Origin of the Baptist Church

[Contarini]

For the record: the premise is wrong. i.e. There is no such entity as The Baptist Church.

True Baptists have no faith and practice connection with the Protestant Reformation of the Roman Catholic Church.

Historically this is just plain false. There’s a demonstrable historical connection, which furthermore accounts for all the beliefs and practices of contemporary Baptists, “true” or otherwise.

Baptists were Separatist Puritans with some possible influence from the Anabaptists. Either way they were certainly a product of the Reformation.

No serious historian defends your position. It’s propagandistic myth and nothing more.

The Protestants of the 16th century were Roman Catholics trying to reform the excesses of the Vatican. They were unsuccessful. To be sure, there were other religious groups out there, many meeting in secret for fear of their lives, who were never part of these ongoing religious proceedings.

Yes, they were. The early Anabaptists and other radicals were clearly dependent on and part of the same broad movement as the “magisterial” Reformers such as Luther and Zwingli.

In fact many of these so-called heretics and dissenters were killed for refusing to bow to Rome and Wittenburg–primarily regarding the baptism of infants.

It’s pretty clear that the Zurich Anabaptists’ rejection of infant baptism was a radical interpretation of Zwingli’s teachings–an interpretation he repudiated. There is no evidence that it was the continuation of some earlier “heretical” tradition.,

In fact, there’s evidence that the Waldenses (the most important Continental dissenting movement in the later Middle Ages, unless you count the Hussites) were so far from rejecting infant baptism that they took their children to local Catholic priests for baptism. The Martyrs’ Mirror is just wrong on this point.

Tracing the history of all of this is difficult. The powers that be have succeeded in censoring much of the information by burning the authors and their books.

This is a convenient argument, allowing you to make up whatever fantasy you wish and claiming that the evidence has been destroyed.

Well, that’s not a reasonable argument. If the evidence really has been destroyed, then it’s not usable. We have to argue from the evidence we have.

Actually we have a lot more evidence than you are implying–it just doesn’t support your argument.

You can read the writings of the Radical Reformers and see just how closely related they were to the more “mainstream” Reformation.

We even have quite a few texts from the medieval “heretics,” and again it can be seen that they were not at all the same thing as modern Baptists.

There is a book which settles much of the this matter: The Bible.

No, the Bible cannot possibly settle this matter, because the Bible does not describe history after the first century. Any claim by you that it does is going to be insupportable by any normal standards of rational inquiry, and thus completely unconvincing to those not already convinced.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

All those who believe that one must be baptized to be saved–probably 95% or more of Christendom.

Baptism is a good work. It requires a work on the part of the participant

No, it doesn’t. Bear in mind that traditional Christians believe in infant baptism

Baptism as you define it is a good work.

Baptism as orthodox Christians define it is not.

Nor can you find one single Biblical passage that says that Baptism is a “good work” and thus excluded from playing a causative role in salvation. In fact, there are a number of NT passages which your theology requires you to explain away, because they mention baptism as being salvific. In fact, Acts 2 mentions repentance and baptism without even mentioning faith!

Edwin

 

[john_portis]

Baptist on most part do not even belive in Baptizing at all it is ritual to them If a person wants to he can if not no big deal profession of faith is all that is needed,I never saw an age requirment or amount of water in NT So why they call themselves Baptist anyway I attened for almost twenty years different Baptist churches they leave a lot out.But I guess ones heart is what matter anyway but I like kneeling in church I know its not getting me no where but tell me its wrong,I like simple message Christ has died Christ is risen Christ will come again I suppose the apostles had very simple message to tell the world.So thee are so many forms of Baptist I guess take a life time to trace .By the way I live in heart of Baptist Country here in Mississippi

 

[Anna_Scott]

All those who believe that one must be baptized to be saved–probably 95% or more of Christendom.

Baptism is a good work. It requires a work on the part of the participant and the work of an administrator. See Eph. 2:8-10–it is in the Douay too.

Peace,

James Least

No, it doesn’t. Bear in mind that traditional Christians believe in infant baptism

Baptism as you define it is a good work.

Baptism as orthodox Christians define it is not.

Nor can you find one single Biblical passage that says that Baptism is a “good work” and thus excluded from playing a causative role in salvation. In fact, there are a number of NT passages which your theology requires you to explain away, because they mention baptism as being salvific. In fact, Acts 2 mentions repentance and baptism without even mentioning faith!

Edwin

Edwin,
God bless you for your last two posts!!

James,

Acts 2: 38 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Baptism is not purely symbolic or simply an act of obedience. The forgiveness of sins is accomplished through Baptism as Holy Scripture clearly states.

There is no “work on the part of the participant” or the “administrator.” We are saved and forgiven through Christ and His work.

Baptism is the “circumcision made without hands” and brings us into Covenant with God.

Colossians 2: 8See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. 9For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, 10and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. 11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Colossians states very clearly the “circumcision without hands,” Baptism, is the “putting off of the body of the flesh,” by “circumcision of Christ”----being “buried with Him in Baptism,” and “raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God.”

Also, Baptism is more inclusive than the circumcision of the Old Covenant.

**Galatians 3: **27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

Infants were brought into the Old Covenant through circumcision. Infants are brought into the New Covenant through Baptism.

If you disagree, please provide support for your disagreement.

Peace,
Anna

 

[john_portis]

please explain Numbers C-21 v-8-9 and tell me why a never changing GOD told Moses to MAKE something by hand to be used in a religious manner I am sure the no one worshipped it but it was used so I think something can be made but not worshipped and also check out EX C-25 v-18-19-20 by the way this is coming fom King James Bible with 66 books You really dont think Catholic poeple are that stupid to worship an idol

 

[James_Least]

Your first point will show up on another post. Sorry about the flow of this composition.

---

Yes, they were. The early Anabaptists and other radicals were clearly dependent on and part of the same broad movement as the “magisterial” Reformers such as Luther and Zwingli.

---

“Lo I am with you always, even to the end of the age…”

---

It’s pretty clear that the Zurich Anabaptists’ rejection of infant baptism was a radical interpretation of Zwingli’s teachings–an interpretation he repudiated. There is no evidence that it was the continuation of some earlier “heretical” tradition.,

---

Silence is not a good argument. Does" pretty clear" mean supposition, inference and no apparent witnesses left?

---

In fact, there’s evidence that the Waldenses (the most important Continental dissenting movement in the later Middle Ages, unless you count the Hussites) were so far from rejecting infant baptism that they took their children to local Catholic priests for baptism. The Martyrs’ Mirror is just wrong on this point.

---

Christianity is certainly not the most important religion on this world based on the census takers of the world. Jesus of Nazareth is certainly the most pivotal person in history. He is either who He says He is–The Messiah, the Christ, the Son of the Living God, or the biggest imposter foisted on mankind–by man. The majority of the near 7 billion people on this planet do not believe that Jesus is the Christ.

---

This is a convenient argument, allowing you to make up whatever fantasy you wish and claiming that the evidence has been destroyed.

---

Jesus told His disciples,“the world hates me; it will hate you”. Most of the apostles died an untimely death–for their witness. Is it unreasonable to conclude that His witnesses were martyred in every generation? History is written by the victorious. Secular history has not been kind in such matters, understandably so. The state religions would not survive real investigative reporting. A lot of my points can be corroborated by documents in Oxford, Cambridge and Vatican U. Look for the heretics sections and how they were handled by the powers that be. Not all heretics are “That Way”; but their faith and practice can be followed to the New Testament Church faith and practice. Curiously, the trail does not pass through Rome or Constantinople–Wittenburg nor Paris either. Go figure that one. Sorry, I left out Canterbury, and Nauvoo.
The above answers the statements following as well:​

Well, that’s not a reasonable argument. If the evidence really has been destroyed, then it’s not usable. We have to argue from the evidence we have.

Actually we have a lot more evidence than you are implying–it just doesn’t support your argument.

You can read the writings of the Radical Reformers and see just how closely related they were to the more “mainstream” Reformation.

We even have quite a few texts from the medieval “heretics,” and again it can be seen that they were not at all the same thing as modern Baptists.

---

“Modern Baptists” is as ambiguous as “Roman Catholics”. You got Pre-Vatican II, Post Vatican II and any number of other groups contending for the authorized version of universality. Some say if you do not do mass in Latin, you are not doing Mass. Is this a false statement? Then there are the Eastern Rite(not including masons). The Orthodox from the East do not recognize papal authority and petrine primacy in general–a long standing schism for sure. What is that about? For Rome to stand, Peter has to be the First Pope of a long line of succession of popes. Everyone else is schismatic–one of several implications of Vatican II. Just who the heretics might be is an interesting study.

---

No, the Bible cannot possibly settle this matter, because the Bible does not describe history after the first century. Any claim by you that it does is going to be insupportable by any normal standards of rational inquiry, and thus completely unconvincing to those not already convinced.

---

Do you not have a Book of Revelation, aka The Unveiling, The Apocalypse, in your Bible?
This is a history of New Testament Churches, like the ones described in the Acts of the Apostles which takes them from 90 something A.D through the Roman Empire, Holy Roman Empire,(aka Dark Ages) and the so-called Renaissance through today and into eternity. If that is not Divine, unadulterated history for anyone to read, I have not a clue.

Much of this is corroborated by secular history, which is not necessary.

The point is: When God writes history it is infallible. When man writes history it is biased by the depravity of his human nature, especially when put in charge. This is true all the way back to the fall of man. We still want to verify what God said with what we think He should have said–it is never in agreement. His ways are not our ways.

Peace,

James Least
Edwin

 

[CopticChristian]

Galileo proved the heliocentricity of the solar system–he was still excommunicated. He died on house arrest. Three hundred and fifty years later he was re-communicated? Does he get credit for time served or would he still be in purgatory? Maybe he is in hell–the record shows he had three illegitimate children by a significant other. Maybe he repented and was saved by the Grace of God–regardless of his sins.

We obviously have a completely different set of paradigms regarding what proof might be acceptable. It still boils to: when two disagree, they both cannot be right; they could both be wrong by the same reasoning. Who is the referee? One side says The Scripture only is the authority; the other side says the scripture, the traditions of the fathers, the magisterium, the catechism, church councils and infallible papal decrees must decide in church matters. There is no common ground and the field of play is definitely slanted toward the Vatican.

The distinctive which has caused so much consternation is believers baptism. This practice excludes the baptism of infants. There are still those who believe and practice believers’s baptism. This practice was a major portion of the Inquisitions in Europe. Many anti-pedobaptists were tried, convicted and executed, refusing to recant. Others were just summarily exececuted with their babies where they were discovered. See: History of the Evangelical Churches of the Valleys of Piedmont, by S. Morland. Warning: the illustrations will make one sick in the tummy.

I have no bones to pick with any individuals in the Inquisition system. I do have a problem with a religious system which could birth such a practice. Some apologies have been forthcoming in recent years; but the system remains.

Peace,

James Least

You might want to read “How the Irish Saved Civilization”.

Anglicans, Lutherans, Reformed all persecuted those that would not baptize babies.

You have strong beliefs and lack of understanding. I may read S. Morland however I always evaluate what is written with what is known and examine references as well. Too many books out there skew things to the way they want the reader to believe.

 

[James_Least]

You might want to read “How the Irish Saved Civilization”.

Anglicans, Lutherans, Reformed all persecuted those that would not baptize babies.

You have strong beliefs and lack of understanding. I may read S. Morland however I always evaluate what is written with what is known and examine references as well. Too many books out there skew things to the way they want the reader to believe.

---

Praise the Lord. There are at least two of us who would affirm that those who refused to baptize their infants were persecuted, yea, killed for such heretical practices. Actually, the real consternation and conflagration was when some called Anabaptists re-baptized adults from other faiths. The re-baptizers regarded the infant baptisms as of non effect in as much as the groups performing infant baptisms had no biblical authority to do such. The authority question is still the crux, in as much as Rome did not delegate any authority to anyone else. The real question is: Did Rome have any authority from the beginning? I cannot speak for the Coptics, but they may say: No. The mainstream Protestants from the 16th century would have difficulty saying yes or no. If they say yes, then the question: who “authorized you to leave?” would apply. If they say no, they are without authority as well, in that most of them came out of Rome–without their frocks.

Now what? This pretty well muddies the waters of: by Whose authority do you do these things? It is good fuel for late night reading and Inquisitions–in cyberspace of course.

Peace,

James Least

 

[CopticChristian]

James_Least:
James,

You appear to be dishonest. Here is what you said in your first post.

I am a sixty five year old student of The Word of God interested in discussions with others pro and con regarding Truth–in a civil manner of course.

I have concluded that most religions of the world are various forms of man-made religion. i.e. pagan idolatry.

I have read all your posts and find you to be unknowingly Calvinist.

Man is totally depraved. He would not know how to do good even if he could recognize it.

This is one of your man made religions.

“Faith comes by hearing, hearing by the Word of God.”–Paul to the NT Churches.
“In vain ye do worship, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”–Jesus to the Jews.

I must be one of those “sola scriptura” people. We predate Luther by about 1600 years.

You state that sola scriptura is older than Luther and accept Protestant tenants proposed by Protestants, the word regenerates so you can have Faith to accept Jesus.

Just a quick kibbitz on the Gk. word transliterated baptism is baptizo which means immerse, dip or plunge

You have strong feelings on the method of Baptism just like a Baptist.

There are two streams of scripture–one is more accurate than the other.

and you follow the line of thinking of the King James only camp.

My question is this. You know, as I have seen you post that there is no original scripture. All you have is a translation and I believe you rely on English translations. I know you have had some seminary. Since you are not Protestant by declaration it must not have been a Protestant seminary or was it?

You are decidely anti-Catholic, attacking Mary, lack of understanding of the Saints, and Church Authority and that is your perogative.

Answer this. You believe that the Bible is the Word of God, you have quoted the usual Timothy passage. You believe that there are two streams of Scripture as if to say that the Bible came before the Church and that is what we need.

Prior to the 20th century, all English Bibles since Tyndale’s first New Testament (1526) were based on the Textus Receptus. This includes: Miles Coverdale’s Bible (1535), Matthew’s Bible (1500-1555), The Great Bible (1539), The Geneva Version (1560), The Bishops’ Bible (1568), and the King James Version (1611).

Were these Bibles the Word of God, inerrant and infallible in their teachings?

And I said you were dishonest.

QUOTE]I am a sixty five year old student of The Word of God interested in discussions with others pro and con regarding Truth–in a civil manner of course.

You have not been civil in all your postings, you have ridiculed, been dogmatic, and elusive.

 

[Anna_Scott]

James,

Again, since you believe in Sola Scriptura, it should be easy to provide Scriptures to prove “Believers Baptism” and prove that infants should be excluded from baptism.

Please prove this. Provide Scripture that proves there is no Sacramental aspect of Baptism.

James,

First, I’m assuming you meant to say, “The Word of God does not return void.”

You haven’t posted any Scripture to support your beliefs. So, saying God’s word does not return void does not apply to your posts.

As for saying, “The seed is planted”: the only seed you have planted is one of judgment and insults against Catholics and those who do not agree with you–combined with the fact that you are obviously unable to support your claims.

So, after hurling many offensive insults and judgmental statements, failing to engage in any serious discussion about your beliefs, and failing to provide any support for your beliefs; you decide to leave?

The sad thing about this is that you are not the first Baptist to come here and behave this way.

I pray you will find God’s truth.

Peace,
Anna

Edwin,
God bless you for your last two posts!!

James,

Acts 2: 38 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Baptism is not purely symbolic or simply an act of obedience. The forgiveness of sins is accomplished through Baptism as Holy Scripture clearly states.

There is no “work on the part of the participant” or the “administrator.” We are saved and forgiven through Christ and His work.

Baptism is the “circumcision made without hands” and brings us into Covenant with God.

Colossians 2: 8See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. 9For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, 10and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. 11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Colossians states very clearly the “circumcision without hands,” Baptism, is the “putting off of the body of the flesh,” by “circumcision of Christ”----being “buried with Him in Baptism,” and “raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God.”

Also, Baptism is more inclusive than the circumcision of the Old Covenant.

**Galatians 3: **27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

Infants were brought into the Old Covenant through circumcision. Infants are brought into the New Covenant through Baptism.

If you disagree, please provide support for your disagreement.

Peace,
Anna

---

Praise the Lord. There are at least two of us who would affirm that those who refused to baptize their infants were persecuted, yea, killed for such heretical practices. Actually, the real consternation and conflagration was when some called Anabaptists re-baptized adults from other faiths. The re-baptizers regarded the infant baptisms as of non effect in as much as the groups performing infant baptisms had no biblical authority to do such. The authority question is still the crux, in as much as Rome did not delegate any authority to anyone else. The real question is: Did Rome have any authority from the beginning? I cannot speak for the Coptics, but they may say: No. The mainstream Protestants from the 16th century would have difficulty saying yes or no. If they say yes, then the question: who “authorized you to leave?” would apply. If they say no, they are without authority as well, in that most of them came out of Rome–without their frocks.

Now what? This pretty well muddies the waters of: by Whose authority do you do these things? It is good fuel for late night reading and Inquisitions–in cyberspace of course.

Peace,

James Least

James,
You have not answered my questions, responded to the passages I quoted, or offered any support for your beliefs. You continue to insult Catholics. It is clear that you are not here to discuss/debate issues. If you were; you would actually discuss and debate the issues–which, of course, involves supporting your claims.

Peace,
Anna

 

[James_Least]

Edwin,
God bless you for your last two posts!!

James,

Acts 2: 38 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Baptism is not purely symbolic or simply an act of obedience. The forgiveness of sins is accomplished through Baptism as Holy Scripture clearly states.

There is no “work on the part of the participant” or the “administrator.” We are saved and forgiven through Christ and His work.

Baptism is the “circumcision made without hands” and brings us into Covenant with God.

Colossians 2: 8See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. 9For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, 10and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. 11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Colossians states very clearly the “circumcision without hands,” Baptism, is the “putting off of the body of the flesh,” by “circumcision of Christ”----being “buried with Him in Baptism,” and “raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God.”

Also, Baptism is more inclusive than the circumcision of the Old Covenant.

**Galatians 3: **27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

Infants were brought into the Old Covenant through circumcision. Infants are brought into the New Covenant through Baptism.

If you disagree, please provide support for your disagreement.

Peace,
Anna

I would hope that Baptism would be more inclusive than male circumcision–especially to include the females. Not sure there is anything analogous regarding foreskins and baptismal waters other than that they are both signs of something–not necessarily the same thing. Some say the waters of baptism wash away sin–original sin only? Or would it be sins already committed and unconfessed to that point in time. Or all sins, past ,present and future, plus Original?Which ones are reserved for purgatory? How does one keep track of all that? The Bible says: without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin. Now someone is saying we are washing away sin with water. Does this water change to blood? How does water =blood?

Jesus said a little child (not an infant)can understand. I am going on 67. This doctrine of baptism seems filled with ambiguity and convolution.

Back to circumcision: some in the Church at Jerusalem, Peter included, were having difficulty with the relationship between circumcision an salvation. They were teaching wrongly that one had to be circumcised to be saved. The Apostle Paul rebuked Peter and the others in public regarding their error. There seems to be a similar error regarding baptism and salvation which probably goes back to the first century. The error does not go away with time.

Peace,

James Least

Whatever happened to the idea of a picture: death, burial and resurrection. A public statement: Hey,everybody, Jesus died for me and I am buried and resurrected with Him to walk in newness of life. Lord, help me be a faithful witness. Immersion is the only way to make this picture complete.

Peace,

James Least

 

[CopticChristian]

James,
You have not answered my questions, responded to the passages I quoted, or offered any support for your beliefs. You continue to insult Catholics. It is clear that you are not here to discuss/debate issues. If you were; you would actually discuss and debate the issues–which, of course, involves supporting your claims.

Peace,
Anna

Anna,

In consideration of reading James Posts, I believe he thinks he is a Waldensian. This would satisfy his delusional thinking, here before Luther, tracing history back through the Waldensians, etc. You know the playbook on this line of thought.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Trail_of_Blood.jpg

I believe it is called Landmarkism. Baptists, Waldenses, Paulicians, Donatists, Montanists to the Apostles. Not knowing what the full extent of belief was including the canon of the Waldenses bible and the like it is easy to see how thinking can be deranged. I believe that James the least has seen best days and less will come from James.

 

[pablope]

I would hope that Baptism would be more inclusive than male circumcision–especially to include the females.

Back to circumcision: some in the Church at Jerusalem, Peter included, were having difficulty with the relationship between circumcision an salvation. They were teaching wrongly that one had to be circumcised to be saved. ** The Apostle Paul rebuked Peter and the others in public regarding their error.** There seems to be a similar error regarding baptism and salvation which probably goes back to the first century. The error does not go away with time.

Peace,

James Least
Peace,

James Least

I think you are mistaken here. I think you are mistaking the events in Acts 15, and the what Paul wrote when he rebuked Peter for his behaviour, for acting like a hypocrite, for not eating with the Gentiles.

It was for a moral fault, not an error. And it was directed at Peter, not the others.

Gal 2:

11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

 

[James_Least]

The document has changed somewhat over time. A lot of these "authentic " documents have proved to be doctored by over zealous scribes.

I believe most of the points to be biblical with one exception: the Holy Universal Ekklesia.

I do not believe the Universal Church is scriptural. It is however, an early grievous error along with infant baptism. The Bible does not speak of a universal church. It does speak of churches in various cities and even some churches in private houses. I would fit in the private house category. We have church(whenever two or three of us are gathered in His name He is in our midst). We have the Word of God. We support the unadulterated gospel to all creatures, to the uttermost parts of the earth; we help the widows and orphans, the starving, the sick and the bereaved. We venerate: The Father, The Son, The Holy Spirit. We are not striving for beatification, believing that having Jesus makes one a saint at conversion; but certainly not worthy of veneration. Which brings me back to another phrase in The A. Creed: the communion of saints. I am not sure what that means. If this means Patrons and feast days, I do not believe that.

Thank God we can live in a place where we can believe according to the dictates of our consciences according to the Scripture–without reprisal from the state. These freedoms seem to be quickly eroding.

P.S. I did not open this can of worms: History of the Baptist Church. Please do not shoot the messenger. There are many out here who have studied this a lot–not necessarily in the hallowed halls of ecclessiatical universities. Much of the heretofore information scoffed at by the powers that be are available in cyberspace–free of charge.

peace,

James Least

 

[Anna_Scott]

I would hope that Baptism would be more inclusive than male circumcision–especially to include the females. Not sure there is anything analogous regarding foreskins and baptismal waters other than that they are both signs of something–not necessarily the same thing.

James,
The New Testament makes the connection between Circumcision and Baptism; and reveals Baptism is more inclusive than Circumcision. Baptism is for everyone, not just male infants–which was the case in Circumcision under the Old Covenant.

Some say the waters of baptism wash away sin–original sin only? . . . . . .

James, it’s not just “some” who say the waters of Baptism will wash away sin. It is the New Testament that says, “And Peter said to them, Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:3

You claim Sola Scripture, yet you deny Holy Scripture. Do you have any support, you can post, for your claim that there is no forgiveness of sins upon Baptism?

The Bible says: without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin. Now someone is saying we are washing away sin with water. Does this water change to blood? How does water =blood?

Again, The New Testament tells us to be Baptized for the Forgiveness of sins. No one is telling you that the blood shed by Christ was unnecessary. Christ accomplished our salvation on the Cross.

In Christ, we are circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ—having been buried with him in baptism, in which we are also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Scripture warns us to see to it that no one takes us captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.

Colossians 2: 8See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. 9For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, 10and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. 11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Jesus said a little child (not an infant)can understand. I am going on 67. This doctrine of baptism seems filled with ambiguity and convolution.

Actually, **Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” **

Notice Jesus did not say let the little children, who have reached an age of understanding, come to me.

Matthew 19: 13 Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people, 14but Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” 15And he laid his hands on them and went away.

Please cite the passage of Scripture that says an infant cannot be baptized; and one must wait until they reach a certain age to be Baptized. And what is that age?

Back to circumcision: some in the Church at Jerusalem, Peter included, were having difficulty with the relationship between circumcision an salvation. They were teaching wrongly that one had to be circumcised to be saved. The Apostle Paul rebuked Peter and the others in public regarding their error. There seems to be a similar error regarding baptism and salvation which probably goes back to the first century. The error does not go away with time. . . . .

James,
No one is arguing that Christians should be circumcised.

Again, Baptism is the “circumcision made without hands” and is open to all. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

**Galatians 3: **27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

Notice this passage does not say: For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female-except infants are now excluded from entry into Covenant with God- for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Yet, this is what you are claiming.

Again, you are re-writing Scripture.

I await your Biblical support for Sola Scriptura, Sola Fidelis, and Believer’s Baptism, with proof that infants should be excluded from baptism. I asked many posts back. You have ignored this request.

Peace,
Anna

 

[JHow]

…We support the unadulterated gospel to all creatures…

This caught my eye. What other creatures besides men (and women) did you have in mind here?

Also, re: the universal church, that “c” in catholic is lower case. On that point you would agree with Jharek, right? That the creed is not pointing at just the Roman Catholic Church?

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna,

In consideration of reading James Posts, I believe he thinks he is a Waldensian. This would satisfy his delusional thinking, here before Luther, tracing history back through the Waldensians, etc. You know the playbook on this line of thought.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Trail_of_Blood.jpg

I believe it is called Landmarkism. Baptists, Waldenses, Paulicians, Donatists, Montanists to the Apostles. Not knowing what the full extent of belief was including the canon of the Waldenses bible and the like it is easy to see how thinking can be deranged. I believe that James the least has seen best days and less will come from James.

CopticChristian,

When I first came to these forums in 2009; I was still in the Baptist Church, and I believed in Sola Scriptura, and Believer’s Baptism. I finally had to release these beliefs, because I could not support them–not even from Scripture.

I keep hoping some flicker of truth will break through to James. I’ve been where he is. I understand the power of indoctrination. I know that his animosity toward the Catholic Church is probably coming from the pulpit.

I pray that God will lead James to truth.

Peace,
Anna

 

[pablope]

The document has changed somewhat over time. A lot of these "authentic " documents have proved to be doctored by over zealous scribes.

I believe most of the points to be biblical with one exception: the Holy Universal Ekklesia.

I do not believe the Universal Church is scriptural. It is however, an early grievous error along with infant baptism. ** The Bible does not speak of a universal church. **peace,

James Least

Yes it does.

Origin of the words Catholic Church

The name “the Catholic Church” (Greek: katholikos ekklesia) developed from Acts
9:31 “the Church throughout all” (Greek: ekklesia kath olos).

What do you think “through out all” means?

 

[john_portis]

CopticChristian,

When I first came to these forums in 2009; I was still in the Baptist Church, and I believed in Sola Scriptura, and Believer’s Baptism. I finally had to release these beliefs, because I could not support them–not even from Scripture.

I keep hoping some flicker of truth will break through to James. I’ve been where he is. I understand the power of indoctrination. I know that his animosity toward the Catholic Church is probably coming from the pulpit.

I pray that God will lead James to truth.

Peace,
Anna

Amen I also many questions but the whole fits Peace be with You

 

[CopticChristian]

The document has changed somewhat over time. A lot of these "authentic " documents have proved to be doctored by over zealous scribes.

I believe most of the points to be biblical with one exception: the Holy Universal Ekklesia.

I do not believe the Universal Church is scriptural. It is however, an early grievous error along with infant baptism. The Bible does not speak of a universal church. It does speak of churches in various cities and even some churches in private houses. I would fit in the private house category. We have church(whenever two or three of us are gathered in His name He is in our midst). We have the Word of God. We support the unadulterated gospel to all creatures, to the uttermost parts of the earth; we help the widows and orphans, the starving, the sick and the bereaved. We venerate: The Father, The Son, The Holy Spirit. We are not striving for beatification, believing that having Jesus makes one a saint at conversion; but certainly not worthy of veneration. Which brings me back to another phrase in The A. Creed: the communion of saints. I am not sure what that means. If this means Patrons and feast days, I do not believe that.

Thank God we can live in a place where we can believe according to the dictates of our consciences according to the Scripture–without reprisal from the state. These freedoms seem to be quickly eroding.

P.S. I did not open this can of worms: History of the Baptist Church. Please do not shoot the messenger. There are many out here who have studied this a lot–not necessarily in the hallowed halls of ecclessiatical universities. Much of the heretofore information scoffed at by the powers that be are available in cyberspace–free of charge.

peace,

James Least

I do not see any questions or for that matter any answers. I asked you to answer a question and you ignored it.

What you don’t believe is not a question.

What you don’t understand and criticize in ignorance is not a question.

If I were to say some Baptists have adopted Calvinism and call it the Doctrine of Grace, is that your understanding? That is a question.

If I were to say Baptists do not appear in the Bible or for that matter the Bible does not appear in the Bible and where do doctrines, I imagine they are doctrines like, why can’t you guys get it straight anyway and baptize the babies…this is rambling.

Can you, are you able to answer the questions I posed for you James or not?