inspired scriptures and the same holds true for all later commentators regardless what they claim.
Written Scripture supersedes oral traditions (Isa. 8:20; 2 Tim. 3:16-17). Oral tradition has no way of being preserved and scripture is the judge of all tradition not vice versa and not equally in authority.
Last edited by a moderator:
I am sorry but that claim is laughable! The Eastern Catholic church is just about as corrupted as the Western Catholic church - both apostates from the faith once deliverd and not even close to what was delivered.
Instead both Eastern and Western are compositories of FALSE TRADITIONS.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Ok prove it. I've already read the pamphlet trail of blood and its historically inaccurate. So Prove the early christians were baptist. Show me their writings show me where they lived. Show me everything you have about this baptist church in the first century.
You mean paganized Roman Catholic certified history? Give me a break!
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
There is only one history. Can you show me early baptist buildings? What about their writings? You can't can you. Because they don't exist. You can only go back to the reformation and claim ana-baptist but they aren't like modern baptist they were like the amish and the menonites.
Why? You will simply mock the multitude of historians that reject the Roman Catholic selectively preserved sources and interpretations for those services.
We could quote from Mosheim (Lutheran) and Neander (Presbyteran) or Robinson (Arian) or a multitude of Baptist historians (J.T. Christian, Jones, ect.) or secular historians as Gibbons and Anabaptists historians, etc., and DHK has quoted from several of these.
However, quoting them would do no good for the likes of you because you are married to Roman Catholic traditions.
The Blood of dissenting Anabaptists and others is the badge of Mother Rome's history.
That trail of blood is documented by a wide variety of denominational historians that I just previously listed. DHK has quoted them several times.