A Concise History Of The Baptists

The point is Bill and Thessalonian, you have to go to great lengths to read into Scripture that which is not there to "prove" a made-up doctrine, which did not come into existence until a couple of centuries later. Many of the church fathers held to variuos heresies also. It is not the histories of men we depend upon. It is the Word of God.
In your example of the household of the jailor you say it is "probable" that there were infants present there. It is "probable" that they also were baptized. The Scripture teaches against your probabilities with direct fact. It is more "probable" that this was a household of older teens and adults with no small children at all, else Paul would not have made such a statement. Paul does not contradict himself, neither does he contradict Scripture. He does not make himself out to be the fool that you make him out to be.

It was Paul that said "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Paul knew full well (when he made the statement concerning the household of the jailor) that infants are incapable of calling in faith upon the name of the Lord. Yet you make him out to be a fool and a liar, contradicting the very things that he had written. Paul had no such thing in mind as infants when he mentioned houselhold. That is very evident. To assume infants is to do injustice to the Word of God.

That is why I mentioned the Mormon doctrine of baptizing for the dead. They have more of a Biblical basis than you have. It is still an unbiblical doctrine based on a misinterpretation of 1Cor.15:29, but at least they have an example of someone being baptized for the dead, whereas you don't even have an example of an infant being baptized at all. Their unbiblical doctrine is stronger than your unbiblical doctrine. What cults will do to defend their pet beliefs instead of just believing what the Bible says!
DHK

 

I'm always nice, Singer!

There is no doubt that we, as individual Christians, are "accountable" as you say. So what else is new? But I am not talking about individuals, I am talking about an authoritative Church, obviously established per Matthew 16:18-19, a Church with the awesome authority given to it, but then I notice that it is not "obvious" to you and others...

Interesting...

As the arthritis in my knees will allow, I do this every time I go to Church before the Blessed Sacrament!

Well, I see nothing here to disagree with you here, so there is hope for you yet!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram
aedificabo ecclesiam meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt
adversum eam et tibi dabo claves regni caelorum et quodcumque
ligaveris super terram erit ligatum in caelis et quodcumque
solveris super terram erit solutum in caelis.
(Matt 16:18-19 From the Latin Vulgate)

 

Well, I don't know how much attention you paid to the link I provided:

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/infant.htm

But I see at least 100 years between the close of the apostolic era and the earliest date of the fathers in that link.

I know of only one. (Tertullian) Pleased list all of those other fathers you think who fell into heresy. And by the way, Tertullian is a valuable witness from the writings before his n-Montanist hersy, as well as after, in his dersion of the Church indicates what the Church taught!

Therefore, at the close of the canon, all other history after that is to be discarded? You disregard the valuable insight of the fathers, who lived just beyond the very edge of the end of the apostolic era only, I suspect, because they show the "Catholicity" of the teachings of the Church in those times.

You just can't have that, can you DHK?

What "direct fact," DHK?

I have always understood that large families was the norm due to a greater death rate in those early times. They I must disagree with you here. I think the odds of haveing children at, say. 5 years and younger was quite probable.

And what other statement would you expect if there were infants and children under five years of age, DHK?

AMEN to that! Peter said about the same thing in his "taking charge" and announcing to all to "repent and be baptized"!!!

did you ever notice the large couplet in the New testament, "Repent - baptized" in scripture, DHK?

Why is that, sir?

I don't recall him saying that, DHK. My bible sure does not say that!

I do no such thing! He baptized the jailer and his whole household, do you agree? I see nothing about him excluding infants and young children.

DHK, read my lips, Paul does not exclude them when he baptized the jailer and his household.

The Mormons are "Johnny-come-latelies," DHK, and I could not care less about their doctrines, only of the only Church who existed from the time of Christ to the present day...

THE ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH
founder: Jesus Christ, AD 33
Present eartly caretaker: John Paul II




God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram
aedificabo ecclesiam meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt
adversum eam et tibi dabo claves regni caelorum et quodcumque
ligaveris super terram erit ligatum in caelis et quodcumque
solveris super terram erit solutum in caelis.
(Matt 16:18-19 From the Latin Vulgate)

 

Perhaps you read the wrong histories Bill:

J.T. Christian, "A History of the Baptists" Chapter 2

 

I should have provided a link to the above post:

A History of the Baptists

DHK

 

DHK replied where I last said:

But I see at least 100 years between the close of the apostolic era and the earliest date of the fathers in that link.

Thank you, DHK, and I will read it more thoroughly later, but I did give it a good scan. It if fraught with the usual errors about Catholicism, having been refuted time and time again by me and others over the 20 years of my doing Catholic apologetics.

I have a better history for you:

http://www.netacc.net/~mafg/book/prior.htm

This is long, very long, in several sections and it has been a while since I have read it.

But I suggest you sit down, read it, and see the Catholic side of Church history!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


"...Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. This prefigured baptism which saves you now..."

1 Peter 3:20-21

 

Hi Bill,

Your comment:
There is no doubt that we, as individual Christians, are "accountable" as you say. So what else is new? But I am not talking about individuals, I am talking about an authoritative Church, obviously established per Matthew 16:18-19, a Church with the awesome authority given to it, but then I notice that it is not "obvious" to you and others...

No, not obvious at all.
However the thing that is obvious to both of us is our need to confess and bow to the fact that Jesus Christ is Lord.

1). Without that, this imagined church that Jesus established is worthless.

2). And with those proper confessions made, the church is still worthless.

So I remain unChurched; but I am a member of those who believe in Jesus (the church).

Singer

 

And leave His Church out of it? Why did He establish it, or is Matthew 16:18-19 in your bible?

Jesus "imagined" His church? Are you serious? And of course, to "bow to the fact that Jesus Christ is Lord" is certainly a part of it, Singer, not exclusive of the Church. Else why did Christ establish His Church?

When you read Matthew 16:18-19, do the words get all blurry on you, Singer?

Of course, all a part of Peter's speech at Pentecost, "repent and be baptized..." And by the way, if you sin again, the "facilities" of John 20:22-23 are there for you!

Too bad, Singer. Perhaps a good English teacher could read and parse the words of Matthew 16:18-19 and then go find that particular church to JOIN!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram
aedificabo ecclesiam meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt
adversum eam et tibi dabo claves regni caelorum et quodcumque
ligaveris super terram erit ligatum in caelis et quodcumque
solveris super terram erit solutum in caelis.
(Matt 16:18-19 From the Latin Vulgate)

 

Bill,

I'm not interested in spending the rest of my life trying to convince someone to join an earthly institution. I'd rather spend my time pondering the values of Jesus Christ than sharing that time with efforts made towards trying to justify some organization.

Organizations come and go but the Almighty God is the same yesterday, today and forever.

1. Yesterday He wasn't Catholic
2. In eternity He will not be Catholic
3. So why waste my time trying to establish Him as a Catholic Today ?

It's even a waste of my time disputing Catholicism.

**Promote a Way (John 14:6), not a Weakness.

 

And neither am I!

How about one that is heavenly derived, using human persons in it central core of authority, it's faithful membership, her sacraments (which I have yet to convince you of) and of course, the mission she has been established to continue in what Christ wanted?

Well, the "organization" Christ established seems to have endured quite well, dispite the efforts of her own sinful clergy! That, my friend, is a miracle in itself!

I'm not doing any such thing, actually, as all I am asking you to do is look into the very faith and the very church who can trace her history back to Christ Himself, who happened to acquire the name "catholic" along the way.

Well, with me anyway!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

 

And neither am I!

How about one that is heavenly derived, using human persons in it central core of authority, it's faithful membership, her sacraments (which I have yet to convince you of) and of course, the mission she has been established to continue in what Christ wanted?

_________________________________________________
Nope, not interested.
One only has to question what the great commission is to understand where the emphasis should be. Believing in Him does not include trying to justify an institution. Catholics talk about the Protestant Smorgasbord where we can pick and choose from 20,000 churches. Yet I constantly read about how Jesus is the Main Menu on the Catholic Salsabar and then there's the need to add the toppings that include:

1. Heavenly derived history claims
2. Central core of authority
3. Faithful membership
4. Established Mission
5. Sacraments
6. Infant baptism
7. Hailing Mary
8. Forgiving sins
9. Real presence
10.Mass

Makes me nauseous to think of adding all of that to the brew. Sounds like we'd end up with Catholic Casserole.

Well, the "organization" Christ established seems to have endured quite well, dispite the efforts of her own sinful clergy! That, my friend, is a miracle in itself!
______________________________________________
Yes, the church has endured just as Christ said it would. It's attended by Whosoever Believes.

I'm not doing any such thing, actually, as all I am asking you to do is look into the very faith and the very church who can trace her history back to Christ Himself, who happened to acquire the name "catholic" along the way.
____________________________________________
Bill, my God is as alive today as He was 2000 years ago and He's not requiring me to make landmark deductions concerning precise historical events ....all He's asking me or anyone else to do it to "Believe in Me". End of story.
Come to Him as a child, He says.
A child doesn't have anything to offer but faith.
No ingredients to the Casserole is required.

Well, with me anyway!
____________________________________________
But think of all the readers who also may not like Catholic Casserole.

</font>[/QUOTE]

 

Catholic Casserole is a Salsa Style Jesus-Plus Ministry which adds to the finished plan of salvation and leaves the seeker in fear of his soul that is to be judged according to its works.

Damage is done when a member finds he has spent his life justifying and serving an institution instead of worshipping the Savior.

"Whosoever Will"

***Faith preceded Catholicism.

 

Obviously because the practice of Baptism that the saints employed did not involve infants and the Didach is DESCRIBING that practice in a way that makes it "crystal clear".

And neither does the Bible mention infants being baptized - for the same reason.

So our RC bretheren have "nothing from the Didache" and "nothing from scripture" - to base their "infant baptism and sprinkling" assertions on ... so they settle for the "void of what they do not have".

I simply provided the RC historian quotes to SHOW the evolution of that practice "over time".

And what is the "insightful response?"

You clearly "ran out of material" thess.

Nothing says none of them were hamsters Thess.

The point is NOT to argue from the void of what it "does not say" to make your case. You have to FIND that what you conjecture IS TRUE - not simply speculate from the void about hamsters - or infants or ... that are "not mentioned" in either the Didache or the Bible regarding Baptism.

Households "Believed" households "HEARD the word of God" and Households "responded".

But the INFANTS, hamsters and puppies in those households - did not.

Circumcision was not theh sign of "salvation" in either OT or NT (or else all females went to hell).

In Romans 2 the point is made that the "spiritual" significance of "true spiritual circumcision" was circumcision of the heart of the believer by the Holy Spirit.

In the same way "Baptism now saves you NOT the touching of water to the flesh BUT the APPEAL to God for a clean conscience" 1Peter 3

I make my case FROM the text you attempt to make yours "in spite of it".

Wrong "again".

The Bible says "to HIM WHO KNOWS to do right and does it not to HIM it is sin".

Of the Baby girls before the cross - Christ affirmed that their angels do always behold the face of My Father in heaven - whoever causes one of the LEAST of these to STUMBLE - it would be better for him that a millstone where hanged about his neck and he was ...

The Infants "don't NEED to confess" or be baptized - and since there is "nothing magical about the waters of baptism" and in fact the ESSENCE of baptism is NOT in the water but in the candidate's "APPEAL to God for a clean conscience" those little infants that "Don't KNOW anything about wrong" - are covered by the blood to start with.

That shallow argument was already dealt with - when we observed that the same head-in-sand approach was taken by the Jews of Christ's day saying to that HIS message was nothing more than "so-much anti-Judaism".

When He spoke they could only hear "yada-yada-yada-something-bad-about-Jewish-leaders".

In Christ,

Bob

 

No surprise there! You know more about RC history that the RCs on this board! Did you major in Catholic history when you were in college?

 

No surprise there! You know more about RC history that the RCs on this board! Did you major in Catholic history when you were in college? </font>[/QUOTE] Harely,

Might I correct you, he knows more about selective quoting and distorting of RC Historians than Catholics on this board. I can quote RC sources all day long. Look up above a bit at Mr. Lyan's quoting of the Catholic digest in which he takes a snippet that makes it sound like the CD agrees with him. When you post the whole quote the view is exactly the opposite. I exposed it for you. The quote is with regard to Catholic baptisms resembling the baptisms of the early Church. Mr. Lyan distorts it in to exactly the opposite of what it really says. I can quote Irenaus, Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, Didache, Tertullian, etc. etc. all day long regarding distinctly Catholic topics such as the Eucharist, the Papacy, Baptismal regeneration, etc. etc.. If you would like to see it I will be more than happy to go in to these topics and show how historical they are. Mr. Lyan's background is cutting and pasting from SDA websites and gleaning their distortions from their pamphlets. He has no training in Catholicism to help him discern what the quotes he uses mean. I will not waste my time refuting much of what he says because it is a pearl casting venture (from my past experience with him). I would be glad to converse with you on these matters.

Blessings

 

"Obviously because the practice of Baptism that the saints employed did not involve infants and the Didach is DESCRIBING that practice in a way that makes it "crystal clear"."

So that is an infallible clarity that your speaking of Bob? There can be no other explanation other than yours Bob? Hey, the job of Pope will be open soon. Your a gas Bob.


For the hundreth time a car manual does not deal with speaking and stop signs, though it does deal with the operation of the vehicle. I wouldn't recommend flying through stop signs at 90. If you can't get the anology then I pity you. Adult baptism is a differnt issue that infant baptism, though both are accomplished by the Holy Spirit. You speak nonsense and circles Bob, with no real desire to understand and consider. I'll not waste my time with your "infallible interprutations" of early Church documents any longer.

 

Psalms 119:105 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

Isaiah 6:8-9 Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me.
9 And he said, Go, (and don't stop) and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.

Matthew 28:19-20 Go ye (and don't stop) therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, (and don't stop) and preach the gospel to every creature.

The Didache is man-made and fallible. The Word of God is God's direct inspired revelation, and therefore infallible. It is our manual. It tells us all the details that we need to know--even to the point of when to stop, when to go, when to turn, how fast to go, when you are going to fast, and when to quit. It tells us ALL that we need to know. It is our manual; the only one we truly need. In specific reference to stopping and going I suggest you read Eccl. 3.

Neither would I. But that is because I know what the Word of God says on the issue. There is no case of infant baptism in the Bible. As Bob has aptly pointed out to you: You have as much of a case as proving that hampsters were baptized as were infants. Do you believe that both infants and their respective pets were baptized. There is a church (I believe it is Catholic) in our area that each year has a day set apart to bless the pets of the ownners. They all bring their dogs, cats, hampsters, pigs, etc., into the church and the priest blesses them. Will they also go to heaven because of the blessing of the priest--another man-made doctrine. When and where will it end??
DHK

 

DHK,

Very sad, how you distort and manipulate truth.
First of all I have not claimed infallibility with regard to the Didache. Bob actually seems to be a bit more over the deep end on that front, yet you attack me. Oh well.
Yes, the word of God is wonderful, though I think you will have a hard time showing that WOG and scripture are interchangable. I do agree tha scripture is the WOG by the way but I have made this point time and time again, One has to understand the scriptures or he may have the scriptures but he does not have the WOG, thus I prefer the 2 Tim 2:2, 2 Thes 2:15 formula which tells the truth of what the WOG is.

Next, because a writing is not scripture and therefore not the INERRANT WOG (you see scripture cannot be infallible in and of itself. How can you measure it's infallibility? It won't lead men in to error? Well then everyone who has Bibles should agree. It can be trusted of course, but as Prov 3:5 says we cannot trust ourselves to provide the infallible understanding to trust it.) Now of course God has given us shepherds to portray correctly the Knowledge and Understanding of them. Jer 3:15. And we do know that men in restricted circumstances can in fact be infallible as the Apostles and Prophets certainly were when they wrote down the scriptures. In truth men can be nfallible.

Now the assumption is that if something isn't scripture that it is errant. This is a false assumption. If I say "Jesus was the greatest man who ever lived" would you not agree that that is a completely true statement. Not errant (i.e. not fallible according to your definition of fallible and infallible.). But I certainly won't hold the didache to the level of inerrancy that I hold the scriptures. Thank you for pointing that out. However your argumentation in this regard is nonsense and hypocritical as you I am sure use Bible commentarites and concordances in your scripture study. I mearly use the didache as evidence of what the early Post Apostolic Church taught. It's a great witness. One of the many that shows there were no Baptists around. But I know that you are a blessing to me and so I am thankful for your errors that shine light upon the truth.

"There is no case of infant baptism in the Bible. As Bob has aptly pointed out to you"

You have not yet proven to me that one of those three thousand in Acts 2 that were baptized and none of those 4000 in Acts 4 or those in households in acts 16 or 18 were infants. When you do I will agree that there is nary a mention of infants being baptized. Also by your eisegesis, all babies must be condemned to hell as I see no instance of a baby being saved. No baby in scripture calls upon the name of the Lord and it says "all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved". So with your eisegetical method you have a problem. Namely little babies going to hell. You can't have your cake and eat it to.

"Do you believe that both infants and their respective pets were baptized. There is a church (I believe it is Catholic) in our area that each year has a day set apart to bless the pets of the ownners. They all bring their dogs, cats, hampsters, pigs, etc., into the church and the priest blesses them. Will they also go to heaven because of the blessing of the priest--another man-made doctrine. When and where will it end??"

Statements like this nonsense really make me pity you and Bob. Blessings are not baptisms first of all. They do not involve the Holy Spirit coming in to the soul of an animal for an animal has no soul. I thought you knew that, but perhaps not. I know Bob doesn't because he doesn't really believe in a soul. You have a problem with blessing anything that is not human? The Bible doesn't.

Sacrifices are blessed:

1 Samuel 9:13
"As soon as you enter the city you will find him before he goes up to the high place to eat, for the people will not eat until he comes, because he must bless the sacrifice; afterward those who are invited will eat. Now therefore, go up for you will find him at once."


Baskets are blessed:
Deuteronomy 28:5
"Blessed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl.

Don't you say a blessing on your food before you eat it?

With regard to blessing though it means to dedicate to the Lord, in the case of an animal, the use of that animal.

Many things are dedicated to the Lord.

Leviticus 22:3
"Say to them, 'If any man among all your descendants throughout your generations approaches the holy gifts which the sons of Israel dedicate to the LORD, while he has an uncleanness, that person shall be cut off from before Me; I am the LORD.



Judges 17:3
He then returned the eleven hundred pieces of silver to his mother, and his mother said, "I wholly dedicate the silver from my hand to the LORD for my son to make a graven image and a molten image; now therefore, I will return them to you."



2 Samuel 8:11
King David also dedicated these to the LORD, with the silver and gold that he had dedicated from all the nations which he had subdued:

1 Kings 15:15
He brought into the house of the LORD the dedicated things of his father and his own dedicated things: silver and gold and utensils.


So no I don't have any problem with blessing animals. The Bible doesn't tell us what words to say in marriage cerimonies. So did you have any? It doesn't tell us to use rings. Would you bash them so vigorously as you do anything that is specifically Catholic. Of course you seem to have little problem with SDA beliefs and practices as you spend little time refuting anhilatoinism and soul sleep but rather give Bob high fives. Very sad, such biggotry.


Blessings

 

Quote:Will they also go to heaven because of the blessing of the priest--another man-made doctrine. When and where will it end??
DHK

You sound like the serpent in the garden, trying to make God sound silly. (paraphrased from memory) " ..God told you not to eat of any fruit in the garden?.." When he knew full well that God said not to eat of the fruit from the tree in the center of the garden.

You too I would have to expect would know the Catholic Church has no such teaching about animals. In fact the church would teach you that as humans we are unique from all of God creatures (angels included) in that we are made up of both flesh and spirit. Animals in other words have no souls and therefore are in no need of being saved as there is nothing to exist eternally. Perhaps you may want to check out the actual words of the blessing. I'd bet that it is something along the lines of blessing the service that they perform for mankind.....If a Baptist preacher said that a dog is man's best friend, should we accuse him of teaching a wicked dogma?! (pun intended)

 

Let's not get too hypocritical here Grace. I did not accuse you of being infallible. The quote is from you accusing Bob of having infallible interpretations of the Didache.

If we agree that the Word of God is the Scripture then are argument about proving it is fruitless. Once you admit that the Scripture is the Word of God, as you just did, you don't have to understand it in order to have the Word of God. Your comprehension does not change the fact that it is the Word of God any more than my comprehension of my Ford manual changes the fact that my car is a Ford. The Ford Manual gives understanding to me about my car. The Scriptures that are placed in your hand give understanding to you about the Word of God, but the Word of God has not changed. The Scriptures are the Word of God regardless of your understanding.

First your interpretation of Jer.3:15 is suspect, for the "pastors" that are referred to in that verse may refer to civil rulers or magistrates.
Second, Scripture is infallible in and of itself on the sole fact that it is the Word of God, as you have previously admitted. If it isn't infallible then you are calling God a liar. God makes no mistakes. God is infallible. If it is God's Word, as you admit, then obviously it must be infallible.
What leads men into infallibility is their own sinful nature. They do not always depend on the Holy Spirit, and it is wrong to assume that they do. There are controversial passages in the Word of God, which God has not clearly revealed the meaning to us, nor will He on this side of glory. But there are some things, which every evangelical can clearly see and agree on which are fundamentally true to the faith. Those things are what Jude refers to when he says that we must contend for "the faith."
It is not my responsibility to measure the infallibility of the Bible, for it is infallible. It is my responsibility to "rightly divide the Word of Truth (2Tim.2:15); to make sure that my people have the correct doctrine. When some churches start preaching (from the Bible) that homosexuality is of God, are you going to agree with them? There are obvious doctrines in the Bible that we can defend. There are also obvious doctrines that are not in the Bible that we can refute (i.e. Purgatory). Thus my doctrine is from the Bible alone, for it is the Word of God.

I am not against you using the Didache, the church fathers, or other source materials such as history or commentaries. As you have mentioned I use commentaries and reference works myself. The point here is that the Bible is the final authority of all matters of faith and practice. Since it is the Word of God, it has the final say in all matters. The other works are the works of men. The Bible is the work of God. I have some respect for the Didache, but a lot more for the Bible. I try to confine myself to the Bible, and then to works that are relevant to the the Bible. If an author of a work has done research on any passage of the Scripture I am not opposed to using it. Often it depends on its ease of usage. In most commentaries, I can go to the exact book, chapter and verse that I want to examine. I wish I could do the same with the church fathers, but they are not written as such. I just finished reading through Clement"s first epistle to the Corinthians. (I would have rather read Paul's).

C'mon Grace, you know better than this. Logic demands that the onus is on you to prove your belief. If you say that T-Rex was baptized in the Bible then you have to come up with evidence, and prove it. If you say that there were infants baptized in the Bible then you have to come up with the evidence and prove it. You cannot prove anything from silence! You have to offer the evidence and you have none.

I'll agree with you. Statements like this are really nonsense. But don't pity me. Because statements like, infants were baptized in the Bible are just as nonsensical. There is as much proof that an infant being baptized as there was a dog or cat being baptized. None.

Good piece of writing. It applies here to the topic on hand.
Babies or infants are blessed or dedicated, not baptized.
DHK