• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Are some Baptists "historic revisionists " ?

lakeside

New Member
Since the New Testament era, the Catholic Church has always understood baptism differently, teaching that it is a sacrament which accomplishes several things, the first of which is the remission of sin, both original sin and actual sin—only original sin in the case of infants and young children, since they are incapable of actual sin; and both original and actual sin in the case of older persons.

Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added, "For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him" (2:39). We also read: "Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16). These commands are universal, not restricted to adults. Further, these commands make clear the necessary connection between baptism and salvation, a
connection explicitly stated in 1 Peter 3:21: "Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
 

McCree79

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Since the New Testament era, the Catholic Church has always understood baptism differently, teaching that it is a sacrament which accomplishes several things, the first of which is the remission of sin, both original sin and actual sin—only original sin in the case of infants and young children, since they are incapable of actual sin; and both original and actual sin in the case of older persons.

Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added, "For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him" (2:39). We also read: "Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16). These commands are universal, not restricted to adults. Further, these commands make clear the necessary connection between baptism and salvation, a
connection explicitly stated in 1 Peter 3:21: "Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

If we are to take Acts 2:38 literally as you have. Faith is not needed for salvation. So, where is the faith at in Acts 2:38??? It is in the baptism. Baptism is the outward sign of faith in Christ. So when Peter is saying be baptized, he is telling them "confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Baptism was a confession and sign of inward faith. The faith saved them. Not water.

DHK and myself have already explained Acts 22:6. Similar answer as above. It is the "calling upon his name". It is Paul's faith that saves, not water. As Paul makes clear in Titus 3:5. It is the Holy Spirit that " washes" and provides "regeneration".

As far as 1 Peter chapter 3 goes. Which part of Baptism corresponds to Noah's story? It isn't the water. Water killed, it didn't save anyone. Water was God's judgment on the earth. Faith saves, not water. Noah had saving faith, not saving water. Baptism is the expression of the faith that saves.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

BrotherJoseph

Well-Known Member
Wrong comparison. Never does the Bible say circumcision takes away sin. However, it does say repeatedly that baptism takes away sin. Acts 2:38 for example.

Brother Zenas,

In your zeal to embrace the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, you overlook that Baptism is not mentioned in 15 books of the New Testament, namely, 11 Corinthians, 1 Thess, 2 Thess, 1 Tim, 2 Tim, Titus, 2 Peter, Phil, Phm, James, 1,2, and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation. If baptism is essential to eternal life, why was it not mentioned more in the New Testament such as the words "believe" and "faith are? If the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is true, it is impossible to understand why the writers of the New Testament did not make it unmistakably clear that one must be baptized in water in order to live in heaven.

Also noteworthy is the fact that Paul did not baptize much. "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect." (1 Corinthians 1:17) Notice in this verse Paul actually makes a distinction between baptism and the gospel.

What is the gospel? "15 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand...
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:" ( 1 Corinthians 15:1,3, and 4). Paul made no mention of baptism as being part of the gospel. It is a command of God, but the Bible does not declare it as part of the gospel.

Brother Joe
 
Last edited by a moderator:

BrotherJoseph

Well-Known Member
I can tell by your postings that you are a smart guy (and I know you live in an area populated by lots of fine upstanding people) so you must know that your attempt to explain Acts 22:16 is plain malarkey.

Brother Zenas,

Paul does not in Acts 22 give all incidents connected with his conversion. Acts 9:17-18, fill out this picture, "17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. 18 And immediately (note the word immediately) there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized." (Acts 9:17-18) This shows that the scales fell from Saul's eyes before he was baptized, and that he received his sight before he was baptized. Cornelius received the Holy Ghost before he was baptized, and I claim Saul did the same. Is one who is filled with the Holy Ghost lost?

Brother Joe
 

BrotherJoseph

Well-Known Member
Titus 3:5 is very plainly speaking of water baptism.


Brother Zenas,

As far as water referenced in John 3 and also found in Titus 3: "The washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost" it is not referring to water baptism. There is a close and inseparable connection between "water" and "Spirit." The numerous washings in the Mosaic law made water familiar to the Jews as an emblem of purification. By "water and Spirit," Christ meant , "purifying Spirit," or "Holy Spirit." A similar expression is found in Matt. iii. 11---"He shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and fire."Both fire and water are purifying and powerful principles, and are used to represent the Holy Spirit.

Brother Zenas, literal water baptism is no more alluded to in John 3:5 than literal fire baptism in Matt. 3: 11. Do you think the baptism by "fire" means literal fire? Of course not! Likewise it is silly to take the water mentioned in John 3:5 as literal. In describing the heavenly or spiritual birth, water is not used in John 1:13, nor in 3: 3, 6, or 8. In the latter verse, "wind" is used to represent the Spirit, just as water is used in the fifth verse.


Brother Joe
 

lakeside

New Member
McCree/ BrotherJoseph, 1 Peter 3:21 - Peter expressly writes that “baptism, corresponding to Noah's ark, now saves you; not as a removal of dirt from the body, but for a clear conscience. “ Hence, the verse demonstrates that baptism is salvific (it saves us), and deals with the interior life of the person (purifying the conscience, like Heb. 10:22), and not the external life (removing dirt from the body). Many scholars believe the phrase "not as a removal of dirt from the body" is in reference to the Jewish ceremony of circumcision (but, at a minimum, shows that baptism is not about the exterior, but interior life). Baptism is now the “circumcision” of the new Covenant (Col. 2:11-12), but it, unlike the old circumcision, actually saves us, as Noah and his family were saved by water. Another point one of you guys brought up in a previous post, was the question of circumcision, the problem was that" the gates of heaven were not opened until the Sacrifice". Circumcision { Infants }of the Old and Infant Baptism of the New. Jewish and Christianity accepted a different cultural understanding of male and female infants.

Again, notice the parallel between Heb. 10:22 and 1 Peter 3:21: (1) Heb. 10:22 – draw near to the sanctuary (heaven) / 1 Peter 3:21 – now saves us. (2) Heb. 10:22 – sprinkled clean, washed with pure water / 1 Peter 3:20-21 – saved through water, baptism. (3) Heb. 10:22 – from an evil conscience (interior) / 1 Peter 3:21 – for a clear conscience (interior). Titus 3:6 and 1 Peter 3:21 also specifically say the grace and power of baptism comes “through Jesus Christ” (who transforms our inner nature).
 

BrotherJoseph

Well-Known Member
No. No, no no. The Spirit is not received through baptism. No where in scripture does it tell us that we receive the Spirit by being baptized. If you are teaching that then you are teaching against the Holy Scriptures of God. If we required baptism to receive the Spirit unto the second birth then we have a works salvation. Then again, Catholics have no problem with a works salvation, apparently.

Brother Tony,

I think we both know doctrine of baptismal regeneration is just another works system of false religion invented by man. It is similar to Adam and Eve in the garden usings leaves to cover up their nakedness. This represents man using the false cloak of a works religion to cover up their sin.

Brother Joe
 

BrotherJoseph

Well-Known Member
Since the New Testament era, the Catholic Church has always understood baptism differently, teaching that it is a sacrament which accomplishes several things, the first of which is the remission of sin, both original sin and actual sin—only original sin in the case of infants and young children, since they are incapable of actual sin; and both original and actual sin in the case of older persons.

Brother Lakeside,

If baptism is what takes away both original and actual sin as the Catholic church teaches, I guess God was wrong when he said Jesus does this by himself?
"when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:" (Hebrews 1:3). Notice he "purged" the elects sin by himself, at that time it was accomplished and he sat at the right hand of the Father. It does not say it was accomplished thousands of years later at the point when one is baptized.

Brother Joe
 

BrotherJoseph

Well-Known Member
McCree/ BrotherJoseph, 1 Peter 3:21 - Peter expressly writes that “baptism, corresponding to Noah's ark, now saves you; not as a removal of dirt from the body, but for a clear conscience. “ Hence, the verse demonstrates that baptism is salvific (it saves us), and deals with the interior life of the person (purifying the conscience, like Heb. 10:22), and not the external life (removing dirt from the body). Many scholars believe the phrase "not as a removal of dirt from the body" is in reference to the Jewish ceremony of circumcision (but, at a minimum, shows that baptism is not about the exterior, but interior life). Baptism is now the “circumcision” of the new Covenant (Col. 2:11-12), but it, unlike the old circumcision, actually saves us, as Noah and his family were saved by water. Another point one of you guys brought up in a previous post, was the question of circumcision, the problem was that" the gates of heaven were not opened until the Sacrifice". Circumcision { Infants }of the Old and Infant Baptism of the New. Jewish and Christianity accepted a different cultural understanding of male and female infants.

Again, notice the parallel between Heb. 10:22 and 1 Peter 3:21: (1) Heb. 10:22 – draw near to the sanctuary (heaven) / 1 Peter 3:21 – now saves us. (2) Heb. 10:22 – sprinkled clean, washed with pure water / 1 Peter 3:20-21 – saved through water, baptism. (3) Heb. 10:22 – from an evil conscience (interior) / 1 Peter 3:21 – for a clear conscience (interior). Titus 3:6 and 1 Peter 3:21 also specifically say the grace and power of baptism comes “through Jesus Christ” (who transforms our inner nature).

Brother Lakeside,

The eight souls who were saved by water, in the case of the ark, of which the saving by baptism is a like Figure, were not at the time of this saving lost people. Noah himself the scripture tells us had been a preacher of righteousness for at least 120 years. The people who were saved by water in Noah's case were in the ark and the door was shut before a drop of water fell, God put them in the ark before baptism.

Brother Joe
 

lakeside

New Member
BrotherJoseph, you are interpreting that passage wrong. I have the correct understanding but it is no sense in taking my time to write the rather lengthly explanation. I will give a snippit.... which also refers to Wis.7:26. These same terms are used of the Logos in Phito. The author now turns from the cosmological role of the preexistent Son to the redemptive work of Jesus: He brought about purification from sins and has been exalted to the right hand of God [ see Ps 110: 1 } The once humiliated and crucified Jesus has been declared God's Son, and this name shows His superiority to the angels. The reason for the author's insistence on that superiority is, among other things, that in some Jewish traditions angels were mediators of the old covenant { see Acts 7:53; Gal 3: 19 }. Finally, Jesus' superiority to the angels emphasizes the superiority of the new covenant to the old because of the heavenly priesthood of Jesus.
 

lakeside

New Member
BrotherJoseph, about the Ark and Baptism.-

The great flood is a testament to God’s hatred of sin and determination to wipe it from the face of the earth. He of course offers a way to escape the waters of destruction. He instructs Noah to build an ark which carries to safety eight people and a pair of every animal. With these, he provides the earth and the human race with a new beginning. As a sign of God’s covenant of friendship with the newly recreated world, he places a rainbow in the sky.

From the beginning, Christians have seen in this story a hint of a greater work of God that would come later. The first flood swept away the evil from the surface of the earth, but not from the hearts of the ark’s passengers. The Red Sea closing in upon Pharaoh and his armies had much the same limitation–it did not cleanse the soul of Israel.

So an even greater act of salvation was needed, one that was more radical, that penetrated to the very “root” of evil. God himself enters into our world in the form of a man, and engages in hand to hand combat with the father of lies. First Jesus himself is immersed in the waters, a sign of the destruction of sin, though he himself has no sin. Next he goes into the wilderness to strike at sin’s agent.




The wrestling match is won by the Son. This, however, is not the decisive battle. Mark is a gospel of few words and does not relate what Luke (4;13) tells us: Satan left Jesus to await another opportunity. That opportunity came later, brokered by Judas, Caiphas, and Pilate. By means of the cross, the sign of this New Covenant, Jesus decisively vanquished sin and its patron, letting loose from his pierced side a stream that was more powerful than the ancient waters traversed by Noah and Moses. Through faith and immersion in these mighty waters of baptism, sin can finally be scoured not just from the skin but from the heart, putting to death not men, but the old humanity, separated from God and infected with the disease of disobedience. The first Letter of Peter (3:20) points out something that we can easily miss–there happened to be 8 persons in the ark. Jesus rose from the day after the Sabbath, the “Eighth Day.” God created the old world in six days, rested on the seventh, and performed the new creation on the eighth. For this reason, in the early Church, baptisms did not usually take place inside the main church sanctuary. Rather, smaller buildings called baptistries were erected next door to the church. It is notably that they were generally octagonal- eight-sided. Why? Because baptism means burying the old man with Christ and emerging from the womb of the Church as a new creation, sharing in Christ’s resurrection.

Lent is a time intimately linked with baptism. In the early Church, it was the season that catechumens prepared themselves through prayer and fasting for their paschal journey to the baptistry. The faithful prayed and fasted with them. It was also the time that those who had soiled the white garments of their baptism through sin prepared for reconciliation during the sacred Triduum.

If we’re honest, all of us fall to some degree into that second category. So let us determine– through prayer, fasting, and giving–to intercede for the catechumens and candidates, and at the same time to scour lukewarmness and compromise from our own hearts. Procrastination and excuses must be put to death. Now is the acceptable time, now the day of salvation!
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
BrotherJoseph, about the Ark and Baptism.-

The great flood is a testament to God’s hatred of sin and determination to wipe it from the face of the earth. He of course offers a way to escape the waters of destruction. He instructs Noah to build an ark which carries to safety eight people and a pair of every animal. With these, he provides the earth and the human race with a new beginning. As a sign of God’s covenant of friendship with the newly recreated world, he places a rainbow in the sky.

From the beginning, Christians have seen in this story a hint of a greater work of God that would come later. The first flood swept away the evil from the surface of the earth, but not from the hearts of the ark’s passengers. The Red Sea closing in upon Pharaoh and his armies had much the same limitation–it did not cleanse the soul of Israel.
You can't even debate.
Plagiarism is not permitted here. You are to give a link or provide the source for your material, as in:
http://catholicnewslive.com/story/516308
 

lakeside

New Member
BANNER Article from The Goldstein Letters- 1956

ARTICLE 69:
ORIGIN OF THE BAPTIST CHURCH

"It is not correct to say that the Baptist church is of 17th century origin. We Baptists know that our church dates back to John the Baptist. That is one of the reasons for its name."

The above declaration was made by a gentleman who had been given a copy of The Pilot by his Catholic friend. It was one of the issues in which the attention of Rev. Moses H. Gitlin, the" Jewish (Baptist) Christian" minister, was called to the fact that the first one of the 22 now existing Baptist denominations came into existence about 16 centuries after the Holy Spirit came down upon the Apostles, and the public work of Christ's Church, the Catholic Church, began.

If what the gentleman said were so, then does his church date back to a man, and not to our Lord, Who is true God as well as true man. His church may go back to John for its method of baptizing by immersion, but not for its origin. John the Baptist was a faithful Jew and not a Christian, though he, by God's grace, recognized Jesus to be the Jewish looked-for Messiah. John's Jewish baptism was infinitely different from the Baptism Christ administered; which Christ instituted as the first of His seven Sacraments (St. Matt. 28:19-20). This was recognized by John, who said, "I have baptized you with water, but He will Baptize you with the Holy Spirit" (St. Mark 1:8).

John did not attempt to establish a Church, for he was a member of the one and only Church of God then existing, the Church of the Children of Israel. That Church functioned with Divine authority until the Veil in the Temple was rent. This was prior to the First Pentecost Day, when the Christ-instituted Catholic Church began to function.

The gentleman's claim, which is entirely unhistoric, ... The declaration that the Baptist church is of John the Baptist origin is refuted by Baptists themselves in the U.S. Report of Religious Bodies. While the unwarranted claim is made therein that the founder, authority and creed of the Baptist churches can be traced "back to the New Testament," it is asserted that the first definitely known group of "persons holding Baptist doctrines" were the Anabaptists (re-baptizers). Their organizer and leader was Thomas Munzer (1521), who revolted against Luther. He opposed infant Baptism, holding that persons Baptized in infancy, should be reBaptized upon becoming adults. Driven by Luther from Germany to the Low countries, some Anabaptists were gathered together by Menno Simons (an unfrocked Catholic priest) into groups known as Mennonites. "To their influence," the Report says, "in all probability, the English Baptists owe their churches, established in Amsterdam in 1608 and London in 1611." The English minister of the first Baptist church was John Smyth, a former Anglican minister. So while the Baptists, if they desire, may trace their Baptism by immersion to the Jewish baptism of John the Baptist, they cannot legitimately trace their origin as a distinct religious denomination further back than 1608 and 1611, even though they claim to have been "influenced, in all probability," by the Anabaptists, as they say in the Report of Religious Bodies.

The Baptists are convicted of error "out of their own mouth" in the Report of Religious Bodies. Therein they prove themselves to have been of the 17th century origin as a distinctive Protestant congregation; whereas the Church that Christ established dates from the Year 33 A. D., which is 1575 years before John Smyth organized the first Baptist church congregation.
Our insistence upon the historic fact of the Apostolic origin of the Catholic Church, and her unbroken record of organic existence throughout the Christian ages, is, and will continue to be resented by the Baptists. They repudiate submission to a living authority in religion; while they declare that their "cardinal principle is implicit obedience to the plain Word of God"; which Word of God evidences the institution by Christ of the authority they repudiate.

What, but an erroneous concept of the Word of God, prompted Dr. Edward Hughes Pruden, pastor of the First Baptist church of Washington, which President Truman attends, to repudiate the suggestion of Pope Pius XII, that all Christians be united in one Church, on the ground that "it seems to me utterly foreign to the spirit of the New Testament?" Surely there are numerous texts in the New Testament that call for a unified belief, and unification of spiritual authority, such as exist in the Catholic Church. In fact, the oneness, doctrinally and authoritatively, in the Catholic Church, is a New Testament credential that proves her to be of Christ.

Here are a few of many such texts. St. John 10:16-17 tells of the readiness of Christ to lay down His life to have all His sheep in "one fold": St. Paul identifies the members of Christ's Church, the "body of Christ," with members of the human body in 1 Cor. 12, and not a hundred kind of bodies, such as make up Protestantism: St. Matthew 16:18 plainly declares that Christ would build a Church, not churches, as He did, against which the "gates of Hell" would endeavor to prevail, as they have against the Catholic Church throughout the Christian ages, but without success. St. Matthew 18:17 contains the command to "hear the Church" and Romans 15:6 calls upon Christians to "glorify God with one mind and one mouth." This last named text alone proves that "it is utterly foreign to the spirit of the New Testament" to assume that the will of Christ can be expressed through the minds and mouths of 22 different kinds of Baptist churches, and a couple of hundred kinds of other Protestant churches.

If Dr. Pruden and his fellow-Baptists were to follow "the spirit of the New Testament" texts named in the above paragraph, they would graduate from their 17th century Baptist churches, into the Church Catholic, that is of first century origin. We hope a copy of the issue of The Pilot, in which this answer to the Baptist gentleman appears, will be passed on to him for consideration.

Wholesale Baptisms at ponds, rivers and seashores are like picnics, in that they disarrange and clutter up the places where they are held. They caused the following advertisement to be inserted in The Cape Cod Guide: "Positively no more baptizing in my pasture. Twice in the last two months my gate has been left open by religious people, and before I chase my heifers all over the country again, all sinners can go to Purgatory."
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
BANNER Article from The Goldstein Letters- 1956

ARTICLE 69:
ORIGIN OF THE BAPTIST CHURCH

"It is not correct to say that the Baptist church is of 17th century origin. We Baptists know that our church dates back to John the Baptist. That is one of the reasons for its name."
That is how some view Baptist History. It is the view of some. There are many kinds of Baptists, and there are many kinds of Catholics with doctrines that have changed throughout history.
The above declaration was made by a gentleman who had been given a copy of The Pilot by his Catholic friend. It was one of the issues in which the attention of Rev. Moses H. Gitlin, the" Jewish (Baptist) Christian" minister, was called to the fact that the first one of the 22 now existing Baptist denominations came into existence about 16 centuries after the Holy Spirit came down upon the Apostles, and the public work of Christ's Church, the Catholic Church, began.
The RCC began with Constantine in the 4th century. Baptists or those with Baptistic beliefs (though called by another name) existed from the apostles onward.
If what the gentleman said were so, then does his church date back to a man, and not to our Lord, Who is true God as well as true man.
I believe his reasoning would go like this:
Christ built His Church on The Rock, not Peter. The Rock, Jesus Christ, was baptized by John, and that is when His ministry began. It began with John.
His church may go back to John for its method of baptizing by immersion, but not for its origin. John the Baptist was a faithful Jew and not a Christian, though he, by God's grace, recognized Jesus to be the Jewish looked-for Messiah. John's Jewish baptism was infinitely different from the Baptism Christ administered; which Christ instituted as the first of His seven Sacraments (St. Matt. 28:19-20). This was recognized by John, who said, "I have baptized you with water, but He will Baptize you with the Holy Spirit" (St. Mark 1:8).
Did John baptize Jesus? For what reason?
Did Jesus ministry start with John?
John did not attempt to establish a Church, for he was a member of the one and only Church of God then existing, the Church of the Children of Israel. That Church functioned with Divine authority until the Veil in the Temple was rent. This was prior to the First Pentecost Day, when the Christ-instituted Catholic Church began to function.
The church is made up of a bride and a bridegroom. John is called a friend of the bridegroom, and thus still a part of the wedding. I believe he will still be there, don't you?
The gentleman's claim, which is entirely unhistoric, ... The declaration that the Baptist church is of John the Baptist origin is refuted by Baptists themselves in the U.S. Report of Religious Bodies.
Are they inspired?
You forget that Baptists believe in soul liberty. The RCC denies this.
Even America grants this basic freedom, the freedom of religion, the freedom of expression of belief, in fact all of your basic freedoms comes right back to his one freedom expressed in soul liberty. The RCC denied it:
As in the other thread I posted, to allow others to have any kind of freedom at all was anathema. The founders of America fled to this nation because of the persecution of the RCC looking for freedom.
While the unwarranted claim is made therein that the founder, authority and creed of the Baptist churches can be traced "back to the New Testament," it is asserted that the first definitely known group of "persons holding Baptist doctrines" were the Anabaptists (re-baptizers).
The Waldenses existed from the Apostles. Their character and beliefs were attested by a Catholic, Cardinal Hosius, who also attested that they existed from the apostles onward.
Their organizer and leader was Thomas Munzer (1521), who revolted against Luther. He opposed infant Baptism, holding that persons Baptized in infancy, should be reBaptized upon becoming adults. Driven by Luther from Germany to the Low countries, some Anabaptists were gathered together by Menno Simons (an unfrocked Catholic priest) into groups known as Mennonites. "To their influence," the Report says, "in all probability, the English Baptists owe their churches, established in Amsterdam in 1608 and London in 1611." The English minister of the first Baptist church was John Smyth, a former Anglican minister. So while the Baptists, if they desire, may trace their Baptism by immersion to the Jewish baptism of John the Baptist, they cannot legitimately trace their origin as a distinct religious denomination further back than 1608 and 1611, even though they claim to have been "influenced, in all probability," by the Anabaptists, as they say in the Report of Religious Bodies.
The Munzer uprising was more political than anything else and cannot be pinned on the Baptists or anabaptists. Study your history.
The Baptists are convicted of error "out of their own mouth" in the Report of Religious Bodies. Therein they prove themselves to have been of the 17th century origin as a distinctive Protestant congregation; whereas the Church that Christ established dates from the Year 33 A. D., which is 1575 years before John Smyth organized the first Baptist church congregation.
Our insistence upon the historic fact of the Apostolic origin of the Catholic Church, and her unbroken record of organic existence throughout the Christian ages, is, and will continue to be resented by the Baptists. They repudiate submission to a living authority in religion; while they declare that their "cardinal principle is implicit obedience to the plain Word of God"; which Word of God evidences the institution by Christ of the authority they repudiate.
Your ignorance is astounding. Study some actual Baptist History books which have previously been recommended to you. The Church that Christ established is a "Baptist" church. The RCC did not originate until the 4th century with Constantine. Get your facts straight.
What, but an erroneous concept of the Word of God, prompted Dr. Edward Hughes Pruden, pastor of the First Baptist church of Washington, which President Truman attends, to repudiate the suggestion of Pope Pius XII, that all Christians be united in one Church, on the ground that "it seems to me utterly foreign to the spirit of the New Testament?" Surely there are numerous texts in the New Testament that call for a unified belief, and unification of spiritual authority, such as exist in the Catholic Church.
And when various Popes failed at uniting them they went on a killing spree and committed genocide in the name of Christ killing those who would not bow the knee to the current pope. This was the method of the RCC. It started with Constantine, carried over to Innocent III, and was also carried on by other Popes. Unification by murder--the Crusades; the Inquisitions--this was their methodology, historically.
You say this is the love of Christ. You are deluded.
In fact, the oneness, doctrinally and authoritatively, in the Catholic Church, is a New Testament credential that proves her to be of Christ.
Yeah, right!

Here are a few of many such texts. St. John 10:16-17 tells of the readiness of Christ to lay down His life to have all His sheep in "one fold": St. Paul identifies the members of Christ's Church, the "body of Christ," with members of the human body in 1 Cor. 12, and not a hundred kind of bodies, such as make up Protestantism: St. Matthew 16:18 plainly declares that Christ would build a Church, not churches, as He did, against which the "gates of Hell" would endeavor to prevail, as they have against the Catholic Church throughout the Christian ages, but without success. St. Matthew 18:17 contains the command to "hear the Church" and Romans 15:6 calls upon Christians to "glorify God with one mind and one mouth." This last named text alone proves that "it is utterly foreign to the spirit of the New Testament" to assume that the will of Christ can be expressed through the minds and mouths of 22 different kinds of Baptist churches, and a couple of hundred kinds of other Protestant churches.
The RCC never has fit the definition of ekklesia. It is a monstrous business that does not fit the definition of assembly or congregation. There is no hierarchy in an ekklesia, in the NT. Even in verses you quote, like Mat.18:17, it is an impossibility for the RCC to carry out this command, and it never has. So your defense is just window-dressing, hypocritical. You don't know what a church is.
If Dr. Pruden and his fellow-Baptists were to follow "the spirit of the New Testament" texts named in the above paragraph, they would graduate from their 17th century Baptist churches, into the Church Catholic, that is of first century origin. We hope a copy of the issue of The Pilot, in which this answer to the Baptist gentleman appears, will be passed on to him for consideration.
What? And follow the example of murder to gain unity, or today: getting behind the terrorist and anti-Israel groups for peace sake.
I don't think so.
Wholesale Baptisms at ponds, rivers and seashores are like picnics, in that they disarrange and clutter up the places where they are held. They caused the following advertisement to be inserted in The Cape Cod Guide: "Positively no more baptizing in my pasture. Twice in the last two months my gate has been left open by religious people, and before I chase my heifers all over the country again, all sinners can go to Purgatory."
And this came from where? Was quoted by whom? and for what purpose?
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
" We Baptists know that our church dates back to John the Baptist. That is one of the reasons for its name."
That is how some view Baptist History.
Really? I know of Landmarkism, the Trail of Blood, etc., but I’ve never heard the statement that Baptists date back to John the Baptist..... except in jest. That’s hilarious….and if true kinda sad (Catholics believe that they date back to the Apostolic Church…I suppose ignorance can cross religious boundaries).
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Baptists or those with Baptistic beliefs (though called by another name) existed from the apostles onward.
That is wishful thinking on your part. There is no support for that fantasy.

The church is made up of a bride and a bridegroom.
No, the Church is composed of the Body of Christ i.e. the Bride.

The Waldenses existed from the Apostles.
Of course not. The Waldensians were named after Peter Waldo (1140-1205). They started in the 12th century.
Their character and beliefs were attested by a Catholic, Cardinal Hosius, who also attested that they existed from the apostles onward.
Cite an actual statement from his complete works to substantiate your assertion. Hosius lumped many who opposed Roman Catholicism as being Anabaptists.
The Church that Christ established is a "Baptist" church.
How silly of you --utterly silly. For you to make that kind of statement is against all reason. I suppose that you would want to further define the pure Church that Christ establised is IFB!
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
How silly of you --utterly silly. For you to make that kind of statement is against all reason. I suppose that you would want to further define the pure Church that Christ establised is IFB!
I believe that the church we read of in Acts chapter two was the First Baptist Church of Jerusalem, an IFB church. :D

I do not believe in a typical Landmarkist view.
I do not believe in successionism.
I do believe in what is called the "spiritual kinship theory."
That is simply that in every age since the apostles there existed churches that have beliefs similar to what Baptists have today. God never left himself without a witness.

In a similar vein our church patterns itself after the NT churches that we read of in the NT. The head of our church is Christ, the foundation is the Word of God. We are not denominational, and against your protestations do not belong to the "Baptist denomination" and did not have its origins in the Reformation.
We are not Protestants.
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
against your protestations do not belong to the "Baptist denomination"
I didn't say Baptists are a singular denomination. Obviously with widely divergent doctrinal views that can't be the case.
and did not have its origins in the Reformation.
Baptists, both General and Particular, came out of the Separatists --Independents, Congregationalists -which all stemmed from a Reformational background and English Puritanism.

We are not Protestants.
De Nile is a major river in Africa.
 
Top