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

[Thinkingstuff]

Hey, don't use me in that manner -- that is, that a non-Baptist (according to you) is agreeing with you, the Baptist, and disagreeing with the non-Baptist. The reason I agreed with you is because I hold to the same Baptist principles that you do.

There is a little bit of misinformation about Galileo being presented here or you are presenting only a part of the story about his problems with the Catholic Church. Galileo Galilay was born in 1564 and had originally wanted to be a priest but changed his mind and decided to study mathmatics instead. By 1589 he was appointed as a chair at the University of Pisa a pretty town btw. He began to teach at the University of Padua in 1592. Galileo made a lot of strides in the development of the telescope and interestingly enough was the first person to see sun spots, the phases of Venus, and the rings of Saturn. Now note at the time of Galileo the standard model for cosmology was the Aristotelian model which was geocentric. Galileo did upset the scientist of his day going against long held theories based upon this old Aritotelian model much like string theorist upset the scientific communities in the late 70's. And just like with string theory of Today scientist holding to their standard model began to critique Galileo. And this is where the problem begins. Namely his response to them. He started responding by not acknowledging that his theories regarding cosmology was unprovable at that time. Which showed a bit of arrogance. When he published his book "Starry Messanger" he challenged the standard model. But also note he wasn't the first person to hold to the idea of Heliocentrism. That Honor Goes to Aristarchus of Samos in the 3rd century BC. In 1540 Cappernicus developed further the idea of Heliocentrism but couldn't prove it unquestionably and niether could Galileo. Kepler tried to prove it by a geometric and mathmatical model but couldn't do it either. However, Galileo refused to admit that his view not provable with their current technology other scientist and some priest who were also scientist and held the age old Aristotelian Model argued with him. Some priest differed to scripture to prove their point and he disagreed with their interpretation of those passages. Specifically They said (the scientist priest) Psalm 93:1; 96:10 and 1 Chronicles 16:30 say “the world is firmly established it cannot be moved.” Where Galileo really begins to have problems with the church was when he published "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems" where he mocked the Pope as a simpleton by using a fictional character called Simplicius who suported Geocentrism and certain Preist who he disagreed with. At this point he was brought upon trial under the three points.
First … the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe.
Second … the Earth is not at its centre of the universe and moves.
And third … one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared
contrary to Holy Scripture. And the Church Banned the book "Dialogue". The fact is if he could have proven heliocentrism undisputedly at his time they would have accepted it. And if he hadn't insulted the church questioned the accuracy of scripture he wouldn't have been called a heretic.
And this story is being played out today. Not with the Catholic Church but the mainstream government supported scientist who insist global warming is going on due man's carbon emitions and scientist who discent are spurned.

 

[Wittenberger]

I don't know your age or background, but I consider the term "screw up" as crude speech at the best of times, and then to apply such crudeness to God Almighty is all the more irreverent. Sitting behind a computer screen it reflects to some extent the character of the person I am speaking to.

Where do you get this nonsense from? Can you give me a website? a URL? A statement of faith? Anything that points to "Baptists alone have been given special enlightenment to fully understand Scripture..."
This is not true and is a mischaracterization of the Baptists on here. If you want to post here then do your homework and post intelligently without making false allegations and sweeping generalizations, especially ones that are not true.

Try reading the biography of John Bunyan. He wrote Pilgrim's Progress while in jail. Imprisoned by the Anglican Church for refusing to desist from preaching. In 1661 Bunyan had his chance for freedom. To the magistrates he replied: "If you release me today, I will be preaching tomorrow." His freedom was denied. He was released in 1672. Bunyan refused to be bound by the Anglican Church, to be licensed by them, to conform to their rites and rituals. He was a servant of the Most High God, and would serve Christ and Christ alone. For that freedom he was jailed for. The Anglican Church did not believe in the soul liberty that Baptists fought for.

Baptists fight hard for this principle because they believe firmly in another principle, that of sola scriptura. The Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine. IOW, the Anglican Church, Lutheran, or RCC cannot dictate to us what to believe. The Bible is the only authoritative guide that we have. It is our final authority. Bunyan appealed to the Bible. They put him in prison for doing so. The Anglican Church wanted him under their authority, not the Bible's authority. Bunyan would rather be in jail.

Sola scriptura gives the right of every believer to believe as thinks the Scripture is teaching him.

Another distinctive that Baptists have is "Priesthood of the believers," that is that each one of us are priests before God, and that not one of us need to any other human to confess our sins, but are able to straight to God. We have access straight before the very throne of God. Christ is our mediator. No man on earth has power to forgive sins.
when they have so many divisions among them on numerous doctinal issues such as "Free Will", which is not a trivial matter, is absurd. They are either dead wrong in their belief of their private divine revelation of the truth or the Holy Spirit is screwing up badly.

The Holy Spirit gives enlightenment to all that believe in him, Baptist or not. However, if you are not saved, you will not understand that principle.

Michael Wrenn, by my standards is not a Baptist. Look how he responded to my post. He appreciated it, and obviously did not agree with you.

If you are saved you are a brother in Christ, despite doctrinal differences.

The belief that every Christian has the right to interpret the Bible as he feels the Holy Spirit leads him is the reason that Reformed Christians (which include Baptists) have splintered and re-splintered to give us all the multitude of Protestant denominations.

By the way, "sola scriptura" and "priesthood of the saints" comes from Luther. The Reformed, including Baptists, adopted his terms.

I very happy to see that you don't restrict Christianity to only Baptists. When I was growing up fundamentalist Baptist, no one but Baptists would be considered Christian, and you had to be fundamentalist Baptist to take our Communion.

God bless you, brother!

 

[DHK]

Hey, don't use me in that manner -- that is, that a non-Baptist (according to you) is agreeing with you, the Baptist, and disagreeing with the non-Baptist. The reason I agreed with you is because I hold to the same Baptist principles that you do.

Well, mostly. But the archbishop thing is a bit over the top. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[DHK]

The belief that every Christian has the right to interpret the Bible as he feels the Holy Spirit leads him is the reason that Reformed Christians (which include Baptists) have splintered and re-splintered to give us all the multitude of Protestant denominations.

By the way, "sola scriptura" and "priesthood of the saints" comes from Luther. The Reformed, including Baptists, adopted his terms.

The terms may have come from that era, but the principles or concepts certainly didn't. That is an absurd a statement as the RCC's laying claim to the "invention" of the trinity. The trinity has always been taught in the Bible. I am sure the Apostles were not oblivious to it. The term "trinity" was not there. It didn't have to be. But to say the Apostles didn't believe without the knowledge that they didn't is again, an absurd statement, and in no way can be dogmatically stated.

Acts 17:11 is a statement of sola scriptura.
So is Isaiah 8:20.
So is most of the Bible.
All of the prophets had to speak according to the Word of God. If they didn't they were put to death. That in itself is sola scriptura--the Bible alone.
Sola Scriptura runs through the Bible like a thread which cannot be avoided. There is no appeal to any other book or source.

The reason there are so many different groups of Protestants is partly due to sin, part due to pride, and part due to Biblical error which those in it refuse to give up. In an extreme example you have splinter groups off of some mainline denominations that won't give up their sin of homosexuality and are splintering off to make their "own sect."

The Montanists came into being because Christianity as a whole had become lax in their standards and somewhat corrupt. Montanus wanted a return to purity. So he separated from the rest of Christianity and those that followed him lived under very strict guidelines with a goal of being holy unto the Lord.

God raised up different leaders at different times in history for his own purposes. Just like in the OT, some of them fell into error near the end of their leader's life, or the end of their existence, only to be succeeded by someone else that God would raise up. The Lord has never left himself without a witness. And that witness has never been the corrupt RCC.

I very happy to see that you don't restrict Christianity to only Baptists. When I was growing up fundamentalist Baptist, no one but Baptists would be considered Christian, and you had to be fundamentalist Baptist to take our Communion.

God bless you, brother!

There are Baptist churches that take things to the extreme, and that is unfortunate. It gives us all a bad name, especially when that is all a person has experienced at a younger age, and therefore concludes that all are like that.

 

[Yeshua1]

The terms may have come from that era, but the principles or concepts certainly didn't. That is an absurd a statement as the RCC's laying claim to the "invention" of the trinity. The trinity has always been taught in the Bible. I am sure the Apostles were not oblivious to it. The term "trinity" was not there. It didn't have to be. But to say the Apostles didn't believe without the knowledge that they didn't is again, an absurd statement, and in no way can be dogmatically stated.

Acts 17:11 is a statement of sola scriptura.
So is Isaiah 8:20.
So is most of the Bible.
All of the prophets had to speak according to the Word of God. If they didn't they were put to death. That in itself is sola scriptura--the Bible alone.
Sola Scriptura runs through the Bible like a thread which cannot be avoided. There is no appeal to any other book or source.

The reason there are so many different groups of Protestants is partly due to sin, part due to pride, and part due to Biblical error which those in it refuse to give up. In an extreme example you have splinter groups off of some mainline denominations that won't give up their sin of homosexuality and are splintering off to make their "own sect."

The Montanists came into being because Christianity as a whole had become lax in their standards and somewhat corrupt. Montanus wanted a return to purity. So he separated from the rest of Christianity and those that followed him lived under very strict guidelines with a goal of being holy unto the Lord.

God raised up different leaders at different times in history for his own purposes. Just like in the OT, some of them fell into error near the end of their leader's life, or the end of their existence, only to be succeeded by someone else that God would raise up. The Lord has never left himself without a witness. And that witness has never been the corrupt RCC.

There are Baptist churches that take things to the extreme, and that is unfortunate. It gives us all a bad name, especially when that is all a person has experienced at a younger age, and therefore concludes that all are like that.

Also comes about vecause some see the Bible as in Covenant theology, others is Dispensations, whiles others see pre Mil, others A Mil etc

Still can be seen as baptist Christians!

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Galileo supported a theory which could not be proven at the time. Galileo held to the Copernicum heliocentric system and wrote of it as fact, which violated the scientific method created by the Catholic university system. That theory wouldn't be proven until much later at which time it was accepted by the scientific community. Clearly you don't recognize the difference between fact and theory...no surprise.

WM

What a hoot! And there you have stated it -- the scientific method created by the Catholic university system!

It is the Catholic Church which doesn't recognize the difference between fact and theory since it took them until 1992 to admit the truth that the earth revolves around the sun! And the pope had to announce it at that, or it still wouldn't "officially" be accepted as fact! :laugh: :laugh:

Yep, this is the church that Jesus founded, alright; I can see everywhere in scripture the imprint of the RCC!

 

[Michael Wrenn]

The belief that every Christian has the right to interpret the Bible as he feels the Holy Spirit leads him is the reason that Reformed Christians (which include Baptists) have splintered and re-splintered to give us all the multitude of Protestant denominations.

By the way, "sola scriptura" and "priesthood of the saints" comes from Luther. The Reformed, including Baptists, adopted his terms.

I very happy to see that you don't restrict Christianity to only Baptists. When I was growing up fundamentalist Baptist, no one but Baptists would be considered Christian, and you had to be fundamentalist Baptist to take our Communion.

God bless you, brother!

There are only eight denominational "families", as I have shown in other places on this forum. So, the extent of the splintering is greatly exaggerated, and those promoting that are playing right into the hands of the RCC and the ecumenical movement.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Well, mostly. But the archbishop thing is a bit over the top. :smilewinkgrin:

I am an Anabaptist "archbishop", which is about as far from an RCC archbishop as one could get.

 

[WestminsterMan]

What a hoot! And there you have stated it -- the scientific method created by the Catholic university system!

snip...

The Roman Catholic Church CREATED the university system, and the scientific method. That IS a fact. Whether you find that to be funny or not is of no importance.

WM

 

[DHK]

The Roman Catholic Church CREATED the university system, and the scientific method. That IS a fact. Whether you find that to be funny or not is of no importance.

WM

Their scientific method wasn't very scientific. Their idea of "universities" was to exclude all others, so as to create an era known as the "Dark Ages" where ignorance abounded.

Take a look at ancient civilizations, long before the RCC or even Christianity existed. For example the building of the pyramids. There was a lot of "scientific know-how" involved in that marvel. But they did it. How, we don't exactly know. Their measurements had to be very precise. They had to have a way of moving things into exact positioning. The strength of the bricks had to be such at the bottom of the edifice that they could manage a tremendous amount of weight without crumbling. And yet there it stands for all these centuries.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

The Roman Catholic Church CREATED the university system, and the scientific method. That IS a fact. Whether you find that to be funny or not is of no importance.

WM

What is of importance is the absolute ludicrousness of what you are feebly attempting to maintain.

I bet you believe that Al Gore invented the internet, too. :laugh:

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Their scientific method wasn't very scientific. Their idea of "universities" was to exclude all others, so as to create an era known as the "Dark Ages" where ignorance abounded.

Take a look at ancient civilizations, long before the RCC or even Christianity existed. For example the building of the pyramids. There was a lot of "scientific know-how" involved in that marvel. But they did it. How, we don't exactly know. Their measurements had to be very precise. They had to have a way of moving things into exact positioning. The strength of the bricks had to be such at the bottom of the edifice that they could manage a tremendous amount of weight without crumbling. And yet there it stands for all these centuries.

But now DHK, you know that the RCC created the scientific method.

Strange that when those who used it came up with results and conclusions that contradicted the RCC, they became subject to persecution and censorship.

Did you realize that the earth was stationary up until 1992 when the pope pronounced that the earth revolved around the sun? Quite a revelation, huh? And we finally know that this has to be true and all doubt has been removed since the pope is infallible.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

But now DHK, you know that the RCC created the scientific method.

Strange that when those who used it came up with results and conclusions that contradicted the RCC, they became subject to persecution and censorship.

Did you realize that the earth was stationary up until 1992 when the pope pronounced that the earth revolved around the sun? Quite a revelation, huh? And we finally know that this has to be true and all doubt has been removed since the pope is infallible.

Clearly a miss-statement of the facts. The scientific methods was developed by catholics. Many catholic scientist contradicted the standard model and andvanced science. Charlemagne who was very Catholic created the university system that expanded all over europe and now the world. And the Pope's declaration in 1992 was an apology for condemning Galileo. It didn't say now we hold the earth goes around the sun. Thats nonsense. What he actually said was because those who condemned Galileo didn't recognize the formal distinction between the bible and its interpretation that

This led them unduly to transpose into the realm of the doctrine of the faith, a question which in fact pertained to scientific investigation.

So nice job in misreprestenting the situation.

 

[The Biblicist]

That last sentence destroys your entire premise... you have no way of knowing what the THE ENTIRE VOLUME actually was. It's simply all speculation on your part. Besides it wasn't until the Church Councils in the 4th century that the matter was settled once and for all.

WM

I will take Tertullian's word over yours and Rome's

 

[The Biblicist]

Again a poor retort!

98% of the New Testament was completed by the middle of the first century. During the next half of the first century it was copied and circulated among the churches and the Apostle John was available to confirm the scriptures and complete them. Tertullian makes it clear that the "whole volume" had been with them "FROM THE BEGINNING" and they could not ADD or SUBTRACT from it but that is precisely the charge he brings against the heretics (Marcion/Valentinius).

Tertullians statement harmonize with the scriptures (Isa. 8:16-20) and I will stick to it.

Rome is an apostate religion that is more cultish than Moromonism or any other "christian" cult and makes the same kind of cultist claims.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I will take Tertullian's word over yours and Rome's

And tertullian had a different set of scripture than you. Interesting.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

98% of the New Testament was completed by the middle of the first century. During the next half of the first century it was copied and circulated among the churches and the Apostle John was available to confirm the scriptures and complete them. Tertullian makes it clear that the "whole volume" had been with them "FROM THE BEGINNING" and they could not ADD or SUBTRACT from it but that is precisely the charge he brings against the heretics (Marcion/Valentinius).

Tertullians statement harmonize with the scriptures (Isa. 8:16-20) and I will stick to it.

Rome is an apostate religion that is more cultish than Moromonism or any other "christian" cult and makes the same kind of cultist claims.

His whole volume interesting may not have included the books of II Peter, James, II John, and III John as he never sites them and he held to the LXX. Which consist of Deuterocanoncial books.

 

[The Biblicist]

His whole volume interesting may not have included the books of II Peter, James, II John, and III John as he never sites them and he held to the LXX. Which consist of Deuterocanoncial books.

Tertullian is expressing this not as his personal opinion but as the united opinion of the apostolic churches as he speaks in the first person plural. Previous writers include both II Peter and II John and James.

It is simply POOR speculation on the part of Rome to assume that such were not regarded as scripture since they were written and circulated among the churches before the end of the first century or else Rome could never have ever included them in its canon. Tertullian acknowledges that the only scriptures they regarded as the "whole volume" were those scriptures that had been recognized and received "from the beginning." If they were not received from the beginning then they would have been spurious as all the apostles were dead by the end of the first century.

Not all versions of the LXX contained the Deutercanonical books. Where can you find that Tertullian ever quoted from them as "scritpure"??

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Tertullian is expressing this not as his personal opinion but as the united opinion of the apostolic churches as he speaks in the first person plural. Previous writers include both II Peter and II John and James.

That doesn't mean he accepted those documents he may view them to be from different authors or not inspired. And that still leaves out the apocrypha books from LXX.

Not all versions of the LXX contained the Deutercanonical books. Where can you find that Tertullian ever quoted from them as "scritpure"??

He sites most of them and also 1 Enoch.

For instance

For, when one reads of God as being 'the searcher and witness of the heart' [Wisdom 1:6]; when His prophet is reproved by His discovering to him the secrets of the heart; when God Himself anticipates in His people the thoughts of their heart, 'Why think ye evil in your hearts?'[Matt 9:4] when David prays 'Create in me a clean heart, O God'[Ps 51:12], and Paul declares, 'With the heart man believeth unto righteousness,'[Romans 10:10] and John says, 'By his own heart is each man condemned’[1 John 3:20]; when, lastly, 'he who looketh on a woman so as to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart' [Matt 5:28],--then both points are cleared fully up, that there is a directing faculty of the soul..." Tertullian, On the Soul, 15 (A.D. 197).

 

[Yeshua1]

That doesn't mean he accepted those documents he may view them to be from different authors or not inspired. And that still leaves out the apocrypha books from LXX.


He sites most of them and also 1 Enoch.

For instance

Point that is made and true is that ALL but a few "disputed" books were seen as inspired scriptures to the early church to read and use, and the 'disputed" ones were due to mainly issues regarding authorship, not actual content!