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

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.

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.

 

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 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".

 

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!

 

Read what I posted then.

 

The sources I quoted were Catholic.

 

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

 

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!

 

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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

"God screwed up."

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

“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”