Why do Mormons and Baptists deny the need for historical evidence?

[The Biblicist]

I am very happy to see that we can discuss our differences without getting defensive.

To believe that God gives each of us a free gift of eternal life simply by repenting of sin and believing in him takes alot of faith. God doesn't give us a golden plate of eternal life with our name on it to reassure us of our salvation. The free gift of salvation must be received by faith in order to receive its benefits---eternal life.

Thinking that by doing good works, we can attain eternal life ourselves will doom us to hell.

By faith, Lutherans believe the Gospel when it tells us that in baptism, by the power of the spoken Word of God, our sins are forgiven and washed away as mentioned in Acts 2:38 and in the conversion of Saul/Paul. That takes ALOT of faith. We don't see God come down like the angel at the pool of Bethesda (sp?) and stir the water. We don't hear a loud voice from heaven as happened when Christ was baptized, but since God promises the forgiveness of sins at the time of baptism, we believe it by faith.

The free gift of salvation, the forgiveness of sins, must always be received by faith, in order to receive its benefits.

Anyone who was baptized but never expresses a personal faith in Christ and repents of his sins, will not receive the benefits of the free gift, and may well wake up in hell.

Your explanation above is irrational! There were no circumcision prior to Abraham and it was merely through faith in the gospel that one received remission of sins - Acts 10:43. There was no baptism prior to John.

You have one gospel of remission of sins for one set of people that does not fit for another set of people and the only reason you have such a dichotomy is to fit the unbiblical doctrine of infant baptism. Dying infants are not in any danger of hell as they have nothing to stand before the Lord to be tried for by the principle of "according to their works."

 

[Wittenberger]

With this assertion, the thief on the cross went to hell and Christ lied to Him.

Wittnenberger, you have provoked me to think, and I appreciate that. However, your persistent demand for evidence on everything seems to reflect a lack of faith. I'm not saying we should blindly swallow everything. The Berean Christians are evidence of otherwise, yet it was the Scripture they searched not secular teachings.

Lutherans do NOT believe that baptism is ABSOLUTELY necessary for salvation. Salvation can occur in an adult just by hearing/reading the Gospel and believing and repenting or it can occur at the time of baptism. Doesn't seem logical? Lutherans believe we should accept what God says literally and with the faith of little children. God says that salvation comes through the power of his Word, it can happen at baptism or without baptism. It is always God who saves, by his Almighty, all powerful Word.

FYI: We believe that the thief on the cross was still under the Old Covenant. Christ had not risen yet. However, even if he had been in the New Covenant, we believe that he would have still been saved without baptism for the reasons stated above. It is God's Word that saves, not the waters of baptism or anything else.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Here is part of a post I made previously; this is a good time to repeat it:

The Catholic Encyclopedia admits that infant baptism and other practices are simply based upon tradition:

"The designation of unwritten Divine traditions was not always given all the clearness desirable especially in early times; however Catholic controversialists soon proved to the Protestants that to be logical and consistent they must admit unwritten traditions as revealed. Otherwise by what right did they rest on Sunday and not on Saturday? How could they regard infant baptism as valid, or baptism by infusion? How could they permit the taking of an oath, since Christ had commanded that we swear not at all? The Quakers were more logical in refusing all oaths, the Anabaptists in re-baptizing adults, the Sabbatarians in resting on Saturday. (Bainvel J. Transcribed by Tomas Hancil. Tradition and Living Magisterium. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XV. Published 1912. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York)."


Twentieth century archaeologist and Catholic priest of the Franciscan Order, Bellarmino Bagatti correctly concluded that Judeo-Christians did not baptize infants, “following the example of the Lord” (Bagatti, From The church from the circumcision: history and archaeology of the Judaeo-Christians). Bagatti also found that the Apostle Peter was buried in the necropolis under the modern Dominus Flevit Church, in Jerusalem, at a similar time as the Pope claimed to have found evidence for Saint Peter's burial under the Vatican. Of course, this was embarrassing for the RCC, so they tried to keep it quiet. But that's another subject; back to the one at hand.

It is quite clear that it is infant baptism that was invented for two reasons: due to an erroneous view of original sin and how it affects infants, and out of superstition.

So, repent Lutheran brother, and return to the truth of the New Testament and the teaching and practice of the apostles. You have swallowed a lie.

Oh, btw, it was "tradition" to murder others in the name of Jesus for over a millenium, and your Lutheran spiritual ancestors continued that tradition with zeal, in spite of what Jesus said and taught in the NT. It is not a coincidence that the state-church murderers were also infant baptizers -- two "traditions of men" diametrically opposed to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles in the New Testament.

 

[Wittenberger]

I have other matters that are more important than debating on this forum.

I do not know where you get the silly notion that Baptists interpret scriptures by feelings??? Baptists as a people have never interpreted scriptures by feelings, especially, in comparison to the Mormon and a "burning in the breast" kind of idea!

You have been presented with Apostolic intepretation of external rites used in the Old Testament (Heb. 10:1-4; Col. 2:16-18). You have been presented with how Christ interpreted "for cleansing" or what was the purpose of making a ceremonial offering (Lk. 5:12-15). You have been presented how Peter interpreted how Old Testament saints obtained literal remission of sins (Acts 10:43). You have been presented how Paul interpreted circumcision in the case of Abraham which he says is the example for ALL WHO ARE OF OF FAITH - Rom. 4:11. You have been presented with Jeremiah's intepretation of ALL who are saved under the New Covenant which is confirmed by the writer of hebrews (Jer. 31:34; Heb. 8). You have rejected the plain statements of these Old and New Testament Prophets and insisted that external rites are involved in the LITERAL remission of sins when these scriptures plainly deny such a thing. Your mind has been corrupted by traditions of men so that you are unable and/or unwilling to accept the plain teachings of the scriptures.

From the very beginning God designed the "sign" of external rites to be accompanied by the language of redemption simply because the purpose of a "sign" is to convey that truth. However, from the begining God never designed "the sign" to particpate in the literal remission of sins, literal atonement, literal salvation but as in Abraham the rule for ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH has been literal salvation PRECEDES symbolic salvation as presented in the "sign" rites.

All of these are clear precepts and provide a clear understanding how God intended the ceremonial offerings to be received and understood. Instead, you have adopted the Phariseeical PRINCIPLE found in the interpretation of circumcision and ceremonial ordinances (Acts 15:2) which adoption is recorded first in the New Testament (Acts 15:2) where the external sign is demanded to obtain the literal and then this error has a Post-New Testament recorded history in the Nicene fathers.

Your position and statements are very logical and plausible. The problem is that no one believed this interpretation for at least 1,000 years after our Savior's death. That is the point!

You are a Christian, not a cultist like the Mormons and JW's. But you believe your interpretation is correct simply because it seems so obviously correct to you. If it were so obvious, there wouldn't be hundreds of denominations claiming the exact same thing!

I know your next statement will be that you know that you are right because the Holy Spirit tells you that you are right. That proves nothing! The Mormons say the EXACT SAME THING!

http://dwhamby1.wordpress.com/2008/05/05/do-mormons-have-any-evidence-of-their-claims/

 

[The Biblicist]

FYI: We believe that the thief on the cross was still under the Old Covenant. Christ had not risen yet. However, even if he had been in the New Covenant, we believe that he would have been saved without baptism for the reasons stated above. It is God's Word that saves, not the waters of baptism or anything else.

There is only ONE COVENANT of redemption and it is the "everlasting covenant" (Heb. 13:20). You are confusing the New Testament ADMINISTRATION of that covenant with the OLd Testament administration. The old covenant NEVER SAVED ANYONE at ANYTIME and NEVER WILL.

There has only been ONE GOSPEL since Genesis 3:15 and that is the same gospel Abraham trusted in (Gal. 3:6-8) and any other gospel is accursed (Gal. 1:6-8). That gospel has never depended upon external rites but only on faith in Christ - Acts 10:43.

There has never been any other way to heaven but "ONE" way - Mt. 7:14

There has never been given any other name under heaven whereby men must believe to be saved but the name of Christ - Acts 4:12; 10:43

There has never been any other Savior but Christ and no other way to come to the Father - Jn. 14:6

There has never been any other basis for salvation but by grace - Rom. 11:6

There has never been any rite provided for literal infant salvation because dying infants are not in danger of judgement because the basis of judgement is "according to thy works."

There has never been any other covenant of redemption but the everlasting covenant (Heb. 13:20) and all who were saved from Genesis 3:15 to cross were saved under that same covenant by faith - Rom. 3:24-26

 

[Wittenberger]

The scriptures know of no such thing! Either universal visible or universal invisible. The earliest use of the term "catholic" simply conveyed one of two things:

1. Not confined to one race as opposed to Judaism but a commission to all nations.

2. One universally recognized apostolic kind of church with the same faith and doctrine.

In the writings of the "Apostolic Fathers" each congregation was called "the catholic church" in regard to both senses above but never a universal church with a centralized government. When Augustine debated the Donatists there were nearly 900 bishops and not one argued for an INVISIBLE church of any kind and when Augustine set forth the notion of a VISIBLE universal church he was charged with belieiving in TWO different kinds of churches and Rome and Reformed Rome has been unsuccessfully trying to answer that charge ever since. The 16th century Anabaptists made the exact same charge against Luthern's "invisible" church he invented to escape being unchurched by Rome.

The kind of church Jesus introduces in Matthew 16:18 is the very same kind he continues to talk about the next 22 times he uses that term thereafter - local visible assemblies who are one in kind and one in doctrine and practice.

Luther believed that the one, catholic, apostolic church was a spiritual body of all believers. It was not a legal, or structural entity as claimed by Rome.

Luther did not accept the authority of the Pope or of bishops. He believed that they were man made entities.

In his opinion a true Christian church was one that preached the Gospel and taught the sacraments or mysteries correctly (Baptism and the Lord's Supper). Anything beyond that is the tradition of men (liturgy, etc.). Traditions to Lutherans are acceptable as long as they are not taught as mandatory. For instance, we do not condemn Baptists for not having liturgical worship services. If it is not commanded by God, Christians have liberty to choose.

 

[DHK]

Dear Brother,

The issue at hand is do Baptists have any historical evidence that demonstrates that there were any Christians in the first six to eight centuries after Christ that believed the following:

"Baptism is an ordinace only in which the believer demonstrates his obedience to God and a public demonstration of his faith to others. It has no regenerational or covenantal properties."

If there is no historical evidence that demonstrates this then the only proof you have that your interpretation of Scripture is correct is the same as that of the Mormons: your opinion only, and your opinion that the Holy Spirit has told you that you are correct.

That is not solid ground to stand on.

Just resorting to the same line: We know we are right because the obvious reading the Bible says we are ritht, is no different than the reasoning of the Mormons and the JW's.

http://dwhamby1.wordpress.com/2008/05/05/do-mormons-have-any-evidence-of-their-claims/

NO, what was presented was an example of a prayer to Mary as evidence for the existence of RCC at that time. That is ridiculous, humorous, classical absurdity at its best.

So the example of one prayer to Mary can be produced in an early Ms. So what!
Everyone here knows (and it can be easily reproduced) that there are some very Godly prayers (not to Mary) by such early Christians by Polycarp and others during his time.
The Ryland MS was not Catholic as Polycarp was not Baptist.
To claim either one is absurd. But to say that the prayers of Polycarp were not "Baptist-like" is also absurd.

 

[Wittenberger]

You come on here and lump Baptist and evangelicals with Mormons. That is an insult.

You, being a Lutheran, are supposed to believe in the primacy of scripture, but you are taking the RC position and making tradition equal with scripture.

I have said this before, and I'll say it again: What do you do when tradition contradicts scripture? Which do you choose?

You say that Baptists and evangelicals have no historical evidence for their positions; they say you have no scriptural evidence for yours. An impasse? Hardly -- if you believe in the primacy of scripture. Baptists and evangelicals do; you obviously do not. I suggest you are in the wrong denomination; you should go on over to Rome since you want to make an idol of tradition and make it equal with scripture. Therefore, you are the one spouting false doctrine and betraying your own denomination's professed belief in the primacy of scripture.

You seem very angry, brother.

We both should be seeking the Truth.

Lutherans never accept traditions over scripture. We don't recognize the Pope. We don't pray to saints or Mary. We don't believe that penance is mandatory. We don't believe in celibacy of the priesthood. We don't believe that only a priest/minister can pronounce absolution.

However, we did not throw the baby out with the bathwater as you Reformed and Anabaptists did.

Christ promised that his church would endure forever. Reform and root out the false teachings, but don't throw everything out.

 

[Wittenberger]

Those whom Rome condemned as "heretics" were called "anabaptists" who practiced immersion of believers. Eastern Orthodox Catholocism argues for the historicity of immersion. Those labled "Anabaptists" practiced immersion.

There is absolutely no evidence of infant baptism in the so-called "Apostolic fathers" and there is no evidence that anything but immersion was practiced. That leaves only the practice of believers immersion during the period of the apostolic fathers. Infant baptism was a slow gradual adaption by apostate churches. Baptismal regeneration was the earliest error to creep in.

I can give you numerous quotes from the Church Fathers about infant baptism but for right now I will start giving those statements that support that in baptism God forgives/washes away sins. Once that is established we can talk about infant baptism and the mode of baptism.

 

[Wittenberger]

Is the Bible not a valid authority?

The Bible is the supreme and FINAL authority, brother.

Your interpretation of the Bible is not!

No one, I repeat no one, believed your interpretation of the doctrines of baptism and the Lord's Supper until approximately 1,000 years after Christ.

THAT is the point, not whether the Bible is the supreme and final authority. The problem is your interpretation that you absolutely cannot see is just your interpretation.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Your whole line of reasoning is funny, or more accurately absurd. I can't believe that you are unable to see what you are doing.

Unfortunately for you my line of reasoning is very sound. Jesus said he would "build his church" and that "the gates of hell" could not stand against it. Either this is true or not. Since we both agree that what Jesus says in scripture is true we accept that Jesus intended his church to last through the ages despite attacks againt it. Now that being the case if baptist were the infant church then not only would it have NT works revealing their existance but other writings, commentaries on scripture, discussions about baptist distinctives, and baptist systematic approaches to their beliefs. You would have pastors writing to their flock who were being mislead by early heresies and the rest. Since Baptist claim to model themselves after the infant church and currently they are prolific in books, commentary, discussions against percieved heresies, etc...we can safely assume this quality existed then and would have existed in every century. In short there would be evidence to support their existance. However, when one looks at archeological finds, MSS text discovered, ancient art work, etc... None of it points to early baptist in the early church. There are no fragments with baptist distinctives listed on it. No appeals to their systmatic theology. Nothing. There is a void of evidence for the existance of baptist in the early centuries. When one does look at the volumeous evidence of early christianity one sees all of these very items supporting a Catholic/Orthodox theology. In fact it isn't until the reformation or a short time just proceeding it does one find evidence for the beginings of baptist theology 1400 years after Christ! Therefore since this is the case the likelyhood of early church being baptist is nil. Whereas all of these things can be found to support the Catholic/Orthodox from the very begining.

All that you have documented is the beginning of the heresy of Mariolatry.

First of all you've missed named the study its Mariology. And if you mean Mary Idolatry you are once again mistaken. Mary is not worshiped as God is worshipped. That asside. Let us assume for a moment you are correct and Marian prayers are heresy it is strange that we find a documented heresy in the third century of the Church yet we cannot find one baptist Fragment. One (a baptist that is) must conclude from this either the Church was defeated by Satan for 1400 years until the spirit moved men once again towards the truth making of Jesus a liar, or that all early christians were heretics in which case no one should be Christian.

That is not exclusive to the RCC. Others practiced it too. It is a pagan practice

The fact is there is evidence Marian prayers were practiced. That can not be disputed. However, there is no evidence of practicing baptist holding to their distinctives in opposition to these heresies. Its like there is a void of all things baptist in the early church. As to Marian Prayers being Pagan. No Pagan documents are shown that Pagans prayed to Mary they prayed to their female deities not to Mary.

But prayers to God and Christ abound in early literature. That cannot be denied.

And such prayers are still practiced from their ancient form to this very day. You can go to a Catholic Church or an Orthodox church read a prayer and find early documents showing this same prayer in the early centuries of the Church.

 

[Wittenberger]

How would you explain the salvation of the thief then? He obviously was not baptized after he believed.

God saves by the power of His Word, always!

Christ forgave the thief due to his faith, and then promised him eternal life. Salvation is ALWAYS received by faith.

God can save at the time of baptism or not. It isn't the act of baptism that saves. It isn't your decision to believe that saves. It is always the power of God's Word that saves.

Lutherans believe that God can and does save/regenerate/forgive sins at the time of baptism because the simple, literal reading of the Bible says so. However, he is not limited to saving/regenerating only in the one situation.

He can also save by the power of His Word when a nonbeliever, such as the thief on the cross, hears the Gospel and believes.

Lutherans believe in the same manner, if a nonbeliever is driving his car, listening to a Lutheran pastor or a Baptist pastor preaching the Gospel that salvation is a free gift received by faith, and if that driver believes in Christ and repents, he is IMMEDIATELY saved. He is a Christian the millisecond that he believes.

If he dies two minutes later in a car crash, like the thief on the cross, without baptism, he will still go to heaven.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

You seem very angry, brother.

We both should be seeking the Truth.

Lutherans never accept traditions over scripture. We don't recognize the Pope. We don't pray to saints or Mary. We don't believe that penance is mandatory. We don't believe in celibacy of the priesthood. We don't believe that only a priest/minister can pronounce absolution.

However, we did not throw the baby out with the bathwater as you Reformed and Anabaptists did.

Christ promised that his church would endure forever. Reform and root out the false teachings, but don't throw everything out.

I get angry -- when some Baptists on here say that I don't have Baptist principles, and then when you come on here and say that my beliefs have no evidence and support, and you equate what I believe with Mormonism.

Well, if I didn't base my beliefs on the NT and instead based them on man-made tradition, they indeed wouldn't have any support or evidence. I believe in the primacy of scripture; if writings and traditions of men contradict the teachings of Jesus as found in the NT, I'll go with Jesus every time.

Oh, and I am definitely NOT Reformed. I am Anabaptist/Baptist and Celtic. I do not follow the Magisterial Reformers - the stepchildren of Rome.

 

[Wittenberger]

Your explanation above is irrational! There were no circumcision prior to Abraham and it was merely through faith in the gospel that one received remission of sins - Acts 10:43. There was no baptism prior to John.

You have one gospel of remission of sins for one set of people that does not fit for another set of people and the only reason you have such a dichotomy is to fit the unbiblical doctrine of infant baptism. Dying infants are not in any danger of hell as they have nothing to stand before the Lord to be tried for by the principle of "according to their works."

As I have said before, your denial of the Doctrine of Original Sin is not held by most Baptists.

Most non-calvinist BaptistS do believe that all mankind is born as sinners, because we inherit the disease of sin from our father Adam. This is original sin. These Baptists believe that God turns a blind eye to this original sin and lets the infant into heaven anyway.

You deny that baptism existed before John. That is untrue. Volumes of rabbinical records demonstrate that the Jews baptizied all Gentile converts coming into the faith of Abraham, Judisim, during the time of Christ.

Your denial of the doctrine of original sin is outside of orthodox Christianity and outside of Baptist theology, brother. This is another example of how Reformed Christians, including Baptists, feel that they can make up their own interpretation of Scriptures according to their own personal, inward guidance by the Holy Spirit.

What a mess of Christianity this false belief has made!

 

[Michael Wrenn]

The Bible is the supreme and FINAL authority, brother.

Your interpretation of the Bible is not!

No one, I repeat no one, believed your interpretation of the doctrines of baptism and the Lord's Supper until approximately 1,000 years after Christ.

THAT is the point, not whether the Bible is the supreme and final authority. The problem is your interpretation that you absolutely cannot see is just your interpretation.

The Didache is evidence of the NT teaching and practice of baptism -- and it doesn't support your view or the "Catholic" view.

 

[Wittenberger]

NO, what was presented was an example of a prayer to Mary as evidence for the existence of RCC at that time. That is ridiculous, humorous, classical absurdity at its best.

So the example of one prayer to Mary can be produced in an early Ms. So what!
Everyone here knows (and it can be easily reproduced) that there are some very Godly prayers (not to Mary) by such early Christians by Polycarp and others during his time.
The Ryland MS was not Catholic as Polycarp was not Baptist.
To claim either one is absurd. But to say that the prayers of Polycarp were not "Baptist-like" is also absurd.

As a Lutheran, I am not a believer in praying to any saint, including Mary, although we deeply respect her.

You are barking up the wrong tree, brother.

 

[IANMO(IAMNTMYOWN)]

God saves by the power of His Word, always!

Christ forgave the thief due to his faith, and then promised him eternal life. Salvation is ALWAYS received by faith.

God can save at the time of baptism or not. It isn't the act of baptism that saves. It isn't your decision to believe that saves. It is always the power of God's Word that saves.

Lutherans believe that God can and does save/regenerate/forgive sins at the time of baptism because the simple, literal reading of the Bible says so. However, he is not limited to saving/regenerating only in the one situation.

He can also save by the power of His Word when a nonbeliever, such as the thief on the cross, hears the Gospel and believes.

Lutherans believe in the same manner, if a nonbeliever is driving his car, listening to a Lutheran pastor or a Baptist pastor preaching the Gospel that salvation is a free gift received by faith, and if that driver believes in Christ and repents, he is IMMEDIATELY saved. He is a Christian the millisecond that he believes.

If he dies two minutes later in a car crash, like the thief on the cross, without baptism, he will still go to heaven.

Thanks for clarifying. You have given me some food for thought. I would not say I am convinced, but I try not to be close minded to differing views. If anything, you make "search the Scriptures" for my reasoning. Oh yes, and the by the way, you addressed me as brother in a previous post. I am a sister in Christ:laugh:

 

[Wittenberger]

The Didache is evidence of the NT teaching and practice of baptism -- and it doesn't support your view or the "Catholic" view.

The Didache says nothing on the meaning of baptism, only the mode or method of baptism.

Immersion was the preferred method, but pouring was an acceptable alternative.

To be 100% true to the instructions of the Didache, Baptists would have to baptize in cold, living water such as a river or an ocean.

Heated, indoor, baptismal tanks are an acceptable alternative according to the Didache, as is pouring, but it is not the preferred method. So to be as strict as Baptist seem to want to be over form..tear out those heated baptismal tanks and start heading down to the local river!

I personally think all churches should return to immersing all converts just as the Greek Orthodox, regardlless if you are 90 years old or 9 days old!

 

[Wittenberger]

I am going to begin posting the comments of early Church Fathers. The first is Justin the Martyr. He was born about one hundred years after the Apostle John died. Could the entire Church built by Jesus Christ, the Church that Christ said the gates of hell could not prevail against, really have become completely apostate within just 100 to 150 years after Christ??

“This washing of repentance and knowledge of God has been ordained on account of the transgression of God’s people, as Isaiah cries. Accordingly, we have believed and testify that the very baptism which he announced is alone able to purify those who have repented. And this is the water of life. For what is the use of that baptism which cleanses only the flesh and body? Baptize the soul from wrath and from covetousness, from envy, and from hatred.” St Justin Martyr (circa 160)

“We who have approached God through His Son have received, not carnal, but spiritual circumcision, which Enoch and those like him observed. And we have received it through baptism by God’s mercy, since we were sinners.” Justin Martyr (circa 160)

“But there is no other way than this: to become acquainted with this Christ; to be washed in the fountain spoken of by Isaiah for the remission of sins.” St Justin Martyr (circa 160)

“Christ has redeemed us by being crucified on the tree and by purifying us with water.” St Justin Martyr (circa 160)

 

[Wittenberger]

My wife is ordering me off the computer, gentlemen.

I will continue this discussion with you tomorrow.

Your brother in Christ,

Wittenberger