Is there any historical evidence for the Baptist position on Baptism?

[DHK]

Which proves my point. BTW people were resurrected long before Jesus' resurrection. Think of Elijah and the widow's son for instance in 1 Kings 17:17-24 .

And they lived. They weren't truly resurrected. When we speak of a resurrection the person receives his resurrected body and keeps that body forever. Only Jesus has done that. He is the firstfruits of the resurrection. The others returned to earth.

Jesus still spoke with Moses and Elijah. And the Elders in Heaven bring the prayers of the Saints before God. "Are" does not mean representative.

Your points are all moot. I have explained them adequately. You just refuse to accept the explanation.
Have you ever heard of a metaphor.
Jesus said "I am the door." Do you visualize Jesus as an actual door?
Neither was the incense actual prayers. It symbolized prayers. The Book of Revelation is an apocalyptic book using many symbols and representations.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

And they lived. They weren't truly resurrected.

Yes they lived! And they were truelly resurrected. They weren't in their eternal bodies. Lazerus was also resurrected. In any respect whether you consider resurrection to be physically brought back to life or brought back to life in your eternal body. It doesn't change the fact that Jesus spoke with a man who had died centuries before.

Your points are all moot. I have explained them adequately. You just refuse to accept the explanation.

Your explinations haven't changed any of the facts of the passages mentioned nor does it do anything to invalidate what I've said.

Have you ever heard of a metaphor.

Of course but you claim to take the bible literally. And this is a clear case of the text not being used in metaphorical fashion because it says "are" not "like".

 

[Yeshua1]

Will one of you Baptists PLEASE tell me where you get your interpretation of Scripture???? Lutherans and Baptists agree that what the Bible says is the Final Authority, but on what authority do you base your understanding of what God is saying in His Word?

So far your answer seems to be this: "the Holy Spirit gives the "true" Christians (Baptists) the proper enlightenment to see and understand the correct interpretation of Scripture."

If that is true then why do you Baptists have so many internal divisions over theological issues?

--some of you are five point Calvinists
--some of you are three point Calvinists (Calminians)
--some of you are Arminians
--some of you believe in a pre-millenial secret Rapture
--some do not believe in a secret Rapture
--some are pre-millenial
--some are post-millenial
--some are amillenial
--some believe that Christ is spiritually present in the Lord's Supper (Calvinists)
--some believe that the Lord's Supper is strictly symbolic
--some of you believe that teaching the "Sinner's Prayer" is appropriate
--some of you believe the Sinner's Prayer is superstitious and unscriptural
--some believe the sinner has a free will
--some believe that the sinner does not have a free will

If Baptists, who are the "true" Christians, have been enlightened by the Holy Spirit to see and understand the true interpretation of the Bible, then the Holy Spirit has really screwed up because you Baptists are more divided internally on doctrine than any other Christian denomination on the face of the earth!

And why are you Baptists so divided on so many different areas of doctrine? Because each separate Baptist group believes that the Holy Spirit has given THEM the correct interpretation of the Bible, in a quiet inner voice (so that no one can verify whether its the Holy Spirit or Satan himself). Your right, and eveyone else is wrong, because you FEEL in your heart that God is on your side!

And in your individual Baptist churches, each Christian member of the church believes that God can speak to him personally and "move" him or her to do this or that. So one of the deacons stands up at a church business meeting and states that the Lord has spoken to him that the pastor needs to change the direction he is leading the church. The pastor, of course, believes that HE is listening to the Holy Spirit in his inner voice. So two Christians , believing that God is personally directing them, stubbornly persist to push their agenda because God has "moved" or "led" them to do the direct opposite of each other. What happens? The church splits!

How do I know this is true? I grew up in a Baptist church until I was 18. I witnessed these internal battles, both sides claiming the Holy Spirit had "led" them.

So saying that the simple, literal interpretation of the Bible will be obvious to a true believer, is nonsense, as proven by the multitude of divisions and disagreements between you Baptists, "the chosen ones".

Lutherans do not read the Bible and individually decide what the Bible says. We read the Bible and compare it to what early Christians believed the verse meant. Some of these Christians were disciples of the Apostles! Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John. You Baptists totally write off all these early men of God as if they were all apostate. When did the Church become a apostate?? You don't answer this question. Give a year or an event.

Bottom line: Baptist seem to believe that the final authority in interpreting scripture is...YOU!

You can say "Scripture interprets Scripture" all you want, but what you are really saying is "My interpretation of Scripture interprets Scripture. I am the finally authority on interpreting Scripture."

If that were not the case you Baptists wouldn't be divided into hundreds of different groups, with all the splinter denominations and cults that have broken off from you when "the Holy Spirit" enlightened them to follow their own "true" interpretation.

the Holy Spirit inspired the writers of the sacred texts, so he is the author of the Bible in the final/true sense!

He can and does reveal/open up the Bible to those saved by the Grace of God, its called His Illumination!

And baptists are not as divided as it might seem, as we all pretty much agree on the 'core essentials of the fath", its just that we disagree on things like the actual timing of the Second Coming, what bible to use etc, but NOT on the essentials that define if one is a true Christian or not!

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Really? You have refuted Baptism as per the original OP by quoting Catholic sources that cover the first 300 years of the Church? As I said before - I doubt it.

WM

Read what I posted then.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

What people often fail to see is that within the Catholic Church there are many discenters from the faith trying very hard to ruin the church. In the ancient world they where known as gnostics, Montanist, Arians, etc... Today they still call themselves Catholic but certainly don't follow its teachings in the guise of being Catholics. Even Bishops and Arch-Bishops. Its called the liberal element. They got some traction during the Vatican II council which wasn't a dogmatic council but a pastoral one by using the line "in the spirit of Vatican II" this nebulous phrase was the key word to change hard teaching into nebulous teachings. Some priest joined forces with Budhist, others supported the immorality of Contraception and so on and so forth. Others decried the validity of Scriptures of which John Crossan was a priest for many years before leaving the Church and starting the Jesus Seminar. So many protestants turn to these self proclaimed Catholics (which really aren't) by quoting their works as if they were authoritative. They are not. Currently Benedict is attempt to reduce their influence by dismissing Bishops and other clergy by bringing in Orthodox clergy and re-asserting the faith. People like Nancy Pelosi and Catherine Sebalius don't like it. Too bad. They should just admit they're not Catholic.

The sources I quoted were Catholic.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

You attack and blaspheme God in the most obscene and ungodly ways. This is totally unwarranted.
God doesn't "screw up." Are you even saved? Why would you even suggest such a thing? We are not as divided as you think. If you dig a bit you will find a lot of factions both in the RCC and in the Lutheran churches. Baptists are evangelical and agree on the gospel, as do most evangelical churches. Their polity is the same. The things you point out are quite minor.

Because we are not made into mindless automatons like the RCC has made their members, like Jim Jones had made his, like the Mormons, J.W.'s and every other cult. We use the Bible, think for ourselves, and believe in soul liberty--the right for every individual to THINK and BELIEVE what he believes the Lord is teaching him. We are not force-fed by man made doctrine created mostly by unsaved individuals.

How do you define this or that. It seems you don't have much knowledge of Baptist polity so you really should be quiet about those things you don't know much about.

That doesn't happen.

That is an ungodly exaggeration which in all my years of service has never taken place, and does not take place. The pastor is the appointed overseer of the church. The deacons are servants.

You were a teenager and probably didn't know what was going on. Your immature outlook on things was biased. You no doubt didn't have all the facts. You weren't a member of the deacon board, if indeed they had one. Most of the churches I know of don't have a "board" of deacons--deacons, but no board. You hadn't been to Bible College. You lacked understanding in many things. At the age of 18 you considered yourself a know-it-all in church matters. I can appreciate your insight.

You obviously don't know what you are talking about with your countless years of experience.

We can tell. Ignorance is bliss.

You mean like:
Origen, the father of Arianism, who the RCC declared as a heretic.
Ireneus, that believed Christ lived til the age of 80,
Tertullian who changed his views on baptism, and eventually joined the Montanists.
And many of the others, from whom most of the early errors of the church entered in.

Apostate, no. Prone to error, yes. Did many of them err in doctrine? Yes.

It erred slowly. As far as the inception of a state church or the RCC it began at the beginning of the fourth century when Constantine married Christianity to the state. Christianity became paganized, and paganism became Christianized. Before that time there was no "church," only "churches." The word ekklesia means "assembly," and that is what they were, "assemblies" scattered throughout the known world.

That is right. The Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine. It is the first and perhaps most important Baptist distinctive. It is shown to be true throughout the pages of Scripture. The Scripture was used to teach the people, not the Church Fathers.

The Ethiopian Eunuch was traveling reading the Book of Isaiah. Philip came alongside and asked him, "Do you understand what you are reading." The Eunuch answered, "How can I understand unless someone shows me?" "Then Philip began at the same scripture, and preached to him Jesus."
We operate the same way. We expound the Scriptures, as Philip did.

No two men agree 100% on everything. If they did then it would be the blind leading the blind just like you have in the RCC.

Excellent! We have had our battles, but I give credit where credit is due.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The sources I quoted were Catholic.

I can quote right now many sources who claim to be Catholic yet purport the use of Contraceptives which is against Catholic Teaching. I Can quote Fr. Richards to say that the gospels can't be relied on for truth. But again that isn't catholic teaching.

 

[Yeshua1]

I can quote right now many sources who claim to be Catholic yet purport the use of Contraceptives which is against Catholic Teaching. I Can quote Fr. Richards to say that the gospels can't be relied on for truth. But again that isn't catholic teaching.

Guess baptists will ahve to be content with believing the Biblical teaching, and catholics the traditions of men!

 

[DHK]

Yes they lived! And they were truelly resurrected. They weren't in their eternal bodies. Lazerus was also resurrected. In any respect whether you consider resurrection to be physically brought back to life or brought back to life in your eternal body. It doesn't change the fact that Jesus spoke with a man who had died centuries before.

You deny your own faith? You deny the Apostle's Creed? Just what are you saying here? The things that you are putting forth here are a denial of your faith. Christ arose from the dead.
Further on in the Apostle's Creed is the statement:
"I believe in the resurrection of the body and life everlasting, amen."
That would include Lazarus, Moses, and others you have mentioned. The resurrection has not yet taken place, and you are denying your own faith.

Jesus has all power to do whatever he wishes to do. He spoke to Moses and Elijah. Nothing is to hard for the Creator of the Universe. Why would you question his power? It doesn't change the fact that these men are still dead.

Your explinations haven't changed any of the facts of the passages mentioned nor does it do anything to invalidate what I've said.
Of course but you claim to take the bible literally. And this is a clear case of the text not being used in metaphorical fashion because it says "are" not "like".

It was incense, as it says it was, nothing more, nothing less.
Revelation is apocalyptic literature full of symbolism.
Even the verse I quoted to you in Luke, the incense was symbolic of prayer.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I can quote right now many sources who claim to be Catholic yet purport the use of Contraceptives which is against Catholic Teaching. I Can quote Fr. Richards to say that the gospels can't be relied on for truth. But again that isn't catholic teaching.

I know what you're saying.

I quoted from the Catholic Encyclopedia, and a Franciscan priest and archaeologist.

"Official" catholic teachers have always had a difficult time with the facts. The Inquisitors summoned Galileo to a hearing and threatened to throw him into a dungeon and possibly torture him until he recanted concerning the fact that the earth revolved around the sun. In 1992 Pope John Paul II officially conceded that the Earth was not stationary -- it revolved around the sun.

 

[Wittenberger]

the Holy Spirit inspired the writers of the sacred texts, so he is the author of the Bible in the final/true sense!

He can and does reveal/open up the Bible to those saved by the Grace of God, its called His Illumination!

And baptists are not as divided as it might seem, as we all pretty much agree on the 'core essentials of the fath", its just that we disagree on things like the actual timing of the Second Coming, what bible to use etc, but NOT on the essentials that define if one is a true Christian or not!

So God has given Baptists special insight into the truth of the "core essentials" but then he leaves you in the dark on the rest of Christian doctrine?

Doesn't sound very scripturally sound, to me.

 

[Wittenberger]

You attack and blaspheme God in the most obscene and ungodly ways. This is totally unwarranted.
God doesn't "screw up." Are you even saved? Why would you even suggest such a thing? We are not as divided as you think. If you dig a bit you will find a lot of factions both in the RCC and in the Lutheran churches. Baptists are evangelical and agree on the gospel, as do most evangelical churches. Their polity is the same. The things you point out are quite minor.

Because we are not made into mindless automatons like the RCC has made their members, like Jim Jones had made his, like the Mormons, J.W.'s and every other cult. We use the Bible, think for ourselves, and believe in soul liberty--the right for every individual to THINK and BELIEVE what he believes the Lord is teaching him. We are not force-fed by man made doctrine created mostly by unsaved individuals.

How do you define this or that. It seems you don't have much knowledge of Baptist polity so you really should be quiet about those things you don't know much about.

That doesn't happen.

That is an ungodly exaggeration which in all my years of service has never taken place, and does not take place. The pastor is the appointed overseer of the church. The deacons are servants.

You were a teenager and probably didn't know what was going on. Your immature outlook on things was biased. You no doubt didn't have all the facts. You weren't a member of the deacon board, if indeed they had one. Most of the churches I know of don't have a "board" of deacons--deacons, but no board. You hadn't been to Bible College. You lacked understanding in many things. At the age of 18 you considered yourself a know-it-all in church matters. I can appreciate your insight.

You obviously don't know what you are talking about with your countless years of experience.

We can tell. Ignorance is bliss.

You mean like:
Origen, the father of Arianism, who the RCC declared as a heretic.
Ireneus, that believed Christ lived til the age of 80,
Tertullian who changed his views on baptism, and eventually joined the Montanists.
And many of the others, from whom most of the early errors of the church entered in.

Apostate, no. Prone to error, yes. Did many of them err in doctrine? Yes.

It erred slowly. As far as the inception of a state church or the RCC it began at the beginning of the fourth century when Constantine married Christianity to the state. Christianity became paganized, and paganism became Christianized. Before that time there was no "church," only "churches." The word ekklesia means "assembly," and that is what they were, "assemblies" scattered throughout the known world.

That is right. The Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine. It is the first and perhaps most important Baptist distinctive. It is shown to be true throughout the pages of Scripture. The Scripture was used to teach the people, not the Church Fathers.

The Ethiopian Eunuch was traveling reading the Book of Isaiah. Philip came alongside and asked him, "Do you understand what you are reading." The Eunuch answered, "How can I understand unless someone shows me?" "Then Philip began at the same scripture, and preached to him Jesus."
We operate the same way. We expound the Scriptures, as Philip did.

No two men agree 100% on everything. If they did then it would be the blind leading the blind just like you have in the RCC.

Dear brother DHK:

For a moderator of a Christian discussion group you come across as very angry, spiteful, and downright nasty! Are you a fundamentalist?

Unfortunately my experience has been that many, but not all, fundamentalists tend to have this "attack and destroy" mentality. I don't mind you strongly disagreeing with me or even scathingly attacking my positions, but to question whether or not I am a child of God, is way out of bounds. That is God's job, not yours, brother.

I suggest you check on the "beam" in your own eye before you start judging me for my sins.

 

[DHK]

Dear brother DHK:

For a moderator of a Christian discussion group you come across as very angry, spiteful, and downright nasty! Are you a fundamentalist?

Unfortunately my experience has been that many, but not all, fundamentalists tend to have this "attack and destroy" mentality. I don't mind you strongly disagreeing with me or even scathingly attacking my positions, but to question whether or not I am a child of God, is way out of bounds. That is God's job, not yours, brother.

I suggest you check on the "beam" in your own eye before you start judging me for my sins.

Check yourself brother.
Do you know how it sounds to others when you say that

"God screwed up."

 

[The Biblicist]

Dear brother DHK:

For a moderator of a Christian discussion group you come across as very angry, spiteful, and downright nasty! Are you a fundamentalist?

Unfortunately my experience has been that many, but not all, fundamentalists tend to have this "attack and destroy" mentality. I don't mind you strongly disagreeing with me or even scathingly attacking my positions, but to question whether or not I am a child of God, is way out of bounds. That is God's job, not yours, brother.

I suggest you check on the "beam" in your own eye before you start judging me for my sins.

If you have not noticed, there has been a long track record of intense debate over these subjects and there are those on both sides that are in an "attack and destroy mentality." You have entered into a bruising battle for which the very nature of the gospel is at stake. The Apostle Paul got into an attack and destroy mentality in the book of Galatians when dealing with the very same subject. Men of intense conviction will be intense in their defense of their convictions. Everyone on this forum has been guilty of that same intensity. It comes with the debate mentality and this is a debate forum.

The way you presented your case was an "attack and destroy" manner. You may not have literally applied to anyone's person but the implication is all there in the very nature of your attack.

Yes, I have been guilty of the same as many here will confirm and quite readily. However, I would like to place this behind us and continue on in a fair and objective debate.

 

[Wittenberger]

Check yourself brother.
Do you know how it sounds to others when you say that

"God screwed up."

I did not say that the Holy Spirit IS screwing up as a statement of fact.

I said that in order for Baptists, some of whom believe that they have been given special enlightenment to fully understand Scripture without any guide from previous centuries/millenia of Christians, to continue stating this nonsense that they and only they have been given divine enlightenment, when they have so many divisions among them on numerous doctinal issues such as "Free Will", which is not a trivial matter, is absurd. They are either dead wrong in their belief of their private divine revelation of the truth or the Holy Spirit is screwing up badly.

Any non-Baptist will see that I am implying that Baptists are dead wrong, not that the Almighty, Holy, King of the Universe is screwing up!


By the way, I'm very pleased to see that you addressed me as "brother". Hopefully you meant it.

 

[Wittenberger]

If you have not noticed, there has been a long track record of intense debate over these subjects and there are those on both sides that are in an "attack and destroy mentality." You have entered into a bruising battle for which the very nature of the gospel is at stake. The Apostle Paul got into an attack and destroy mentality in the book of Galatians when dealing with the very same subject. Men of intense conviction will be intense in their defense of their convictions. Everyone on this forum has been guilty of that same intensity. It comes with the debate mentality and this is a debate forum.

The way you presented your case was an "attack and destroy" manner. You may not have literally applied to anyone's person but the implication is all there in the very nature of your attack.

Yes, I have been guilty of the same as many here will confirm and quite readily. However, I would like to place this behind us and continue on in a fair and objective debate.

Very well said, Biblicist. I agree and ask for your forgiveness, that of DHK, as well as anyone else offended, and I ask our Savior for forgiveness. My "intensity" came across as "wanting to win the arguement, and crush the opposition" instead of a genuine desire to correct any error in doctrine that I may perceive.

 

[DHK]

I did not say that the Holy Spirit IS screwing up as a statement of fact.

I don't know your age or background, but I consider the term "screw up" as crude speech at the best of times, and then to apply such crudeness to God Almighty is all the more irreverent. Sitting behind a computer screen it reflects to some extent the character of the person I am speaking to.

I said that in order for Baptists, some of whom believe that they have been given special enlightenment to fully understand Scripture without any guide from previous centuries/millenia of Christians, to continue stating this nonsense that they and only they have been given divine enlightenment,

Where do you get this nonsense from? Can you give me a website? a URL? A statement of faith? Anything that points to "Baptists alone have been given special enlightenment to fully understand Scripture..."
This is not true and is a mischaracterization of the Baptists on here. If you want to post here then do your homework and post intelligently without making false allegations and sweeping generalizations, especially ones that are not true.

Try reading the biography of John Bunyan. He wrote Pilgrim's Progress while in jail. Imprisoned by the Anglican Church for refusing to desist from preaching. In 1661 Bunyan had his chance for freedom. To the magistrates he replied: "If you release me today, I will be preaching tomorrow." His freedom was denied. He was released in 1672. Bunyan refused to be bound by the Anglican Church, to be licensed by them, to conform to their rites and rituals. He was a servant of the Most High God, and would serve Christ and Christ alone. For that freedom he was jailed for. The Anglican Church did not believe in the soul liberty that Baptists fought for.

Baptists fight hard for this principle because they believe firmly in another principle, that of sola scriptura. The Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine. IOW, the Anglican Church, Lutheran, or RCC cannot dictate to us what to believe. The Bible is the only authoritative guide that we have. It is our final authority. Bunyan appealed to the Bible. They put him in prison for doing so. The Anglican Church wanted him under their authority, not the Bible's authority. Bunyan would rather be in jail.

Sola scriptura gives the right of every believer to believe as thinks the Scripture is teaching him.

Another distinctive that Baptists have is "Priesthood of the believers," that is that each one of us are priests before God, and that not one of us need to any other human to confess our sins, but are able to straight to God. We have access straight before the very throne of God. Christ is our mediator. No man on earth has power to forgive sins.
when they have so many divisions among them on numerous doctinal issues such as "Free Will", which is not a trivial matter, is absurd. They are either dead wrong in their belief of their private divine revelation of the truth or the Holy Spirit is screwing up badly.

The Holy Spirit gives enlightenment to all that believe in him, Baptist or not. However, if you are not saved, you will not understand that principle.

Any non-Baptist will see that I am implying that Baptists are dead wrong,

Michael Wrenn, by my standards is not a Baptist. Look how he responded to my post. He appreciated it, and obviously did not agree with you.

By the way, I'm very pleased to see that you addressed me as "brother". Hopefully you meant it.

If you are saved you are a brother in Christ, despite doctrinal differences.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I don't know your age or background, but I consider the term "screw up" as crude speech at the best of times, and then to apply such crudeness to God Almighty is all the more irreverent. Sitting behind a computer screen it reflects to some extent the character of the person I am speaking to.

Where do you get this nonsense from? Can you give me a website? a URL? A statement of faith? Anything that points to "Baptists alone have been given special enlightenment to fully understand Scripture..."
This is not true and is a mischaracterization of the Baptists on here. If you want to post here then do your homework and post intelligently without making false allegations and sweeping generalizations, especially ones that are not true.

Try reading the biography of John Bunyan. He wrote Pilgrim's Progress while in jail. Imprisoned by the Anglican Church for refusing to desist from preaching. In 1661 Bunyan had his chance for freedom. To the magistrates he replied: "If you release me today, I will be preaching tomorrow." His freedom was denied. He was released in 1672. Bunyan refused to be bound by the Anglican Church, to be licensed by them, to conform to their rites and rituals. He was a servant of the Most High God, and would serve Christ and Christ alone. For that freedom he was jailed for. The Anglican Church did not believe in the soul liberty that Baptists fought for.

Baptists fight hard for this principle because they believe firmly in another principle, that of sola scriptura. The Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine. IOW, the Anglican Church, Lutheran, or RCC cannot dictate to us what to believe. The Bible is the only authoritative guide that we have. It is our final authority. Bunyan appealed to the Bible. They put him in prison for doing so. The Anglican Church wanted him under their authority, not the Bible's authority. Bunyan would rather be in jail.

Sola scriptura gives the right of every believer to believe as thinks the Scripture is teaching him.

Another distinctive that Baptists have is "Priesthood of the believers," that is that each one of us are priests before God, and that not one of us need to any other human to confess our sins, but are able to straight to God. We have access straight before the very throne of God. Christ is our mediator. No man on earth has power to forgive sins.
when they have so many divisions among them on numerous doctinal issues such as "Free Will", which is not a trivial matter, is absurd. They are either dead wrong in their belief of their private divine revelation of the truth or the Holy Spirit is screwing up badly.

The Holy Spirit gives enlightenment to all that believe in him, Baptist or not. However, if you are not saved, you will not understand that principle.

Michael Wrenn, by my standards is not a Baptist. Look how he responded to my post. He appreciated it, and obviously did not agree with you.

If you are saved you are a brother in Christ, despite doctrinal differences.

Hey, don't use me in that manner -- that is, that a non-Baptist (according to you) is agreeing with you, the Baptist, and disagreeing with the non-Baptist. The reason I agreed with you is because I hold to the same Baptist principles that you do.

 

[WestminsterMan]

I know what you're saying.

I quoted from the Catholic Encyclopedia, and a Franciscan priest and archaeologist.

"Official" catholic teachers have always had a difficult time with the facts. The Inquisitors summoned Galileo to a hearing and threatened to throw him into a dungeon and possibly torture him until he recanted concerning the fact that the earth revolved around the sun. In 1992 Pope John Paul II officially conceded that the Earth was not stationary -- it revolved around the sun.

Galileo supported a theory which could not be proven at the time. Galileo held to the Copernicum heliocentric system and wrote of it as fact, which violated the scientific method created by the Catholic university system. That theory wouldn't be proven until much later at which time it was accepted by the scientific community. Clearly you don't recognize the difference between fact and theory...no surprise.

WM

 

[WestminsterMan]

Hey, don't use me in that manner -- that is, that a non-Baptist (according to you) is agreeing with you, the Baptist, and disagreeing with the non-Baptist. The reason I agreed with you is because I hold to the same Baptist principles that you do.

“The men are so near to each other in all their convictions and theories of life that nothing is left to them but personal competition for the doing of the thing that is to be done. It is the same in religion. The apostle of Christianity and the infidel can meet without a chance of a quarrel; but it is never safe to bring together two men who differ about a saint or a surplice.”

— Anthony Trollope, “Phineas Redux”