Featured I am a Baptist

The context of my first 3 or 4 paragraphs at I am a Baptist is the definition of idea as I meant to say that Jesus had of what He means when He used the word 'church', but I skipped ahead of myself and didn't get it plainly said in the first sentence.

It should have read, "Unfortunately, your idea of 'Church History' is not Jesus' idea, when it comes to the definition Jesus and the rest of The New Testament uses for His idea of what a church is.

Then, it goes on to explain what s church is, from the Bible.

That is something God may never be pleased to show you.

Baptist-like Doctrine of the local church only, salvation through Jesus buying His children out of the sin market as "purchased possessions" in exchange for a price, and believers' baptism, have been maintained by God perfectly well, as His pillars and grounds of the truth.

No evolutionists in theology needed.

According to what?

Way to go, JonC. That says something for your confidence in God's Ability to fulfill His promises.

How about not pretend everything about history and things written in invisible ink?

The world is indebted to Baptists and Baptist-like believers for any Bible teachings they have that preach more than a nickels'worth in six months and Religious Liberty.

Then just stop.

Stop it.

I didn't call anything screwed up. If you are talking about your denial of Jesus drinking the dregs of the Wrath of God dry and want to know what I call it, it's Peganism, pure and simple.

I am going to go ahead and say that this may be from the Jonology Book of History, but that's it, other than possibly some spattering of some notions someone had about somebody at sometime that incomprehensive.

 

I've got to find that post out of all your Anti-Jesus was made sin babblings?

Great.

 

Out of 145 instances of the word 'gospel', I cited 20 something.

Cite the others up.

And replace the word 'gospel' with something other than what God spells it out as, in writing, like substitute "the awaited Kingdom has come". I can't wait.

Out of all your de-railed prognostications, I never dreamed you wouldn't know what the Gospel is.

Yeah, because 'the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ', is a statement of the exact meaning of the word, especially as it is explicitly defined and used throughout The New Testament. That is a historical fact.

Because they are in your head, exclusively.

 

My pastor wrote in a note to me and in it, one of the things that he said to me was that I was one of the most "Solid" men he had ever met. I asked him if he was meaning "sound I'm the faith", by that.

He said "Br. Alan, I have never seen you blown about by every wind of doctrine."

O.K., thanks, cool.

Another poster said that because I quoted scripture references in one post (is there another?) instead of writing it out, that that was a sure sign I was a false teacher(?)

O.K., thanks, cool. You guys give me dimension.

Those are the facts in the head of one Jonology (spell check brought it up!) History author. None-doubtedly.

Not according to the likes of GotQuestions.org, no more or less;

"Tracking down the origins of the Baptist Church in general is an exercise in ancient church history.

"From the days of the apostles, there was one Church of Jesus Christ, with a single body of doctrine taught by the apostles.

"The various local churches preached repentance and confession of sins, along with baptism by immersion as an outward sign of the new life in Christ (Romans 6:3-4).

"Under the authority of the apostles themselves as to doctrine, each church was independently governed by the leaders God placed in them...etc."

They do very well on Baptist-like history, up to a point.

They certainly make everything named Baptist to be Landmark in ecclesiology.

Maybe, some you are familiar with simply "departed from the faith" a generation or more before you came along, if the ever had it. One Lord, one faith, one baptism."

It's not your fault.

And, I can't tell anyone what to believe. The Lord just Loves His church He built as an Institution to bring Him Glory and be His true witnesses, doing His business.

I'm just a child of God who loves the Lord and am bragging on Him and His churches that He privileged me to be a member of, by Leading and Guiding me through the Holy Spirit to be added to one.

That is the Holy Spirit's business, to save, add members by Leading them to be baptized into one of His kind of churches by His Authority, give them gifts, jand have them back regularly to teach them all things He has Commanded.

Like, "Repent and be baptized", as Peter said under the direct influence of the Shekinah Glory Jesus immersed and figuratively baptized His church at Jerusalem with, on the Day of Pentecost.

That same Shekinah Glory is the Candlestick Presence of God in His assemblies, today. Unless, He has spewn the out of His Mouth and they have "Ichabod" written above their door.

I Samuel 4:22;
"And she said, The glory is departed from Israel:
for the ark of God is taken".

Ichabod

Main Results
Description
Ichabod (Hebrew: אִיכָבוֹד ʼīyḵāḇōḏ, – without glory, or "where is the glory?") is mentioned in the first Book of Samuel as the son of Phinehas, a priest at the biblical shrine of Shiloh, who was born on the day that the Israelites' Ark of God was taken into Philistine captivity.

There is "one baptism" equally Authoritative as One Lord and one faith.

That "one baptism" was from a man sent from God with His Authority to baptism, according to Jesus, and there was never another one.

To submit and follow the Lord, as He was baptized by John the Baptist, which was witnessed and approved of by an appearance of the Triune Godhead, is the Command of God to every saved individual.

The one baptism by the Authority of God is a portion of The Counsel of God.

The Pharisees and lawyers rejected the baptism of John the Baptist, in Luke 7:30, because they despised God Commandment.

The Authority of John's baptism, as the man sent from God to baptism, was the product of God's Eternal Counsel and Omnipotent Wisdom, as a portion of His whole scheme of The Manifold Wisdom and Whole Counsel of God, just as The Lord's Supper is, and the Divine Ordinances the Lord Instituted in His New Testament Gospel preaching churches are not the invention of men, to be trifled with frivolously, ignored, rejected, or legislated into some other form.

"But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him." Like 7:30.

Br. Gill says, that these Pharisees and lawyers, just like every other wise and prudent Pharisee or lawyer "rejected the counsel of God against themselves"; against their own advantage, to their hurt and detriment; since by their impenitence and unbelief, and through their rejection of Christ and his forerunner, and the Gospel and the ordinances of it, they brought ruin and destruction, both temporal and eternal, upon themselves: or "towards themselves", or "unto them"; that is, they "rejected the command of God unto them", as the Arabic version renders it: for by "the counsel of God" here, is not meant his purpose, intention, and design, with respect to these persons, which was not, nor never is frustrated; but the precept of God, and so the Ethiopic version renders it,
"they despised the command of God."

 

What is the evidence that is based on?
Careful, both OT and NT have teachings where the terminology "penal substitution" is understood today to describe those Biblical statements!

 

The Old Testament and New Testament go on back with the Authority of their historical integrity, which is impeccable, don't they?

Starting with Genesis 3:15; "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."

and 3:21; "Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

 

Groups called by the name "Baptist" did not exist until the 17th century. And silence on the use of that terminology doesn't prove your case. OT, Isaiah 53, the NT itself. Like Romans 6:23 with Romans 5:8 etc.

 

Huh, proof based on an argument of silence.

Romans 6:23 with Romans 5:8 among other passages are today described with the terminology "Penal Substitution." So earlier non use means that terminology cannot be true?

 

The history from first century churches are the New Testament documents. Those documents are to be the bases of being Baptist. Arguing interpretations between first century and now cannot change the truth of the teachings of those New Testament texts we now also call "Baptist" teachings.

 

It is the sole actual first century church history.