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

[The Biblicist]

As I have said before, your denial of the Doctrine of Original Sin is not held by most Baptists.

All the older posters on this forum know your charge is false. I have never denied original sin and indeed, I have been one of the most able and vocal advocates in the defense of that doctrine - ask anyone!

You simply do not understand what I am saying. The standard for judgement is clearly and repeatedly stated throughout the scriptures - according to thy works. I defy you to produce one scripture that says anyone will stand before God in the day of judgement and be condemned "according to Adam's works." Just produce the scripture? Eternal judgement is not based upon the Adamic sin.

Neither am I denying that all sinned in Adam. Nor am I denying that death passed upon all because all sinned in Adam as that is obvious - infants die.

What I am denying is that the eternal penal consequences (not temporal) for Adam's sin will be imputed to anyone including Adam (as I believe he was redeemed). Eternal judgement is repeatedly stated to be determined by INDIVIDUAL works rather than Adamic representative works.

You deny that baptism existed before John. That is untrue. Volumes of rabbinical records demonstrate that the Jews baptizied all Gentile converts coming into the faith of Abraham, Judisim, during the time of Christ.

"The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men" -Mt. 21:25


You are confusing ceremonial cleasning rites with baptism. Simply because articles of furniture and proselytes were ceremonially cleansed by dipping in water is not baptism. Again, Jesus repudiated the idea of the current Jews that ceremonial cleansing effects literal cleansing (Lk. 5:12-17). Your doctrine comes from apostate Judaism not Christianity. Christian baptism originated with John whereas apostate Judiastic ceremonial LITERAL cleansing originated with apostate Israel. Indeed, the whole Roman Catholic system of priests and sacraments originates with apostate Judaism.

This is another example of

Your ignorance of scriptures, your ignorance of the gospel, your ignorance of the blood of the everlasting covenant and your ignorance of salvation.

 

[DHK]

Unfortunately for you my line of reasoning is very sound. Jesus said he would "build his church" and that "the gates of hell" could not stand against it. Either this is true or not.

It is true, but not for the RCC. They didn't even exist until the fourth century. Jesus was not talking to or about the RCC. That was the furthest thing from his mind.

Since we both agree that what Jesus says in scripture is true we accept that Jesus intended his church to last through the ages despite attacks againt it. Now that being the case if baptist were the infant church then not only would it have NT works revealing their existance but other writings, commentaries on scripture, discussions about baptist distinctives, and baptist systematic approaches to their beliefs. You would have pastors writing to their flock who were being mislead by early heresies and the rest.

This whole line of reasoning is wrong. It is carnal, of the flesh. The Lord never promised a direct fleshly succession of churches. Neither did he ever promise for any denomination to exist through the ages. He used the word "church" which means "assembly." He simply meant that there would be assemblies of believers in every age from the apostles onward. And there have been, everyone of them existing outside of the RCC and opposing its existence.

Since Baptist claim to model themselves after the infant church and currently they are prolific in books, commentary, discussions against percieved heresies, etc...we can safely assume this quality existed then and would have existed in every century.

Your reasoning is not sound. The most prolific writers are usually the heretics. They have the most to gain. For example, there are for more books written on evolution than there are on Creation.

In short there would be evidence to support their existance. However, when one looks at archeological finds, MSS text discovered, ancient art work, etc... None of it points to early baptist in the early church. There are no fragments with baptist distinctives listed on it. No appeals to their systmatic theology. Nothing.

The controversial Cardinal Hosius quote still points to the existence of: Waldneses, Anabaptists, Cathari, all back to the time of the Apostles. So don't say there are no documents. There are many. You just are reluctant to look at them and when you do you swallow the RCC lies that all of these were heretical groups. Even the Montanists which Tertullian joined were not as heretical as you would have people believe. They existed because many other churches were corrupt. They sought for purity.

There is a void of evidence for the existance of baptist in the early centuries. When one does look at the volumeous evidence of early christianity one sees all of these very items supporting a Catholic/Orthodox theology.

That heretics wrote more than intinerant preachers and the poor proves nothing. When Pope Innocent III is out on his crusades exterminating the Albigenses, what do you expect them to write??

In fact it isn't until the reformation or a short time just proceeding it does one find evidence for the beginings of baptist theology 1400 years after Christ! Therefore since this is the case the likelyhood of early church being baptist is nil. Whereas all of these things can be found to support the Catholic/Orthodox from the very begining.

There were many heresies that existed early on, as stated. There were also many churches such as the "First Baptist Church at Jerusalem," which we today pattern ourselves after. Just because we pattern ourselves the Bible and have no need to write it down doesn't mean it did not exist. However a heretic must write his liturgy down for it departs from the Bible so much.

First of all you've missed named the study its Mariology. And if you mean Mary Idolatry you are once again mistaken. Mary is not worshiped as God is worshipped.

The very attributes of God are attributed to Mary: omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence. Those attributes are for God alone. When ascribed to anyone else then that one is a deity, for they are being given the attributes of a deity.

That asside. Let us assume for a moment you are correct and Marian prayers are heresy it is strange that we find a documented heresy in the third century of the Church yet we cannot find one baptist Fragment.

I don't know what you would be looking for. Isn't the First Baptist Church of Jerusalem good enough?

One (a baptist that is) must conclude from this either the Church was defeated by Satan for 1400 years until the spirit moved men once again towards the truth making of Jesus a liar, or that all early christians were heretics in which case no one should be Christian.

Baptists exist in churches, not a "Church". Your entire concept is wrong. No wonder you don't understand the Scriptures here.

The fact is there is evidence Marian prayers were practiced. That can not be disputed. However, there is no evidence of practicing baptist holding to their distinctives in opposition to these heresies. Its like there is a void of all things baptist in the early church.

Such paganism was practiced during the time of Jeremiah 700 years before the time of Christ. It is paganism, and nothing knew.

Jeremiah 7:17 Seest thou not what they do in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem?
18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.
19 Do they provoke me to anger? saith the LORD: do they not provoke themselves to the confusion of their own faces?
20 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, mine anger and my fury shall be poured out upon this place, upon man, and upon beast, and upon the trees of the field, and upon the fruit of the ground; and it shall burn, and shall not be quenched.
--The Lord has never been pleased with this worship that the Catholic Church does today.

Jeremiah 44:16 As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the LORD, we will not hearken unto thee.
17 But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil.
18 But since we left off to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, we have wanted all things, and have been consumed by the sword and by the famine.
19 And when we burned incense to the queen of heaven, and poured out drink offerings unto her, did we make her cakes to worship her, and pour out drink offerings unto her, without our men?
--Incense if often burned isn't it.

And such prayers are still practiced from their ancient form to this very day. You can go to a Catholic Church or an Orthodox church read a prayer and find early documents showing this same prayer in the early centuries of the Church.

I agree. And they are still condemned.

 

[The Biblicist]

All the older posters on this forum know your charge is false. I have never denied original sin and indeed, I have been one of the most able and vocal advocates in the defense of that doctrine - ask anyone!

You simply do not understand what I am saying. The standard for judgement is clearly and repeatedly stated throughout the scriptures - according to thy works. I defy you to produce one scripture that says anyone will stand before God in the day of judgement and be condemned "according to Adam's works." Just produce the scripture? Eternal judgement is not based upon the Adamic sin.

Neither am I denying that all sinned in Adam. Nor am I denying that death passed upon all because all sinned in Adam as that is obvious - infants die.

What I am denying is that the eternal penal consequences (not temporal) for Adam's sin will be imputed to anyone including Adam (as I believe he was redeemed). Eternal judgement is repeatedly stated to be determined by INDIVIDUAL works rather than Adamic representative works.


"The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men" -Mt. 21:25


You are confusing ceremonial cleasning rites with baptism. Simply because articles of furniture and proselytes were ceremonially cleansed by dipping in water is not baptism. Again, Jesus repudiated the idea of the current Jews that ceremonial cleansing effects literal cleansing (Lk. 5:12-17). Your doctrine comes from apostate Judaism not Christianity. Christian baptism originated with John whereas apostate Judiastic ceremonial LITERAL cleansing originated with apostate Israel. Indeed, the whole Roman Catholic system of priests and sacraments originates with apostate Judaism.



Your ignorance of scriptures, your ignorance of the gospel, your ignorance of the blood of the everlasting covenant and your ignorance of salvation.

The death of infants is by divine appointment just as the death of all men is by divine appointment (Heb. 9:27). God determines the day of their birth, the extent of their days and the appointed time of their death.

Infants do not die by accident. They are saved precisely as they were condemned to death - apart from individual cognant consent. Where sin abounded grace did much more abound. Christ removed the sin of the world - Jn. 1:29 in regard to its eternal consequences and therefore no human being will stand in judgement "according to Adam's works" and therefore dying infant stands in no danger of eternal judgment but is saved exactly as condemned by "one man's" obedience. That leaves the only basis of individual judgement to be INDIVIDUAL WORKS.

 

[Zenas]

That is foolish and untrue.

Says the man whose ignorance of Catholic Tradition is surpassed only by his hatred of all things Catholic.

When the RC turned into a murdering machine for centuries, did that complement scripture?

Assuming for the sake of agrument that this is true, which it is not, the killing of Protestants is not and never has been a Tradition of the Catholic Church. Tradition is church doctrine that was given to the apostles by Jesus or, in the case of matters arising after His departure, that was decided by Church councils.

Does an infallible pope complement scripture?

Absolutely yes! "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Matthew 16:19.

How many examples do you need?

A lot more than these. You tried to give me two. One is not an example of Tradition at all and the other example is directly supported by scripture.

 

[DHK]

As a Lutheran, I am not a believer in praying to any saint, including Mary, although we deeply respect her.

You are barking up the wrong tree, brother.

I was replying to TS, and in so doing giving the RCC revisionist history and logic that is often given by them. Much of history has already been revised by the enemies of true Biblical Christianity. You can't find records because you don't want to find records. You would rather look at what the RCC prints. The enemies of Biblical Christianity are not going to provide you with the truth are they?

Consider this description of early Christianity:

A most beautiful and pathetic picture is given by the author of the Epistola ad Diognetum in the early partof the second century. He says:
The Christians are not distinguished from other men by country, by language, nor by civil institutions. For they neither dwell in cities by themselves, nor use a peculiar tongue, nor lead a singular mode of life. They dwell in the Grecian or barbarian cities, as the case may be; they follow the usages of the country in dress, food, and the other affairs of life. Yet they present a wonderful and confessedly paradoxical conduct They dwell in their own native lands, but as strangers. They take part in all things, as citizens; and they suffer all things, as foreigners. Every foreign country is a fatherland to them, and every native land is a foreign. They marry, like all others; they have children; but they do not cast away their offsprings. They have the table in common, but not wives. They are in the flesh, but do not live after the flesh. They live upon the earth, but are citizens of heaven. They obey the existing laws, and excel the laws by their lives. They love all, and are persecuted by all. They are unknown, and yet they are condemned. They are killed and made alive. They are poor and make many rich. They lack all things, and in all things abound. They are reproached, and glory in their reproaches. They are calumniated, and are justified. They are cursed, and they bless. They receive scorn, and they give honor. They do good, and are punished as evil-doers. When punished, they rejoice, as being made alive. By the Jews they are attacked as aliens, and by the Greeks persecuted; and the cause of the enmity their enemies cannot tell. In short, what the soul is to the body, the Christians are in the world. The soul is diffused through all the members of the body, and the Christians are spread through the cities of the world. The soul dwells in the body, but it is not of the body; so the Christians dwell in the world, but are not of theworld. The soul, invisible, keeps watch in the visible body; so also the Christians are seen to live in the world, for their piety is invisible. The flesh hates and wars against the soul; suffering no wrong from it, but because it resists fleshly pleasures; and the world hates the Christians with no reason, but they resist its pleasures. The soul loves the flesh and members, by which it ishated ; so the Christians love their haters. The soul is enclosed in the body. but holds the body together; so the Christians are detained in the world as in a prison; but they contain the world. Immortal, the soul dwells in the mortal body; so the Christians dwell in the corruptible, but look for incorruption in heaven. The soul is the better for restriction in food and drink; and the Christians increase, though daily punished. This lot God has assigned to the Christians in the world; and it cannot be taken from them (Epist. ad Diognetum, C. 5 and 6 p.69 sq. Otto. Lips., 1852).

http://www.reformedreader.org/history/christian/ahob1/ahobc02.htm

 

[Walter]

I believe that you Baptists and other Protestants wish to follow the Spirit, and to properly interpret the scriptures, but it's demonstrable that you are wrong. The amount of fighting between Moriah, DHK, et al on this board makes me realize that none of you can agree as to how to interpret the scriptures correctly. Given this, why would I want to go back to become a protestant again? From where I am standing, I have a pillar of the truth, an unchanging source of reliable teaching. What I see on the other side is error and not a logical basis for certainty of doctrine. Recently I met a 'sola scriptura' sort who even did not know if Jesus was God or not. He did not believe that scripture settled the matter one way or another. Get that, by the Bible alone, he was not even sure who was God and who was not! I do not think I am any better than you. I do not think that I can follow the Spirit or interpret the scriptures better than any other person on this board. So, sincerely, why would I leave the Catholic Church to enter a system that has produced inconsistent and incorrect doctrine and countless denominations with more on the way each day?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Says the man whose ignorance of Catholic Tradition is surpassed only by his hatred of all things Catholic.

You are a liar, on both counts, and anyone who has read my posts here knows it.


Assuming for the sake of agrument that this is true, which it is not, the killing of Protestants is not and never has been a Tradition of the Catholic Church. Tradition is church doctrine that was given to the apostles by Jesus or, in the case of matters arising after His departure, that was decided by Church councils.
Absolutely yes! "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Matthew 16:19. A lot more than these. You tried to give me two. One is not an example of Tradition at all and the other example is directly supported by scripture.

The killing of Dissenters by the Catholic Church was a tradition sanctioned by the unholy alliance from hell of state and church. That "tradition" alone, which lasted for centuries, made the RCC apostate and the agent of hell, not the church that the Prince of Peace founded.


That verse you quoted does not in any way support even the existence of a pope, much less his infallibility. Papal infallibility is a blasphemous doctrine.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I believe that you Baptists and other Protestants wish to follow the Spirit, and to properly interpret the scriptures, but it's demonstrable that you are wrong. The amount of fighting between Moriah, DHK, et al on this board makes me realize that none of you can agree as to how to interpret the scriptures correctly. Given this, why would I want to go back to become a protestant again? From where I am standing, I have a pillar of the truth, an unchanging source of reliable teaching. What I see on the other side is error and not a logical basis for certainty of doctrine. Recently I met a 'sola scriptura' sort who even did not know if Jesus was God or not. He did not believe that scripture settled the matter one way or another. Get that, by the Bible alone, he was not even sure who was God and who was not! I do not think I am any better than you. I do not think that I can follow the Spirit or interpret the scriptures better than any other person on this board. So, sincerely, why would I leave the Catholic Church to enter a system that has produced inconsistent and incorrect doctrine and countless denominations with more on the way each day?

As I have pointed out, there is just as much doctrinal disagreement within the RCC, even more so, than among non-RCC denominations. The disagreement was partly handled by the founding of the various religious orders.

You really think the RCC has not changed over the centuries? It has constantly added man-made traditions to the scriptures -- mandatory priestly celibacy, papal infallibility, etc., etc. If you want a "Catholic" church that hasn't changed much, you should look at the EOC, or better yet, the Old Catholics. The EOC is still beset with some superstition and error, but at least they are descendants of Greek Christendom which has remained much closer to the scriptures than the RCC has.

There are only about eight denominational "families". That's a fact.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

This will be my last post on this forum. I am leaving, for personal reasons.

I have often enjoyed the discussion.

Just to be clear: I hate no one. I wish you all the best.

Please remember me in your prayers from time to time, if you will. I'll remember you in mine.

God bless you all!

 

[Wittenberger]

All the older posters on this forum know your charge is false. I have never denied original sin and indeed, I have been one of the most able and vocal advocates in the defense of that doctrine - ask anyone!

You simply do not understand what I am saying. The standard for judgement is clearly and repeatedly stated throughout the scriptures - according to thy works. I defy you to produce one scripture that says anyone will stand before God in the day of judgement and be condemned "according to Adam's works." Just produce the scripture? Eternal judgement is not based upon the Adamic sin.

Neither am I denying that all sinned in Adam. Nor am I denying that death passed upon all because all sinned in Adam as that is obvious - infants die.

What I am denying is that the eternal penal consequences (not temporal) for Adam's sin will be imputed to anyone including Adam (as I believe he was redeemed). Eternal judgement is repeatedly stated to be determined by INDIVIDUAL works rather than Adamic representative works.




"The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men" -Mt. 21:25


You are confusing ceremonial cleasning rites with baptism. Simply because articles of furniture and proselytes were ceremonially cleansed by dipping in water is not baptism. Again, Jesus repudiated the idea of the current Jews that ceremonial cleansing effects literal cleansing (Lk. 5:12-17). Your doctrine comes from apostate Judaism not Christianity. Christian baptism originated with John whereas apostate Judiastic ceremonial LITERAL cleansing originated with apostate Israel. Indeed, the whole Roman Catholic system of priests and sacraments originates with apostate Judaism.



Your ignorance of scriptures, your ignorance of the gospel, your ignorance of the blood of the everlasting covenant and your ignorance of salvation.

Please copy and paste a statement of the Southern Baptist Convention, American Baptists, or even the Bible Baptist Fellowship or any other fundamentalist Baptist group who would state that siinner's are not held accountable for the original sin inherited by Adam.

 

[The Biblicist]

that siinner's are not held accountable for the original sin inherited by Adam.

Find me any Baptist Confession of faith that condemns dying infants to hell? You cannot! Find me any Baptist Confession of faith that supports infant baptism for remission of sins? You cannot.

Baptists never considered dying infants to be at risk of eternal judgement simply because the scriptures never consider dying infants in danger of eternal judgment, and that is precisely why very few confessions ever address that subject, yet while consistently denying the need of infant baptism. Think about this last statement. If Baptists believed dying infants were at risk of eternal damnation due to original sin then they would have stated that in their confessions but not one confession states that.


3. Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. - 1689 London Confession of Faith, on election

Although the Bible very clearly teaches original sin it also teaches individual responsibility for personal actions and the scriptures uniformily teach that alone is the basis for eternal judgement. Paul argues on the basis of PERSONAL accountabilty due to internal and external light of nature men are without excuse (Rom. 1:20) but he makes no such argument in regard to dying infants. It also teaches that where sin abounded by the actions of one man - Adam - grace did much more abound by the actions of man - Christ. It also teaches that Christ died for the singular "sin" of the whole world (Jn. 1:29) thus removing eternal consequences for the singular sin of Adam leaving only personal accountability "according to their own works" on the day of judgment.

The Scriptures uniformily teach that infants are without ability to discern good from evil as in the case of those in Ninevah. David clearly expected his dying infant son to be in heaven even though conceived out of wedlock.

Unbaptized and uncircumcised infants are said to have been filled with the Spirit of God and enabled to respond to the gospel while still in the mother's womb (Lk. 1:15; Jer. 1:5) - thus totally invalidating both circumcision and baptism as pre-conditions for such a state. Without any pre-conditions of circumcision or baptism Jesus declared such are in the kingdom of heaven. The New Testament is totally silent about infant baptism, which if necessary for the salvation of dying infants, is unthinkably irresponsible. Instead the New Testament never addresses the subject nor even considers any kind of eternal danger of dying infants. You may rationalize circumcision among the Jews but the whole thrust of the New Testament is the salvation of gentiles and not one word is said about the baptism or damnation of gentile infants, which is inexcusable IF such were ever considered to be at risk.

In addition, what about the millions of infants murdered while still in the womb whose parents are not believers? How does your infant circumcision/baptism theory work for them? Nada! Zilch! nothing!

Furthermore, my position is based upon what the scriptures do say in regard to unbaptized/uncirucumcised infants (Jer. 1:5; Lk. 1:15; 1 Sam.) but your position is based upon pure silence of scripture and upon the view of apostate Judaism in regard to the salvic merits of circumcision - Acts 15:2

Finally, you cannot have your cake and eat it too! Either infant baptism is essential for remission of sins in the case of dying infants or it is not. Millions of aborted infants by unbelieving parents world wide has no comfort in your doctrine any more than Jeremiah and John the Baptist in the womb of godly parents provides any justification for your doctrine - case closed.

 

[Walter]

As I have pointed out, there is just as much doctrinal disagreement within the RCC, even more so, than among non-RCC denominations. The disagreement was partly handled by the founding of the various religious orders.

You really think the RCC has not changed over the centuries? It has constantly added man-made traditions to the scriptures -- mandatory priestly celibacy, papal infallibility, etc., etc. If you want a "Catholic" church that hasn't changed much, you should look at the EOC, or better yet, the Old Catholics. The EOC is still beset with some superstition and error, but at least they are descendants of Greek Christendom which has remained much closer to the scriptures than the RCC has.

There are only about eight denominational "families". That's a fact.

Bishop, I asked the question in RCIA how much can a person disagree with the teachings of the Church and remain a Catholic. The answer I got was something like: 'When person states they disagree with the Church it usually means the teachings of the Church'. It was pointed out that this becomes problematic since Church teachings are proclaimed by the Magisterium or teaching authority of the Church and therefore become binding doctrine which defines as our deposit of faith. This is derived from Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. It was pointed out that there are the rubrics and other areas where in house debates take place all of the time and Catholic theology remains in the pail of orthodoxy. There are also theological opinions that does not need to be adhered to for our salvation. If you believe, for example, that the Eucharist is merely symbolic or that mortal sin does not exist then you would be outside of Catholic teaching. If a person rejects doctrine then it rejects the Church that Christ founded and would result in one being in schism. I have never heard that any Catholic religious order rejected doctrine of the Catholic Church. Maybe you can explain what you meant by this.

The point in my post was that the doctrine of sola scriptura cannot be a unifying principle. It follows from this that the only real unifying principle is sufficient agreement with those who agree with one's own interpretation of scripture. But if that's the case, then it logically follows that sola scriptura logically collapses into solO scriptura. This shows that the only principle of unity is your own opinion. Again, look at the degree of disagreement between two evangelicals, Moriah and DHK. Both claim they adhere to 'sola scriptura' and both insist that the Holy Spriit has lead them to there conclusions.

 

[Wittenberger]

Find me any Baptist Confession of faith that condemns dying infants to hell? You cannot! Find me any Baptist Confession of faith that supports infant baptism for remission of sins? You cannot.

Baptists never considered dying infants to be at risk of eternal judgement simply because the scriptures never consider dying infants in danger of eternal judgment, and that is precisely why very few confessions ever address that subject, yet while consistently denying the need of infant baptism. Think about this last statement. If Baptists believed dying infants were at risk of eternal damnation due to original sin then they would have stated that in their confessions but not one confession states that.


3. Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. - 1689 London Confession of Faith, on election

Although the Bible very clearly teaches original sin it also teaches individual responsibility for personal actions and the scriptures uniformily teach that alone is the basis for eternal judgement. Paul argues on the basis of PERSONAL accountabilty due to internal and external light of nature men are without excuse (Rom. 1:20) but he makes no such argument in regard to dying infants. It also teaches that where sin abounded by the actions of one man - Adam - grace did much more abound by the actions of man - Christ. It also teaches that Christ died for the singular "sin" of the whole world (Jn. 1:29) thus removing eternal consequences for the singular sin of Adam leaving only personal accountability "according to their own works" on the day of judgment.

The Scriptures uniformily teach that infants are without ability to discern good from evil as in the case of those in Ninevah. David clearly expected his dying infant son to be in heaven even though conceived out of wedlock.

Unbaptized and uncircumcised infants are said to have been filled with the Spirit of God and enabled to respond to the gospel while still in the mother's womb (Lk. 1:15; Jer. 1:5) - thus totally invalidating both circumcision and baptism as pre-conditions for such a state. Without any pre-conditions of circumcision or baptism Jesus declared such are in the kingdom of heaven. The New Testament is totally silent about infant baptism, which if necessary for the salvation of dying infants, is unthinkably irresponsible. Instead the New Testament never addresses the subject nor even considers any kind of eternal danger of dying infants. You may rationalize circumcision among the Jews but the whole thrust of the New Testament is the salvation of gentiles and not one word is said about the baptism or damnation of gentile infants, which is inexcusable IF such were ever considered to be at risk.

In addition, what about the millions of infants murdered while still in the womb whose parents are not believers? How does your infant circumcision/baptism theory work for them? Nada! Zilch! nothing!

Furthermore, my position is based upon what the scriptures do say in regard to unbaptized/uncirucumcised infants (Jer. 1:5; Lk. 1:15; 1 Sam.) but your position is based upon pure silence of scripture and upon the view of apostate Judaism in regard to the salvic merits of circumcision - Acts 15:2

Finally, you cannot have your cake and eat it too! Either infant baptism is essential for remission of sins in the case of dying infants or it is not. Millions of aborted infants by unbelieving parents world wide has no comfort in your doctrine any more than Jeremiah and John the Baptist in the womb of godly parents provides any justification for your doctrine - case closed.

Your Baptist statement only covers the "elect". This is Calvinism: God chooses who will go to heaven and who will go to hell.

This calvinist Baptist statement says nothing about "universal" salvation for all infants: that all infants, elect and non-elect are covered by a blanket pardon from God for the stain of original sin inherited by Adam.

Please show me a non-Calvinist Baptist (Arminian) statement that says that ALL infants are not held accountable for the original sin inherited from Adam.

Bottom line: the doctrine of the Age of Accountability is not based on any specific Scripture but generalities. Anyone can prove whatever position they want by using generalities. One can "prove" universal salvation for EVERYONE by using a few verses of Scripture.

The Age of Accountability is based on a belief that a good and just God would not send little babies to hell. We Lutherans hope the very same thing! But Baptists and Lutherans base this hope just on that...hope. There is no doctrine in the Bible that specifically covers babies (non-elect babies).

So to Lutherans what happens to babies that have not been baptized?

WE DON'T KNOW. The Bible doesn't say. Just as Baptists, we have to trust in a loving but just God.

We baptize our infants because God commands it. What happens to non-baptized infants is in the hands of God.

 

[Yeshua1]

Who says I am looking. I know there is plenty. Read some Baptist history and don't be so biased.
There is history but it is harder to find. Although I don't fully endorse the pamphlet "The Trail of Blood" because of some of the errors contained within, I endorse its basic theme--that in every generation God has preserved a remnant of Bible believing churches, faithful to his word, entirely apart from the RCC and other heretical groups. Their history may, at times, be hard to find. The reason for that is simple. They, as the pamphlet implies, left a "trail of blood," not of books. They were persecuted, maligned, denigrated, imprisoned, and even put to death for their faith. For example, Innocent III led a Crusade specifically to exterminate the Albigenses, a God-fearing sect of Christians who were doing no harm to anyone. The history of the wickedness of the RCC is well established.
The "anabaptists" have that name for a reason. It was given to them out of derision. It means to baptize again. They were put to death, mostly by Catholics, for doing just that--baptizing again. Converts had already been baptized as infants. Once saved, believing in Christ by faith, they were baptized ("again") or in reality the first time, since an infant baptism is no baptism at all. For this many of them were put to death. It is hard to write your history when you yourself are being drowned, beheaded, burned at the steak, etc.
Therefore there is a lack of history concerning many of the true Baptists.

To my understanding...

The Apostolic Church would have practiced and had doctrines in the SAME fashion that we baptists would have today, ONCE the Church firmly established that they were NOT to be a sect within judaism, but a new work of God under the new Covenant...

Once paul was chosen as the Apsotle to the gentiles forward, would have been firmly 'baptisitic" in doctrines and practices!

So regardless WHEn in history there is the 'first official" Baptist church, the ealiest Church was distinctly "baptist"...

 

[The Biblicist]

Your Baptist statement only covers the "elect". This is Calvinism: God chooses who will go to heaven and who will go to hell.

This calvinist Baptist statement says nothing about "universal" salvation for all infants: that all infants, elect and non-elect are covered by a blanket pardon from God for the stain of original sin inherited by Adam.

Please show me a non-Calvinist Baptist (Arminian) statement that says that ALL infants are not held accountable for the original sin inherited from Adam.

Bottom line: the doctrine of the Age of Accountability is not based on any specific Scripture but generalities. Anyone can prove whatever position they want by using generalities. One can "prove" universal salvation for EVERYONE by using a few verses of Scripture.

The Age of Accountability is based on a belief that a good and just God would not send little babies to hell. We Lutherans hope the very same thing! But Baptists and Lutherans base this hope just on that...hope. There is no doctrine in the Bible that specifically covers babies (non-elect babies).

So to Lutherans what happens to babies that have not been baptized?

WE DON'T KNOW. The Bible doesn't say. Just as Baptists, we have to trust in a loving but just God.

We baptize our infants because God commands it. What happens to non-baptized infants is in the hands of God.

You would make an excellent "demoncratic" politician as you avoid the bulk of the evidence I provided that proves your position is completely empty of Biblical matter. Both Jeremiah and John the Baptist simply destroy the whole basis for the necessity of either circumcision or baptism as a prerequisite for infant salvation.

The millions of aborted infants from the womb every day completely destroys the pre-conditions of circumcision/baptism both now and then.

You also ignore the fact that no baptist confession deals with that question yet without condemning dying infants to hell, while nearly every Baptist confession denies infant baptism.

Hence, the Baptist confessions are consistent in this area of soteriology as there are no precepts or examples in the New Testament for infant baptism or can there be found ANYTHING that even INFERS dying infants are in danger of hell. This fact completely makes the Lutheran/Catholic position null and void especially when it is noted that the bulk of the New Testament is written to GENTILES who never practiced circumcision and who are told that circumcision is not merely UNNECESSARY for them but are encouraged to completley IGNORE it while NOTHING is directed toward their children to replace it!!!!! That very SILENCE is like a dagger in the heart of your doctrine, because if your position had any validity the New Testament writings to Gentiles should be SCREAMING with commands to baptize their children in view of detouring them from circumcision (Acts 15).

Finally, no Baptist Confession claims universal salvation of all infants. We are dealing with only DYING infants not universal salvation for all infants.

 

[Yeshua1]

Please copy and paste a statement of the Southern Baptist Convention, American Baptists, or even the Bible Baptist Fellowship or any other fundamentalist Baptist group who would state that siinner's are not held accountable for the original sin inherited by Adam.

Actually, we inherit as a result of Adam original Sin the sin nature, for God has passed unto all of his descendants the same verdict of both spiritual/physical death!

And infants, though under that judgement of being found sinners before Him, have ALL been elected by God to be saved by the basis of the Cross of Christ, as they have not yet become personally accountible to him for their sins as of yet...

 

[Wittenberger]

I was replying to TS, and in so doing giving the RCC revisionist history and logic that is often given by them. Much of history has already been revised by the enemies of true Biblical Christianity. You can't find records because you don't want to find records. You would rather look at what the RCC prints. The enemies of Biblical Christianity are not going to provide you with the truth are they?

Consider this description of early Christianity:
http://www.reformedreader.org/history/christian/ahob1/ahobc02.htm

I am in full agreement that the Popes of Rome committed many horrific crimes and sins. I would be that even our Catholic brothers and sisters would agree with us on that.

The point of this thread is: why isn't there ANY evidence of early "Baptist" doctrine in the first six to eight centuries after Christ?

So, let's say that you are right and that in all the lands of the Roman Empire the "catholics" were able to destroy and scrub clean any and all evidence of these early Baptists.

But what about Persia, India, Ethiopia and other regions not under Roman control and therefore not under the control of the Roman Church? If these Baptist believers existed, we should be able to find a least a few remnants of evidence of their existence.

Why don't we find a letter from a pastor to another pastor talking about the heretics who are baptizing infants?

Why don't we find a letter from a pastor to a member of his congregation discussing the doctrine of symbolic baptism?

Why don't we find a letter from a Christian father to his son on receiving the ordinance of baptism after having "accepted Jesus into his heart as his personal Lord and Savior"?

But there is no evidence like this. Not one single shred of evidence anywhere on planet earth.

My dear Baptists brothers and sisters, take your denominational rose-colored glasses off, and use your own God-given intelligence and common sense to see that the lack of ANY evidence of ANY Christian holding the Baptist interpretation of the Bible during the first six to eight centuries after Christ, ANYWHERE on planet earth, in Roman lands and in non-Roman lands, is UNDENIABLE evidence, from God himself, that your doctrines are not the doctrines of the Apostles.

 

[Wittenberger]

I believe that you Baptists and other Protestants wish to follow the Spirit, and to properly interpret the scriptures, but it's demonstrable that you are wrong. The amount of fighting between Moriah, DHK, et al on this board makes me realize that none of you can agree as to how to interpret the scriptures correctly. Given this, why would I want to go back to become a protestant again? From where I am standing, I have a pillar of the truth, an unchanging source of reliable teaching. What I see on the other side is error and not a logical basis for certainty of doctrine. Recently I met a 'sola scriptura' sort who even did not know if Jesus was God or not. He did not believe that scripture settled the matter one way or another. Get that, by the Bible alone, he was not even sure who was God and who was not! I do not think I am any better than you. I do not think that I can follow the Spirit or interpret the scriptures better than any other person on this board. So, sincerely, why would I leave the Catholic Church to enter a system that has produced inconsistent and incorrect doctrine and countless denominations with more on the way each day?

Dear brother Walter,

I believe that Roman Catholics who have faith in Christ as their Savior and repent of their sins, just as any other Christian must, are my brothers and sisters.

I have a suggestion for you though. All the splintering of Protestants you see is among the Reformed Protestants, which Baptists are descendants. Lutherans may be divided on social issues and style of worship, but we have been united in doctrine for 500 years.

Look at the doctrines of the Lutheran Church and compare them to the doctrines of the Church Fathers living in the first 400 years of the Church. Then compare these Fathers' doctrines to that of the RCC.

I will let you come to your own conclusion on which Church follows the original teachings of the Church Fathers.

Lutherans see themselves as reformed, evangelical catholics. Our beliefs are not new. They are a continuation of the one, holy, catholic, apostolic Church founded by Christ and spread throughout the known world by the Apostles.

See for yourself: www.lcms.org

 

[The Biblicist]

You would make an excellent "demoncratic" politician as you avoid the bulk of the evidence I provided that proves your position is completely empty of Biblical matter. Both Jeremiah and John the Baptist simply destroy the whole basis for the necessity of either circumcision or baptism as a prerequisite for infant salvation.

The millions of aborted infants from the womb every day completely destroys the pre-conditions of circumcision/baptism both now and then.

You also ignore the fact that no baptist confession deals with that question yet without condemning dying infants to hell, while nearly every Baptist confession denies infant baptism.

Hence, the Baptist confessions are consistent in this area of soteriology as there are no precepts or examples in the New Testament for infant baptism or can there be found ANYTHING that even INFERS dying infants are in danger of hell. This fact completely makes the Lutheran/Catholic position null and void especially when it is noted that the bulk of the New Testament is written to GENTILES who never practiced circumcision and who are told that circumcision is not merely UNNECESSARY for them but are encouraged to completley IGNORE it while NOTHING is directed toward their children to replace it!!!!! That very SILENCE is like a dagger in the heart of your doctrine, because if your position had any validity the New Testament writings to Gentiles should be SCREAMING with commands to baptize their children in view of detouring them from circumcision (Acts 15).

Finally, no Baptist Confession claims universal salvation of all infants. We are dealing with only DYING infants not universal salvation for all infants.

The New Testament teaching concerning infant baptism and the overall Biblical teaching concerning the consequences of dying infants does not provide any kind of support whatsoever for the Romanist view of infant baptism.

1. Precepts and Examples of New Testament baptism of infants - ZERO

2. Overall Biblical precepts/examples/inferences of infant condemnation to hell - ZERO

3. Overal Biblical inferences for the salvation of dying infants
a. Christ paid for the singular "sin" of the world - Jn. 1:29
b. David's out of wedlock adulterious conception of a son and his death
c. Circumcision unnecessary for Gentile salvation while zero instruction/example for baptism of their infants
d. Eternal judgement based upon "according to your works"
e. Zero teaching about infants at the judgement seat
f. Uncircumcised infants Spirit filled and enabled from the womb
g. Jesus "such is the kingdom of heaven" without any pre-conditions stated - dry passages.

4. Common sense objections to Lutheran/Catholic position
a. Millions of aborted babies from the womb then and now
b. Can't have it both ways - remission of sins with or without baptism

 

[reformed_baptist]

After multiple discussions with several Baptists and evangelicals on this site I have come to the conclusion that the fact that there is no historical evidence that any Christian living in the first six centuries of Christianity held the Baptist view that Baptism is an act of obedience/public profession of faith ONLY, really does not bother them. Why?

Well I can't help the fcat that you have ignored the evidence presented can I