Baptist Church Originated with John The Baptist

  • Thread starter Thread starter CEAbbott
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
New International Version (©1984)

“I tell you the truth: Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.” --Jesus Christ quoted in Matthew 11:11

Share this quote. Kindly invite your friend to RCIA classes to decide whether to embrace Christ’s Church built on Peter the Rock. There is no obligation to join the Church but it is your duty, now that she is informed of John the Baptist’s status, to show her the Way, Truth and Life. That’s all you can do.
 
New International Version (©1984)

“I tell you the truth: Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.” --Jesus Christ quoted in Matthew 11:11

Share this quote. Kindly invite your friend to RCIA classes to decide whether to embrace Christ’s Church built on Peter the Rock. There is no obligation to join the Church but it is your duty, now that she is informed of John the Baptist’s status, to show her the Way, Truth and Life. That’s all you can do.
It goes without saying that the Blessed Virgin Mary, being first in the Kingdom after Her Son is greater than John the Baptist.
 
MARVEL NOT that that I said unto thee, YE MUST BE “BORN AGAIN”!. Here, is where your “BAPTIST CHURCH” is formed.We “Born Again Baptists” can trace our roots and lineage right to Jesus and JOHN the BAPTIST!
🤷

I looked up What is a Baptist? in ‘Religions of the World’ by Leo Rosten, and in a section of the book titled, ‘Where did the Baptist movement begin?’, it stated; "Most historians would place the historical roots of Baptists in England, growing out of the Puritan and Separtist movements… In 1602, John Smyth, an Anglican preacher, renounced the episcopacy… He was removed by the church authorities and became a pastor of a small group of Separatists. This congregation, along with some others, moved to Holland in 1606…"

This is the historical roots of the Baptist movement in history, some 1572 years short of what your Baptist friend stated. If she wants to try and to place their roots farther back than that, it has to go right through the Catholic Church!
 
Hi follow CAF members,
Yes, it’s me again with yet one more crazy outburst from the Baptist on my FB page. I am about to “defriend” her now, but would like your (name removed by moderator)ut on this outrageous defense of her Baptist faith. Please read below and if anyone has ever heard of this crazy argument before and has a link I can send her,I would appreciate any help you can afford me.
Thanks again guys! Her comment is below in red. God bless!

"Where in the bible does it say to baptize non-consenting children? You don’t know scripture, you IGNORE scripture! What did Jesus tell the Pharisee Nicodemus? Let me refer you to Jesus’ words when he said in John 3:5 "VE…RILY, VERILY I SAY UNTO YOU, EXCEPT A MAN BE BORN OF WATER AND OF THE SPIRIT, HE CANNOT ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN,That which is born of the FLESH…IS FLESH; and that which is BORN of the SPIRIT…IS spirit! MARVEL NOT that that I said unto thee, YE MUST BE “BORN AGAIN”!. Here, is where your “BAPTIST CHURCH” is formed.We “Born Again Baptists” can trace our roots and lineage right to Jesus and JOHN the BAPTIST! We are Baptists because we choose, of our own free will and volition ,as ADULTS, to- #1. Confess our sinful nature,-#2. Accept Jesus Christ as LORD and Savior and- #3.Submit to the COMMAND of JESUS CHRIST to be BAPTIZED BY IMMERSION (Mark 16:16)> “He that believeth and is “Baptized” SHALL BE SAVED”!!!
Some Protestant churches which only baptize adults still have a practice of “dedicating” infants to God. Some call this a “christening” which they distinguish from baptism (and just so no one reading this gets confused, there are other Christians who use the terms christening and baptism interchangeably, so in this post I am referring to those who do not). The idea is that you christen / dedicate babies but baptism is not done until the child grows up and undergoes the 3-step process which your Baptist friend outlined. As you can see, there is still an intuitive sense that something needs to be done for infants. If your friends church practices infant christening / dedication, then present her the following scenario to consider:

**Let us say that there is a baby named Aloysius and as an infant he is christened (or “dedicated to the Lord”). This is not a baptism.

Aloysius grows up and as an adult he is “born again.” He accepts Jesus as his personal Lord and Savior and undergoes baptism by immersion. So now, as an adult, he is finally baptized.

In terms of the life of grace, what happened to Aloysius at his baptism that did not happen earlier at his christening?

While pondering this, your friend can also answer this question: Let us change this scenario and say that Aloysius died while still a child and, although he was christened, he was not old enough to be baptized (and therefore died unbaptized). Does he go to heaven or hell?

If he goes to heaven, then what purpose does baptism serve? Obviously christening is enough to provide salvation (although this would contradict the Scripture passages your friend quoted).

If he goes to hell then what purpose did the christening serve? And moreover, how on earth is it fair for him to go to hell when he died before he was old enough to receive baptism in his church? After all, it wasn’t his fault that he never got baptized.**

As you can see, no matter how your friend answers these questions, it will be problematic in terms of her baptism theology. According to what she teaches, salvation is for those who are fortunate enough to reach adulthood, understand what baptism is all about and are capable for believing in Jesus. Those who die prior to adulthood are apparently out or luck, as are people who suffer from severe mental and/or psychological handicaps who are incapable of understanding baptism and sincerely going through the 3-step salvation process your friend outlined.
 
In response to what would happen to someone who died but was not old enough to be baptised, my brother, a baptist, would simply state that you would be saved, because in that situation it would be out of one’s control. He would say you need to use common sense and read between the lines about what scripture is really saying, not taking it out of context.
 
In response to what would happen to someone who died but was not old enough to be baptised, my brother, a baptist, would simply state that you would be saved, because in that situation it would be out of one’s control. He would say you need to use common sense and read between the lines about what scripture is really saying, not taking it out of context.
In saying “You would be saved, because in that situation it would be out of one’s control” your brother is not teaching something that Scripture actually states.

Moreover, exactly why would he say that Catholic teachings on infant baptism are taking Scripture “out of context”? The context is that “entire households” were baptized and Paul uses the language of circumcision (which was required by God for 8-day old Jewish male children) when describing Christian baptism. Both cases strongly imply infant baptism and the NT writers obviously knew this. And yet none of them clarified that it was to be reserved to adults.

Plus, if it is truly your brother’s practice to “use common sense and read between the lines about what Scripture is really saying” then he should be more open to the concept of infant Baptism than against it. In other words, your brother seems to accept both exegetical and eisogetical examinations of Scripture (which is fine for Catholics and Orthodox, but probably not for a Baptist if he holds to Sola Scriptura, but that’s another subject). Otherwise he would not tell people to “read between the lines” (because that means looking at what a text subjectively implies rather than what it objectively states). Therefore, if we are going to read between the lines in accordance with the entire NT’s teachings on the subject, a stronger eisogetical case can be made to support infant baptism than reject it (as I have briefly done above).

And there is also the historical evidence: infant baptism has been done throughout the collective 2000-year history of Catholicism, the various Eastern Orthodox Churches and the various Oriental Orthodox Churches. In addition to this, a number of Protestant denominations practice infant baptism as well. Does your brother actually think that the vast majority of Christians throughout the entire history of Christianity have failed to have “common sense” regarding so essential a doctrine?

And finally, in saying that an unbaptized child can be saved, your brother is saying that baptism is not absolutely necessary for salvation. In other words, depending on the circumstances, it is necessary for some people but not for others. How does he explain the discrepancy? In answering this, he will probably be stepping away from what the Bible explicitly states to the same degree that Catholics do when teaching about infant baptism. So if it is ok for Baptists to do it, then why does he criticize Catholics for doing it?

As a side note, Catholics, as I am sure you know, believe that baptism is necessary but also believe in different kinds of baptism, but such teaching would probably not be acceptable to a Baptism (in light of the fact that this theology is not clearly expressed in the Bible).
 
In response to what would happen to someone who died but was not old enough to be baptised, my brother, a baptist, would simply state that you would be saved, because in that situation it would be out of one’s control. He would say you need to use common sense and read between the lines about what scripture is really saying, not taking it out of context.
In addition to what I stated in my last post, I think your brother should consider the ramifications of what he’s saying. If what he says is true, everyone on the planet is automatically saved except for those who have the capacity to know about baptism and go through the proper process (confession following the water ritual). Keep in mind there can be several reasons why failure to be baptized was “out of ones control.” Christians, therefore, are not automatically saved, but rather have to complete the process. So everyone gets a free pass except Christians. Doesn’t quite sound right.

And let me clarify what I’m getting at here. Catholic teaching addresses this same issue with the concept of “baptism by desire.” If your brother explains why he thinks that an unbaptized person who dies (but his failure to be baptized was “out of his control”) can be saved, then your brother may end up describing the essence of “baptism by desire.” But “baptism by desire” is not explicitly taught in the Bible. So if he accepts that aspect of Catholic teaching on baptism, why should he reject the aspect concerning infant baptism? After all, in this case lack of explicit biblical support is not really an issue.
 
Hi follow CAF members,
Yes, it’s me again with yet one more crazy outburst from the Baptist on my FB page. I am about to “defriend” her now, but would like your (name removed by moderator)ut on this outrageous defense of her Baptist faith. Please read below and if anyone has ever heard of this crazy argument before and has a link I can send her,I would appreciate any help you can afford me.
Thanks again guys! Her comment is below in red. God bless!

"Where in the bible does it say to baptize non-consenting children? You don’t know scripture, you IGNORE scripture! What did Jesus tell the Pharisee Nicodemus? Let me refer you to Jesus’ words when he said in John 3:5 "VE…RILY, VERILY I SAY UNTO YOU, EXCEPT A MAN BE BORN OF WATER AND OF THE SPIRIT, HE CANNOT ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN,That which is born of the FLESH…IS FLESH; and that which is BORN of the SPIRIT…IS spirit! MARVEL NOT that that I said unto thee, YE MUST BE “BORN AGAIN”!. Here, is where your “BAPTIST CHURCH” is formed.We “Born Again Baptists” can trace our roots and lineage right to Jesus and JOHN the BAPTIST! We are Baptists because we choose, of our own free will and volition ,as ADULTS, to- #1. Confess our sinful nature,-#2. Accept Jesus Christ as LORD and Savior and- #3.Submit to the COMMAND of JESUS CHRIST to be BAPTIZED BY IMMERSION (Mark 16:16)> “He that believeth and is “Baptized” SHALL BE SAVED”!!!
This is actually very simple to refute. First the Bible doesnt say that we cannot baptize infants. Secondly it also doesnt say that baptism has to be done by immersion or that immersion was even used. Thridly it wouldnt make sense to baptize only by immersion because not every place on earth has a lake, or river close by. Should salvation be halted because there isnt a body of water to dunk the believer in? Please what rubish.

What is baptism? Baptism is the means in which the faithful enter the new covenant God created for His people much like how circumcission was the way in which the Jews entered into the covenant God made with them in the OT. Now this is important because in the OT the Jews that had children were OBLIGATED to have them circumcised on the 8th day after their birth, when they were INFANTS!

Anyone claiming that infant baptisms are wrong is expecting me believe:

a.) That the same God that instituted circumcisson and wanted the cricumcisson of infants to happen has a problem with infants being baptised.

b.) That the same God that was circumcised when He was an infant would have a problem with infants being baptized

c.) That the same God that wanted and didnt have a problem with infants being in the covenant of the OT would for some unknown reason now not want them to be in the covenant of the NT

d.) That the same God that didnt mind if an infants foreskin was cut would have an issue with water being poured over an infants head.

Doesnt make sense!

Lastly I would give them this verse and ask them how they are not hindering or forbiding the little children from coming to Christ if they exclude them from baptism when He says that baptism is necessary?

**“But Jesus said to them: Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come to me: for the kingdom of heaven is for such.”-- Matthew 19:14 **

Excluding infants from entering in a covenant with God is truly a non-biblical practice.
 
Hi follow CAF members,
Yes, it’s me again with yet one more crazy outburst from the Baptist on my FB page. I am about to “defriend” her now, but would like your (name removed by moderator)ut on this outrageous defense of her Baptist faith. Please read below and if anyone has ever heard of this crazy argument before and has a link I can send her,I would appreciate any help you can afford me.
Thanks again guys! Her comment is below in red. God bless!

"Where in the bible does it say to baptize non-consenting children? You don’t know scripture, you IGNORE scripture! What did Jesus tell the Pharisee Nicodemus? Let me refer you to Jesus’ words when he said in John 3:5 "VE…RILY, VERILY I SAY UNTO YOU, EXCEPT A MAN BE BORN OF WATER AND OF THE SPIRIT, HE CANNOT ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN,That which is born of the FLESH…IS FLESH; and that which is BORN of the SPIRIT…IS spirit! MARVEL NOT that that I said unto thee, YE MUST BE “BORN AGAIN”!. Here, is where your “BAPTIST CHURCH” is formed.We “Born Again Baptists” can trace our roots and lineage right to Jesus and JOHN the BAPTIST! We are Baptists because we choose, of our own free will and volition ,as ADULTS, to- #1. Confess our sinful nature,-#2. Accept Jesus Christ as LORD and Savior and- #3.Submit to the COMMAND of JESUS CHRIST to be BAPTIZED BY IMMERSION (Mark 16:16)> “He that believeth and is “Baptized” SHALL BE SAVED”!!!
ONE of the main difficulties with the Protestant thinking is the same thing that they lay claim…and that is…{That which is born of the Flesh…is Flesh; and that which is Born of the Spirit…is Spirit!}…

I say this because above and beyond the “ritualism” of Baptism…they have difficulty seeing with the eyes of Faith…the cleansing and regeneration…which is spoken of in Scripture…and as such…understand by means of the Flesh…and NOT…Spirit!

Baptism was actually “commanded” by Peter to the converting souls at one point in the Bible…anything symbolic would most certainly have not had such and “order to Baptise”…as Scripture states…Furthermore, when it is noted throughout the Book of Acts that someone had “only been Baptized with the Baptism of John”…knowing this is a Baptism of repentance…THEY RE-BAPTISED…Not something that would be necessary, if only symbolic.

NO matter how anyone would attempt to dis-sway…the element of Water…can not be removed from being “Born-Again”…it is not something we do!!! By the power of the Holy Spirit…Baptism is a regeneration and cleansing of the soul of original sin…and is commanded to be done…by The Our Lord Jesus.
 
There is a group that claims to follow the teachings of John the Baptizer. They are called Mandaeans and largely live in the marshes of southern Iraq. **Catholic missionaries encountering them in the 16th century referred to them as Saint John Christians. ** They are monotheistic and have a dualistic belief system that is gnostic. In fact they describe themselves as practicing the only Gnostic religion. I give you this information for your own edification, since I doubt your FB friend would know of the association she is claiming for herself.

If you would like to learn more about the Mandaeans, here is a link:
mandaeanunion.org/History/EN_History_001.htm
Which is quite a misnomer really, since the Mandaeans are not really ‘Christians’: in fact, they believe Jesus is a false prophet (along with Abraham, Moses and Muhammad) who perverted the teachings entrusted to Him by John! Now, the Mandaeans do not consider John to be the founder of their religion (they trace their beliefs back to Adam) but revere him as one of their greatest teachers, according him a special status, higher than his role in Christianity and Islam. 🤷
 
In addition to what I stated in my last post, I think your brother should consider the ramifications of what he’s saying. If what he says is true, everyone on the planet is automatically saved except for those who have the capacity to know about baptism and go through the proper process (confession following the water ritual). Keep in mind there can be several reasons why failure to be baptized was “out of ones control.” Christians, therefore, are not automatically saved, but rather have to complete the process. So everyone gets a free pass except Christians. Doesn’t quite sound right.

And let me clarify what I’m getting at here. Catholic teaching addresses this same issue with the concept of “baptism by desire.” If your brother explains why he thinks that an unbaptized person who dies (but his failure to be baptized was “out of his control”) can be saved, then your brother may end up describing the essence of “baptism by desire.” But “baptism by desire” is not explicitly taught in the Bible. So if he accepts that aspect of Catholic teaching on baptism, why should he reject the aspect concerning infant baptism? After all, in this case lack of explicit biblical support is not really an issue.
What you must understand, and I’m sure you already do, is that my brother’s church changes it’s teachings, from what I can gather, to suit the argument. In other words, he will say one thing one week and another the next like a many headed dragon. Whatever his preacher says is law. It doesn’t matter if it makes sense or contradicts itself, when you’re '“drinking the kool-aid” you have the wool over your eyes and will believe whatever suits your own beliefs. He has a “great melting pot” of beliefs, if you will, that seems to come from a variety of different faiths such as, they’re the original Christians (which makes no sense because he says Catholic’s forced the original Christians under ground), Catholics can’t be saved, drinking any alcohol is sinful, the rapture, OSAS, etc. etc. I have tried, for example, to explain to him that the Catholic Church is the only Christian church to go back to the time of Christ. All he says is that Catholics forced the baptists under ground and that “of course the ECF’s taught Catholic teachings , they were Catholic and therfore lead by the devil.” Don’t get you or I started on the seemingly intentional errors in that statement that could be refuted by a five year old, but the point is he’s determined to believe he is led by the Holy Spirit and therfore there is no need to study anything as long as he can “cherry pick” verses to conform to his beliefs, never mind looking at the bible as a whole or the actual people who brought the world the bible, the Greek or the Hebrew meanings.
 
Acts states that the Apostles Baptized “households”- to me that would include everyone in the household including children and infants.
 
You don’t know scripture, you IGNORE scripture! What did Jesus tell the Pharisee
As a former baptist I can tell you from experience only God could have open my closed mind. No amount of talk could have changed my cold heart. I was the pharisee. I’m dealing with baptist friends…baptist yes…friends unsure. They just want me to agree with them and nothing more. I hope and pray to God for you my friend. Be well and may the peace of God be with you…Peter:(
 
As a former baptist I can tell you from experience only God could have open my closed mind. No amount of talk could have changed my cold heart. I was the pharisee. I’m dealing with baptist friends…baptist yes…friends unsure. They just want me to agree with them and nothing more. I hope and pray to God for you my friend. Be well and may the peace of God be with you…Peter:(
***Hello HisGrace and thanks for writing.

I think that my baptist friend has decided to cease and desist on debating any further. Reason is probably because I took her last comment, (which I posted here on CAF) but also started a new post to my FB wall with her very same comment --which caused quite a few Catholics to anwer her directly. She has no longer written anything to me, fearful that I will start a new post to my wall which would invite all my Catholic friends to jump in on the debate. I also picked up quite a few new friends right off CAF who are ready,willing, and able to step in and handle her outrageous assumptions about our faith.

Before I had done this, she was posting her responses to old wall postings which probably were not seen by anyone other than those who had originally been connected to that post, which basically was another protestant. So, in my starting a new wall post with her nasty comment, it brought many people to read it and come forth to defend our faith. She has not written since. A good thing, since I was very close to “unfriending” her. I did decide to “hide” all her postings though, as she is consistently posting protestant preacher videos about “conspiracies” going on in this country. I’m really sick of it.

Take care and thank you so much to you and to everyone who leaped to my assistance. I am very grateful to this site and to all the wonderful devout Catholics who defend our faith!

God bless you all!
Cindy***
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top