Featured Is there any historical evidence for the Baptist position on Baptism?

None of those scriptures you gave said people bowed to the works of their hands and it was okay.
None of those scriptures said we should bow and pray to Mary as Queen of Heaven, in fact, I gave you scripture rebuking you for doing such a thing.
None of those scriptures said to put a man in charge call him father and bow to him.

What are you talking about except Moses? I gave you scripture that the Israelites burned incense to the snake Moses made, and that the snake was destroyed for that. Are you still going to go to a church that has its priests burn incense to the statues in front of the church?

 

I will leave answering your question to someone else who adheres to Baptist doctrines more than I do. However, Wittenberger, I would like to know where you go for authority in interpreting scripture. I'm not trying to pick a fight, just curious.

 

Allow me transtranslate......

I cannot make my case by submitting myself to inspired writings in and of themselves and so I am forced to flee to uninspired writings to make my case.

It is amazing to me that Catholics (Reformed Catholics) will appeal to uninspired councils, uninspired popes, uninspired traditions when God Himself has provided inspired scriptures sufficient in and of themselves to provide the man of God all that he needs to be complete for doctrine, instruction and correction and reproof.

 

Common sense rules of interpretation are indeed necessary but so is a regenerated person with the indwelling Holy Spirit necessary. The New Testament was written to born again believers.

You don't realize it but you are in reality attacking and thus denying the sufficiency of the Scriptures and its Author to have provided sufficient inspired revelation for the man of God to be complete for all doctrine, teaching, correction and reproof (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

You are really denying the sufficiency of the inspired scriptures under the direction of its Author for the complete instruction of God's people without uninspired opinions of men and their uninspired writings and their uninspired traditions.

Hence, you are really arguing that the uninspired really takes precedence over the inspired as your whole position ultimately depends upon subjection of both the Author and His revelation to the uninspired rather than subjection of the uninspired to the power of God and His inspired provisions.

1 Jn. 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

The problem of interpretation is INTERNAL having to do with the mind and heart and ONLY the Holy Spirit can teach the mind and heart because ONLY the Holy Spirit has the power to give the mind understanding and open the heart to receive the truth.

The uninspired opinions of men, traditions, councils, commentaries cannot teach anything. The Sword of the Spirit is the Word of God and when a man is being taught the word of God by the Spirit of God every text will harmonize in its immediate and overall context and that is precisely why Isaiah said:

Isa. 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

That is precisely why John said:

1 Jn. 4:1 ¶ Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.......6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

The scriptures provide the information necessary to test true from false teaching and true from false spirits and true from false doctrine (1 Tim. 4:1) based wholly upon the sufficiency of the Scriptures under the leadership of its Author.

 

Oh Lordy... The OP was about historical writings. If you can't follow that then why keep posting your nit whit garbage?

WM

 

I've never seen a clearer example if someone claiming to base their position on scripture, who's position was so easily shown to be totally unscriptural.

WM

 

If you will look at the one who posted this thread, he directly asked me how I can I know that my interpretation is correct without depending upon uninspired resources. I was answering that question when you decided to take it upon yourself to interject yourself between us with you "nit whit garbage" type of ridicule.

As usual, what you cannot intelligently respond to, you redicule as your final refuge.

 

The true interpretation ALWAYS harmonizes with the context in which it is placed. Those being led by its Author will be able to demonstrate that contextual agreement and at the same time expose all fasle interepretations by their inability to harmonize with all the contextual factors. Common rules of heremeneutics are simply common sense rules that we apply to any other book we read and only depart from when reading the scripture due to false doctrines we try to justify. Every single false interpretation of a text is ultimately based upon eisgetical procedures in approaching and in dealing with that text.

 

Correction! You are a REFORMED Roman Catholic as Luther was a ROMAN Catholic Reformer and those who follow him adopt his REFORMED ROMAN CATHOLICISM.

 

The person who posted this thread has repeatedly called us back to the OP. This is your typical (and boring) MO and one that deliniates your continual mental vapidity. You sir are a bore and are quickly becoming a waste of time.

WM

 

Am I to understand that you are asking me to acknowledge that what I consider to be the history of apostasy (Ante-Nicene, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers) to have taught precisely what I regard as apostate baptism for the first 800 years in its record of apostasy???

Here is what Reformed Roman Catholics seem to be perfectly and willing blind about. It takes no genius to see that the Post-Nicene Father's and their doctrine is the logical consequences of the Nicene Father's doctrines and the Nicene Father's doctrine the logical consequences of the Ante-Nicene father's doctrines.

Now Rome verily applauds that logical connection as to follow that logical connection will ultimately force you to be a Roman Catholic.

If you do not become a Roman Catholic it is because at some point in the logical development from Ante to Nicene to Post-nicene you broke rank and made a decision that from that point forward it is a history of apostasy.

My friend, Rome has preserved these records because it is the record of DEVELOPMENTAL Roman Catholicsm from its beginning.

 

I don't mean to come across as being simplistic but the answer is from simply reading out what God wrote in - exegesis and allowing scripture to interpret scripture by contextual explanation. Of course I am talking about a person who has the Author dwelling in him. I answered this question in the very post you quoted in a very precise manner. What did you not understand about what I said?

I also addressed precisely from whence all division occurs. What about that explanation you did not understand?

 

Just never can admit your wrong even when his post was quoted in my post that proves I was merely answering his post! Again, you reduce yourself to personal attacks because you have nothing else to justify your bloviating.

 

There are but four basic positions in regard to the Church Father's.

1. The Historic Baptist position - The developmental Record of Roman Catholic apostasy (nearly all early Baptist historians)

2. The Reformed Position - Acceptance of much of Ante-Nicene Father's and some Nicene Father's but rejection of Post-Nicene Father's.

3. The Orthodox Catholic position - acceptance all the way up to the division between Rome and Constantinople. From that point forward primarily rejection of Roman Catholic history as orthodox.

4. The Roman Catholic position - acceptance of all three categories right to present.

The historic Baptist position approaches secular history from the inspired prophetic viewpoint of Christ and the Apostles. They predicted the identifying characteristics of both apostolic and apostate Christianity after the apostolic period.

A. The Apostate - departure from the apostolic - Acts 20:29-31
1. Persecutors and slanderous of apostolic - Mt. 5:11-12
2. Killers - Jn. 16:1-4; Rev. 17:5
3. Apostate in doctrine - 1 Tim. 4:1-5; Rom. 16:17-18;
4. Dominate in numbers - Mt. 13 - feild and tares; Lk. 18:8
5. Increasing greater and greater - 2 Tim. 3:1-13
6. State church union - Rev. 17

B. The Apostolic -
1. Persecuted, slandered and killed by apostate
2. Deminishing "few" versus "many" and "little flock" versus numerous
3. Characterized by Great Commission characteristics - Mt. 28:19-20

The Seven Churches in Asia demonstrate the inroads of apostasy within New Testament congregations. Five out of seven riddled with apostasy and apostates.

 

Well, you can doubt a fact, but it remains a fact.