Sola Scriptura

[The Biblicist]

Your 3 points are arbitrary and not supported by any logical argument or authority.

How can you say this? God saved Abraham while in a completely corrupt culture as a idolater in the Ur of the Chaldees. God can save people who are in cults where the cultic organization (Mormon's; JW's, etc.) do not teach the correct gospel but where the Bible is read and saved family friends may share the gospel truth and they are saved. God's people can exist in ungodly places or else we would never read Revelation 18:4 or 2 Cor. 6:12-17!! Perhaps saved person "would" not leave Rome but they "should" - Rev. 18:4 leave her or any other denomination where the gospel was not being taught or why else would we read such passages in scripture concerning God's people in wrong places:

Rev. 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

2 Cor. 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,

Consider some protestant (I'm including non-denoms and everybody else here) hypocrisy. We cite Sola Scriptura (rightly) yet we must recognize that the Church (Catholic Church) canonized it. We often cite Church Fathers, mystics, and others for spiritual authority ignoring that most were Catholic.

This is factually incorrect! Many non-catholics regard the Church Fathers as the history of apostasy. The same Church Father's demonstrate that the "whole" Biblical canon was in tact as early as 140 A.D. (Tertullian) as we have demonstrated on this forum and none have been successful in overthrowing that evidence. All the New Testament books were already written and in possession of the churches prior to 100 A.D. and we have shown that simply by the book of Acts and other scriptures.

You can't come to Christ through the RCC? What about the reformers? They were Catholics who walked away over legitimate concerns, BUT came to a more biblical understanding IN the Catholic Church.

The gospel is the power of salvation not Rome or any other denomination. The testimony of the Reformers was that it was IN SPITE OF ROME's doctrine they came to Christ in salvation.

I disagree with the metaphysical basis of transubstantiation, but the Eucharistic nonetheless celebrates Christ. I could easily argue that no one can come to faith through the teaching of Independent Fundamentalist Baptist, especially when they treat the KJV in an idolatrous fashion.

Amazing ignorance!! You know very well that those who are KJV only do not worship it or even claim to worship it. They simply defend it as the inspired translation of the scriptures. However, in contrast Rome makes the claim that the wafer and wine actually turn into the literal Christ and they actually perform acts of worship toward it. You are not even be rational or honest here in the least.

I could say that most protestants deny the authority of Jesus and His prayer for unity when we make of our faith a smorgasbord buffet of theological ideas to reject or accept as though each man or woman is the arbiter of truth; even if it is the pastor with his doctorate, am I really always right???

The issue is not whether any denomination has all the truth or obeys all the truth as none do. So your argument is baseless. The issue is whether or not a particular denomination is in direct violation of those teachings that the scriptures demand are essential to escape being condemned as heretical and apostate. Rome violates essentials of Scripture that the scriptures explicity condemn as her apostate and heretical - Gal. 1:8-9; Exodus 20:4-5; 1 Tim. 4:1-5; Rev. 17-18; etc.

Look at GreekTim's signature line:

Hermeneutic: messianic/christocentric & missional based on Luke 24:44-48
Bibliology: ISV or ESV preferred; full-inerrantist, ipsissima vox; Sturzian style textual critic position
Soteriology: 5 point Calvinist; supralapsarian
Ecclesiology: reformed SBC; plurality of elders; elder led
Eschatology: Amillennial; partial-preterist

No offense intended, but this is ridiculous and I have a list of theological and praxis preferences at least as long! We pick and choose how to interpret truth and the RCC offers the Magisterium to simplify the faith of adherents and clarity on what the Bible means. I get it, I don't agree with this autocratic approach, but there are FLAWS in our approach as well.

The Scriptures clearly teach and clearly warn that the professing kingdom of God on earth will grow increasingly corrupt (Mt. 13) in so much that Jesus even asks this rhetorical question about its state when he returns:

Luke 18:8 I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find [the] faith on the earth?

Paul repeatedly warns of the rise of apostasy after the apostolic age (Acts 20:29-31; 1 Tim. 4:1; 2 Tim. 4:1-5; 2 Thes. 2:3-12):

2 Tim. 4:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

Jesus explicitly warns of the very same thing - Mt. 24:5,24-25

Hence, whether you agree with GreekTims signature line or not, such clarification and distinction is necessary in the day we live because of what the Scripture clearly and explicitly predict will charactrize the time between the apostles and Christ's coming.

2 Tim. 4:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

What about this passage?

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink . Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him." (John 6:53-56 NIV84)

Jesus says that we have to eat His flesh and drink His blood and then says that it is REAL food and drink! This passage can easily, on its own merit mean that Jesus is telling us to literally take His life (blood) and His sacrifice (body) into our very being; with no ascetic divorce between immaterial and material (spirit & body); no dualism; just all of Jesus.

The text goes on to say that "On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?" (John 6:60 NIV84)

If all Jesus was saying is that once a month, once a quarter, or two times a year, we would eat some wonder bread cut into squares and drink a thimble of grape juice, then WHY was it a hard saying????

There is absolutely no excuse for you or anyone else on this forum to fail to grasp the meaning of Christ in this passage as this passage has been minutely explained in detail many times by its immediate context.

Jesus TWICE just before making the above passage equates eating and drinking as metaphors for coming and believing in him or partaking of him by faith in the gospel:

John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Jn. 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
48 I am that bread of life.

After he commanded them to eat and drink of him he explicitly told them his language was spiritual and referred precisely to the same thing he had previously told them in verses 44-45 or about believing in him:

Jn. 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

And when it was all said and done Peter understood what he was saying that it was not his actual blood and body they were to literally digest but it was his "WORDS" that actually conveyed what was essential to partake by faith for eternal life:

John 6:68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

Hence, there is absolutely no excuse for embracing this paganistic interpretation by Rome in this context IF the scripture is to be interpeted by its context??

What you have demonstrated is that you are confused and leavened by Rome.

 

[PilgrimPastor]

How can you say this? God saved Abraham while in a completely corrupt culture as a idolater in the Ur of the Chaldees. God can save people who are in cults where the cultic organization (Mormon's; JW's, etc.) do not teach the correct gospel but where the Bible is read and saved family friends may share the gospel truth and they are saved. God's people can exist in ungodly places or else we would never read Revelation 18:4 or 2 Cor. 6:12-17!! Perhaps saved person "would" not leave Rome but they "should" - Rev. 18:4 leave her or any other denomination where the gospel was not being taught or why else would we read such passages in scripture concerning God's people in wrong places:

Rev. 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

2 Cor. 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,



This is factually incorrect! Many non-catholics regard the Church Fathers as the history of apostasy. The same Church Father's demonstrate that the "whole" Biblical canon was in tact as early as 140 A.D. (Tertullian) as we have demonstrated on this forum and none have been successful in overthrowing that evidence. All the New Testament books were already written and in possession of the churches prior to 100 A.D. and we have shown that simply by the book of Acts and other scriptures.




The gospel is the power of salvation not Rome or any other denomination. The testimony of the Reformers was that it was IN SPITE OF ROME's doctrine they came to Christ in salvation.



Amazing ignorance!! You know very well that those who are KJV only do not worship it or even claim to worship it. They simply defend it as the inspired translation of the scriptures. However, in contrast Rome makes the claim that the wafer and wine actually turn into the literal Christ and they actually perform acts of worship toward it. You are not even be rational or honest here in the least.



The issue is not whether any denomination has all the truth or obeys all the truth as none do. So your argument is baseless. The issue is whether or not a particular denomination is in direct violation of those teachings that the scriptures demand are essential to escape being condemned as heretical and apostate. Rome violates essentials of Scripture that the scriptures explicity condemn as her apostate and heretical - Gal. 1:8-9; Exodus 20:4-5; 1 Tim. 4:1-5; Rev. 17-18; etc.




The Scriptures clearly teach and clearly warn that the professing kingdom of God on earth will grow increasingly corrupt (Mt. 13) in so much that Jesus even asks this rhetorical question about its state when he returns:

Luke 18:8 I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find [the] faith on the earth?

Paul repeatedly warns of the rise of apostasy after the apostolic age (Acts 20:29-31; 1 Tim. 4:1; 2 Tim. 4:1-5; 2 Thes. 2:3-12):

2 Tim. 4:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

Jesus explicitly warns of the very same thing - Mt. 24:5,24-25

Hence, whether you agree with GreekTims signature line or not, such clarification and distinction is necessary in the day we live because of what the Scripture clearly and explicitly predict will charactrize the time between the apostles and Christ's coming.

2 Tim. 4:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.




There is absolutely no excuse for you or anyone else on this forum to fail to grasp the meaning of Christ in this passage as this passage has been minutely explained in detail many times by its immediate context.

Jesus TWICE just before making the above passage equates eating and drinking as metaphors for coming and believing in him or partaking of him by faith in the gospel:

John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Jn. 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
48 I am that bread of life.

After he commanded them to eat and drink of him he explicitly told them his language was spiritual and referred precisely to the same thing he had previously told them in verses 44-45 or about believing in him:

Jn. 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

And when it was all said and done Peter understood what he was saying that it was not his actual blood and body they were to literally digest but it was his "WORDS" that actually conveyed what was essential to partake by faith for eternal life:

John 6:68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

Hence, there is absolutely no excuse for embracing this paganistic interpretation by Rome in this context IF the scripture is to be interpeted by its context??

What you have demonstrated is that you are confused and leavened by Rome.

WOW, did you ever put a lot of time and thought into this post. Good post. I don't necessarily disagree with any of what you have said. My point was not to argue the points, only to make the point that Catholic have legitimate arguments for what they believe, at least those well studied Catholic scholars, and that to dismiss them out of hand as trite is not becoming of the Body of Christ.

I know Catholics who love the Lord and others who are misled in the garbely gook of false doctrine. I get it. I don't disagree with your post. I have simply grown in my appreciation of some of Catholic doctrine through studying it firsthand.

I was sort of playing their advocate for the purpose of making that point which appears to either have been lost on you, or more likely that you dismiss for a lack of perceived validity. In either case, thank you for your thoughtful response.

 

[The Biblicist]

WOW, did you ever put a lot of time and thought into this post. Good post. I don't necessarily disagree with any of what you have said. My point was not to argue the points, only to make the point that Catholic have legitimate arguments for what they believe, at least those well studied Catholic scholars, and that to dismiss them out of hand as trite is not becoming of the Body of Christ.

I know Catholics who love the Lord and others who are misled in the garbely gook of false doctrine. I get it. I don't disagree with your post. I have simply grown in my appreciation of some of Catholic doctrine through studying it firsthand.

I was sort of playing their advocate for the purpose of making that point which appears to either have been lost on you, or more likely that you dismiss for a lack of perceived validity. In either case, thank you for your thoughtful response.

Well, my friend, you did a very good job playing the devil's advocate and representing their position. I give you kudo's for that.

 

[lakeside]

Well, my friend, you did a very good job playing the devil's advocate and representing their position. I give you kudo's for that.

No, very wrong, it is you The Biblicist that is playing the devil's advocate. Must I remind youover and over again, that if your church was truly that One True Church founded by Christ it would have been in the forefront of all other churches from the time of Pentecost, because of the promise by Jesus in that He said that His One True Church would always be protected from the time that the Book of Matthew was penned. As Christian history reveals that Protestant communities were established during the Refomation , which began around 1516 [ Most of today's Protestant churches and cults are actually offshoots of the original Protestant offshoots ] with your church along with all other churches being all man-made. That One True Church was formed on His Apostles [ only the CC comes from Jesus via His Apostles ] not on guys such as Luther, Smith, Smyth, Charles Taze Russell, Calvin, Zwingli, Knox, Jim Jones, that moonie guy or any other "Jim Bob" coming down the pike.

 

[The Biblicist]

No, very wrong, it is you The Biblicist that is playing the devil's advocate.

Sorry but that is rediculous as I never defended Rome! Perhaps you need to read again what I said in my post? I attacked the false interpretations of Rome rather than defended them!

Must I remind youover and over again, that if your church was truly that One True Church founded by Christ it would have been in the forefront of all other churches from the time of Pentecost, because of the promise by Jesus in that He said that His One True Church would always be protected from the time that the Book of Matthew was penned. As Christian history reveals that Protestant communities were established during the Refomation , which began around 1516 [ Most of today's Protestant churches and cults are actually offshoots of the original Protestant offshoots ] with your church along with all other churches being all man-made. That One True Church was formed on His Apostles [ only the CC comes from Jesus via His Apostles ] not on guys such as Luther, Smith, Smyth, Charles Taze Russell, Calvin, Zwingli, Knox, Jim Jones, that moonie guy or any other "Jim Bob" coming down the pike.

Must I remind you that the church that Jesus built was built out of materials prepared by a Baptist preacher not a Catholic preacher and that even Jesus submitted to a Baptist preacher not a Catholic preacher for baptism and that the church Jesus built was not a STATE CHURCH but a church that had no relationship with the Jewish or Roman Government at all in any sense of the term. The Church JEsus built had none of its ministers in government positions and none of the government officials took part in its counsel (Acts 15) or involved themselves in its matters!

Must I remind you that the true churches of Christ are among those PAGAN ROMANIZED Christianity deemed "heretics" and persecuted and killed all the way up to the Reformation, and thus were never part of Rome or Protestant Rome!!

 

[lakeside]

Biblicist, need I remind you that in those days the members of the Church had to defend any way they could against false teachings by 'heretical ' groups and even against those that were followers of John the Baptist, if indeed this had occurred ,but of couse it never did, being that the Baptist wasn't the Lord , John the Baptist was a follower of Christ just as all who follow "the Christ" are called "Christians". So The Biblicist should we address you, as a Baptist, or as a member of Christ "Universal" Church, all of whom carry the title of Christian because they follow the Teachings of Christ and not the teachings of mere men.

 

[lakeside]

The Biblicist , you write "that Jesus didn't form a "state Church '' . Exactly, because Catholicism rejects the "state church ' , which has led to governments dominating Christianity rather than vice-versa.

 

[The Biblicist]

Biblicist, need I remind you that in those days the members of the Church had to defend any way they could against false teachings by 'heretical ' groups and even against those that were followers of John the Baptist, if indeed this had occurred ,but of couse it never did, being that the Baptist wasn't the Lord , John the Baptist was a follower of Christ just as all who follow "the Christ" are called "Christians". So The Biblicist should we address you, as a Baptist, or as a member of Christ "Universal" Church, all of whom carry the title of Christian because they follow the Teachings of Christ and not the teachings of mere men.

This is absurd! Of course John the Baptist was a believer in Jesus Christ! But that does not take away the fact that Jesus and all those Jesus took and formed his church were material PREPARED BY THE BAPTIST as that was his God appointed mission (Lk. 1:17b).

There is no UNIVERSAL church in the Scriptures only congregational bodies of baptized believers.

 

[The Biblicist]

The Biblicist , you write "that Jesus didn't form a "state Church '' . Exactly, because Catholicism rejects the "state church ' , which has led to governments dominating Christianity rather than vice-versa.

Oh yeah, then what is VATICAN CITY??? Why do they send out AMBASSADORS to other governments and are recognized as a GOVERNMENT with their own territory distinct and separate from Italy?

Oh yeah, then what is the PAPAL STATE in history? Give me a break, no one is going to believe your nonsense that Roman Catholicism did not unite with Secular Rome at the time of Constantine.

No such church in the New Testament other than the Great Whore!

 

[lakeside]

The Biblicist , first your Post #288 Christians , that is I'm writing about Real Christians only follow the Teachings of Chist as per Bible recorded in Luke 10 v 16, notice 'not from any other source', do you agree with Jesus [just a simple yes or no ] ?

And yes , Christ's Church is world wide, [ universal ] as recorded in the Holy Bible.

Your Post # 289
The only thing Constantine did was make Christianity the faith of the Roman Empire ,that was his choice ,because he was the Emperor , his mother Helena was already a converted Catholic before his decision, can you connect the dots ? Meaning that the Catholic Church was well established way before Constantine was made Emperor. History shows us that Linus was Pope immediately following Peter's execution, this all occurred way before Constantine's birth, in fact maybe even before his great-grandfathers birth.

 

[The Biblicist]

The Biblicist , first your Post #288 Christians , that is I'm writing about Real Christians only follow the Teachings of Chist as per Bible recorded in Luke 10 v 16, notice 'not from any other source', do you agree with Jesus [just a simple yes or no ] ?

Luk. 10:16 He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.


He is contextually speaking to His apostles and talking about their personal visible ministry while on earth as that is the only TIME and PLACE they AUDIBLE SPOKE to other people and other people AUDIBLE HEARD what they spoke!

And yes , Christ's Church is world wide, [ universal ] as recorded in the Holy Bible.

For example, could you cite one text from the New Testament where the term "universal" is ever found in connection with the church???? I want the text not your interpretation!

Your Post # 289

The only thing Constantine did was make Christianity the faith of the Roman Empire ,that was his choice ,because he was the Emperor , his mother Helena was already a converted Catholic before his decision, can you connect the dots ? Meaning that the Catholic Church was well established way before Constantine was made Emperor. History shows us that Linus was Pope immediately following Peter's execution, this all occurred way before Constantine's birth, in fact maybe even before his great-grandfathers birth.

This is an outright lie! He determined the rules and sat over the counsel in the debate between the Donatists and apostate elders. Indeed, The Donatists asked what has the church to do with the Emperor of Rome??

 

[lakeside]

Luk. 10:16 He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.


He is contextually speaking to His apostles and talking about their personal visible ministry while on earth as that is the only TIME and PLACE they AUDIBLE SPOKE to other people and other people AUDIBLE HEARD what they spoke!





For example, could you cite one text from the New Testament where the term "universal" is ever found in connection with the church???? I want the text not your interpretation!

Your Post # 289


This is an outright lie! He determined the rules and sat over the counsel in the debate between the Donatists and apostate elders. Indeed, The Donatists asked what has the church to do with the Emperor of Rome??

If the Donatists were there why wasn't your baptists not there ?

Catholic beliefs—the papacy, priesthood, invocation of saints, sacraments, veneration of Mary, salvation by something besides "faith alone," purgatory—were evident long before the fourth century, before Constantine. They were believed by Christians before this supposed "Constanization" took place. Another difficulty is that there are no historical records—none at all—which imply an underground Fundamentalist/Baptist church existed from the early fourth century to the Reformation. In those years there were many schisms and heresies, most now vanished, but present-day Fundamentalists cannot find among them their missing Fundamentalist/Baptist church. There were no groups that believed in all or even most, of the doctrines espoused by the Protestant Reformers (e.g. sola scriptura, salvation by "faith alone," and an invisible church). No wonder Fundamentalist/Baptist writers dislike discussing Church history!

Since the Christian Church was to exist historically and be like a city set on a mountain for all to see (Matt. 5:14), it had to be visible and easily identifiable. A church that exists only in the hearts of believers is not visible and is more like the candle hidden under the bushel basket (Matt. 5:15). But any visible church would necessarily be an institutional church that would need an earthly head. It would need an authority to which Christians could turn for the final resolution of doctrinal and disciplinary disputes. Christ appointed Peter and his successors to that position.

 

[The Biblicist]

If the Donatists were there why wasn't your baptists not there ?

Catholic beliefs—the papacy, priesthood, invocation of saints, sacraments, veneration of Mary, salvation by something besides "faith alone," purgatory—were evident long before the fourth century, before Constantine. They were believed by Christians before this supposed "Constanization" took place. Another difficulty is that there are no historical records—none at all—which imply an underground Fundamentalist/Baptist church existed from the early fourth century to the Reformation. In those years there were many schisms and heresies, most now vanished, but present-day Fundamentalists cannot find among them their missing Fundamentalist/Baptist church. There were no groups that believed in all or even most, of the doctrines espoused by the Protestant Reformers (e.g. sola scriptura, salvation by "faith alone," and an invisible church). No wonder Fundamentalist/Baptist writers dislike discussing Church history!

Since the Christian Church was to exist historically and be like a city set on a mountain for all to see (Matt. 5:14), it had to be visible and easily identifiable. A church that exists only in the hearts of believers is not visible and is more like the candle hidden under the bushel basket (Matt. 5:15). But any visible church would necessarily be an institutional church that would need an earthly head. It would need an authority to which Christians could turn for the final resolution of doctrinal and disciplinary disputes. Christ appointed Peter and his successors to that position.

Here is the bottom line. You nor Rome can defend their position on the basis of scripture alone. Your position depends upon Rome's selected historical sources they have preserved (so-called church fathers) to defend its interpretations of scripture. Therefore, when scripture pins you, you flee to uninspired sources to defend yourself.

Uninspired traditions of men (church fathers) are not comprehensive of all in history, correct as to all in history and therefore authoritative for all in history. The Church fathers simply present the apostate view of church history. So don't ask me to defend my position from apostate points of view.

 

[lakeside]

The Biblicist, here is a run-down on your infamous heretical groups- the Montanists (a false-prophecy movement that said the New Jerusalem would descend in Phrygia, on Montanus's home town), the Donatists (who said sacraments are efficacious only if they are administered by someone in a state of grace), and the Albigensians (who said there are two gods, a good god who loves us and an evil god who made the world). There is simply no way that these groups were Baptists under a different name.

Also incorrect is the notion, seriously offered by some Baptists, that the Baptists are descended from John the Baptist--otherwise, why else would they sport his title?

(This argument is analogous to the one given by ministers of the Protestant denomination that calls itself the Church of Christ. They say theirs must be the original Church because the name of the Church founded by Christ could be nothing other than "the Church of Christ." Naturally enough, this argument has not found favor with people who do not belong to that denomination.)

The Baptists are a late offshoot of the English Reformation. Their denomination was started in 1609 by a British man named John Smyth, who was living in Holland at the time. He and his congregation of expatriate Englishmen began the first Baptist church, which later relocated to England, which is why all the early Baptist confessions were drawn up in that country.

Incidentally, the original Baptists practiced baptism by pouring (affusion) instead of dunking (immersion), although most of them today vigorously deny the validity of baptism by pouring. The founder of the Baptist Church in America, Roger Williams, finding no one qualified to baptize him, decided to baptize himself in 1639. Now I can understand why you are constandly tring to change Christian history.

 

[The Biblicist]

The Biblicist, here is a run-down on your infamous heretical groups- the Montanists (a false-prophecy movement that said the New Jerusalem would descend in Phrygia, on Montanus's home town), the Donatists (who said sacraments are efficacious only if they are administered by someone in a state of grace), and the Albigensians (who said there are two gods, a good god who loves us and an evil god who made the world). There is simply no way that these groups were Baptists under a different name.

According to who???? According to their enemies report? According to any comprehensive investigation concerning all who were given that name by their enemies? According to chosen representatives used to castigate a greater movement by their enemies??????

Also incorrect is the notion, seriously offered by some Baptists, that the Baptists are descended from John the Baptist--otherwise, why else would they sport his title?

I never said that Baptists descended from John the Baptist? What I said was that the first church was composed of materials provided by a Baptist Preacher making the first church a "Baptistic" church built by Christ. All true churches come from the Great Commission as given to the first church to reproduce after its own kind in all generations until Christ returns.

(This argument is analogous to the one given by ministers of the Protestant denomination that calls itself the Church of Christ. They say theirs must be the original Church because the name of the Church founded by Christ could be nothing other than "the Church of Christ." Naturally enough, this argument has not found favor with people who do not belong to that denomination.)

No it isn't, because I don't claim the first New Testament church had the name "Baptist" or any church in the New Testament called themselves a "Baptist" church. I only claim they were "Baptistic" in doctrine not in name and that all the true chruches of Jesus Christ in all ages including this age we live are "Baptistic" in doctrine and practice. However, it is their enemies (Rome) who called them "AnaBAPTISTS" in derision.

] The Baptists are a late offshoot of the English Reformation. Their denomination was started in 1609 by a British man named John Smyth, who was living in Holland at the time. He and his congregation of expatriate Englishmen began the first Baptist church, which later relocated to England, which is why all the early Baptist confessions were drawn up in that country.

You can find "A" church started by John Smyth but as the earliest Baptist Historian who lived near his time said, John Smyth did not have any affect on the practice or history of Baptists in England.

You can find "A" church started in Switzerland but that is not the origin of Baptists only the origin of "A" church.

Those who have studied history know that long before the Reformers there were those congregations hidden throughout Europe that held tenaciously to the principles of Baptists and thus were "Baptistic" (See Mosheim).

Incidentally, the original Baptists practiced baptism by pouring (affusion) instead of dunking (immersion), although most of them today vigorously deny the validity of baptism by pouring. The founder of the Baptist Church in America, Roger Williams, finding no one qualified to baptize him, decided to baptize himself in 1639. Now I can understand why you are constandly tring to change Christian history.

Incidently no church ever came out of Roger Williams congregation because he disbanded it and went off as a "seeker."

Incidently it is John Clarke Baptist Church in New Port which is the oldest Baptist church in America and its membership came from Baptist churches in England.

 

[lakeside]

Biblicist, you wrote, "According to who???? According to their enemies report? According to any comprehensive investigation concerning all who were given that name by their enemies? According to chosen representatives used to castigate a greater movement by their enemies??????"

So tell me where the historical sources that you have on these 'heretical ' groups come from ? I named my sources , now please name your sources ,being that you too must go outside of Scripture to give your historical data on the Donatists.How do you know that your non-Biblical source is more reliable than the early writings of the Church fathers? Also why should the Catholic Church be dishonest with the early Christian writers when those very same writings were known by the protesting Bishops that left the Catholic Church under King Henry the Eighth, they believed in those very same writings , in fact that very Church of England at first carried on with an almost dublicate Mass as the Catholic Church ,but then as time passed it became watered down to what it is today. Even Luther wrote ; " That the Papists had the early correct writings from the early Church fathers ''. A famous Church of England Anglican Archbishop who set out to try and ruin the Catholic Church ended up converting to the Catholic Church , his name was something like 'Newman' he was almost like the Billy Graham of his day is to Evangelicals today, he Newman was as that to the large Anglican community back then. And he coined the phase ;" To go deep into history is to stop being Protestant ' . I gave the American translation , not his actual words .

 

[lakeside]

The Biblicist, care to address my question [ post # 296 ] on your historical sources outside of the Holy Bible.

 

[Eric B]

Since the Christian Church was to exist historically and be like a city set on a mountain for all to see (Matt. 5:14), it had to be visible and easily identifiable. A church that exists only in the hearts of believers is not visible and is more like the candle hidden under the bushel basket (Matt. 5:15). But any visible church would necessarily be an institutional church that would need an earthly head. It would need an authority to which Christians could turn for the final resolution of doctrinal and disciplinary disputes. Christ appointed Peter and his successors to that position.

Jesus explains what "light on a hill" means in v.16: "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven."

It has nothing to do with any "organization" (which often had the opposite effect, of being mixed up in worldly politics, becoming a power base, and displaying a lot of darkness before the whole world).

 

[The Biblicist]

Biblicist, you wrote, "According to who???? According to their enemies report? According to any comprehensive investigation concerning all who were given that name by their enemies? According to chosen representatives used to castigate a greater movement by their enemies??????"

So tell me where the historical sources that you have on these 'heretical ' groups come from ? I named my sources , now please name your sources ,being that you too must go outside of Scripture to give your historical data on the Donatists.How do you know that your non-Biblical source is more reliable than the early writings of the Church fathers? Also why should the Catholic Church be dishonest with the early Christian writers when those very same writings were known by the protesting Bishops that left the Catholic Church under King Henry the Eighth, they believed in those very same writings , in fact that very Church of England at first carried on with an almost dublicate Mass as the Catholic Church ,but then as time passed it became watered down to what it is today. Even Luther wrote ; " That the Papists had the early correct writings from the early Church fathers ''. A famous Church of England Anglican Archbishop who set out to try and ruin the Catholic Church ended up converting to the Catholic Church , his name was something like 'Newman' he was almost like the Billy Graham of his day is to Evangelicals today, he Newman was as that to the large Anglican community back then. And he coined the phase ;" To go deep into history is to stop being Protestant ' . I gave the American translation , not his actual words .

Rome destroyed the writings of their enemies as well as their enemies. Hence, we take what Rome preserved with a grain of salt and interpret her records through the lenses of prophetic Scriptures concerning the post-apostolic church. We look for the trail of blood left by the Great Whore and her slanders and contradictions in her records to peice together a picture that fits the Biblical prophetic record rather than Rome's record.

 

[Walter]

I have to ask. If Rome destroyed all the historical evidence of it's enemies, why do we have the writings of the Gnostics, Donatists, Waldenses, etc.? I have never bought the 'Catholic Church destroyed all the evidence of Baptistic Churches' excuse. BTW, this was discussed in the 'where is the IFB systematic theology' thread. People seem to believe that there is a history of Baptistic Churches dating back to the Apostles because they WANT to believe this, not because evidence actually exists.