trying2understand
New Member
Your beliefs can be traced back to the Reformation and the likes of Calvin.
Except for your pretribulation rapture scenario. That is of much more recent fabrication; like I said, about eighty years.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Except for your pretribulation rapture scenario. That is of much more recent fabrication; like I said, about eighty years.
Your beliefs can be traced back to the Reformation and the likes of Calvin.
Except for your pretribulation rapture scenario. That is of much more recent fabrication; like I said, about eighty years.</font>[/QUOTE]Wrong again.
First, I am not a Protestant, I am a Baptist, and I have nothing in common with the Reformation. Try as you will, you cannot link me with the Reformers.
Second, No matter who you link me with, I don't really care. The fact of the matter is that I can back every one of my beliefs up with the Word of God. That is something that you cannot do. You need to rely on Tradition, and the Church Fathers time and time again. My authority is the Word of God, and that alone. My beliefs go back to 2000 years ago for they are founded on the Word of God. I can back every one of them up by Scripture.
DHK
How old were these pictures. Probably hundreds of years old, and well after pouring had become an acceptable mode of baptism. That doesn't make it right. One would have to be quite naive to believe that the early Christians baptized in any other way except by baptism. They went to the Jordan River because "there was much water there." The pictures depict him waiste up in water because he was about to be immersed. The reason that the Ethiopian Eunuch stopped at a place where there was much water was to be baptized by immersion. If pouring was the acceptabe mode, he was a man of great means. His canteen would have done just fine. They both went into the water and they both came out of the water, the Scripture says. For what purpose? To be baptized by immmersion!
The symbolism of baptism represents death, or burial to our old life, and resurrection to a new life in Christ. Pouring destroys the symbolism which it is meant to portray (Rom.6:3,4).
The very word baptism in the Greek is translated immerse. Baptism is only a transliteration of the word "baptidzo." The actual meaning of the word is immerse.
In further references to the methods of baptism as known and used in the early Church, I quote a paragraph from a pamphlet published by the Rev. Matthew Poetzl, O.F.M.: "There are many representations of baptism left on monuments of various kinds, but not one of them indicates immersion. In mosaics of early churches, in ordinary pictures, on domestic objects such as dishes, immersion is never depicted. It is never sculptured or engraved on marble. Invariably the person being baptized is represented as standing, with his feet only in water, while water is poured on his head with the hand or a vase. Is it not strange, I ask, is it not wholly incomprehensible, if immersion were regarded as the only valid form in early Christianity, that all the early representations of baptism indicate the method of infusion?"[/QB][/QUOTE]
And how many hundreds of years after the death of Christ was this written? It is only indicative of early error that crept into the church. I have already shown to you from the Bible what is the teaching on Baptism.
DHK
trying2understand
New Member
Like I have said numerous times.... merely your interpretation of Scripture.
Every other sola scripturist that shows up on this board with very different beliefs than yours makes the very same claim.
Your claims don't carry much weight if they are contrary to historical Christianity.
trying2understand
New Member
You are going to look up Catholic testimonies to verify your claim that the Waldensies were "baptistic" in their beliefs?
You are right, it will take some time... a very very very long time, because it doesn't exist.
N
Netcurtains3
Guest
Hi D,
The article about immersion did in fact say that immersion was the popular early choice but it made clear also that other methods were also early:
"
But, and here is the one pertinent fact, it does not follow that immersion was the only method of baptizing. In another text, the same writer, St. Paul, used another figure of speech about baptism, in which he indicated the method of sprinkling. In his Epistle to the Hebrews, he wrote: "Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of Faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water" (Hebrews 10:22). This latter statement refers to baptism no less than the former, and it indicates the method of sprinkling. The fact is that in each text St. Paul uses figurative language, referring to a method of baptizing with which his readers were familiar, in order to teach them a spiritual lesson.
All doubts about the subject are resolved by referring to a few events in early Church history. The narrative about the conversion of the first Gentiles, for instance, clearly implies that they were baptized either by pouring or sprinkling (The Acts 10:47). Then there was the baptism of three thousand persons in Jerusalem on Pentecost day. Can it be imagined that so many persons were immersed in one day in Jerusalem, where there was a notorious scarcity of water? Even more conclusive is St. Paul's baptism of his jailer in prison in the middle of the night (The Acts 16:33).
"
The article about immersion did in fact say that immersion was the popular early choice but it made clear also that other methods were also early:
"
But, and here is the one pertinent fact, it does not follow that immersion was the only method of baptizing. In another text, the same writer, St. Paul, used another figure of speech about baptism, in which he indicated the method of sprinkling. In his Epistle to the Hebrews, he wrote: "Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of Faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water" (Hebrews 10:22). This latter statement refers to baptism no less than the former, and it indicates the method of sprinkling. The fact is that in each text St. Paul uses figurative language, referring to a method of baptizing with which his readers were familiar, in order to teach them a spiritual lesson.
All doubts about the subject are resolved by referring to a few events in early Church history. The narrative about the conversion of the first Gentiles, for instance, clearly implies that they were baptized either by pouring or sprinkling (The Acts 10:47). Then there was the baptism of three thousand persons in Jerusalem on Pentecost day. Can it be imagined that so many persons were immersed in one day in Jerusalem, where there was a notorious scarcity of water? Even more conclusive is St. Paul's baptism of his jailer in prison in the middle of the night (The Acts 16:33).
"
trying2understand
New Member
The problem with your position is twofold.
First, you only have your Bible because of the tradition of the Church. Without that tradition you would not know what writings are or are not inspired.
Second, Scripture does not support sola scriptura. The verses which you claim for support are a long way from that.
Now as to your false witness against me, I do believe Scripture to be the Word of God. What I do not believe is your interpretation of it.
GraceSaves
New Member
More proof that one must believe like DHK to enter into Heaven. If you don't believe like DHK, "Your beliefs do not stand on the Word of God." This is what happens when you [DHK] leave the Church; you make yourself your own pope.
Congratulations,
Grant
trying2understand
New Member
I am not referring to you not believing the Bible. I take you at your word, when you say you do. But you also believe the many traditions and unbiblical doctrines that Catholic Church holds to, such as purgatory, the immaculate conception, the assumption of Mary, indulgences, etc. These are unbiblical. This is what you can't back up with Scripture. In saying this, I am not bearing false witness.
DHK</font>[/QUOTE]Again, this still comes down to a matter of your interpretation.
I believe that Scripture tells us that Jesus gave authority to the Church; authority to definitively define doctrine.
I also believe that Scripture tells us that God's revelation is also transmitted to us through not only Scripture but also through tradition.
I do not believe that sola scriptura is Biblical. In fact, I believe it to be in direct opposition to Scripture.
So, it comes down to a matter of interpretation.
I believe that my understanding is in line with historical Christianity. Yours is not. Yours is a relatively new invention of men. You may say that you are not a Protestant, but you are certainly a product of the Reformation.
Ron
N
Netcurtains3
Guest
OBTUSE.
I have an obtuse writing style I can see that.
Is the bible obtuse?
Not in the sense of "thick" but in the sense of "not exact".
Modern Art (and very ancient art) has a tendancy to be obtuse whereas the years from about the birth of Jesus to 1914 were years where art tended to be exact. The Jehovah's witnesses believe the year 1914 has a religious significance.
I am not a Jehovahs Witness but I thought I'd run with that idea.
As a result of this treaty:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/turkgerm.htm
Israel fell into the hands of the United Kingdom. You could also argue that the 2nd world war was simply an extension of the first.
There were three unwise men that lit the fuse - 2 eastern-christians and 1 Muslim. Weirdly the Muslim was simply set free - A spy or a cobbler?
Am I being Obtuse?
Net
I have an obtuse writing style I can see that.
Is the bible obtuse?
Not in the sense of "thick" but in the sense of "not exact".
Modern Art (and very ancient art) has a tendancy to be obtuse whereas the years from about the birth of Jesus to 1914 were years where art tended to be exact. The Jehovah's witnesses believe the year 1914 has a religious significance.
I am not a Jehovahs Witness but I thought I'd run with that idea.
As a result of this treaty:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/turkgerm.htm
Israel fell into the hands of the United Kingdom. You could also argue that the 2nd world war was simply an extension of the first.
There were three unwise men that lit the fuse - 2 eastern-christians and 1 Muslim. Weirdly the Muslim was simply set free - A spy or a cobbler?
Am I being Obtuse?
Net
Greetings DHK:
Not to get you lads off topic, but I have to interject here. Purgatory is pretty clear in 1 Corinthians 3:11-15. The Catholic Church has no unbiblical doctrines. They can be found both biblically and historically.
Keep on climbing brother...Although I disagree with you greatly on some theology issues, I do respect your zeal for standing up for what you believe(even if its in error)
Originally posted by Logan:
Thank you for your kind words Logan. What I would like my Catholic friends here to do is prove "Biblically," the Assumption of Mary, a Catholic dogma that was not even accepted as such until Pope Pius XII decreed it so in 1950. Did it take amost two millenia for the Catholic Church to dream up this Marian doctrine?Greetings DHK:
Not to get you lads off topic, but I have to interject here. Purgatory is pretty clear in 1 Corinthians 3:11-15. The Catholic Church has no unbiblical doctrines. They can be found both biblically and historically.
Keep on climbing brother...Although I disagree with you greatly on some theology issues, I do respect your zeal for standing up for what you believe(even if its in error)
DHK
DHK:
This was a belief held by Christianity well before 1950. As most of the reformers held this belief also, it was not an issue until coming under attack as many new denominations grew. Much the same way the doctrine of the Trinity was not officially made formal until the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. Of course all of Christianity believed in the Trinity, but when it came under attack, the Church officially declared it as dogma so there would be no misunderstanding about it.
Regarding the Assumption of Mary, I do believe it can be supported biblically and that, of course, will take us to Revelation 12. But I guess we will have to start a new thread as this is getting away from the topic here.
[ December 03, 2002, 12:06 AM: Message edited by: Logan ]
Logan, I know this is off topic but I can't let this go. (moderators please forgive me).
You said that Mary was the woman in Rev. 12, right?
RCC belief is that Mary was without sin when she gave birth to Jesus right? Actually, maybe the position is that she was made sinless, without original Sin, before the conceiving of Jesus. Either way, and its probably the second, she had NO SIN when she gave birth, according to the RCC. Read now the first two verses of Rev. 12
Rev.12
[1] And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:
[2] And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.
What do we see here? A woman having pain in child birth. Pain in child birth is only for those woman "under the curse", which we know from Genesis. ( I don't think I need to post the verse). Mary, according to the RCC is without original sin and would therefore not be subject to the "curse".
Logan, you can't have it both ways. She cannot be the woman in Rev. 12 or is not sinless. Which belief are you going to throw out the window here??
Take care and God bless,
Brian
You said that Mary was the woman in Rev. 12, right?
RCC belief is that Mary was without sin when she gave birth to Jesus right? Actually, maybe the position is that she was made sinless, without original Sin, before the conceiving of Jesus. Either way, and its probably the second, she had NO SIN when she gave birth, according to the RCC. Read now the first two verses of Rev. 12
Rev.12
[1] And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:
[2] And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.
What do we see here? A woman having pain in child birth. Pain in child birth is only for those woman "under the curse", which we know from Genesis. ( I don't think I need to post the verse). Mary, according to the RCC is without original sin and would therefore not be subject to the "curse".
Logan, you can't have it both ways. She cannot be the woman in Rev. 12 or is not sinless. Which belief are you going to throw out the window here??
Take care and God bless,
Brian
trying2understand
New Member
I'm still waiting for one of my sola scriptura friends to prove sola scripture from Scripture.
Did it take almost two millenia for the fundamentalists to dream up this "Left Behind" doctrine?
Glass houses, DHK.
Ron
trying2understand
New Member
Brian, Mary as the woman of Rev. 12 is not a teaching of the Church, so I don't need to thow it out since it was never actually "in".Originally posted by Briguy:
Rev.12
[1] And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:
[2] And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.
What do we see here? A woman having pain in child birth. Pain in child birth is only for those woman "under the curse", which we know from Genesis. ( I don't think I need to post the verse). Mary, according to the RCC is without original sin and would therefore not be subject to the "curse".
Logan, you can't have it both ways. She cannot be the woman in Rev. 12 or is not sinless. Which belief are you going to throw out the window here??
Ron
[ December 03, 2002, 11:44 AM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]