Are some Baptists "historic revisionists " ?

[Rebel]

Rebel post #92, God always prevails, same goes for His Church, it has weathered many a storm, but is still with us after two- thousand years and still will be here till He returns. People as you insulted Jesus now you insult His Church.

Yes, the church has prevailed even though the counterfeit RCC tried to wipe it out for centuries.

I take offense at your slander. I thought that even though you and I disagree, that you were a person of honor. I see I was wrong. I never attacked you personally, but now you have done so to me. Took you a while, but you finally showed your true colors. You are dust shaken off my feet. You may perish with your pagan church if you don't heed the warnings given you.

 

[Rebel]

Its a debate forum. Plenty of voices to call them out on their doctrines.

I agree. Let them post as much as they can and want to. It just provides more evidence that the RCC is a man-made religion with a thin layer of Christianity on top to fool the sheeple.

 

[Salty]

DHK, your Bibles are all Protestants, the early followers of Jesus never used any Protestant Bibles, only Apostolic Bibles.

Should we let Lake in on the secret that Baptists are not Protestants!

 

[JonC]

I agree. Let them post as much as they can and want to. It just provides more evidence that the RCC is a man-made religion with a thin layer of Christianity on top to fool the sheeple.

I think it goes back to Matthew 7:6. It depends on how we are "debating" them.

 

[lakeside]

JonC, Matt. 7: 6 is not what you think it is, That verse is dealing with an obstinately impenitent fellow Christian [ Matt. 18:17 ]

 

[Rippon]

Should we let Lake in on the secret that Baptists are not Protestants!

Salty, you are denying reality. Of course Baptists are Protestants. We sure ain't protest ants.

 

[JonC]

JonC, Matt. 7: 6 is not what you think it is, That verse is dealing with an obstinately impenitent fellow Christian [ Matt. 18:17 ]

Matt 7 is pre "Christian". The context is within Israel (mixed Jewish audience). What you will see is that these are addressed as followers (they are following Jesus) but will not end up being followers of Jesus (they will desert Him at the difficulty of his words...i.e., John 6).

 

[lakeside]

1609, John Smyth formed the Baptists in Holland.
1639, Roger Williams started the Baptists in America. They have since splintered severely.

 

[JonC]

Should we let Lake in on the secret that Baptists are not Protestants!

That was Luther's view (those who rejected infant baptism were "among" them as they broke from the RCC but were not a part of them and never were because they held to that old heresy.

 

[lakeside]

This is the only Baptists history that you have. You may say that your group stated before Luther, but you few people are alone in that unsubstantial belief, all competent secular and religious historians do not agree, and "nor can you show proof of anything incuding the Holy Bible to support your ridiculous history of 1St Century Baptists or of the Bible as being the only sole rule for salvation." All you people started your split away churches off one another through the past 4-5 hundred years.

Explain WHY Martin Luther [the Protestant-or whatever-'guru' of the anti-Biblical 'doctrines' of sola-scriptura, sola-fide, and sola-universal priesthood that ALL of you follow] preached these sermons to his followers:

SERMONS BY LUTHER

A 1522 sermon by Martin Luther to his followers:

"Accordingly, we concede to the papacy that they sit in the true Church, possessing the office instituted by Christ and inherited from the apostles to teach, baptize, administer the sacrament, absolve, ordain, etc."
Sermon for the Sunday after Christ's Ascension; John 15:26-16:4 (2nd sermon), page 265, paragraph 28. (1522)

Luther remarked several years later in 1557 in another sermon to his followers:

"We concede - as we must - that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] say is true: that the papacy has God's word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scripture, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?"
Sermon on the gospel of St. John, chaps. 14 - 16 (1557), in vol. 24 of LUTHER'S WORKS, St. Louis, MO, Concordia, 1961, 304

And don't turn around and try to tell those of us who know better [like Luther ACTUALLY did], that you "don't follow Luther" 'cause you DO follow his false, anti-Biblical 'doctrines' of sola-scriptura, sola-fide, and sola-universal priesthood.

Your [plural] content is always self-contraditory, pitfully anti-Biblical.

 

[PreachTony]

And don't turn around and try to tell those of us who know better [like Luther ACTUALLY did], that you "don't follow Luther" 'cause you DO follow his false, anti-Biblical 'doctrines' of sola-scriptura, sola-fide, and sola-universal priesthood.

Your [plural] content is always self-contraditory, pitfully anti-Biblical.

Wow. You believe in infant baptism and purgatory, yet you accuse us of being anti-Biblical?

 

[lakeside]

PreachTony, in essence what you wrote is that besides me believing in infant Baptism and purgatory all early Christians also believed in purgatory and infant Baptism, because early church history proves it. There is more proof in the Holy Bible supporting Infant Baptism along with Purgatory than not.

 

[JonC]

This is the only Baptists history that you have. You may say that your group stated before Luther, ...

Lakeside, all disagreement aside you greatly misunderstand what most Baptists say of their history. It is not important when a denomination came about, it is not important if they can trace their physical church to the New Testament Church, but it is important that it meet the standard of being a part of the Church. Most Baptists who say that they are not "Protestant" speak of distinctive doctrine that was not a part of the Reformers ideologies.

If you look at organizations, then of course we are Protestant - those groups that held "baptistic" beliefs were present apart from the Catholic Church but history shows they joined the Reformers in the movement (and later continued by trying to reform the Reformers). Luther spoke of the doctrines that they held (they were Protestant in that they joined the movement - they were not in that they did not share the same beliefs).

 

[JonC]

PreachTony, in essence what you wrote is that besides me believing in infant Baptism and purgatory all early Christians also believed in purgatory and infant Baptism, because early church history proves it. There is more proof in the Holy Bible supporting Infant Baptism along with Purgatory than not.

Then provide it. If Scripture does teach infant baptism along with Purgatory then it shouldn't be hard.

 

[lakeside]

I've given verses and passages in previous posts. i.e. whole families back then contain infants, same as today, unless you won't to argue the issue just for the sake of arguing

 

[Salty]

. They have since splintered severely.

But in many ways we are united

 

[PreachTony]

I've given verses and passages in previous posts. i.e. whole families back then contain infants, same as today, unless you won't to argue the issue just for the sake of arguing

Not necessarily true. Go to my parents' house and speak to my Dad. If you were to baptize him and his whole household, it would just be him and Mom. No infants present.

There is, however, scripture stating that people have to hear the preached word before baptism. Every instance of baptism in the NT involves a believer who makes a profession of faith. Babies are incapable of doing so. That's scriptural.

 

[JonC]

I've given verses and passages in previous posts. i.e. whole families back then contain infants, same as today, unless you won't to argue the issue just for the sake of arguing

Why, in your religion, is a person baptized? (What is the purpose).

 

[Zenas]

Not necessarily true. Go to my parents' house and speak to my Dad. If you were to baptize him and his whole household, it would just be him and Mom. No infants present.

There is, however, scripture stating that people have to hear the preached word before baptism. Every instance of baptism in the NT involves a believer who makes a profession of faith. Babies are incapable of doing so. That's scriptural.

The New Testament contains four instances of entire households being baptized. Do you really think you could baptize four households in N.T. times, with most often several generations living there, without there being at least one baby? Of course it's possible, but it's also possible that I could drive home blindfolded and find the way into my driveway.

You are right that every instance of baptism in the N.T. involves a believer who has made a profession of faith (with the possible exception of the household baptisms). However, in the N.T. every baptism was of a person who had just heard the gospel. We see zero instances of what they did when a child was born to Christian parents and raised in a Christian home. There is absolutely no scriptural guidance for an appropriate age to baptize these children.

Finally, where is that scripture that says one must hear the preached word before being baptized? The only thing I can find is Acts 8:37 and this verse is bracketed in the modern translation because it is not found in the oldest and best manuscripts.

 

[Salty]

Why, in your religion, is a person baptized? (What is the purpose).

For whats its worth - I went to a Catholic funeral a few years ago.
The RCC Priest stated "Betty is in Heaven, because she was baptized." BTW, no mention of purgatory.


Oh, BTW, should we mention that all those who are born again - are a royal priesthood!
that's right - call me Salty the Priest!