Ezekiel 36 and Psalm 51 are excellent references. It is clear that God is only interested in inner or spiritual cleansing, not outward. Water can only cleanse the body, not the spirit. Washing with water can only symbolize the inner, spiritual cleansing done by the Holy Spirit; water cannot produce such cleansing. If it could, we should go and hose down the neighborhood using the baptismal formula, and bring people into the kingdom en masse.
-
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 " ?
- Thread starter lakeside
- Start date
Ezekiel 36 and Psalm 51 are excellent references. It is clear that God is only interested in inner or spiritual cleansing, not outward. Water can only cleanse the body, not the spirit. Washing with water can only symbolize the inner, spiritual cleansing done by the Holy Spirit; water cannot produce such cleansing. If it could, we should go and hose down the neighborhood using the baptismal formula, and bring people into the kingdom en masse.
Universalism comes Origen. In the early to mid 3rd century. He taught that everyone, including rebellious humans and demons, would be brought to back to divine favor. His disciples, Gregory Thamumaturgus, and Dionysius of Alexandria, popularized Origen's theology.
I see you listed Pelagians among the false religions. Pope Zosmius public approved the doctrine of Pelagius. It wasn't until Emperor Honorius issued an edict against the Pope, condemning the heresy, that Zomius changes his stance. So, if Pelaguis was a heretic, so was the Pope, who was corrected by the emperor. Who was forced by the emperor to change his stance This crushes papal infallibility of faith and morals.
*... And since Rome and the western church all taught the teaching of Pelagius until the Emperor forced them to stop, the RCC needs to on your list of false religions in the 5th century.
Last edited by a moderator:
McCree, you see how you anti- Catholic mess up all the time protesting against Christ's Church with your revisionists history,
Full Question - McCree and other protesters say; "I see you listed Pelagians among the false religions. Pope Zosmius public approved the doctrine of Pelagius. It wasn't until Emperor Honorius issued an edict against the Pope, condemning the heresy, that Zomius changes his stance. So, if Pelaguis was a heretic, so was the Pope, who was corrected by the emperor. Who was forced by the emperor to change his stance This crushes papal infallibility of faith and morals.
*... And since Rome and the western church all taught the teaching of Pelagius until the Emperor forced them to stop, the RCC needs to on your list of false religions in the 5th century.
Papal infallibility can't be true because Pope Zozimus pronounced Pelagius to be orthodox and later reversed himself. What do you have to say to that?
Answer
Zozimus (reigned 417-418) was approached by Caelestius, who brought a profession of faith from Pelagius for the Pope's examination. Zozimus examined Caelestius and the profession and found nothing heretical in them. He said the African bishops' condemnation of Pelagius and Caelestius had been hasty and instructed Africans with charges against them to appear in Rome for further investigation.
This prompted outrage among the African bishops since they considered the Pelagian controversy to have been closed by Zozimus's predecessor, Innocent I. Zozimus responded by stressing the primacy of the Roman see and by explaining to them that he had not settled the matter definitively and that he did not intend to do so without consulting them. He said that his predecessor's decision remained in effect until he had finished investigating the matter.
The bishops provided Zozimus with additional evidence against Pelagius, and the Pope condemned Pelagianism. His initial assessment had been a tentative judgment, based on partial evidence. He did not issue a definitive judgment, much less a doctrinal definition, as indicated by the fact he asked for additional evidence to be sent to Rome. The case of Zozimus thus does not touch the doctrine of papal infallibility.
Full Question - McCree and other protesters say; "I see you listed Pelagians among the false religions. Pope Zosmius public approved the doctrine of Pelagius. It wasn't until Emperor Honorius issued an edict against the Pope, condemning the heresy, that Zomius changes his stance. So, if Pelaguis was a heretic, so was the Pope, who was corrected by the emperor. Who was forced by the emperor to change his stance This crushes papal infallibility of faith and morals.
*... And since Rome and the western church all taught the teaching of Pelagius until the Emperor forced them to stop, the RCC needs to on your list of false religions in the 5th century.
Papal infallibility can't be true because Pope Zozimus pronounced Pelagius to be orthodox and later reversed himself. What do you have to say to that?
Answer
Zozimus (reigned 417-418) was approached by Caelestius, who brought a profession of faith from Pelagius for the Pope's examination. Zozimus examined Caelestius and the profession and found nothing heretical in them. He said the African bishops' condemnation of Pelagius and Caelestius had been hasty and instructed Africans with charges against them to appear in Rome for further investigation.
This prompted outrage among the African bishops since they considered the Pelagian controversy to have been closed by Zozimus's predecessor, Innocent I. Zozimus responded by stressing the primacy of the Roman see and by explaining to them that he had not settled the matter definitively and that he did not intend to do so without consulting them. He said that his predecessor's decision remained in effect until he had finished investigating the matter.
The bishops provided Zozimus with additional evidence against Pelagius, and the Pope condemned Pelagianism. His initial assessment had been a tentative judgment, based on partial evidence. He did not issue a definitive judgment, much less a doctrinal definition, as indicated by the fact he asked for additional evidence to be sent to Rome. The case of Zozimus thus does not touch the doctrine of papal infallibility.
PreachTony
Active Member
He never replied to me in posts 19 and 20, either...
and who does that remind you of....
PreachTony
Active Member
Oh, I can think of one or two different people who it reminds me of...but lakeside has never accused me of rabbit trailing, nor has he ever handed me a rabbit for those trails...
Hey guys, I'm sorry but I have been busy outside.[working on my wood-fired pizza oven ] I am only one while you are three or four asking me questions, believe me I've asked all those questions that you ask me when I was a Baptist, the answers I received back were really from Catholic apologists, quite detailed stemming only from Sacred Scripture, I am not a Catholic apologist, I am just a neophyte, so I am still learning the Faith. If you both would ask me your most important questions, one from each of you please, I will try and do my best to get back to both of you,
I have always found the historical argument for the Catholic Church utterly compelling:
1. Jesus Christ established a Church (not several, or several thousand).
2. The only Church which can trace its lineage unbroken to the time of Christ and the apostles is the Catholic Church.
3. And therefore, Jesus Christ established the Catholic Church.
Why am I a Catholic? Because I wish to belong to the Church which Christ himself established, the Church of which he said, "the powers of death shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:18).
Baptist Successionism?
Some (few) Baptists have claimed that they too can trace their lineage back to the time of Christ and the apostles.
This idea was popularized in the early 20th century by Baptist pastor, and historian, James M. Carroll who wrote a book entitled Trail of Blood. In it Carroll claims that the Baptist church, as it is known today, descended through history under different names, such as the Anabaptists, Montanists, and Novations.
At first, this may sound tenable, but when you actually look at these groups, and what they taught, you see very quickly that their theology was anything but Baptist.
The Anabaptists denied that a person is saved by faith alone.[2]
The Montanists taught that "God, not being able to save the world by Moses and the Prophets, took flesh of the Virgin Mary, and in Christ, His Son, preached and died for us. And because He could not accomplish the salvation of the world by this second method, the Holy Spirit descended upon Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla, giving them the plenitude which St. Paul had not (1 Corinthians 13:9). [1]
The Novatians refused readmission to communion of baptized Christians who had denied their faith. [3]
"For proponents [of Baptist Successionism], writes Fr. Dwight Longenecker, "the fact that there is no historical proof for their theory simply shows how good the Catholic Church was at persecution and cover-up. Baptist Successionism can never be disproved because all that is required for their succession to be transmitted was a small group of faithful people somewhere at some time who kept the flame of the true faith alive. The authors of this "history" skim happily over the heretical beliefs of their supposed forefathers in the faith. It is sufficient that all these groups were opposed to, and persecuted by, the Catholics."
Thankfully intellectually honest Baptists, such as James McGoldrick who was once himself a believer in Baptist successionism are conceding that this "trail of blood" view is, frankly, bogus. McGoldrick writes:
Extensive graduate study and independent investigation of church history has, however, convinced [the author] that the view he once held so dear has not been, and cannot be, verified. On the contrary, surviving primary documents render the successionist view untenable. . . . Although free church groups in ancient and medieval times sometimes promoted doctrines and practices agreeable to modern Baptists, when judged by standards now acknowledged as baptistic, not one of them merits recognition as a Baptist church. Baptists arose in the 17th century in Holland and England. They are Protestants, heirs of the reformers. (Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History [1994], 1–2)
We should applaud these Baptists for desiring to be part of the Church Christ established, and then, with gentleness and reverence point them away from fallacious history to actual history, and let the evidence speak for itself. For as convert, John Henry Newman wrote: to be steeped in history, is to cease to be Protestant.
Matt Fradd is Australian by birth and Catholic by choice. After experiencing a profound conversion at World Youth Day in Rome in 2000, Matt committed himself to inviting others to know Jesus Christ and the Church He founded. As a missionary in Canada and Ireland, Matt proclaimed the Gospel to over ten...
more...
1. Jesus Christ established a Church (not several, or several thousand).
2. The only Church which can trace its lineage unbroken to the time of Christ and the apostles is the Catholic Church.
3. And therefore, Jesus Christ established the Catholic Church.
Why am I a Catholic? Because I wish to belong to the Church which Christ himself established, the Church of which he said, "the powers of death shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:18).
Baptist Successionism?
Some (few) Baptists have claimed that they too can trace their lineage back to the time of Christ and the apostles.
This idea was popularized in the early 20th century by Baptist pastor, and historian, James M. Carroll who wrote a book entitled Trail of Blood. In it Carroll claims that the Baptist church, as it is known today, descended through history under different names, such as the Anabaptists, Montanists, and Novations.
At first, this may sound tenable, but when you actually look at these groups, and what they taught, you see very quickly that their theology was anything but Baptist.
The Anabaptists denied that a person is saved by faith alone.[2]
The Montanists taught that "God, not being able to save the world by Moses and the Prophets, took flesh of the Virgin Mary, and in Christ, His Son, preached and died for us. And because He could not accomplish the salvation of the world by this second method, the Holy Spirit descended upon Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla, giving them the plenitude which St. Paul had not (1 Corinthians 13:9). [1]
The Novatians refused readmission to communion of baptized Christians who had denied their faith. [3]
"For proponents [of Baptist Successionism], writes Fr. Dwight Longenecker, "the fact that there is no historical proof for their theory simply shows how good the Catholic Church was at persecution and cover-up. Baptist Successionism can never be disproved because all that is required for their succession to be transmitted was a small group of faithful people somewhere at some time who kept the flame of the true faith alive. The authors of this "history" skim happily over the heretical beliefs of their supposed forefathers in the faith. It is sufficient that all these groups were opposed to, and persecuted by, the Catholics."
Thankfully intellectually honest Baptists, such as James McGoldrick who was once himself a believer in Baptist successionism are conceding that this "trail of blood" view is, frankly, bogus. McGoldrick writes:
Extensive graduate study and independent investigation of church history has, however, convinced [the author] that the view he once held so dear has not been, and cannot be, verified. On the contrary, surviving primary documents render the successionist view untenable. . . . Although free church groups in ancient and medieval times sometimes promoted doctrines and practices agreeable to modern Baptists, when judged by standards now acknowledged as baptistic, not one of them merits recognition as a Baptist church. Baptists arose in the 17th century in Holland and England. They are Protestants, heirs of the reformers. (Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History [1994], 1–2)
We should applaud these Baptists for desiring to be part of the Church Christ established, and then, with gentleness and reverence point them away from fallacious history to actual history, and let the evidence speak for itself. For as convert, John Henry Newman wrote: to be steeped in history, is to cease to be Protestant.
Matt Fradd is Australian by birth and Catholic by choice. After experiencing a profound conversion at World Youth Day in Rome in 2000, Matt committed himself to inviting others to know Jesus Christ and the Church He founded. As a missionary in Canada and Ireland, Matt proclaimed the Gospel to over ten...
more...
I have a few questions here
# 1 & 2 is yes or no
#3 - one sentence answer should be sufficient
#4 - Max of 2 or 3 sentences would be sufficient
1) do you believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation
2) Do you believe in purgatory?
3) Why does the RCC sprinkle infants
4) How does a person ensure he will go to Heaven
Scripture would be a nice bonus
Perhaps you would benefit from a deeper examination of history. You have posted a detailed list, but you do not seem to express an understanding of the circumstances, changes, and debates that were going on throughout history. It appears as if you merely adapted a Catholic apologetic site as your history (granted, appearances are sometimes wrong). But the Catholic Church is far from the Church that existed during the early church era. I wouldn't even say that it's doctrine is the same as it was prior to the Great Schism...and that was a late event. My advise is to pause and legitimately study history (not from a subjective and biased Catholic or non-Catholic perspective, but from a secular and objective point of view).
But back to the pizza oven. Is it an outside oven and if so did you buy it or build it?
Last edited by a moderator:
PreachTony
Active Member
Please provide the scripture where Jesus established an earthly, physical church. He speaks of His church, but we've explained to you before that this is the body of all believers, which the writer of Hebrews called the General Assembly and Church of the Firstborn.
Considering the Catholic Church as (even remotely close to organized today) didn't come about until the 4th Century AD, this statement is incorrect. Even beyond that, your efforts to prop up the Catholic Church of Rome seem to cast doubt and indignation on the churches that Paul established, along with the other apostles. These individual churches were not united, but were instead autonomous, yet capable of dealing with the needs of their local populace.
Seeing as statements 1 and 2 are incorrect, this statement has truly lost both legs on which to stand.
Again, that church is the body of all believers...not the Roman Catholic Church.
I don't need to trace my church's lineage back to a disciple. So long as our practices, doctrines, and traditions line up with God's Holy Scripture, then we're fine.
So you just copy-and-pasted this website: http://www.catholic.com/blog/matt-fradd/one-holy-baptist-and-apostolic-church
What does it matter if your church's physical genealogy can be traced to the apostles? So long as you hold the doctrines they taught, as revealed by the scripture, then you're okay. Unfortunately for you, the RCC does not hold to the apostle's doctrine.
Each group you have called out has been a creation of fallible men in a sinful world. You point out, and rightly so, that they fail to follow scripture...yet your church does the same. As does mine. As does any other member of the BB. Why? Because we are human, and we fail.. We sin and we come short.
So you would have us all be Catholic, eh? You want us to join up with a church that baptizes people without a profession of faith, contrary to the scriptures? You want us to join a church that reverences a man above others, contrary to the scripture? You want us to join a church that baptizes infants based on statements of faith from their parents, contrary to the scripture?
No thanks. I'll stick with my independent Baptist church any day of the week.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salty View Post
Lakeside,
Any particular reason, you haven't answered my simple questions?
I have a few questions here
# 1 & 2 is yes or no
#3 - one sentence answer should be sufficient
#4 - Max of 2 or 3 sentences would be sufficient
1) do you believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation---Yes as per Bible
2) Do you believe in purgatory? ----- Yes as per Bible
3) Why does the RCC sprinkle infants ---- infants are baptized and later at the age of reasoning they acknowledge their acceptance of Jesus, its called First Communion and then again later all Catholics make their Confirmation [ they become ''soldiers of Christ " ] A properly catechized Catholic accepts Jesus actually more times into their hearts and minds more than any member of other non-Catholic churches.
4) How does a person ensure he will go to Heaven--- from the Bible-- " Then the king will say to those on his right hand. Come, blessed of my Father, take possession of the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world"
Scripture would be a nice bonus
Originally Posted by Salty View Post
Lakeside,
Any particular reason, you haven't answered my simple questions?
I have a few questions here
# 1 & 2 is yes or no
#3 - one sentence answer should be sufficient
#4 - Max of 2 or 3 sentences would be sufficient
1) do you believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation---Yes as per Bible
2) Do you believe in purgatory? ----- Yes as per Bible
3) Why does the RCC sprinkle infants ---- infants are baptized and later at the age of reasoning they acknowledge their acceptance of Jesus, its called First Communion and then again later all Catholics make their Confirmation [ they become ''soldiers of Christ " ] A properly catechized Catholic accepts Jesus actually more times into their hearts and minds more than any member of other non-Catholic churches.
4) How does a person ensure he will go to Heaven--- from the Bible-- " Then the king will say to those on his right hand. Come, blessed of my Father, take possession of the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world"
Scripture would be a nice bonus
Last edited by a moderator:
JonC, you asked: "But back to the pizza oven. Is it an outside oven and if so did you buy it or build it? "
I am building it with High -Heat Mortar,[ refractory] Firebrick, reg. brick and extensive stonework ,also using multi-layered ceramic insulation batts around dome [ Bee-Hive shape] and ceramic boards underneath the firebrick floor , high temperature material. Can cook just about everything in it. Holds high heat for days. Moist cooking.It is an outside oven.
No, not a kit, thanks for asking. A kit is very good, but I believe mine is better insulated with a larger cooking surface.
I am building it with High -Heat Mortar,[ refractory] Firebrick, reg. brick and extensive stonework ,also using multi-layered ceramic insulation batts around dome [ Bee-Hive shape] and ceramic boards underneath the firebrick floor , high temperature material. Can cook just about everything in it. Holds high heat for days. Moist cooking.It is an outside oven.
No, not a kit, thanks for asking. A kit is very good, but I believe mine is better insulated with a larger cooking surface.
PreachTony, you wrote: "but we've explained to you before that this is the body of all believers, which the writer of Hebrews called the General Assembly and Church of the Firstborn."
It is all members that make up His singular church, Jesus never used the plural "churches".
It is all members that make up His singular church, Jesus never used the plural "churches".
PreachTony
Active Member
He also never planted churches like the apostles did. Your insistence that there is only one true church renders the work of the apostles moot. Paul's planted churches were, within a short time of their planting, already struggling with sin. Paul never tried to tell Corinth to do the same thing the Ephesus was doing. He never told Philippi to do what Colosse was doing. They were simply instructed to follow the gospel.