Ask a Baptist

[Koushi Shinigami]

Seems to me, both sides of this disussion are living in glass houses.

[Hadassah]

Isn't that some sort of freaky exercise routine?

I love my Pilates! :dance:

[Laveral]

O.K. (But they also did it in Switzerland). My point was Hadassah (Esther) said to name someone the catholic church killed. The fact is the catholic church (not today) was responsible for many deaths of so called "heritics". You would agree, wouldn't you?

I agree. But, it seems I am in the minority on the "ask a Baptist" thread.

So, I tried to ask the Catholics what there doctrinal stands are and someone told me to say what i thought was wrong with them instead. So I did and got blasted for saying what they believe.

As for those things I said, I think that works salvation and having to go through the church for salvation is the same thing baiscally. I

My question for salvatin through the church is, If that is the way it is where does grace come in for salvation? Where does faith come in for salvation? How does the church have any authority to keep you in or out of heaven?

As far as infant baptism is concerned, where is there one time in the Bible in which this occurs or is made reference to as a means for salvation?

And if I am wrong about the deification of Mary, what is your stance of Mary's position?

[Hadassah]

You asked for one thing that catholics believe that is scriptural. I pointed out at least one.

And I appreciate that. :hug:

I appreciate all those non-Catholics who are here, defending us. Thank you all. :hug: XOXO

[Koushi Shinigami]

I love my Pilates! :dance:

:dance: :dance: :dance: :dance: :dance:


I don't exercise. :neutral:




:cool:

[buflineks]

Oh by all means protestants are just as guilty. Most every religion is responible for "holy" wars. Even the Jews (under Gods command) killed many people. I was just putting my 2 cents in. I wasn't trying to say that catholics are the only ones who have made mistakes.

I appreciate your honesty.

I was only trying to correct a myth that has been disproven by secular scholarly work.

Unfortunately, the use of propaganda on both sides still stream from the reformation.

[jet]

I'm having a difficult time believing Foxe's book of Martyrs is false :think: I'm having a hard time believing thousands in the Christian community would be duped.

I'd like Cbut's opinion on this one, please. Thanks!

As for the deification of Mary, is it possible that there are Catholics out there that believe this? Much like some protestants don't believe in the trinity? Or that baptism saves/doesn't save?

[Laveral]

My intent at first was not to get into a discussion of Catholic doctrine just to say that there has always been churches and Christians out there who were not part of the RCC. People that I believe lived and passed down the writings of Paul, and John, and Peter, and Luke.
I don't know who it was anymore that asked the question of whether Baptists came out of the RCC as others did in the reformation, but Baptist doctrine is purely Bible doctrine. You can believe what you want and read all you want, but I say like the Bible says, "let God be true, but every man a liar."

[Hadassah]

I'm having a difficult time believing Foxe's book of Martyrs is false :think: I'm having a hard time believing thousands in the Christian community would be duped.




#1 Too many people are willing to believe millions of Catholics have been duped.

#2 If they're duped, it's because they didn't do their research and check into what was said in his book. Granted, not everyone has the interest, time, or resources to check and double check what they read, but it's really a wise thing to do.



As for the deification of Mary, is it possible that there are Catholics out there that believe this? Much like some protestants don't believe in the trinity? Or that baptism saves/doesn't save?


Of course it's possible that some Catholics believe this about Mary, but that doesn't mean they are correct. The official position of the RCC on Mary has nothing to do with deifying her and the RCC would rightly correct those Catholics who thought Mary was a goddess.

[terri910]

I just think it's silly to say any denomination that claims to be a Christian faith has doctrine that "isn't Biblical." What that means is that they believe the Bible says something differentthan you do in certain places.

[Koushi Shinigami]

My intent at first was not to get into a discussion of Catholic doctrine just to say that there has always been churches and Christians out there who were not part of the RCC. People that I believe lived and passed down the writings of Paul, and John, and Peter, and Luke.
I don't know who it was anymore that asked the question of whether Baptists came out of the RCC as others did in the reformation, but Baptist doctrine is purely Bible doctrine. You can believe what you want and read all you want, but I say like the Bible says, "let God be true, but every man a liar."


Gotta admit though, the Catholics have much better docutmentation on their history and origin.

[buflineks]

I'm having a difficult time believing Foxe's book of Martyrs is false :think: ?

If you don't believe me, then I would suggest finding a Medievalist at a secular institution.

They will tell you that it is full of propoganda. Things such as Tyndale being executed for writing an English Translation of the NT.
I don't remember the exact case, but there was one case in which Foxe claimed that an MP (Member of Parliment) was executed for his Protestant beliefs, and records clearly show him being counted on the Rolls the following year that Foxe claimed he died at the stake.

Foxe does contain some factual information. But credible Historians stay away from it because of the innaccuracies and blatant propoganda.

It would be similar to an historian using Grisar's Martin Luther: His life and works to come out with accurate research on Luther. The Text is nothing more than character assassination.

[terri910]

As for the deification of Mary, is it possible that there are Catholics out there that believe this? Much like some protestants don't believe in the trinity? Or that baptism saves/doesn't save?
Protestantism isn't a cohesive or unified faith (any idea exactly how many non-Catholic Christian denominations there are?). The better comparison would be to pick a specific denomination and ask the same question.

Let's say "Jehovah's Witness"....if someone claims to be a Jehovah's Witness, but disagrees with a basic tenet of that faith, are they an accurate reflection of what Jehovah's Witness' believe (IOW, what the Jehovah's Witness church teaches)?

[Koushi Shinigami]

(any idea exactly how many non-Catholic Christian denominations there are?).


'Round 29,000 last estimate I read.

[jet]

If you don't believe me, then I would suggest finding a Medievalist at a secular institution.

They will tell you that it is full of propoganda. Things such as Tyndale being executed for writing an English Translation of the NT.
I don't remember the exact case, but there was one case in which Foxe claimed that a MP was executed for his Protestant beliefs, and records clearly show him being counted on the Rolls the following year that Foxe claimed he died at the stake.

Foxe does contain some factual information. But credible Historians stay away from it because of the innaccuracies and blantant propoganda.

It would be similar to an historian using Grisar's Martin Luther: His life and works to come out with accurate research on Luther. The Text is nothing more than character assassination.

Well, there are a lot of secular institutions that deny Christ too and what He endured. I don't put a lot of stock in secular takes on matters involving faith simply because they are usually biased against them. I mean, all one has to do is attend any university philosophy class and bring up Christ......I don't know many professors that even ascribe to a faith, let alone believe in Christ.
I can understand people from the RCC going against Luther because Luther countered many of the tenants of the Catholic faith :think:
I think this is something I'll have to look into further. Thanks for the info.

[buflineks]

Gotta admit though, the Catholics have much better docutmentation on their history and origin.

Gotta love those Secret Archives.:cool:

I love the original velvet Elvis and "Dogs Playing Poker".
The Scotch and Irish Whiskey is quality as well.:dance:

[Laveral]

I just think it's silly to say any denomination that claims to be a Christian faith has doctrine that "isn't Biblical." What that means is that they believe the Bible says something differentthan you do in certain places.

I don't think that is what it is saying at all. It is saying that someone has taken portions of the Bible to mean something that it was not intended to mean. Most doctrine is illustrated through a historical happening in the Bible, like baptism and salvation in Acts chapter 8, and Jesus setting up his church in Matthew chapter 16. I can't believe in infant baptism because infants cannot make a descision to accept or not accept Jesus' gift of salvation. So, I think I can say that I think some of their doctrine isn't Biblical. Maybe I misstated at first what I meant to say.

[Koushi Shinigami]

I don't think that is what it is saying at all. It is saying that someone has taken portions of the Bible to mean something that it was not intended to mean.

There are several Jews on this site that say that Christians have done exactly that with Jewish holy books that Christians call the Old Testament.

[jet]

Protestantism isn't a cohesive or unified faith (any idea exactly how many non-Catholic Christian denominations there are?). The better comparison would be to pick a specific denomination and ask the same question.

Let's say "Jehovah's Witness"....if someone claims to be a Jehovah's Witness, but disagrees with a basic tenet of that faith, are they an accurate reflection of what Jehovah's Witness' believe (IOW, what the Jehovah's Witness church teaches)?

I don't really like the term protestant. I prefer Evangelical Christian as I am not protesting the Catholic church :D
I see about phrasing though.....if people pray to Mary and prayer is a form of worship, is it possible that because of that, the conclusion has been drawn that Mary is a deity? I'm just wondering as that is the conclusion I draw as I was taught to only pray to God through Jesus.

[buflineks]

Well, there are a lot of secular institutions that deny Christ too and what He endured. I don't put a lot of stock in secular takes on matters involving faith simply because they are usually biased against them.

This has nothing to do with "Faith". It has to do with historical fact.

I just got done doing a research paper on the Albigensians being a link in the chain of Baptist Successionism. My research had nothing to do with faith, but rather accurate historical information concerning the question of them being "proto-baptists". I didn't do it because I'm a Catholic. I did it because I'm an Historian and I want to get to the bottom of it. My paper showed my research and it can be followed by any historian.

My thesis was, "Were the Albigensians a link in the chain of Baptist successionism?"

I was grilled by Two Medievelists in defending my Thesis. Both are secular Phd.'s.
I will be submitting my paper in Janurary in hopes of getting it published.





I think this is something I'll have to look into further. Thanks for the info.

Jet, you are welcome. As I've stated before many times on this forum. I don't know enough about theology to go into depth. I do however, know enough history and historical methodology to correct some the most blantant errors that I see posted here.

[baysidetrey]

I agree. But, it seems I am in the minority on the "ask a Baptist" thread.

So, I tried to ask the Catholics what there doctrinal stands are and someone told me to say what i thought was wrong with them instead. So I did and got blasted for saying what they believe.

As for those things I said, I think that works salvation and having to go through the church for salvation is the same thing baiscally. I

My question for salvatin through the church is, If that is the way it is where does grace come in for salvation? Where does faith come in for salvation? How does the church have any authority to keep you in or out of heaven?


As far as infant baptism is concerned, where is there one time in the Bible in which this occurs or is made reference to as a means for salvation?

And if I am wrong about the deification of Mary, what is your stance of Mary's position?

O.K. Here I go. You asked for my opinion so I will give it. This is what I posted in the OSAS thread and have had little reply.
Here is a quote from Alexander Campbell in his debate with N.L. Rice that I fell explains salvation pretty well.
"In examining the New Testament, we find that a man is said to be justified by faith, justified freely by His grace, justified by His blood, justified by works, justified in or by the name of the Lord Jesus, justified by Christ, justified by knowledge. It is God that justifes by these seven means-by Christ, his name, his blood, by knowledge, grace, faith and by works." He then goes on to explain that not one is greater than the other.
Next he states, "Call all these causes, or means of justification: and what then? We have the grace of God for the moving cause, Jesus Christ for the efficient cause, his blood the procuring cause, knowledge the disposing cause, the name of the Lord the immediate cause, faith the formal cause, and works for the concurring cause.
For example: a gentleman on the sea-shore descried the wreck of a vessel at some distance from land, driving out into the ocean, and covered with a miserable and perishing sea-drenched crew. Moved by pure philanthropy, he sends his son with a boat to save them. When the boat arrives at the wreck, he invites them in, upon this condition, that they submit to his guidance. A number of the crew stretch out their arms, seizing the boat with their hands, sping into it, take hold of the oars, and row to land, while some from cowardice, and others from some difficulty in comming at the boat, wait in expectation of a second trip: but before it returned, the wreck went to pieces, and they all perished. The moving cause of their salvation who escaped, was the good will of the gentleman on the shore; the son, who took the boat, was the efficient cause; the boat itself the procuring cause, the knowledge of their perishing condition and his invitation, the disposing cause; the seizing of the boat with their hands, and springing ito it, the immediate cause; their consenting to his condition the formal cause; and their rowing to shore, under the guidance of his son, was the concurring cause of their salvation- Thus, men are justified or saved by grace, by Christ, by his blood, by faith, by knowledge, by the name of the Lord, and by works. But of these seven causes, three of which are purely instrumental, why choose one of the instrumental, and emphasize upon it, as the justifying or saving cause, to the exclusion of, or in preference to the others? Every one, in its own place, is essentially necessary." page 508-509.

Now, I believe one must be in Christ's church to be saved.
I do not believe in infant baptism.
I do not believe in the deification of Mary.
One more thing that I asked in the OSAS thread that has not been answered. Do baptist have hope in salvation?

[Koushi Shinigami]

I can't believe in infant baptism because infants cannot make a descision to accept or not accept Jesus' gift of salvation. So, I think I can say that I think some of their doctrine isn't Biblical. Maybe I misstated at first what I meant to say.

"Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19:14).


Seems biblical to me.

If you are seriously curious, try this.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Infant_Baptism.asp

[terri910]

I don't think that is what it is saying at all. It is saying that someone has taken portions of the Bible to mean something that it was not intended to mean. Most doctrine is illustrated through a historical happening in the Bible, like baptism and salvation in Acts chapter 8, and Jesus setting up his church in Matthew chapter 16. I can't believe in infant baptism because infants cannot make a descision to accept or not accept Jesus' gift of salvation. So, I think I can say that I think some of their doctrine isn't Biblical. Maybe I misstated at first what I meant to say.
Oh, I think you stated EXACTLY what you meant to say. It's just that I recognize that each and every denomination believes that THEY have the correct understanding of what the Bible is "intended to mean."

So, because Baptists believe that the Bible says something different than Catholics believe, I can say that Baptist have doctrine that "isn't Biblical." But Baptists don't think that their doctrine isn't Biblical, now, do they?

I just think it is silly, in this kind of forum, to just state as fact that another faith's doctrine is not Biblical, even if I believe their doctrine to be based on an incorrect understanding of the Bible.

Personally, I think that the belief that the Bible is the ONLY source of authority for the Christian faith is not Biblical.

[baysidetrey]

I appreciate your honesty.

I was only trying to correct a myth that has been disproven by secular scholarly work.

Unfortunately, the use of propaganda on both sides still stream from the reformation.

I know. I also appreciate your honesty and zeal for what you believe in. You and I disagree on many points, but I have always admired your fighting for what you believe in.

[cbut1]

Wow although I am glad my thread found more people willing to discuss things I see that I may have to put out a few flames when I get off of work.

If things get hot in here I only ask Firewatch not ban anyone or lock down anything until I can lovingly help make corrections where needed.


Laveral please be patient here and don't get to overexuberant

[Koushi Shinigami]

I just think it is silly, in this kind of forum, to just state as fact that another faith's doctrine is not Biblical, even if I believe their doctrine to be based on an incorrect understanding of the Bible.


As I asked in another thread, of what are you willing to be convinced?

I don't believe anyone here is willing to answer that question.

[Laveral]

Do Baptists have hope in Salvation? I do. I believe that Ephesians 2:8-9 takes away works as a means to salvation. We are all sinners that must humble ourselves before God and except the free gift of salvation through Jesus Christ. There is no other way to salvation and to heaven than through Jesus Christ and once you have done that there is nothing that can pluck youo from the fathers hand.

[Koushi Shinigami]

If things get hot in here I only ask Firewatch not ban anyone or lock down anything until I can lovingly help make corrections where needed.




Another challenge.

[baysidetrey]

Oh, I think you stated EXACTLY what you meant to say. It's just that I recognize that each and every denomination believes that THEY have the correct understanding of what the Bible is "intended to mean."

So, because Baptists believe that the Bible says something different than Catholics believe, I can say that Baptist have doctrine that "isn't Biblical." But Baptists don't think that their doctrine isn't Biblical, now, do they?

I just think it is silly, in this kind of forum, to just state as fact that another faith's doctrine is not Biblical, even if I believe their doctrine to be based on an incorrect understanding of the Bible.

Personally, I think that the belief that the Bible is the ONLY source of authority for the Christian faith is not Biblical.

Oh come on Terry. Can we at least agree that the church of Christ is biblical in their doctrine?

[terri910]

I don't really like the term protestant. I prefer Evangelical Christian as I am not protesting the Catholic church :D
Well, I used "protestantism" because you used the word "protestant" in your comparison. Use Evangelical Christian, if you like, but I don't know that there is unity in all that would describe themselves as such.
I see about phrasing though.....if people pray to Mary and prayer is a form of worship, is it possible that because of that, the conclusion has been drawn that Mary is a deity? I'm just wondering as that is the conclusion I draw as I was taught to only pray to God through Jesus.People draw incorrect conclusions all the time. Prayer CAN be a form of worship. Prayers to Mary or the saints in heaven are not forms of worshiping Mary or those Saints, but asking them to pray for us, just as we ask our brother and sisters in Christ here on earth to pray for us.

[RayMan]

Wow although I am glad my thread found more people willing to discuss things I see that I may have to put out a few flames when I get off of work.

If things get hot in here I only ask Firewatch not ban anyone or lock down anything until I can lovingly help make corrections where needed.


Laveral please be patient here and don't get to overexuberant

Killjoy. :cool:

[terri910]

Oh come on Terry. Can we at least agree that the church of Christ is biblical in their doctrine?
What I am saying is that EVERY Christian church believes their doctrine to be Biblical. To say otherwise is just silly, IMO.

[Koushi Shinigami]

Oh come on Terry. Can we at least agree that the church of Christ is biblical in their doctrine?

Most definitely not.

[baysidetrey]

Do Baptists have hope in Salvation? I do. I believe that Ephesians 2:8-9 takes away works as a means to salvation. We are all sinners that must humble ourselves before God and except the free gift of salvation through Jesus Christ. There is no other way to salvation and to heaven than through Jesus Christ and once you have done that there is nothing that can pluck youo from the fathers hand.

Well now, I thought that you already HAD salvation. You can not hope for something that you already have.

[baysidetrey]

Most definitely not.

Why not?

[buflineks]

Wow although I am glad my thread found more people willing to discuss things I see that I may have to put out a few flames when I get off of work.

If things get hot in here I only ask Firewatch not ban anyone or lock down anything until I can lovingly help make corrections where needed.


Laveral please be patient here and don't get to overexuberant


cbut, I have sort of taken an initative in defending some misconception about catholicism. In addition, the historian in me also wanted to correct some errors.

I'm going to desist now though. I have to study for a final.

[RayMan]

As I asked in another thread, of what are you willing to be convinced?

I don't believe anyone here is willing to answer that question.

I have had my opinion changed (for the better I believe) on a number of points concerning both Mormon and Catholic doctrine during this past year in the RF. Doesn't really answer your question but there you go.

I have found a real value in trying to ask civil questions (yeah, me civil, I know - quit laughing) about what Christians of other Brands than Pentecostal believe. Spent ten years as a Baptist so that's a slam dunk for me.

[Koushi Shinigami]

Why not?

Because there is very little agreement to be found here.

[RayMan]

Oh, I think you stated EXACTLY what you meant to say. It's just that I recognize that each and every denomination believes that THEY have the correct understanding of what the Bible is "intended to mean."

So, because Baptists believe that the Bible says something different than Catholics believe, I can say that Baptist have doctrine that "isn't Biblical." But Baptists don't think that their doctrine isn't Biblical, now, do they?

I just think it is silly, in this kind of forum, to just state as fact that another faith's doctrine is not Biblical, even if I believe their doctrine to be based on an incorrect understanding of the Bible.

Personally, I think that the belief that the Bible is the ONLY source of authority for the Christian faith is not Biblical.


You know, if ya'll could just get yourselves together and realize that CID and I have it all down right everything would be copasetic around here. :cool: :cool:

[Koushi Shinigami]

You know, if ya'll could just get yourselves together and realize that CID and I have it all down right everything would be copasetic around here. :cool: :cool:

Where's the fun in that?

[RayMan]

cbut, I have sort of taken an initative in defending some misconception about catholicism. In addition, the historian in me also wanted to correct some errors.

I'm going to desist now though. I have to study for a final.


Besides which you are a feisty Templar!

[Koushi Shinigami]

I have had my opinion changed (for the better I believe) on a number of points concerning both Mormon and Catholic doctrine during this past year in the RF. Doesn't really answer your question but there you go.

I have found a real value in trying to ask civil questions (yeah, me civil, I know - quit laughing) about what Christians of other Brands than Pentecostal believe. Spent ten years as a Baptist so that's a slam dunk for me.


Some real wisdom there.

[baysidetrey]

Because there is very little agreement to be found here.

I agree. But, did you know that up until the 1900's, most protestant churches called themselves ....."church of Christ". Like the catholic church is really the universal church of Christ. There were "Missionary Baptist church of christ", and even the presbyterians called themselves "church of Christ". Just thought it was a neat fact and a good play on words.

[terri910]

As I asked in another thread, of what are you willing to be convinced?

I don't believe anyone here is willing to answer that question.
Quite possibly not.

[Koushi Shinigami]

I agree. But, did you know that up until the 1900's, most protestant churches called themselves ....."church of Christ". Like the catholic church is really the universal church of Christ. There were "Missionary Baptist church of christ", and even the presbyterians called themselves "church of Christ". Just thought it was a neat fact and a good play on words.

And some sects of the LDS call themselves 'Church of Christ'.

[Laveral]

Well now, I thought that you already HAD salvation. You can not hope for something that you already have.

Oh, I thought you meant if we had hope in the salvation that we already have. Then if you mean it to be do we hope for something we already have then why didn't you ask it that way? I might have read the initial question wrong though, because hope in something and hope for something are different.
As for hope for salvation, If you have salvation already there is no need to hope for salvation still.

[buflineks]

Besides which you are a feisty Templar!

And it's all my fault.:))

[terri910]

And it's all my fault.:))
Nice that you can realize certain absolute truths, buf. :razz:

[buflineks]

Nice that you can realize certain absolute truths, buf. :razz:

:)):))

[baysidetrey]

Oh, I thought you meant if we had hope in the salvation that we already have. Then if you mean it to be do we hope for something we already have then why didn't you ask it that way? I might have read the initial question wrong though, because hope in something and hope for something are different.
As for hope for salvation, If you have salvation already there is no need to hope for salvation still.

Agreed. Now, hope is spoken some 72 times in the NT KJV.
Paul tell us:
Ro 8:24 or we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? 25 But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.
He also tells us:
Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling
1Th 5:8 But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation

And Peter tells us this:
1Pe 1:13 Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;

Now, you say that you know that once a person is saved, they can never lose it. There is no hope in your belief IMO.

[RayMan]

Oh, I thought you meant if we had hope in the salvation that we already have. Then if you mean it to be do we hope for something we already have then why didn't you ask it that way? I might have read the initial question wrong though, because hope in something and hope for something are different.
As for hope for salvation, If you have salvation already there is no need to hope for salvation still.

I would agree there is a difference between hope in and hope of but I also think there is sometimes a misunderstanding of what the word hope actually means. Seems to me that many people use the word hope to describe that which they desire but are not convinced they will get.

Christmas is a good example of this. When I was a kid I always hoped I would get a pony for Christmas. It was my desire but one that went unfulfilled. And truth to tell I was never confident I would receive that pony.

The Greek word used in the N.T. to describe the hope we have in Christ does not speak as much of desire as it does a confident expectation. Here's an example,

Act 26:6 And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers:


Strong's Gk Dict.
Hope
elpis
Fromἔλπω elpō which is a primary word (to anticipate, usually with pleasure); expectation (abstract or concrete) or confidence: - faith, hope.

[baysidetrey]

And some sects of the LDS call themselves 'Church of Christ'.

Correct (but you have to distinguish between the capital "C" and the lower case "c" in "church").

[Laveral]

I would agree there is a difference between hope in and hope of but I also think there is sometimes a misunderstanding of what the word hope actually means. Seems to me that many people use the word hope to describe that which they desire but are not convinced they will get.

Christmas is a good example of this. When I was a kid I always hoped I would get a pony for Christmas. It was my desire but one that went unfulfilled. And truth to tell I was never confident I would receive that pony.

The Greek word used in the N.T. to describe the hope we have in Christ does not speak as much of desire as it does a confident expectation. Here's an example,

Act 26:6 And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers:


Strong's Gk Dict.
Hope
elpis
Fromἔλπω elpō which is a primary word (to anticipate, usually with pleasure); expectation (abstract or concrete) or confidence: - faith, hope.


I have to agree that going this route in explaining hope is much better. One of my teachers decribed the difference between faith and hope as faith is of the here and now and hope is of the future. We have hope in Jesus Christ that he will return one day and take us to heaven with him. If you are saved that is. We put our faith in Jesus to save us and once we are saved we have hope in that salvation to take us to heaven.

[RayMan]

I have to agree that going this route in explaining hope is much better. One of my teachers decribed the difference between faith and hope as faith is of the here and now and hope is of the future. We have hope in Jesus Christ that he will return one day and take us to heaven with him. If you are saved that is. We put our faith in Jesus to save us and once we are saved we have hope in that salvation to take us to heaven.

Pretty much yep. Faith and hope are joined at the hip.



Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

[baysidetrey]

I have to agree that going this route in explaining hope is much better. One of my teachers decribed the difference between faith and hope as faith is of the here and now and hope is of the future. We have hope in Jesus Christ that he will return one day and take us to heaven with him. If you are saved that is. We put our faith in Jesus to save us and once we are saved we have hope in that salvation to take us to heaven.

I like to think of it this way. My parents (who would never lie to me) told me that if I made good grades and stayed out of trouble, they would buy a new car for me for graduation. Now, I did all that they asked me to do. I will expect that for graduation, I will have a new car, the car is as good as mine. But I also know that if I disobey them (which kids are known to do) and get in with the wrong crowd, I will not recieve the car. It is my choice.

[Laveral]

Personally, I think that the belief that the Bible is the ONLY source of authority for the Christian faith is not Biblical.

I am just curious by this statement.
If you don't believe the Bible is the only source of authority for the Christian faith then what do you base your beliefs on?
Do you believe that the Bible is the Word of God?

[Laveral]

I like to think of it this way. My parents (who would never lie to me) told me that if I made good grades and stayed out of trouble, they would buy a new car for me for graduation. Now, I did all that they asked me to do. I will expect that for graduation, I will have a new car, the car is as good as mine. But I also know that if I disobey them (which kids are known to do) and get in with the wrong crowd, I will not recieve the car. It is my choice.

I don't won't to misunderstand what you are saying here, but if you are saying that if we mess up God will take away salvation from us, I find no Biblical basis for that. We have to remember that God's ways are not like our ways.
I wish I could give you verses and stuff, but it is late here and my brain is tired.

[RayMan]

I don't won't to misunderstand what you are saying here, but if you are saying that if we mess up God will take away salvation from us, I find no Biblical basis for that. We have to remember that God's ways are not like our ways.
I wish I could give you verses and stuff, but it is late here and my brain is tired.


No worries. We have a thread with over 750 post, chock full of scripture on the subject.

http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=1174891

[CID_0687]

I thought I killed this thread...oh well...if at first you don't succeed, blah blah blah :D

[RayMan]

sez you

[cbut1]

I thought I killed this thread...oh well...if at first you don't succeed, blah blah blah :D



:angel:

Cannot kill a good thing.


:eek:
Oops boss is coming gotta jet.

[CID_0687]

:angel:

Cannot kill a good thing.


:eek:
Oops boss is coming gotta jet.
Maybe not...but I can derail the heck out of it. :D

[cbut1]

Indeed.

Silly as it sounds to some of us here, I am starting with the basics and building this class like a layer cake.

That is the best way to do it, that way everybody starts on the same page.

[cbut1]

Here is the thing that people don't get. Jesus didn't start the Catholic church. Jesus started his church. The Catholic church didn't come into exsistence until the 3rd or 4th century, which by the way is 300 years after their first pope Peter was killed by the Roman Empire. Also there is no indication that Peter was ever in Rome. Both of his letters were written from Babylon. So, Jesus' church was around before the Catholic church was ever thought of. Nero had no inclination of turning to Christianity, and neither did any of the emperors before or after him. Christianity is not the Catholic church. The Catholic church technically is not a church, it is an entity. There were Christians and churches all over the place before the Catholic church and during its reign of terror. That is where we Baptists get our heritage.


Ok first before I start to deal with your post here I want to make sure I do not forget my manners.

Welcome to the Hannity Forum :D

As a friendly reminder I ask that you read the Rules of Respect (ROR) if you have not done so already. It is at the top of the Thread tital page.


Also many of us here have been around for awhile so we are somewhat familiar with each others general views on topics. As such we have a jovial and healthy interchange with one another, we hope you join with us in that manner in mind. Lastly do not do or say anything that will damage your testimony of Christ.


Again welcome and enjoy. :D

[cbut1]

Here is the thing that people don't get. Jesus didn't start the Catholic church. Jesus started his church. The Catholic church didn't come into exsistence until the 3rd or 4th century, which by the way is 300 years after their first pope Peter was killed by the Roman Empire. Also there is no indication that Peter was ever in Rome. Both of his letters were written from Babylon. So, Jesus' church was around before the Catholic church was ever thought of. Nero had no inclination of turning to Christianity, and neither did any of the emperors before or after him. Christianity is not the Catholic church. The Catholic church technically is not a church, it is an entity. There were Christians and churches all over the place before the Catholic church and during its reign of terror. That is where we Baptists get our heritage.


Now to deal with your post.

First I agree with your intent to give a Baptist view of the Church vrs. the Catholic view of it. Your information is lacking some supportive information, but if you are patient you will learn to offer that in the future. Declaring that the Catholic Church was engaged in a reign of terror will close doors to you; not open them, and if you persist with that type of mantra you may end up banned from the forum. So I advise caution and careful wording to get your points across.

Baptist heritage comes from Christ the divide comes not from any divisiveness on our part but from those who choose not to follow the Way. In doing so they do not turn from us but from Christ. If we are going to be effective in our testimony of Christ then we need a clear respectful form of communication. Hitting someoe over the head only gives them a headache and you a bloody nose.

1Co 4:21 What do you desire? Shall I come to you with a rod, or in love and a spirit of meekness?

Lets remember to come to the table in Love and Meekness, not in boa****lness.

[cbut1]

St. Peter (32-67)
St. Linus (67-76)
St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
St. Clement I (88-97)


I want to briefly address these few. Perhaps Buf will be the most appropriate to answer.

Peter the dates offered what do those dates represent? Are they the time in which he was Pastor (you would call him Bishop or Pope) of the assembly in Rome? or do they represent his time as a member of the assembly of Christ? If Peter is the Bishop during this time why is it God sent Paul to oversee the assembly and found it fitting to record Pauls interactions with the Rome assembly?

As far as Linus and Anacletus these are not men mentioned by those names in Gods Word so are there other names they may have been known by?

Finally this Clement is the one mentioned by John in his writings but do the dates really fit when he would have been aat the helm of the Rome assembly?

[cbut1]

Do you know when the Church was first called "Catholic"?


And what is this load of equine fertilizer about the Cathoilc Church's "reign of terror"?



First one is around 110 by Ignatius if my memory serves me well this early in the morning.

Catholics contend it was a decleration of their heritage by name.

Baptist believe it was a general declarative of all of the assemblies of Christ during that time.






Everybody needs some good fertilizer now and again. :D

[cbut1]

I kid you not, cbut, my maternal grandmother (whose father -- my great grandfather -- was a Baptist minister) actually said just that to me one time. We were on a road trip together, and were passing by (I think it was called) Red Rock Canyon....these red rock formations, and you could see all the layers and layers of rock. I just mused out loud, "I wonder what made all those layers"...and my grandmother said, "God did it."

That settled it! :angel:

She was quite a lady!



Grandparents have a way of doing that don't they. :D

[cbut1]

Laveral

Actually I am not a fan of Jack Chick. I think he goes overboard on some things.

As for my history, you do realize that the people that rule are the ones that write history. That means they can make up history as well. The reason number one I know that Peter wasn't the first pope is that Cathloic doctrine goes against what the Bible teaches and what Christ set the church up to be. You can give me your list of popes all day. That doesn't put Peter in Rome. And, as for your Catholic/Universal church the idea entirely goes against Biblical doctrine. The church wasn't set in place by Jesus in order to be turned into a political hierarchy that ruined the lives of people, killed anyone that opposed their views, and started wars in the name of Jesus. I am so tired of everything the catholics did during the middle ages being blamed on Christians when most true Christians had nothing to do with it. I think you should read the Bible for once.

Bolding by me.

Ramp it down a notch if you will.

Hadassah is a friend of mine and I do not appreciate the tone your post implys.

Catholics believe they are Christians and as such words like this inflame and insult but they do not inform.

[cbut1]

I will continue this when I get up in the next 4 hrs. :D

[Koushi Shinigami]

In doing so they do not turn from us but from Christ.


Nope.


Rejecting Baptist dogma is not equivalent to rejecting Christ.

[Hadassah]

Bolding by me.

Ramp it down a notch if you will.

Hadassah is a friend of mine and I do not appreciate the tone your post implys.

Catholics believe they are Christians and as such words like this inflame and insult but they do not inform.


Thank you for your defense of me and my fellow Catholics, my friend. :hug:

[baysidetrey]

I don't won't to misunderstand what you are saying here, but if you are saying that if we mess up God will take away salvation from us, I find no Biblical basis for that. We have to remember that God's ways are not like our ways.
I wish I could give you verses and stuff, but it is late here and my brain is tired.
Yes I am saying that I believe that if we mess up God will take away salvation from us. Here is biblical support for how God deals with man.

Ezekiel 18:21 But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. 22 All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live. 23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live? 24 But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die. 25 Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal? 26 When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die. 27 Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive. 28 Because he considereth, and turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die. 29 Yet saith the house of Israel, The way of the Lord is not equal. O house of Israel, are not my ways equal? are not your ways unequal?

Also as I have said before, if you already have salvation there is no hope.

[buflineks]

Peter the dates offered what do those dates represent? Are they the time in which he was Pastor (you would call him Bishop or Pope) of the assembly in Rome? or do they represent his time as a member of the assembly of Christ? If Peter is the Bishop during this time why is it God sent Paul to oversee the assembly and found it fitting to record Pauls interactions with the Rome assembly?

As far as Linus and Anacletus these are not men mentioned by those names in Gods Word so are there other names they may have been known by?

Finally this Clement is the one mentioned by John in his writings but do the dates really fit when he would have been aat the helm of the Rome assembly?

I'll try to give you some quick answers ( gotta study).

The dates relating to St. Peter are those in which he was the Bishop of Rome ( the "Pope" is the Bishop of Rome. But we've had a lot of discussions about this. I'll go in depth if someone wants me to). Peter however, left the Bishopric to Linus as he proceeded to go out and continue his work of spreading the Gospel. ( St. Peter, unlike the succesive Bishops of Rome did not die in office, but rather he "resigned". Before someone makes an issue of this, no one is forced to be Pope or Bishop unto death. It just happens that traditionally that has been the case.)

As to the second part of the Paragraph, now you are going into theology, and I'm out of my league on that one.

Now to be completely honest, there are NO contemporary primary sources in extant concerning St. Peter being the First Bishop of Rome and Pope. Historians rely mostly on secondary and tertiary sources for this time period. However, I do know of modern research being done that is looking to collateral contemparary primary souces to find if any information can be gleaned from it. As of yet, there hasn't been any success.

Most of the "Formal" history comes from Eusebius of Ceasarea's Historia Ecclesia, writen over 200 years later. I myself prefer to stay away from Eusebius, but that is a personal/proffessional preference.

Also there is a heavy reliance upon Liber Pontificalis. This dates fromt he 5th century and is believed by historians to rely upon Eusebius's work as well as a few others.

Both of these are said to rely upon the catalouge ( Liber generationis) by Hippolytus of Rome written in the late 1st century early 2nd century. However, that document is no longer in extant either. However, a lot of early modern historians claim that this is not even the earliest "lists of Pope". But I don't have time to go into detail here.

As to your question on Clement, I honestly don't know and am unable to answer or comment on your question. Sorry.

I know this probably doesn't answer your questions completely. Maybe if I have time over winter break (though doubtfull) I can do some more researchand come up with more information for you.

[buflineks]

A caveat here on early christianity.

When looking for primary documentation of the first couple of centuries, most of it is no longer in extant. There are several reasons for this. The first is Age of manuscripts, some became dust before a copy could be made.
Second, during the persecutions by the Romans, many primary documents were destroyed. This can be shown in research of the Donatist schism and the Traditors.
There could very well be documents that exist that can prove beyond a doubt of the claims made, but they just haven't been found yet.

A comment was made earlier about the Catholics ability to document. Well, the documentation is there, but the organization of it leaves a lot to be desired. The Church has a lot of documentation that it has forgotten about and still isn't catalouged. ( for a good look at this I would suggest Maria Ambrosini's book The Secret Archives of the Vatican. Little Brown & co.1969. reprinted in 1996 by Barnes and Noble books, New York.)

I have found in recent research that historical assertions made in the 19th century were at the time made upon the best information available. However, less than 80 years later, new documentation was discovered that blew that research out of the water. Now, was it wrong for the 19th centruy writers to make those assertions? Were they trying to "dupe" people? I don't believe so.
The problem becomes when untrained people try to assert the validiity of such research despite the solid refutation of that research by later historical research.

[terri910]

I am just curious by this statement.
If you don't believe the Bible is the only source of authority for the Christian faith then what do you base your beliefs on?
Do you believe that the Bible is the Word of God?
Of course I believe the Bible is the word of God. But I also believe that the Church existed before the canon of the New Testament. Jesus spoke to his disciples long before the things he taught and did were written down. I believe the Church, through Sacred Tradition, handed down this divine revelation from Jesus, with divine protection promised by Jesus.

I believe it is not Biblical to ignore this, since the Bible itself exhorts us to

“Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us” (2 Tim. 1:13–14).

“And what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2).

“To this he called you through our Gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:14–15).

[terri910]

Grandparents have a way of doing that don't they. :D
Well, I'll tell you. I was amused back then (I was 16 at the time). Now that I am closer to the age my grandmother was at the time, I think I better understand why she chose to answer the way she did. As the years pass, I do find myself less willing to dwell on the minutiae (even if it is interesting), and more inclined to get right to the basic "meat" of anything, if I can.

She managed to do that rather nicely!

[cbut1]

Nope.


Rejecting Baptist dogma is not equivalent to rejecting Christ.

My friend without rehashing much covered territory I will leave this alone after this, according to our (Baptist) understanding of Gods Word and Christ Church it is an accurate statment.

[cbut1]

A caveat here on early christianity.

When looking for primary documentation of the first couple of centuries, most of it is no longer in extant. There are several reasons for this. The first is Age of manuscripts, some became dust before a copy could be made.
Second, during the persecutions by the Romans, many primary documents were destroyed. This can be shown in research of the Donatist schism and the Traditors.
There could very well be documents that exist that can prove beyond a doubt of the claims made, but they just haven't been found yet.

A comment was made earlier about the Catholics ability to document. Well, the documentation is there, but the organization of it leaves a lot to be desired. The Church has a lot of documentation that it has forgotten about and still isn't catalouged. ( for a good look at this I would suggest Maria Ambrosini's book The Secret Archives of the Vatican. Little Brown & co.1969. reprinted in 1996 by Barnes and Noble books, New York.)

I have found in recent research that historical assertions made in the 19th century were at the time made upon the best information available. However, less than 80 years later, new documentation was discovered that blew that research out of the water. Now, was it wrong for the 19th centruy writers to make those assertions? Were they trying to "dupe" people? I don't believe so.
The problem becomes when untrained people try to assert the validiity of such research despite the solid refutation of that research by later historical research.


Again my friend your willingness to be an unbaised (as much as anybody could ask for anyway) researcher has confirmed one of my strong assertions to my own brethren. There is insufficient documentation to stand on certain claims made by many people and religious groups, as such it would be wiser for us to not kill each other (verbally) but to continue to contend for the Faith as we understand it.

[cbut1]

I'll try to give you some quick answers ( gotta study).

The dates relating to St. Peter are those in which he was the Bishop of Rome ( the "Pope" is the Bishop of Rome. But we've had a lot of discussions about this. I'll go in depth if someone wants me to). Peter however, left the Bishopric to Linus as he proceeded to go out and continue his work of spreading the Gospel. ( St. Peter, unlike the succesive Bishops of Rome did not die in office, but rather he "resigned". Before someone makes an issue of this, no one is forced to be Pope or Bishop unto death. It just happens that traditionally that has been the case.)

As to the second part of the Paragraph, now you are going into theology, and I'm out of my league on that one.

Now to be completely honest, there are NO contemporary primary sources in extant concerning St. Peter being the First Bishop of Rome and Pope. Historians rely mostly on secondary and tertiary sources for this time period. However, I do know of modern research being done that is looking to collateral contemparary primary souces to find if any information can be gleaned from it. As of yet, there hasn't been any success.

Most of the "Formal" history comes from Eusebius of Ceasarea's Historia Ecclesia, writen over 200 years later. I myself prefer to stay away from Eusebius, but that is a personal/proffessional preference.

Also there is a heavy reliance upon Liber Pontificalis. This dates fromt he 5th century and is believed by historians to rely upon Eusebius's work as well as a few others.

Both of these are said to rely upon the catalouge ( Liber generationis) by Hyppolitus of Rome written in the late 1st century early 2nd century. However, that document is no longer in extant either. However, a lot of early modern historians claim that this is not even the earliest "lists of Pope". But I don't have time to go into detail here.

As to your question on Clement, I honestly don't know and am unable to answer or comment on your question. Sorry.

I know this probably doesn't answer your questions completely. Maybe if I have time over winter break (though doubtfull) I can do some more researchand come up with more information for you.


Thank you now everybody here can read that and do further research themselves or choose to accept their own view as they currently hold them.

[Koushi Shinigami]

My friend without rehashing much covered territory I will leave this alone after this, according to our (Baptist) understanding of Gods Word and Christ Church it is an accurate statment.

Circular logic at it's best.


I can most certainly turn away from you and not from Christ.

[cbut1]

Thank you for your defense of me and my fellow Catholics, my friend. :hug:


My dear it was the only decent thing to do. :angel:

[cbut1]

You can try and discredit every source that is out their but the basic fact still stands that Catholic doctrine is not Bible doctrine. Give me a Catholic doctrine that is a legitimate Bible doctrine.
I will admit a legitimate doctrine that you give if it is one.

Again my new friend, as a Baptist I say your claim is overreaching. there are many doctrines within Catholicism that do have biblical foundation and precident. The thing you seem to suffer from though is the tendency to reject all of Catholic teachings simply based upon the Baptist vrs Catholic feud that has raged for centuries. It is a short sighted perspective and not one that is beneficial to spreading the Truth. Also again if you make the claim that there is no biblical teachings in Catholicism then you have to back up your claim.

This is not a bash you against the Catholic stone it is a fellow Baptist trying to get you to prove your case Biblically.

[Koushi Shinigami]

This is not a bash you against the Catholic stone it is a fellow Baptist trying to get you to prove your case Biblically.


A tall order. At best.

[RayMan]

Maybe not...but I can derail the heck out of it. :D
Isn't that like, bannable?


Just sayin'.

[RayMan]

Now to deal with your post.

First I agree with your intent to give a Baptist view of the Church vrs. the Catholic view of it. Your information is lacking some supportive information, but if you are patient you will learn to offer that in the future. Declaring that the Catholic Church was engaged in a reign of terror will close doors to you; not open them, and if you persist with that type of mantra you may end up banned from the forum. So I advise caution and careful wording to get your points across.

Baptist heritage comes from Christ the divide comes not from any divisiveness on our part but from those who choose not to follow the Way. In doing so they do not turn from us but from Christ. If we are going to be effective in our testimony of Christ then we need a clear respectful form of communication. Hitting someoe over the head only gives them a headache and you a bloody nose.

1Co 4:21 What do you desire? Shall I come to you with a rod, or in love and a spirit of meekness?

Lets remember to come to the table in Love and Meekness, not in boa****lness.

Nicely put, Mr C.

[cbut1]

I'm having a difficult time believing Foxe's book of Martyrs is false :think: I'm having a hard time believing thousands in the Christian community would be duped.

I'd like Cbut's opinion on this one, please. Thanks!

As for the deification of Mary, is it possible that there are Catholics out there that believe this? Much like some protestants don't believe in the trinity? Or that baptism saves/doesn't save?

Ok my dear friend you asked. :D


Foxe is relativly accurate as to whom was killed but that is about the extent of the accuracy. Foxe also makes many declarative judgments as to many of those folks faithfulness and piety which is something he cannot know. It is only a slightly reliable source for historical value. Foxe calls Cranmer a great man of God and a good friend (he knew him personally it appears) but looking into Cranmers actions I find him to be an opportunistic murderer like many others before him. If Foxe calls a man like that a good friend and faithful and righteous then it discredits Foxe considerably in my mind.

[Gem]

Half a century? :think: Maybe it was a Billy Graham invention.

But seriously, I am going to have to research that, and I'll get back with you on it.

You've brought up another point, about Baptism...I know that many people believe that if you have not been Baptized then you are not saved.

I personally have difficulty with that, to me Baptism is an outward expression of ones inner faith. It's a way, just as confession is, to tell the world I have decided to follow Jesus.

Many people are not physically able to be Baptized, but they can still receive Christ in their lives. Does not being Baptized make them any less of a Christian? I should hope not.

So this is my question, what is the basis of the belief that you MUST be baptized?


Why don't you ask Jesus that question?
Here, maybe I can ansew it for you. :)
Matthew 3: 1 thru 5.

In those days John the baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea,
and saying, " Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!"
for this is who who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah saying, " The voice of the one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord; Make His paths straight."
Now John himself was clothed in camel's hair, with a leather belt around his waist; and his food was locusts and wild honey.
Then Jerusalem, all Judea, and all the region around the Jordon went out to him and were baptized by him in Jordan, CONFESSING THEIR SINS.

Matthew 3: 11-" I indeed baptize you with water UNTO REPENTANCE, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandles I am not worthy to carry, He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire."

13- Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan to be baptized by him.

14- And John tryed to prevent Him, saying," I need to be baptized by You, and are You coming to me? "

15- But Jesus answered and said to him, " Permit it to be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to FULLFILL ALL RIGHTEOUSNESS." Then he allowed Him.

[RayMan]

I have had people use that passage as the theological basis for "salvation by prayer" before. But confession of faith in Jesus and his resurrection is usually made before others, isn't it? To me, however, it seems Paul is pickup up again on the same theme of Resurrection he covered in chapter 6.

When one understands that Baptism is the burial in water of a sin-dead corpse who trusts in the Blood of Jesus to grant life, Baptism itself becomes a visible confession of one's belief in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, and our Faith in him.
(Paul had a very extended writing style. No wonder Peter wrote that some found his writing difficult)

I hope you do find some evidence of when "salvation by prayer" began to be practiced (or at least some historical evidence, whether or not one considers such instances the beginning). I can't trace it back further than about half a century, and I thought it went at least further back than that.

You can probably trace this back to Charles Finney's "New Measures" starting in the 1830's.



The Disturbing Legacy of Charles Finney

by Dr. Michael Horton

No single man is more responsible for the distortion of Christian truth in our age than Charles Grandison Finney. His "new measures" created a framework for modern decision theology and Evangelical Revivalism. In this excellent article, Dr. Mike Horton explains how Charles Finney distorted the important doctrine of salvation.
http://www.mtio.com/articles/aissar81.htm

[Gem]

Short version but I am willing to expand on this if needed or asked to.

Baptist believe that Christ established His Church upon Himself and gave shared authority to the Apostles (which is the first persons added to the Church) to go teach Baptise and teach. The First assembly in Jerusalem fell under persecution and many were scattered abroad and began to establish other assemblies. Those assemblies were all confirmed and taught further by the (Apostles such as Paul) through the many Epistles that are now contained in the Bible. Each new assembly that was established was done so by the authority of another assembly. This had gone on for a few centuries before a certain unifying character came unto the scene. This character didn't like the division that certain religious elements were creating and decided to hold a council to resolve the issues. Many pastors/bishops of many assemblies were called to this meeting a large portion showed up as requested. Some did not and thus maintained their independance from these procedings. Some that did go only did so to try and win the emporer to one side or the other of the arguments and only a few that went really tried to be unifiers. This is how we as Baptist see the foundation of the Catholic Church coming about.

We do not see it starting with Peter because Biblically there is not support for Peter being in Rome for such a purpose. There is tremendous amount of Biblical evidence that shows Paul in Rome and guiding the assembly there as with most of the gentile Churches. Our Baptist ancestry comes through these Churches that did not participate in these procedings and are the continuence of those assemblies started by the authority granted unto Paul and the other Apostles from the Church in Jerusalem.

This is the short answer. :D

It doen not matter if Peter was ever in Rome.
God still gave Peter the keys to the kingdom.
That's why Peter had to be the one to preach the first serman on the day of Pentecost. Only Peter had the keys to the kingdom, no one else.


Matthew 16: 13-14-15-16-17-18-19-

13- When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Phillipi, He asked His disciples, saying," Who do men say that I am? "

14- so they said, " Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the Prophets."

15- He said to them, " but who do you say I an?"

16- simon Peter answered and said, " You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

17- Jesus answered and said to him, " for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

18- " And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

19- " and I give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

[cbut1]

We shall see my friend, I will answer more tonight after work.

[cbut1]

It doen not matter if Peter was ever in Rome.
God still gave Peter the keys to the kingdom.
That's why Peter had to be the one to preach the first serman on the day of Pentecost. Only Peter had the keys to the kingdom, no one else.


Matthew 16: 13-14-15-16-17-18-19-

13- When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Phillipi, He asked His disciples, saying," Who do men say that I am? "

14- so they said, " Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the Prophets."

15- He said to them, " but who do you say I an?"

16- simon Peter answered and said, " You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

17- Jesus answered and said to him, " for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

18- " And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

19- " and I give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."


oK i KNOW i HAVE ADDRESSED THIS SPECIFIC TOPIC MORE THAN ONCE AND PROBABLY MORE THAN ONCE IN THIS THREAD ALONE BUT SINCE MANY DO NOT TAKE THE TIME TO GO THROUGH SUCH A LARGE THREAD i WILL BE KIND ENOUGH TO HIGHLIGHT A FEW POINTS CONCERNING THESE PASSAGES AGAIN.

Opps just noticed the caps lock was on. Sorry

I will bold a few points in your post.

Ok the highlighted points show that Christ was speaking to His disciples asking questions of them concering who He is believed to be. The Peter speaks up and answers the question put forth to all of them, in Christs response He correctly identifies Peter just as Peter had correctly identified Christ. He then tells them that the keys of the Kingdom are given to them remember all of the disciples are present and participating in the overall discussion, (people seem to forget that part). He then; in verse 20 which I higlighted below, tells the disicple not to tell people who He is. Thus showing that all of them are still there and still engaged in the conversation. He was speaking to them all!

Mat 16:20 Then charged he the disciples that they should tell no man that he was the Christ.

Now as to the keys to things I like to point out, one what do keys represent? answer Authority/permission/guardianship.

The second thing is when is it (the Keys) given because it isn't given here in this interchange between Christ and His disciples, remember He said do not tell people who I am (no permission). So when do we see Him giving permission to the disciples to declare Him as the Christ? Go to Matt 28

Mat 28:18 And Jesus came to them and spake unto them, saying, All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth.

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:

Mat 28:20 teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.


Here Christ tells them that He has all authority and then gives them (the Disciples) permission to tell the world who He is. He also tells them to wait a few days though for the sign or symbol of His authority the Key. Acts 1

Act 1:3 to whom he also showed himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing unto them by the space of forty days, and speaking the things concerning the kingdom of God:

Act 1:4 and, being assembled together with them, he charged them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, said he, ye heard from me:

Act 1:5 for John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days hence.

Here Christ tells them many things concerning the Kingdom of God. He then tells them to wait a few days it (the authority) will come as He had promised them before hand. It will be presented in the form of the Holy Spirit upon them. Go to Acts 2

Act 2:1 And when the day of Pentecost was now come, they were all together in one place.

Act 2:2 And suddenly there came from heaven a sound as of the rushing of a mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.

Act 2:3 And there appeared unto them tongues parting asunder, like as of fire; and it sat upon each one of them.

Act 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

The Holy Spirit is the Key that Christ was speaking about to the disciples in Matthew 16 it was promised to them by Him in that intercoarse. The fulfilment of that promise is here in Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost in which THEY ALL (the assembly/the Church of faithful baptised believers) recieved the Holy Spirit upon them.

[Gem]

oK i KNOW i HAVE ADDRESSED THIS SPECIFIC TOPIC MORE THAN ONCE AND PROBABLY MORE THAN ONCE IN THIS THREAD ALONE BUT SINCE MANY DO NOT TAKE THE TIME TO GO THROUGH SUCH A LARGE THREAD i WILL BE KIND ENOUGH TO HIGHLIGHT A FEW POINTS CONCERNING THESE PASSAGES AGAIN.

Opps just noticed the caps lock was on. Sorry

I will bold a few points in your post.

Ok the highlighted points show that Christ was speaking to His disciples asking questions of them concering who He is believed to be. The Peter speaks up and answers the question put forth to all of them, in Christs response He correctly identifies Peter just as Peter had correctly identified Christ. He then tells them that the keys of the Kingdom are given to them remember all of the disciples are present and participating in the overall discussion, (people seem to forget that part). He then; in verse 20 which I higlighted below, tells the disicple not to tell people who He is. Thus showing that all of them are still there and still engaged in the conversation. He was speaking to them all!

Mat 16:20 Then charged he the disciples that they should tell no man that he was the Christ.

Now as to the keys to things I like to point out, one what do keys represent? answer Authority/permission/guardianship.

The second thing is when is it (the Keys) given because it isn't given here in this interchange between Christ and His disciples, remember He said do not tell people who I am (no permission). So when do we see Him giving permission to the disciples to declare Him as the Christ? Go to Matt 28

Mat 28:18 And Jesus came to them and spake unto them, saying, All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth.

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:

Mat 28:20 teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.


Here Christ tells them that He has all authority and then gives them (the Disciples) permission to tell the world who He is. He also tells them to wait a few days though for the sign or symbol of His authority the Key. Acts 1

Act 1:3 to whom he also showed himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing unto them by the space of forty days, and speaking the things concerning the kingdom of God:

Act 1:4 and, being assembled together with them, he charged them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, said he, ye heard from me:

Act 1:5 for John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days hence.

Here Christ tells them many things concerning the Kingdom of God. He then tells them to wait a few days it (the authority) will come as He had promised them before hand. It will be presented in the form of the Holy Spirit upon them. Go to Acts 2

Act 2:1 And when the day of Pentecost was now come, they were all together in one place.

Act 2:2 And suddenly there came from heaven a sound as of the rushing of a mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.

Act 2:3 And there appeared unto them tongues parting asunder, like as of fire; and it sat upon each one of them.

Act 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

The Holy Spirit is the Key that Christ was speaking about to the disciples in Matthew 16 it was promised to them by Him in that intercoarse. The fulfilment of that promise is here in Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost in which THEY ALL (the assembly/the Church of faithful baptised believers) recieved the Holy Spirit upon them.

I see a few points you made wrong here.

1- 15- He saith unto them, " But whom say you that I am ?

16- And SIMON PETER answered and said, THOU ARE THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD.

17- And Jesus answered and said ( UNTO HIM, He was talking to PETER here ), no other name was mention here. Blessed art thou
SIMON BARJONA: for flesh and blood has not revealed it unto
thee, but MY Father which is in heaven.

18- And I say also unto thee,( Still talking to PETER HERE ) That thou art PETER, and upon this ROCK, ( ROCK meaning JESUS )
I will build MY church; And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19- ( Still talking to PETER here to ). And I will give thee ( PETER ) the keys to the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever ( PETER ) THOU shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: And whatso ever THOU ( PETER ) shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. ( This conversation was between Jesus and Peter, no one else.

20- ( Yes in this verse Jesus was talking to ALL the disciples here in this verse.) that they should tell no man that He was Jesus the CHRIST. ( Jesus said this to ALL the disciple here because they heard the answer Peter gave to Him , but in the other verses 17-18-19- Jesus was talking to Pete, Jesus mentioned Peter's name in these verses 17-18- and still talking to Peter in v 19 )


Matthew 28: 18, This iverse is just fine that you quoted here,

But I di have a Problem with Matthew 28: 19.

Matthew 28: 19.

Go ye therefore, and teach all Nations , baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:


I see nothing here in this verse that is a name.

FATHER is a title, SON is a title, HOLY GHOST, is a title.
Where is the NAME ? No name given here.

Give me a name, please.

[RayMan]

<snip>
20- ( Yes in this verse Jesus was talking to ALL the disciples here in this verse.) that they should tell no man that He was Jesus the CHRIST. ( Jesus said this to ALL the disciple here because they heard the answer Peter gave to Him , but in the other verses 17-18-19- Jesus was talking to Pete, Jesus mentioned Peter's name in these verses 17-18- and still talking to Peter in v 19 )


Matthew 28: 18, This iverse is just fine that you quoted here,

But I di have a Problem with Matthew 28: 19.

Matthew 28: 19.

Go ye therefore, and teach all Nations , baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:


I see nothing here in this verse that is a name.

FATHER is a title, SON is a title, HOLY GHOST, is a title.
Where is the NAME ? No name given here.

Give me a name, please.


Bob.

[CID_0687]

Bob.
Bob be with you.

[cbut1]

I see a few points you made wrong here.

1- 15- He saith unto them, " But whom say you that I am ?

16- And SIMON PETER answered and said, THOU ARE THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD.

17- And Jesus answered and said ( UNTO HIM, He was talking to PETER here ), no other name was mention here. Blessed art thou
SIMON BARJONA: for flesh and blood has not revealed it unto
thee, but MY Father which is in heaven.

18- And I say also unto thee,( Still talking to PETER HERE ) That thou art PETER, and upon this ROCK, ( ROCK meaning JESUS )
I will build MY church; And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19- ( Still talking to PETER here to ). And I will give thee ( PETER ) the keys to the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever ( PETER ) THOU shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: And whatso ever THOU ( PETER ) shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. ( This conversation was between Jesus and Peter, no one else.

20- ( Yes in this verse Jesus was talking to ALL the disciples here in this verse.) that they should tell no man that He was Jesus the CHRIST. ( Jesus said this to ALL the disciple here because they heard the answer Peter gave to Him , but in the other verses 17-18-19- Jesus was talking to Pete, Jesus mentioned Peter's name in these verses 17-18- and still talking to Peter in v 19 )


Matthew 28: 18, This iverse is just fine that you quoted here,

But I di have a Problem with Matthew 28: 19.

Matthew 28: 19.

Go ye therefore, and teach all Nations , baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:


I see nothing here in this verse that is a name.

FATHER is a title, SON is a title, HOLY GHOST, is a title.
Where is the NAME ? No name given here.

Give me a name, please.


You look for a specific name because you view this as Christ speaking to Peter as an individual, when Christ was speaking (yes to Peter) but as Peter answered within the whole group. The whole group was there as we see before Peters answer and after Peters answer. Each one of them as the disciples is whom Christ was addressing. That is why Matt 28 is prevalent here becuase also in Matt 28 Christ is speaking (not to Bob / sorry Bob) but to the disciples. Which also goes to show the value of the accounting in the book of Acts 1 & 2 because again it was the disciples being addressed.

Christ died for His Church, gave Himself up for His Church, His Church consisted not of an individual but but of an assembly of disicples.

Eph 5:24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives also be to their husbands in everything.

Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself up for it;

Eph 5:26 that he might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the washing of water with the word,

Eph 5:27 that he might present the church to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

As a Bride has the authority of her husband and no one is to come between the Bride and Groom, no individual is to have the authority upon themselves it is between Christ and His Church. By saying Peter has the authority (the key) one is claiming to have someone between Christ and His Bride.

[CID_0687]

You look for a specific name because you view this as Christ speaking to Peter as an individual, when Christ was speaking (yes to Peter) but as Peter answered within the whole group. The whole group was there as we see before Peters answer and after Peters answer. Each one of them as the disciples is whom Christ was addressing. That is why Matt 28 is prevalent here becuase also in Matt 28 Christ is speaking (not to Bob / sorry Bob) but to the disciples. Which also goes to show the value of the accounting in the book of Acts 1 & 2 because again it was the disciples being addressed.

Christ died for His Church, gave Himself up for His Church, His Church consisted not of an individual but but of an assembly of disicples.

Eph 5:24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives also be to their husbands in everything.

Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself up for it;

Eph 5:26 that he might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the washing of water with the word,

Eph 5:27 that he might present the church to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

As a Bride has the authority of her husband and no one is to come between the Bride and Groom, no individual is to have the authority upon themselves it is between Christ and His Church. By saying Peter has the authority (the key) one is claiming to have someone between Christ and His Bride.
Bob hater :snooty:

[cbut1]

Bob hater :snooty:

Someone has to be. :D

[Gem]

Bob hater :snooty:

What does that mean ?

[Gem]

You look for a specific name because you view this as Christ speaking to Peter as an individual, when Christ was speaking (yes to Peter) but as Peter answered within the whole group. The whole group was there as we see before Peters answer and after Peters answer. Each one of them as the disciples is whom Christ was addressing. That is why Matt 28 is prevalent here becuase also in Matt 28 Christ is speaking (not to Bob / sorry Bob) but to the disciples. Which also goes to show the value of the accounting in the book of Acts 1 & 2 because again it was the disciples being addressed.

Christ died for His Church, gave Himself up for His Church, His Church consisted not of an individual but but of an assembly of disicples.

Eph 5:24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives also be to their husbands in everything.

Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself up for it;

Eph 5:26 that he might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the washing of water with the word,

Eph 5:27 that he might present the church to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

As a Bride has the authority of her husband and no one is to come between the Bride and Groom, no individual is to have the authority upon themselves it is between Christ and His Church. By saying Peter has the authority (the key) one is claiming to have someone between Christ and His Bride.


No, no, I am saying that.
The desciples did have the authorty of Christ to do what they had to do to get the church started.

You never answered my question about no name being in Matthew 28: 19. What is the name ?

Would you please answer that for me ?

I can not find any baptismal service useing the titles.
If its in the bible where is it.?

[Gem]

You look for a specific name because you view this as Christ speaking to Peter as an individual, when Christ was speaking (yes to Peter) but as Peter answered within the whole group. The whole group was there as we see before Peters answer and after Peters answer. Each one of them as the disciples is whom Christ was addressing. That is why Matt 28 is prevalent here becuase also in Matt 28 Christ is speaking (not to Bob / sorry Bob) but to the disciples. Which also goes to show the value of the accounting in the book of Acts 1 & 2 because again it was the disciples being addressed.

Christ died for His Church, gave Himself up for His Church, His Church consisted not of an individual but but of an assembly of disicples.

Eph 5:24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives also be to their husbands in everything.

Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself up for it;

Eph 5:26 that he might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the washing of water with the word,

Eph 5:27 that he might present the church to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

As a Bride has the authority of her husband and no one is to come between the Bride and Groom, no individual is to have the authority upon themselves it is between Christ and His Church. By saying Peter has the authority (the key) one is claiming to have someone between Christ and His Bride.

Jesus is plainly stateing here in Matthew 28: 19-

To baptize them in a name of the FATHER, and of the SON, AND OF THE holy GHOST.

I am asking you what is the NAME we must be baptized in ?

You must have a NAME to be baptized in.
Father, Son, Holy Ghost is not names. They are titles.

Go ye therefore , and teach all nations, BAPTIZING them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

We must be baptized.

and the word ( NAME) is singular not plurel . One Name.

Which means there is one NAME to use when we are baptized.

What I want to know is What is the Name ?

Father, Son, Holy Ghost, are NOT names, they are TITLES.

[CID_0687]

What does that mean ?
Youre baptized into Bob. Apparently cbut doesn't believe in Bob.

Thou shalt have no other Bob's before me.

Blessed be the name of Bob.

[CID_0687]

Rich Mullins use to sing one of my favorite songs.

Surely Bob is with us
Surely Bob is with us
I say
Surely Bob is with us today

[cbut1]

No, no, I am saying that.
The desciples did have the authorty of Christ to do what they had to do to get the church started.

You never answered my question about no name being in Matthew 28: 19. What is the name ?

Would you please answer that for me ?

I can not find any baptismal service useing the titles.
If its in the bible where is it.?


Ok you must have changed topics on me.

I was responding to this post here.

http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=44541081&postcount=1590

Which was discussing the Keys and authority.

Now you want to know the name in which baptism is supposed to be done?

[Gem]

Ok you must have changed topics on me.

I was responding to this post here.

http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=44541081&postcount=1590

Which was discussing the Keys and authority.

Now you want to know the name in which baptism is supposed to be done?

Yes, what is the name.

[cbut1]

Yes, what is the name.





Act 2:38 And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

[buflineks]

Bob.

I suprised Ray. I though you would spell that with 2 o's.

[Laveral]

How come when I write a long post on here it times out and tells me I am not logged in anymore and then deletes everything I just wrote?

Anyway. I was just trying to answer a simple question an easy way. Not trying to step on toes. Christian means Christ like or little Christ. If you are saved you are a Christian no matter what church you go to. But if you are relying on the wrong thing to get you to heaven I do not believe you are saved. Not any church will get you to heaven. Only Jesus Christ.
"I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

[CID_0687]

How come when I write a long post on here it times out and tells me I am not logged in anymore and then deletes everything I just wrote?

Anyway. I was just trying to answer a simple question an easy way. Not trying to step on toes. Christian means Christ like or little Christ. If you are saved you are a Christian no matter what church you go to. But if you are relying on the wrong thing to get you to heaven I do not believe you are saved. Not any church will get you to heaven. Only Jesus Christ.
"I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

Poor noob.

It doesn't delete everything you wrote...there's a timer...then you log back in...your stuff will still be there, if you hold your mouth right....no...if you login directly from where you say you're not logged in.

Yeah thart's it.

[Koushi Shinigami]

the mental gymnastics occuring in this thread are remarkable.

[cbut1]

We try K.S.

[Koushi Shinigami]

:rolleyes:

[cbut1]

This has nothing to do with "Faith". It has to do with historical fact.

I just got done doing a research paper on the Albigensians being a link in the chain of Baptist Successionism. My research had nothing to do with faith, but rather accurate historical information concerning the question of them being "proto-baptists". I didn't do it because I'm a Catholic. I did it because I'm an Historian and I want to get to the bottom of it. My paper showed my research and it can be followed by any historian.

My thesis was, "Were the Albigensians a link in the chain of Baptist successionism?"

I was grilled by Two Medievelists in defending my Thesis. Both are secular Phd.'s.
I will be submitting my paper in Janurary in hopes of getting it published.







Jet, you are welcome. As I've stated before many times on this forum. I don't know enough about theology to go into depth. I do however, know enough history and historical methodology to correct some the most blantant errors that I see posted here.



When you do I would be very please to have the opportunity to read it.

[Gem]

Act 2:38 And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.


Ahhh thats it.

In Jesus Christ name .

Thank you I finally got an answer . :angel:

[cbut1]

Ahhh thats it.

In Jesus Christ name .

Thank you I finally got an answer . :angel:



It took me a bit to recognize that you changed the question is all.

[Gem]

I can agree with this cbut...but, I just don't buy into the whole thing where some preachers say, "Thus sayeth the Lord, if you take of the bread and cup and have sin in your life it is sure to bring sickness or death upon you."

That's legalistic bologna....plain and simple...No matter how "Godly" one is they are still gonna have sin in their life...because it's our human nature. This where grace and mercy covers us. And I'm not saying that as a license to sin...but just as that passage you pointed out said, we can't Not sin on our own, and we can't overcome sin on our own. It's the grace and mercy of Christ that does this.

Maybe this is where the preachers get it from, maybe this will help you to understand that they have to warn people about doing it if they have sin in your life. Its a good thing for the preacher to do I think.

I Corinthians Chapter 11:

23-
For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which He was betrayed took bread;
24-
And when He had given thanks, He brake it and said, Take, eat: this is My body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of Me.
25-
After the same manner also He took the cup, when He had supped, saying, " This cuo is the new testament in My blood : this do ye, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.
26-
For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till He come.
27-
Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28-
But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29-
For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily , eatheth and drinleth damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
30-
For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

[cbut1]

GEM

May I inquire what manner of faith do you fellowship in?

[Gem]

Baptists have never been part of the Catholic Church. The church in Jerusalem in the book of Acts was the first church.

I agree with you on this.

Jesus was getting His deciples together in the beginning to have His church going.

I have been doing a lot of research about this.

From My findings the apostles already had the church going in the book of Acts. and when the Romans took over, started killing everybody. then along came Constantine the Great.

I found in the old Brittanna's Encyclopedia's ( may not have that spelled right ) that the Roman Catholics used ( I mean the old ones before the Catholics put out the new ones ) That Constantine took over the church and changed the rules and everything. they changed the Mode of baptism from Jesus Christ to Father ,Son Holy Ghost . and if you didn't go by Constane's rules you was not part of the church.

The Catholics admitted to this in these books.

I gave those books to my sister, I will see if she still has them, if so I will give the dates on the books.

[bluebird]

I haven't read this entire thread, so I don't know if this has been answered or not, but what is the difference between a Baptist and an Evangelical? I always thought they were one in the same?

[buflineks]

When you do I would be very please to have the opportunity to read it.

I have to submit it Jan 12th. The selection process for the publication is sometime in Feb.

I'll send you one after that. I'm spending a lot of time doing the editing portion. ( I wonder if now I'm mentally scared because of all the red ink on my first three drafts?:)) )

[Gem]

Bob.

Bob Rayman pleased to meet you Bob Rayman. :)

[buflineks]

Bob Rayman pleased to meet you Bob Rayman. :)


psst..................you forgot the second "o".:shhh::shifty::whistle:

[Gem]

It took me a bit to recognize that you changed the question is all.


No problem and thanks again.:)

[Gem]

GEM

May I inquire what manner of faith do you fellowship in?

Well, I have been searching for a church for a long time now.

I got saved at home. the churches where I went baptized in differant ways. it was confuseing to me.

That why I was doing research on being baptized.
And Matthew 28: 19 did not make any sense to me, for the fact that all I seen there was titles, no name.

I read through the whole bible. the only name I seen in baptisam services in the bible was in Jesus 's name.

I found this church , a pentacostal church called The Calvary Church
and I been going there for a while, I seen they taught and preached
truth from the bible .so I want to be baptized .

But I wanted to make sure I did it right. and you helped me to make up my mind on this. I will ask the pastor there what name he uses when he baptizes people Wensday when I go. If he says in Jesus name then thats what I will do.

[cbut1]

I haven't read this entire thread, so I don't know if this has been answered or not, but what is the difference between a Baptist and an Evangelical? I always thought they were one in the same?


No this particular one has not been asked, so thank you for asking and I will be earnest in my response. As usual. :D

First it must be defined so as to be placed in proper context. There is evangelical which is a method of sharing the Gospel of Christ. Such as here:

From Eastons
Evangelist
A “publisher of glad tidings;” a missionary preacher of the gospel (Eph_4:11). This title is applied to Philip (Act_21:8), who appears to have gone from city to city preaching the word (Act_8:4, Act_8:40). Judging from the case of Philip, evangelists had neither the authority of an apostle, nor the gift of prophecy, nor the responsibility of pastoral supervision over a portion of the flock. They were itinerant preachers, having it as their special function to carry the gospel to places where it was previously unknown. The writers of the four Gospels are known as the Evangelists.

The there is the modern movement that is called Evangelical. This is just a base place to look; for a more indepth study please spend time yourself doing the research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism

The contemporary North American usage of the term is influenced by the evangelical/fundamentalist controversy of the early 20th century. Evangelicalism may sometimes be perceived as the middle ground between the theological liberalism of the Mainline (Protestant) denominations and the cultural separatism of Fundamentalist Christianity.[5] Evangelicalism is therefore described as "the third of the leading strands in American Protestantism, straddl[ing] the divide between fundamentalists and liberals."[6] Whilst the North American perception is important to understand the usage of the term, it by no means dominates a wider world view, where the fundamentalist debate was not so influential.



Now within Baptist work there are men that are Evangelical preachers (I would be classified as one) who go from assembly to assembly or town to town preaching the messege of Christ. That is until such a time as one of the assemblies in our work needs a Pastor and they call upon me to fulfill that position.

That is a far cry different from one who is a established Evagelical Christian though because the whole idea of Evangelical is a roaming preacher.

[bluebird]

No this particular one has not been asked, so thank you for asking and I will be earnest in my response. As usual. :D

First it must be defined so as to be placed in proper context. There is evangelical which is a method of sharing the Gospel of Christ. Such as here:

From Eastons


The there is the modern movement that is called Evangelical. This is just a base place to look; for a more indepth study please spend time yourself doing the research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism





Now within Baptist work there are men that are Evangelical preachers (I would been classified as one) who go from assembly to assembly or town to town preaching the messege of Christ. That is until such a time as one of the assemblies in our work needs a Pastor and they call upon me to fulfill that position.

That is a far cry different from one who is a established Evagelical Christian though because the whole idea of Evangelical is a roaming preacher.

Thank you. That definitely helps.

[cbut1]

Well, I have been searching for a church for a long time now.

I got saved at home. the churches where I went baptized in differant ways. it was confuseing to me.

That why I was doing research on being baptized.
And Matthew 28: 19 did not make any sense to me, for the fact that all I seen there was titles, no name.

I read through the whole bible. the only name I seen in baptisam services in the bible was in Jesus 's name.

I found this church , a pentacostal church called The Calvary Church
and I been going there for a while, I seen they taught and preached
truth from the bible .so I want to be baptized .

But I wanted to make sure I did it right. and you helped me to make up my mind on this. I will ask the pastor there what name he uses when he baptizes people Wensday when I go. If he says in Jesus name then thats what I will do.



Keep searching and praying God will provide direction for you. Perhaps even so much as to lead you to this thread to where I may be of service to your search.

[CID_0687]

Keep searching and praying God will provide direction for you. Perhaps even so much as to lead you to this thread to where I may be of service to your search.
Trust in Bob

[cbut1]

Trust in Bob

http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=44649681&postcount=1622


Bobo can stay lost. :D

[5thIDSoldier]

I agree with you on this.

Jesus was getting His deciples together in the beginning to have His church going.

I have been doing a lot of research about this.

From My findings the apostles already had the church going in the book of Acts. and when the Romans took over, started killing everybody. then along came Constantine the Great.

I found in the old Brittanna's Encyclopedia's ( may not have that spelled right ) that the Roman Catholics used ( I mean the old ones before the Catholics put out the new ones ) That Constantine took over the church and changed the rules and everything. they changed the Mode of baptism from Jesus Christ to Father ,Son Holy Ghost . and if you didn't go by Constane's rules you was not part of the church.

The Catholics admitted to this in these books.

I gave those books to my sister, I will see if she still has them, if so I will give the dates on the books.

I would LOVE to read that if you can find it. I would do a huge search to add these to my library.

[CID_0687]

http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=44649681&postcount=1622


Bobo can stay lost. :D
What a boob. :mrgreen:

[cbut1]

Well, I have been searching for a church for a long time now.

I got saved at home. the churches where I went baptized in differant ways. it was confuseing to me.

That why I was doing research on being baptized.
And Matthew 28: 19 did not make any sense to me, for the fact that all I seen there was titles, no name.

I read through the whole bible. the only name I seen in baptisam services in the bible was in Jesus 's name.

I found this church , a pentacostal church called The Calvary Church
and I been going there for a while, I seen they taught and preached
truth from the bible .so I want to be baptized .

But I wanted to make sure I did it right. and you helped me to make up my mind on this. I will ask the pastor there what name he uses when he baptizes people Wensday when I go. If he says in Jesus name then thats what I will do.


Any area I can be of help I am pleased to do so. This is after all my Ask a Baptist thread you ask I answer.

[Gem]

psst..................you forgot the second "o".:shhh::shifty::whistle:

hahaha I don't think so .:angel:

[Gem]

I agree that baptism is a vital part of our salvation...but I do not think, like some do, that a person who is not baptized will be damned to Hell.

Take a person who doesn't receive salvation until they are laying on their death bed for instance...how would that person physically be able to be baptized? They wouldn't.

And speaking from the experience of my dad passing away, he received salvation just moments before taken to ICU and spending the next 32 hours unconscious. The final two days he was in and out, but there is no doubt that my dad came to the saving grace of Jesus Christ.

I don't think God is gonna say "You weren't baptized, go to hell, go directly to hell, do not pass go do not collect $200." His grace is sufficient.

I don't know Cid

John 3:v 4-5.

Nicodemus saith unto him,
How can a man be born when he is old ? can he enter the second time into his mother's wonb, and be born ?

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of the water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Maybe God will look over their short comings. :)

[Hadassah]

I agree with you on this.

Jesus was getting His deciples together in the beginning to have His church going.

I have been doing a lot of research about this.

From My findings the apostles already had the church going in the book of Acts. and when the Romans took over, started killing everybody. then along came Constantine the Great.

I found in the old Brittanna's Encyclopedia's ( may not have that spelled right ) that the Roman Catholics used ( I mean the old ones before the Catholics put out the new ones ) That Constantine took over the church and changed the rules and everything. they changed the Mode of baptism from Jesus Christ to Father ,Son Holy Ghost . and if you didn't go by Constane's rules you was not part of the church.

The Catholics admitted to this in these books.

I gave those books to my sister, I will see if she still has them, if so I will give the dates on the books.


I'd really love to see your source for that because it's bogus. Constantine DIDN'T "take over" the Church, nor did the RCC change the formula for baptism.


If you're genuinely interested in researching this, look up the Didache. The baptismal formula (I started spelling that as "forum-la", :)) ) is right in there.

[RayMan]

I don't know Cid

John 3:v 4-5.

Nicodemus saith unto him,
How can a man be born when he is old ? can he enter the second time into his mother's wonb, and be born ?

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of the water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Maybe God will look over their short comings. :)

I think context has a way of being overlooked in this passage of Scripture. Jesus is explaining to Nicodemus the difference between natural birth and spiritual birth.

Natural birth is by water. The person has been living in the "water" for nine months as he/she develops. As I recall from my wife's three pregnancies the first major sign of birthing was her "water breaking."

The new birth is the birth in and by the Holy Spirit.

Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;


1Co 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

[Laveral]

I'd really love to see your source for that because it's bogus. Constantine DIDN'T "take over" the Church, nor did the RCC change the formula for baptism.


If you're genuinely interested in researching this, look up the Didache. The baptismal formula (I started spelling that as "forum-la", :)) ) is right in there.

I would have to agree that Constantine didn't take over the church. I believe he just excepted Christianity and then made it the state religion. As far if that is accurate I don't know. But it is one of the stories I heard on it on a documentary. Of course that is just a generalization of it.

As far as a formula, doesn't Matthew 28 explain to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Where is there an indication that there is a sole authority to baptize under.
Never read Didache though, I'll check that out.

[Gem]

Cbut1,
So when Jet asks about 'the Baptism of the Holy Spirit" and your reply seems to be dealing strictly with water baptism I find myself confused.

Could you give us your understanding of what the Four Gospels mean when they refer to being baptized "with the Holy Spirit" as opposed to water baptism?

Matt 3:11, Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16 and John 1:33

Rayman I can answer that .

John 3: 5-

Jesus answered, " Verily. verily , I say unto thee , Except a man be born of the water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

[RayMan]

Rayman I can answer that .

John 3: 5-

Jesus answered, " Verily. verily , I say unto thee , Except a man be born of the water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

So you believe Jesus is talking about baptismal regeneration rather than contrasting natural birth and supernatural birth by the Spirit?

[Gem]

My intent at first was not to get into a discussion of Catholic doctrine just to say that there has always been churches and Christians out there who were not part of the RCC. People that I believe lived and passed down the writings of Paul, and John, and Peter, and Luke.
I don't know who it was anymore that asked the question of whether Baptists came out of the RCC as others did in the reformation, but Baptist doctrine is purely Bible doctrine. You can believe what you want and read all you want, but I say like the Bible says, "let God be true, but every man a liar."


I do know how many churches came out of the RCC, but I do know that the Oneness Pentecostals was the first church in the book of Acts. That was Gods church started by Him and His Apostles.
And by history RCC took that church and tryed to destroy it , but it did not happen . because the Oneness Pentecostals still standing today. And a lot of the Pentecostals were killed back in them days.

[terri910]

I do know how many churches came out of the RCC, but I do know that the Oneness Pentecostals was the first church in the book of Acts. That was Gods church started by Him and His Apostles.
And by history RCC took that church and tryed to destroy it , but it did not happen . because the Oneness Pentecostals still standing today. And a lot of the Pentecostals were killed back in them days.
Not surprisingly, I disagree with your version of Christian history.

[Gem]

Any area I can be of help I am pleased to do so. This is after all my Ask a Baptist thread you ask I answer.

Thanks, really nice of you .

[Gem]

So you believe Jesus is talking about baptismal regeneration rather than contrasting natural birth and supernatural birth by the Spirit?

I believe just what Jesus said.
He is saying to be born water ( Baptized ) and be born of ( Spirit )
Has nothing to do with natural birth.

John 3: 5-6--7
5-
Jesus answered, " Verily, verily , I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
6-
That which is born of flesh is flesh; and that which is born of Spirit is Spirit,
7-
Marvel not that I said unto thee, ye must be born again.

Then you also have Matthew 28: 19 also.

[Koushi Shinigami]

I do know how many churches came out of the RCC, but I do know that the Oneness Pentecostals was the first church in the book of Acts. That was Gods church started by Him and His Apostles.
And by history RCC took that church and tryed to destroy it , but it did not happen . because the Oneness Pentecostals still standing today. And a lot of the Pentecostals were killed back in them days.

:eh:

[Gem]

I'd really love to see your source for that because it's bogus. Constantine DIDN'T "take over" the Church, nor did the RCC change the formula for baptism.


If you're genuinely interested in researching this, look up the Didache. The baptismal formula (I started spelling that as "forum-la", :)) ) is right in there.

Then go look up the Council of Nicea. the Catholc Creed 325 A. D. and read it. The constantine Creed.

[Gem]

I would have to agree that Constantine didn't take over the church. I believe he just excepted Christianity and then made it the state religion. As far if that is accurate I don't know. But it is one of the stories I heard on it on a documentary. Of course that is just a generalization of it.

As far as a formula, doesn't Matthew 28 explain to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Where is there an indication that there is a sole authority to baptize under.
Never read Didache though, I'll check that out.

He did take over the church. and after his death his 3 sons took it over.

Have you read Constantine Creed 325 A.D. yet.
search it out . He and his council , The Council of Nicea is a millstone of church history. He also killed a lot his his own kin.

Its all in the history.

[terri910]

Then go look up the Council of Nicea. the Catholc Creed 325 A. D. and read it. The constantine Creed.
I know of no "Constantine Creed."

Perhaps you mean the Nicene Creed. I am quite sure Hadassah has already read it. It is not a source that backs up your claims, which is what Hadassah asked for.

[byzantine catholic]

Excuse me sir, but if you are referring to the Nicene Creed then please tell me how the Catholics came up with it.:mad:All CHURCHES believe in the Nicene Creed.:rolleyes::eh:You need to work on your history sir because Catholicism was the only Church until 1054 and the only Western Church until 1517.:angel::DYou need to work on that grammar too.:D:rolleyes:JK, I still love you brother.:angel::D:angel:

[terri910]

Excuse me sir but if you are referring to the Nicene Creed then please tell me how the Catholics came up with it.:mad:All CHURCHES believe in the Nicene Creed.:rolleyes::eh:You need to work on your history sir because Catholicism was the only Church since 1054 and the only Western Church since 1517.:angel::D
byzantine, I can guarantee you that not ALL churches believe in the Nicene Creed, even if you put the descriptive "Christian" in front of the word "church."

[Hadassah]

Then go look up the Council of Nicea. the Catholc Creed 325 A. D. and read it. The constantine Creed.

I have read about the Council of Nicea. There is no Constantine Creed.


So, what is your point?

[Hadassah]

I do know how many churches came out of the RCC, but I do know that the Oneness Pentecostals was the first church in the book of Acts. That was Gods church started by Him and His Apostles.
And by history RCC took that church and tryed to destroy it , but it did not happen . because the Oneness Pentecostals still standing today. And a lot of the Pentecostals were killed back in them days.

Absolutely incorrect.


Show me your sources. I would like proof.

[Gem]

I would have to agree that Constantine didn't take over the church. I believe he just excepted Christianity and then made it the state religion. As far if that is accurate I don't know. But it is one of the stories I heard on it on a documentary. Of course that is just a generalization of it.

As far as a formula, doesn't Matthew 28 explain to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Where is there an indication that there is a sole authority to baptize under.
Never read Didache though, I'll check that out.

Matthew 28: 19
Jesus says.

" Go ye therefore, and teach all nation, baptizing them in the

NAME ( Singler, no S on it )

Of the Father ( a title, not a name )

and of the Son ( a title, not a name )

and of the Holy Ghost: ( a title not a name )

There is no name here in this verse.

The only name you are going to find to be baptizes in is in

Acts 2: 38. with other verses in the book of Acts uses the same name.

[Gem]

Not surprisingly, I disagree with your version of Christian history.


A lot of people do.
:)

[Koushi Shinigami]

A lot of people do.
:)

You may add me to that list as well.

[Gem]

You may add me to that list as well.

Sorry to offend you people.

But were there Churches before the book of Matthew and the book of Acts in the bible ?

[Koushi Shinigami]

Sorry to offend you people.



Not offended. Just not agreeable.

'Course, I don't agree with much of anything Baptists believe either.

[Gem]

I have read about the Council of Nicea. There is no Constantine Creed.


So, what is your point?

I found it on the net so search some more.

[Hadassah]

I found it on the net so search some more.

#1 Just cause it's on the net that means it's true?????

#2 You made the claim. You have to back it up.

[Koushi Shinigami]

I found it on the net so search some more.

Your point is on the net? :eh:

[Hadassah]

Your point is on the net? :eh:

Can you imagine doing research like that and presenting it for review?


Researcher: I found my sources on the internet. Go look them up there.

Reviewers: Get out of here!

[Koushi Shinigami]

Nevermind. It's not nice and I appologize for bringing it up.

[cbut1]

Ok Poppa is goin to be home in a couple of more hrs so ya'll better behave or I will be disappointed in you.





:)

[RayMan]

I believe just what Jesus said.
He is saying to be born water ( Baptized ) and be born of ( Spirit )
Has nothing to do with natural birth.

John 3: 5-6--7
5-
Jesus answered, " Verily, verily , I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
6-
That which is born of flesh is flesh; and that which is born of Spirit is Spirit,
7-
Marvel not that I said unto thee, ye must be born again.

Then you also have Matthew 28: 19 also.

Then how come he doesn't mention water baptism and keeps up the analogy of natural birth with phrases like "That which is born of flesh is flesh; and that which is born of Spirit is Spirit?"

[Koushi Shinigami]

ok poppa is goin to be home in a couple of more hrs so ya'll better behave or i will be disappointed in you.





:)

nevarrrrrr!!!!!!!

[Hadassah]

nevarrrrrr!!!!!!!

I think he's trying to spoil our fun. :snooty:

[Koushi Shinigami]

I think he's trying to spoil our fun. :snooty:

"May God have mercy on your soul."

[RayMan]

I think he's trying to spoil our fun. :snooty:

Yep. He's just an old meanie like that. Us Catholics and Pentecostals can take care of the Baptist thread just fine. :)

[Hadassah]

"May God have mercy on your soul."

I already know I'm going straight to hell.

[RayMan]

I already know I'm going straight to hell.

The drool-monkey level? :angel::angel:

[Hadassah]

The drool-monkey level? :angel::angel:

no, the one below that. the idiotic, unedjamaked, idol worshipping drool monkey level.

[Gem]

I have read about the Council of Nicea. There is no Constantine Creed.


So, what is your point?

Didn't he get together the council to make that creed?

Why is he mentioned in the Creed if he had nothing to do with it ?

You could also read up on the Old Age Catholic history between the ages 170 A.D. to 325 .


the only thing I can go by is the Catholic history books.
and their old encyclopedia books they had out.

not the new set they have out today but the old ones.
a lot of information was in them. along with Church history books that has all churches history in them.

Now as far as saying all of this is true or not, I can not do that because I was not living back in those times and neither was you.

:angel:

[RayMan]

no, the one below that. the idiotic, unedjamaked, idol worshipping drool monkey level.

Wow. You must have been naughty this year. Nothing but coal in the stocking for you.

[RayMan]

no, the one below that. the idiotic, unedjamaked, idol worshipping drool monkey level.

Reminds me. Where does the RCC stand on Dante and his different levels or circles of hell idea?

[Gem]

I know of no "Constantine Creed."

Perhaps you mean the Nicene Creed. I am quite sure Hadassah has already read it. It is not a source that backs up your claims, which is what Hadassah asked for.


Why dont you guys go read on all the church histories.

The Old Age Catholic History the years 170 to 325.
The the Roman Catholic History of today.
And the church historys. ( meaning all church histories.)

[Hadassah]

Didn't he get together the council to make that creed?

That's not quite how it went.


Why is he mentioned in the Creed if he had nothing to do with it ?


He's not. Where did you get that idea?


You could also read up on the Old Age Catholic history between the ages 170 A.D. to 325 .


Who says I haven't? Is there something specific you think I haven't read up on that I should?



Now as far as saying all of this is true or not, I can not do that because I was not living back in those times and neither was you


Maybe I was there. I could be older than Methusela, for all you know. :angel:

[Gem]

#1 Just cause it's on the net that means it's true?????

#2 You made the claim. You have to back it up.

And because you say it is not true I am to believe that.
Read your church history on all the catholics, the old Catholic Age and the new.

Read the history on all the churches .

Find you the Old set of the catholic Encyclopedias , its in there stateing they changed the mode of baptisem.

You wont find it in the new Encyclopedias they got out today but it is in the old ones.

I dont know if any of these books is true or not, I did not write them , I didnt live back in them days and neither did you.

I go by what I read in history.

[Gem]

To byzantine catholic

First of all I am no Sir, I am female.

You are the one who needs to read up on the Church history.

Read up on all Churches history while you are at it.


The Old Age Catholic History.

The Roman Catholic history.

My grammer ?

You making fun of me?
why ?

Thats not very nice of you.

[buflineks]

.
And the church historys. ( meaning all church histories.)

Please give me the exact primary sources of "other churches" that existed during the period in question.

Also, can you give me credible secular sources that can confirm your assertions?

[Gem]

To byzantine catholic.

You say the catholic was the only church till 1054 ?

Then that statement alone proves my point about the catholics taking over the church .

Thank you for helping to prove my point.

[buflineks]

To byzantine catholic.

You say the catholic was the only church till 1054 ?

Then that statement alone proves my point about the catholics taking over the church .

Thank you for helping to prove my point.

No it doesn't. What it means that Christianity was unified under one religious doctrine until the schism between the Latin and Eastern Rites. If anything it disproves your point. There were no other "christian religions" other than schismatic and heretical sects. Of those, none have continueos existance to today.

[RayMan]

No it doesn't. What it means that Christianity was unified under one religious doctrine until the schism between the Latin and Eastern Rites. If anything it disproves your point. There were no other "christian religions" other than schismatic and heretical sects. Of those, none have continueos existance to today.

Don't you guys still pretty much lump the rest of us into those categories even to this day? Albeit in a nicer fashion. :angel:

[Hadassah]

Don't you guys still pretty much lump the rest of us into those categories even to this day? Albeit in a nicer fashion. :angel:

You could say that. :angel: :whistle:

[RayMan]

You could say that. :angel: :whistle:

:hug: My very best unedjumakated drool monkey friend. :hug:

[Gem]

Please give me the exact primary sources of "other churches" that existed during the period in question.

Also, can you give me credible secular sources that can confirm your assertions?

Would you believe any other credible sources from others who wrote them ?

Or would you be like others and say " Thats not true. ?

Read the Church history of the United Pentocastal Churches.

I think this one should do it.

[Hadassah]

:hug: My very best unedjumakated drool monkey friend. :hug:

:hug: :hug: :hug:

[Gem]

Then how come he doesn't mention water baptism and keeps up the analogy of natural birth with phrases like "That which is born of flesh is flesh; and that which is born of Spirit is Spirit?"

Oh come on now.

Nicodemus asked a question and Jesus answered it.
Dont put your anology of natural birth in this.

Down in the center of this page in reference points to Acts 2: 38. on verse 5.

[buflineks]

Would you believe any other credible sources from others who wrote them ?

Or would you be like others and say " Thats not true. ?

Read the Church history of the United Pentocastal Churches.

I think this one should do it.


And who wrote that?

[buflineks]

Would you believe any other credible sources from others who wrote them ?

Or would you be like others and say " Thats not true. ?

Read the Church history of the United Pentocastal Churches.

I think this one should do it.

I'm an historian. Unless I can follow te primary sources then the validity of the historical work is suspect.

Bet you 5-1 that the text you mention relies on Allix, Morland, Boyer, Flacius, and Perrin. I know for a fact that Ward, French and Weisser did.

[Hadassah]

Gem: please read post #1675. I wrote it in reply to you.


http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=44760651&postcount=1675

[5thIDSoldier]

Not surprisingly, I disagree with your version of Christian history.

I have so many fundamental disagreements with the way the RCC presents church history I dont know where to start, so I will leave it at that.

[Gem]

And who wrote that?

Go to the

wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Apostolic

[cbut1]

I'd really love to see your source for that because it's bogus. Constantine DIDN'T "take over" the Church, nor did the RCC change the formula for baptism.


If you're genuinely interested in researching this, look up the Didache. The baptismal formula (I started spelling that as "forum-la", :)) ) is right in there.

The Didache was a fantastic read, worthy of ones sincere mind and heart.

[buflineks]

Go to the

wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Apostolic

:)):)):)):))

Yeah, right.

That'll prove it.:rolleyes:

All I asked for was an author of a text and you tell me to go to wikipedia?

That leads me to believe that most of your "research" involves google and the inability to engage in correct historical methodology.

[Gem]

Gem: please read post #1675. I wrote it in reply to you.


http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=44760651&postcount=1675


I read your reply.

and dont feel like answering you on that.

wouldn't do any good to answer it.

you have it your way.

all i know is what I read in history so no need to answer it.

I am not a catholic. i am not responsabble for their mistakes and things they did.

[Hadassah]

I read your reply.

and dont feel like answering you on that.

wouldn't do any good to answer it.

you have it your way.

all i know is what I read in history so no need to answer it.

I am not a catholic. i am not responsabble for their mistakes and things they did.

You tell me that Constantine is mentioned in the Nicene Creed and when I say he's not, you turn around and tell me it won't do any good to answer it? :(



Have it my way? This isn't Burger King, you know. :razz:


This is a forum. I am interested in learning and teaching the truth here, not "having it my way", al la Frank Sinatra.

[cbut1]

So you believe Jesus is talking about baptismal regeneration rather than contrasting natural birth and supernatural birth by the Spirit?

I think maybe you have jumped a step or two but due to GEm's lack of clarity I can see why.

We know by scripture that no unclean thing will be in the Kingdom. As such the flesh needs to be done away with well by the example of Christ that is done at the ressurection. In order to recieve the resurrection of Christ one must be buried with Christ (through Baptism). In order to be baptised (buried) one must first die give up their old life and declare a new one through Faith (that is salvation).

[Hadassah]

The Didache was a fantastic read, worthy of ones sincere mind and heart.

I'm glad you read it. Thank you, my friend. :hug:

[buflineks]

You know gem, when cbut and I engage in disputes about baptist successionism, he at least cites his sources so that I can follow his research and conclusions.

We disagree, but he has the integrity to allow me to read his findings and decide the validity for myself.

[cbut1]

I do know how many churches came out of the RCC, but I do know that the Oneness Pentecostals was the first church in the book of Acts. That was Gods church started by Him and His Apostles.
And by history RCC took that church and tryed to destroy it , but it did not happen . because the Oneness Pentecostals still standing today. And a lot of the Pentecostals were killed back in them days.

Ok now I see your mindset and can more appropriatly discuss things with that in mind.


BTW Christ started His assembly while still here on earth and the foundation of it was at His Baptism. He then added to it by calling the disciples.

[cbut1]

Not surprisingly, I disagree with your version of Christian history.

That's ok your not alone.

:D

[cbut1]

I believe just what Jesus said.
He is saying to be born water ( Baptized ) and be born of ( Spirit )
Has nothing to do with natural birth.

John 3: 5-6--7
5-
Jesus answered, " Verily, verily , I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
6-
That which is born of flesh is flesh; and that which is born of Spirit is Spirit,
7-
Marvel not that I said unto thee, ye must be born again.

Then you also have Matthew 28: 19 also.

Actually the context shows He is comparing the flesh and the spirit so the lesson does have application to the flesh but it is pointing to a greater Spiritual truth.

[cbut1]

Then go look up the Council of Nicea. the Catholc Creed 325 A. D. and read it. The constantine Creed.

Only some fenaticals call it that not any credible historians.

[cbut1]

He did take over the church. and after his death his 3 sons took it over.

Have you read Constantine Creed 325 A.D. yet.
search it out . He and his council , The Council of Nicea is a millstone of church history. He also killed a lot his his own kin.

Its all in the history.

One thing you seem to lack in the understanding of history is that it has many perspectives from which to view it with. The Catholic perspective is valid and credible, I believe my Baptist perspective is also valid and credible. One may ask how that can be? Well it goes to the motivations and intent of the persons involved in the historical event being discussed. It has nothing to do with our view of it today.

[buflineks]

Have you read Constantine Creed 325 A.D. yet.
search it out . He and his council , The Council of Nicea is a millstone of church history. He also killed a lot his his own kin.

Its all in the history.


Someone tell snow that we have another Carroll fan.

[Gem]

You know gem, when cbut and I engage in disputes about baptist successionism, he at least cites his sources so that I can follow his research and conclusions.

We disagree, but he has the integrity to allow me to read his findings and decide the validity for myself.

Then read

A History of Chrietian Doctrine

The Post - Apostolic Ages

to the Middle Ages A.D.100- 1500

Volume 1.

By David K. Bernard.

A History Doctrian

The Reformation to the Holiness Movement,

A.D. 1500- 1900.

By David K. Bernard.

Volume 2

[cbut1]

Excuse me sir, but if you are referring to the Nicene Creed then please tell me how the Catholics came up with it.:mad:All CHURCHES believe in the Nicene Creed.:rolleyes::eh:You need to work on your history sir because Catholicism was the only Church until 1054 and the only Western Church until 1517.:angel::DYou need to work on that grammar too.:D:rolleyes:JK, I still love you brother.:angel::D:angel:

Although I agree with you first comments. I ask that you as well do some more study into history because I can and have shown even to the Catholic historian that participates in this thread a viable line of history of my religious ancestors. A portion of them are some of the assemblies that DID NOT participate in the Council at Nicea. The reason they did not participate is because they feared a marriage of the Church and State. Catholics contend that no such marriage happened fine I can accept that perspective. From my Baptist perspective I can see that if it didn't happen then it at least laid the ground work for it to happen later.

[cbut1]

byzantine, I can guarantee you that not ALL churches believe in the Nicene Creed, even if you put the descriptive "Christian" in front of the word "church."

Seems we have a few loose ones on two sides of this idea. :D

[RayMan]

Oh come on now.

Nicodemus asked a question and Jesus answered it.
Dont put your anology of natural birth in this.

Down in the center of this page in reference points to Acts 2: 38. on verse 5.


It's not my analogy.

[Gem]

Ok now I see your mindset and can more appropriatly discuss things with that in mind.


BTW Christ started His assembly while still here on earth and the foundation of it was at His Baptism. He then added to it by calling the disciples.

true.

[buflineks]

Then read

A History of Chrietian Doctrine

The Post - Apostolic Ages

to the Middle Ages A.D.100- 1500

Volume 1.

By David K. Bernard.

A History Doctrian

The Reformation to the Holiness Movement,

A.D. 1500- 1900.

By David K. Bernard.

Volume 2

Yep.

Theologian writtin history based upon Allix.

No thank you. Not credible.

[cbut1]

Absolutely incorrect.


Show me your sources. I would like proof.

Don't fret there isn't any credible source.

[cbut1]

Matthew 28: 19
Jesus says.

" Go ye therefore, and teach all nation, baptizing them in the

NAME ( Singler, no S on it )

Of the Father ( a title, not a name )

and of the Son ( a title, not a name )

and of the Holy Ghost: ( a title not a name )

There is no name here in this verse.

The only name you are going to find to be baptizes in is in

Acts 2: 38. with other verses in the book of Acts uses the same name.


It would seem that you forget that it is Jesus the Christ that said this.

[cbut1]

Sorry to offend you people.

But were there Churches before the book of Matthew and the book of Acts in the bible ?

I don't quite understand your question.

[Gem]

Yep.

Theologian writtin history based upon Axill.

No thank you. Not credible.

hahaha

Didn;t the Catholic Theologians write history to ? I believe so.

Whos is to say what you go by and what others go by is
nothing but the truth ?

[Hadassah]

Don't fret there isn't any credible source.

Not fretting, my dear. You know me, though.....I like all the info I can get. :mrgreen:

[cbut1]

Didn't he get together the council to make that creed?

Why is he mentioned in the Creed if he had nothing to do with it ?

You could also read up on the Old Age Catholic history between the ages 170 A.D. to 325 .


the only thing I can go by is the Catholic history books.
and their old encyclopedia books they had out.

not the new set they have out today but the old ones.
a lot of information was in them. along with Church history books that has all churches history in them.

Now as far as saying all of this is true or not, I can not do that because I was not living back in those times and neither was you.

:angel:


Ok I amgoing to do you a favor and give you a more reliable source for the Nicean Creed so that you can go read the events for yourself. Please stop reading what someone has interpreted it as meaning and prove it out yourself.


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11049a.htm

also

http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum01.htm

[Hadassah]

hahaha

Didn;t the Catholic Theologians write history to ? I believe so.

Whos is to say what you go by and what others go by is
nothing but the truth ?

Well, for one, he's getting his degree in history. It's part of his training to know what's credible and what isn't. Credibility isn't determined by particular religious creed, either.

[cbut1]

And because you say it is not true I am to believe that.
Read your church history on all the catholics, the old Catholic Age and the new.

Read the history on all the churches .

Find you the Old set of the catholic Encyclopedias , its in there stateing they changed the mode of baptisem.

You wont find it in the new Encyclopedias they got out today but it is in the old ones.

I dont know if any of these books is true or not, I did not write them , I didnt live back in them days and neither did you.

I go by what I read in history.


Bold is mine

Then broaden your reading sources!

[RayMan]

Yep.

Theologian writtin history based upon Axill.

No thank you. Not credible.


:question: Wiki let me down.

[cbut1]

No it doesn't. What it means that Christianity was unified under one religious doctrine until the schism between the Latin and Eastern Rites. If anything it disproves your point. There were no other "christian religions" other than schismatic and heretical sects. Of those, none have continueos existance to today.

Says you. :D

[Gem]

It would seem that you forget that it is Jesus the Christ that said this.


I know Jesus said that,

But Jesus also said IN THE NAME.

I see no name in Matthew 28: 19.

FATHER, SON, HOLY GHOST
These are not names.
they are titles.

Jesus said in the name. ( Name, singular not plural )

[cbut1]

I have so many fundamental disagreements with the way the RCC presents church history I dont know where to start, so I will leave it at that.

So do I good friend but I find the persuit of truth to be paramount, seperate from my Biblical holdings.

[cbut1]

hahaha

Didn;t the Catholic Theologians write history to ? I believe so.

Whos is to say what you go by and what others go by is
nothing but the truth ?


One cannot just pick up a pen and decide that they are going to write accurate history. History is! The goal of the historian is to sift through the rumors and the legands and find the threads of truth to do that they need Primary sources. Primary sources being first hand accountings by either eyewitness or written records. Once those primary sources have been handled or translated by others it loses a measure of reliability and the further away from the primary source something is the less reliable it is.

[5thIDSoldier]

So do I good friend but I find the persuit of truth to be paramount, seperate from my Biblical holdings.

Indeed and Amen. The point of the post was that it would lead to debate which could end up in a time out or worse......:D, not that we should not find the truth. I agree with you wholeheartedly.

[cbut1]

Ok GEM as far as the Catholic issues go I ask that you start a new thread and take those discussions there. This is my Ask a Baptist thread with the intent and desire to address things from the baptist Faith and perspective. History I love and enjoy debating but theology is my strength. I am sorta the Anti-Buflinks. :D

[Gem]

Yep.

Theologian writtin history based upon Axill.

No thank you. Not credible.

I guess if it is not done by Catholics its not credible is it ?

[Gem]

Someone tell snow that we have another Carroll fan.


What does that mean ?

carrol fan.

[Gem]

I don't quite understand your question.


byzantine catholic

thread # 1648

Said ,
catholicism was the only church until 1054

and the only western church till 1517.

I just ask this question . :angel:

[buflineks]

hahaha

Didn;t the Catholic Theologians write history to ? I believe so.

Whos is to say what you go by and what others go by is
nothing but the truth ?

First off, and I think cbut can assert this. I am an Historian. I don't use bias info when I can get unbiased sources. In fact, I'm probably one of the shapest critics of Eusebius.

Second. Allix has been thoroughly refuted. His "History" is nothing more than propaganda. Sort of like Foxe (whom Axill presents as gospel).

In fact, I would suggest you get ahold of the following:

Barnett, S.J. "Where Was Your Church Before Luther? Claims for the Antiquitry of Protestantism Examined". Church History, March 1999, 14-41.

In that article is a scathing refutation of the successionism arguements and it does an excellent job of refuting Allix.

And before you say, "Well, that's a Catholic source", no it isn't. It's put out by the Presbyterian Church under the Direction of Cambridge. It is a credible and noted publication that undergoes peer review by secular and theological historians.

As to "Catholic Histories". Tell me something. If your church was around as long as you claim they were, then why is there no mention of Oneness Pentecoastals from secular sources until the 19th century?

[Gem]

One cannot just pick up a pen and decide that they are going to write accurate history. History is! The goal of the historian is to sift through the rumors and the legands and find the threads of truth to do that they need Primary sources. Primary sources being first hand accountings by either eyewitness or written records. Once those primary sources have been handled or translated by others it loses a measure of reliability and the further away from the primary source something is the less reliable it is.

Well this statement says a lot.
Thats all I will say about this . :angel:

[buflineks]

What does that mean ?

carrol fan.

It means I know where this arguement comes from and who proposed it.

Snow is also a fan of this quasi-historian.

His work is based upon Barnes' research done in the 1930-60's and although he does mention Cameron on the subject of Nicea (but only to quote numbers) he totally disregards her evidence that contradicts his and Barnes assertions. Carroll also dismisses a ton of other credible historical research on the subject done by secular historians. In fact, he doesn't even acknowledge their research and how it relates to his book.

But certian individuals like to cite him because he proclaims himself to be "Catholic". That however doesn't excuse his outright garbage research and horrendous historical methodology.

[Gem]

It means I know where this arguement comes from and who proposed it.

Snow is also a fan of this quasi-historian.

His work is based upon Barnes' research done in the 1930-60's and although he does mention Cameron on the subject of Nicea (but only to quote numbers) he totally disregards her evidence that contradicts his and Barnes assertions. Carroll also dismisses a ton of other credible historical research on the subject done by secular historians. In fact, he doesn't even acknowledge their research and how it relates to his book.

But certian individuals like to cite him because he proclaims himself to be "Catholic". That however doesn't excuse his outright garbage research and horrendous historical methodology.

All I am doing is reading what I can to find out the truth.
I am no fan of anyone.

Look i am new at this. but I do hold fast to the scriptures in the bible. thats all I hold to nothing else.

[Gem]

To cbut

so you are throwing me out because of asking some questions
and trying to learn ?

Ok, I will leave and not return to this thread,
What about the other Catholic's?

never mind.

[Hadassah]

To cbut

so you are throwing me out because of asking some questions
and trying to learn ?

Ok, I will leave and not return to this thread,
What about the other Catholic's?

never mind.

No, he's not throwing you out.

[buflineks]

Look i am new at this. but I do hold fast to the scriptures in the bible. thats all I hold to nothing else.

That has nothing to do with historical fact.

It's fine to live your faith. I am not in disagreement with that.

What I do dispute is the information that is put out as "history" that has no basis in fact but rather basis in theological expediency.

I dispute all claims of successionism. Not because I'm Catholic, but because those claims go against historical information that contradict them. I have just written a research paper that disputes the Baptist successionism claim of Albigensian's being in the chain of that successionism.
I don't do it because I'm a Catholic. I do it because I am an historian and I have a question so I research it to come up with an answer.

[5thIDSoldier]

That has nothing to do with historical fact.

It's fine to live your faith. I am not in disagreement with that.

What I do dispute is the information that is put out as "history" that has no basis in fact but rather basis in theological expediency.

I dispute all claims of successionism. Not because I'm Catholic, but because those claims go against historical information that contradict them. I have just written a research paper that disputes the Baptist successionism claim of Albigensian's being in the chain of that successionism.
I don't do it because I'm a Catholic. I do it because I am an historian and I have a question so I research it to come up with an answer.

Then on that basis you must also throw out the Catholic claims of successionism from Peter.

[RayMan]

First off, and I think cbut can assert this. I am an Historian. I don't use bias info when I can get unbiased sources. In fact, I'm probably one of the shapest critics of Eusebius.

Second. Allix has been thoroughly refuted. His "History" is nothing more than propaganda. Sort of like Foxe (whom Axill presents as gospel).

In fact, I would suggest you get ahold of the following:

Barnett, S.J. "Where Was Your Church Before Luther? Claims for the Antiquitry of Protestantism Examined". Church History, March 1999, 14-41.

In that article is a scathing refutation of the successionism arguements and it does an excellent job of refuting Allix.

And before you say, "Well, that's a Catholic source", no it isn't. It's put out by the Presbyterian Church under the Direction of Cambridge. It is a credible and noted publication that undergoes peer review by secular and theological historians.

As to "Catholic Histories". Tell me something. If your church was around as long as you claim they were, then why is there no mention of Oneness Pentecoastals from secular sources until the 19th century?

We're not all surfers you know, dude. Some live in the hinterland.

[RayMan]

First off, and I think cbut can assert this. I am an Historian. I don't use bias info when I can get unbiased sources. In fact, I'm probably one of the shapest critics of Eusebius.

Second. Allix has been thoroughly refuted. His "History" is nothing more than propaganda. Sort of like Foxe (whom Axill presents as gospel).

In fact, I would suggest you get ahold of the following:

Barnett, S.J. "Where Was Your Church Before Luther? Claims for the Antiquitry of Protestantism Examined". Church History, March 1999, 14-41.

In that article is a scathing refutation of the successionism arguements and it does an excellent job of refuting Allix.

And before you say, "Well, that's a Catholic source", no it isn't. It's put out by the Presbyterian Church under the Direction of Cambridge. It is a credible and noted publication that undergoes peer review by secular and theological historians.

As to "Catholic Histories". Tell me something. If your church was around as long as you claim they were, then why is there no mention of Oneness Pentecoastals from secular sources until the 19th century?

Pierre Allix?

[buflineks]

Pierre Allix?

yes.

[RayMan]

Yep.

Theologian writtin history based upon Axill.

No thank you. Not credible.

Psshhhh. Next thing I know you'll be dissing John Foxe. :rolleyes:

[buflineks]

Then on that basis you must also throw out the Catholic claims of successionism from Peter.

Evidently 5th, you haven't read anything that I've posted here on that, or else you wouldn't have made that statement.:rolleyes:

In addition, can you tell me where the writtings of Augustus or other early church fathers that the pentecostals claim as "early oneness" doctrine, came from?

Did they survive due to a parallel "Pentecostal Religion"?
Because if the accusations that I have seen on this board and in various books are true, then the Catholic Church would have destoyed them.

In addition, I have yet to see anything that dispute's Bobrinskoy successfully.

addum. I can see the Baptist successionists claim. What I find interesting is the claim of some pentecostals I've talked to that Sebellianism is probably the earlist claim they make. However, even the Baptists claim them ( ref. Orchard) So the question becomes, where the sebellians trinitarian or "oneness"? In addition, why is there no record of them existing after the first couple of centuries? The Baptists at least try to justify this by claiming the Donatists as the natural successors to the sebellians.

[terri910]

To cbut

so you are throwing me out because of asking some questions
and trying to learn ?

No, cbut would like for his "Ask a Baptist" thread to be about asking a Baptist about Baptist beliefs, not about what non-Catholics believe about Catholicism.

What he has asked is that if you want to continue the discussion about Church history, or Catholicism, to begin a different thread, so that this one can get back on track.

[buflineks]

tell you what.

I've derailed cbut's thread enough.

As to the successionist arguement. If you believe in it, then good for you. However, I would pray that you don't take a history class that deals in these time periods because you would be sorely disappointed in your results.

[RayMan]

tell you what.

I've derailed cbut's thread enough.

As to the successionist arguement. If you believe in it, then good for you. However, I would pray that you don't take a history class that deals in these time periods because you would be sorely disappointed in your results.

So, there are non Catholic sources which place Peter in Rome as the first Pope?

[Semi-Sweet]

We are not saved by the church. We are not saved by the name of the church.

Ephesians 5:23 . . . . .Christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the Savior.

The King James Version is responsible for the confusion. Actually, the word "church" shouldn't even be in the Bible. It isn't a translation of ekklesia, and never was.

For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth takes its name. Ephesians 3:14-15.

There is no official title for the ekklesia of the New Covenant. Only common nouns are used to identify it and these are nouns of relationship. In a corporate sense the saints are referred to by such words as church, flock, temple, family and body. But church of God is no more the official name than flock of God or temple of God.

[Laveral]

We are not saved by the church. We are not saved by the name of the church.

Ephesians 5:23 . . . . .Christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the Savior.

The King James Version is responsible for the confusion. Actually, the word "church" shouldn't even be in the Bible. It isn't a translation of ekklesia, and never was.

For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth takes its name. Ephesians 3:14-15.


There is no official title for the ekklesia of the New Covenant. Only common nouns are used to identify it and these are nouns of relationship. In a corporate sense the saints are referred to by such words as church, flock, temple, family and body. But church of God is no more the official name than flock of God or temple of God.


I don't have my greek translation book anymore, but if memory serves me right ecclesia does mean assembly or church. So, I don't believe you are right about the King James version causing confusion. I think the confusion comes from human error and not Bible error or version error.
What is funny is a lot of the translations after the KJV changed words for a different meaning and took out entire sentences or paragraphs. This is why I don't use any other version.

I agree with you that the church does not save. Only Jesus saves. The body, or the church, is made up of saved people. This is what I believe this is telling you in Ephesians there.

[Semi-Sweet]

I don't have my greek translation book anymore, but if memory serves me right ecclesia does mean assembly or church. So, I don't believe you are right about the King James version causing confusion. I think the confusion comes from human error and not Bible error or version error.
What is funny is a lot of the translations after the KJV changed words for a different meaning and took out entire sentences or paragraphs. This is why I don't use any other version.

I agree with you that the church does not save. Only Jesus saves. The body, or the church, is made up of saved people. This is what I believe this is telling you in Ephesians there.

What is confusing is that the English word church is not derived from the Greek ekklesia, but from another Greek word, kuriakon, which means "belonging to the lord" and rarely occurs in the New Testament.

A dictionary will reveal to you that church is derived from the old Scottish term kirk, which in turn had its origin in the Greek word kuriakon. Originally kirk had no ecclesiastical import, for it came out of Britain's feudal society in the Middle Ages and referred to the manor (estate) over which the landlord ruled. So the "kirk" was that which belonged to the lord. The serfs were his subjects and he ruled over them as lord and even judge holding court in case of disputes.

The "lord of the manor" had his kirk or church, which was his estate or little nation, and it had nothing to do with religion. The law of primogeniture, now repealed, ruled that the estate passed along to the eldest son, who succeeded his father as lord of the manor and head of the kirk. Other sons were left out, so they had to seek other opportunities befitting "the landed gentry," such as marrying a rich woman.

This is why some of them followed Columbus to America. They hoped to establish the feudal system in America. These disappointed sons, who were born in the wrong order, hoped to have their own "church" in America. But you now see that this referred to a manor and not to anything religious.
And this was when the King James Bible was translated (1611), named for King James 1 of England, (who was also the King of the church of England) as was Jamestown (1607), the first English colony in America.

Somehow, it doesn't make much sense even in the light of the facts, the king's translators chose the word "church" or "kirk" for ekklesia. Since church meant "belonging to the lord," it seemed appropriate to them to use that term in reference to those who belonged to Jesus, whom they called Lord, and thus became his community.
.
When you think about it, if it had been interpreted as 'assembly' or 'congregation' which I believe to be the accurate interpretation, there would not be as much sectarianism. How sectarian sounding is 'the assembly at Ephesus' or 'the assembly at Happy Valley'?

[Gem]

No, cbut would like for his "Ask a Baptist" thread to be about asking a Baptist about Baptist beliefs, not about what non-Catholics believe about Catholicism.

What he has asked is that if you want to continue the discussion about Church history, or Catholicism, to begin a different thread, so that this one can get back on track.

Well its funny to me that a lot of others in here are talking about
other demonations. Southern Baptist, Catholic, Pentecostals,

And all I did was ask about the baptisem.
I wanted him to explain to me about the Trineity baptisem.
How he got a name out of Matthew 28: 19.

He finally after some time told me where to find the name to be baptized in.

He said Acts 2: 38.

check out all the threads for yourself.

Others were talking about the Catholics in these threads as well.
and all I did was tell some of what I read in the Catholic History .

Then it seemed every body jumped me over that .

I will say that is not a very nice way to talk to people or to wittness to them about God or their believes.

[hben]

What is confusing is that the English word church is not derived from the Greek ekklesia, but from another Greek word, kuriakon, which means "belonging to the lord" and rarely occurs in the New Testament.

A dictionary will reveal to you that church is derived from the old Scottish term kirk, which in turn had its origin in the Greek word kuriakon. Originally kirk had no ecclesiastical import, for it came out of Britain's feudal society in the Middle Ages and referred to the manor (estate) over which the landlord ruled. So the "kirk" was that which belonged to the lord. The serfs were his subjects and he ruled over them as lord and even judge holding court in case of disputes.

The "lord of the manor" had his kirk or church, which was his estate or little nation, and it had nothing to do with religion. The law of primogeniture, now repealed, ruled that the estate passed along to the eldest son, who succeeded his father as lord of the manor and head of the kirk. Other sons were left our, so they had to seek other opportunities befitting "the landed gentry," such as marrying a rich woman.

This is why some of them followed Columbus to America. They hoped to establish the feudal system in America. These disappointed sons, who were born in the wrong order, hoped to have their own "church" in America. But you now see that this referred to a manor and not to anything religious.
And this was when the King James Bible was translated (1611), named for King James 1 of England, (who was also the King of the church of England) as was Jamestown (1607), the first English colony in America.

Somehow, it doesn't make much sense even in the light of the facts, the king's translators chose the word "church" or "kirk" for ekklesia. Since church meant "belonging to the lord," it seemed appropriate to them to use that term in reference to those who belonged to Jesus, whom they called Lord, and thus became his community.
.
When you think about it, if it had been interpreted as 'assembly' or 'congregation' which I believe to be the accurate interpretation, there would not be as much sectarianism. How sectarian sounding is 'the assembly at Ephesus' or 'the assembly at Happy Valley'?

I had trouble one Christmas with "the assembly of the electric train set". I don't think it would have mattered what word they used...part A and part B didn't seem to want to work together anymore that some denominations do. :shifty:

I think there is a spiritual point in there somewhere. :think:

[Semi-Sweet]

I had trouble one Christmas with "the assembly of the electric train set". I don't think it would have mattered what word they used...part A and part B didn't seem to want to work together anymore that some denominations do. :shifty:

I think there is a spiritual point in there somewhere. :think:

LOL I have hopes with this younger generation. Maybe one day, they will all just homogenize down to one. It's the same hope I have with all races. I hope they all homogenize (probably not the right word but I used it anyway) down to one color.