Why do Mormons and Baptists deny the need for historical evidence?

[The Biblicist]

Dear Brother Biblicist,

I was wondering why we hadn't heard from you! Good to hear from you, brother!

Christ DID follow traditions. He followed most of the traditions of the Jews including resting on the Sabbath, worshipping in the temple as a child and as an adult, worshipping in the synagogue, and observing Jewish religious holidays such as Passover.

My oh my, where do I begin with this mess?? He did NOT follow any Jewish Traditions that were contrary to Biblical precepts and principles. What you cited are not Jewish "traditions" but scriptural precepts and principles. Jesus constantly and repeatedly violated the Jewish traditions for Sabbath keeping.

The apostle Paul also commanded early Christians to follow his "traditions".

You do not understand that Apostolic "traditions" were simply inspired teaching handed down by men who were also prophets and later committed to writing as scripture.

The Ante, Nicene, Post-Nicene are not inspired writings by prophets but are like the oral traditions of the Jewish "elders" which were later written down as the "Mishnah." Apples verus oranges. You are one confused individual.

 

[The Biblicist]

My oh my, where do I begin with this mess?? He did NOT follow any Jewish Traditions that were contrary to Biblical precepts and principles. What you cited are not Jewish "traditions" but scriptural precepts and principles. Jesus constantly and repeatedly violated the Jewish traditions for Sabbath keeping.




You do not understand that Apostolic "traditions" were simply inspired teaching handed down by men who were also prophets and later committed to writing as scripture.

The Ante, Nicene, Post-Nicene are not inspired writings by prophets but are like the oral traditions of the Jewish "elders" which were later written down as the "Mishnah." Apples verus oranges. You are one confused individual.

Baptists believe the Bible is totally sufficient in and of itself for all doctrine and practice (2 Tim. 3:16-17) and is the written summation and completion of all previous inspired oral tradition (Isa. 8:16-18). Everything that does not harmonize with written scriptures is to be rejected and everything that is merely repetitive is unnecessary.

Therefore, we believe it is sufficient to interpret post-Biblical uninspired, incomplete, and more often incorrect so-called "church history." The New Testament provides prophetic principles to evaluate all post-Biblical opinions, as well as, predicts and provides characteristics of post-Biblical apostate Christianity.

Rome and Reformed Rome fits the prophetic scriptural characteristics of apostate Christianity and that is why we not merely reject but characterize the whole "Father's" as records of apostasy. We do so by an INSPIRED basis - the scriptures.

 

[DHK]

I never made that claim.

Every time you say or even come close to saying "there is no evidence," it is a pretty close call to omniscience. There is no possible way that you can even come close to finding ALL existing evidence, let alone all past evidence. Be realistic about this please.

And each of those writings can be found and connected to the Plodding Missionary. That is evidence that baptist were in India in 1793.

EACH of these writings! ALL of these writings!
He gave away thousands. There were thousands printed.

Carey was the author of a Mahratta grammar, and of a Sanscrit grammar, extending over more than a thousand quarto pages, a Punjabi grammar, a Telinga grammar, and of a Mahratta dictionary, a Bengali dictionary, a Bhotanta dictionary, and a Sanscrit dictionary, the manuscript of which was burned before it was printed. He was also the author or several other secular works. "The versions of the Sacred Scriptures, in the preparation of which he took an active and laborious part, include the Sanscrit, Hindu, Brijbbhassa, Mahratta, Bengali, Oriya, Telinga, Karnata, Maldivian, Gurajattee, Bulooshe, Pushtoo, Punjabi, Kashmeer, Assam, Burman, Pali, or Magudha, Tamul, Cingalese, Armenian, Malay, Hindostani, and Persian. In six of these tongues the whole Scriptures have been translated and circulated; the New Testament has appeared in 23 languages, besides various dialects in which smaller portions of the sacred text have been printed. In thirty years Carey and his brethren rendered The Word of God accessible to one-third of the world." And even this is not all: before Carey's death 212,000 copies of the Scriptures were issued from Serampore in 40 different languages, the tongues of 330,000,000 of the human family. Dr. Carey was the tool-maker for missionaries that ever labored for God. His versions are used to-day by all denominations of Christians throughout India.

http://baptisthistoryhomepage.com/carey.william.html

Not an opinion. There is not one early greek text or fragment that indicates a baptist position. I can even support the Marian Dogma of Theotokos (Mother of God) going back to 250 AD long before it became dogmatic. The John Rylands Library in Manchester England procured a panel of papyrus which included a fragment Greek text of an early Prayer to Mary the prayer is called in Latin Sub Tuum Praesidium where the greek text is read .
ΠΟ
ΕΥCΠΑ
ΚΑΤΑΦΕ
ΘΕΟΤΟΚΕΤ
ΙΚΕCΙΑCΜΗΠΑ
ΕΙΔΗCΕΜΠΕΡΙCTAC
AΛΛΕΚΚΙΝΔΥΝΟΥ
...ΡΥCΑΙΗΜΑC
MONH
...HEΥΛΟΓ which comes from the full Greek text
Ὑπὸ τὴν σὴν
εὐσπλαγχνίαν
καταφεύγομεν
Θεοτὸκε· τὰς ἡμῶν
ἱκεσίας μὴ παρ-
ίδῃς ἐν περιστάσει
ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ κινδύνου
λύτρωσαι ἡμᾶς
μόνη ἁγνὴ
μόνη εὐλογημένη
which says in english
Under your
mercy
we take refuge,
Mother of God! Our
prayers, do not despise
in necessities,
but from the danger
deliver us,
only pure,
only blessed.
The document was dated between 250 AD and 280 AD.

The is no such evidence of that being true for baptist documents. We don't find prolific (or even one document) documents supporting baptist doctrine in the early centuries of the Church. And as prolific writers baptist have been since their inseption I find this a curious instance. Where are all the evidences of baptist doctrine in the Early Church? But there are tons of documentation supporting Catholic/Orthodox/Coptic churches.

It is an opinion, one of the most humorous that I have read yet :laugh:

You quote something (a prayer from one small MSS, Ryland's).
There are over 5,000 MSS supporting the NT. 5,000! And those are MSS (including Ryland's) which give credence to the accuracy of the NT.

Now, I am sure that among all that literature you can find many (Baptist-like) prayers to God through Christ. Your argument really isn't worth posting. It proves that there was heresy at that time, which is a shame. Bible believers every where prayed to God through Christ, of which I am sure there is ample evidence.

 

[billwald]

The goofiest Baptist tradition is the ban on drinking alcohol.

100 years ago "Christian" Sunday traditions were as goofy as Jewish Sabbath traditions. The goofiest might be calling Sunday, the Sabbath." Followed by not allowing children to play games on Sunday.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Every time you say or even come close to saying "there is no evidence," it is a pretty close call to omniscience. There is no possible way that you can even come close to finding ALL existing evidence, let alone all past evidence. Be realistic about this please.

If there had been a Greek text or Fragment supporting baptist doctrine it would have been world news. It would have been researched and there would have been papers writen about it. But no. There is nothing like that.

EACH of these writings! ALL of these writings!
He gave away thousands. There were thousands printed.
http://baptisthistoryhomepage.com/carey.william.html

Each writing inlcudes all writings. And they document the fact that in 1793 William Carey the plodding missionary went to India. That is evidence that he was there in India in the 18th Century. There is no similar such evidence found of baptist going anywhere during the early centuries of the Church.

It is an opinion, one of the most humorous that I have read yet :laugh:

Its not an opinion. Its a fact there is a papyrus fragment that dates back to 250 AD and 280 AD using the term Theotokos in reference to Mary. Laugh all you want but like the fragment at qumran were verified so is this fragment. No such Fragments exist for baptist.

You quote something (a prayer from one small MSS, Ryland's).

Yes and it proves people were calling Mary theotokos (at least in egypt) in the 3rd Century!

There are over 5,000 MSS supporting the NT. 5,000! And those are MSS (including Ryland's) which give credence to the accuracy of the NT.

Yes thats true and I haven't denied that. Good thing the Catholic Church maintained its scriptures!

Now, I am sure that among all that literature you can find many (Baptist-like) prayers to God through Christ. Your argument really isn't worth posting. It proves that there was heresy at that time, which is a shame. Bible believers every where prayed to God through Christ, of which I am sure there is ample evidence.

Now you are trying to be funny. You will quote psalms a prayer by David and say that is a Baptist like prayer. Unfortunately for you it is a Catholic like prayer as well. You will not find a MSS indentifying Baptist distinctives and systematic theology. You do find it among the Catholics/Orthodox.

 

[billwald]

Wittenberger - The First Reformation occurred when the Bishop of Rome split from the Orthodox Catholic Church. Augustine and those of his era were not "Catholics." The Catholic Church conveniently forgets to remember this. A fragment from 350 is pre-Catholic.

 

[DHK]

Now you are trying to be funny. You will quote psalms a prayer by David and say that is a Baptist like prayer. Unfortunately for you it is a Catholic like prayer as well. You will not find a MSS indentifying Baptist distinctives and systematic theology. You do find it among the Catholics/Orthodox.

Your whole line of reasoning is funny, or more accurately absurd. I can't believe that you are unable to see what you are doing.

All that you have documented is the beginning of the heresy of Mariolatry. That is not exclusive to the RCC. Others practiced it too. It is a pagan practice. As I have continued to maintain most heresies entered into Christianity via the ECF. Thus this one small MSS does not justify anything but the beginning of one of many heresies, one that is not exclusive to the RCC.

But prayers to God and Christ abound in early literature. That cannot be denied.

 

[IANMO(IAMNTMYOWN)]

I'm sorry but that is an ignorant way of thinking. I'm not trying to insult you or my other Baptist and evangelical brothers and sisters. I'm not commenting on this Baptist site just to "win" a debate. I am commenting here because I want to rescue all of you from the false teachings and conspiracy theories that have blinded you to the true central doctrine of the faith which has been with the Church since the apostles: Baptism washes away sins! It isn't a good work of man! It is a supernatural and marvelous work of God!

"Repent and be baptized...for the FORGIVENESS OF SINS!"

Don't use the same warped thinking of the Mormons. Return to the true, historically verifiable, Christian faith and doctrines!

With this assertion, the thief on the cross went to hell and Christ lied to Him.

Wittnenberger, you have provoked me to think, and I appreciate that. However, your persistent demand for evidence on everything seems to reflect a lack of faith. I'm not saying we should blindly swallow everything. The Berean Christians are evidence of otherwise, yet it was the Scripture they searched not secular teachings.

 

[Wittenberger]

Baptists believe the Bible is totally sufficient in and of itself for all doctrine and practice (2 Tim. 3:16-17) and is the written summation and completion of all previous inspired oral tradition (Isa. 8:16-18). Everything that does not harmonize with written scriptures is to be rejected and everything that is merely repetitive is unnecessary.

Therefore, we believe it is sufficient to interpret post-Biblical uninspired, incomplete, and more often incorrect so-called "church history." The New Testament provides prophetic principles to evaluate all post-Biblical opinions, as well as, predicts and provides characteristics of post-Biblical apostate Christianity.

Rome and Reformed Rome fits the prophetic scriptural characteristics of apostate Christianity and that is why we not merely reject but characterize the whole "Father's" as records of apostasy. We do so by an INSPIRED basis - the scriptures.

Dear Brother Biblicist,

I refer to you as brother, because I believe you are my Christian brother. I would never use the term "brother" when speaking to a Mormon.

I believe you are a Christian, but you use the very same arguments to support your interpretation of Scripture as do the Mormons. The very SAME arguments:

http://dwhamby1.wordpress.com/2008/05/05/do-mormons-have-any-evidence-of-their-claims/

 

[Wittenberger]

My oh my, where do I begin with this mess?? He did NOT follow any Jewish Traditions that were contrary to Biblical precepts and principles. What you cited are not Jewish "traditions" but scriptural precepts and principles. Jesus constantly and repeatedly violated the Jewish traditions for Sabbath keeping.




You do not understand that Apostolic "traditions" were simply inspired teaching handed down by men who were also prophets and later committed to writing as scripture.

The Ante, Nicene, Post-Nicene are not inspired writings by prophets but are like the oral traditions of the Jewish "elders" which were later written down as the "Mishnah." Apples verus oranges. You are one confused individual.

I never said that Christ followed traditions that were contrary to bilblical teachings.

Do you deny that Paul and many other Jewish Christians, especially those in Jerusalem, continued to worship in the Jewish synagogues? Don't you think these Jewish Christians participated in the order of service as prescribed by Jewish tradition: when to read the Psalms, when to sing, when to pray?

These are traditions. The Jewish Christians incorporated many of these traditions into the Christian worship service. Lutherans, Catholics and others still use some of these traditions, used by Paul and early Christians, in our services.

 

[The Biblicist]

Dear Brother Biblicist,

I was wondering why we hadn't heard from you! Good to hear from you, brother.

I have other matters that are more important than debating on this forum.

I do not know where you get the silly notion that Baptists interpret scriptures by feelings??? Baptists as a people have never interpreted scriptures by feelings, especially, in comparison to the Mormon and a "burning in the breast" kind of idea!

You have been presented with Apostolic intepretation of external rites used in the Old Testament (Heb. 10:1-4; Col. 2:16-18). You have been presented with how Christ interpreted "for cleansing" or what was the purpose of making a ceremonial offering (Lk. 5:12-15). You have been presented how Peter interpreted how Old Testament saints obtained literal remission of sins (Acts 10:43). You have been presented how Paul interpreted circumcision in the case of Abraham which he says is the example for ALL WHO ARE OF OF FAITH - Rom. 4:11. You have been presented with Jeremiah's intepretation of ALL who are saved under the New Covenant which is confirmed by the writer of hebrews (Jer. 31:34; Heb. 8). You have rejected the plain statements of these Old and New Testament Prophets and insisted that external rites are involved in the LITERAL remission of sins when these scriptures plainly deny such a thing. Your mind has been corrupted by traditions of men so that you are unable and/or unwilling to accept the plain teachings of the scriptures.

From the very beginning God designed the "sign" of external rites to be accompanied by the language of redemption simply because the purpose of a "sign" is to convey that truth. However, from the begining God never designed "the sign" to particpate in the literal remission of sins, literal atonement, literal salvation but as in Abraham the rule for ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH has been literal salvation PRECEDES symbolic salvation as presented in the "sign" rites.

All of these are clear precepts and provide a clear understanding how God intended the ceremonial offerings to be received and understood. Instead, you have adopted the Phariseeical PRINCIPLE found in the interpretation of circumcision and ceremonial ordinances (Acts 15:2) which adoption is recorded first in the New Testament (Acts 15:2) where the external sign is demanded to obtain the literal and then this error has a Post-New Testament recorded history in the Nicene fathers.

 

[Walter]

If there had been a Greek text or Fragment supporting baptist doctrine it would have been world news. It would have been researched and there would have been papers writen about it. But no. There is nothing like that.

Each writing inlcudes all writings. And they document the fact that in 1793 William Carey the plodding missionary went to India. That is evidence that he was there in India in the 18th Century. There is no similar such evidence found of baptist going anywhere during the early centuries of the Church.

Its not an opinion. Its a fact there is a papyrus fragment that dates back to 250 AD and 280 AD using the term Theotokos in reference to Mary. Laugh all you want but like the fragment at qumran were verified so is this fragment. No such Fragments exist for baptist.
Yes and it proves people were calling Mary theotokos (at least in egypt) in the 3rd Century!

Yes thats true and I haven't denied that. Good thing the Catholic Church maintained its scriptures!


Now you are trying to be funny. You will quote psalms a prayer by David and say that is a Baptist like prayer. Unfortunately for you it is a Catholic like prayer as well. You will not find a MSS indentifying Baptist distinctives and systematic theology. You do find it among the Catholics/Orthodox.[/QUOTE]

WHICH SPEAKS VOLUMES!

And, BTW, I brought this same fact up to the Mormon missionaries that came to my door a while back. Not a single MSS from the early history of the Church that shows any of their 'peculiar' doctrines have ever been found. They were surprised to learn this. I believe this is the reason Wittenberger started this thread. I think people have mistakenly concluded that Wittenberger was trying to say that Baptists are cultic like Mormons, which Wittenberger denies, but to show there is absolutely no historical evidence that anyone ever believed 'believers baptism', etc. in the early history of the Christian Church. I think reasonable people not blinded by their denominational biases see a real problem with that.

 

[Wittenberger]

Wittenberger - The First Reformation occurred when the Bishop of Rome split from the Orthodox Catholic Church. Augustine and those of his era were not "Catholics." The Catholic Church conveniently forgets to remember this. A fragment from 350 is pre-Catholic.

You are confusing the terms, brother.

There is and always has been, one holy catholic (universal), apostolic church.

In 1050 AD, eastern catholics, split from western catholics.

In the 1500's, evangelical catholics (Lutherans) split from the western catholic church, centered in Rome.

At the Council of Trent, the western catholic church, officially adopted the name Roman Catholic Church.

 

[The Biblicist]

You are confusing the terms, brother.

There is and always has been, one holy catholic (universal), apostolic church.

In 1050 AD, eastern catholics, split from western catholics.

In the 1500's, evangelical catholics (Lutherans) split from the western catholic church, centered in Rome.

At the Council of Trent, the western catholic church, officially adopted the name Roman Catholic Church.

The scriptures know of no such thing! Either universal visible or universal invisible. The earliest use of the term "catholic" simply conveyed one of two things:

1. Not confined to one race as opposed to Judaism but a commission to all nations.

2. One universally recognized apostolic kind of church with the same faith and doctrine.

In the writings of the "Apostolic Fathers" each congregation was called "the catholic church" in regard to both senses above but never a universal church with a centralized government. When Augustine debated the Donatists there were nearly 900 bishops and not one argued for an INVISIBLE church of any kind and when Augustine set forth the notion of a VISIBLE universal church he was charged with belieiving in TWO different kinds of churches and Rome and Reformed Rome has been unsuccessfully trying to answer that charge ever since. The 16th century Anabaptists made the exact same charge against Luthern's "invisible" church he invented to escape being unchurched by Rome.

The kind of church Jesus introduces in Matthew 16:18 is the very same kind he continues to talk about the next 22 times he uses that term thereafter - local visible assemblies who are one in kind and one in doctrine and practice.

 

[Wittenberger]

Your whole line of reasoning is funny, or more accurately absurd. I can't believe that you are unable to see what you are doing.

All that you have documented is the beginning of the heresy of Mariolatry. That is not exclusive to the RCC. Others practiced it too. It is a pagan practice. As I have continued to maintain most heresies entered into Christianity via the ECF. Thus this one small MSS does not justify anything but the beginning of one of many heresies, one that is not exclusive to the RCC.

But prayers to God and Christ abound in early literature. That cannot be denied.

Dear Brother,

The issue at hand is do Baptists have any historical evidence that demonstrates that there were any Christians in the first six to eight centuries after Christ that believed the following:

"Baptism is an ordinace only in which the believer demonstrates his obedience to God and a public demonstration of his faith to others. It has no regenerational or covenantal properties."

If there is no historical evidence that demonstrates this then the only proof you have that your interpretation of Scripture is correct is the same as that of the Mormons: your opinion only, and your opinion that the Holy Spirit has told you that you are correct.

That is not solid ground to stand on.

Just resorting to the same line: We know we are right because the obvious reading the Bible says we are ritht, is no different than the reasoning of the Mormons and the JW's.

http://dwhamby1.wordpress.com/2008/05/05/do-mormons-have-any-evidence-of-their-claims/

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I don't understand why so many of you are reacting so furiously. I'm a "liar"?

I'm not questioning that you are Christians. You are my brothers and sister in Christ. But it is my Christian duty, to warn my brothers and sister of false teachings. Your beliefs in a symbolic baptism and a symbolic Lord's Supper have no historical evidence to prove that these beliefs exisited for the first six to eight centuries after Christ.

If someone, anyone believed these Baptist doctrines during that time there would have to be some evidence, somewhere of its existence. Even a writing oN a cave WALL that says, "Joe Smith was baptized today as a symbolic act of obedience/public profession of faith".

No such evidence exists! I'm not saying BaptistS are on the same level as Mormons. You are Christians, they are not.

But Baptists use the same circular, conspiracy-laden arguments to support their positions on baptism and the Lord's Supper as do the Mormons.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM EXISTED FOR THE FIRST 600-800 YEARS OF CHRISTIANITY! PLEASE PROVE ME WRONG.

You come on here and lump Baptist and evangelicals with Mormons. That is an insult.

You, being a Lutheran, are supposed to believe in the primacy of scripture, but you are taking the RC position and making tradition equal with scripture.

I have said this before, and I'll say it again: What do you do when tradition contradicts scripture? Which do you choose?

You say that Baptists and evangelicals have no historical evidence for their positions; they say you have no scriptural evidence for yours. An impasse? Hardly -- if you believe in the primacy of scripture. Baptists and evangelicals do; you obviously do not. I suggest you are in the wrong denomination; you should go on over to Rome since you want to make an idol of tradition and make it equal with scripture. Therefore, you are the one spouting false doctrine and betraying your own denomination's professed belief in the primacy of scripture.

 

[The Biblicist]

Dear Brother,

The issue at hand is do Baptists have any historical evidence that demonstrates that there were any Christians in the first six to eight centuries after Christ that believed the following:

"Baptism is an ordinace only in which the believer demonstrates his obedience to God and a public demonstration of his faith to others. It has no regenerational or covenantal properties."

If there is no historical evidence that demonstrates this then the only proof you have that your interpretation of Scripture is correct is the same as that of the Mormons: your opinion only, and your opinion that the Holy Spirit has told you that you are correct.

That is not solid ground to stand on.

Just resorting to the same line: We know we are right because the obvious reading the Bible says we are ritht, is no different than the reasoning of the Mormons and the JW's.

http://dwhamby1.wordpress.com/2008/05/05/do-mormons-have-any-evidence-of-their-claims/

Those whom Rome condemned as "heretics" were called "anabaptists" who practiced immersion of believers. Eastern Orthodox Catholocism argues for the historicity of immersion. Those labled "Anabaptists" practiced immersion.

There is absolutely no evidence of infant baptism in the so-called "Apostolic fathers" and there is no evidence that anything but immersion was practiced. That leaves only the practice of believers immersion during the period of the apostolic fathers. Infant baptism was a slow gradual adaption by apostate churches. Baptismal regeneration was the earliest error to creep in.

 

[IANMO(IAMNTMYOWN)]

Dear Brother, That is not solid ground to stand on.

Just resorting to the same line: We know we are right because the obvious reading the Bible says we are right, is no different than the reasoning of the Mormons and the JW's.

http://dwhamby1.wordpress.com/2008/05/05/do-mormons-have-any-evidence-of-their-claims/

Is the Bible not a valid authority?

 

[Wittenberger]

With this assertion, the thief on the cross went to hell and Christ lied to Him.

Wittnenberger, you have provoked me to think, and I appreciate that. However, your persistent demand for evidence on everything seems to reflect a lack of faith. I'm not saying we should blindly swallow everything. The Berean Christians are evidence of otherwise, yet it was the Scripture they searched not secular teachings.

I am very happy to see that we can discuss our differences without getting defensive.

To believe that God gives each of us a free gift of eternal life simply by repenting of sin and believing in him takes alot of faith. God doesn't give us a golden plate of eternal life with our name on it to reassure us of our salvation. The free gift of salvation must be received by faith in order to receive its benefits---eternal life.

Thinking that by doing good works, we can attain eternal life ourselves will doom us to hell.

By faith, Lutherans believe the Gospel when it tells us that in baptism, by the power of the spoken Word of God, our sins are forgiven and washed away as mentioned in Acts 2:38 and in the conversion of Saul/Paul. That takes ALOT of faith. We don't see God come down like the angel at the pool of Bethesda (sp?) and stir the water. We don't hear a loud voice from heaven as happened when Christ was baptized, but since God promises the forgiveness of sins at the time of baptism, we believe it by faith.

The free gift of salvation, the forgiveness of sins, must always be received by faith, in order to receive its benefits.

Anyone who was baptized but never expresses a personal faith in Christ and repents of his sins, will not receive the benefits of the free gift, and may well wake up in hell.

 

[IANMO(IAMNTMYOWN)]

How would you explain the salvation of the thief then? He obviously was not baptized after he believed.