Who is Jesus Christ's true church?

[Yeshua1]

Nonsense. As the Christian Church evolved the faithful built churches with altars. Baptist churches do not have altars.

We have "altar calls" hard to do that without them!

 

[Yeshua1]

Some Baptists make the claim to justify themselves today, like they were the first ones on the block.

According to the Baptist History and Heritage Society in their article called Baptist Beginnings, 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".

"On the other hand, the historical evidence clearly states that Baptists originated, as a distinct denomination, in the early seventeenth century. "How does one harmonize the sense of continuity from Bible times with the factual reality of more recent beginnings"?

"Some have so emphasized the sense of continuity from Bible times that they find it difficult to face up to historical facts about Baptist origins. Some have even erected elaborate schemes, or “Trails of Blood,” seeking to trace Baptists through all the centuries from Christ to the present".

"These theories are based upon assumptions, unreliable or nonexistent historical data, or faulty interpretation of Jesus’ promise that the gates of death should never prevail against his church. A Baptist today can have a real sense of identification with the teachings of Christ without trying to prove historical succession".

I am saying that the NT church in beginning was baptist like in doctrines and practices!

 

[Yeshua1]

The true church (Colossians 1:18,24) is made up of all genuine born again Christians who have placed their faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation and is not merely a church building with a name stamped on it. If Jesus Christ returned today to gather His church, He would gather all genuine BELIEVERS, regardless of where they attended church.

Yes, its the living stones of the saved people, not stones in the building!

 

[Yeshua1]

Very true. Sadly, they have to re-write history to what they wish it had been.

Christianity of antiquity is demonstrably Catholic. We can provide the names of Catholic bishops, writings, Councils, archaeological sites, saints, martyrs, liturgical prayers, Scriptures, psalters, epitaphs, art work, names of their opponents, etc. from each century, beginning with the first.

There is a reason why Evangelicals can never put forth such evidence when asked for it: Because it did not exist until men (and women) invented it some 1500 years later.

The first Christians, once kicked out of Judaism and forming own local assemblies, were Baptist like in doctrines and practices!

 

[Walter]

I am saying that the NT church in beginning was baptist like in doctrines and practices!

But NONE of the archeology, historical documents or other writings of the Christian's pin the early centuries of the Church supports that claim. Not one scintilla of evidence provided by you so far. All you do is claim that the church found in the book of Acts MUST have been Baptistic. There is a ton of historical and archeological evidence. Of those early few centuries of the Church that makes your claim look silly.

 

[Yeshua1]

But NONE of the archeology, historical documents or other writings of the Christian's pin the early centuries of the Church supports that claim. Not one scintilla of evidence provided by you so far. All you do is claim that the church found in the book of Acts MUST have been Baptistic. There is a ton of historical and archeological evidence. Of those early few centuries of the Church that makes your claim look silly.

They followed the teachings and doctrines of the Lord jesus and Apostles early on, how much more Baptist can you get?

 

[Walter]

They followed the teachings and doctrines of the Lord jesus and Apostles early on, how much more Baptist can you get?

Show me the historical evidence that they believed as you do. You have been asked countless times to do so and the best you can do is claim that the book of Acts provides that evidence. The Church has a LONG history past the book of Acts, surely there is historical proof of the existence of Baptistic believers. The Waldenses, who you commonly try to claim are early evangelicals believed much more like Catholics than you. So provide your evidence please

 

[canadyjd]

Show me the historical evidence that they believed as you do. You have been asked countless times to do so and the best you can do is claim that the book of Acts provides that evidence. The Church has a LONG history past the book of Acts, surely there is historical proof of the existence of Baptistic believers. The Waldenses, who you commonly try to claim are early evangelicals believed much more like Catholics than you. So provide your evidence please

We believe the Bible in the context in which it is written. You have added to what was given by introducing a “Christianized” version of pagan practices, such as praying to saints and putting priests between God and man.

peace to you

 

[Walpole]

They followed the teachings and doctrines of the Lord jesus and Apostles early on, how much more Baptist can you get?

I guess other than believing in baptismal regeneration, the Eucharist as the actual body and blood of Christ, the efficacy of the Sacraments, the ordained episcopate, priesthood and diaconate, the practice of celibacy and clerical continence, having a liturgy focused on the Eucharistic sacrifice complete with an actual altar, Apostolic succession as necessary to safeguard the faith and valid Sacraments, the authority of the Church and the bishop of Rome as the authority over the Church universal, I suppose you could say the early Church was Baptist!

 

[Walpole]

We believe the Bible in the context in which it is written. You have added to what was given by introducing a “Christianized” version of pagan practices, such as praying to saints and putting priests between God and man.

peace to you

First, the Scriptures were born from the Church and thus they are written in the context of her tradition. (cf. Luke 1:1-4)

Secondly, do you use candles? Wedding rings? Write epitaphs on your loved ones tombstones? Those are pagan practices.

Lastly, do you do any of the following...

- Baptize yourself?
- Marry yourself?
- Preach your own sermons?
- Pen your own Scripture?
- Confect your own Eucharist?
- Anoint yourself?

Unless you do, you have put someone (i.e. a priest) between God and yourself and are hence guilty of a double standard.


Hopefully you see the ridiculousness of these accusations...

 

[canadyjd]

First, the Scriptures were born from the Church and thus they are written in the context of her tradition. (cf. Luke 1:1-4)

Secondly, do you use candles? Wedding rings? Write epitaphs on your loved ones tombstones? Those are pagan practices.

Lastly, do you do any of the following...

- Baptize yourself?
- Marry yourself?
- Preach your own sermons?
- Pen your own Scripture?
- Confect your own Eucharist?
- Anoint yourself?

Unless you do, you have put someone (i.e. a priest) between God and yourself and are hence guilty of a double standard.


Hopefully you see the ridiculousness of these accusations...

The scriptures came from men inspired by Holy Spirit to communicate God’s Word to His people. The earliest assemblies of Christians were able to compare writings and practices against what they knew to be true from interaction with Jesus Christ and His Apostles. To the extent any assembly is filled with Holy Spirit and thus worships consistent with those early Christians, they are His church.

Thus the idea of “canon”, which referred to a measuring rod, was introduced to discern writings and practice that were consistent with the teachings of Jesus and His Apostles.

When the Emperor Constantine made Christianity the “official” religion of the Roman Empire about 300 years after the resurrection of Jesus, the official attempt to “christianize” pagan practices began. And also the persecution of those who disagreed with the “official” church.

The bishop of Rome took the title Pontiff Maximus, which meant the high priest of all religions. Worship of “saints” was introduced as a way to convince Roman soldiers that Christianity was no different from the worship of their ancestors.

When Constantine died, the bishop of Rome forged a will to make it appear Constantine left the control of Rome to him. With the army under his control, any who disagreed with his “pronouncements” found themselves subject to punishment and death. He claimed he had direct succession from Peter, who he claimed to be the first bishop of Rome, even though there is absolutely no scriptural or historical record of that being true.

The church sought control of every aspect of a person’s life. You could only be saved if a priest said so, and had to come back often to receive salvation per the whims of these men. This led to abuse of power that continues to this day with (some) perverts claiming they control your salvation, and abusing your children while they do it.

The church invented purgatory as a way to extort money from its people. Those that died didn’t go directly to hell, but to this place of torment until they paid for there sins. Luckily, donations to the church could lessen the time of torment.

The pope pronounced himself the “vicar” of Christ, which means something akin to “channeling” Jesus on earth, another pagan practice. His pronouncements were said to be infallible, even when they conflicted with scripture.

Not to say all within the “official” church acted in bad faith. I’m sure many believed what was taught and sincerely sought to serve Christ and His people.

The RCC does possess the gospel of Jesus Christ. They have added so much to the gospel it is disguised and hidden.

peace to you

 

[AustinC]

I believe the Baptist church has elements of the Philadelphian church.

Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out... - Revelation 3:12

“No more go out” This is the disadvantage of this church, they are in and out of revival. I believe the Philadelphian church is made up of conferences, revivals, and camp meetings where one could leave spiritually refreshed. It is worrisome to me that most churches where I would attend only has one Sunday morning service.

I was brought up GARBC as a pre-teen when we lived up in Michigan in the 70s. My pastor used to take us to youth retreats upstate. The young people looked like the angels of heaven and the sermons would make you want to go to the altar to pray. In which sometimes I did, leaving such meeting with the feeling of having Christ with me.

Grand
Army of
Rebellious
Baptist
Churches

Duking it out with the

I
Fight
Christians
Anywhere

[emoji16]

 

[Adonia]

The first Christians, once kicked out of Judaism and forming own local assemblies, were Baptist like in doctrines and practices!

Not so. They weren't allowed any independence from the leaders of the new Christian Church, and they surely did not follow the "Sola Scriptura" idea either.

 

[Adonia]

We believe the Bible in the context in which it is written. You have added to what was given by introducing a “Christianized” version of pagan practices, such as praying to saints and putting priests between God and man.

peace to you

You don't even have a complete Bible. There were no independent churches and the people were not allowed to decide which particular doctrines to believe in either. What Christians ought to believe came from the central authority and the traditions that were then being established. The pulpit was not the high point of worship either.

 

[canadyjd]

You don't even have a complete Bible. There were no independent churches and the people were not allowed to decide which particular doctrines to believe in either. What Christians ought to believe came from the central authority and the traditions that were then being established. The pulpit was not the high point of worship either.

By the end of the first century, Christian communities had established and collected the full extent of scripture by comparing writings and practice to the first hand accounts of interactions with Jesus and His Apostles. Anything added later is not scripture.

It is clear from Acts, churches acted independently. The church at Antioch sent their own missionaries and, according to scripture, they were acting under the authority of God, Holy Spirit, not under a “central authority” or church.

The closest thing you have to a “central authority” was the Acts 15 conference in which the leaders of the Jerusalem church.,..not the Rome church.... led by the Lord’s brother James, not Peter, made the decision not to require circumcise for gentiles coming into the assembly.

The RCC “traditions” are the doctrines which Jesus warned against when He told the Pharisees they were teaching as doctrine (from God) what are actually the traditions of men. The traditions of men are not God breathed and are not authoritative. They only obscure God’s truth.

So, the RCC substitutes the authority and teaching of scripture for the traditions of men, and obscures God’s truth.

The RCC substitutes Jesus as the only High Priest and mediator between God and His people for a hierarchy of priests that take for themselves the role of forgiving sins and dispensing grace.

Peace to you

 

[Yeshua1]

I guess other than believing in baptismal regeneration, the Eucharist as the actual body and blood of Christ, the efficacy of the Sacraments, the ordained episcopate, priesthood and diaconate, the practice of celibacy and clerical continence, having a liturgy focused on the Eucharistic sacrifice complete with an actual altar, Apostolic succession as necessary to safeguard the faith and valid Sacraments, the authority of the Church and the bishop of Rome as the authority over the Church universal, I suppose you could say the early Church was Baptist!

The Apostles themselves believed in none of that, so the first Christians would not have either!

 

[Yeshua1]

First, the Scriptures were born from the Church and thus they are written in the context of her tradition. (cf. Luke 1:1-4)

Secondly, do you use candles? Wedding rings? Write epitaphs on your loved ones tombstones? Those are pagan practices.

Lastly, do you do any of the following...

- Baptize yourself?
- Marry yourself?
- Preach your own sermons?
- Pen your own Scripture?
- Confect your own Eucharist?
- Anoint yourself?

Unless you do, you have put someone (i.e. a priest) between God and yourself and are hence guilty of a double standard.


Hopefully you see the ridiculousness of these accusations...

You have it backward, Jesus gave to us the scriptures themselves, and he also gave to us the Church, NOT the one of Rome, but His true one!

 

[Yeshua1]

The scriptures came from men inspired by Holy Spirit to communicate God’s Word to His people. The earliest assemblies of Christians were able to compare writings and practices against what they knew to be true from interaction with Jesus Christ and His Apostles. To the extent any assembly is filled with Holy Spirit and thus worships consistent with those early Christians, they are His church.

Thus the idea of “canon”, which referred to a measuring rod, was introduced to discern writings and practice that were consistent with the teachings of Jesus and His Apostles.

When the Emperor Constantine made Christianity the “official” religion of the Roman Empire about 300 years after the resurrection of Jesus, the official attempt to “christianize” pagan practices began. And also the persecution of those who disagreed with the “official” church.

The bishop of Rome took the title Pontiff Maximus, which meant the high priest of all religions. Worship of “saints” was introduced as a way to convince Roman soldiers that Christianity was no different from the worship of their ancestors.

When Constantine died, the bishop of Rome forged a will to make it appear Constantine left the control of Rome to him. With the army under his control, any who disagreed with his “pronouncements” found themselves subject to punishment and death. He claimed he had direct succession from Peter, who he claimed to be the first bishop of Rome, even though there is absolutely no scriptural or historical record of that being true.

The church sought control of every aspect of a person’s life. You could only be saved if a priest said so, and had to come back often to receive salvation per the whims of these men. This led to abuse of power that continues to this day with (some) perverts claiming they control your salvation, and abusing your children while they do it.

The church invented purgatory as a way to extort money from its people. Those that died didn’t go directly to hell, but to this place of torment until they paid for there sins. Luckily, donations to the church could lessen the time of torment.

The pope pronounced himself the “vicar” of Christ, which means something akin to “channeling” Jesus on earth, another pagan practice. His pronouncements were said to be infallible, even when they conflicted with scripture.

Not to say all within the “official” church acted in bad faith. I’m sure many believed what was taughticially deno and sincerely sought to serve Christ and His people.

The RCC does possess the gospel of Jesus Christ. They have added so much to the gospel it is disguised and hidden.

peace to you

They officially denounced the true Gospel and taught a false One at Trent!

 

[Yeshua1]

Not so. They weren't allowed any independence from the leaders of the new Christian Church, and they surely did not follow the "Sola Scriptura" idea either.

They heeded and observed the OT and the Apostolic teachings that made up the NT!

 

[Yeshua1]

You don't even have a complete Bible. There were no independent churches and the people were not allowed to decide which particular doctrines to believe in either. What Christians ought to believe came from the central authority and the traditions that were then being established. The pulpit was not the high point of worship either.

Jesus alone and scriptures alone!