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

[Wittenberger]

I don't doubt your sincerity. However, you are sincerely wrong and ignorant of the Biblical way of salvation. Any who claims that Rome teaches the correct way of salvation and that those who embrace her saramental salvation are saved is completely duped by demons (1 Tim. 4;1) and has absolutely no comprehension of the biblical doctrine of salvation whatsoever.

However, Rome is more consistent than your Lutheranism. You want it both ways - remission of sins in connection with baptism and remission of sins apart from baptism. There is only one gospel, one way of salvation, one Savior and one covenant of eternal redemption. Infants are saved just like others - they are brought to cognance of the gospel as was John the Baptist in the womb without any preconditions. "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

You don't understand because you are an Arminian Christian. You believe that salvation only occurs when "you make a decision to accept Christ into your heart". This language is not only unscriptural, you won't find this phrase anywhere in the Bible, but it is also false doctrine.

God chooses WHO to save, WHEN to save them, and HOW to save them. According to both Ephesians and Colossians the sinner is dead in his sins. Do you Arminians believe that God makes you half alive so that you can make a decision, but if you reject him, he pulls the half alive back, and you are dead again?

Man does not choose God. God chooses man.

If you don't like the fact that God says he can save adults who hear the Gospel and believe and that he forgives/washes away sins in baptism, which we are told to do to "all", then that is your problem.

Again, your interpretation of Scripture has no more supporting evidence than this Mormon bishop:

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

 

[Wittenberger]

There are some plain facts that are intentionally overlooked when it comes to evaluating historical sources.

Roman Catholicism from the fourth century dominated every government in the world of recorded "church history." All others were deemed "heretics" by Rome and the secular arm of government incorporated and applied ecclesiastical laws such as the Laws of Theodosia.

Rome CONTROLLED the selective processes in gathering all historical data for "church history" for nearly the first 1000 years.

Rome has been caught red handed in crafting fake historical sources.

The Post-Nicene Fathers are logically consistent with the Nicene Fathers but how many Protestant historians accept the Post-Nicene Father's and their counsels as authoritative for their own church doctrine and practice??? All other denominations draw a line at some juncture where they totally reject "The Father's" as valid for determining their own denominational doctrine and practice.

Baptists are the only ones consistent which reject all the "Father's" as the carefully selected and preserved history of apostasy by the state church apostacy.

Persia, Ethiopia and India had Christians in the early centuries. These lands were not under the Roman Empire, therefore not under any control by the "Catholics".

Your history is inaccurate and your doctrine is new and false teachings.

 

[Wittenberger]

I already gave you a URL describing what the Baptist churches at that time were like. That is totally unlike any Catholic church, who loved their liturgy, pomp, arrogance and glory.

All Baptist churches were patterned after apostolic churches. So let's assume for the time being that the apostolic churches were Baptist in faith and practice. Thomas was "The Apostle to India." It is said the Barnabas went with him, in some books. Thomas did a great work there, and many churches were started. In the end Thomas was martyred; a Hindu Brahman thrusting a spear through him. Obviously it wasn't the Roman government that killed Paul and Peter, but it was the religious authorities in Hindu, the highest religious caste in India. Every apostle died of martyrdom except one, John, and he was exiled to the Isle of Patmos.

Baptist churches are independent and don't dare interfere in the affairs of another church. Why should they? They didn't in the NT either. Not one church interfered with the affairs in any other church. The common thread was the Apostle Paul who gave advice as a missionary to the many churches he started. As a missionary I do the same thing. There is no denomination. Paul, in his lifetime, went on three different missionary journeys and established about 100 churches. The most communication we have between any of these is: 1. The sending of greetings to each other, 2. The sending of helpers to one another, 3. The collection of funds at the suggestion of Paul, for the poor in Jerusalem. And that was totally voluntarily, not by force.
Most of the churches had no communication with each other except through Paul. The discipline of the member in 1Cor.5:1-5 was nobody's business but the Corinthian church.

The doctrine is well laid out in the Bible. Why should they discuss it with any other church. They were independent of each other.

Look at the example of Timothy living with Eunice and Lois. They lived in extended families. Perhaps you are not acquainted with that concept. You could have 3 to 4 generations living in one household. They still do in eastern nations. No need to write a letter.

You haven't looked on planet earth. Don't be absurd again. Statements like this are for the trash can.

They are and you can't prove otherwise. The RCC did not even begin until the fourth century. The church flourished in "churches" not in denominations. Normally "churches" don't write their history down. Ours doesn't.

There is no mention of Timothy "accepting Christ" and then being baptized. That because he grew up in a Christian home, was baptized as an infant, so had always been considered a Christian.

Baptists have not one single example in the Bible of a child of Christians "accepting Christ into their hearts" and then receiving "believer's baptism" as a public profession of faith. I wonder why not????

 

[DHK]

There is no mention of Timothy "accepting Christ" and then being baptized. That because he grew up in a Christian home, was baptized as an infant, so had always been considered a Christian.

There is no instance of infant baptism for hundreds of years later. What are you talking about?? There is not one instance of infant baptism in the Bible! Not one! Every case of baptism is after one's confession of faith in Christ as Lord; all are adults; all are by immersion; and the word itself is "immerse".

Baptists have not one single example in the Bible of a child of Christians "accepting Christ into their hearts" and then receiving "believer's baptism" as a public profession of faith. I wonder why not????

We are not the one's arguing from silence. It is not I that has to prove infant baptism. It is you. There is no infant baptism. If there is it would be there. The onus is up to you to prove it. You can't argue from a point of silence. You stand upon a logical fallacy and are sinking into sinking sand rather rapidly.

 

[Steadfast Fred]

There is no mention of Timothy "accepting Christ" and then being baptized. That because he grew up in a Christian home, was baptized as an infant, so had always been considered a Christian.

Baptists have not one single example in the Bible of a child of Christians "accepting Christ into their hearts" and then receiving "believer's baptism" as a public profession of faith. I wonder why not????

Timothy baptized as an infant?

Yikes!

Wittenberger, you are teaching contrary to the Word of God.

Scripture does not say Timothy "grew up in a Christian home." So, why say he did?

Scripture tells us his mother was Jewish and his father was Greek and that he learned the Scriptures as a child. But it does not say it was a "Christian home." Nor does it say he was "baptized as an infant."

Where is your proof that he was "baptized as an infant?"

Did you just come on this board to bash Baptists? You should be ashamed.

 

[Steadfast Fred]

Many like to use the story of the Philippian jailer as proof that infants can be baptized, saying "surely there were infants in the house."

But the Word of God is careful to reveal that there were no infants in the house of that man.

Acts 16:34 (KJV) And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.

The man believed in God with all his house... with all his house. Let that sink in.

Luke records that ALL his house believed in God. If there were infants in the house, how would Luke know they believed, seeing as they are unable to communicate in a language man can understand?

Acts 16:34 clearly shows a believer's baptism and not infant baptism.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

A better way to get a reasonable hearing is not to put Baptists and a group of rank polytheists together.

 

[Wittenberger]

I don't doubt your sincerity. However, you are sincerely wrong and ignorant of the Biblical way of salvation. Any who claims that Rome teaches the correct way of salvation and that those who embrace her saramental salvation are saved is completely duped by demons (1 Tim. 4;1) and has absolutely no comprehension of the biblical doctrine of salvation whatsoever.

However, Rome is more consistent than your Lutheranism. You want it both ways - remission of sins in connection with baptism and remission of sins apart from baptism. There is only one gospel, one way of salvation, one Savior and one covenant of eternal redemption. Infants are saved just like others - they are brought to cognance of the gospel as was John the Baptist in the womb without any preconditions. "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

I'm sure that this will come as a surprise to you, but the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Lutheran Church and Baptists are in full agreement on how an adult non-believer becomes a Christian, is saved:

All are in agreement that an adult non-believer is saved when, by faith he believes in Jesus Christ as his Lord, and repents of his sins.

Both the RCC and the Lutheran Church will not baptize this new believer immediately but will give him Christian instruction for months prior to baptism. If this new believer dies before baptism, he is a Christian, he will go to heaven.

What happens after this new adult believer's conversion by faith is where the RCC and the Lutheran Church part company. The RCC teaches that good works are required to maintain your salvation. Lutherans teach that good works are a natural product of real faith, but do nothing for helping your salvation.

So since the RCC, EOC, and the Lutherans teach that the adult sinner is saved when he believes by faith, prior to baptism, and prior to doing any good works, we are in full agreement with the Baptists on adult conversion.

Where we differ is what to do with the infants of Christian parents.

If you don't believe what I say above is true, check out the RCC websites and the Lutheran websites for yourself.

 

[DHK]

Persia, Ethiopia and India had Christians in the early centuries. These lands were not under the Roman Empire, therefore not under any control by the "Catholics".

Your history is inaccurate and your doctrine is new and false teachings.

My history is not inaccurate seeing I have just finished doing a study of the history of Christianity on the Indian subcontinent. Thomas came first. He established "Baptist-like" churches in India. Those churches continued on for centuries in the "Baptist" or apostolic faith.

About 550 years B.C. all of that territory: Persian, India, Ethiopia, was under control of the Persian Empire:

Esther 8:9 Then were the king's scribes called at that time in the third month, that is, the month Sivan, on the three and twentieth day thereof; and it was written according to all that Mordecai commanded unto the Jews, and to the lieutenants, and the deputies and rulers of the provinces which are from India unto Ethiopia, an hundred twenty and seven provinces, unto every province according to the writing thereof, and unto every people after their language, and to the Jews according to their writing, and according to their language.

Whose empire was greater: the Persian empire, or Rome's empire?
Rome's empire was greater than the Persian empire, so it is not inconceivable that both Alexander the Great (of Greece) and the Roman empire had some influence in India.

Nevertheless Thomas was an apostle to India. He was there first, not the Catholics. Catholics didn't even come into existence til the fourth century.

 

[Wittenberger]

If you sought out and submitted to a Lutheran Minister for baptism then you have publicly identified with the Luthern Ministry. If you sought out and submitted to a Methodist Minister for baptism then you have publicly identified with the Methodist Ministry.

Jesus sought out and submitted to John "The Baptist" and thus not merely identified with the "The Baptist" ministry but perpetuated the very same ministry (Jn. 4:1-2) and identified his own authority with the baptism of John (Mt. 22:25).

The selection of another candidate to fill the church office of Apostle, must be a witness beginning with "the baptism of John" (Acts 1:21-22). The origin of the gospel ministry by the church at Jerusalem is with the baptism John preached (Acts 10:37).

All the members publicly identified with and submitted to the counsel of God, which was the baptism of John (Lk. 7:29-30).

John's name was not "The Baptist" but it is a descriptive noun that defined his message (Jn. 3:36) and his mission (Lk. 1:17b) and his ministry (Jn. 3:29). This is the same message, mission and ministry of the first church at Jerusalem (Mt. 28:19-20) and Paul's ministry (2 Cor. 11:2 "betrothed").

Throughout Roman Catholic selective history those who opposed Rome were called by their enemies as Baptists (CataBAPTISTS; AnaBAPTISTS, etc.).

The great mennonite Reformation scholar Rolland Bainton noted that the Anabaptists complained about the suffix "ana" and preferred to call themselves simply "Baptists."

If a whole church as well as its first Pastor all submitted "The Baptist" ministry of John then they would be "Baptists." However, there were no other denominations to be compared with and so no name was necessary to distinguish them from others. However, they were Baptist in doctrine and practice.

Please give specific evidence of these early Christians who were not called "Baptists" but held Baptist-like beliefs.

The Montanists?? As I have shown on another thread, Montanists believed in baptismal regeneration so strongly that they encouraged converts to wait until the very last moment possible to be baptized. Why? Because all sins committed after baptism were unforgiveable. Baptism washed away all sins previously committed, but no afterwards.

Doesn't sound very Baptist to me.

 

[Wittenberger]

There is no instance of infant baptism for hundreds of years later. What are you talking about?? There is not one instance of infant baptism in the Bible! Not one! Every case of baptism is after one's confession of faith in Christ as Lord; all are adults; all are by immersion; and the word itself is "immerse".

We are not the one's arguing from silence. It is not I that has to prove infant baptism. It is you. There is no infant baptism. If there is it would be there. The onus is up to you to prove it. You can't argue from a point of silence. You stand upon a logical fallacy and are sinking into sinking sand rather rapidly.

I will shortly give you multiple statements of multiple Church Fathers supporting infant baptism.

Just as orthodox Christians cannot give any specific instances of infant baptism, Baptists/evangelicals cannot give any specific instances of the children of believers, growing up, "accepting Christ into their hearts" and then being baptized as a public profession of faith.

We have no "specific" references to our belief, you have no specific references to yours.

However, we do have several instances where entire households were baptized. We can't prove there were any infants, and you can't prove that there weren't. However, there is no such inferences in regards to the grown children of Christians undergoing "believer's baptism". None. Nada.

 

[Wittenberger]

Timothy baptized as an infant?

Yikes!

Wittenberger, you are teaching contrary to the Word of God.

Scripture does not say Timothy "grew up in a Christian home." So, why say he did?

Scripture tells us his mother was Jewish and his father was Greek and that he learned the Scriptures as a child. But it does not say it was a "Christian home." Nor does it say he was "baptized as an infant."

Where is your proof that he was "baptized as an infant?"

Did you just come on this board to bash Baptists? You should be ashamed.

I have no proof that Timothy was baptized as an infant.

I was trying to make a point: Timothy grew up in a Christian home but there is no mention of his "accepting Christ" and undergoing believer's baptism. There is no evidence in Scripture of any child of Christian parents undergoing the Baptist version of conversion and baptism.

I am on this site to bring the true Gospel to my Baptist/evangelical brothers and sisters who have been deceived by false doctrine. I love them and want to help them. I have no interest in just trying to win an argument or "bashing" anyone.

I want all of you to re-discover the true Christian faith as did Martin Luther almost 500 years ago!

 

[Wittenberger]

Many like to use the story of the Philippian jailer as proof that infants can be baptized, saying "surely there were infants in the house."

But the Word of God is careful to reveal that there were no infants in the house of that man.

Acts 16:34 (KJV) And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.

The man believed in God with all his house... with all his house. Let that sink in.

Luke records that ALL his house believed in God. If there were infants in the house, how would Luke know they believed, seeing as they are unable to communicate in a language man can understand?

Acts 16:34 clearly shows a believer's baptism and not infant baptism.

If someone came to your house with ballons and a gigantic check and told you and your family that you had all just won a million dollar sweepstakes. This is how it would be recorded:

"I went to the "Jones" house. I told them that they had won. They had a hard time believing me, but in the end, when they saw the check, they all believed."

Would I really add this sentence: "Oh, and of course, when I say that "all believed", I of course did not mean to insinuate that the two year old and the four year old believed, just the older children and the adults."

You are asking Luke to use very strange language to describe this event to prove that infants were not included.

 

[Steadfast Fred]

If someone came to my house with a check for the Jones's, I would point them to another house. I am not Jones.

Luke recorded all believed Why can't you just believe the Bible instead of saying 'not all believed'?

 

[saturneptune]

Mr. Wittenbooger,
Your presence here speaks of the great tolerance and leeway this board gives to extra Bibical faiths. If one of us was to go to say a "conservative Lutheran" board (no such thing as a conservative Lutheran, kind of like a conservative Democrat), we would get the boot about the second or third post, probably sooner than that in a Catholic board.

Preservation of man written documents, ideas, and thoughts are not an indicator of the preservation of the church of Jesus Christ. I do not think the Lord cares how many file cabinets are full of doucments with pope baby's signature. I might as well have recorded by pet cat's meows and signed each document with meow on it, date and time, and filed it away. That makes as much sense as equating RCC, or Lutheran documents for that matter, in relation to the church.

Why not try this standard for a change instead of warped false doctrine? Try looking at today's church, on any subject, Lord's Supper, baptism, etc and compare it with Scripture. The Lord's Supper is explained in detail. No where does it say to take the remaining leftover elements, put then in a magical box, wave a magic wand, and voila, the body and blood of Jesus appear. How does that equate to the standard of the Bible, do this in remembrance of Me? Where in Scripture does it talk about a magic formula for salvation by sprinking infants to transfer salvation from their saved parents? How does that line up with the last part of Matthew?

The doctrine of God's sovereignty is not fully understood by man except we know the Lord is sovereign. Where do you come to the conclusion that the sovereignty of God is to be used as a tool to justify your false notion that infants should be sprinked?

Your meaning of reformed and the Baptist or Presbyterian meaning of reformed are quite different. It is almost like you do not really believe God's sovereignty is election, but an explanation to explain unBiblical practices of the RCC and Lutherans. God being sovereign means He does as He wills, and nothing is by chance. You on the other hand, use God's sovereignty to explain rather odd ideas like transsubstantiation and infant sprinkling. God's will and Scripture will always agree.

The bottom line in all of this is that you put faith in historical documents more than Holy Scripture. I got news for you. The church was being preserved for hundreds of years by local, Bible believing churches by daily practice and faith in Jesus while idiot Popes were signing this or that edict, or after the Reformation, Lutherans and Episcopalians continued the same practice without the Pope's signature, now we have the biship's signature.

The point is, neither the RCC or the Lutherans have contributed one ounce of effort in preserving the local NT church, and you have the nerve to come on this board and rip apart those local churches that do preserve the church.

 

[Walter]

Mr. Wittenbooger,
Your presence here speaks of the great tolerance and leeway this board gives to extra Bibical faiths. If one of us was to go to say a "conservative Lutheran" board (no such thing as a conservative Lutheran, kind of like a conservative Democrat), we would get the boot about the second or third post, probably sooner than that in a Catholic board.

Preservation of man written documents, ideas, and thoughts are not an indicator of the preservation of the church of Jesus Christ. I do not think the Lord cares how many file cabinets are full of doucments with pope baby's signature. I might as well have recorded by pet cat's meows and signed each document with meow on it, date and time, and filed it away. That makes as much sense as equating RCC, or Lutheran documents for that matter, in relation to the church.

Why not try this standard for a change instead of warped false doctrine? Try looking at today's church, on any subject, Lord's Supper, baptism, etc and compare it with Scripture. The Lord's Supper is explained in detail. No where does it say to take the remaining leftover elements, put then in a magical box, wave a magic wand, and voila, the body and blood of Jesus appear. How does that equate to the standard of the Bible, do this in remembrance of Me? Where in Scripture does it talk about a magic formula for salvation by sprinking infants to transfer salvation from their saved parents? How does that line up with the last part of Matthew?

The doctrine of God's sovereignty is not fully understood by man except we know the Lord is sovereign. Where do you come to the conclusion that the sovereignty of God is to be used as a tool to justify your false notion that infants should be sprinked?

Your meaning of reformed and the Baptist or Presbyterian meaning of reformed are quite different. It is almost like you do not really believe God's sovereignty is election, but an explanation to explain unBiblical practices of the RCC and Lutherans. God being sovereign means He does as He wills, and nothing is by chance. You on the other hand, use God's sovereignty to explain rather odd ideas like transsubstantiation and infant sprinkling. God's will and Scripture will always agree.

The bottom line in all of this is that you put faith in historical documents more than Holy Scripture. I got news for you. The church was being preserved for hundreds of years by local, Bible believing churches by daily practice and faith in Jesus while idiot Popes were signing this or that edict, or after the Reformation, Lutherans and Episcopalians continued the same practice without the Pope's signature, now we have the biship's signature.

The point is, neither the RCC or the Lutherans have contributed one ounce of effort in preserving the local NT church, and you have the nerve to come on this board and rip apart those local churches that do preserve the church.

You would be welcome to post on a Catholic board and not prevented from joining as are Catholics on this one. I know of no Catholic board that is afraid to allow Baptists to join and present their views. However, you would have to do so in a Christ-like manner without the mocking and disrespectful way you go about depicting that faith as shown in the bolded portions of your post. Not only is it disrespectful and not becoming a Christian but it isn't accurate and misrepresents what Catholics and Lutherans believe and practice. .

 

[33ad]

Translated from Greek recently found in Egypt


Irenaeus

"He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Against Heresies*2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).*

"‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]" (Fragment34 [A.D. 190]).*

*

Hippolytus

"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition*21:16 [A.D. 215]).*

 

[33ad]

There are lots of baptist on catholic.com

 

[Wittenberger]

Brother,

You refuse to see the truth. You refuse to see that your beliefs of a symbolic baptism and Lord's Supper have no historical support from the early Chrisitians.

It is a man-made belief with a circular agrument. "We believe it is true because the Holy Spirit tells us it is true. In essence: we are right because we believe we are right!"

Who can argue with such a circular argument? It is the same reason that the Mormons give:

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

I know comparing Baptists with Mormons really makes you guys mad, but here is why I am doing it:

I am not saying that Baptists are a cult, that you are not Christians. The RCC, the EOC, the Lutheran Church all consider Baptists as Christians. However, for some of your new doctrines, you use the same circular arguments as do the Mormons.

All orthodox Christian Churches think this about Baptists. It is not just something I made up to insult you.

I appreaciate very much that the BB allows non-Baptists to comment on this one forum. You will notice that I never try to comment on the Baptist-only forums. It shows a great deal of maturity on their part to allow us "heretics" to comment here.

I am here, as a former Baptist, to try and bring the true, historically-verifiable Gospel of Jesus Christ to my Baptist/evangelical brothers and sisters. That is my only goal. Not to "win" an argument. Not to "bash" anyone.

 

[Wittenberger]

“The things proceeding from the waters were blessed by God, that this also could be a sign of men being destined to receive repentance and remission of sins, through the water and bath of regeneration- as many as come to the truth and are born again.” Theophilus (circa 180)

“When we come to refute them [the Gnostics], we will show in its proper place that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God. Thus, they have renounced the whole faith. For the baptism instituted by the visible Jesus was for the remission of sins.” St Irenaeus (circa 180)