Author Topic: When did Baptist come to be?  (Read 39073 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online yogi bear

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12301
  • Manna: 744
  • Gender: Male
When did Baptist come to be?
« on: Sat Jan 03, 2009 - 00:20:16 »
Can anyone tell me when the Baptist came to be a separate group by name?
Was it before the restoration movement or during?
Does anyone know just who gets the credit for starting this group?
What is the history on the Baptist?

Christian Forums and Message Board

When did Baptist come to be?
« on: Sat Jan 03, 2009 - 00:20:16 »

Tu Es Petrus

  • Guest
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #1 on: Mon Jan 05, 2009 - 14:02:08 »
John Smyth founded it in Amsterdam in 1605.

Offline Bon Voyage

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16049
  • Manna: 408
  • Gender: Male
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #2 on: Mon Jan 05, 2009 - 19:06:37 »
John Smyth founded it in Amsterdam in 1605.


It was founded by Jesus Christ in AD 29 at Pentecost.

marc

  • Guest
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #3 on: Mon Jan 05, 2009 - 20:53:39 »
Even earlier.  It was founded by John the Baptist around 26 AD.

 ::takingphoto::

Online Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 35742
  • Manna: 779
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #4 on: Mon Jan 05, 2009 - 21:05:25 »
Even earlier.  It was founded by John the Baptist around 26 AD.

 ::takingphoto::

If John was already a Baptist, it had to have been before that!  ::bagonface::

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #4 on: Mon Jan 05, 2009 - 21:05:25 »



Offline sopranette

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3775
  • Manna: 107
  • Gender: Female
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #5 on: Tue Jan 06, 2009 - 07:48:58 »
I thought John the Baptist was actually performing a mikveh- a ritual bath that Jews still practice today?

love,

Sopranette

Tu Es Petrus

  • Guest
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #6 on: Tue Jan 06, 2009 - 07:51:19 »
John Smyth founded it in Amsterdam in 1605.


It was founded by Jesus Christ in AD 29 at Pentecost.

Err..   ...no.





Offline Jimbob

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 21536
  • Manna: 439
  • Gender: Male
  • Me fail English? That's unpossible.

Offline llewksgood

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 601
  • Manna: 40
  • Gender: Male
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #8 on: Tue Jan 06, 2009 - 12:16:49 »
None of these answers come to the first question. When did the Baptists become known as Baptists by name - that name which is commonly used today?

Offline Jon-Marc

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4200
  • Manna: 163
  • Gender: Male
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #9 on: Tue Jan 06, 2009 - 16:58:01 »
Even earlier.  It was founded by John the Baptist around 26 AD.

 ::takingphoto::

I always assumed he was called the Baptist because of all the baptisms he did. However, we could say he was the first Baptist.

J.M. Carroll, born January 8, 1858 and died January 10, 1931, wrote a short book titled The Trail of Blood. It is about the origin of Baptists. I have no idea how accurate it is, but you can find it online and print it out as I did; it's only 46 pages. I've seen and once had a copy of it--so I know it's still printed. You might be able to find or order a copy in a Christian store. Carroll was more than 70-years-old when he wrote it and must have died shortly after writing it since he was 73 when he died.

In the book, there is a quote from Sir Isaac Newton: "The Baptists are the only known body of Christians that have never symbolized with Rome." That means that Baptists were never a part of the Roman Catholic Church and formed completely separate from that religion. That is why I refuse to call myself a "Protestant", which refers to those religions (all except Baptist) who were once a part of the RCC and left and formed a new religion.

I just printed it today and haven't had time to read but I will. I have no idea if he gives the actual date of when Baptists began, but it's something I would like to know.

marc

  • Guest
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #10 on: Tue Jan 06, 2009 - 20:22:52 »
Moses was the first Baptist.

Offline Bon Voyage

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16049
  • Manna: 408
  • Gender: Male
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #11 on: Tue Jan 06, 2009 - 20:25:54 »
John Smyth founded it in Amsterdam in 1605.


It was founded by Jesus Christ in AD 29 at Pentecost.

Err..   ...no.






Er............. YEAH!

Offline Bon Voyage

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16049
  • Manna: 408
  • Gender: Male
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #12 on: Tue Jan 06, 2009 - 20:27:59 »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptist_successionism


Some other groups that evolved out of Baptists and Presbyterians also have churches that believe in successionism/landmarkism.

Offline Jimbob

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 21536
  • Manna: 439
  • Gender: Male
  • Me fail English? That's unpossible.
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #13 on: Tue Jan 06, 2009 - 20:33:24 »
Yeah, I've heard of a couple here and there.   ::peeking::

marc

  • Guest
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #14 on: Tue Jan 06, 2009 - 20:35:31 »
I don't believe it.  Nothing like that could ever evolve out of Presbyterianism.  I mean, we all know the true Church of Christ was dropped down from Heaven on the day of Pentecost looking exactly like she looks now, right? ::alien::

Tu Es Petrus

  • Guest
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #15 on: Tue Jan 06, 2009 - 20:56:17 »
John Smyth founded it in Amsterdam in 1605.


It was founded by Jesus Christ in AD 29 at Pentecost.

Err..   ...no.


Er............. YEAH!

Nope.

(your turn)

Offline Bon Voyage

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16049
  • Manna: 408
  • Gender: Male
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #16 on: Tue Jan 06, 2009 - 21:28:39 »
John Smyth founded it in Amsterdam in 1605.


It was founded by Jesus Christ in AD 29 at Pentecost.

Err..   ...no.


Er............. YEAH!

Nope.

(your turn)

Catholics left the Baptist Church sometime around Constantine.

Offline Jimmy

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14574
  • Manna: 294
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #17 on: Wed Jan 07, 2009 - 06:43:56 »
John Smyth founded it in Amsterdam in 1605.


It was founded by Jesus Christ in AD 29 at Pentecost.

Err..   ...no.


Er............. YEAH!

Nope.

(your turn)

Catholics left the Baptist Church sometime around Constantine.

Now that was funny.   rofl Even though I am not a Baptist, I think I will use it --  suitably changed, of course, to the Christian Church in which case it is true. ::smile::

Offline Jon-Marc

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4200
  • Manna: 163
  • Gender: Male
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #18 on: Wed Jan 07, 2009 - 11:19:11 »
Jesus started a Christ-centered Christian church of born again believers who didn't worship or pray to Mary or dead saints, and the Bible doesn't call it Catholic. Of course, the word catholic simply means universal, and Jesus did start a universal Christian church. Christ is the Rock upon whom His church was built--not Peter.

Offline ole Jake

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 241
  • Manna: 27
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #19 on: Wed Jan 07, 2009 - 22:00:48 »
Jesus started a Christ-centered Christian church of born again believers who didn't worship or pray to Mary or dead saints, and the Bible doesn't call it Catholic. Of course, the word catholic simply means universal, and Jesus did start a universal Christian church. Christ is the Rock upon whom His church was built--not Peter.

I reckon that's how come Jesus's name was changed to Peter.

Jesus founded one church with one set of men trained by Him to have all authority, and Peter given the keys to the kingdom, with those men instructed to train, and thus ordain, their successors.

Online yogi bear

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12301
  • Manna: 744
  • Gender: Male
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #20 on: Wed Jan 07, 2009 - 22:08:23 »
Just wondering did Paul steal the key from Peter or did He start his own church? Maybe he had Peter to make him a copy of the key.

Offline ole Jake

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 241
  • Manna: 27
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #21 on: Wed Jan 07, 2009 - 22:21:39 »
Just wondering did Paul steal the key from Peter or did He start his own church? Maybe he had Peter to make him a copy of the key.

You sound like Marcion and Luther. In addition to preverting Paul by reading him in isolation from the rest of the New Testament and the teachings of the historic church, each man also created his own canon of scripture.

Offline Mere Nick

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12789
  • Manna: 315
  • Gender: Male
  • Reckon you could make me some biscuits?
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #22 on: Wed Jan 07, 2009 - 22:58:20 »
I don't believe it.  Nothing like that could ever evolve out of Presbyterianism.  I mean, we all know the true Church of Christ was dropped down from Heaven on the day of Pentecost looking exactly like she looks now, right? ::alien::

Down to the sign out front and everyone knowing what 728b is.

Offline Mere Nick

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12789
  • Manna: 315
  • Gender: Male
  • Reckon you could make me some biscuits?
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #23 on: Wed Jan 07, 2009 - 23:00:56 »
Jesus started a Christ-centered Christian church of born again believers who didn't worship or pray to Mary or dead saints, and the Bible doesn't call it Catholic. Of course, the word catholic simply means universal, and Jesus did start a universal Christian church. Christ is the Rock upon whom His church was built--not Peter.

That's why I don't mind being called a Catholic, though I'm not a Roman Catholic.  The pope knows alot about the game but I don't see how that makes him head coach.

Tu Es Petrus

  • Guest
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #24 on: Thu Jan 08, 2009 - 06:03:52 »
Now that was funny.   rofl Even though I am not a Baptist, I think I will use it --  suitably changed, of course, to the Christian Church in which case it is true. ::smile::

That is totally untrue. Long before Constatine, and in a wide variety of ways, the early Christians attest to the fact that the church of Rome was the central and most authoritative church. They attest to the Church’s reliance on Rome for advice, for mediation of disputes, and for guidance on doctrinal issues. They note, as Ignatius of Antioch does, that Rome "holds the presidency" among the other churches, and that, as Irenaeus explains, "because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree" with Rome. They are also clear on the fact that it is communion with Rome and the bishop of Rome that causes one to be in communion with the Catholic Church. This displays a recognition that, as Cyprian of Carthage puts it, Rome is "the principal church, in which sacerdotal unity has its source."

Most significant are the passages below in which the popes, by their statements or their actions, reveal their understanding of their own authority in the Church, such as when Pope Clement I commanded the church of Corinth to reinstate its leadership, or when Pope Victor excommunicated the churches of Asia Minor as a group, after which the other bishops sought to change Victor’s mind but did not challenge his authority to have made the excommunication.

 
Clement I

"Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us [i.e., that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy" (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]).

 
Hermas

"Therefore shall you [Hermas] write two little books and send one to Clement [Bishop of Rome] and one to Grapte. Clement shall then send it to the cities abroad, because that is his duty" (The Shepherd 2:4:3 [A.D. 80]).

 
Ignatius of Antioch

"Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

"You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force" (ibid., 3:1).

 
Dionysius of Corinth

"For from the beginning it has been your custom to do good to all the brethren in various ways and to send contributions to all the churches in every city. . . . This custom your blessed Bishop Soter has not only preserved, but is augmenting, by furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints and by urging with consoling words, as a loving father his children, the brethren who are journeying" (Letter to Pope Soter in Eusebius, Church History 4:23:9 [A.D. 170]).

"Today we have observed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your letter [Pope Soter]. Whenever we do read it [in church], we shall be able to profit thereby, as also we do when we read the earlier letter written to us by Clement" (ibid., 4:23:11).

 
The Martyrs of Lyons

"And when a dissension arose about these said people [the Montanists], the brethren in Gaul once more . . . [sent letters] to the brethren in Asia and Phrygia and, moreover to Eleutherius, who was then [A.D. 175] bishop of the Romans, negotiating for the peace of the churches" (Eusebius, Church History 5:3:4 [A.D. 312])

"And the same martyrs too commended Irenaeus, already at that time [A.D. 175] a presbyter of the community of Lyons, to the said bishop of Rome, rendering abundant testimony to the man, as the following expressions show: ‘Once more and always we pray that you may rejoice in God, Pope Eleutherius. This letter we have charged our brother and companion Irenaeus to convey to you, and we beg you to receive him as zealous for the covenant of Christ’" (ibid., 5:4:1–2).

 
Irenaeus

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

 
Eusebius of Caesarea

"A question of no small importance arose at that time [A.D. 190]. For the parishes of all Asia [Minor], as from an older tradition held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Savior’s Passover. . . . But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world . . . as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast [of Lent] on no other day than on that of the resurrection of the Savior [Sunday]. Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other but the Lord’s day and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on this day only. . . . Thereupon [Pope] Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the community the parishes of all Asia [Minor], with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox. And he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all the bishops, and they besought him to consider the things of peace and of neighborly unity and love. . . . [Irenaeus] fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom" (Church History 5:23:1–24:11).

"Thus then did Irenaeus entreat and negotiate [with Pope Victor] on behalf of the peace of the churches—[Irenaeus being] a man well-named, for he was a peacemaker both in name and character. And he corresponded by letter not only with Victor, but also with very many and various rulers of churches" (ibid., 24:18).

 
Cyprian of Carthage

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). ... On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

"Cyprian to [Pope] Cornelius, his brother. Greeting. . . . We decided to send and are sending a letter to you from all throughout the province [where I am] so that all our colleagues might give their decided approval and support to you and to your communion, that is, to both the unity and the charity of the Catholic Church" (Letters 48:1, 3 [A.D. 253]).

"Cyprian to Antonian, his brother. Greeting ... You wrote ... that I should forward a copy of the same letter to our colleague [Pope] Cornelius, so that, laying aside all anxiety, he might at once know that you held communion with him, that is, with the Catholic Church" (ibid., 55[52]:1).

"Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men ... when the place of Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside [the Church]. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church" (ibid., 55[52]:8).

"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (ibid., 59:14).

 
Firmilian

"[Pope] Stephen ... boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Matt. 16:18]. ... Stephen ... announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter" (collected in Cyprian’s Letters 74[75]:17 [A.D. 253]).


Offline Jimmy

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14574
  • Manna: 294
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #25 on: Thu Jan 08, 2009 - 06:56:53 »
Tu Es Petrus,

You have posted quotations from Clement I, Hermas, Ignatius of Antioch, Dionysius of Corinth, The Martyrs of Lyons, Irenaeus, Eusebius of Caesarea, Cyprian of Carthage, and Firmilian.  I suspect that this does not constitute the complete list of writers that you could have quoted to support your thinking.  Should I imagine that you are in agreement with everything these particular writers and any others that might have been quoted have ever written?  Can I presume that anything that I might find that these men have written can be taken as "gospel"?  Can I assume that you agree with everything these and all of the other early Christian writers have written? I think the answer to that is obvious, since there is not absolute agreement of such writers even among themselves.

I am sure that they all give some interesting insights to some of the historical aspects of the growth of Christianity.  But so far as I am concerned, that is all. Posting any of their writings really changes little as far as I am concerned. 

There is nothing in the NT writings that establishes the point you are trying to make. Nothing.

Why you even appeal to their writings to make the point you are attempting to make is quite beyond me.

Offline ole Jake

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 241
  • Manna: 27
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #26 on: Thu Jan 08, 2009 - 09:03:55 »
Tu Es Petrus,

You have posted quotations from Clement I, Hermas, Ignatius of Antioch, Dionysius of Corinth, The Martyrs of Lyons, Irenaeus, Eusebius of Caesarea, Cyprian of Carthage, and Firmilian.  I suspect that this does not constitute the complete list of writers that you could have quoted to support your thinking.  Should I imagine that you are in agreement with everything these particular writers and any others that might have been quoted have ever written?  Can I presume that anything that I might find that these men have written can be taken as "gospel"?  Can I assume that you agree with everything these and all of the other early Christian writers have written? I think the answer to that is obvious, since there is not absolute agreement of such writers even among themselves.

I am sure that they all give some interesting insights to some of the historical aspects of the growth of Christianity.  But so far as I am concerned, that is all. Posting any of their writings really changes little as far as I am concerned. 

There is nothing in the NT writings that establishes the point you are trying to make. Nothing.

Why you even appeal to their writings to make the point you are attempting to make is quite beyond me.

The answer to your concluding question is obvious: because Christ's church has always existed since its founding, if that one church he founded looked and taught like the Baptists or the Church of Christ, we would have ample historical evidence.

It is true that the Protestants who assert that their system (rarely now do they claim one denomination as the one true church) is the one church founded by Christ have some faint justification, but it is almost always in recognizing how some heretical group was a precursor to them.

Quite simply, if the early church worshipped and taught like the Baptists, there would be much historical evidence for it.

The best case that can be made not merely for the Baptist church or the Church of Christ being the one church founded in c. 33 AD, but even that a generic 'Protestantism' is the one church founded by Christ, is that with the death of the Apostle John there was all but a total apostacy, with the true church having been forced underground so far and deep that it made ZERO historical record until after Luther.

And that case is utterly absurd, and not just because it would mean that the Apostles failed all but 100%.

By what authority do you pontificate on what is found in the New Testament on this issue or any other? How do you know for certain what belongs in the canon of Scripture?

Offline Jimmy

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14574
  • Manna: 294
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #27 on: Thu Jan 08, 2009 - 09:18:41 »
Tu Es Petrus,

You have posted quotations from Clement I, Hermas, Ignatius of Antioch, Dionysius of Corinth, The Martyrs of Lyons, Irenaeus, Eusebius of Caesarea, Cyprian of Carthage, and Firmilian.  I suspect that this does not constitute the complete list of writers that you could have quoted to support your thinking.  Should I imagine that you are in agreement with everything these particular writers and any others that might have been quoted have ever written?  Can I presume that anything that I might find that these men have written can be taken as "gospel"?  Can I assume that you agree with everything these and all of the other early Christian writers have written? I think the answer to that is obvious, since there is not absolute agreement of such writers even among themselves.

I am sure that they all give some interesting insights to some of the historical aspects of the growth of Christianity.  But so far as I am concerned, that is all. Posting any of their writings really changes little as far as I am concerned. 

There is nothing in the NT writings that establishes the point you are trying to make. Nothing.

Why you even appeal to their writings to make the point you are attempting to make is quite beyond me.

The answer to your concluding question is obvious: because Christ's church has always existed since its founding, if that one church he founded looked and taught like the Baptists or the Church of Christ, we would have ample historical evidence.

It is true that the Protestants who assert that their system (rarely now do they claim one denomination as the one true church) is the one church founded by Christ have some faint justification, but it is almost always in recognizing how some heretical group was a precursor to them.

Quite simply, if the early church worshipped and taught like the Baptists, there would be much historical evidence for it.

The best case that can be made not merely for the Baptist church or the Church of Christ being the one church founded in c. 33 AD, but even that a generic 'Protestantism' is the one church founded by Christ, is that with the death of the Apostle John there was all but a total apostacy, with the true church having been forced underground so far and deep that it made ZERO historical record until after Luther.

And that case is utterly absurd, and not just because it would mean that the Apostles failed all but 100%.

By what authority do you pontificate on what is found in the New Testament on this issue or any other? How do you know for certain what belongs in the canon of Scripture?

All of that is of historical interest.  None of it is of spiritual interest.  Your argument of authenticiy of the RCC from the historical aspect is no more justified than the Pharisees' argument of authenticity from the historical truths of the OT record.  And we know what Jesus thought about the Pharisees.

Offline ole Jake

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 241
  • Manna: 27
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #28 on: Thu Jan 08, 2009 - 11:39:59 »
Tu Es Petrus,

You have posted quotations from Clement I, Hermas, Ignatius of Antioch, Dionysius of Corinth, The Martyrs of Lyons, Irenaeus, Eusebius of Caesarea, Cyprian of Carthage, and Firmilian.  I suspect that this does not constitute the complete list of writers that you could have quoted to support your thinking.  Should I imagine that you are in agreement with everything these particular writers and any others that might have been quoted have ever written?  Can I presume that anything that I might find that these men have written can be taken as "gospel"?  Can I assume that you agree with everything these and all of the other early Christian writers have written? I think the answer to that is obvious, since there is not absolute agreement of such writers even among themselves.

I am sure that they all give some interesting insights to some of the historical aspects of the growth of Christianity.  But so far as I am concerned, that is all. Posting any of their writings really changes little as far as I am concerned. 

There is nothing in the NT writings that establishes the point you are trying to make. Nothing.

Why you even appeal to their writings to make the point you are attempting to make is quite beyond me.

The answer to your concluding question is obvious: because Christ's church has always existed since its founding, if that one church he founded looked and taught like the Baptists or the Church of Christ, we would have ample historical evidence.

It is true that the Protestants who assert that their system (rarely now do they claim one denomination as the one true church) is the one church founded by Christ have some faint justification, but it is almost always in recognizing how some heretical group was a precursor to them.

Quite simply, if the early church worshipped and taught like the Baptists, there would be much historical evidence for it.

The best case that can be made not merely for the Baptist church or the Church of Christ being the one church founded in c. 33 AD, but even that a generic 'Protestantism' is the one church founded by Christ, is that with the death of the Apostle John there was all but a total apostacy, with the true church having been forced underground so far and deep that it made ZERO historical record until after Luther.

And that case is utterly absurd, and not just because it would mean that the Apostles failed all but 100%.

By what authority do you pontificate on what is found in the New Testament on this issue or any other? How do you know for certain what belongs in the canon of Scripture?

All of that is of historical interest.  None of it is of spiritual interest.  Your argument of authenticiy of the RCC from the historical aspect is no more justified than the Pharisees' argument of authenticity from the historical truths of the OT record.  And we know what Jesus thought about the Pharisees.

Your dismissal fits with the Gnostic worldview, for it calls for a rejection of the actual physical world and its history in favor of some 'spiritual' world that is the true world and the true reality. That is another way to explain why and how back to Luther, Protestants have found it natural as well as necessary to identify with heretics, including overt Gnostics, to stake their claim to having been around since the 1st century AD.

Your anaolgy would be worth something if the Pharisees were the Levitical priesthood. Even then, rejection of God Incarnate and the church order He establishes through the Apostles would utterly invalidate the fact that they were the legitmate religious authorities under the Mosaic covenant. Pharisees, because they built a whole series of esoteric teachings based on their private interpretations of scripture with those teachings being used to justify their rejection and persecution of the religious order that God Incarnate established, are very much proto-Protestants.

If the Baptist church (or the Church of Christ or the Presbyterian church, etc.) were the one church founded by Christ and spread by the Apostles, then the historical record would show it.

Tu Es Petrus

  • Guest
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #29 on: Thu Jan 08, 2009 - 14:24:08 »
..There is nothing in the NT writings that establishes the point you are trying to make. Nothing....

Well, how can the NT be used to demonstrate the development of the Church during times AFTER the NT was written?!!! That is non-sensical.

Thats like reading a history book that deals exclusively with 18th century America, and then saying that there can't be 50 states because it doesn't say there are 50 states.


If the Catholic Church only began at the time of Constantine then all of the supposed errors of the Catholic Church would only have emerged after A.D 300, or even 337 - when Constantine died. If that is the marker for when the Christian Church fell into error, then how can you trust the very Bible you put your faith in, since the canon of Scripture was not settled upon until about fifty years after the death of Constantine (at the Councils of Carthage and Hippo).

If ouy are really interested in the truth of this issue, you will see that Catholic practices and beliefs - such as the Eucharist, confession to a priest, papacy, etc - existed long before Constantine.

Offline Jimmy

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14574
  • Manna: 294
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #30 on: Thu Jan 08, 2009 - 14:59:55 »
..There is nothing in the NT writings that establishes the point you are trying to make. Nothing....

Well, how can the NT be used to demonstrate the development of the Church during times AFTER the NT was written?!!!

It really doesn't matter except in an historical sense.   The existance of the Church, the body of Christ, is not dependent upon any continuum of earthly organization and/or structure.

Tu Es Petrus

  • Guest
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #31 on: Thu Jan 08, 2009 - 15:01:25 »
It really doesn't matter except in an historical sense.   The existance of the Church, the body of Christ, is not dependent upon any continuum of earthly organization and/or structure.

Really. then why did Jesus and later the aposltles give it structure?

BTW: It certainly DOES matter if people are going to make claims about which group broke away from who.

Offline Jimmy

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14574
  • Manna: 294
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #32 on: Thu Jan 08, 2009 - 15:10:31 »
It really doesn't matter except in an historical sense.   The existance of the Church, the body of Christ, is not dependent upon any continuum of earthly organization and/or structure.

Really. then why did Jesus and later the aposltles give it structure?

BTW: It certainly DOES matter if people are going to make claims about which group broke away from who.

I don't really care who broke away from whom.  That really has no bearing on the Body of Christ either.

And the structure which you present in the from of the RCC heirarchy is certainly not anything to do with what either Jesus or the apostles presented.

Tu Es Petrus

  • Guest
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #33 on: Thu Jan 08, 2009 - 15:16:47 »
I don't really care who broke away from whom.  That really has no bearing on the Body of Christ either.

Perhaps not is the spiritual sense. But it CERTAINLY has a bearing on who is teaching correct doctrine and who is not, and who the legitimate leaders of the Church are and who are not..

And the structure which you present in the from of the RCC heirarchy is certainly not anything to do with what either Jesus or the apostles presented.

Wrong. Man, haven't you read Acts? In Acts, the hierarchy of those who follow the original apostles develops into three basic levels:

Bishops: Greek - episkopos (also rendered as Overseers in some translations)
Priests: Greek - presbyteros  (also rendered as Elders or Presbyters in some translations)
Deacons: Greek - diakonos

Those are the exact same levels in the Catholic Church.: Bishop, Priest, and Deacon.

Timothy was a bishop. Tell me: Does YOUR Church have bishops like the NT Church did, and the Catholic Church does?

Tantor

  • Guest
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #34 on: Thu Jan 08, 2009 - 16:09:17 »
I don't really care who broke away from whom.  That really has no bearing on the Body of Christ either.

Perhaps not is the spiritual sense. But it CERTAINLY has a bearing on who is teaching correct doctrine and who is not, and who the legitimate leaders of the Church are and who are not..

And the structure which you present in the from of the RCC heirarchy is certainly not anything to do with what either Jesus or the apostles presented.

Wrong. Man, haven't you read Acts? In Acts, the hierarchy of those who follow the original apostles develops into three basic levels:

Bishops: Greek - episkopos (also rendered as Overseers in some translations)
Priests: Greek - presbyteros  (also rendered as Elders or Presbyters in some translations)
Deacons: Greek - diakonos

Those are the exact same levels in the Catholic Church.: Bishop, Priest, and Deacon.

Timothy was a bishop. Tell me: Does YOUR Church have bishops like the NT Church did, and the Catholic Church does?


Overseer and elder are pretty much interchangeable in the texts.

Christ called us all to be priests.