Baptist succession?

[copland]

I have heard in the past of a so-called list of successors of the Baptist church that leads all the way back to Jesus. I would love to see a list of these so-called Baptist successors. Does anyone have a link that gives the list?

 

[Malachi4U]

The book of fiction you are looking for is called “The Trail of Blood”. Here is a link to it:

members.aol.com/libcfl/trail.htm

There are many more sites that talk abouth this “Historical Revisionism”. I suggest you look at some sites that talk about whats wrong with the book too. The book is full of errors or missleading statements. Even Baptist Scholars have said the book is fiction - just like Foxes Book of Martyrs. Or was that Foxes Book of Fabel’s?

Anyway, I researched the book and found the truth. Now I am Catholic (by desire) and no longer attend Baptist churches.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

This was recently discussed here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=16156

Scott

 

[copland]

Thanks folks! I used to be a Baptist preacher, and I am converting to the Catholic Church. I have just wanted to see this list of succession just to be able to point out the errors when I am confronted with this idea. Thanks!!

 

[ahimsaman72]

Malachi4U:

The book of fiction you are looking for is called “The Trail of Blood”. Here is a link to it:

members.aol.com/libcfl/trail.htm

There are many more sites that talk abouth this “Historical Revisionism”. I suggest you look at some sites that talk about whats wrong with the book too. The book is full of errors or missleading statements. Even Baptist Scholars have said the book is fiction - just like Foxes Book of Martyrs. Or was that Foxes Book of Fabel’s?

Anyway, I researched the book and found the truth. Now I am Catholic (by desire) and no longer attend Baptist churches.

If you will notice at this website which you linked to there is one important word that keeps popping up, “principles”. The claim is that the principles were there all along, though there was no official baptist church. No one in their right mind can say that there was a First Baptist Church of Antioch. Most baptists trace their roots to 1607 AD and with John Smyth as founder.

 

[Malachi4U]

ahimsaman72:

If you will notice at this website which you linked to there is one important word that keeps popping up, “principles”. The claim is that the principles were there all along, though there was no official baptist church. No one in their right mind can say that there was a First Baptist Church of Antioch. Most baptists trace their roots to 1607 AD and with John Smyth as founder.

ahimsaman72,

Thank you, you have brought out a great point and a small variation in words used. Most Baptists I went to Church with understood this ‘principle’ exactly the same as Catholics or Americans understand ‘succession’ in the authority of the Pope or of the President.

It just depends on who interprets it and how they understand it. You have made a good point in allowing us to understand the way different sects/denominations hear or read the same word but apply a different meaning.

Keep up the good work!

 

[ahimsaman72]

Malachi4U:

ahimsaman72,

Thank you, you have brought out a great point and a small variation in words used. Most Baptists I went to Church with understood this ‘principle’ exactly the same as Catholics or Americans understand ‘succession’ in the authority of the Pope or of the President.

It just depends on who interprets it and how they understand it. You have made a good point in allowing us to understand the way different sects/denominations hear or read the same word but apply a different meaning.

Keep up the good work!

Always like keeping the people happy!

So, when are you switching sides to become a baptist like me?

 

[oat_soda]

It just depends on who interprets it and how they understand it. You have made a good point in allowing us to understand the way different sects/denominations hear or read the same word but apply a different meaning.

this sounds like relativism to me -truth is only defined by what you think is truth. like pontius pilot said, “what is truth”.

now if we believe that God is truth, then he can’t contradict himself. if there are contradictions in different church histories, they can’t all be right. i think if your open and humble, history shows that only the catholic church can legitimately claim it can trace its history all the way back to the apostles and ultimately Jesus himself.

i have a real hard time believing that you can make a reasonable case of showing how the baptist have existed since day one. it’s ridiculous.

 

[ahimsaman72]

oat soda:

this sounds like relativism to me -truth is only defined by what you think is truth. like pontius pilot said, “what is truth”.

now if we believe that God is truth, then he can’t contradict himself. if there are contradictions in different church histories, they can’t all be right. i think if your open and humble, history shows that only the catholic church can legitimately claim it can trace its history all the way back to the apostles and ultimately Jesus himself.

i have a real hard time believing that you can make a reasonable case of showing how the baptist have existed since day one. it’s ridiculous.

how do you define truth for yourself? how do you figure out if a person is lying to you? how do you decide if a news story is truthful or is based on fact? We use logic, reasoning, intelligence, don’t we? We search for the truth. Are we always “right”? Not hardly. There is a limit to our capacity - whether it is based on sin in our life or whether it is simply that we are fallible human beings. Only God knows.

I absolutely agree that God is truth. I believe that Jesus Christ is the truth as he stated in John 14:6 (my favorite verse). God cannot contradict Himself as you stated. The Bible says in I Cor. 13:12 “For now we see through a glass, darkly…” Through our sinful selves sometimes we cannot discern “truth”, though we seek after it with all our might.

Obviously, some of us are “right” and some of us are “wrong” in our knowledge of “truth”, but ultimately only God can judge that -as He is absolute truth and knows all things. Our lives should be characterized by how we live it and who we love, not whether you are right or wrong and sometimes I fail to see that in my own life.

My post is off topic but I felt like I should respond to your post on “truth”. The truths of life are real, though all of us cannot see them or experience them all of the time.

Conclusion - I think we will all be surprised when after judgement we end up wherever we are placed and see those around us. I think we will be shocked.

Peace…brother.

 

[oat_soda]

Obviously, some of us are “right” and some of us are “wrong” in our knowledge of “truth”, but ultimately only God can judge that -as He is absolute truth and knows all things. Our lives should be characterized by how we live it and who we love, not whether you are right or wrong and sometimes I fail to see that in my own life.

I can not accept that we can’t know absolutely what is a sin or what to believe. If we don’t have a infallible church to preach the gospel, how can we be sure we are being true to Jesus’s word. I don’t rely on myself, im not that smart. I accpet what has been handed down to me through the bishops in communion with the see of Peter.

When Jesus asked the disciples who do people say he was, Peter responded “you are Christ, son of the living God”. Jesus said that he was blessed because it wasn’t by his own limited intellect that this was revealed, but God revealed this to him. This is why Peter alone is identified as the rock upon which Jesus built his Church. Jesus builds his church on God working through Peter, not just Peter the man. The church is built on Peter, on his confession, and ultimatley on Jesus himself. In as far as I accept the church for who she is, I accept Jesus. You can’t seperate them.

 

[CnDWelch]

I think the important point here is made in what the early church leaders actually said regarding this subject. They looked to the successors of the apostles, the bishops of the Catholic Church, to know whether they had the truth or not. Not some vague “principles”. They knew where to find the truth. It is a copout to says that there is no way to know the truth. Jesus gave us a way, the Church, and promised to lead the Church into “ALL TRUTH”.

This tract makes a good argument, by using quotes from the early church.

catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Succession.asp

 

[ahimsaman72]

oat soda:

I can not accept that we can’t know absolutely what is a sin or what to believe. If we don’t have a infallible church to preach the gospel, how can we be sure we are being true to Jesus’s word. I don’t rely on myself, im not that smart. I accpet what has been handed down to me through the bishops in communion with the see of Peter.

We will have to agree to disagree on this.

When Jesus asked the disciples who do people say he was, Peter responded “you are Christ, son of the living God”. Jesus said that he was blessed because it wasn’t by his own limited intellect that this was revealed, but God revealed this to him. This is why Peter alone is identified as the rock upon which Jesus built his Church. Jesus builds his church on God working through Peter, not just Peter the man. The church is built on Peter, on his confession, and ultimatley on Jesus himself. In as far as I accept the church for who she is, I accept Jesus. You can’t seperate them.

This passage is found in Mt. 16:18 as you well know. What about the first 15 chapters? As early as Mt. 8:29, you see that the demons voiced that Jesus was the Son of God. In Mt. 14:33 the disciples claimed he was the Son of God.

God has revealed Himself through the ages. He revealed Himself to the Israelites through Moses and has now revealed Himself through Jesus His Son.

The Rock - the church - is built upon the spiritual Rock, Jesus Christ and what is on top of the bedrock of Christ is the confession that all people have made through the centuries that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God as can be seen by the verses in Matthew prior to Peter’s confession. He wasn’t the first to confess Christ as Scripture points out.

You can’t separate Peter from the church - I agree. He is PART of the church as I am and all who have believed.

 

[ahimsaman72]

CnDWelch:

I think the important point here is made in what the early church leaders actually said regarding this subject. They looked to the successors of the apostles, the bishops of the Catholic Church, to know whether they had the truth or not. Not some vague “principles”. They knew where to find the truth. It is a copout to says that there is no way to know the truth. Jesus gave us a way, the Church, and promised to lead the Church into “ALL TRUTH”.

This tract makes a good argument, by using quotes from the early church.

catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Succession.asp

First, the principles aren’t vague. Cain knew murder was wrong although the Ten Commandments weren’t given yet. Isn’t that correct? The principle was there though it was not revealed. His conscience knew it was wrong - he did it anyway.

Rom. 2:14,15 talk about the gentiles not having the Mosaic law but had the law written on their hearts, their consciences bearing witness and their thoughts excusing or accusing them. ( I paraphrased here obviously.)

I personally didn’t say we couldn’t know the “truth”. I have said that we see through a glass darkly as Paul stated. We can know some, but obviously if we all saw the truth we would agree on our Christian doctrine. Don’t you agree?

Correction: Jesus said he would give us the Holy Spirit who would guide us (all believers) into all truth. He also said the Holy Spirit would witness of Him (Jesus). Jesus is the truth. I would interpret “all truth” as being “all truth needed to be known to accept Jesus Christ”.

 

[CnDWelch]

ahimsaman72:

Correction: Jesus said he would give us the Holy Spirit who would guide us (all believers) into all truth. He also said the Holy Spirit would witness of Him (Jesus). Jesus is the truth. I would interpret “all truth” as being “all truth needed to be known to accept Jesus Christ”.

He was speaking specifically to the apostles when he promised the Spirit of Truth. This has been the constant teaching of the Church since Jesus’ assumption in to Heaven, as illustrated by the early church quotes on the link I pasted above. Paul said the Church is the “Pillar and Foundation of Truth”. Your interpretation regarding the Spirit guiding all believers into all truth is a novelty that sprang up in the 16th century in conjunction with the man-made tradition of sola scriptura. That is why you can see from early Christian writings that they looked to the Bishops, the successors to the apostles to find the truth, not to their own interpretations of scripture.

 

[ahimsaman72]

CnDWelch:

He was speaking specifically to the apostles when he promised the Spirit of Truth. This has been the constant teaching of the Church since Jesus’ assumption in to Heaven, as illustrated by the early church quotes on the link I pasted above. Paul said the Church is the “Pillar and Foundation of Truth”. Your interpretation regarding the Spirit guiding all believers into all truth is a novelty that sprang up in the 16th century in conjunction with the man-made tradition of sola scriptura. That is why you can see from early Christian writings that they looked to the Bishops, the successors to the apostles to find the truth, not to their own interpretations of scripture.

He was speaking specifically to the disciples, yes. Does that mean it was intended only for them? No. He said to them in John 15:17 that they should love one another. Does that mean this doesn’t apply to us also??? Of course it does. Interpretation is something we all do. The Pope does, the bishops do, you and I do. Interpretation is a function of being a human being.

 

[CnDWelch]

ahimsaman72:

Interpretation is something we all do. The Pope does, the bishops do, you and I do. Interpretation is a function of being a human being.

“First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (2 Peter 1:20-21).

The constant teaching of the Church trumps any interpretation you or I may come up with, in my humble opinion.

 

[ahimsaman72]

“First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (2 Peter 1:20-21).

The constant teaching of the Church trumps any interpretation you or I may come up with, in my humble opinion.

Okay, now let’s humbly look at this verse and others around it to see what is being said here. I’m not sure what translation of Bible you are quoting becuase it doesn’t match what I have in the KJV. The KJV (I’m not a KJV only fanatic, by the way) reads thus:

1. For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
2. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
3. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
4. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
5. Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
6. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Peter refers to “cunningly devised fables” and the fact that he has not followed them. He is referring to Jesus being preached as the Messiah, is he not? The prophecy being spoken of, therefore is referring to Jesus’s fulfillment of prophecy in the OT, is it not?

He goes on to explain that prophecy (foretelling of Christ and God’s kingdom) was given to man by God and is not something invented. He says this in an effort to strengthen the believers faith in the risen Christ as the Messiah who was to come to fulfill prophecy.

We ALWAYS have to look at Scripture and not put something in or take something out for our own purposes. To do so invalidates our arguments and causes confusion.

If the constant teaching of the church were consistent with Scripture, we would agree much more with our beliefs (in my humble opinion).

Peace…

 

[CnDWelch]

ahimsaman72:

If the constant teaching of the church were consistent with Scripture, we would agree much more with our beliefs (in my humble opinion).
Peace…

The teaching of Catholic Church has always been consistent on its teachings regarding faith and morals.

The Church does not, indeed cannot, change the doctrines God has given it, nor can it “invent” new ones and add them to the deposit of faith that has been “once for all delivered to the saints.” New beliefs are not invented, but obscurities and misunderstandings regarding the deposit of faith are cleared up.

As we Catholics read Scripture, we see in it doctrines we already hold, each of us having been instructed in the faith before ever picking up the sacred text. This is a necessary process, as Scripture indicates. Peter explained, “There are some things in them [Paul’s letters] hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures” (2 Pet. 3:16). Those who are ignorant of orthodox Christian doctrine because they have never been taught it, or who are unstable in their adherence to the orthodox doctrine they have been taught, can twist Paul’s writings and the rest of Scripture to their own destruction. Therefore, it is important that we read Scripture within the framework of the Church’s constant tradition, as handed down from the apostles in the Catholic Church.

It is this continuation of teaching through the succession of bishops for nearly 2000 years, with the protection of the Holy Spirit promised by Jesus that gives us confidence that we can be sure what we are taught is truth.

When the protestants left the church in protest, after 15 centuries since the church was founded by Christ, they lost the protection of truth promised to the church by Jesus Christ. This is why you see tens of thousands of different protestant denominations today, most with beliefs and practices that would be unrecognizable to the original protestants themselves.

I am enjoying this discussion with you, by the way. I would bet that we agree on more issues than we realize, and could easily pray together as brothers in Christ. I pray that we each come to a fuller understanding of the truths of God as we continue in our spiritual journey.

Dave

 

[ahimsaman72]

CnDWelch:

The Church does not, indeed cannot, change the doctrines God has given it, nor can it “invent” new ones and add them to the deposit of faith that has been “once for all delivered to the saints.” New beliefs are not invented, but obscurities and misunderstandings regarding the deposit of faith are cleared up.

When the protestants left the church in protest, after 15 centuries since the church was founded by Christ, they lost the protection of truth promised to the church by Jesus Christ. This is why you see tens of thousands of different protestant denominations today, most with beliefs and practices that would be unrecognizable to the original protestants themselves.

I am enjoying this discussion with you, by the way. I would bet that we agree on more issues than we realize, and could easily pray together as brothers in Christ. I pray that we each come to a fuller understanding of the truths of God as we continue in our spiritual journey.

Dave

Edited for length -

First, Dave, let me say that I absolutely could pray with you as a brother in Christ. I pray the Lord’s Prayer and say the Apostle’s Creed every day and teach it to my oldest daughter. I consider you and all who profess Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour my brother and my sister in Christ. For the record, I’m not a catholic hater in any way. I have been harsh with some people and the magisterium of the catholic church, but greatly respect John Paul and his vision for the catholic church. I will “PM” you with a little more personal background shortly. I also pray for better understanding as God leads and appreciate your posts as well.

Now, your position here is very well thought out and clear. I will comment on only a couple of items:

1. “New beliefs are not invented, but obscurities and misunderstandings regarding the deposit of faith are cleared up”

This is what I call the “sanitized” version of the discrepancies that exist within catholic teaching. It implies continued revelation through men, which I deny. It is a well worded statement which I have read in catholic literature and heard people say which I believe hides the truth. I believe the deposit of faith and revelation to be sealed till the return of Christ. John was the last apostle to die in Christ. When he died, further revelation stopped.

1. “When the protestants left the church in protest, after 15 centuries since the church was founded by Christ, they lost the protection of truth promised to the church by Jesus Christ”

I don’t believe this to be true. The Holy Spirit indwells every believer as stated in Scripture. Believers dead and gone and believers alive today are protected by the Holy Spirit who was given to each of us to live powerful, holy lives. Christ stated He would send the Comforter who would guide us into all truth. He has done that. This protection of truth you speak of I would define as the truth of Jesus Christ. John 15:26 points out that the Holy Spirit would testify of Him. Therefore, believers (not just apostles) are being testified to by the Holy Spirit with the truth about Christ.

Peace…

 

[Malachi4U]

ahimsaman72:

Always like keeping the people happy!

So, when are you switching sides to become a baptist like me?

Actually, I found the truth and left the Baptist Church last year and became Catholic! Praise God! I find this side of the Tiber, Gods established with ‘keys’ side, to be in the ‘fullness’ of Gods Church and His Faith and Morals.

I just got tired of the preacher (a doctor of theology) contridicting the Bible study teacher (another doctor of theology) and both of them contridicting Scripture (the ‘inspired’ Word of God). When our preacher left for a 4 week vacation we could not even ask another Baptist preacher at one of the other churches to substitue for us either. You see, each Baptist preacher has a different “truth”. One may be a calvanist and one my not. The previous preacher at my “EX”-Baptist church was a calvanist too and ran the church into the ground and the 7 remaining members fired him! Praise God! They hired a non-calvinist preacher to regain membership. Even many Baptists can still see the herisy in calvinism!

Anyway, I love to discuss Scripture with Baptists who still have an open mind.

I read Scripture one day and the Holy Spirit lifted the ‘scales’ from my eyes so that I could ‘see’ and ‘hear’ His Word. I have never seen any Church follow Scripture teaching or include it more thouroughly in teaching and in services then in the Catholic Church. Praise God!

I now have a “hope” for salvation as a Catholic. As a Baptist I only had a false “opinion” not from Scripture of it. I’ll follow Jesus’ teaching and St. Pauls example of “Hope”, the greater gift! Luther invented ‘faith alone’, St. Paul taught ‘Hope.’ I’ll go with St. Paul anyday!

Just a note though, I still have many Christian friends in the Baptist church. Most of them disowned me though and won’t let my kids play with theirs anymore. Oh well, I still love them and so does God.

Memorizing Bible verses doesn’t make you a Christian, living them does. Praise God I found His body, the Catholic Church.

PS. You mention switching sides? I switched sides when I became a Baptist for 27 years. I ‘reconciled’ myself back to the Catholic Church when I came home. Baptist that I know think we have ‘sides’. Catholics think we have Faith and Hope and Love. We are not on opposite sides as you Baptists think. We are on one side and Satan has divided Christs’ Church with false teachings. Thats why there are thousands of sects in the US that all broke off from the Catholic Church over the years. John Smyth founded the Baptist church in 1607 A.D. Jesus founded the Catholic Church in 33 A.D.

I like being in a Church with one Faith and Moral that does not change to fit popular opinions. Look at the changing Baptist faith. How can Gods Word or His moral values change? Some Baptist now preach for abotion or in favor of birth control as an example of just two morals that were once immoral and are now moral in some/most Baptist churches I was in. One Baptism for the forgiveness of sins or one in each new Baptist church?

(Note: It is hard to clump Baptists and their teachings together since they split and form new churches faster then anyone I know can keep up with them. So not all Baptist churches approve of abortion but some do. Heck, some Catholics approve of infanticide too, just not the Church which preserves for us Gods Faith and Morals.)

We are not on different sides if you are a Christian. I am on the side of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. I may have the deposit of Faith and Morals and you may have opinions with varying degrees of belief in the deposit of Faith and Morals. We may not agree on 100% but I bet (yes, its OK to gamble too!) we agree on more then we disagree. We are brothers in Christ if your are on His side. Which side are you on? I’ll ‘gamble’ your on ours. Praise God!