• 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!

Confession for Baptist’s and Protestants in general

Ben1445

Active Member
All of Christianity for the first 1500 years interpreted Jesus words to mean eating Jesus flesh and drinking His blood, in the Holy Eucharist.

The disciples had to believe this in faith until it was finally revealed at the Last Supper how this would be done.

Jesus gave His Body to eat and Blood to drink at the Last Supper.
All is a big word. And since you don’t have a signed confession of every believer for the 1500 years in question, we’ll file that argument in the dustbin.

“Had to” is your understanding and the Catholic teaching.
It is not what Jesus taught.


He was still sitting there and had not died yet. The words had spiritual meaning in John 6. They didn’t take on new meaning when he said it before he died.
 

Cathode

Well-Known Member
All is a big word. And since you don’t have a signed confession of every believer for the 1500 years in question, we’ll file that argument in the dustbin.

“Had to” is your understanding and the Catholic teaching.
It is not what Jesus taught.


He was still sitting there and had not died yet. The words had spiritual meaning in John 6. They didn’t take on new meaning when he said it before he died.

All of the Churches East and West believed The Eucharist is Jesus Body and Blood, it was Universal Christian belief.
 

Ben1445

Active Member
The Eucharist is spiritual food, but it is physical as well.
Only as much as the calories in it.
Jesus Soul and Divinity resides in His Flesh and Blood, by receiving His Flesh and Blood we receive His life giving Divinity in our flesh and blood unto resurrection.
We look forward to our resurrection. We don’t add to the Holy Spirit every time we take communion.
“ He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood, has eternal life and I will raise him up on the last day. “
So if you don’t take communion, you are not going to be resurrected. Purgatory forever!
This one is not Scripture. It is obviously a spiritual teaching.
“ So he who eats me, will live because of me. “

Only Jesus is Life.
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, not take a bite of.
 

Cathode

Well-Known Member
Only as much as the calories in it.

We look forward to our resurrection. We don’t add to the Holy Spirit every time we take communion.

So if you don’t take communion, you are not going to be resurrected. Purgatory forever!
This one is not Scripture. It is obviously a spiritual teaching.

Spiritual doesn’t mean symbolic.

Eating Jesus flesh and drinking His blood is spiritual and it is receiving Jesus Life.

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, not take a bite of.

You don’t believe Jesus.

You don’t believe Jesus flesh is real food and blood is real drink.
 

Ben1445

Active Member
Spiritual doesn’t mean symbolic.

Eating Jesus flesh and drinking His blood is spiritual and it is receiving Jesus Life.



You don’t believe Jesus.

You don’t believe Jesus flesh is real food and blood is real drink.
I didn’t say symbolic. I do mean spiritual.
Jesus said that the flesh profits nothing.
There is no profit for the flesh to physically eat Jesus.
 

Walter

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I will reaffirm that it is an argument for the dustbin.

Ben, can you present historical evidence to the contrary? The Eastern Church and Western Church have always taught (and can be shown by documentation) the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
Ben, can you present historical evidence to the contrary? The Eastern Church and Western Church have always taught (and can be shown by documentation) the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
The bible does not though, and that is the supreme authority for we Baptists
 

Cathode

Well-Known Member
I didn’t say symbolic. I do mean spiritual.
Jesus said that the flesh profits nothing.
There is no profit for the flesh to physically eat Jesus.

Jesus says different.

“ He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood, has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day “

“ So he who eats me, will live because of me. “
 

Cathode

Well-Known Member
It also requires faith in your statement to believe that all the churches believed what you do.
This has nothing to do with faith in Jesus.

It is historical fact that the Eucharist was believed Jesus flesh and blood for the first 1500 years, universally. All the Churches believed this.
 

Cathode

Well-Known Member
The bible does not though, and that is the supreme authority for we Baptists

No, you have a worse problem. You have the direct words of Jesus in the Bible telling you that Jesus flesh is real food and blood is real drink.

Not believing that, you refuse to eat His flesh and drink His blood as He asks.

Jesus is the Supreme Authority, Heaven and Earth will pass away, but His words will never pass away.

When I get asked at Judgement why I believe Jesus flesh is real food and blood is real drink, I will say ‘ You said it, and I believed. You have the words of everlasting life ‘.

When asked at Judgement why you didn’t believe Jesus flesh is real food and blood is real drink, you won’t have Jesus own Eternal words to fall back on, you will only have your rationalisations, and Jesus words are saying the opposite.

Believe Jesus words before anything else, all things will pass away before His words were untrue.
Jesus words can never be untrue.

Jesus words are the surest thing on Earth and in Heaven, they are Eternal Rock.
 
Last edited:

Ben1445

Active Member
Ben, can you present historical evidence to the contrary? The Eastern Church and Western Church have always taught (and can be shown by documentation) the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
I’m not Catholic and there are more than two kinds of churches(east and west) in history. I don’t send records of my affirmation of anything to anyone. And there is no pope in the Bible, so don’t tell me that they were keeping records for all the churches. Show me the records of the church in Rome, Ephesus, Berea, and Phillipi for starters. I want to know there annual contributions and I also want to see the excommunication records for when Paul argued with Pope Peter the first.
Galatians 2:11
But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

No I’m not digging up records that were not sent to the pope just like you couldn’t get me anything I asked for.
I can as easily say all the churches are not Catholic through the centuries as you say they are. But here you are on the not Catholic Baptist Board.
 

Cathode

Well-Known Member
I’m not Catholic and there are more than two kinds of churches(east and west) in history. I don’t send records of my affirmation of anything to anyone. And there is no pope in the Bible, so don’t tell me that they were keeping records for all the churches. Show me the records of the church in Rome, Ephesus, Berea, and Phillipi for starters. I want to know there annual contributions and I also want to see the excommunication records for when Paul argued with Pope Peter the first.
Galatians 2:11
But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

Paul was not finding blame in Peters teaching, but his behaviour. Which has no bearing on Peters infallible guidance on teaching.

No I’m not digging up records that were not sent to the pope just like you couldn’t get me anything I asked for.
I can as easily say all the churches are not Catholic through the centuries as you say they are. But here you are on the not Catholic Baptist Board.

If you asked for something reasonable, there is plenty of surviving historical evidence for what I am telling you.
You set your standard of evidence impossibly high, so that you can safely ignore the actual evidence. Ignoring this still leaves you ignorant.

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

“And he says to him again after the resurrection, ‘Feed my sheep.’ It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided.” Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).
 

Walter

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I’m not Catholic and there are more than two kinds of churches(east and west) in history. I don’t send records of my affirmation of anything to anyone. And there is no pope in the Bible, so don’t tell me that they were keeping records for all the churches. Show me the records of the church in Rome, Ephesus, Berea, and Phillipi for starters. I want to know there annual contributions and I also want to see the excommunication records for when Paul argued with Pope Peter the first.
Galatians 2:11
But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

No I’m not digging up records that were not sent to the pope just like you couldn’t get me anything I asked for.
I can as easily say all the churches are not Catholic through the centuries as you say they are. But here you are on the not Catholic Baptist Board.

And, here you are on the 'Other Christian Denominations' forum making ridiculous claims about whether or not Eastern Catholic Churches and Western Catholic Churches are actually Catholic. We know they're Catholic because they confessed to be AND until Martin Luther they had a common confession of faith that was Catholic. Oh, and you won't find any intellectually honest historians that would claim they weren't Catholic.

You probably have entrenched yourself in Carroll's book 'Trail of Blood' which has been completely debunked.
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)
 

Cathode

Well-Known Member
“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.

There it is.

The so called “free church groups” were heretical groups that died out, having no connection with the Apostolic lineage or the Church at large.
 

Walter

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
“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.

There it is.

The so called “free church groups” were heretical groups that died out, having no connection with the Apostolic lineage or the Church at large.

Yes, when I was Baptist I was taught that the Waldenses were early Baptists. If you read what these people believed you find they were so Catholic minded that no Baptist knowing this would ever try to hitch their wagon to them. Most Anabaptist denied salvation was by faith alone and so on.
 

Cathode

Well-Known Member
Yes, when I was Baptist I was taught that the Waldenses were early Baptists. If you read what these people believed you find they were so Catholic minded that no Baptist knowing this would ever try to hitch their wagon to them. Most Anabaptist denied salvation was by faith alone and so on.

Well it’s always the case that a legend has to be created to support falsehoods, I remember dealing with a communist professor some years ago. I quoted a Soviet official stating a long held legend was a lie but was created for the expediency of soviet policy. It shattered his delusions, what counts as an educated man these days is a farce.

This rewriting of history or legend creation is actually a weapon of the darkness, it snares the intelligent as much as it ensnares the simple.

Whilst nothing can be done for the wilfully ignorant, the snare having cut so deep as to feel comfortably part of themselves, the open soul and mind however does have a chance by honest inquiry.

All movement away from truth is a movement away from Christ.
 
Last edited:

Cathode

Well-Known Member
Rand Corporation had a term called the “ Firehose of falsehood “, to describe the Soviet Communist propaganda technique.
They would flood falsehoods in the media to drown out the truth.

The first attempt to drown out the Truth in Western Civilisation was the Protestant Revolution of October 1517, with Luther’s mobilisation of the peasants, who he later betrayed.
The second attempt came 400 years later to the month, in October 1917 with the Communist revolution, again mobilising the peasants.

In each case we see massive use of false propaganda, the Fire hosing of falsehoods, particularly against the Catholic Church.

This was well predicted in Revelation however, the tools of darkness are the same.

“Then from his mouth the serpent spewed water like a river, to overtake the woman and sweep her away with the torrent. 16 But the earth helped the woman by opening its mouth and swallowing the river that the dragon had spewed out of his mouth.” Revelation 12

Both Protestantism and Communism had the same catch cry of equality and ardent hatred of heirachy and Authority. Both promised the common man equal status and liberation, both failed in their promises.
 
Top