A Concise History Of The Baptists

[thessalonian]

"There is as much proof that an infant being baptized as there was a dog or cat being baptized. "

This is of course the reason that we go around in circles. You believe you can prove all that you believe from the Bible. I do not. Just as noone needed any proof from the Old Testament that Jesus would be born in Nazareth and none could be given. Scripture did not record this "proof" that he would be from Nazareth until after he was from Nazareth, yet it clearly was a part of tradition. I have provided evidence but have not claimed it was proof from the Bible that infants were born. I also contend that you do not have proof as you cannot identify the 3000 who were baptized or infallibly declare that there were no infants in the households that make no exception for infants when the whole household was baptized. All you can do is give a Biblical interprutation by a Church that has no credible historical continuity back to Christ. Only one based on twistings and distortions of history and scripture. I'll waste no more time with you on this topic. Blessings.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by thessalonian:
I also contend that you do not have proof as you cannot identify the 3000 who were baptized

And you can??
DHK

 

[Harley4Him]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by thessalonian:
I also contend that you do not have proof as you cannot identify the 3000 who were baptized

And you can??
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]You believe the oral tradition about Constantine's vision, what's so hard about believing that households or groups of 3000 people might contain infants?

 

[thessalonian]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by thessalonian:
I also contend that you do not have proof as you cannot identify the 3000 who were baptized

And you can??
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Yes you are confused. I don't have to prove it. All I have to see is that Catholicism is not in contradiction with it. If there could have been infants baptized in that group and tradition says that infants can be baptized then I am fine with it.

We are at a stalemate DHK. The real problem is you don't accept the authority under which I submit and I don't except yours (which in reality is the Baptist Church and the traditions they have taught you.)

More casting pearls. Enough already.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by thessalonian:
If there could have been infants baptized in that group and tradition says that infants can be baptized then I am fine with it.

So what are the limitations placed on tradition. Does tradition limit it to infants? Why or why not? Why not zebras or alligators? or at least cats or dogs? Under the broad cloak of "tradition" anything is possible where the Bible is silent. Pope John XXIII baptized a bell. Did Peter do that too? Was the pope acting according to "Biblical tradition," because the Bible is silent, and anything can be read into the Bible where the Bible is silent.
It says 3,000 were baptized. It also says 3000 heard his word, inferring that they understood it and were saved by believing it, something that an infant cannot do.
Do you not bother to read the context of the passage?

The Book of Acts according to Thessalonian:

Acts 2:36-37 Therefore let all the infants of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye (infants) have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
37 Now when they (the infants) heard this, the infants were pricked in their hearts, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, and infants, what shall we do?

Acts 2:41 Then those infants that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

I am glad I am not a Catholic forced to believe in fairy-tales in order to justify my theology.
DHK

 

[Harley4Him]

Originally posted by DHK:
I am glad I am not a Catholic forced to believe in fairy-tales in order to justify my theology.

You do believe in fairy-tales: Constantine's alleged vision. You believe in them more strongly than the true,Christian historical record.

 

[BobRyan]

The Didache (brought into this discussion by an RC poster "hoping" we would "ignore the details" fo what the Didache "says") clearly describes "Ordering the Baptismal candidate to fast" as well as several other "restrictions, requirements" showing that this could only apply to intelligent - understanding believers (not infants).

The RC repsonse to this has been to "pretend" that "other" baptismal instructions "might be had some day" with enough hoping and wishing applied - from that same early NT age that would show other instructions specific to infant baptism.

The empty argument has been that although the data of God's Word and the Didache (i.e. what we DO HAVE) shows baptism of believers -- but "maybe" there might also be other not-as-yet-found instruction about infant baptims.

Bob said --
"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 so ended the futile RC "tactic" of "hoping-from-the-void" of "What we do not have".

Since that argument had "no future" - Thess now tries "another tactice". He is trying the "only-a-Pope-can-read" argument "pretending" that we can't even see what is written and clearly stated anymore. In fact Thess argues - "you gotta be a pope to read".

Thess said

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.

Clearly - a response that would only work if you were already RC and convinced that "only a Pope can read" in the way Thess seems to regard the matter.

Thess said --

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.

When the car manual DOES address the way to put gas in the car - and THEN your friendly neighborhood RC member says "yes but you can also POUR water on top of the car and it works just as well" - you "know" he has been smoking some pope-dope.

The Didache makes NO restrictive or qualifying statement about "this is only one of the ways we baptize" NOR does it say "while infant baptism is another topic entirely - we now turn to just one of many other types of baptism practiced today" -- much as Thess "had hoped" to find it.

Thess said
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,

I simply "inject your idea" into the early sources - while admitting "it is not there". You read "from the void" of what is not there.

I will continue to point out your blatantaly - and "obviously" flawed attempts to revise history in this case as well as pointing out that your OWN RC sources differ with your conjecture on this point - as often as you care to revive the subject for "more devastating review" of the errors of Catholicism regarding baptism.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Notice the prime example of circular reasoning that Thess offers ...

Yes you are confused. I don't have to prove it. All I have to see is that Catholicism is not in contradiction with it. If there could have been infants baptized in that group and tradition says that infants can be baptized then I am fine with it.

No need to prove that the erroneous RC doctrine is not in error. Why? because the RCC has for it's "proof" its own tradition that says "we always say we are right". The RCC is "tested" NOT by going to first century documents like the NT or near-first-century documents like the Didache. Rather the RCC is "tested" by its own members in the form of "I don't need any proof" ... and "RC tradition says that RC doctrine is correct and that is good enough for me".

And you "wonder" how we could ever have had "a dark ages" with the RCC in charge of Euorope for centuries. When they STILL have their people thinking that way in the 21st century - who can doubt the carnage possible in the dark ages.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Harley4Him]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Bob said --
"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 so ended the futile RC "tactic" of "hoping-from-the-void" of "What we do not have".</font>[/QUOTE]Bob, do you realize you quoted yourself? That's not usually considered a valid way to pile up the sources.

 

[BobRyan]

Yeah you are right about that - I need to start quoting some "sources".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[thessalonian]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Yeah you are right about that - I need to start quoting some "sources".

In Christ,

Bob

Bob,

I have wasted enough time going in circles with you while you sputter nonsense. Let's deal with this thread. Were the people whom the Baptist claim were a part of their history like the Waldesians, Donatists, Paulicains, etc. etc. a part of their history or were they a part of the SDA history, culminated in the Prophesies of Ellen G. White.

 

[Harley4Him]

Originally posted by thessalonian:
Were the people whom the Baptist claim were a part of their history like the Waldesians, Donatists, Paulicains, etc. etc. a part of their history or were they a part of the SDA history, culminated in the Prophesies of Ellen G. White.

Why do you think it has to be either-or? The answer is obviously both.

 

[7-Kids]

Just read.
Very Good

 

[BobRyan]

Bill Putnam said

I also notice the great emphasis on total immersion for baptism. Fine, it was practiced in the very early church and the Catholic Church considers it a valid method of baptism! But if one references the didache, it will be noted that an alternative of pouring-on of the water was considered acceptable and valid, if a large enough body of water was not available, especially

Actually "not Especially" but infact that is the "ONLY" case where it is allowed.

Get it?

In the Didache IF the choice is between "no baptism" (because you don't have enough water) and "Baptism using the small amount that you DO have" - the Didache allows for the using "what you have" and pouring the water.

But the RCC has "turned that on its head" -

As in many cases with RC error - a grain of truth is there somewhere around which the error clings.

But the RCC typically takes a grain of truth and adds error to it in the form of guesswork and speculation that totally contradicts the "Details" surrounding that truth.

Notice how Bill does that with his "speculative suggestion below" added on the "grain of truth above"

Bill said --
as (possibly, maybe) must have been the case when Paul baptized the jailer and his whole household, which (possibly, hopefully and) most probably included infants

I have inserted the parenthetical notes to emphasize the point of guesswork being injected into the scripture - and the Didache - totally turning them on their head - so that the RCC is supported.

The truth is - they did take baths and a bath facility is all that was needed to Baptize in harmony with the Romans 6 model and in harmony with the practice that "even" RC historians admit to being practiced in the first century.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by thessalonian:

I have wasted enough time going in circles with you while you sputter nonsense. Let's deal with this thread. Were the people whom the Baptist claim were a part of their history like the Waldesians, Donatists, Paulicains, etc. etc. a part of their history or were they a part of the SDA history... (obligatory ranting deleted here)

Hey Thess! your starting to partake of Harleys "high quality ranting" instead of answering "the point" of the posts!.

I do believe we have a case of a "convert" to "prattle".

I think there is cause for celebration in the camp of Harley today.

--- break out the whine.