Featured Are some Baptists closer to Assembly of God than Reformed?

The hand of the LORD chose the first Baptist (Luke 1:57-66) and he was not Anglican.
In the Bible, only Aaron seems to have been "ordained", can you point out who ordained the first Roman Catholic?

 

History should actually BE History before we accept it.

"According to International Theological Commission (ITC), conflicts could not always be avoided between individuals among the New Testament communities; Paul appealed to his apostolic authority when there was a disagreement about the Gospel or principles of Christian life. How the development of apostolic government developed is difficult to say accurately because of the absence of certain documents. ITC says that the apostles or their closest assistants or their successors directed the local colleges of episkopoi and presbyteroi by the end of the first century; while by the beginning of the second century the figure of a single bishop, as the head of the communities, appears explicitly in the letters of Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35-107)"​

So for starters, "history" is being written by the International Theological Commission.

The ITC traces its origins to an idea presented at the first General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops in 1967.[5] It was established on an interim basis by Pope Paul VI on 11 April 1969.[6] His first appointments were announced on 1 May 1969. The first meeting of the ITC took place on 6–8 October 1969 and was presided over by Cardinal Franjo Šeper.[7] Four working groups were set up for the duration of the first term to explore: (i) the unity of the Faith, (ii) the priesthood, (iii) the theology of hope: the Christian Faith and the future of humanity, (iv) the criteria for Christian moral conscience.[8] The October plenary session of 1970 studied a paper on "The Priestly Ministry" prepared by the sub-commission on the priesthood.[9] At the October plenary session of 1972, the ITC studied the topic of Theological Pluralism prepared by the subcommission on the unity of the faith.[10] According to one historian, the ITC contributed the CDF's statement Mysterium Ecclesiae, issued in 1973, a wide-ranging defense of the Church in the modern world.
​

This ITC is exclusively ROMAN CATHOLIC and dates all the way back to 1969. So this is not true history, this is Revisionist History.

Let's just stick with the actual books and letters from the Bible written by and about the Apostles and what they ACTUALLY said and did. Keep your 1969 fairy tale to yourself or I may be tempted to quote an even older work ... like "The Little Drummer Boy".

 

Although the terms “bishop,” “priest,” and “deacon” were somewhat fluid in the apostolic age, by the beginning of the second century they had achieved the fixed form in which they are used today to designate the three offices whose functions are clearly distinct in the New Testament.

As the following quotations illustrate, the early Church Fathers recognized all three offices and regarded them as essential to the Church’s structure. Especially significant are the letters of Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, who traveled from his home city to Rome, where he was executed around A.D. 110. On the way he wrote letters to the churches he passed. Each of these churches possessed the same threefold ministry. Without this threefold ministry, Ignatius said, a group cannot be called a church.

 

Thankfully, we accept only the scriptures themselves!

 

Sorry, but in the New Testament, and the churches of the first century, bishop and pastor was one and the same office. That is history. In the First Epistle of Clement, Clement being a supposed "bishop" of Rome, Clement uses the terms "bishop" and "presbyter" interchangeably. All these facts prove that so-called apostolic succession is a myth, as there were no monarchial bishops before the second century. As a former Eastern Orthodox, I have studied this extensively. It's one reason I left the EOC.

 

Actually, they did not. Ignatius was projecting what he wished for the churches, not what they already had or were doing. The three offices were not established until the mid-second century or later. The true apostolic ministry was that of bishop/pastor (one office) and deacon, as shown in the New Testament. This fact in itself destroys the RCC and EOC claims to be the one true church.

 

I would.
To me, there's absolutely no reason for God's children to be concerned with such things.

From my perspective, that's being "of it".
Those are all worldly venues, and will pass away when the Lord comes again.

He tells us that this world is not important in many places...
2 Timothy 2:4.
1 John 2:15.

 

So just let satan rule the spheres of society, and not even bother to try to redeem it for the Lord, or else offer healthy alternatives?

 

Yes, in the early church, were deacons and then elders/pastors/overseers/bishops all pretty much same thing!

 

EOC claims to be the true Mother Church, and yet they teach another Gospel, just as Rome does!

 

Jesus Christ was the first Catholic.

John Smyth who INVENTED the Baptist Faith dumped it and apologized for baptizing himself.

Baptists - Wikipedia


He was an ANGLICAN PRIEST. After he dumped Baptist denomination he made up, he wanted to be a Mennonite and wanted to be baptized again.

Even he understood the game of who baptized your first. If we trace your ancestors who baptized you and who baptized them so on and so forth. Its gonna trace to Anglican which is traced to Catholics.

Jesus Christ did not fly down in a space ship and baptized the Baptists.

At the time it really picked up with the coming English Civil war. King has his control of the Anglican Church so if you were a separatist, the Baptist faith starts looking real good.

Practically a political necessity.

 

Lets assume that is correct- - then why did Catholics stop immersion - which is the scriptural mode of baptism?[/QUOTE]

Baptism is a washing. Generally will pour water on the person, and still recognizes immersion and sprinkle as valid.

Same way people were baptized by the Holy Spirit when the Holy Spirit was POURED out on them, not immersed.

Acts 11

15And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us at the beginning. 16And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’

Acts 2

14But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words: 15For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. 16But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;

17And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:


Fell, poured out on them. Can we say wait a minute guys......they need immersion in the Holy Spirit?

What is real ironic is we don't believe baptism is just a symbol. So if you only have the facet of the holy spirit being POURED and its only a symbolic communication as far as water goes, what exactly is the big deal since in actuality the portion you don't consider symbolic is the HOLY SPIRIT being POURED?