Who claimed they were called Baptist?
-
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!
Does Ephesians 4 Refer to Local Baptst Only Churches?
- Thread starter Yeshua1
- Start date
Thy believed as Baptists do , but the historical Baptist churches ame much late, and that is historical fact!
You do realize I was being facetious!
Did you know that First Baptist of Jerusalem was founded in 1962?
You inferred it in post # 15
Well, no, I didn't. Here is what I said, "So, there were no baptist churches but there were baptist churches?" Nowhere in that sentence did I imply (not "infer" - I imply, you infer) that churches in the 1st century were called "Baptist."
Okay, I am going to try one more time. A church is baptist because of what it believes, not because of a name on the door. "Baptist" is a doctrinal identity, not a denominational name. The churches in the 1st century believed:
Biblical Authority
Autonomy of the Local Church
Priesthood of the Believer
Two Ordinances (baptism and the Lord's Supper)
Individual Soul Liberty
Saved, Baptized Church membership
Two Offices (Pastor/Elder/Overseer & Deacon)
What part of that do you claim the 1st century churches denied?
Matter of opinion
No, it's not a "matter of opinion." I know what I wrote and I know what I meant by what I wrote! If you inferred something I didn't intend then it is your failure to understand, not mine.
I don't believe they would fall short of our definitions, but I sometimes wonder just how short out Baptist churches would come to theirs.
Exactly my point. There are a lot of churches that believe correctly that don't have "baptist" on their door and a lot of churches that don't believe correctly that have "baptist" on the door.
The early churches were "baptist" in the sense of proper doctrine. Nobody ever claimed they had "baptist" on the door, but for some reason that seems to be too difficult for some people to understand.
I always greed that they would haehad Baptist like teology and practices, but we cannot mak them to be Baptist in historical sense of the term.
There was no Land Mark Baptists going on then, if that is what you mean!
Reminds me of te time Pope pointed out to Micheangelo how rich with silver and golthey now were, so no longer poor, he replied also no more in his name get up and walk!
I think that it would be interesting to look at it both ways (how much are they like us by our standard, and how much are we like them in their standard).
Here is an example of what I mean - Most Anabaptist churches (if not all) would fit squarely within what has been presented here as the definition of what makes a church "Baptist". But few (none that I know of anyway) Baptist churches would fit into what would be defined as "Anabaptist".
I heard that illustration recently (but not with Michelangelo). I can't remember where...probably here.
I appears to me you have virtually no comprehension at all of the subject being discussed. So, it seems to me that any further response to you will be a waste of time and band width. Have a great life.
As "anabaptist" was a pejorative used of any that dissented from the Church of Rome it is impossible to say that all, most, or even any, ana-baptist churches "would fit squarely within what has been presented here as the definition of what makes a church "Baptist"."
Even Martin Luther was called an "ana-baptist" by Rome and there is little to no confluence of doctrine regarding polity, baptism, soteriology, etc.
You do understand that there was no such thing in history as Baptist church until Middle Ages?
There were many churches though, like in Acts, that would have been called that label if it had existed!
I do know tat there is no biblical, nor hitorical proof for the LM Baptist position...