Michael Wrenn
New Member
That is a sensible post. I don't agree with all of it, but it is sensible.
Last edited by a moderator:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Does Baptism have to be by immersion?
- Thread starter MichaelNZ
- Start date
That is a sensible post. I don't agree with all of it, but it is sensible.
Michael Wrenn
New Member
To those who are fair-minded, look at the evidence from credible Baptist historians and then from those who have an agenda which includes the belief that Jesus was a Baptist and therefore if He was, then by all means God Himself is.
Seriously, Baptist successionism has long been discredited.
Seriously, Baptist successionism has long been discredited.
Why not try being honest for a change! If you were honest you admit that a primary source stands on its own merit REGARDLESS of who cites it! HOwever, you are not an honest person but a distorter and perverter of truth.
Second, no one has attempted to defend Baptist successionism on this post so that is a red herring. You cannot deal with primary evidences so you smear the historian who merely cites it. However, I still have the same primary source quotations from my own investigation of these source materials in the Bodleian Lirbrary microfilm. If I quote them directly from my own research does that automtically make the quotations untrue even when I cite all references necessary to check it out?????
Last edited by a moderator:
Present the evidence that my own personal research is lying slander or apologize. I can quote these from my own research at the University of Tennessee in 1980 as I made photocopies of these primary source materials from the Bodleian microfish library! If you cannot prove that I am slandering or lying in my research you need to apologize or admit you are no Christian because Christians do not make that kind of charge without EVIDENCE! So put up or shut up!
Last edited by a moderator:
I have quoted from the original primary sources. Michael has thus far been unable to prove the sources are hoaxes or improperly quoted or wrong in what they simply state.
So, how does Michael respond? He attacks anyone who dares correctly cites those primary source materials thinking the theology of the citer makes the source materials false or inaccurate!
Is that common sense? Is that fair? Isn't that slander and lying without a single shred of evidence to substantiae his charges????
This is how Catholics deal with primary source materials that violate their historical bias. They slander and attack the person that simply quotes the historical sources. This is precisely what Michael has done in the past few posts.
Are you capable of discerning between a primary source quotation and the theology of the one who cites it?????? Are you going to tell us that the theological view of the one citing the source invalidates the source material??????
It does not matter who is citing the source IF the source is quoted and referenced correctly.
It seems to be YOUR THEOLOGICAL BENT that is preventing you from accepting primary source material because it opposes YOUR THEOLOGY!
You are the one that started the name calling. You started when you called the other post a "Pharisee" and a "legalist"! You had no basis for that name calling. Since he believes the Bible limits baptism to immersion then he is perfectly consistent with his BIBLICAL beliefs to call any other kind of mode sin - or violation of the scriptures. You may disagree with his conclusions but that hardly makes him a pharisee! It makes him consistent with his Biblical beliefs.
For example, if you believed the Bible did not teach transubstantiation but repudiated it and called the act "sin", meaning, a violation of the scriptures would it be appropriate for those who embrace that position to call you a pharisee OR are you being consistent with your Biblical interpretation and convictions???? Think about it before responding.
Michael Wrenn
New Member
Here are the facts: I showed that credible Baptist historians proved how the original English Baptists practiced baptism. Biblicist used as his primary source John T. Christian; he stated this was his primary source. John T. Christian was a successionist -- in other words, a Landmarker. Successionism/Landmarkism is completely discredited. I pointed this out, and Biblicist throws a fit, goes into a name-calling, insulting tirade, accuses me of being a liar, hypocrite, dishonest, not a Christian, and other false accusations.
Biblicist is the most vile, hateful, pharisaical person on this entire forum. He exhibits absolutely no fruit of the Spirit.
I don't want to have anything to do with such a person. From now on, I will treat him as a non-entity. He is the lowest snake-in-the-grass that I have ever come across.
Biblicist is the most vile, hateful, pharisaical person on this entire forum. He exhibits absolutely no fruit of the Spirit.
I don't want to have anything to do with such a person. From now on, I will treat him as a non-entity. He is the lowest snake-in-the-grass that I have ever come across.
Not that I want to get into the food fight you two are having but this post is not credible nor correct. He has posted several links to men other than Christian. And I believe what you are doing here is called an informal fallacy (someone correct me if I am wrong). Just because Christian might be wrong on some issues does not automatically mean he is wrong on this issue. In other words one thing does not lead to the other logically or reasonably. Just because he is a "Landmarker" does not mean he is wrong about everything he says.
By the way I oppose the Landmark view. Your attempt to tie this issue to Landmarkism is a weak argument and just flat out wrong.
I have told you repeatedly that I personally verified the primary source materials that Christian merely quoted. I have done my own independant research and the quotes come directly out of the Bodleian library. I have photocopies of the microfilm primary source materials.
Your sources are wrong BECAUSE they ignore primary source materials that deal directly with this issue. It is just that simple! They are wrong BECAUSE they ignore and then pervert the actual pre-1641 history - It is just that simple and I can prove it by primary source materials.
Michael Wrenn
New Member
The bottom line is that credible Baptist historians have proved how the original English Baptists baptized. And this disproves everything that has been stated to the contrary.
The undeniable fact is that Christian was a successionist; the successionist position is what is responsible for this misinformation and fable about Baptists having always immersed.
Now, if anyone wants to persist in calling me a liar, hypocrite, equating my views with Catholicism, denying my salvation, go right ahead, although I know no infraction will be given. I have participated on many forums and been called everything imaginable by Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, Calvinists, fundamentalist Baptists, and others. So, bring it on; it can't hurt me or discredit my views.
You are trying to claim credibility only for those who support your position but that itself is not "credible". Relax
It is not undeniable and it is not a fact and it is not the position responsible for that. You seem pretty new to Baptist circles. You may not like the Baptism position but your extremely and over emotional attitude does not lend to your credibility.
I don't have anything to do with that.
Michael Wrenn
New Member
Look, I was raised a Baptist, been in Baptist churches much of my life. I've also worshiped in many other churches and been a member of a few. My passion for 40 years has been church history and theology. I have studied every denomination in-depth, studied the ancient, the church fathers, the Anabaptists' history and theology.
In short, I know what I'm talking about. Everything I've said is fact.
You know why I get emotional? Let me give you an example. Just very recently, this forum was assaulted by a former fundamentalist Baptist turned Lutheran, trying to discredit believer's Baptism. I was an ally to Biblicist, DHK, and others in defending believer's baptism from this assault. Now we get into a discussion on mode, and Biblicist turns on me with a vengeance and says to me all those things that I mentioned. You bet I'm emotional -- no, angry is a better word. If you had been told those things and got angry, would that hurt your credibility? I think what would hurt my credibility would be to give this bull and the one posting it a pass.
Just walk away from them. What gets posted on a forum amounts to nothing outside of your enjoyment and if you are not enjoying the discussion then there is no reason to do it. But here is a fact some people need to learn. We can state our position, supply corroborating evidence and make our case. But what any of us cannot do is establish truth right here right now. In other words no one wins no matter how much we like to think we do. Our little measley post amount to nothing in the end. So relax
Our posts do matter. You should not make light of it when someone attacks another person, even over the Internet.
And that my friends is what creates fights over the internet. People who believe their posts establishes truth for everyone and if they do not do it truth will be lost somewhere and the kingdom of God will be tore down. People think far to much of their posts and the posts of others.
Last edited by a moderator:
No, what you say is not what is going on for everyone. If you want to tell someone how it is, go speak to Biblicist who calls Michael a liar and other things.
You have no right declaring what is important or not for all.
I really do not want to debate you further on this, okay, thanks.
If someone calls you a liar move on and leave them in their own mire. If you don't like someone's objection to your post walk away. People get to caught up in their own importance.
This is simply not the WHOLE truth. Anyone on this forum can go back on this thread and see exactly who it really was that started name calling and making accusations and precisely what post it began (Post #114) and it is Michael and here is the proof:
1. Michael knew I hold to the Landmark position but even though I did not even mention Landmarkism but simply quoted from a Landmark Historian a factual fully verifialble primary source, Michael decided to attack Landmarkism instead of dealing with the veracity of the primary source and began a tirade call that position every name under the sun as follows:
"It is as silly, foolish, and false..." - Post #94 - Michael
"You may not have mentioned "Landmarkism", but....." Post #99 - Michael
I made no response to these insulting accusations nor did I continue to quote John T. Christian but started quoting PRIMARY SOURCES from my own copies from the Bodleian Libary to which you then falsely accusd me of quoting Christian and then heaped more ridicule in the following words:
Your primary source is John Christian, a Landmarker, views which have been totally discredited. You lose. Case closed. Or must I present Mr. Chubby Checker again to illustrate your dancing? - Michael - Post #113
Other than stating you don't know what you are talking about I did not return any inflammatory response to these accusations until you made this accusation against another poster in #114
"You are walking in the sin of Pharisaism until you repent." -Michael
To which I replied in Post #116
You are a liar because you are not omniscient and you cannot possibly make such a charge as it would require omniscience to make such a charge! - The Biblicist
2. From that point forward volly's were equally returned to one another.
3. The bottom line is that you admit no one brought into this conversation "Landmarkism" but since you could not possibly dispute the primary source material you intentinally chose to attack the person quoting it and intentionally used INFLAMMATORY language ridiculing it as over and over again. I did not respond to the ridicule with ridicule but went on to quote the very same primary sources from my own copies and my own research of the Bodleian Library which you falsely charged me with quoting Christian again!
4. It is with Post #114 and your inflammatory accusation that I returned fire and from that point on it was just trading vollys.
THESE ARE THE FACTS and you who deny these are the facts, all you have to do is go back and produce proof they are wrong.