HELP me convey to my Baptist friend that he is a Protestant!

  • Thread starter Thread starter JSmitty2005
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am a Baptist who is coming home to the Church. Ask your friend if he thinks John the Baptist was the first Baptist. See the response you get.

The Baptist denomination was founded here in America over 200 years ago. It had no origin before that time.

The reason I said ask him about John the Baptist is many believe that was the first Baptist!!! :rolleyes:

Steph
 
If you are interested there are two well documented books about Baptist history, 1) A Short History of Baptist by Dr. Vedder and 2) Are Baptist Reform, By Dr. Kenneth Good.

forever Baptist
allischalmers
 
idoqna & allischalmers, since you’re both Baptists, what do you think about all this? Were you taught to believe that the Baptist religion was the one established by Christ or did you learn that it was just another one of the branches of Protestantism? The claim to historical continuity seems to really dampen any credibility that the Baptists might have and I think that that’s why a lot are coming home to the Catholic Church. To claim that the first Christians were Baptists is simple nonsense with nothing to back it up…unless of course that’s because the Catholic Church destroyed all the evidence.:rolleyes: If you guys are converting to the Catholic faith, how do you think that I should try and get through to him? And if not, how do you justify such a position?
 
i got this information from the landmark baptist page
listed in the second post in this thread…

"Cardinal Hosius who was President of the Council of Trent said, “were it not that the baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knofe during the past 1200 years hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the reformer’s.” (hosius, letters, Apud Opera, pg 112-113).
  • even your own clergy recognize that baptists have been persecuted [not existed] for the last 1200 years. this was said in 1524 A.D…
  • this being said so long ago, we can use a bit of math to show about what time baptists were persecuted [of course this is aproximate] by the Catholic Churc.
    1524 - 1200 = 324 A.D."
    (( the spelling is to original posters 🙂 ))
appearently this is the historical ‘proof’ that is being used to
trace the baptists back to the year 324 A.D.

i found this page refuting this “fact”…

angelfire.com/ms/seanie/forgeries/hosius.html

and to agree with an earlier poster… i have a booklet i got
from the baptist church i was raised in, and in the booklet
it states “Jesus was baptised by a baptist preacher”…

course, i was raised in Mississippi… lol

🙂
 
40.png
Thal59:
Try referring to him as a “Heretical schismatic.” He might like that better.

Thal59
Click to expand...
🙂 I love it!
 
40.png
JSmitty2005:
He claims that the Baptist community can trace its way back to Christ.PS - What the heck is a *Landmark *Baptist?!
Click to expand...
Sure they can of course once they hit 1500 or so they have to do their tracing through the The CATHOLIC
 
40.png
Contarini:
Landmarkists just latch on to them because we don’t know much about them either way so they can impute to them whatever views they find convenient.
Click to expand...
Yes. Other baptists have removed themselves from “the trail of blood” theory because it meant affiliating themselves with all those heretical groups.
 
40.png
JSmitty2005:
Okay, actually, here’s the one that I was looking for:

“On Protestantism”

My friend (Mike) mentions several groups that he claims that the Baptists have descended from. Here’s what he said:

Do you guys know anything about these groups? I’ve never even heard of some of them before. I’d like to try and show him that they held contradictory views with each other or with present-day Baptists.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I know a little about some of those groups. They were the early heresies. This guy is actually willing to identify himself with Donatists and Montanists? Amazing. These groups held views completely alien to orthodox Christianity, and I’m talking about things even Most Catholics and Protestants agree on, like the nature of the trinity. Check out the link below for some more info on these groups. You’re going to nail this guy.

bartleby.com/65/mo/Montanis.html
 
40.png
CollegeKid:
Yeah, I know a little about some of those groups. They were the early heresies. This guy is actually willing to identify himself with Donatists and Montanists? Amazing. These groups held views completely alien to orthodox Christianity, and I’m talking about things even Most Catholics and Protestants agree on, like the nature of the trinity. Check out the link below for some more info on these groups. You’re going to nail this guy.

bartleby.com/65/mo/Montanis.html
Click to expand...
Truthfully “nailing” someone isn’t the point, presenting (defending) the truth is. However sometimes that calls for being blunt (or using hyperbole).

With certain people the exotic fairy tale is more attractive than the truth. They are pretty entrenched in their opinion and it’s more fun to hit your head on a brick wall than try to change that. Reason usually isn’t an option for them. If you want to really challenge people like that the approach needs to be different. You need to challenge them on sacred scripture alone to be able to refute or make them question their own assumptions or what they have been taught.

They can try to refute you all they want, but they won’t and or can’t refute Gods word. It’s an uphill battle because they don’t accept the church fathers usually or tradition. If they do you get to ask them why they are quoting the church fathers in the first place, they are catholics. However even then, as a catholic, it needs to be understood that not everything one of the church fathers uttered is gospel, unless the whole of the church believed it and the magisterium. But for the most part they are dead on.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
 
*And why worry about a speck in your friend’s eye when you have a log in your own? *

Conflict is the work of the devil. Rather than arguing with your Baptist friend, why don’t you study scripture and/or pray together. That is the way to salvation for both of you. Everything else is just a distraction.
 
ecp007 said:
*And why worry about a speck in your friend’s eye when you have a log in your own? *

Conflict is the work of the devil. Rather than arguing with your Baptist friend, why don’t you study scripture and/or pray together. That is the way to salvation for both of you. Everything else is just a distraction.
Click to expand...

Arguing over insignificant things is certainly “the work of the devil,” but not all conflict. You’re preaching irenicism when you suggest that we pursue peace at the expense of truth. Debating about religion is not insignificant and the salvation of his soul is at risk because he is not Catholic. And, I would study Scripture/pray with him if he didn’t live in California! Have you even read through this thread or some of the links that I posted to see what my friend has had to say? If so, you’d see that he’s been propagating lies about the Church. I have a right, nay, a DUTY and an OBLIGATION to correct him! Avoiding conflict in this case would be “the work of the devil.”
I suggest that you read this to get an idea of how the devil really works rather than your misconception that all conflict is evil. Pay particular attention to his third strategy.
 
First ask him, what his statement of beliefs are, trinity, local church ( does not likely believe in universal church ), speaking in tongues or not, who Jesus is, ask your questions about his beliefs while keeping in mind the hersays of the groups he is likely to see as being baptist from “trail of blood”

google.com/search?hl=en&q=baptist+trail+of+blood

baptistpage.org/Distinctives/Trail_of_Blood.html

Then ask what groups in history were baptist.

After that simply, look up that group in the catholic encylopedia and point out where that group disagrees with his baptist doctrine.
 
I found this in the CA files when I was looking for something else and thought it might be useful to you, JSmitty:

Q: I have recently been talking, via email, to a Baptist minister who claims that not only was St. Peter himself a Baptist preacher, but the original Church was Baptist. He claims that Baptists are not Protestant and never belonged to the “Roman Harlot.” According to his revisionist account of history, the Baptists had been underground until the Reformation. How can I respond to this outrageous claim? I tried to show the minister that his claims contradict history, but he believes history to be "Roman propaganda."

A: You recognize that this minister’s conclusions are not drawn from an examination of the record but from private prejudices. He knows, at least, that the Protestant churches are derived historically from the Catholic Church. His animus against the Church is so great that he refuses to have even the remotest connection with Catholicism. So what does he do? He falls back on the sorry notion that his Church wasn’t founded by our Lord, but by John the Baptist. (Most Baptists don’t believe this, but a few do.) But this causes a problem. In Matthew 16 our Lord says that he “will” (future tense) establish a Church, meaning that John the Baptist, by then dead, could not have established the Church of which Christ is the head. Conclusion? This Baptist minister isn’t a member of the Church Christ founded and isn’t a member of any church derived from it. Does this mean, by his own argument, that he isn’t a Christian at all?
 
40.png
JSmitty2005:
Debating about religion is not insignificant and the salvation of his soul is at risk because he is not Catholic.
Click to expand...
I think this statement is in contradiction to your catechism. Technically if he believes in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is baptized and professes to follow Christ he is a Christian. Are you in fact trying to put your interpretation of who is saved before that of your church or do I misread?
 
Oh brother. Not one of those that believes false history. In one of these sites that claim the Baptists go back to the time of Jesus, they claimed that Montanists were ancient Baptists. But the fact is that the Montanists were more like Pentecostals than Baptists.
 
40.png
Shlemele:
40.png
JSmitty2005:
Debating about religion is not insignificant and the salvation of his soul is at risk because he is not Catholic.
Click to expand...
I think this statement is in contradiction to your catechism. Technically if he believes in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is baptized and professes to follow Christ he is a Christian. Are you in fact trying to put your interpretation of who is saved before that of your church or do I misread?
Click to expand...
Being a Christian is not all that is necessary for salvation. Normally, you must be a member of Christ’s Church…the Catholic Church (of course there are exceptions for extraordinary circumstances). Anyways, both of the following propositions were CONDEMNED in Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors, so I don’t think that my comments and concern for his salvation are out of line with Church teaching:
  1. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. – Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc.
  2. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church. – Encyclical “Noscitis,” Dec. 8, 1849.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top