Featured Vicar of Jesus Christ?

Are you familiar with that church in Acts chapter two, that one where 3,000 were saved and baptized in one day.
Well, that was the First Baptist Church of Jerusalem.
I thought everyone knew that. Its just a common fact.

 

Hi Adonia,
Initially, all Christians were Baptists, inasmuch as infant 'baptism' was unheard of. The two earliest writers who mention baptism (the Didache and Justin Martyr) have obviously never heard of the infant variety The first person to mention it was Tertullian, who opposed it. The first to promote it was Cyprian. However, Cyril of Jerusalem (310-386), who wrote more about baptism than any other Church father, knows only of adult baptism by immersion SFAIK. He has all sorts of weird ideas and wants to baptize men and women together stark naked (!), but that's the ECFs for you. Tongue

Monica, the mother of Augustine of Hippo (354-430), was neither 'baptized' herself as an infant, nor did she so 'baptize' her son, so infant 'baptism' cannot have been the rule at that time. It is from Augustine that the practice was popularized.

As the Church of Rome steadily gained power. so persecution increased, and baptistic groups like the Paulicians, Bogomils and Petrobusians were pretty ruthlessly suppressed and their leaders executed. The first two named were rather dicey theologically, but the Petrobusians seem to have been quite orthodox. Many of the Waldensians, whom the Church of Rome persecuted viciously but were unable to exterminate, were also baptistic.

In 1463 and 1467, in the mountains of Bohemia, groups of Hussites and other Christians met together. One of the first things they did was to baptize those adults who were present and formally to declare their separation from the Church of Rome. They called themselves Jednota Bratrska (Church of the Brotherhood) or Unitas Fratrum, the United Brethren.

None of these folk called themselves Baptists, but they baptized believers. I hope that answers your question.

 

I believe it was Brother Martin Marprelate that stated Jesus' body would not be broken. If He comes into that wafer, it has to be broken to be eaten. You have just denied a true biblical truth. Not a bone of His body would be broken. This was prophesied in Exodus 12 as they used a Passover lamb or goat to save themselves from the wrath of God that was poured out upon the Egyptians by the killing of their firstborn, even down to their livestock.

 

And do you know that church where, 'When they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, both men and women [but not children] were baptized' (Acts 8:12)? Well that was the First Baptist Church of Samaria Thumbsup

 

What a drummed up bit of nonsense you have there. You're so thoroughly indoctrinated with RC hocus pocus that you cannot think for your own self and see what utter ridiculous nonsense this is? So Jesus needs to come to us in wafer form in order to fulfill His promise? The omnipresent God? That's some tragic mental gymnastics and Scripture twisting you have there my friend.

Gotta love your last line, 'As the Scriptures say, it is hard for some to accept this'. None of the passages dealing with the Lord's supper deal with this at all. John 6 does, but none about the Lord's Supper so you're twisting Scriptures there too to make them say what your presupposition tells you they say. The thing is they don't say this. The reason thinking believers don't accept this that you teach is because it's frankly untrue, unbiblical chicanery.

 

That's fine Herbert. Frankly, I am in awe of the volume of your output on this forum. I don't know how you manage it!

I can agree with almost all that, Herbert. There is indeed on holy, catholic (small 'c') and apostolic Church. It's just not the Church of Rome. There are two places in the NT where unity is taught particularly. One is John 17; the other is Ephesians 4:1-16. In both of those passages, unity is based on Truth and knowledge (John 17:17; Ephesians 4:13. The unity is not organizational, but spiritual and based on love and on our submission to the Head of the Church who is Christ our Lord (Ephesians 4:15) and to His word.

Since the Lord Jesus prayed for this unity, it must be an accomplished fact, and so I find it. Last Lord's Day, we had a retired minister of the Church of England come and preach for us, and very good he was too! But we do not have unity with the C of E as a whole, since large portions of it are completely apostate. There are, however, many excellent Anglican churches with whom we are very happy to have unity and fellowship. I encourage them to leave and become Independent. As an itinerant preacher, I visit Independent, Congregational, Brethren, Baptist and occasionally Presbyterian and Anglican churches and enjoy the sweetest fellowship with them. As a member of Gideons International I join with Bible-believers from all these churches and more to circulate the Scriptures into the hands of those who don't know the Lord. But it is not organizational fellowship; they're not the boss of me, nor I of them. Our fellowship is based on our shared love of the truth as it is in Christ Jesus.

Organizational unity can only come through coercion. This has been the case with the Church of Rome, but also with the Church of England. John Bunyan, a Particular Baptist, served 12 years in Bedford Prison in the 17th Century for preaching the Gospel without a license. Dissenters were kept out of the Universities in Britain until into the 19th Century. Freedom of religion, freedom of association and unity based of truth and love are the only ways forward..

I am sorry if that was your experience as a Baptist. All the title 'Baptist' means is that the church doesn't baptize babies. I fully agree that many of them are disastrous. One needs to look at the church constitution and statement of faith to establish what an individual church believes. But what is needed is not an imposed organization unity, but what Paul was encouraging: '.......The edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect [ie.'mature'] man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head- Christ- from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part of it does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.'

 

His body would not be broken at the time of His crucifixion - and that is the way it went. Look, you can deny the truth and make excuses against the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist all you want, I and billions of other faithful Christians throughout these many centuries have been taught differently and rightly so.

 

Sorry, but it has been folks like you who have twisted this part of the Scriptures (and others as well). Let's just agree to disagree shall we, and only on the day we move on to the next world will we find out who is really right about this (and other biblical interpretations).

As for drummed up "RC hocus pocus" let me remind you that we are not the only ones who believe this to be true. Funny how the early Christian Church being led by those men known as the Early Church Fathers believed this wholeheartedly, as do billions of other Christians of non RC faith traditions of this age. Your belief is of the minority of this issue. God bless.

 

And "whole households" were baptized as well the Scriptures say, and these households would presumably contain infants and children. Once again your sect differs from mainline Christian thought.

 

The First Baptist Church of Jerusalem? Good grief, that's stretching things quite a bit isn't it? But hey, what about the 2nd and 3rd Baptist churches of Jerusalem who split from the 1st over doctrinal differences?

Like I pointed out earlier, the Baptist faith tradition is an offshoot of the Puritan-Separatist movement, which itself was an offshoot of the Anglican Church, which itself left the Latin Rite Church led by the Bishop based in Rome.

 

I see that you are not aware of the people like him. It's no wonder you are so confused about things and have ended up believing what you do.

 

Aside from that, if God looks with favor upon the Muslim, the Hindu, the Atheist, or any one else who is not a Christian and allows them into the heavenly abode, can he do that? Surely you do not think for a moment that you know how God will act in one way or another, do you?

 

Ste

Steaver, you are doing a great job. Keep it up, God bless you!