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

[DHK]

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.

1. You show your confusion about the Book of James.

2. You demonstrate you lack of knowledge about faith.
There is no "saving faith," and no "dead faith." Where do you come up with these terms? Are they in your "Book of Moriah"? The Bible does not use such terms.

Therefore, being justified by faith we have peace with God. (Rom.5:1)
--There is no defining adjective there. Faith is faith. You don't seem to get that.

Righteousness was imputed unto Abraham because he believed or because he had faith. Faith is faith.

You remind me of RCC theology. The Catholic has to define sin by dividing it up: mortal sin, venial sin, actual sin, original sin, etc.
You have to divide faith up: saving faith, dead faith, believing faith, etc.
Faith is faith. You need to do a study and find out what faith is.

 

[Wittenberger]

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.

Please provide the historical evidence which demonstrates that the churches that Thomas founded in India believed in symbolic baptism and symbolic Lord's Supper.

 

[Moriah]

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.

Maybe the Baptists believe and teach that. However, a person is to hear the message that saves. The message that saves explains to us that we are sinners; and that sin is bad. The message that saves explains that Jesus died for sinners, and that we do not have to do the Old Testament works of the law to worship God, that faith in Jesus’ blood cleans us, that through Jesus we are reconciled to God. The message that saves explains to us that we are to offer our bodies as living sacrifices, that we are to live a new life in the Lord.

 

[Wittenberger]

“But there are some of them [Gnostics] who assert that it is unnecessary to bring persons to the water. Rather, they mix oil and water together, and they place its mixture on the heads of those who are to be initiated . . . This they maintain to be the redemption. Other heretics, however, reject all these practices, and maintain that the mystery of the unspeakable and invisible power should not be performed by visible and corruptible creatures . . . These claim that the knowledge of the unspeakable Greatness is itself prefect redemption.” St Irenaeus (circa 180 AD)

“Man, with respect to that formation which was after Adam, having fallen into transgression, needed the bath of regeneration. Therefore, the Lord said of [the blind man] after He had smeared his eyes with the clay, ‘Go to Siloam and wash.” By this means, He restored to him both confirmation and regeneration that takes place by means of the bath.” St Irenaeus (circa 180 AD)

“Scripture says, ‘And he dipped himself seven times in the Jordan.’ It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was a symbol for us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean from our old transgressions by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord. We are spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, just as the Lord has declared: ‘Unless a man is born again through water and the Spirit, he will not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’” Irenaeus (circa 180 AD)

 

[DHK]

Please provide the historical evidence which demonstrates that the churches that Thomas founded in India believed in symbolic baptism and symbolic Lord's Supper.

1 Corinthians 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

 

[Moriah]

1. You show your confusion about the Book of James.

2. You demonstrate you lack of knowledge about faith.
There is no "saving faith," and no "dead faith." Where do you come up with these terms? Are they in your "Book of Moriah"? The Bible does not use such terms.

You really are trying to be confusing.
You say all we have to do is have faith. If you would like to change that now, then do so, but do not act as if you never believed that way.

Therefore, being justified by faith we have peace with God. (Rom.5:1)
--There is no defining adjective there. Faith is faith. You don't seem to get that.

We have to have faith DHK. We have to have faith. You must have faith in Jesus to get to the Father.

Righteousness was imputed unto Abraham because he believed or because he had faith. Faith is faith.

Abraham’s faith worked together with actions, his actions were what he did, it is what God told him to do.

James 2:21 Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?

James 2:22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.

You remind me of RCC theology. The Catholic has to define sin by dividing it up: mortal sin, venial sin, actual sin, original sin, etc.
You have to divide faith up: saving faith, dead faith, believing faith, etc.
Faith is faith. You need to do a study and find out what faith is.

Faith is dead when you do not combine it with an obeying action.

Believe and repent!

 

[Wittenberger]

1 Corinthians 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

I'm not going to start arguing with you over the Lord's Supper because you Baptists insist on the literal meaning of baptism (immersion in water) but you refuse to believe the literal meaning of "this cup, this bread IS my blood, is my body".

This doctrine of symbolic Lord's Supper was invented in the 1500's by Zwingli. I bet the good Lord has given him a swift kick in the behind for leading so many Christians astray with this false teaching.

I asked for historical evidence. You and your Baptist brothers refuse to give it. Again you are using the same excuses to deny the need for historical evidence as do the Mormons. See the OP of this thread to hear the Mormons say the EXACT SAME THING: "We don't need historical evidence. We have the Holy Spirit who tells us in our hearts that we are right!"

This circular argument is straight from the pit of hell! It has given rise to the splintering of the Church and the growth of non-Christian sects like the Mormons and JW's.

Repent of your false teachings, my Baptist/evangelical brothers and sisters! Return to the true, historically verifiable, doctrines of the faith which have existed for 2,000 years!

 

[Moriah]

I'm not going to start arguing with you over the Lord's Supper because you Baptists insist on the literal meaning of baptism (immersion in water) but you refuse to believe the literal meaning of "this cup, this bread IS my blood, is my body".

When Jesus said that, he had not yet given up his life. The Bible says it was the fruit of the vine in the cup. Why do you not believe that it was symbolic, when you know, Jesus did not die yet, and when you know the Bible says it was fruit of the vine.

 

[Wittenberger]

When Jesus said that, he had not yet given up his life. The Bible says it was the fruit of the vine in the cup. Why do you not believe that it was symbolic, when you know, Jesus did not die yet, and when you know the Bible says it was fruit of the vine.

Where in the Bible does it say Christ’s body and blood are present at Communion?

Q: What verses in Scripture can be cited that teach "that BOTH bread and wine AND Christ's true body
and blood are present in the Lord's Supper?

A: All three accounts of the institution of the Lord's Supper in the Gospels (Matthew 26:26-29; Mark
14:22-25; Luke 22:14-23) explicitly state that Jesus took BREAD, blessed it, broke it, and gave it to his
disciples saying, "Take, eat; this [i.e., this BREAD, which I have just blessed and broken and am now
giving to you] is my body." Jesus uses similar language in referring to "the cup" (of wine) as "his blood."
A plain and straightforward reading of these words leads to the conclusion that BOTH bread AND body,
BOTH wine AND blood are present in the consecrated elements of the Lord's Supper.

Perhaps the most explicit expression of this truth, however, is found in 1 Cor. 10:16-17, where Paul
writes: "The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that
we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many
are one body, for we all partake of the one bread." Paul clearly says here that we all "partake" of
"BREAD" when we receive the Lord's Supper--even as we also partake of and "participate in" the true
body of Christ. And he says that we all "partake" of the wine (the cup), even as we also partake of the
true blood of Christ. Similarly, in 1 Cor. 11:26, Paul says: "For as often as you eat this bread and drink
the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes." Paul expressly states here that when we receive
the Lord's Supper we are "eating bread" and "drinking the cup" (wine), but he goes on to say that those
who eat this bread and drink this cup are also partaking of the true body and blood of Christ.

So "real" is this participation in Christ's body and blood, in fact, that (according to Paul) those who
partake of the bread and wine "in an unworthy manner" are actually guilty of "profaning the body and
blood of the Lord" (1 Cor. 11:27). (Partaking of the Lord's Supper "in a worthy manner," of course, is not
something that we "do" or "accomplish" on the basis of our "personal holiness" or "good works." It
means receiving God's free and gracious gifts of life and forgiveness offered in the Lord's Supper in true
repentance produced by the work of the Spirit through God's Law and in true faith in Christ and his
promises produced by God's Spirit through the Gospel).

Usage: We urge you to contact an LCMS pastor in your area for more in-depth discussion.

Published by: LCMS Church Information Center
©The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
1333 S. Kirkwood Road, St. Louis, MO 63122-7295

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I'm not going to start arguing with you over the Lord's Supper because you Baptists insist on the literal meaning of baptism (immersion in water) but you refuse to believe the literal meaning of "this cup, this bread IS my blood, is my body".

This doctrine of symbolic Lord's Supper was invented in the 1500's by Zwingli. I bet the good Lord has given him a swift kick in the behind for leading so many Christians astray with this false teaching.

I asked for historical evidence. You and your Baptist brothers refuse to give it. Again you are using the same excuses to deny the need for historical evidence as do the Mormons. See the OP of this thread to hear the Mormons say the EXACT SAME THING: "We don't need historical evidence. We have the Holy Spirit who tells us in our hearts that we are right!"

This circular argument is straight from the pit of hell! It has given rise to the splintering of the Church and the growth of non-Christian sects like the Mormons and JW's.

Repent of your false teachings, my Baptist/evangelical brothers and sisters! Return to the true, historically verifiable, doctrines of the faith which have existed for 2,000 years!

The only one spouting false doctrine is you, so it is you who needs to repent.

You have a lot of gall, or lack of sense, as a newcomer to post trash like this, equating us with Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses.

You have gone over the line.

 

[billwald]

>Righteousness was imputed unto Abraham because he believed or because he had faith. Faith is faith.

Where does the Bible claim this is the only rule God may obey for regenerating people?

 

[Wittenberger]

The only one spouting false doctrine is you, so it is you who needs to repent.

You have a lot of gall, or lack of sense, as a newcomer to post trash like this, equating us with Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses.

You have gone over the line.

I thought you had left the BB for good, dear brother.

It becomes an addiction, doesn't it?

 

[Wittenberger]

Summary of the Data Regarding Christian Baptism:

A. Paul clearly argues that baptism is the fulfillment of circumcision (Col 2.11 ff); it brings the reality of being brought into the covenant of grace, the redemptive family of God. To be baptized is to be united to Christ in his ultimate circumcision upon the cross (the circumcision “of Christ” Col 2.11-12, where he was “cut off” from the covenant on our behalf – the penalty of the covenant with Abraham Gen 17.1-14), as well as united with him in his death, burial and resurrection (Rom 6.3-4). To be baptized is to “put on Christ” (Gal 3.27) and to receive the “bath of regeneration” (Titus 3.5). In short, to be baptized is to be saved by God, through His means of saving grace in Christ Jesus. It is God’s powerful Word that accomplishes this, nothing else has the power to regenerate: God does it where He has set His Word to make people—age notwithstanding—to be disciples. Though with the coming of Christ as the mediator of a new and better covenant fulfilling that promised to Abraham (Heb 8.7ff; Gal 3.15), the sign of the Covenant of Grace changes from a cutting rite [circumcision] with its exclusively male curse of being severed from the covenant with the loss of all descendants, to a water rite [baptism], nevertheless the thing signified by the sign [God’s covenantal oath to be God to his people and to consecrate them unto Himself] does not change. Instead of typifying it, in the New Covenant it becomes the reality by God’s doing. Thus, like circumcision, baptism is a gospel sign, focusing upon the promises God makes on behalf of sinners, but with this difference – the sacrament of Baptism actually delivers and applies what God has it signify, namely the salvation of God accomplished by Christ.

B. As circumcision was an oath-curse sign, so also baptism is best understood primarily as a water-ordeal sign of blessing and curse (1 Cor 10.1 ff; 1 Pet 3.20-22; Rom 6.3 ff), and not as many Baptists see it, as essentially total immersion in water, which was irrelevant in the early church (cf. Didache 7) and contrary to Jewish practice (cf. the baptisteries at Masada). As Noah entered the Ark (Gen 6 ff.), as Moses crossed the Red Sea (Ex 13.17 ff.), and as Joshua led God’s people through the Jordan (Joshua 3), baptism is the sign and seal of ordeal-judgment (death and burial) as Jesus Christ takes us through the waters of judgment. In the Old Testament water-ordeals (the Ark, the Red Sea, the River Jordan) women, infants and children (entire households) were delivered through means of the ordeal element itself – water. This explains why Holy Baptism as the New Testament antitype to the Old water-ordeal, is applied to both men/boys and women/girls, when circumcision was only applied to males.

C. As circumcision was the ratification of God’s covenant promise (“I will be your God”) by passing through the curse-ordeal (the cutting of the foreskin), so too, baptism is a ratification of God’s oath by our passage through the ordeal element itself (water). And just as circumcision also included the element of consecration (“You will be my people”), so too does baptism (q.d., “this is my beloved son (daughter) with whom I am well pleased” Matt 3.17; and especially Rom 6.4-5). In both cases, the sacrament is the believer’s ratification of God’s sworn oath to keep His promise to be God to His people and to deliver them from the penalties of the curse due all those who break the covenant of works and the stipulations of the Sinaitic covenant made with Moses, and actually deliver what He has promised. This is seen by the fact that the covenant mediator Himself, Jesus Christ, became a curse for us (Gal 3.10-13: “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us”).

D. As with circumcision, the focus in baptism is upon God’s covenant oath and promise to save and forgive sins, not only for believers, but for their children as well (Acts 2.38-39; Acts 16.15; 33). Thus the context for Holy Baptism is covenantal, the covenant established in the saving work of Christ. There is no evidence in the New Testament that baptism is exclusively focused upon the testimony of a believer to their having been regenerated, though there are a number of cases where baptism immediately follows conversion (as in Acts 8.36 ff.). Instead, baptism is seen primarily as the ratification of God’s oath, not ours, just as the active agent in Holy Baptism is God not us! He is the speaker. He is the doer. What is savingly important is what He says publicly about us, not what we say about Him. This becomes clear when we see that the New Testament is full of references to “household salvation” (Acts 16.15; 33 ff.’ 1 Cor 1.16; Acts 2.38 ff.; 10.2, 47 ff; 11.14; 18.8 2 Tim 1.16; 4.19; John 4.53). “Making disciples of all peoples” is not age specific, because “all” means “all.” Thus when the head of the household expressed faith in God’s promise to deliver them, as well as all of those in the household under their covenantal authority, from the covenant-curse (Acts 16.15; 31), all of the members of the household are baptized upon the basis of the principle of covenantal authority and the profession of faith by the covenantal head. The Bible always deals with persons who represent a people (their spouse, their family, their extended family, their nation, etc.). In other words, the Bible does not shift from an Old Testament family paradigm to New Testament radical individualism, because Semitic and Mediterranean culture had no category for individual salvation cut off from immediate family membership. Radical individualism is a modern, Western European concept, not a biblical one. Though the covenant sign changes from circumcision to baptism from the Old to New Testaments, there is nothing unique to baptism that excludes the children of believers. In fact, the promise (which was certainly a reference to the promise that God had made to Abraham; cf. Gal 3.29), says Peter, is for believers and their children (Acts 2.39). This is supported by Paul’s comments in 1 Cor 7.14, to the effect that through the faith of one party in a marriage between a believer and a non-believer, the marriage relationship is sanctified, so that any children born to that union are indeed holy and under the covenantal authority of the believing parent. Jesus certainly embraces infants as members of the kingdom (Luke 18.15-17), and viewed them as heirs of the promise. And in doing so implicitly supports the principle of covenantal authority, since the parents of these children brought them to Jesus, and he received them. Any other non-familial/non-dyadic interpretation is a clear superimposition of late European ideas of personhood and identity onto a first century Jewish context.

E. This is why the Scriptures can speak of baptism as “the bath of regeneration” (Titus 3.5) and being for the “forgiveness of sin” (Acts 2.38 ff; 22.16), without also teaching that it is the waters of baptism per se that effect or cause regeneration ex opera operato (i.e., simply because water was poured on them). Baptism itself has a covenant context in which it is applied and affective. Regeneration is attributed to the conjoined work of the Holy Spirit and the Word of God (John 3.3-8; Titus 3.4; 1 Cor 2.14) and not to the mere presence of water itself, as if the symbol somehow magically binds God to act. No, God is active in and through His Word that is coupled to the water, thus making a sacrament. The power of God in the activity of the Holy Spirit is through the Word of God – in this case, the Word of God’s Gospel coupled to baptismal waters to accomplish what God purposes – graciously saving the recipients of His work. Thus, we must be very careful never to reduce baptism to mere external sign and deny that anything at all is signified and sealed unto the one baptized. For by faith in God’s Word of promise, we can say that the baptized adult or child of a believer is indeed regenerate and has been washed in the blood of Christ for the forgiveness of sins – so says God Himself.

-Dr. John Bombaro, Pastor, LCMS

 

[Wittenberger]

“Being baptized, we are illuminated. Illuminated, we become sons. This work is variously called grace, illumination, perfection, and washing. Washing, by which we cleanse away our sins. Grace, by which the penalties accruing to the transgressions are remitted. Illumination, by which that holy light of salvation is beheld, that is, by which we see God clearly.” Clement of Alexandria (circa 195 AD)

“And he who has just been regenerated- as the name necessarily indicates- and has been enlightened, is immediately delivered from darkness, and instantly receives the light… Thus, also, we who are baptized, having wiped off the sins that obscure the light of the Divine Spirit, have the eyes of the spirit free, unimpeded, and full of light, by which alone we contemplate the Divine, the Holy Spirit flowing down to us from above.” Clement of Alexandria (circa 195 AD)

“John prophesied up until the baptism of salvation.” Clement of Alexandria (circa 195 AD)

 

[The Biblicist]

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)

This would be funny if you were not so serious. We are quoting inspired writings as our authority while you are quoting uninspired writings as your authority and you actually think the uninspired writings give you the edge:laugh::laugh:

 

[The Biblicist]

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 live in a little bubble called "self" and there you will remain.

 

[Moriah]

You live in a little bubble called "self" and there you will remain.

You sure describe yourself well.

 

[The Biblicist]

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.

You just don't get it! Ask the Catholic what it is that this person believes in? Ask the Catholic what he means by "believe"! Ask this Catholic what he means by "repent."

Again, gospel salvation is justification by grace ALONE through faith ALONE in Christ ALONE without any kind of works performed in or by the believer.

Faith alone in Christ alone means the only hope embraced for salvation is the Person and substitutionary righteusness of Jesus Christ and that is wholly sufficient in an of itself alone.

I don't believe a sinner's prayer saves anyone. I don't believe walking an aisle, signing a card, raising your hand saves anyone.

 

[Moriah]

You just don't get it! Ask the Catholic what it is that this person believes in? Ask the Catholic what he means by "believe"! Ask this Catholic what he means by "repent."

Again, gospel salvation is justification by grace ALONE through faith ALONE in Christ ALONE without any kind of works performed in or by the believer.

Faith alone in Christ alone means the only hope embraced for salvation is the Person and substitutionary righteusness of Jesus Christ and that is wholly sufficient in an of itself alone.

I don't believe a sinner's prayer saves anyone. I don't believe walking an aisle, signing a card, raising your hand saves anyone.

You act as if every newcomer knows you are a Calvinist Baptist. You jump in to the debates and answer questions as if you are a regular Baptist, then you get all indignant when someone speaks to you as if you were one.

 

[The Biblicist]

I'm not going to start arguing with you over the Lord's Supper because you Baptists insist on the literal meaning of baptism (immersion in water) but you refuse to believe the literal meaning of "this cup, this bread IS my blood, is my body".

Be consistent apply the same interpretation to the same kind of verbs in "I am the vine....I am the door...I am the light...etc.

You don't know what you are talking about when you quote secular history. Secular history is not COMPREHENSIVE of all groups living at any givng time much less for the past 2000 years. Secular history is not inspired and thus subject to error, misinterpretation, bias reporting, limited knowlegdge. Secular history is pure human opinion by finite subjective minds. Hence, claiming that Zwingli was the first is rediculous as you have absolutely now way to prove that.

I asked for historical evidence. You and your Baptist brothers refuse to give it. Again you are using the same excuses to deny the need for historical evidence as do the Mormons.

:laugh:Mormon's do not even read the Bible except to obtain proof texts to support the book of Mormon. Mormon's dont even believe the book of Mormon.

The reality is that Rome/Lutherans/Catholics are more like Mormons as both quote UNINSPIRED men as their authorities for interpreting scriptures.

Repent of your false teachings, my Baptist/evangelical brothers and sisters! Return to the true, historically verifiable, doctrines of the faith which have existed for 2,000 years!

What? Repent of allowing scripture to interpet scripture????lol! What? Repent of seeking instruction from the Holy Spirit the Author of the Bible????lol! What? Repent of depending upon inspired writings and follow you apostates in quoting uninspired writings as final authority for interpretation????lol! Give me a break!