As can be seen from history RCC distinctives were long before the 4th Century and continue to this day a very good argument for their originally being the infant church.
This is really just a pipe dream. The same people that brought error into the church you take the error and make it doctrine. Ludicrous. Look at the churches in the NT itself. No such error exists. The early
churches did not practice the RCC heresies. They followed the Bible. Certainly there were heresies and heretics that abounded with their writings. Why should we trust them? They are not supported by the Word of God, and yet this is what you want to premise your teaching on.
The incarnation was God become flesh! God made us flesh! God interacts with man materially as well as spiritually! And the fact that the church is made up of people and not an etherial consept their existance is not only a fact but evidence of them should be evident through out all ages! Baptist don't have this to fall back on. But the RCC can show its existance in all ages from the times of the apostles.
We are spiritually beings. If the flesh remains flesh, and is not born from above then you have that which is carnal, evil, wicked, and of Satan; exactly what you describe. Spiritual churches are run by spiritual men that are composed of spiritual members, people who have been indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God, and live according to His Spirit. You will find those churches vastly different than the ones labeled with the RCC title. If you are not born again by the Spirit of God (not baptism) you will never understand.
Oh certainly my reasoning is sound. What is in question is your line of reasoning! You contradict yourself! You yourself said William Carey wrote thousands of articles about his baptist beliefs and faith. Today Baptist are very prolific writers everything from 40 days of every thing from Rick Warren Saddle Back Church to How to make desert loving the Lord cookbook! By your own reasoning both William Carey and the many baptist today are heretics! Since I know you don't believe that then it stands to reason that your reasoning isn't very sound.
William Carey was the founder of the modern day missionary movement of the Baptists. He was opposed by Catholics and Anglicans alike, as well as the government of India, India being a protectorate of the Commonwealth of Great Britain. Carey found opposition even there. It is not that books were not written. Bibles were not in the hands of the common person. The RCC would never do that for the common person. They are against that. They believe it is anathema. They burned the Bibles of William Tyndale, if you remember. They even purchased them in order to burn them. Carey was a prolific writer, but a writer of evangelic material, not Catholic literature. Being a Baptist, a Baptist that started a college, and a scholar himself, he no doubt would have researched with no bias the true Biblical history of the evangelicals in India from the time of Thomas onward.
And since Baptist today and in the not too distance past are very prolific writers then we know that would have been the case in the early church. But we find there is not on MSS fragment that tells us of baptist distinctives, theology, or thought.
Carey was in India, at a much later date than the Ryland's manuscript. Other history attests to Baptist history much earlier than Carey.
And you've read every book of both topics? This is the accusation you through at me about William Carey! So if you can't be consistant in your reason then try accusing with out being hypocritical.
I have never made the claim and never will make a claim that says that I have read ALL the books on either subject. But I have been to: libraries, studied at a secular college and both Christian colleges and a University. It is easy to ascertain that far more books have been written on the subject on evolution than Creation. Even a google search will tell you that.
You have proven my point though you don't know it. Cardinal Hosius lumped all heretical sects that baptized people again as Anabaptist or (again baptizers).
The more you write the more you prove my point but not knowing it. You regard baptismal regeneration as truth. It is a heresy of the utmost poison. You believe to be "baptized again" is a heresy. They didn't have any other choice if they were true believers. Those truths which we consider biblical you consider heresy. You believe "new birth = baptism." That is another heresy. And on and on we go. And so you label these groups as heretical because they don't line up with RCC doctrine, when in truth they line up with Biblical doctrine.
Not all again baptizers held Anabaptist beliefs. We know this because there is evidence of not only the existance of each of these groups but there exist also their beliefs.
There was a great variety of "anabaptists." It is true that some were heretics, such as "Mormons" which would be classed in the same category. The RCC would have taken groups like this and smeared every group with the same heresy. Their revisionist type of history is known for such smear campaigns.
We know from Tertullian that he became a Montanist because certain Catholic Clergy were not disciplined in their faith and allowed for certain moral colapses. He felt the Church wasn't strict enough so he became a more strict moralist in the Montanist movement. However, we have their writings and his writings about them. Not only did Montanus included his prophesy equal with scripture and added to scripture his statements but they had a liturgy, celebrated the Eucharist, and said their members should not get married. Are these baptist distinctives? No.
Again, I believe you have distorted the Montanist's beliefs. You make them fit into RCC beliefs, when on the other side of your forked tongue you previously called them heretics.
So it is with all the other again baptizers. You'll find that none of the groups Hosius mentions hold to all baptist distinctives or all of their theology not even the Anabaptist who's modern day decendants are Amish and Mennonites.
Your lack of Baptist knowledge is astounding. First no Baptist claims that all Baptists adhere strictly to all Baptist distinctives. We are independent. Being independent we vary from church to church. Is that not evident to you even from your own observation on this board? No ancient Baptist is going to match up with all distinctives of modern day baptists. How close are they going to be? That is the question that we ask ourselves?
Modern day baptist are an amalgamation of different protestant thoughts from the reformation.
Even Hosius admits it was far before that. He just refers to them as heretics because they didn't hold to RCC doctrine, Duh!
Which is why the SBC currently is fighting groups within its ranks about whether or not to retain reformed theology leaning churches or not or how to combine the reformed groups to its other groups. So Hosius isn't attesting to what you know as baptist but all groups who again baptize despite Pauls teaching in Ephesians that we are one faith and have one baptism (a very Catholic idea).
Calvinism, although can be divisive, doesn't have to be. It really is a minor issue. It is we (Baptists) that allow among ourselves to major on the minors and minor on the majors. It isn't such a big deal. In England the same controversy was traced back to the General Baptists and the Particular Baptists. And that was centuries ago. Both were Baptists.
