'All Scripture'

[Martin Marprelate]

So you are saying that the definition of being a Baptist is an adult who is baptized?

You are obsessed with denominations so that you can call them 'cults.'
Baptists believe the Bible which indicates that baptism is for those who profess repentance and faith in Christ for salvation.
Baptists also believe that each church is independent, so the question of denominations should not apply.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Amen lets not add fake rules like "Scripture is the final and only authority."

Yeah! Let's make it up as we go along and burn anyone who doesn't agree with us.

 

[terrpn]

I was just curious how many here believe the Holy Spirit knew what he was doing when he wrote the scriptures verses our interpretation of Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew, etc.?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Adonia]

Baptists also believe that each church is independent, so the question of denominations should not apply.

Independent? The early Christian Church was anything but. The various churches of the Apostles times were more like parishes - all got the same teaching from one source, and the letters that make up the New Testament confirm this.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Independent? The early Christian Church was anything but. The various churches of the Apostles' times were more like parishes - all got the same teaching from one source, and the letters that make up the New Testament confirm this.

The earliest churches were independent, though not isolationist. The church at Antioch was established before the apostles knew about it (Acts 11:19-23) and when they did know about it they sent Barnabus who 'encouraged' them. There is no suggestion that he was made any sort of Bishop over them. Paul 'appointed elders' in every church he planted (Acts 14:23), but we hear of no bishops, archbishops, monseigneurs or cardinals.

Who knows how the church at Rome was founded? Presumably by the Jews mentioned in Acts 2:10 and added to by a whole host of visitors to Rome from Antioch and elsewhere who had become Christians. The whole process of growth in the 1st Century Church was messy from a worldly point of view which is doubtless why the N.T. letters are so argumentative. The process was overseen, not by over-mighty church officials, but by the Holy Spirit.

The idea of a formal 'Synod of Jerusalem' doesn't bear examination. It is simply one church (Antioch) coming to sort out another church (Jerusalem) over false teachers coming out of Judea (Acts 15:1-5) and unsettling the churches that Antioch had planted. The leaders of the Jerusalem church accepted that there had been false teaching propagated by people from their church (Acts 15:24) and did what they could to put the matter right by sending a letter round.

 

[terrpn]

The earliest churches were independent, though not isolationist. The church at Antioch was established before the apostles knew about it (Acts 11:19-23) and when they did know about it they sent Barnabus who 'encouraged' them. There is no suggestion that he was made any sort of Bishop over them. Paul 'appointed elders' in every church he planted (Acts 14:23), but we hear of no bishops, archbishops, monseigneurs or cardinals.

Who knows how the church at Rome was founded? Presumably by the Jews mentioned in Acts 2:10 and added to by a whole host of visitors to Rome from Antioch and elsewhere who had become Christians. The whole process of growth in the 1st Century Church was messy from a worldly point of view which is doubtless why the N.T. letters are so argumentative. The process was overseen, not by over-mighty church officials, but by the Holy Spirit.

The idea of a formal 'Synod of Jerusalem' doesn't bear examination. It is simply one church (Antioch) coming to sort out another church (Jerusalem) over false teachers coming out of Judea (Acts 15:1-5) and unsettling the churches that Antioch had planted. The leaders of the Jerusalem church accepted that there had been false teaching propagated by people from their church (Acts 15:24) and did what they could to put the matter right by sending a letter round.

Good stuff guys.....[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Adonia]

but we hear of no bishops, archbishops, monseigneurs or cardinals.

So? The Christian Church evolved over time and these things happened. There were no set aside buildings for worship either, yet they are common today. Are physical churches as we now know them somehow an error?

 

[JonShaff]

So? The Christian Church evolved over time and these things happened. There were no set aside buildings for worship either, yet they are common today. Are physical churches as we now know them somehow an error?

They can be, yes. Denominations are not biblical and most brick and mortar churches function from the mold of their denominational structure. Most give allegiance to their denom and not the Bible. Just like your establishment

 

[Martin Marprelate]

So? The Christian Church evolved over time and these things happened. There were no set aside buildings for worship either, yet they are common today. Are physical churches as we now know them somehow an error?

What is not commanded in the Scriptures cannot be made a norm for us today. Many churches world-wide meet in rented rooms or auditoriums and that is fine. Nor do Christians eschew amplification because it did not exist in NT times. But where there is a command or an example given to us to follow, then we must do so. To create a whole pile of church offices unknown in the Scriptures is to go way beyond the authority of the Bible.

 

[utilyan]

You are obsessed with denominations so that you can call them 'cults.'
Baptists believe the Bible which indicates that baptism is for those who profess repentance and faith in Christ for salvation.
Baptists also believe that each church is independent, so the question of denominations should not apply.

Pseudohistory

The First Baptist was an Anglican. John Smyth. And the kicker is he later left it BECAUSE HE ADMITS NO SUCCESSION, He KNEW he had zero lineage to Jesus. If for a minute he believe the "independent" joke. He wouldn't have been bothered by it all.


Who baptized him? John Smyth wiki:

====
"Since there was no other minister to administer baptism, Smyth baptized himself"

Before his death, Smyth regretted the fact that he baptized himself, and wrote a letter of apology.[6] Due to some shared views, including the Christology, he began a rapprochement with the Mennonite church .[7] This resulted in his excommunication from the church by Thomas Helwys. Smyth and part of the church joined a Mennonite church, while Helwys and another part of the church returned to England to found the first permanent Baptist church in 1611.[8]
====


Not even Jesus baptized himself.

Reformed Baptist, John Bunyan Anglican roots again.



There are ZERO baptist prior to these guys.


You got your Mennos, they dont' believe in OSAS.

You got your Anabaptist they don't believe in Faith Alone.



The point is Baptism.

We Catholics recognize Baptism even to the point a NON-CHRISTIAN can baptize you.

If you were already baptized and then decided to be Catholic, you would not be baptized again, your already son/daughter of God.

Whereas if you have to point back to lets say Anglicans where your first pastors come from and they say well all their beliefs and baptisms are false, grab their scripture and start over, Who baptized the first? Where do you even start when you have nothing.

 

[atpollard]

Pseudohistory

The First Baptist was an Anglican. John Smyth. And the kicker is he later left it BECAUSE HE ADMITS NO SUCCESSION, He KNEW he had zero lineage to Jesus. If for a minute he believe the "independent" joke. He wouldn't have been bothered by it all.


Who baptized him? John Smyth wiki:

====
"Since there was no other minister to administer baptism, Smyth baptized himself"

Before his death, Smyth regretted the fact that he baptized himself, and wrote a letter of apology.[6] Due to some shared views, including the Christology, he began a rapprochement with the Mennonite church .[7] This resulted in his excommunication from the church by Thomas Helwys. Smyth and part of the church joined a Mennonite church, while Helwys and another part of the church returned to England to found the first permanent Baptist church in 1611.[8]
====


Not even Jesus baptized himself.

Reformed Baptist, John Bunyan Anglican roots again.



There are ZERO baptist prior to these guys.


You got your Mennos, they dont' believe in OSAS.

You got your Anabaptist they don't believe in Faith Alone.



The point is Baptism.

We Catholics recognize Baptism even to the point a NON-CHRISTIAN can baptize you.

If you were already baptized and then decided to be Catholic, you would not be baptized again, your already son/daughter of God.

Whereas if you have to point back to lets say Anglicans where your first pastors come from and they say well all their beliefs and baptisms are false, grab their scripture and start over, Who baptized the first? Where do you even start when you have nothing.

Who baptized John the Baptist?
Who did Jesus baptize?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Pseudohistory

The First Baptist was an Anglican. John Smyth. And the kicker is he later left it BECAUSE HE ADMITS NO SUCCESSION, He KNEW he had zero lineage to Jesus. If for a minute he believe the "independent" joke. He wouldn't have been bothered by it all.


Who baptized him? John Smyth wiki:

====
"Since there was no other minister to administer baptism, Smyth baptized himself"

Before his death, Smyth regretted the fact that he baptized himself, and wrote a letter of apology.[6] Due to some shared views, including the Christology, he began a rapprochement with the Mennonite church .[7] This resulted in his excommunication from the church by Thomas Helwys. Smyth and part of the church joined a Mennonite church, while Helwys and another part of the church returned to England to found the first permanent Baptist church in 1611.[8]
====


Not even Jesus baptized himself.

Reformed Baptist, John Bunyan Anglican roots again.



There are ZERO baptist prior to these guys.


You got your Mennos, they dont' believe in OSAS.

You got your Anabaptist they don't believe in Faith Alone.



The point is Baptism.

We Catholics recognize Baptism even to the point a NON-CHRISTIAN can baptize you.

If you were already baptized and then decided to be Catholic, you would not be baptized again, your already son/daughter of God.

Whereas if you have to point back to lets say Anglicans where your first pastors come from and they say well all their beliefs and baptisms are false, grab their scripture and start over, Who baptized the first? Where do you even start when you have nothing.

I'm glad you headed your post 'Pseudohistory,' because that's what it is.

 

[Yeshua1]

If you want a good laugh have a fresh regenerated Calvinst read and explain revelations to us.

Since they got their superior Gnostic super powers after hearing the gospel, should be a piece of cake.

We rely upon the Holy Spirit to reveal the scriptures unto us, while catholic rely upon thhe views expressed to them thru the "Mother Church"

 

[utilyan]

We rely upon the Holy Spirit to reveal the scriptures unto us, while catholic rely upon thhe views expressed to them thru the "Mother Church"

Your holy spirit agrees with who else's holy spirit? Jim Jones' holy spirit?

Gnostics believe the holy spirit gives them the proper wisdom to understand the gospel, but they can't even agree with each other.

 

[Yeshua1]

Your holy spirit agrees with who else's holy spirit? Jim Jones' holy spirit?

Gnostics believe the holy spirit gives them the proper wisdom to understand the gospel, but they can't even agree with each other.

You would agree with false doctrines/dogmas of RCC over the inspired teachings of Jesus and His Apostles!

 

[utilyan]

You would agree with false doctrines/dogmas of RCC over the inspired teachings of Jesus and His Apostles!

You can trash talk the Catholics all you want. I don't believe in Gnostic independence of understanding the gospel.

 

[Yeshua1]

You can trash talk the Catholics all you want. I don't believe in Gnostic independence of understanding the gospel.

Neither do i, and iam am not trashing individual catholics, but the Harlot church of theirs!

 

[Adonia]

We rely upon the Holy Spirit to reveal the scriptures unto us, while catholic rely upon thhe views expressed to them thru the "Mother Church"

Whom the Holy Spirit guides in truth.

 

[Adonia]

Many churches world-wide meet in rented rooms or auditoriums and that is fine.

Yes, that is certainly fine, but the tradition became for the Christian faith to have specific places of worship - church buildings, not just auditoriums or rented rooms somewhere.

 

[Adonia]

They can be, yes. Denominations are not biblical and most brick and mortar churches function from the mold of their denominational structure. Most give allegiance to their denom and not the Bible. Just like your establishment

Having a church building can be in error? That's the first time I have heard that one. As for denominations, I see that you are part of one denomination, so yours is not biblical? Interesting.