Before there were Baptists

No.

 

No of us are perfect, so Baptists must have something wrong in our theology. I am a Baptist because I think it is the closest to being correct. Anyone can read a Bible and try to interpret its meaning. So the answer as C4K so elequently put it, "No".

 

certainly not...of course I don't we baptists have all right either.

and I also don't accept the whole Baptist go all the way back to John the Baptist (JJJ-Organix Successionism.)

there is some great teaching in the patristics!

 

JR,

If you know what is correct so that you can say that the Baptists are "the closest to being correct," why don't you just be "correct" without being Baptist?

 

No. Nor is there sufficient written history for all periods in all places that the gospel reached to say definitively that believers with very similar beliefs didn't exist.

The fact that the Bible says what is says and has done so throughout church history plus the continuous operation of the Holy Spirit would weigh heavily in favor of baptistic believers in from the Apostle John until now.

 

BTW, the most important record necessary to answer all of your objections in these recent antagonistic threads you have started is the Bible itself.

Baptistic positions and some of the others you would like to summararily dismiss as "unhistoric" are based in scripture. Inspired scripture is a far more firm foundation for doctrinal truth than history and preserved opinions... even if pristinely preserved from great theologians.

 

I know we have enough of the Bible "right" to not be anything else.

Jesus was Baptist, yall do know that?

 

Repent and be Baptists, for all have sinned and fall short of the Assemblies of God.



lacy

 

Craig

In my limited readings on church history, and by limited I mean basic overviews by Justo Gonzalex and Bruce Shelley - we owe a huge debt to those of the early church who fought for orthodoxy against the gnostics, those who who had skewed views of the trinity and the nature of Christ etc. The problem is the Roman Church got out of the Bible and into politics - both secular and church. In efforts to control and exert authority they started making things up (pergatory, selling indulgences, infallibility of the pope, giving Mary saving powers etc.)

If before the reformation, folks would have stuck to what the bible teaches there would not have been a reformation and perhaps we would all stayed the course. human nature being what it is however I doubt it.

Just look at where we are in the SBC - some thought we needed our own reformation, so they used the rallying cry of innerancy of the Bible, quite a smokescreen when we dont have the origional texts - but I digress. Now we see what is happening at the IMB - the conservatives are continue to tighten the definition of what it means to be a conservative and tried to throw one of their own off! The calvinists are arguing with the armenians etc.

My assumption is that you are Baptist else you would not be posting on this board - so even you must think that we have it right, or as close to right as possible or you would not be a baptist!

 

Only if they follow what Christ Jesus revealed to Paul. Paul warns us more than once that we must understand, as does Peter also of whom today we had better understand. I Corinthians 4:14-16, "I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you. For though ye have ten thousand instructers in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. 16. Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me." Christian faith, ituttut

 

No. Nor is there sufficient written history for all periods in all places that the gospel reached to say definitively that believers with very similar beliefs didn't exist.

The fact that the Bible says what is says and has done so throughout church history plus the continuous operation of the Holy Spirit would weigh heavily in favor of baptistic believers in from the Apostle John until now. </font>[/QUOTE]John shook hands with Paul and Barnabas along with Peter, James and all the rest of the Jerusalem church that they would only preach to the circumcised. Was John released from giving His word to not preach to a Gentile? At the time they all shook hands in Jerusalem, none but Peter had ever preached to or at a heathen. Peter only did it that one time because Christ forced him to. There is no record of Peter ever again preaching to a Gentile, and we know most definitely that James would never stoop that low.

Just about everything you find in John was said and written by Paul 30 years prior to John’s writings.

Peter writes in his second Epistle at the ending of chapter 3 that the Jews had better believe and understand what Paul wrote to them in Hebrews, and all the rest of Paul’s Epistles.

Christian Faith, ituttut

 

By golly you are right. He did preach the "great commission" of repent and be baptized for the remission of sins". That is the gospel of John the Baptist.

Is that Baptist? Christian faith, ituttut

 

Great insight.
Christian faith, ituttut

 

I am Baptist. I am in a Baptist church for they do not believe Baptism is necessary for salvation. At a young tender age I joined the Baptist church some few weeks after I was saved. Why did I do this? I had to. Was I who was not even a "teenager" going to trot over to some other church and be separated from my family and a number of friends? I joined the Baptist church to be with my family who were Christians, but I knew other Christians in other denominations.

Do the Baptist have it right among all the other main line denominations? I don't think so.

Evidently the Christian in a Baptist church has separated themselves from others in the Body of Christ. The Baptist church is not salvation; just those that "believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ to save us".

I know many in other denominations that claim the same thing.

Guess what separates us?
Christian faith, ituttut