Search results

No, the original Christians were called "Christians", and the first churches were called names like "the church at Ephesus," "the church at Thessalonica," and "the church at Rome." There was no Roman Catholicism, and no pope.

It seems to be loading in seconds now. That's better!

Yes, I'm finding this too. It took almost 5 minutes to load this page. Let's see if this answer to you gets posted! Here goes.....

But Luke wrote about "those who were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word";" he doesn't say that he himself was an eyewitness: “Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were...

But it isn't provided for all. It is (as 1 John 5:1 and John 3:16 both indicate) for whoever believes. Incidentally, I think my epistemology before being converted was similar to what Rye said in Post 4 on this thread.

But the record will only say that certain amount has been paid from your account to the church's account, not what the payment is for. It could be for books purchased from the church bookstall. Even if you give cash to your church, somebody may see (whether accidentally or deliberately) what...

Paul did not forbid marriage either. Indeed writing to Timothy, he said: “Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot...

I was about to ask who Welch was:) Just a typo. Incidentally, I followed the link, and it caused me to wonder who had written it, as the first sentence says: "In May, 1655, delegates from seven Baptist churches met at Warwick England, near Birmingham, in the area known as The Midland." The...

Of course the Waldensians were a "heretical human tradition" in the view of the Roman Catholic Church. As far as your earlier/later Waldensians comment is concerned, I did say, "many of the Waldensians," not "all."

That's not so. In Mediaeval times, many of the Waldensians rejected belief in the "real presence". So did Peter Kániš and Giovanni Pico della Mirandola. I am sure there were others before Zwingli.

Thanks!

Welcome to the Baptist Board. I assume EFCA could mean something like "Evangelical Free Church of America." Is that right? (I'm in the UK, so I don't know.)

I affirm it, with the proviso that "catholic" in the creed means "universal", not "Roman Catholic".

Just the single word "baloney" just tells us you don't agree with the OP. It would be a lot more interesting to know why you think it's baloney.

I think it's a stretch to say that mention of co-workers of Paul proves that apostolic succession is biblical.

Thanks for not taking offence. I only posted because being in the title, it was so noticeable.

I'm just wondering if it's possible for you to edit the title of the thread. At present it is: "Do no Interpretations Belong to GOD?" I'm sure you meant: "Do not Interpretations Belong to GOD?" which almost the exact opposite.

True, but was that his conversion? I say no. He was converted on the road to Damascus, showing itself in a changed life, from: “Then Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked letters from him to the synagogues of Damascus...

Paul was converted/saved directly by Jesus on the road to Damascus. This showed itself in a radical change in his attitude. "Lord, what do you want me to do?" he asked. Before, he had been "breathing out threats" against all followers of Jesus. Yes, it was through Ananias that his sight was...

Sorry, but I'm not sure what you mean. Are you disagreeing with John Gill, or with what someone wrote about John Gill on this thread?