Baptism Rome vs Protestant

[David Lamb]

Also, as I'm sure you are aware, the first Baptists were not attempting to reform the Church of England - it was the Presbyterians who were hoping for that - but were themselves convinced Independents and were simply seeking to organize independent churches that practiced Believers' Baptism.

Yes, Thanks, Martin, that makes it clearer.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I have no objections to what you stated interestingly re-termed "Family" Covenant. And I'm glad you didn't convey replacement theology.

Are you for hire to interpret or be my acting liaison?

Have a good day @atpollard.

 

[atpollard]

To whom?

“Creeds are useful.” was merely an answer to your question “What are you trying to tell me?” … that is what he was trying to tell you.

 

[atpollard]

RE: THE HOLY TRINITY

We believe in one God, and that the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost are One, eternal, immutable, infinite in wisdom, power, justice, holiness, mercy, and truth. (Deuteronomy 6:4; 1 Corinthians 8:6; 1 John 5:7; Matthew 28:19)

FYI: THAT is a creed. Those exact words in that exact form are not found in scripture, but (you believe) scripture does teach that truth (within the verses you referenced).

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

FYI: THAT is a creed. Those exact words in that exact form are not found in scripture, but (you believe) scripture does teach that truth (within the verses you referenced).

I still do not like creeds, dogma etc., the Roman Catholic Church I was raised up in has far too much of that in addition to religious traditions, statues, rosaries, Novitas, holy obligation days etc., however I will by command hold to scripture which provides us Amazing Grace & Providence. Truth be told I seek to Be a Radical…one that moves beyond the liberal & conservative branches of an institution and goes back to a fundamental questioning. The dictionary says that a radical is one “who goes back to the root, the source, the fundamentals.”

This is different from someone who wants to update or accommodate to the present situation. There is a place for such reform, but that is not the primary concern of a true radical.. Neither is a radical the same as a traditionalist or a conservative, who usually doesn’t go back far enough. A radical will at different times look like both of these types, yet is neither of them at all. Think of us as striking at the root of the tree in order to serve His will …So He isn’t asking us to change as to CHANGE!!!

And while I’m at it, I will go so far as to say that this area that I now live in requires Radical Change in order to fulfill His requirements. How that will happen I do not know, only that He has demanded its change….and I’m an instrument in it.

 

[JesusFan]

For myself, it is easier. Especially when providing scriptural verses, if the person won't reference the Scriptures or consider what is said why take any more time?

For example, the WCF was painstakingly articulated, sometimes a single sentence took months to compile. The sentence was considered and debated before being written. Reformed right in the first chapter of the WCF believe as what is stated on the topic of Sola Scriptura:

IV. The authority of the holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the Author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.a

a. 1 Thes 2:13; 2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:19, 21; 1 John 5:9.


X. The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.a

a. Mat 22:29, 31; Eph 2:20 with Acts 28:25.

The Westminster Confession

The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646-1647) with Scripture Proofs

thewestminsterstandard.org

Just saying that by personal experience, have dealt with other Reformed that seemed to use and quote much more their Confessions then their bible, and seemed to judge orthodoxy but hw others saw Confessions and Creeds

 

[JesusFan]

I think you and I may have had the discussion about Acts 2 following a formula for establishing a “covenant” (contract) parallel to the steps God followed to establish a contract with the nation of Israel. It was fascinating and enlightening. Thus while I may still disagree with Presbyterian “covenant theology” and their reasons for baptizing “Paedo” (families) … which is a good thing since I am a Baptist who embraces a “Credo” (professing belief) baptism … I at least have a working understanding of WHY they believe WHAT they believe.

All comes back to just how "new the new Covenant was"

 

[JesusFan]

I agree, and I have no objections against adult credo baptism. However, I do not agree children should be excluded from the promise of G-d. It's when some whether Baptist or not try to convince somebody their baptism was always void and they need to be rebaptized. I do respect my new church and membership at my Lutheran church. Children when they reach the age of reason confirm their faith rather than being rebaptized. Needlessly said, consider some of the opposition to the Christian faith in general (atheist) who'd go so far to suggest post birth infants are not persons and promote infanticide. That's because they define person in secular terms according to Descartes, Freud, or Jung, none of which would be correct defining person of the topic of the divine.

The whole thing to remember, when observing us Reformed Protestants, we are a bunch of do nothings. Martin Luther said that, and what he meant to convey was soteriology is monergism.

I miss our time together, we spent what almost a decade online sometime near every day?

Is Lutheryn salvation really Monergism though, since requires water baptism and partaking of communion ?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

All comes back to just how "new the new Covenant was"

There is more to it than that! I have …I should say my wife’s family were Scot’s rite Covenanters in Lenarkshire Scotland…some were caught and shot by the Royalists in a farmers field. Today they drink Scotch toasts to those murdered by British Red Coats. Im saying that by shooting Presbyterians that they forever became enemies…they weren’t Roman Catholics who were prevalent in Scotland. No they were good Scot’s farmers and horse breeders & traders but the Anglican Church treated them as enemies…and enemies they are now and forever. Bloody Sasenaugh.

 

[atpollard]

All comes back to just how "new the new Covenant was"

Just like how much the Church of Rome needed to be "REFORMED".

Lutherans only needed a "fresh coat of paint".
Anglicans "built on an addition".
Presbyterians "tore down the walls, but built on the same foundation"
Baptists "scraped the site back to the bedrock and kept only the CORNERSTONES that no man could move."

 

[37818]

Baptists claim to go back to the bear trainings of the New Testament books as originating in the first century.

 

[Walter]

Baptists claim to go back to the bear trainings of the New Testament books as originating in the first century.

Thankfully intellectually honest Baptists, such as James McGoldrick who was once himself a believer in Baptist secessionism concede that this view is 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)

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Thankfully intellectually honest Baptists, such as James McGoldrick who was once himself a believer in Baptist secessionism concede that this view is bogus. McGoldrick writes:

And why should we believe him…..like which Baptist community is this guy referring to? The next thing we should do is consult with Musk and his AI Bull Shait

 

[37818]

Thankfully intellectually honest Baptists, such as James McGoldrick who was once himself a believer in Baptist secessionism concede that this view is bogus. McGoldrick writes:

<snip>
Either the New Testament books go to the first century when they were written or they would not be authentic. I am persuaded the New Testament books are authentic. Romans 8;9. Romans 8:16.

 

[atpollard]

Baptists claim to go back to the bear trainings of the New Testament books as originating in the first century.

Thankfully intellectually honest Baptists, such as James McGoldrick who was once himself a believer in Baptist secessionism concede that this view is bogus. McGoldrick writes:

I think you two are talking about different things (almost talking past each other’s points).
If I have understood correctly:

@37818 is advocating that Contemporary Baptists (those who NOW call themselves Baptists) rejected traditional DOGMA and went back to the FIRST CENTURY SCRIPTURES (the Bible) to reconstruct what God had called the Church to believe and do.

@Walter is claiming that the popular view that Modern Baptists can trace an unbroken succession of Baptist Believers all the way back to the First Century is false. Modern Baptists (as a movement or a denomination) are not as ancient as some claim.

 

[atpollard]

Baptists claim to go back to the bear trainings of the New Testament books as originating in the first century.

I 100% agree. The Baptists went back to the original “blueprint” for the Church (Holy Scripture) to reset a Church gone mad with human additions grafted over what God had commanded.

 

[atpollard]

Thankfully intellectually honest Baptists, such as James McGoldrick who was once himself a believer in Baptist secessionism concede that this view is bogus. McGoldrick writes:

I think the greatest difficulty in this, other than the actual term “Baptist” being far more modern than the ”Baptist Distinctives” that define the movement that has had a variety of names, is to actually determine what distinctives are critical to being a “baptist”. If we set the bar at CREDOBAPTISM alone, then there have ALWAYS been Credobaptist members of the Church as far back as the First Century and including every century leading up to the modern times. If we decide that “separation of church and state” is an absolute requirement to be a “Historic Baptist”, then the origin of Baptists is very modern.

Since even every modern “Baptist Church” will not agree on this definition of “what is a Baptist”, there will never be agreement on a historic definition of “Baptist” and whether there was always a Baptist Church.

 

[37818]

The 27 book New Testament teachings are the sole actual Apostolic teachings we have from the first century.

 

[Walter]

I think you two are talking about different things (almost talking past each other’s points).
If I have understood correctly:

@37818 is advocating that Contemporary Baptists (those who NOW call themselves Baptists) rejected traditional DOGMA and went back to the FIRST CENTURY SCRIPTURES (the Bible) to reconstruct what God had called the Church to believe and do.

@Walter is claiming that the popular view that Modern Baptists can trace an unbroken succession of Baptist Believers all the way back to the First Century is false. Modern Baptists (as a movement or a denomination) are not as ancient as some claim.

I see what you mean. We were talking about two different things.

 

[Cathode]

The 27 book New Testament teachings are the sole actual Apostolic teachings we have from the first century.

No, there was the Church that preserved, authenticated and canonised those books, called the Catholic Church.