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

[The Biblicist]

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.

I am sure the other posters got a big laugh at this charge!!! You are new to this forum and so you have no idea what I believe about regeneration and conversion. I believe that regeneration and conversion are inseparable and simeltaneous in regard to chronology but that regeneration precedes conversion logically. The illustration of the bullet and hole analogy amply demonstrates my position and the grammar of 1 Jn. 5:1 substantiates it.

I believe in unconditional election.

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.

No, it is YOUR problem and an Unbiblical problem. God has an elect that were chosen in Christ before the world began and they are ALL EQUALLY chosen TO salvation THROUGH the very same predestinated means - 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14 which is "through sanctification of the Spirit AND belief of the truth" and that is the "truth" found in the gospel.

This is how he saved every single solitary elect prior to Abraham without baptism or circumcision. This is how he saves every single solitary elect after Abraham without circumcision or baptism. This is how he saves dying infants WITHOUT circumcision or baptism (Jer. 1:5; Lk. 1:15). He does not have TWO different ways to save His elect.

God cannot save anyone contrary to what He has predestinated "according to his purpose" of salvation as revealed in His Word. He does not say one thing and do another. However, that is the gospel you teach - a false gospel rather than "the everlasting gospel" of "the blood of the everlasting covenant."

 

[The Biblicist]

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.

That is an absolute lie straight from hell! Are you completely ignorantly and/or willfully ignorant between what Baptists versus Catholics believe in regard to justification by faith?

Do you actually believe SIMILAR language means SIMILAR doctrine???? Are you that gullible?

Try this language on for size - "justified by grace ALONE through faith ALONE in Christ ALONE without any kind of works performed by or through the elect." Every aspect of this statement is spelled out clearly in Romans 3:24-5:2.

Find a Catholic that will believe and accept those words? That is what Baptists believe about justification. Of course that is not what Baptists beleive about regeneration. Regeneration is evidenced by good works (Eph. 2:10) and there is no such thing as a justified man without works who is also not a regenerated man evidenced by works, yet without confusing justification without works with regeneration evidenced by works. Think about that last statement for a little while before reacting.

Common VERBAGE means NOTHING! THEORETICAL doctrinal terminology means NOTHING! It is the verbal expression of faith that identifies the true hope of the believer irregardless of his theological training. Romans 3-4 and Galatians 1-4 are about the doctrine of justification by faith without works - that is the crux between the true gospel of grace and "another gospel."

 

[The Biblicist]

Please give specific evidence.

Circular reasoning! Asking Roman selective sources to disprove Roman developmental theology. Asking Roman defined "heretics" to use as eviddence to define Baptists! :laugh:

Prove that the "apostolic fathers" were not Baptists in the sense I have characterized Christ, the apostles and the first church at Jerusalem through submission to "the Baptist" ministry??? I doubt that you can. Like the Jews of Christ's day and like Rome you flee to uninspired/incomplete/inaccurate refuges of tradition.

The Word of God is completely sufficient to fully equip the man of God for all doctrine, correction, reproof and instruction in all righteousness - period - 2 Tim. 3:16-17. If they speak not according to "this word" there is no light in them.

 

[WestminsterMan]

Circular reasoning! Asking Roman selective sources to disprove Roman developmental theology and Roman defined "heretics." :laugh:

Prove that the "apostolic fathers" were not Baptists in the sense I have characterized Christ, the apostles and the first church at Jerusalem through submission to "the Baptist" ministry??? You cannot disprove it and so like Rome you flee to uninspired/incomplete/inaccurate refuges.

Why should anyone prove that the apostolic fathers were NOT baptist. That 's your difficult position (to prove that they were) and ultimately, one that you are never able to demonstrate with real history. You are urinating against the proverbial wind.

WM

 

[Moriah]

Try this language on for size - "justified by grace ALONE through faith ALONE in Christ ALONE without any kind of works performed by or through the elect." Every aspect of this statement is spelled out clearly in Romans 3:24-5:2.

Baptists got their “faith alone” doctrine from the Lutherans. Faith alone is mentioned only one time in the Bible, and it is to tell us what kind of faith not to have. See James Chapter 2.

Find a Catholic that will believe and accept those words? That is what Baptists believe about justification. Of course that is not what Baptists beleive about regeneration. Regeneration is evidenced by good works (Eph. 2:10) and there is no such thing as a justified man without works who is also not a regenerated man evidenced by works, yet without confusing justification without works with regeneration evidenced by works. Think about that last statement for a little while before reacting.

Ha ha ha Therefore, you believe if a man who does not have works is not saved! So much for your faith alone!

Common VERBAGE means NOTHING! THEORETICAL doctrinal terminology means NOTHING! It is the verbal expression of faith that identifies the true hope of the believer irregardless of his theological training. Romans 3-4 and Galatians 1-4 are about the doctrine of justification by faith without works - that is the crux between the true gospel of grace and "another gospel."

Without works is without man doing anything to cause himself to be clean, because Jesus does that for us; however, that does not mean you do not have to feel or doing anything for Jesus to choose to make his home with you, which means give you his Holy Spirit.

 

[DHK]

Baptists got their “faith alone” doctrine from the Lutherans. Faith alone is mentioned only one time in the Bible, and it is to tell us what kind of faith not to have. See James Chapter 2.

Moriah, you display a complete lack of grammar. Why does one have to use "alone" to mean or put forth the meaning of alone? Please explain the logic behind your statement.

Only you, Moriah, have this name on this board.
Moriah alone is called by this name on this board.
Moriah, you are the ONLY one that has this name.
Moriah's name stands ALONE.

Therefore being justified by faith we have peace with God.
The meaning is obvious: by faith alone.

 

[DHK]

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

But you can't give one instance from the Bible; not even one. That is our authority; that is what is inspired of God, not the ECF. You lose.

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.

All who were baptized gave a profession of faith:
1. The Ethiopian Eunuch.
2 The Philippian Jailor.

Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
Acts 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
--This was at the house of Cornelius.
Acts 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
--Only those who understood the Word, believed on Christ, and had the Holy Spirit, were baptized. Not a single infant was baptized. And so it was in every instance.

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

My references are very specific, and there are plenty of them. I am glad that you finally admit you have no specific references. You don't. You don't have a case at all.

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.

Yes I can. Let's look at the jailor's household:
First, there were all the servants--they worked, and had to be old enough to work.
Then, there were the jailor and his wife. The jailor had been working for about twenty years since the age of 19. That makes him 39. His wife was 38.
They didn't have too many children; it was a small family. Both of their children: one son and one girl, were both young people now: 18 and 20 years of age respectively and both unmarried. There were no infants present. How do I know all this? The same way the RCC knows that there were infants. There argument is from silence. One cannot make an argument from silence. Since we know that EVERY baptism is made after a person believes in Christ, we know that NO infant was ever baptized, and there is no example of any infant ever being baptized. Case closed.

 

[Moriah]

Moriah, you display a complete lack of grammar. Why does one have to use "alone" to mean or put forth the meaning of alone? Please explain the logic behind your statement.

Ha ha ha You are the one who spouts off faith alone all the time.
Of course, we have to have faith for Jesus to save us; however faith alone is dead faith.

Only you, Moriah, have this name on this board.
Moriah alone is called by this name on this board.
Moriah, you are the ONLY one that has this name.
Moriah's name stands ALONE.

Your man’s wisdom makes no sense to me.

Therefore being justified by faith we have peace with God.
The meaning is obvious: by faith alone.

Again, THE ONLY TIME “faith alone” is mentioned in the Bible, it is to tell us what kind of faith NOT to have.

 

[DHK]

Again, THE ONLY TIME “faith alone” is mentioned in the Bible, it is to tell us what kind of faith NOT to have.

As you ignore the rest of the post you only demonstrate that you are unwilling to be taught.

 

[The Biblicist]

Baptists got their “faith alone” doctrine from the Lutherans. Faith alone is mentioned only one time in the Bible, and it is to tell us what kind of faith not to have. See James Chapter 2.

Why jerk my words out of the context I placed them? I never said "faith alone"! What I said was:

"We are justifieds by Grace ALONE through faith ALONE in Christ ALONE without any kind of works performed in or through the elect."

1. Grace ALONE as opposed to merit - Rom. 4:4
2. Faith ALONE as opposed to works - Rom. 4:5-6
3. Christ ALONE as opposed to any other object of faith - Rom. 3:25

That is how the "ungodly" BECOMES a Christian. James is not talking about the "ungodly" but he is talking about Christians. A Christian without works with "faith alone" is a lost professor. Don't confuse the two.

 

[DHK]

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. .

Walter, the Baptists on here are not afraid of anyone. It is a matter of policy that we do not admit cults in. This has all been explained to you before ad nauseum. I don't care to do it again. If you keep insulting the Baptists in this way then you too have no reason to be here, after all you are now a Catholic, and have no reason to stay.

You are a visitor on this board. Posting is a privilege not a right. Bashing the Baptists is not a good way to try and keep your membership active. Remember, you are on a Baptist Board.

 

[Moriah]

Why jerk my words out of the context I placed them? I never said "faith alone"! What I said was:

"We are justifieds by Grace ALONE through faith ALONE in Christ ALONE without any kind of works performed in or through the elect."

1. Grace ALONE as opposed to merit - Rom. 4:4
2. Faith ALONE as opposed to works - Rom. 4:5-6
3. Christ ALONE as opposed to any other object of faith - Rom. 3:25

That is how the "ungodly" BECOMES a Christian. James is not talking about the "ungodly" but he is talking about Christians. A Christian without works with "faith alone" is a lost professor. Don't confuse the two.

I know what it is I am explaining, you just do not see.
You say James is not talking about the ungodly he is talking about Christians.lol I have been explaining to you that the dead kind of faith that James tells us can save no man…that is the kind of faith that is taught here to be the saving kind of faith.

 

[DHK]

I know what it is I am explaining, you just do not see.
You say James is not talking about the ungodly he is talking about Christians.lol I have been explaining to you that the dead kind of faith that James tells us can save no man…that is the kind of faith that is taught here to be the saving kind of faith.

You are not making sense. Why would he be talking about "saving faith" if there is such a thing, to "my brethren," that is Christians, or believers in Christ? You miss the point of the whole book.

 

[Moriah]

You are not making sense. Why would he be talking about "saving faith" if there is such a thing, to "my brethren," that is Christians, or believers in Christ? You miss the point of the whole book.

James says faith without doing what Jesus says to do is dead.

James says that that dead faith saves no one.

You however, and others here teach that that dead faith is the

most important faith that any person could possibly have. You teach that that

dead faith saves.

 

[DHK]

James says faith without doing what Jesus says to do is dead.

Those are your words from the Book of Moriah.

James says that that dead faith saves no one.

Another Book of Moriah quote. Is the term "dead faith" even in the Bible, or is it just found in the "Book of Moriah"?

You however, and others here teach that that dead faith is the
most important faith that any person could possibly have. You teach that that dead faith saves.

The Book of Moriah may teach about "dead faith" but I don't find that term in the Bible itself. As I have said many times: it leads me to believe that you, Moriah, do not understand what Biblical faith is.

 

[Wittenberger]

That is an absolute lie straight from hell! Are you completely ignorantly and/or willfully ignorant between what Baptists versus Catholics believe in regard to justification by faith?

Do you actually believe SIMILAR language means SIMILAR doctrine???? Are you that gullible?

Try this language on for size - "justified by grace ALONE through faith ALONE in Christ ALONE without any kind of works performed by or through the elect." Every aspect of this statement is spelled out clearly in Romans 3:24-5:2.

Find a Catholic that will believe and accept those words? That is what Baptists believe about justification. Of course that is not what Baptists beleive about regeneration. Regeneration is evidenced by good works (Eph. 2:10) and there is no such thing as a justified man without works who is also not a regenerated man evidenced by works, yet without confusing justification without works with regeneration evidenced by works. Think about that last statement for a little while before reacting.

Common VERBAGE means NOTHING! THEORETICAL doctrinal terminology means NOTHING! It is the verbal expression of faith that identifies the true hope of the believer irregardless of his theological training. Romans 3-4 and Galatians 1-4 are about the doctrine of justification by faith without works - that is the crux between the true gospel of grace and "another gospel."

Ask the Roman Catholic Church this question:

If an adult non-believer hears or reads the Gospel of Jesus Christ, believes in Christ as Lord, and repents, but two seconds later is killed before having the opportunity to be baptized or to do any good works, will he go to heaven? Would you consider him a Christian, a child of God?

Their answer will be "Yes!".

You will receive the same answer from the EOC, the Anglicans and the Lutherans.

A nonbeliever rarely understands all the doctrine of salvation PRIOR to believing. He just does what Christ says: "Believe." "Repent".

If you are saying that one has to pray a specific prayer to be saved, such as the Baptist/evangelical "Sinner's Prayer", then you are adding a work to the free gift of salvation.

 

[mandym]

If you are saying that one has to pray a specific prayer to be saved, such as the Baptist/evangelical "Sinner's Prayer", then you are adding a work to the free gift of salvation.

You guys have to quit misrepresenting that. If you do not truly understand what in the world you are talking about then maybe you should avoid talking about it.

 

[Wittenberger]

Circular reasoning! Asking Roman selective sources to disprove Roman developmental theology. Asking Roman defined "heretics" to use as eviddence to define Baptists! :laugh:

Prove that the "apostolic fathers" were not Baptists in the sense I have characterized Christ, the apostles and the first church at Jerusalem through submission to "the Baptist" ministry??? I doubt that you can. Like the Jews of Christ's day and like Rome you flee to uninspired/incomplete/inaccurate refuges of tradition.

The Word of God is completely sufficient to fully equip the man of God for all doctrine, correction, reproof and instruction in all righteousness - period - 2 Tim. 3:16-17. If they speak not according to "this word" there is no light in them.

There you go again, using the same argument/logic as is used by the Mormons: "we are right, because we believe our interpretation is right, because the Holy Spirit tells us our interpretation is right."


“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)

 

[Moriah]

Those are your words from the Book of Moriah.

James says faith without action is dead.
James uses Abraham as an example and tells us Abraham’s faith worked together with his actions when he obeyed what God said to do.

Another Book of Moriah quote. Is the term "dead faith" even in the Bible, or is it just found in the "Book of Moriah"?

It is the Word of God.

In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. James 2:17

James 2:20 You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?

James 2:26 As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

The Book of Moriah may teach about "dead faith" but I don't find that term in the Bible itself. As I have said many times: it leads me to believe that you, Moriah, do not understand what Biblical faith is.

I know what “Biblical” faith is, and I know that any faith without action is useless, dead.
There is not some kind of magic involved, that God turns dead faith into saving faith. Faith without action is dead, and it is NOT the saving kind of faith, ever.

 

[Wittenberger]

But you can't give one instance from the Bible; not even one. That is our authority; that is what is inspired of God, not the ECF. You lose.

All who were baptized gave a profession of faith:
1. The Ethiopian Eunuch.
2 The Philippian Jailor.

Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
Acts 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
--This was at the house of Cornelius.
Acts 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
--Only those who understood the Word, believed on Christ, and had the Holy Spirit, were baptized. Not a single infant was baptized. And so it was in every instance.

My references are very specific, and there are plenty of them. I am glad that you finally admit you have no specific references. You don't. You don't have a case at all.

Yes I can. Let's look at the jailor's household:
First, there were all the servants--they worked, and had to be old enough to work.
Then, there were the jailor and his wife. The jailor had been working for about twenty years since the age of 19. That makes him 39. His wife was 38.
They didn't have too many children; it was a small family. Both of their children: one son and one girl, were both young people now: 18 and 20 years of age respectively and both unmarried. There were no infants present. How do I know all this? The same way the RCC knows that there were infants. There argument is from silence. One cannot make an argument from silence. Since we know that EVERY baptism is made after a person believes in Christ, we know that NO infant was ever baptized, and there is no example of any infant ever being baptized. Case closed.

In order to understand why Christians have believed in baptizing their infants since the days of the Apostles, you have to understand the meaning of baptism first. To Baptists, baptism is OUR act. To orthodox Christians, baptism is God's act.

If it is our act, then no, infants, should wait until they can make their own "profession of faith".

But since it isn't OUR act, but God's, He can bestow the forgiveness of sins to whomever he has predestined to be saved. If the Biblicist really is a calvinist, he should know that.

DHK: are you Arminian or Calvinist...or Calminian (three pointer)?

Salvation has ALWAYS been received by faith alone. But God has given the promise of salvation to both adults and infants throughout the Old Testament and we believe He continued to do so in the New Covenant because he never states that this paradigm of salvation has changed.

Adults come into the Covenant by faith in God. They then receive the sign of promise as a seal of their faith.

Infants of believers are given the promise of salvation as infants and then receive the seal of promise. To receive the benefits of this promise, the child must grow up and express a personal faith in Christ and repent, or the promise/covenant/contract is broken.