Origin of the Baptist Church

[vontroster]

Scripture only- aka Sola Scriptura: OT: Psa. 119:89; Isa. 8:20; Psa. 40:11.

NT: Mark 7:7-9; Mark 12:24; Luke 24:25-27; John 5:39; Acts 17:11; I Cor 2:9-16; I Thes. 2:13; II Peter 1:19-21; II Peter3:15,16;

The one that sums it up: II Tim. 3:12-17(C of CD, 1970 version),“In fact, all who want to live religiously in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. But wicked people and charlatans will go from bad to worse, deceivers and deceived. But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it, and that from infancy you have known the sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. ALL SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED BY GOD AND IS USEFUL FOR TEACHING, FOR REFUTATION, FOR CORRECTION, AND FOR TRAINING IN RIGHTEOUSNESS, SO THAT ONE WHO BELONGS TO GOD MAY BE COMPETENT, EQUIPPED FOR EVERY GOOD WORK.” (There is a salvation through faith message in this scripture as well).

Let God be found True, and every man lying,

Peace,

James Least

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (Thess 2:15)

Of course the baptist denominations don’t have these word of mouth teachings and traditions. They are left only with the Bible. I actually feel a little sorry for them as it is an incomplete faith. It’s like a chair with one leg. It may have beautiful craftsmanship but it is completely useless for it’s intended purpose. Sola scriptura is circular reasoning. Who gave us the Bible? The Bible you thump, James, was given by and cannon determined by the Catholic Church. No way around that. The New Testament wasn’t used by the earliest Christians as it hadn’t been composed yet. There is no way that there is some tradition of sola scriptura going to the earliest times. It was invented by people who just want to disagree with the Christ given authority of the Catholic Church. It is a tired, worn out, lame argument with no support. Even Luther admitted that without the Catholic Church there would be no Bible.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Nicea325–please forgive me for jumping in here.

James,

I assume you are referring to Rev 22:18-19:

**Revelations 22: **18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, 19and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

Surely you realize this warning pertains only to the prophesy in Rev, and not the entire Bible? And surely you must be aware that a similiar warning was given in the Old Testament as well:

Deuteronomy 4: 1"And now, O Israel, listen to the statutes and the rules that I am teaching you, and do them, that you may live, and go in and take possession of the land that the LORD, the God of your fathers, is giving you. 2 You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you.

Deuteronomy 12: 32 "Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it.

Proverbs 30: 5 Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. 6 Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.

Keep in mind that Jesus–gave us commandments not found in the laws of Leviticus. Are we to ignore those teachings, because of the warning in Deuteronomy and Proverbs?

The Tradition of Christianity is both oral (spoken word) and written (letters and books)—just as in Judaism.

2 Thessalonians 2: 15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

How do you justify Sola Scriptura through Scripture? Please provide support for your claim; because Rev 22:18-19 does not support Sola Scriptura.

You still haven’t provided support for salvation by faith alone through grace alone–many claims without any Biblical support. They are adding up.

Please pray about all of this. If you can’t provide support for your beliefs, maybe those beliefs are in error. These are important issues, James.

Peace,
Anna

James,
You didn’t respond to anything in my response to you above–once again. . . . .

Scripture only- aka Sola Scriptura: OT: Psa. 119:89; Isa. 8:20; Psa. 40:11.

NT: Mark 7:7-9; Mark 12:24; Luke 24:25-27; John 5:39; Acts 17:11; I Cor 2:9-16; I Thes. 2:13; II Peter 1:19-21; II Peter3:15,16;

The one that sums it up: II Tim. 3:12-17(C of CD, 1970 version),“In fact, all who want to live religiously in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. But wicked people and charlatans will go from bad to worse, deceivers and deceived. But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it, and that from infancy you have known the sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. ALL SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED BY GOD AND IS USEFUL FOR TEACHING, FOR REFUTATION, FOR CORRECTION, AND FOR TRAINING IN RIGHTEOUSNESS, SO THAT ONE WHO BELONGS TO GOD MAY BE COMPETENT, EQUIPPED FOR EVERY GOOD WORK.” (There is a salvation through faith message in this scripture as well).

Let God be found True, and every man lying,

Peace,

James Least

James,
There is nothing in the passages you cited that proves Scripture alone or faith alone.

In my previous post, I quoted 2 Thessalonians which clearly defines the method of transmitting tradition as through the “spoken word” and “written letters.” The early Church relied on oral transmission which, in most cases, preceded the written word.

2 Thessalonians 2: 15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

Again, James you have to consider Scripture as a whole.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Continued–Part 2 of 2 Quote from my post 108 to James Least on the Origin of the Baptist Church thread arguing against salvation by faith alone through grace alone. Link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=593809&page=2

**"Now we come to what I call the “scary” Scriptures—they truly bring me to that sense of working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Philippians 2:11-13).
**
2 Peter 2: 19. . .For whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved. 20For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. 21For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them.

Hebrews 6: 4For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.

Hebrews 10: 26For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 29How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? 30For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

1 Corinthians 6: 9Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Galations 5: 19Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, 21envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Matthew 7: 1 "Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.

Matthew 7: 21 "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

**1 John 5: **16If anyone sees his brother committig a sin not leading to death, he shall ask, and God will give him life—to those who commit sins that do not lead to death. There is sin that leads to death; I do not say that one should pray for that. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that does not lead to death.

Revelaton 3: 5 The one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments, and I will never blot his name out of the book of life. I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels. 6

**As you can see, faith alone through grace alone can be a spiritually dangerous stance. God does not take away our free will. We can’t just say I have faith in Christ; I am saved by His grace; and I don’t need to do anything else or worry about anything else.

We still have the potential to again become entangled in the defilements of the world; fall away; sin deliberately even after receiving the knowledge of truth. We can still commit sins that lead to death, and even have our name blotted out of the Book of Life.

James, I encourage you to read all of these passages in context. Then, please explain how you can maintain that we are save by faith alone through grace alone, with so much Biblical evidence that there is more to salvation than that first step of faith in Christ and repentance."**

Peace,
Anna

 

[Tylervo]

Who is a “true baptist”? What are the aspect/beliefs/traditions/teachings/history of a “true
baptist”?

More importantly, who determines who or what is a “true baptist”?

Do be careful with using infant baptism as the plum line. Many heretics, beside rejecting infant baptism, also rejected many if not most of the establish christological beliefs.

Also, if they were meeting in secret and their documents/books burned, how do you know they were meeting or if they even existed?

 

[john_portis]

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (Thess 2:15)

Of course the baptist denominations don’t have these word of mouth teachings and traditions. They are left only with the Bible. I actually feel a little sorry for them as it is an incomplete faith. It’s like a chair with one leg. It may have beautiful craftsmanship but it is completely useless for it’s intended purpose. Sola scriptura is circular reasoning. Who gave us the Bible? The Bible you thump, James, was given by and cannon determined by the Catholic Church. No way around that. The New Testament wasn’t used by the earliest Christians as it hadn’t been composed yet. There is no way that there is some tradition of sola scriptura going to the earliest times. It was invented by people who just want to disagree with the Christ given authority of the Catholic Church. It is a tired, worn out, lame argument with no support. Even Luther admitted that without the Catholic Church there would be no Bible.

Matt. 16 v-18-19

Notice, Matt 16 v-18-19 the LORD singles out only one person not all only one ,now if he did not mean that why is it that way recorded,cant have it both ways,

 

[pismopal]

Scripture only- aka Sola Scriptura: OT: Psa. 119:89; Isa. 8:20; Psa. 40:11.

NT: Mark 7:7-9; Mark 12:24; Luke 24:25-27; John 5:39; Acts 17:11; I Cor 2:9-16; I Thes. 2:13; II Peter 1:19-21; II Peter3:15,16;

The one that sums it up: II Tim. 3:12-17(C of CD, 1970 version),“In fact, all who want to live religiously in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. But wicked people and charlatans will go from bad to worse, deceivers and deceived. But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it, and that from infancy you have known the sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. ALL SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED BY GOD AND IS USEFUL FOR TEACHING, FOR REFUTATION, FOR CORRECTION, AND FOR TRAINING IN RIGHTEOUSNESS, SO THAT ONE WHO BELONGS TO GOD MAY BE COMPETENT, EQUIPPED FOR EVERY GOOD WORK.” (There is a salvation through faith message in this scripture as well).

Let God be found True, and every man lying,

Peace,

James Least

Sir…you quote a verse of scripture and put it in Caps for emphasis, as if the words are something that most Catholics here have not heard…usually we read them sent to us by someone trying to support sola scriptura. As heard repeatedly here…it does not support SS in any way. There is actually nothing Biblical that supports SS. My common sense tells me that something that did not exist for early believers could not be relied upon solely to guide believers…something like the chicken came before the egg type of thinking.
It comes from non Catholics as a natural course of not having an authoritative Church to guide them. They don’t have the Church so they point to something else that is supposed to trump Church…even though the Bible doesn’t support this and neither does Church history. In matter of fact…a Bible without a Church to guide interpretation…is something that has led many believers down the path to heresy and incomplete Christianity. The list of these is quite long and gets longer as I write.

 

[AmateurPianist]

James:
I have read with interest your posts here. Unfortunately I am having a hard time following your logic.

So I would like to go back to your first post.

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

Actually you are correct (I think). There is no one organization “Baptist” that has oversight over all churches that bear the name Baptist.

But there are organizations like “Southern Baptist”, “American Baptist” etc. are there not?

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

This is an interesting statement. The name “True Baptist” implies there must be false Baptists. Since I am not a Baptist at all, I am curious who it is that decides who is “true” and who is “false”.

For example my grandmother was “American Baptist”. Now I know enough about Baptists to know that other Baptist groups really did not care much for the American Baptists and considered them “false Baptists”. But you know what, my grandmother didn’t care all that for these other groups,

So how do I know who is true or false. Because if I have to go on somebody’s say so, I would just assume go on my grandmother’s.

But this may be besides the point. The more interesting point is

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

Since you are the one making the assertion, you are the one with the burden of proof here. Can you cite one credible and respected source to the outsiders that can substantiate this claim.

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. 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.

I assume the other religious griyps were the Anabaptists of the 16th and 17th century. I have actually studied these folks. They are interesting to say the least.

Some of what you claim I too have also read. The truth is that yes the Anabaptists were a persecuted, historical group. Yes many of them were killed and a part of that was the issue of infant baptism.

But your claim is that the Anabaptists have no faith and practice connection with the Protestant Reformation. Since you are making the assertion, can you substantiate this claim with a credible source.

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.

Yes I have read about anabaptists being killed. Can you substantiate the claim of them having written books that were destroyed. Anyway, if these books were destroyed, how do you know what they contain?

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

How can the Bible, whose last book was written by an author that knew Jesus Christ, settle a historical question from after its time. Just how does this work?

That is not to denegrate the Bible of course, just an acknowledgement of its limitations ( the Bible also can not settle disagreements in quantum Physics).

This will have to be Chapter 1.

There is at least one more chapter.

Peace,

James Least

???

 

[Discipulo]

View Post
Scripture only- aka Sola Scriptura: OT: Psa. 119:89; Isa. 8:20; Psa. 40:11.

NT: Mark 7:7-9; Mark 12:24; Luke 24:25-27; John 5:39; Acts 17:11; I Cor 2:9-16; I Thes. 2:13; II Peter 1:19-21; II Peter3:15,16;

When the King James Bible fell from the sky in 33 A.D. everybody knew the bible was the inerrant word of God. Let me here an amen!!! Which came first? The Bible or the Church? “I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me. - St. Augustine of Hippo.” The Bible Canon was compiled by the Catholic Church, If you accept the Bible as infallible then you are also accepting the Church as infallible for putting it together.

 

[Anna_Scott]

James:
I have read with interest your posts here. Unfortunately I am having a hard time following your logic.

So I would like to go back to your first post.

Actually you are correct (I think). There is no one organization “Baptist” that has oversight over all churches that bear the name Baptist.

But there are organizations like “Southern Baptist”, “American Baptist” etc. are there not?

This is an interesting statement. The name “True Baptist” implies there must be false Baptists. Since I am not a Baptist at all, I am curious who it is that decides who is “true” and who is “false”.

For example my grandmother was “American Baptist”. Now I know enough about Baptists to know that other Baptist groups really did not care much for the American Baptists and considered them “false Baptists”. But you know what, my grandmother didn’t care all that for these other groups,

So how do I know who is true or false. Because if I have to go on somebody’s say so, I would just assume go on my grandmother’s.

But this may be besides the point. The more interesting point is

Since you are the one making the assertion, you are the one with the burden of proof here. Can you cite one credible and respected source to the outsiders that can substantiate this claim.

I assume the other religious griyps were the Anabaptists of the 16th and 17th century. I have actually studied these folks. They are interesting to say the least.

Some of what you claim I too have also read. The truth is that yes the Anabaptists were a persecuted, historical group. Yes many of them were killed and a part of that was the issue of infant baptism.

But your claim is that the Anabaptists have no faith and practice connection with the Protestant Reformation. Since you are making the assertion, can you substantiate this claim with a credible source.

Yes I have read about anabaptists being killed. Can you substantiate the claim of them having written books that were destroyed. Anyway, if these books were destroyed, how do you know what they contain?

How can the Bible, whose last book was written by an author that knew Jesus Christ, settle a historical question from after its time. Just how does this work?

That is not to denegrate the Bible of course, just an acknowledgement of its limitations ( the Bible also can not settle disagreements in quantum Physics).

???

Hi AP,

Good to bump into you again. It’s been awhile.

I appreciate the questions you are asking James Least. If you can get him to answer, we should probably throw a parade in you honor. I’ve tried and tried, and all I get is evasion and avoidance.

Peace to you my brother,
Anna

 

[AmateurPianist]

Hi AP,

Good to bump into you again. It’s been awhile.

I appreciate the questions you are asking James Least. If you can get him to answer, we should probably throw a parade in you honor. I’ve tried and tried, and all I get is evasion and avoidance.

Peace to you my brother,
Anna

Hi Anna:

From reading this thread it seems as though is style is…well may I say…erratic.

I think it prudent to take one issue and stick with it and not go down rabbit trails.

In this case the issue is “Origin of the Baptist Church”. Which is a good issue to stick to because it is first and foremost a matter of the historical record.

I have thought of a couple of follow on questions I would like to ask so I hope he responds to my post.

 

[RTully]

Scripture alone is clearly enough:

John 20:30-31

The Purpose of John’s Gospel:

30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

If Catholics have even more truth due to the history of the church that’s great for them but it is not needed for salvation. It shouldn’t be hard for Catholics to see why non Catholics have their doubts about this when you look at things like the Inqusition, Crusades, hus, Galileo, Constantine’s pagan beliefs and on and on and on.

Not sure why it always has to turn into arguments {on any side} when Christ himself said:

Mark 9:38-41.

“Teacher,” said John, “we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.” “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us. I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward.”

 

[Anna_Scott]

Hi Anna:

From reading this thread it seems as though is style is…well may I say…erratic.

I think it prudent to take one issue and stick with it and not go down rabbit trails.

In this case the issue is “Origin of the Baptist Church”. Which is a good issue to stick to because it is first and foremost a matter of the historical record.

I have thought of a couple of follow on questions I would like to ask so I hope he responds to my post.

AP,
I hope he will answer you. I know you are understanding, and you give people a chance. I appreciate that about you.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

RTully,
I see you recently joined CAF. So, welcome to the forums.

Scripture alone is clearly enough:

John 20:30-31

The Purpose of John’s Gospel:

30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

This doesn’t prove Scripture, alone. The Gospel was transmitted orally for decades before it was written.

The verse you quoted actually disproves Scripture alone, by saying Jesus performed more signs and wonders that were not recorded in the Book of John. Without oral transmission, how would they know Jesus performed more signs and wonders? Different things happened at different times with different disciples. If you knew more about Jesus, would you let that knowledge fall into obscurity or continue to pass it on orally?

The command to proclaim the Gospel to the whole creation does not say to use Scripture alone. In fact, most of the New Testament had not yet been written at the time of these words in Mark:

**Mark 16:**15 And he said to them, "Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation.

Christ gave an oral commission to the disciples:

Matthew 28: 16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. 18And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

In fact, as far as we know, Jesus did not write anything, except in the account of John 8:1-11 when he wrote with his finger on the ground. Scripture does not tell us what he wrote.

In Luke Chapter 1, we find an acknowledgment that the faithful have already received the teachings of Christ and “an orderly account” is written so that they “may have certainty concerning the things they have been taught”:

**Luke 1: **1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, 3it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

Also, keep in mind that only three Apostles actually wrote, yet they were all charged with preaching the Gospel.

Consider also these passages:

2 Thessalonians 2: 15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

2 Thessalonians 3: 6 Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.

Paul commends those who maintain the traditions delivered to them:

1 Corinthians 11: 2Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.

Paul speaks again about “the word of God” (oral revelation):

1 Thessalonians 2: 13And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.

Paul speaks of a prior letter written to Corinth that is not part of the New Testament canon, but he certainly considers it authoritative:

1 Corinthians 5: 9** I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— **10 not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one.

Again, Paul speaks of a letter written to Laodicea that is not part of the New Testament canon:

**Colossians 4:**16 And when this letter has been read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you also read the letter from Laodicea.

We really must consider Scripture as a whole. So, I encourage you to read these quoted passages in context.

If Catholics have even more truth due to the history of the church that’s great for them but it is not needed for salvation. It shouldn’t be hard for Catholics to see why non Catholics have their doubts about this when you look at things like the Inqusition, Crusades, hus, Galileo, Constantine’s pagan beliefs and on and on and on.

Bringing the Inquisition, Crusades, etc. into a discussion regarding the Origin of the Baptist Church is just as inappropriate as bringing Luther’s antisemitism into the discussion.

Peace,
Anna

 

[RTully]

RTully,
I see you recently joined CAF. So, welcome to the forums.

This doesn’t prove Scripture, alone. The Gospel was transmitted orally for decades before it was written.

The verse you quoted actually disproves Scripture alone, by saying Jesus performed more signs and wonders that were not recorded in the Book of John.

We really must consider Scripture as a whole. So, I encourage you to read these quoted passages in context.

I’ve read all those before. I’ve read the New Testement numerous times.

It says clearly that Johns Gospel is enough for salvation so that would equate to scripture alone is enough. I then left the possibility open that Catholics may have even more truth: That’s why I also quoted verse 30. That does not discount Scripture alone is suitable for salvation.

Bringing the Inquisition, Crusades, etc. into a discussion regarding the Origin of the Baptist Church is just as inappropriate as bringing Luther’s antisemitism into the discussion.

Peace,
Anna

It’s relevent in the fact that people see these historical truths and have a hard time believing that the Catholic Church is the one true chruch and the Gates of Hell will never prevail against it. So I feel it perfectly fits into the discussion as it has unfolded.

Also, Luther clearly did have anti-semite views, at least at some point. You can still buy ‘The Jews and Their Lies’ on Amazon. As Gerhard O Ford in his book on Luthers Theology 'Where God Meets Man" said we should not slavishly follow him. {Great Book by the way}

 

[AmateurPianist]

Scripture alone is clearly enough:

Hi:
I find this statement to be curious in a thread about the “Origin of the Baptist Church”

Are you saying that Scripture alone is enough to resolve a historical issue that postdates the issue under discussion?

If so I am,left scratching my head on how exactly this is to work?

The problem as I see it is any sentence

xxxx alone is clearly enough

is incomplete. You must define what it is enough for.

But anyway, I am scratching my head at how Scripture alone is enough regarding the issue at hand.

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . . .It says clearly that Johns Gospel is enough for salvation so that would equate to scripture alone is enough. I then left the possibility open that Catholics may have even more truth: That’s why I also quoted verse 30. That does not discount Scripture alone is suitable for salvation.

Would you identify specifically what is necessary for salvation according to John.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . . .Bringing the Inquisition, Crusades, etc. into a discussion regarding the Origin of the Baptist Church is just as inappropriate as bringing Luther’s antisemitism into the discussion.

. . . .It’s relevent in the fact that people see these historical truths and have a hard time believing that the Catholic Church is the one true chruch and the Gates of Hell will never prevail against it. So I feel it perfectly fits into the discussion as it has unfolded.

But, we’re not discussing whether or not the Catholic Church is the one true Church. We are discussing the Origin of the Baptist Church. As I said before, James Least brought the Sola Scriptura issue into the discussion as a Baptist distinctive. That’s the only reason I replied to the Sola Scriptura issue.

Also, Luther clearly did have anti-semite views, at least at some point. You can still buy ‘The Jews and Their Lies’ on Amazon. As Gerhard O Ford in his book on Luthers Theology 'Where God Meets Man" said we should not slavishly follow him. {Great Book by the way}

Yes, and as I said, that is just as irrelevant to the topic of the Origin of the Baptist Church as the Crusades and the Inquisition—unless you can tie Baptist history to the Crusades and the Inquisition. If you can do that, it would certainly be interesting.

You are agreeing with the Baptist belief of Sola Scriptura. Do you have any other comments on the Origin of the Baptist Church or the origin of any other Baptist beliefs?

Peace,
Anna

 

[john_portis]

Why does authority come from down up in Baptist Churches,I was told poeple had the authority?

 

[RTully]

Would you identify specifically what is necessary for salvation according to John.

Peace,
Anna

Exactly what it says:

John 20:31

But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Do you have any other comments on the Origin of the Baptist Church or the origin of any other Baptist beliefs?

No…lol…Have a nice weekend.

 

[RTully]

Hi:
I find this statement to be curious in a thread about the “Origin of the Baptist Church”

Are you saying that Scripture alone is enough to resolve a historical issue that postdates the issue under discussion?

No sorry, it’s the internet and topics get off base sometimes. Many were discussing scripture alone on previous pages and I was responding to that.