M
Memaw
Guest
Dream on! God Bless, Memaw
- Status
A
Adam95
Guest
What a mind warp!
The Anabaptists began when Conrad Grebel, George Blaurock and company split from Zwingli in 1525 because they developed the doctrine of believer’s baptism by their own private (and erroneous) interpretation of Sacred Scripture. Many of the writings of these men are still available and should be sufficient to prove that even they did not believe that their doctrine was handed down to them by a continously existing church, but that they discerned it themselves by reading scripture.
All this nonsense shows that some Fundamental Baptists understand that their lack of continuity with the early church and apostles is a major problem that must be reconciled.
The Anabaptists began when Conrad Grebel, George Blaurock and company split from Zwingli in 1525 because they developed the doctrine of believer’s baptism by their own private (and erroneous) interpretation of Sacred Scripture. Many of the writings of these men are still available and should be sufficient to prove that even they did not believe that their doctrine was handed down to them by a continously existing church, but that they discerned it themselves by reading scripture.
All this nonsense shows that some Fundamental Baptists understand that their lack of continuity with the early church and apostles is a major problem that must be reconciled.
S
spiderweb
Guest
J
JustaServant
Guest
This is exactly correct. Without that connection to the early church they must admit they are a novelty, which brings the whole house of cards down.
T
thenobes
Guest
What I don’t understand is how the first disciples could have been scripturally baptized if there were no scripture written yet… Seems to me they couldn’t have been actual Church members then, according to the Baptist Statement. And if not, how could you trust them to get together a set of inspired books called the “Bible”?
Puzzling :^)
peace
steve
Puzzling :^)
peace
steve
I
IgnatianPhilo
Guest
The problem with the claims of baptist succession is that Baptists who claim their church or a community of like minded individuals has always existed cannot point to a solid continuous group.
It’s even stranger when you pause to consider that Baptists have obviously inherited their Trinitarian theology from men of the “Catholic” church which they probably would not regard as being in their church.
You might believe that there was a true succession of baptist teaching all throughout history which was never mentioned or believed until only relatively recently in church history, but we don’t have to believe it. Especially when we can see actual Christians in history of the actual church.
It’s even stranger when you pause to consider that Baptists have obviously inherited their Trinitarian theology from men of the “Catholic” church which they probably would not regard as being in their church.
You might believe that there was a true succession of baptist teaching all throughout history which was never mentioned or believed until only relatively recently in church history, but we don’t have to believe it. Especially when we can see actual Christians in history of the actual church.
P
Protector
Guest
Seems in-line with Scripture up to the word, “disciples”, but then I note (with dismay), that the given web address contains a clear reference to the “rapture and a post-Rapture-tribulation”. That view is usually termed, "pre-Trib. This misconception arises, I believe that I am right in saying, from a misinterpretation of two verses in 1 Thessalonians:-
Now I’m not saying that the Baptist group in question believe in a Secret Rapture, but for the benefit of others who may do so, the highlighted words certainly dispel any idea that this event is SECRET.
Other verses confirm that we will ALL be here for the “.time of Jacob’s trouble” - the so called, “tribulation”, so, (IMHO) the lifting up of the saints and the out-pouring of “the wrath of God…” on an un-believing world occur within the same time frame. Although, my use of the term, “TIME”, may not be correct seeing that John’s Book of Revelation" has someone in Heaven saying, “…there should be time no more…” However, I believe the point made is still valid.
Protector.
M
MaryT777
Guest
Amen.Simply put, besides the fact that Our Lord Jesus did establish he Church in the A.D. 30’s, everything in this “Baptist profession of faith” is total garbage. There is no proof for any of it. Just read your Bible and you can confirm that.
May God bless you and continue to lead you to the Light of His Truth in His Holy Catholic Church!
Mary.
P
Protector
Guest
Could be they were referring to Baptism by immersion, as opposed to Baptism by sprinkling Steve.
Jesus is said to go down into the water for His baptism, then subsequently coming back out of the water. Now, the original Greek word is “baptismo” - meaning to submerge which ties in with St Paul saying words to the effect that “…we are buried with Christ in His death, so shall we rise with Christ…”. Another point is that John the Baptist was baptising in the River Jordon…"…where there was much water…". Now if sprinkling was the method employed in those days there would have been no need for **much water **. However, that being said, my view is it’s the act rather than the method that is important, i.e. baptism is the outward and visible sign, of an inner, invisible grace.
Protector.
P
Protector
Guest
Usually a little “give and take” is to be exercised on forums that are open to people of all standards of education, but one supposes that someone making what appears to be an official statement on behalf of their denomination should have taken more care. There again, maybe the statement was dictated to a person not familiar with the word “tenet”.
However, a proof reading before publication should have picked it up.
I did not, however, pick up a spelling mistake in one of my own posts to this thread until it was too late to edit it, i.e. I spelled River Jordan as River Jordon.
I should have observed my own rule that correct pronunciation is the key to correct spellingWe must bear in mind that even some of the Apostles were described as being “unlearned”:-
Mind you, they used scribes in those days.
Protector.
J
JustaServant
Guest
KJV-only fundamentalists are not the brightest bulbs, and that’s in more areas than just religious.Usually a little “give and take” is to be exercised on forums that are open to people of all standards of education, but one supposes that someone making what appears to be an official statement on behalf of their denomination should have taken more care. There again, maybe the statement was dictated to a person not familiar with the word “tenet”.
However, a proof reading before publication should have picked it up.
I did not, however, pick up a spelling mistake in one of my own posts to this thread until it was too late to edit it, i.e. I spelled River Jordan as River Jordon.
We must bear in mind that even some of the Apostles were described as being “unlearned”:-
Mind you, they used scribes in those days.
Protector.
Take my word for it.
Z
zz912
Guest
I wouldn’t read too much into that “go down into the water” and “coming back out of the water”. At the place believed to be the place where Jesus was baptized, the river is small, and you have to climb down to get to it. It’s not a wide flat river you can just walk into.
And don’t forget, over 3,000 men were baptized in ONE day at Pentecost. Even if you were continuously baptizing for 12 hours, that’s 4 people per minute, every single minute, for 12 straight hours. It’s impossible that there were that many people baptized by immersion. Jerusalem doesn’t even have the capacity for such a large public area with that much water. They HAD to be baptized by pouring or sprinkling.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
There were were about 120 disciples present at Pentecost. Surely some of them had been invested with the charism to baptize. And even if they weren’t, the Apostles numbered 12, not 1. With all 12 baptizing, 3000 could easily have been baptized in a day.
A
adrift
Guest
This caught my attention as I could not remember it being written that Jesus went down into the water. I read each Gospel and cannot find it saying that Jesus went down into the water. John doesn’t have His baptism at all.
Most art, which doesn’t prove anything, I have seen of Jesus baptism is a shell of water being poured over Jesus’ head. I have never seen a historical description of the practice of a baptism that John would have practiced. Was it the same as we see now with the arms crossed and plunged into the water? What words were used. Although Jordan has a lot of water, was it deep?
A
adrift
Guest
'The amount of people baptizing was as you note not to much of a problem but where would have been. There were some pools around but would they have been accessible for a an immersion type of baptism? Just where do you believe that the baptisms took place?
A
adrift
Guest
Just 12 baptizing would be 250 a piece but where?
Probably more than just the apostles baptized. I don’t see that as a problem but where would they baptize?
There were some pools around but would they have been accessible for a an immersion type of baptism? Just where did these baptisms take place? Where did they get the water?
M
Memaw
Guest
AMEN, God Bless, Memaw
D
Dorothy
Guest
See number VII in the Didache on Baptism:
thedidache.com/
It explains about pouring water over those being baptized. It is just as efficacious as immersion.
thedidache.com/
It explains about pouring water over those being baptized. It is just as efficacious as immersion.
Z
zz912
Guest
You missed my point. I believe with the Apostles and other disciples, 3000 could easily be baptized in one day. But not by immersion. There simply isn’t a big enough pool of water for that many immersion baptisms in one day in Jerusalem.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
So there were no mikva’ot or other similar pools filled with water in Jerusalem which could have been used for baptisms, especially on a big religious holiday when many pilgrims would have been seeking ritual purification? Forgive me, but that just seems very far-fetched.
- Status