Walpole
Well-Known Member
If this is considered conservative, I can't imagine what you consider liberal...
---> Baptist church in Washington calls lesbian couple as pastors
-
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!
is the SDA Church then a cult?
- Thread starter Yeshua1
- Start date
If this is considered conservative, I can't imagine what you consider liberal...
---> Baptist church in Washington calls lesbian couple as pastors
I do not want to insult your literacy.....so I won't
.BUT let's look at what I really said.
1. Did I say that Baptists are conservative?
OR
2. Did I say that the term "Baptist" was a description like "conservative", "evangelical", (like "liberal", like "trinitarian") etc. that can be applied to many sects within Christianity?
Put your think'in cap on, bro....you can look back ...it's cheating but I won't tell
Many live in fantasy worlds. I am not one of them (I do not believe my church as a denomination or organization began two thousand years ago). My Church as the Bride, however, did.
Baptists can also provide a line of leaders from the time the Roman Catholic Church departed from the catholic church (in the 4th century) onward. But they are living the same fantasy that Catholics live. They reach back to claim a history that is theirs but in a way that does not belong to them. It is sad because it shows a stark misunderstanding of the nature of the Church and the Kingdom as described by Christ.
I am just glad people are saved and added to the true catholic church despite the false doctrines taught by these people (whether Catholic or baptist).
Of course you cannot find anyone who was a member of the Protestant movement prior to the Protestant movement. Do you realize how stupid that statement is????
BUT you also cannot find a Roman Catholic prior to the 4th century and you can find Christians who were outside of the Catholic Church and in protest to its doctrine throughout history (if you are able to look outside your fantasy world).
Walpole
Well-Known Member
I do not want to insult your literacy.....so I won't
BUT let's look at what I really said.
1. Did I say that Baptists are conservative?
OR
2. Did I say that the term "Baptist" was a description like "conservative", "evangelical", (like "liberal", like "trinitarian") etc. that can be applied to many sects within Christianity?
Put your think'in cap on, bro....you can look back ...it's cheating but I won't tell
You said: "Think of "baptist" like "conservative". Is conservative a sect? Of course not. What "evangelical"? Is that a sect? Not really. Is "western" a sect? No. These are descriptive." - You
My "think'in" cap is on and I'm thinking "Baptist" is a proper noun. Hence if used as an adjective (descriptive), then by definition it would not be referring to adherents of the Protestant denomination, but rather as merely a person who baptizes.
--> Definition of baptist | Dictionary.com
--> Definition of BAPTIST
Yes. The term.
"Baptist" as a Christian term is more than one who baptizes. It does not even mean strictly a baptism (immersion) as not all baptists historically immersed. Your faulty logic is apparent as there were baptists prior to the Protestant movement (those who Catholics spoke of "re-baptizers" were not doing it twice but held what is called "baptist" in their doctrine of baptism).
There is no such thing as the "baptist denomination". There are denominations that are baptists (and many times they strongly oppose each other....that's what baptists do, y'know).
Baptists are considered Protestant (as are Anabaptists, who were never a member of the apostate church). But this is because of the movement, not because of their doctrine. Most Protestants retained more of the Catholic doctrine that these baptistic churches rejected.
Technically the Roman Catholic Church is apostate (to previous versions of its organization). So that does not really matter (it is an argument built on a faulty understanding of the church and what/ Who makes a church).
"Otherwise it would be impossible for a Christian to leave the Catholic Church"
It is impossible to leave the catholic church, we can't kick anyone out.
"Like I said, I am not trying to get you to look outside of wherever you are. I believe that God has people where He needs them, or where they need to be. "
Same here. Probably why we are talking.
"Anabaptists are baptists "
No. They don't hold to "faith alone" theology. Only thing same is believers baptism and they are re-baptizers if you come from a different denomination.
"the religious organization that was formed by the Roman Empire in the 4th century AD"
Show any actual history of this with an actual source. Its a 500-year old pseudo history of protestant saying a protestant says.
I've attended Baptist Studies before. Full of lies about all other denominations. Nothing but misrepresentations, and fake history they wrote themselves.
I'm quoting folks within 70 death of Jesus. I'm saying lets take a good look before the 400 years later.
I don't think you can name ONE legit Christian who is not stated in scripture. Cause I asked before plenty of times.......always get silence.
Your saying you got this new corrupt version of Catholics 400 years in. Fine. Show me the LEGIT Christians between 33-400. Lets look at the things the say, the things they teach, the things they believe.
Here is the difference (hopefully to get back on the SDA topic):
I do not believe Catholic doctrine to be Christian because of how far it has gone over the centuries. As a church, the Catholic Church came into existence in the 4th century encompassing Christians within the Roman Empire. They assimilated Christianity in a way (a priest once told me that they made the “profane” holy, but we were talking about Roman paganism in Catholic tradition). If you like star trek, the Catholic Church was like the Borg
. Christians were in the Catholic Church, but the Catholic Church itself not “Christian” (within the empire you were a Christian regardless of personal conviction or belief).
But the gospel was and is there. People can be saved through Catholic doctrine.
I assume the same is true of SDA teaching. I do not know the extent of the teachings but there are some things that I do believe are wrong. But just not believing rightly does not make the gospel powerless. If the gospel is there then one can be saved in that sect.
The same is true of the Church of Christ, Presbyterians, and even Reformed Baptists (although that may be pushing it a bit
).
The same is not true of JW’s, Muslim, Mormons, Bahá’í, Buddhists, Wikians, and atheists (to name a few) because their doctrine does not proclaim the gospel. That is what is important – the gospel of Christ. It may be couched in erroneous doctrines (to some extent, I expect all are). But it has to be there.
I do not believe Catholic doctrine to be Christian because of how far it has gone over the centuries. As a church, the Catholic Church came into existence in the 4th century encompassing Christians within the Roman Empire. They assimilated Christianity in a way (a priest once told me that they made the “profane” holy, but we were talking about Roman paganism in Catholic tradition). If you like star trek, the Catholic Church was like the Borg
. Christians were in the Catholic Church, but the Catholic Church itself not “Christian” (within the empire you were a Christian regardless of personal conviction or belief).But the gospel was and is there. People can be saved through Catholic doctrine.
I assume the same is true of SDA teaching. I do not know the extent of the teachings but there are some things that I do believe are wrong. But just not believing rightly does not make the gospel powerless. If the gospel is there then one can be saved in that sect.
The same is true of the Church of Christ, Presbyterians, and even Reformed Baptists (although that may be pushing it a bit
).The same is not true of JW’s, Muslim, Mormons, Bahá’í, Buddhists, Wikians, and atheists (to name a few) because their doctrine does not proclaim the gospel. That is what is important – the gospel of Christ. It may be couched in erroneous doctrines (to some extent, I expect all are). But it has to be there.
To me the difference is churches and dogma/ doctrine, not Christians are by definition members of the catholic (universal) church while not being members of the Catholic Church. Sometimes it is like arguing with a Church of Christ guy - they will always point out that Scripture talks about the church of Christ....which is them and only them because they are the "Church of Christ". AND that's their proof they are really the first and only true church ..... because they are the Church of Christ
....it is funny in a way, but it is also sad. Catholics typically argue that way. They take the terms like catholic (meaning universal) and since they are the Catholic Church that's them, and since the Roman Empire incorporated Christianity that history belongs to them organizationally. It is funny in a way, but it is also sad.Well, we have John the Apostle (but I know you mean not in the Bible
).I believe that there were many Christians. Prior to the Roman Catholic Church we had Cloement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp (a disciple of John), Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and perhaps I can squeeze John Chrysostom in there (I can't remember his dates, but it is around 400 AD).
As far as baptism goes, not very much is said towards "believers baptism". There was Hermas, perhaps Ignatius in his letter to Polycarp regarding repentance and of course Justin Martyr in his "First Apology". I think we know enough of Cyril to hold he at least tended towards at least the baptized accepting baptism willingly (with his exceptions of martyrs and description of receiving baptism) but he also viewed baptism as more sacramental than baptists would hold (IMHO).
The things is it does not matter if you understand the nature of the Church, that it is not of this world but is the Kingdom people or the Bride. The whole discussion is obsolete.
"As a church, the Catholic Church came into existence in the 4th century encompassing Christians within the Roman Empire."
Your forgetting the other Catholics who got nothing to do with Roman Empire, Like the Eastern Orthodox Catholics. How you going to explain them away, when they also can trace themselves to Jesus Christ and still recognize Roman side catholics as Catholics?
"Prior to the Roman Catholic Church we had Cloement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp (a disciple of John), Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and perhaps I can squeeze John Chrysostom in there (I can't remember his dates, but it is around 400 AD)."
FIND THESE GUYS TODAY:
Ignatius of Antioch
"Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead."
"Letter to the Smyrnaeans", paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.
"Come together in common, one and all without exception in charity, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David according to the flesh, the son of man, and the Son of God, so that with undivided mind you may obey the bishop and the priests, and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ."
-"Letter to the Ephesians", paragraph 20, c. 80-110 A.D.
"I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed."
-"Letter to the Romans", paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.D.
"Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church - they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons."
-Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1, 110 A.D.
Justine Martyr:
"This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus."
"First Apology", Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155.
"God has therefore announced in advance that all the sacrifices offered in His name, which Jesus Christ offered, that is, in the Eucharist of the Bread and of the Chalice, which are offered by us Christians in every part of the world, are pleasing to Him."
"Dialogue with Trypho", Ch. 117, circa 130-160 A.D.
Moreover, as I said before, concerning the sacrifices which you at that time offered, God speaks through Malachias, one of the twelve, as follows: 'I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord; and I will not accept your sacrifices from your hands; for from the rising of the sun until its setting, my name has been glorified among the gentiles; and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a clean offering: for great is my name among the gentiles, says the Lord; but you profane it.' It is of the sacrifices offered to Him in every place by us, the gentiles, that is, of the Bread of the Eucharist and likewise of the cup of the Eucharist, that He speaks at that time; and He says that we glorify His name, while you profane it."
-"Dialogue with Trypho", [41: 8-10]
ST. JOHN Chrysostom
"When the word says, 'This is My Body,' be convinced of it and believe it, and look at it with the eyes of the mind. For Christ did not give us something tangible, but even in His tangible things all is intellectual. So too with Baptism: the gift is bestowed through what is a tangible thing, water; but what is accomplished is intellectually perceived: the birth and the renewal. If you were incorporeal He would have given you those incorporeal gifts naked; but since the soul is intertwined with the body, He hands over to you in tangible things that which is perceived intellectually. How many now say, 'I wish I could see His shape, His appearance, His garments, His sandals.' Only look! You see Him! You touch Him! You eat Him!"
-"Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew" [82,4] 370 A.D.
"I wish to add something that is plainly awe-inspiring, but do not be astonished or upset. This Sacrifice, no matter who offers it, be it Peter or Paul, is always the same as that which Christ gave His disciples and which priests now offer: The offering of today is in no way inferior to that which Christ offered, because it is not men who sanctify the offering of today; it is the same Christ who sanctified His own. For just as the words which God spoke are the very same as those which the priest now speaks, so too the oblation is the very same."
Source: St. John Chrysostom, "Homilies on the Second Epistle to Timothy," 2,4, c. 397 A.D.
"It is not the power of man which makes what is put before us the Body and Blood of Christ, but the power of Christ Himself who was crucified for us. The priest standing there in the place of Christ says these words but their power and grace are from God. 'This is My Body,' he says, and these words transform what lies before him."
Source: St. John Chrysostom, "Homilies on the Treachery of Judas" 1,6; d. 407 A.D.:
"'The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not communion of the Blood of Christ?' Very trustworthily and awesomely does he say it. For what he is saying is this: 'What is in the cup is that which flowed from His side, and we partake of it.' He called it a cup of blessing because when we hold it in our hands that is how we praise Him in song, wondering and astonished at His indescribable Gift, blessing Him because of His having poured out this very Gift so that we might not remain in error, and not only for His having poured out It out, but also for His sharing It with all of us."
-"Homilies on the First Letter to the Corinthians" [24,1] ca. 392 A.D.
ST. Clement of Alexandria:
"The Blood of the Lord, indeed, is twofold. There is His corporeal Blood, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and His spiritual Blood, that with which we are anointed. That is to say, to drink the Blood of Jesus is to share in His immortality. The strength of the Word is the Spirit just as the blood is the strength of the body. Similarly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. The one, the Watered Wine, nourishes in faith, while the other, the Spirit, leads us on to immortality. The union of both, however, - of the drink and of the Word, - is called the Eucharist, a praiseworthy and excellent gift. Those who partake of it in faith are sanctified in body and in soul. By the will of the Father, the divine mixture, man, is mystically united to the Spirit and to the Word.",
-"The Instructor of the Children". [2,2,19,4] ante 202 A.D.,
"The Word is everything to a child: both Father and Mother, both Instructor and Nurse. 'Eat My Flesh,' He says, 'and drink My Blood.' The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients. He delivers over His Flesh, and pours out His Blood; and nothing is lacking for the growth of His children. O incredible mystery!",
-"The Instructor of the Children" [1,6,41,3] ante 202 A.D.. ,
Am I not better off thinking all the early church fathers are heretics because they all insist in believing in the Real Presence of the Eucharist as Catholics do?
What if next I pull pages of them saying good works are necessary?
How can you say we are less legit then they are? when they are still teaching exactly the the things we believe?
NAILED IT!!!!!! SLAM DUNK WINNER!!!
I am confused. According to the Baptist History and Heritage Society which was founded in 1938, they write: "Our best historical evidence says that Baptists came into existence in England in the early seventeenth century. They apparently emerged out of the Puritan-Separatist movement in the Church of England".
They continue: "General Baptists.–The General Baptists got their name because they believed in a general atonement. They believed Christ died for all people generally, and that whoever would believe in Christ could be saved. The first General Baptist church, led by John Smyth, was founded in Amsterdam, Holland, in 1608/09. Its members were English refugees who had fled England to escape religious persecution".
"By 1608/09, Smyth was convinced his Separatist church was not valid. Most of the members had only infant baptism, and the church was formed on the basis of a “covenant,” rather than a confession of faith in Christ. Smyth therefore led the church to disband in 1608/09 and re-form on a new basis–a personal confession of faith in Christ, followed by believer’s baptism. Since none of the members had been baptized as believers, Smyth had to make a new beginning. He baptized himself and then baptized the others. His baptism was by sprinkling or pouring, but it was for believers only".
In conclusion:
"Baptists originated in England in a time of intense religious reform. They sought to recover and proclaim the faith of the New Testament as first given by Jesus and his apostles. Since then they have spread their teachings and churches in many lands and many cultures. They have never wavered from that original desire to hold and proclaim the simple faith of the New Testament church".
( From H. Leon McBeth a retired professor of church history, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas).
I fail to see any Baptist "line of leaders" from the early days of the Christian Church (4th century) listed by this Baptist historical organization which I have cited. None. Not one. Your claim rings hollow.
Last edited:
I think it does. Getting the correct doctrine and understanding the Church in the early years is vitally important to the believer. I take your statement to mean that being a JW or a Mormon would be just fine if one agrees to certain criteria of being a Christian.
They are tracing the history of Baptists as denominational. Baptist churches are a product of baptist theology (baptist distinctive) and Reformed theology. This is what I was saying about "Baptist like us". "Baptist like us" is Protestant and post-Reformation.
My denomination was organized in 1845, in Augusta GA (about 5 miles from my home).
Yours was born at the start of the 4th century.
I am talking about doctrine and the Church (the "Bride"). You are talking about religious organizations and traditions. We are talking past one another. My words sound hollow to your ears because you are applying them to your concept of church.
Then you failed to grasp the meaning of my statements.
The JW and Mormons (like the Catholic Church) were an off shoot of Christianity. Like Catholic doctrine their doctrines contained some biblical teachings but also many more extra-biblical ideas. Like Catholics they look to their "church" and leaders to tell them what to believe. Like Catholics they believe a false history that lays claim to what does not truly belong to them. And like Catholics they believe it based on the authority of their church.
But unlike Catholic doctrine theirs is absent the gospel. So no, a JW and a Mormon cannot be saved by their doctrine because without the gospel it is powerless to save.
The RCC has reinvented itself so many times no one knows how it will be in the future. I do not know as a fact that it can be called "Christian" today, but I believe at least the gospel remains present. That is what many RCC members do not grasp. Theirs is the RCC of the 4th century, the 11th century or even the 16th century ONLY in name. The mennonite church is older than the current RCC.
But organization is not what constitutes a church. Denomination is not what constitutes a church. All Christians legitimately hold claim to belonging to the only true Church which is not the Catholic Church (yours) , the SBC (mine), or any other organization.
1689Dave
Well-Known Member
I think as long as they embrace the Ecumenical Creeds they might not be a cult, but a fringe group. I like their Eschatology and think it is truer than any Premillennial or Dispensational scheme. They don't understand the OT Law and place themselves in the same league as the wicked unbelievers to whom it applied.
No you check every encyclopedia. The Catholic Church was started by Jesus Christ.
Your still dancing around the Eastern orthodox who recognize us + having nothing to do with ROME. We would love for them to recognize our authority over them, they don't, Yet they also and validly to trace themselves to Jesus Christ and they can trace us to Jesus Christ too.
"The mennonite church is older than the current RCC."
I want you to take a deep breath and Listen to how stupid this idea of history sounds.
In the early days of the Anabaptist movement, Menno Simons, a Catholic priest in the Low Countries, heard of the movement and started to rethink his Catholic faith.
The MENNONITES was started by a CATHOLIC PRIEST.
And they do not do FAITH ALONE.
Ask any Church of Christ member - the CoC was started by Jesus Christ. Like I said, ignorance is bliss
Martin Luther was a Roman Catholic monk who after crawling up the stairs of St Perter's in Rome on his knees, suddenly recalling the scriptures, The just shall live by faith" and the penances could not safe him, renounced the false teachings of Rome announced that henceforth he would be known as an Evangelist, (someone who preaches the gospel) All baptists should be evangelists, as should all evengelicals.
Last edited:
Walpole
Well-Known Member
I always find this position disingenuous at worst, illogical at best.
Why would any Protestant sect claim to profess belief in a Creed professing belief in a Church you positively reject? For example the first Ecumenical Creed composed at the Council of Nicea was composed by Catholic bishops defending the faith of the Catholic Church. For example, the Church at Nicea:
- Declared Christ as the same substance (ὁμοούσιον, consubstantialem) of the Father - contra sola Scriptura (Ecthesis of the Council) - contrary to sola Scriptura
- Supported the discipline of celibacy and clerical continence (Canon 3)
- Instructed on preserving valid Apostolic succession by requiring three bishops present for the consecration of subsequent bishops (Canon 4)
- Declaring Rome as the authority to grant jurisdiction to other Churches (Canon 6)
- Ruled on ordaining men to the priesthood (Canons 9 & 10)
- Instructed on giving viaticum to the dying (Canon 13)
- Instructed regarding catechumens (Canon 14)
- Affirmed the ordained episcopate, priesthood and deaconate (Canon 18)
- Explicitly referred to the Eucharist as the literal “Body of Christ" (Canon 18)
- Explicitly referred to the priests and bishops as they who "offer" the Eucharistic sacrifice. (Canon 18)
These are but a few examples, all of which are rejected by Protestants.
Help me understand the logic in using a Creed composed by a Church with which one protests. For the very Creed composed by the bishops of the Church describes itself and professes a belief in it:
"...I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church."
The very Church described by the words of the Creed is the Church Protestants positively reject. Hence, my confusion. For it appears that Protestants either do not know what it is they are professing, or they do not actually believe what it is they claim to profess.
1689Dave
Well-Known Member
This is an incorrect assumption. The Ecumenical Creeds recorded what the early church believed. If you agree you are not a cult. If you disagree you are a cult.