Tell me how ??

[allischalmers]

From this site (and I don’t know if this is what allischalmers adheres to):

reformedreader.org/history/list.htm

First:
We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther and Calvin were born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves.

and then:*
The first known Baptist Congregation was formed by a number of these fleeing separatists in Amsterdam, Holland in 1608. It was largely made up of British persons led by John Smyth who along with Thomas Helwys, sought to set up the group according to New Testament patterns.*

and then, trying to seek a unity that does not exist…
The American Baptists deny that they owe their origin to Roger Williams. The English Baptists will not grant that John Smyth or Thomas Helwysse was their founder. The Welsh Baptists strenuously contend that they received their creed in the first century, from those who obtained it, direct, from the apostles themselves. The Dutch Baptists trace their spiritual pedigree up to the same source. German Baptists maintained that they were older than the reformation, older than the corrupt hierarchy which it sought to reform. The Waldensian Baptists boasted an ancestry far older than Waldo, older than the most ancient of their predecessors in the Vales of Piedmont. All these maintain that it ultimately reappears, and reveals their source in Christ and His apostles." (pp. 34-35 - The Testimony of the Baptists, by Curtis A. Pugh quoting William Cathcart, the Baptist Encyclopedia, 1881, pp. 620-621.)

Perhaps it is summed up here,
founders.org/journal/fj18/editorial.html
and if so, I agree that “Baptists” have been around from the beginning. However, they are NOT the Church founded by Jesus Christ… and they never have been, and never will be…

“The mainstream of Baptist history is non-creedal. It affirms the right of private interpretation of Scripture. It magnifies the priesthood of the believer. It doesn’t subscribe to either an ethical or theological guideline that everybody has to march with because-that’s the essence of Baptists”

Yep, that is what has been happening since Pentecost, the birthday of the Catholic Church.

Not everyone heard Peter’s message and believed. He spoke, and thousands converted. It does not say that ALL converted. Must be because some decided to learn privately… and eventually, many centuries later, called themselves Baptists.



.

The “Testimony of the Baptist” by Pugh is full of errors. There are better books of Baptist history one of which is the “Book of the Acts of the Apostles.” By the way, its in your Bible

 

[MrS]

The first Baptist were the apostles, they wrote Baptist doctrine, the same doctrine that Baptist Churches teach today, and the same doctrine that the Catholic Chruch has changed over and over again.

You should know by know that comments like yours are commonplace here… and have no merit.

Perhaps you could

name one or two doctrines which the apostles wrote

and show how those specific doctrines which the apostles wrote have been changed by the Catholic Church. (even once, much less over and over again)

.

 

[MrS]

The “Testimony of the Baptist” by Pugh is full of errors. There are better books of Baptist history one of which is the “Book of the Acts of the Apostles.” By the way, its in your Bible

By “your” I assume you mean the Catholic Bible.

After all, there is no other… just other translations, interpretations, and abominations

.

 

[MrS]

The “Testimony of the Baptist” by Pugh is full of errors. There are better books of Baptist history one of which is the “Book of the Acts of the Apostles.” By the way, its in your Bible

hahahaha

By the way, the author of the Book of Acts was neither a Jew, an Apostle, nor a Baptist.

.

 

[allischalmers]

You should know by know that comments like yours are commonplace here… and have no merit.

Perhaps you could

name one or two doctrines which the apostles wrote

and show how those specific doctrines which the apostles wrote have been changed by the Catholic Church. (even once, much less over and over again)

.

The apostles wrote the doctrine on assurance of Salvation, the Catholic Church changed that to the doctrine to NO assurance of salvation.

 

[allischalmers]

hahahaha

By the way, the author of the Book of Acts was neither a Jew, an Apostle, nor a Baptist.

.

You are right , he was just a Christian that was writing about Baptist

 

[MrS]

The apostles wrote the doctrine on assurance of Salvation, the Catholic Church changed that to the doctrine to NO assurance of salvation.

Please quote which apostles(plural you say), and where he wrote it.

Viewers to this thread expect that… and yet have come to accept unsubstantiated comments like your post as worthless …

Can’t you just hear a viewer saying to you…" is that all ya got?.. no wonder you are lost and confused.,"

.

 

[COLOS]

The apostles wrote the doctrine on assurance of Salvation, the Catholic Church changed that to the doctrine to NO assurance of salvation.

Egh, here we go again. The further you get away from the Church, the more jumbled up everything gets in your teachings.

You can have a moral assurance of salvation, but nowhere in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, or Magisterial teachings are you guaranteed that you, specifically, will not apostatize.

It’s so easy to just toss out one-liners with no effort at all that take real knowledge and effort to refute…and it won’t matter what we do or say. You can’t hear the truth. It won’t penetrate your mind. You aren’t open to it, so what more can be said? No matter what we say, you will bounce to yet another objection or another topic altogether.

If you want real answers, they are here.

Take care,

Andrew

 

[Tomster]

Egh, here we go again. The further you get away from the Church, the more jumbled up everything gets in your teachings.

You can have a moral assurance of salvation, but nowhere in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, or Magisterial teachings are you guaranteed that you, specifically, will not apostatize.

It’s so easy to just toss out one-liners with no effort at all that take real knowledge and effort to refute…and it won’t matter what we do or say. You can’t hear the truth. It won’t penetrate your mind. You aren’t open to it, so what more can be said? No matter what we say, you will bounce to yet another objection or another topic altogether.

If you want real answers, they are here.

Take care,

Andrew

" . . . you will bounce yet to another objection or another topic altogether."

“Another objection” (translated: protest). “Bounce to another topic” (translated: deflect - because he doesn’t have answers for our questions).

 

[Tomster]

The word church is defined as meaning “called out ones” therefore the church is all those that have been called out of the world to be the body of Christ, (they are mostly Baptist)

The Church could not be the pillar and foundation of truth if it was not true to the word of God so it would have to be Baptist

Actually the Church is the Kingdom of God on earth governed by Apostolic authority.

Jesus Christ, as is strikingly evident on every page of the Gospel, represented Himself to the world as “the founder of the Kingdom of God,” which in its earthly phase is ordained to gather together all men (cf. the parables of the kingdom): the people.

As rulers of the kingdom He appointed the Apostles (cf. Luke 6:13; Matthew 18:15-18; John 20:21; Matthew 28:18-19, etc.): the clergy in the people.

As head of the Apostles He constituted St. Peter (cf. Matthew 16:18-19; John 21:17): the primacy in the clergy.

With these elements our Lord instituted a real society, hierarchically constituted (with subjects and superiors), visible to eyes of of all, with a religious end. (Matthew 4:3-10; 5:3-12; 6:33; 16:26-27, etc.), assigning it the function of applying, through the centuries, the fruits of the Redemption.

From this we CLEARLY understand that the Church is the continuation and the prolongation of the INCARNATE WORD, His Mystical Body (Romans 12:4-6; 1 Corinthians 12:12-27; Ephesians 4:4), which actualizes in each individual as in all humanity the WORK, yes WORK, of the Redemption, through the offering of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the exercise of the triple ecclesiastical power of teaching, ministry, jurisdiction.

As its Founder is a Person subsisting in the human and in the Divine nature, so the Church is at the same time a human and divine society; the human element, visible, perceptible to the senses, consists of the multitude of men and women socially organized; the spiritual, invisible, divine element is furnished by the supernatural gifts which put the human aggregate under the influence of Christ and of the Holy Spirit, Soul and unitive Principle of the whole organism ( called the theandric constitution of the Church ). The Church is, therefore, the union of man with Christ in a social form, “the social synthesis of the human and the divine”.

If the Church is the union of humanity with Christ in a social, hierarchically organized form, it necessarily has to be one, since Christ is one and the human race is one; it has to be holy, because contact with Christ is sanctifying; it must be catholic, i.e., universal, since the union of humanity in Christ embraces ( in tendency ) all the individuals of the human species; it must be apostolic, because, since it is a union in hierarchical form, it is necessarily based on Peter and the Apostlesand their successors.

Since the Church is the prolongation of Christ in time and space, there is a very striking analogy between the Christological and the ecclesiological errors. Just as some erred with respect to Christ by denying His divinity (Jews, Gentiles, rationalists), His humanity (Docetae), or others by separating the two natures (Nestorians), or by absorbing one nature in the other (Monophysites); so also with respect to the Church, some deny her divinity or divine mission in the world ( Jews, pagans, rationalists ), her humanity or visibility (Wycliffe, Huss, Protestants), her social, external perfection hinged on the Roman Pontiff (Eastern Schismatics, Gallicans, Febronians, Protestants, etc.) others separate her from the civil society ( liberals ), and, finally, there are those who would have her absorbed by the State.

Now go dust off your Bible, the Bible the Catholic Church gave you, and history books and read!

 

[Tomster]

The “Testimony of the Baptist” by Pugh is full of errors. There are better books of Baptist history one of which is the “Book of the Acts of the Apostles.” By the way, its in your Bible

Which of these Baptist denominations will interpret the Book of Acts correctly for me?
And who in these different Baptist sects has the authority to do so? It seems from the list below that there are some differing opinions among Baptists themselves. Who’s runnin’ the show over there?

American Baptist Convention
Southern Baptist Convention
National Baptist Convention, U.S.A., Inc.
National Baptist Convention of America
American Baptist Association
Baptist General Conference of America
Christian Unity Baptist Association
Conservative Baptist Association of America
Duck River (and Kindred) Associations of Baptists
Evangelical Baptist Church, Inc., General Conference
Free Will Baptists
General Association of Regular Baptist Churches
General Baptists (should I salute here)
General Six-Principle Baptists
Independent Baptist Church of America
National Baptist Evangelical Life and Soul Saving Assembly of U.S.A.
North American Baptist Association
North American Baptist General Conference
Primitive Baptists
Regular Baptists
Separate Baptists
Seventh Day Baptist General Conference
Seventh Day Baptists (German 1728)
Two-Seed-In-The-Spirit Predestinarian Baptists
United Baptists
United Free Will Baptist Church

 

[MrS]

I see lots and lots of 1st Baptist Church of xyz… still looking for the 2nd.

It seems that when the faith community includes the name of the street, or city it is kind of out there on its own
and
when it includes in their name the 1st, or perhaps United, or even some name/title borrowed from the Catholic Bible, it is kind of out there on its own.

oops… did I imply they are all out their on their own, when they all claim the Holy Spirit as the guidance of their diverse opinions??

.

 

[allischalmers]

Which of these Baptist denominations will interpret the Book of Acts correctly for me?
And who in these different Baptist sects has the authority to do so? It seems from the list below that there are some differing opinions among Baptists themselves. Who’s runnin’ the show over there?

American Baptist Convention
Southern Baptist Convention
National Baptist Convention, U.S.A., Inc.
National Baptist Convention of America
American Baptist Association
Baptist General Conference of America
Christian Unity Baptist Association
Conservative Baptist Association of America
Duck River (and Kindred) Associations of Baptists
Evangelical Baptist Church, Inc., General Conference
Free Will Baptists
General Association of Regular Baptist Churches
General Baptists (should I salute here)
General Six-Principle Baptists
Independent Baptist Church of America
National Baptist Evangelical Life and Soul Saving Assembly of U.S.A.
North American Baptist Association
North American Baptist General Conference
Primitive Baptists
Regular Baptists
Separate Baptists
Seventh Day Baptist General Conference
Seventh Day Baptists (German 1728)
Two-Seed-In-The-Spirit Predestinarian Baptists
United Baptists
United Free Will Baptist Church

Evidently you do not understand what these groups do. They are all support orginization. They do not govern, they do not set policy, they are all intertwined. And they all adhear to the same Biblical doctrine.

 

[allischalmers]

You can have a moral assurance of salvation, but nowhere in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, or Magisterial teachings are you guaranteed that you, specifically, will not apostatize.

Andrew/QUOTE}

the Merriam-Webster Dictionary -----apostasy, a renunciation or abandonment of a former loyalty.

It is absolutely, one hundred per cent impossible for a true Christian to turn their back on Christ or renunciate their faith, It will never happen. Those that do were never Christians in the first place. 1st John 2; 19

As you me I am seventy nine years old, been a Christian for sixty two of these years and am absolutely sure of my salvation

 

[MrS]

COLOS;5230094:

You can have a moral assurance of salvation, but nowhere in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, or Magisterial teachings are you guaranteed that you, specifically, will not apostatize.

Andrew

Again, another difference. I have my assurance in Jesus Christ, and that He will
1- give me all the grace I need to do what He wants me to do, and
2- continue my gift of free will. If my final salvation was so assured, I would then NOT have the gift of free will to say no to Him…even in the smallest of sins.

You, my brother in Christ, have built your assurance on what you have done to “earn” it and your confidence in thus in yourself. Sadly, you do not understand this yet…but there is time.

If and when you make it to purgatory and then to heaven, you will be Catholic… One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism… not one baptist.\

.

 

[allischalmers]

allischalmers;5232964:

Again, another difference. I have my assurance in Jesus Christ, and that He will
1- give me all the grace I need to do what He wants me to do, and
2- continue my gift of free will. If my final salvation was so assured, I would then NOT have the gift of free will to say no to Him…even in the smallest of sins.

You, my brother in Christ, have built your assurance on what you have done to “earn” it and your confidence in thus in yourself. Sadly, you do not understand this yet…but there is time.

If and when you make it to purgatory and then to heaven, you will be Catholic… One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism… not one baptist.\

.

My salvation is not because of what I have done or what I could do. It is because of what God did for me and “yes” to me. He changed my mind , my way of thinking. He loved my first so that I could love him. But my salvation is sure because God gives me the abiblty to trust that he will keep all of the promises.
Remember , that scripture says that, "without faith it is impossible to please God.

 

[MrS]

MrS;5233109:

My salvation is not because of what I have done or what I could do. It is because of what God did for me and “yes” to me. He changed my mind , my way of thinking. He loved my first so that I could love him. But my salvation is sure because God gives me the abiblty to trust that he will keep all of the promises.
Remember , that scripture says that, "without faith it is impossible to please God.

It also says, faith…hope… and love (charity)…

and the GREATEST of these is … yep Love

.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The book that you call catholic was written mostly by Jews who were moved by the Holy Spirit and canonized by God. Man, lead by the Holy Spirit only discovered what God had determined was to be Holy Scripture.

Allis-

The books were inspired by God. They were canonized, that is, put into a list of officially accepted works, by the Church which was led by the Holy Spirit.

Now, what Church was that? The Baptist church? No, the Baptists wouldn’t even exist for another thousand years.

There was only one Church at the time. The Catholic Church gave us the Bible that we have today. Well, that I have…yours was cut down by Martin Luther, but that’s another thread.

 

[Tomster]

Evidently you do not understand what these groups do. They are all support orginization. They do not govern, they do not set policy, they are all intertwined. And they all adhear to the same Biblical doctrine.

“They all adhere to the same Biblical doctrine???” Really?

Since there are many autonomous Baptist sects, let us take a look at the principal differences among them.

The common doctrinal element is agreed to to exist in the two great Baptist Confessions of faith; the Philadelphia Confession of 1668, and the New Hampshire Confession of 1833. The first is practically redaction of the Presbyterian Confession, and strongly Calvinistic. Though always referred to in Baptist histories, it has been largely supplanted by the New Hampshire Confession, which is accepted, at least nominally, by all Baptist communions.

Sounds like man-made traditions to me.

 

[Tomster]

The first Baptist were the apostles, they wrote Baptist doctrine, the same doctrine that Baptist Churches teach today, and the same doctrine that the Catholic Chruch has changed over and over again.

Actually, as a matter of history, commonly recognized by Protestant writers, the Baptists were started by John Smyth. In tracing the the Baptist church’s lineage, some Baptist writers developed the theory of spiritual kinship with successive anti-Romanist heretics like the Novatians, Donatists, Waldenses, etc.