Why do people think that Baptists came from AnaBaptists?

[kyredneck]

So are you saying that the Bible contradicts itself

13 …the doers of the law shall be justified...Ro 2

20 ...by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified... Ro 3

What do you think? Was Paul going senile?

when put next to Eph 2:8-9

8 for by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
9 not of works, that no man should glory. Eph 2

Show me any mention of 'faith ALONE' in that passage. It's not there. You're literally adding to the Bible when you parrot the Reformed sola of justification by faith alone. We are in fact told specifically that justification is NOT only by faith.

it sounds like you are saying we are justified by works.

Are these my words?:

24 Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith. Ja 2

 

[Particular]

13 …the doers of the law shall be justified...Ro 2

20 ...by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified... Ro 3

What do you think? Was Paul going senile?



8 for by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
9 not of works, that no man should glory. Eph 2

Show me any mention of 'faith ALONE' in that passage. It's not there. You're literally adding to the Bible when you parrot the Reformed sola of justification by faith alone. We are in fact told specifically that justification is NOT only by faith.



Are these my words?:

24 Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith. Ja 2

What's your argument, kyredneck? In Ephesians 2 it says we are saved by grace. Faith is a gift given after God makes us alive with Christ. The gift of faith is a working gift, not a static gift.
Please clarify the struggle you are attempting to expose between Romans 2 and Romans 3.

 

[Mikey]

Are these my words?:

24 Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith. Ja 2

No but you understanding of the passage is.

 

[timtofly]

I don't want to go off OP -so I started a new thread.

Well the Anabaptist was just a group of Baptist at a particular point in time. Baptist were around way before them. The Anabaptist came out of a Baptist history, instead of the Baptist coming out of the Anabaptist.

 

[Mikey]

Well the Anabaptist was just a group of Baptist at a particular point in time. Baptist were around way before them. The Anabaptist came out of a Baptist history, instead of the Baptist coming out of the Anabaptist.

are you inferring trailof Blood?

 

[kyredneck]

No but you understanding of the passage is.

My understanding of the passage is spot on. It means what it says.

 

[kyredneck]

What's your argument, kyredneck? In Ephesians 2 it says we are saved by grace. Faith is a gift given after God makes us alive with Christ. The gift of faith is a working gift, not a static gift.
Please clarify the struggle you are attempting to expose between Romans 2 and Romans 3.

I have no struggle with it. Stop adding to the scriptures that one little word, 'alone', and all tension evaporates.

 

[Mikey]

My understanding of the passage is spot on. It means what it says.

So in what way are we justified by our faith? you object to "adding" alone.

Surely if we are not justified by faith alone bt in unison with works, then it is our works that justify not our faith. it is only our faith in our works.

 

[timtofly]

are you inferring trailof Blood?

History cannot be found in one book, and some was never written down, or if it was, it was destroyed.

 

[Mikey]

History cannot be found in one book, and some was never written down, or if it was, it was destroyed.

why be cryptic?

 

[kyredneck]

So in what way are we justified by our faith? you object to "adding" alone.

From Romans 'alone':

13 for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified: Ro 2
24 being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Ro 3
1 Being therefore justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ;
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, shall we be saved from the wrath of God through him. Ro 5
33 Who shall lay anything to the charge of God`s elect? It is God that justifieth; Ro 8

I object because we are NOT justified by our faith alone. Sola Fide is an antiquated, unscriptural, overreaction by the early Reformers to the errors of Rome.

24 Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith.

 

[timtofly]

why be cryptic?

It is being realistic and practical. Do you want me to read the book you asked about and give my opinion?

Even the Ethiopian Eunuch reading the scroll of Isaiah, upon seeing a body of water in the desert, asked to be baptized.

John obeyed God and baptized in the Jordan River. Research how water was used in the temple, so an offering can be presented before God. Even John before the Cross, knew that repentance comes first, before water can cleanse. It was never about the water. But only Baptist seem to have kept the process correct throughout history. Or any one agreeing with what the Bible actually says.

 

[Just_Ahead]

Ran across this book about Anabaptist history:

First-Generation Anabaptist Ecclesiology, 1525-1561: A Study of Swiss, German, and Dutch Sources, by Dennis Bollinger and David Beale, 2009.​

Here is the short description at Amazon:

"Previous works on the Anabaptist have often been told from the viewpoint of their persecutors. This book examines and frequently quotes the sixteenth century Anabapists and seeks to present their doctrine of the church."​

This book is a bit pricey at $387.00 for 281 pages. Let me grab the calculator. That is only $1.37 per page. What would that figure at cost per word?

​

*****

Looks like Amazon has a few other Anabaptist history books at this webpage.​

I do have The Anabaptist Story: An Introduction to Sixteenth-Century Anabaptism, by William R. Estep, 1995, in my personal library. However, I do not ever remember reading this book. Good clean copy, just shelf rubs on the spine and bottom of the pages.​

*****

I also have copies of This Day in Baptist History, Vols. 1, 2, & 3 in my personal library along with a few other Baptist titles from reading years long past.​

*****

Lots of stuff to do as I Walk this Ancient Path.

 

[Mikey]

It is being realistic and practical. Do you want me to read the book you asked about and give my opinion?

Even the Ethiopian Eunuch reading the scroll of Isaiah, upon seeing a body of water in the desert, asked to be baptized.

John obeyed God and baptized in the Jordan River. Research how water was used in the temple, so an offering can be presented before God. Even John before the Cross, knew that repentance comes first, before water can cleanse. It was never about the water. But only Baptist seem to have kept the process correct throughout history. Or any one agreeing with what the Bible actually says.

right from what your posting it looks like you do hold to the Trail of Blood Theory, though you believe it is not exhaustive of baptist history aas there could be groups who have been forgotten/mentioned.

John the Baptist was not a baptist.

 

[Mikey]

From Romans 'alone':

13 for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified: Ro 2
24 being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Ro 3
1 Being therefore justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ;
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, shall we be saved from the wrath of God through him. Ro 5
33 Who shall lay anything to the charge of God`s elect? It is God that justifieth; Ro 8

I object because we are NOT justified by our faith alone. Sola Fide is an antiquated, unscriptural, overreaction by the early Reformers to the errors of Rome.

24 Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith.

Yep, nothing you posted refutes/ goes against Faith alone.

If we are justified by "faith and works" then we are truely only justified by our works and our faith is only faith in our works to justify.

 

[timtofly]

right from what your posting it looks like you do hold to the Trail of Blood Theory, though you believe it is not exhaustive of baptist history aas there could be groups who have been forgotten/mentioned.

John the Baptist was not a baptist.

John was not a baptist, he was the baptist. No other baptist can be the baptist, they can only be baptist. But ok, if you really insist. Your knowledge must be close to that of God’s.

 

[Mikey]

John was not a baptist, he was the baptist. No other baptist can be the baptist, they can only be baptist. But ok, if you really insist. Your knowledge must be close to that of God’s.

What are you on about??


I never claimed nor insinuated that my knowledge is "close to God's".

To claim that John the Baptist was a Baptist because of the use of the word Baptist is complete nonsense, it is on the samewavelength that the Church of Chrrist uses to claim that when Scripture mentions "Church of Christ" it is refering to the same denomination and beliefs that the Church of Christ hold to today. They are the one and the same Church of Christ = Church of Christ, Baptist=Baptist. This abuses the history of the Christianity and is utter nonsense.

 

[timtofly]

What are you on about??


I never claimed nor insinuated that my knowledge is "close to God's".

To claim that John the Baptist was a Baptist because of the use of the word Baptist is complete nonsense, it is on the samewavelength that the Church of Chrrist uses to claim that when Scripture mentions "Church of Christ" it is refering to the same denomination and beliefs that the Church of Christ hold to today. They are the one and the same Church of Christ = Church of Christ, Baptist=Baptist. This abuses the history of the Christianity and is utter nonsense.

And your crying out against nonsense is even more nonsense by your logical standards.

You do not have to believe or accept what the Bible records about John the Baptist. If your idea of a baptist does not inlude repentance of sin, and obedience of baptism, then is your Baptist correct in your eyes only?

Seems you are kicking against the pricks, like Paul was, when the Lord said, "Work for me, instead of against me."

 

[kyredneck]

Yep, nothing you posted refutes/ goes against Faith alone.

Yep, nothing you posted included scripture that states we are justified only by faith. In fact the idea is actually ANTI-scriptural:

24 Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith. Ja 2

If we are justified by "faith and works" then we are truely only justified by our works and our faith is only faith in our works to justify.

What kind of blinders does it take for you to ignore plain statements such as these?:

Christ - "the hour cometh, in which all that are in the tombs shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment"

Paul - "who will render to every man according to his works: to them that by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and incorruption, eternal life"

Peter - "he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to him"

James - "by works a man is justified, and not only by faith"

 

[kyredneck]

Question for you @Mikey , have you 'fulfilled the law'? Are you a 'doer of the law'?

13 for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified: Ro 2