GCM Home | Your Posts | Rules | DONATE | Bookstore | Facebook | Twitter | FAQs


Author Topic: When did Baptist come to be?  (Read 37945 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Tu Es Petrus

  • Guest
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #35 on: Thu Jan 08, 2009 - 16:50:00 »
Jimmy said the structure in the Catholic heirarchy is not anything to do with what either Jesus or the apostles presented. I proved he was wrong. We have three levels of pastors, just as they do in Acts. We have bishops, just like Timothy was a bishop.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #35 on: Thu Jan 08, 2009 - 16:50:00 »

Tantor

  • Guest
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #36 on: Thu Jan 08, 2009 - 17:08:33 »
Where do you get cardinals and the pope from then.. they aren't any way in scripture.

Seems to me that when Peter died, his colleges didn't know what to do so they invented a method for succession.  If what you say is true about Peter having the keys.. Jesus omitted a pretty big part about his successors.. and I tend to believe that Jesus left it that way on purpose.

I would be happier if there were actually texts from Peter himself that discussed his method and selection of training of his would be 'successor'... but alas we do not have such a thing.

When I read the Old and New Testament I always come away with the feeling that all the teachings and what was written although not always sufficient in man's eyes.. was left that way by God for a purpose.

The Apostles were not very specific about succession.. neither was Jesus.. so I feel its is an avenue that we should have had restraint in and not gone beyond what is written.

I take the same approach to church buildings and pretty much everything else.. what God has revealed is sufficient and there is no need for man to add to it... when we do add to it, I find it disrespectful to God himself.


I think of the care and exactness of the dimensions for the temple in the Old Testament.. the depth of detail of the levitical law..  In Catholic eyes I guess they view God as having forgotten to lead them so they make up things to fill the void.

Just my 2 cents.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #36 on: Thu Jan 08, 2009 - 17:08:33 »

Offline Jimmy

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14574
  • Manna: 294
    • View Profile
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #37 on: Thu Jan 08, 2009 - 18:14:21 »
Jimmy said the structure in the Catholic heirarchy is not anything to do with what either Jesus or the apostles presented. I proved he was wrong. We have three levels of pastors, just as they do in Acts. We have bishops, just like Timothy was a bishop.

You proved no such thing.  The passage in Acts 20 makes reference to elders .  In that passage (Acts 20:17-28) Paul is speaking and references those men in terms of all of those designations.  They are designations of the same men, the same office, only different functions of that office.

Act 20:17  From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders [presbuteros also translated as bishop] of the church.
   .
   .
   .
Act 20:28  "Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers[episkopos], to shepherd [poimaino]the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

All three, [presbuteros], [episkopos], and [poimaino]  interchangeable insofar as the men and the office is concerned.  There is really no other way to interpret this.

Offline ole Jake

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 241
  • Manna: 27
    • View Profile
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #38 on: Thu Jan 08, 2009 - 21:18:25 »
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.

Christ did not call us all to be presbyters.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #38 on: Thu Jan 08, 2009 - 21:18:25 »

Offline ole Jake

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 241
  • Manna: 27
    • View Profile
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #39 on: Thu Jan 08, 2009 - 21:20:53 »
Jimmy said the structure in the Catholic heirarchy is not anything to do with what either Jesus or the apostles presented. I proved he was wrong. We have three levels of pastors, just as they do in Acts. We have bishops, just like Timothy was a bishop.

You proved no such thing.  The passage in Acts 20 makes reference to elders .  In that passage (Acts 20:17-28) Paul is speaking and references those men in terms of all of those designations.  They are designations of the same men, the same office, only different functions of that office.

Act 20:17  From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders [presbuteros also translated as bishop] of the church.
   .
   .
   .
Act 20:28  "Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers[episkopos], to shepherd [poimaino]the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

All three, [presbuteros], [episkopos], and [poimaino]  interchangeable insofar as the men and the office is concerned.  There is really no other way to interpret this.

No other way to interpret this? That means it is perspisuous.

The man who concocted the doctrine sola scriptura and the first to declare that scripture is perspicuous would have decalred you heretical for this assertion.

Kinda funny, aint it?


Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #39 on: Thu Jan 08, 2009 - 21:20:53 »



Offline Jimbob

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 21536
  • Manna: 439
  • Gender: Male
  • Me fail English? That's unpossible.
    • View Profile
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #40 on: Thu Jan 08, 2009 - 21:40:06 »
Bob & weave. ::pondering::

Offline Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 32224
  • Manna: 706
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
    • View Profile
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #41 on: Thu Jan 08, 2009 - 21:40:58 »

Offline Jimbob

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 21536
  • Manna: 439
  • Gender: Male
  • Me fail English? That's unpossible.
    • View Profile
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #42 on: Thu Jan 08, 2009 - 21:42:50 »
Bob's hairdresser.

Offline Jimmy

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14574
  • Manna: 294
    • View Profile
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #43 on: Fri Jan 09, 2009 - 07:07:49 »
Jimmy said the structure in the Catholic heirarchy is not anything to do with what either Jesus or the apostles presented. I proved he was wrong. We have three levels of pastors, just as they do in Acts. We have bishops, just like Timothy was a bishop.

You proved no such thing.  The passage in Acts 20 makes reference to elders .  In that passage (Acts 20:17-28) Paul is speaking and references those men in terms of all of those designations.  They are designations of the same men, the same office, only different functions of that office.

Act 20:17  From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders [presbuteros also translated as bishop] of the church.
   .
   .
   .
Act 20:28  "Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers[episkopos], to shepherd [poimaino]the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

All three, [presbuteros], [episkopos], and [poimaino]  interchangeable insofar as the men and the office is concerned.  There is really no other way to interpret this.

No other way to interpret this? That means it is perspisuous.

The man who concocted the doctrine sola scriptura and the first to declare that scripture is perspicuous would have decalred you heretical for this assertion.

Kinda funny, aint it?

Why would I give a hoot what he would have declared?  You guys pay more attention to what one of your popes or priests of some ancient writers think and say than you do to what the Bible says.  And therein lies the source of so much of what you seem to have gotten wrong.

Tu Es Petrus

  • Guest
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #44 on: Fri Jan 09, 2009 - 09:48:07 »
..... You guys pay more attention to what one of your popes or priests of some ancient writers think and say than you do to what the Bible says......

Boy, you just don't get it, do you.

A Bible does not have a mouth and lips and a tounge - it does not speak and it does not say anything. It is a book which must be interpreted by the reader.

You say we only pay attention to what popes say. I say that you only pay attention to what YOU say. Either way, whether it is what YOU say or what a POPE says, it is a man doing the saying. You need to wrap your mind around that concept.

The question is not "What does the Bible say", but rather, who has been ordained by Christ to intepret and teach the revelation which Christ gave us: Is it each individual? ...or is it those who have succeeded the original teachers who Jesus appointed?

The Bible says that Jesus appointed teachers. The Bible does NOT say that every individual has the right to formulate doctrine and establish denominations based on those formulations. Now you can spin it any way you want, but that is the truth.

Offline ole Jake

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 241
  • Manna: 27
    • View Profile
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #45 on: Fri Jan 09, 2009 - 10:07:37 »
Jimmy said the structure in the Catholic heirarchy is not anything to do with what either Jesus or the apostles presented. I proved he was wrong. We have three levels of pastors, just as they do in Acts. We have bishops, just like Timothy was a bishop.

You proved no such thing.  The passage in Acts 20 makes reference to elders .  In that passage (Acts 20:17-28) Paul is speaking and references those men in terms of all of those designations.  They are designations of the same men, the same office, only different functions of that office.

Act 20:17  From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders [presbuteros also translated as bishop] of the church.
   .
   .
   .
Act 20:28  "Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers[episkopos], to shepherd [poimaino]the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

All three, [presbuteros], [episkopos], and [poimaino]  interchangeable insofar as the men and the office is concerned.  There is really no other way to interpret this.

No other way to interpret this? That means it is perspisuous.

The man who concocted the doctrine sola scriptura and the first to declare that scripture is perspicuous would have decalred you heretical for this assertion.

Kinda funny, aint it?

Why would I give a hoot what he would have declared?  You guys pay more attention to what one of your popes or priests of some ancient writers think and say than you do to what the Bible says.  And therein lies the source of so much of what you seem to have gotten wrong.

How do you know for certain what the Bible means? Luther declared that scripture perspicuously teaches sola fide, and Luther's main antagonist until he ws declared heretical, Johann Eck, asserted that both scripture and tradition showed that sola fide was at best a novel formula that must be retracted because of the consequences inherent in it and at worst an arch-heresy (the difference being Luther's intent and stubborness to promote his pet concoction).

Who was correct in that dispute, and how do you know?

How do you know what comprises the canon of scripture?

The problem is that you, without allowing yourself to see what it means, make yourself infallible in your readings of the Bible, which canon you inherited from the English Reformation which took Luther's canon.

Multiply your fierce pride in your Bible reading and interpeting skills and your largely anti-historical solipsism by many individuals equally certain they know what the Bible means, and you will understand how and why  sola scriptura led inevitably to proliferating Protestant denominations - to chaos of choice and the very antithesis of unity.

The word 'heresy' comes from what?

marc

  • Guest
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #46 on: Fri Jan 09, 2009 - 10:11:34 »
Watch the heresy implications.

Many of us think that perhaps trusting an organization to have not been corrupted over two millenia isn't the brightest thing in the world to do.

Tu Es Petrus

  • Guest
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #47 on: Fri Jan 09, 2009 - 10:20:52 »
Watch the "we're not too bright" implications. We are just as bright as you are.

Many of us think that perhaps trusting our own corrupted natures to personally intepret the Bible isn't the right thing to do either.

Offline Jimmy

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14574
  • Manna: 294
    • View Profile
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #48 on: Fri Jan 09, 2009 - 10:33:56 »
..... You guys pay more attention to what one of your popes or priests of some ancient writers think and say than you do to what the Bible says......

Boy, you just don't get it, do you.

A Bible does not have and it does not say anything. It is a book which must be interpreted by the reader.

You say we only pay attention to what popes say. I say that you only pay attention to what YOU say. Either way, whether it is what YOU say or what a POPE says, it is a man doing the saying. You need to wrap your mind around that concept.

The question is not "What does the Bible say", but rather, who has been ordained by Christ to intepret and teach the revelation which Christ gave us: Is it each individual? ...or is it those who have succeeded the original teachers who Jesus appointed?

The Bible says that Jesus appointed teachers. The Bible does NOT say that every individual has the right to formulate doctrine and establish denominations based on those formulations. Now you can spin it any way you want, but that is the truth.

Yes I do get it. 

Act 17:11  Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.

Act 18:28  for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, demonstrating by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ. 

2Ti 2:15  Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.

All of these (and other such references) appeal to the audience to whom it is written, not to some superleader who has been endowed with some special knowledge.  Nearly the entire NT was written to the common Christian, not to any designated interpreter.

There is no fundamental difference in being able to understand that which is written versus that which is spoken.  You act as if the Bible were written in some sort of mystical coded language that only priests or whatnot can understand.  That is just plain silly.

Even one who has a mouth and lips and a tongue and does speak must be interpreted.  That is called communication.  Do you think God is incapable of writing so that He can be understood. 

Offline Jimmy

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14574
  • Manna: 294
    • View Profile
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #49 on: Fri Jan 09, 2009 - 10:38:07 »
Watch the "we're not too bright" implications. We are just as bright as you are.

Many of us think that perhaps trusting our own corrupted natures to personally intepret the Bible isn't the right thing to do either.

Did those early Christian writers that you seem to want to trust your salvation to not have natures just as corrupted as ours?   Why do you trust them and not Paul or Peter of John?

Offline ole Jake

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 241
  • Manna: 27
    • View Profile
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #50 on: Fri Jan 09, 2009 - 10:47:22 »
Watch the heresy implications.

Many of us think that perhaps trusting an organization to have not been corrupted over two millenia isn't the brightest thing in the world to do.

Servetus said the same thing.

Was there corruption (say, politcal) that swirled around the Temple and the Levitcal priesthood? Yes.

Did that corruption justify men running off on their own and creating new interpretations of scripture? No.

The matter comes down to what authority: you have faith in your authority, and/or that from Luther. and/or Calvin and/or Zwingli and/or Campbell. You have faith in each man reading and deciding for himself, in individuals making choices that suit them.

Heresy comes from Latin, from Greek meaning 'to take,' applied to mean 'to take a choice.'

Offline Jimmy

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14574
  • Manna: 294
    • View Profile
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #51 on: Fri Jan 09, 2009 - 10:55:04 »
Watch the heresy implications.

Many of us think that perhaps trusting an organization to have not been corrupted over two millenia isn't the brightest thing in the world to do.

Servetus said the same thing.

Was there corruption (say, politcal) that swirled around the Temple and the Levitcal priesthood? Yes.

Did that corruption justify men running off on their own and creating new interpretations of scripture? No.

The matter comes down to what authority: you have faith in your authority, and/or that from Luther. and/or Calvin and/or Zwingli and/or Campbell. You have faith in each man reading and deciding for himself, in individuals making choices that suit them.

Heresy comes from Latin, from Greek meaning 'to take,' applied to mean 'to take a choice.'

That is precisely the reason that it is not the Luthers or the Calvins or the Campbells or the Polycarps or the Pope Whosits that we place our faith in.  It is in the reading of the scriptures written by the inspired men of God.  You would be wise to think about what you have just said.  Those popes etc. demonstrate no authority from God to do anything.  They have simply usurped it and you say "OK".

marc

  • Guest
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #52 on: Fri Jan 09, 2009 - 10:59:01 »
Servetus also said that the sun rose in the east and set in the west.  That does not make this a heresy.

In Jesus day, the Pharisees relied on their lineage, and he said something about raising up stones.

Offline ole Jake

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 241
  • Manna: 27
    • View Profile
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #53 on: Fri Jan 09, 2009 - 11:00:15 »
Watch the heresy implications.

Many of us think that perhaps trusting an organization to have not been corrupted over two millenia isn't the brightest thing in the world to do.

Servetus said the same thing.

Was there corruption (say, politcal) that swirled around the Temple and the Levitcal priesthood? Yes.

Did that corruption justify men running off on their own and creating new interpretations of scripture? No.

The matter comes down to what authority: you have faith in your authority, and/or that from Luther. and/or Calvin and/or Zwingli and/or Campbell. You have faith in each man reading and deciding for himself, in individuals making choices that suit them.

Heresy comes from Latin, from Greek meaning 'to take,' applied to mean 'to take a choice.'

That is precisely the reason that it is not the Luthers or the Calvins or the Campbells or the Polycarps or the Pope Whosits that we place our faith in.  It is in the reading of the scriptures written by the inspired men of God.  You would be wise to think about what you have just said.  Those popes etc. demonstrate no authority from God to do anything.  They have simply usurped it and you say "OK".

How do you know that your interpretation of any Bible passge is correct?

How do you know what belongs in the canon of scripture?

Your faith is in your infallible ability to interpret scripture, which canon you apparently accept as having been defined infallibly by Luther and the English Protestants.

Offline Jimmy

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14574
  • Manna: 294
    • View Profile
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #54 on: Fri Jan 09, 2009 - 11:04:25 »
Watch the heresy implications.

Many of us think that perhaps trusting an organization to have not been corrupted over two millenia isn't the brightest thing in the world to do.

Servetus said the same thing.

Was there corruption (say, politcal) that swirled around the Temple and the Levitcal priesthood? Yes.

Did that corruption justify men running off on their own and creating new interpretations of scripture? No.

The matter comes down to what authority: you have faith in your authority, and/or that from Luther. and/or Calvin and/or Zwingli and/or Campbell. You have faith in each man reading and deciding for himself, in individuals making choices that suit them.

Heresy comes from Latin, from Greek meaning 'to take,' applied to mean 'to take a choice.'

That is precisely the reason that it is not the Luthers or the Calvins or the Campbells or the Polycarps or the Pope Whosits that we place our faith in.  It is in the reading of the scriptures written by the inspired men of God.  You would be wise to think about what you have just said.  Those popes etc. demonstrate no authority from God to do anything.  They have simply usurped it and you say "OK".

How do you know that your interpretation of any Bible passge is correct?

How do you know what belongs in the canon of scripture?

Your faith is in your infallible ability to interpret scripture, which canon you apparently accept as having been defined infallibly by Luther and the English Protestants.

Pick anyone you like who did not die in the first century and show me why you think he is infallible?

Tu Es Petrus

  • Guest
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #55 on: Fri Jan 09, 2009 - 11:05:53 »
Did those early Christian writers that you seem to want to trust your salvation to not have natures just as corrupted as ours?   Why do you trust them and not Paul or Peter of John?

I trust my salvation to Jesus.

But trusting the intepretations of scriptures? I am humble enough to know my limitations, and not arrogant enough to self-proclaim myself an apostle.

2000 years after Christ's ministry, when we find ourselves in disagreement, I am saying that it makes sense to look at early Christian writings, not as being on a par with scripture, but just as a gjuidline. Why read  Jimmy Swaggart when you can read St. Augustine?

Tu Es Petrus

  • Guest
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #56 on: Fri Jan 09, 2009 - 11:08:02 »
Servetus also said that the sun rose in the east and set in the west.  That does not make this a heresy.

In Jesus day, the Pharisees relied on their lineage, and he said something about raising up stones.

They relied on lineage of the flesh. We rely on lineage of the spirit. It was Christ who promised the Spirit of Truth to the apostles so that when they taught they would rightly remember all he said. We trust Jesus

Offline ole Jake

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 241
  • Manna: 27
    • View Profile
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #57 on: Fri Jan 09, 2009 - 11:10:29 »
Servetus also said that the sun rose in the east and set in the west.  That does not make this a heresy.

In Jesus day, the Pharisees relied on their lineage, and he said something about raising up stones.

What do you think you are proving? Do you mean to defend Servetus's anti-Trintarianism? Or is it just that your are so enamored of rejecting historic Christian authority that that you cannot help yourself.

In Jesus' day, the only legitmate lineage for authority was the Levitcal priesthood, which was charged with maintaining worship, sacrifices, and the teachings until the time of the Messias. The Pharisees were an alternative religious organization/authority.

Christ chose and traioned men to be Apostles, to whom he gace all authority.

Offline ole Jake

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 241
  • Manna: 27
    • View Profile
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #58 on: Fri Jan 09, 2009 - 11:14:25 »
Watch the heresy implications.

Many of us think that perhaps trusting an organization to have not been corrupted over two millenia isn't the brightest thing in the world to do.

Servetus said the same thing.

Was there corruption (say, politcal) that swirled around the Temple and the Levitcal priesthood? Yes.

Did that corruption justify men running off on their own and creating new interpretations of scripture? No.

The matter comes down to what authority: you have faith in your authority, and/or that from Luther. and/or Calvin and/or Zwingli and/or Campbell. You have faith in each man reading and deciding for himself, in individuals making choices that suit them.

Heresy comes from Latin, from Greek meaning 'to take,' applied to mean 'to take a choice.'

That is precisely the reason that it is not the Luthers or the Calvins or the Campbells or the Polycarps or the Pope Whosits that we place our faith in.  It is in the reading of the scriptures written by the inspired men of God.  You would be wise to think about what you have just said.  Those popes etc. demonstrate no authority from God to do anything.  They have simply usurped it and you say "OK".

How do you know that your interpretation of any Bible passge is correct?

How do you know what belongs in the canon of scripture?

Your faith is in your infallible ability to interpret scripture, which canon you apparently accept as having been defined infallibly by Luther and the English Protestants.

Pick anyone you like who did not die in the first century and show me why you think he is infallible?

Now I get it: you know that your interpretations of Bible passages are correct, are infalible, and the English Bible canon is correct because I am to pick someone who did not die in the 1st century AD who was infallible (I assume in all things, as opposed to merely the authority to adjudicate disputed meanings of scripture and doctrine).

Your logic is stunning.


Offline Jimbob

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 21536
  • Manna: 439
  • Gender: Male
  • Me fail English? That's unpossible.
    • View Profile
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #59 on: Fri Jan 09, 2009 - 12:11:31 »
There is another reason to watch the heresy implications, too:

http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/index.php/topic,13977.0.html


Tantor

  • Guest
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #60 on: Fri Jan 09, 2009 - 12:35:43 »
What do you think you are proving? Do you mean to defend Servetus's anti-Trintarianism? Or is it just that your are so enamored of rejecting historic Christian authority that that you cannot help yourself.

I cannot believe you have the unmitigated gaul to say such things.... if you want to say Roman Catholic Authority go ahead... but you have absolutely no legitimate claim to speak for the worlds Christians.

In my opinion it is impossible to be a Roman Catholic and a Christian at the same time as they are fundamentally incompatible.

Offline Jimmy

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14574
  • Manna: 294
    • View Profile
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #61 on: Fri Jan 09, 2009 - 12:51:09 »
Did those early Christian writers that you seem to want to trust your salvation to not have natures just as corrupted as ours?   Why do you trust them and not Paul or Peter of John?

I trust my salvation to Jesus.

But trusting the intepretations of scriptures? I am humble enough to know my limitations, and not arrogant enough to self-proclaim myself an apostle.

2000 years after Christ's ministry, when we find ourselves in disagreement, I am saying that it makes sense to look at early Christian writings, not as being on a par with scripture, but just as a gjuidline. Why read  Jimmy Swaggart when you can read St. Augustine?

Except for some historical interest, why read Augustine when you can read Paul?  And if it is historical, then may even Swaggart would be of more interest for a recent historical perspective than Augustine.

marc

  • Guest
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #62 on: Fri Jan 09, 2009 - 14:16:20 »
Servetus also said that the sun rose in the east and set in the west.  That does not make this a heresy.

In Jesus day, the Pharisees relied on their lineage, and he said something about raising up stones.

What do you think you are proving? Do you mean to defend Servetus's anti-Trintarianism? Or is it just that your are so enamored of rejecting historic Christian authority that that you cannot help yourself.

In Jesus' day, the only legitmate lineage for authority was the Levitcal priesthood, which was charged with maintaining worship, sacrifices, and the teachings until the time of the Messias. The Pharisees were an alternative religious organization/authority.

Christ chose and traioned men to be Apostles, to whom he gace all authority.

Picture yourself in a boat on a river, with tangerine trees and a marmalade sky....

What in the world are you talking about?    I didn't bring Servatus into this, and, although I didn't approve (I complained about it to Johnny C. at the time), Catholics weren't the ones who burned him at the stake.

Bringing a random name into the mix in a non-logical way just to divert the point proves only one thing: your point can't stand on its own two feet.

btw, you seem to know far less about the religious authorities in Jesus' time than you think. I'd suggest a deeper reading of the history of that time and the origins of the Pharisees.

marc

  • Guest
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #63 on: Fri Jan 09, 2009 - 14:19:29 »
btw, I could have sworn this thread--and board--was about Baptist theology and history, not Catholic.  I realize that you guys are much more important, but give the Baptists a little space, please and don't make everything about you.

Offline Jimbob

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 21536
  • Manna: 439
  • Gender: Male
  • Me fail English? That's unpossible.
    • View Profile
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #64 on: Fri Jan 09, 2009 - 15:57:08 »
Well, if you want to bring it full circle, while still throwing out random names, perhaps you could throw in Cardinal Von Dietrichstein and the 30 Years War and how that impacted the Anabaptists at the time. 
::shrug::

Offline ole Jake

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 241
  • Manna: 27
    • View Profile
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #65 on: Fri Jan 09, 2009 - 19:42:38 »
What do you think you are proving? Do you mean to defend Servetus's anti-Trintarianism? Or is it just that your are so enamored of rejecting historic Christian authority that that you cannot help yourself.

I cannot believe you have the unmitigated gaul to say such things.... if you want to say Roman Catholic Authority go ahead... but you have absolutely no legitimate claim to speak for the worlds Christians.

In my opinion it is impossible to be a Roman Catholic and a Christian at the same time as they are fundamentally incompatible.


I agree I have no authority to speak for the world's Christians, or to declare doctrines or the canon of scripture. Christ ordained those who did, who were instructed to train men to succeed them. Those men in that line of succession have the authority.

You have free will and so have a right to believe whatever you will, but unless your interpretations of scripture are infallible, then you should be worried about how and why you hold them.

marc

  • Guest
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #66 on: Fri Jan 09, 2009 - 19:59:37 »
And Tantor, you've posted long enough to know that only one person's view of scripture is infallible. 

Gary.

::lookaround::

Offline ole Jake

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 241
  • Manna: 27
    • View Profile
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #67 on: Fri Jan 09, 2009 - 20:15:39 »
Servetus also said that the sun rose in the east and set in the west.  That does not make this a heresy.

In Jesus day, the Pharisees relied on their lineage, and he said something about raising up stones.

What do you think you are proving? Do you mean to defend Servetus's anti-Trintarianism? Or is it just that your are so enamored of rejecting historic Christian authority that that you cannot help yourself.

In Jesus' day, the only legitmate lineage for authority was the Levitcal priesthood, which was charged with maintaining worship, sacrifices, and the teachings until the time of the Messias. The Pharisees were an alternative religious organization/authority.

Christ chose and traioned men to be Apostles, to whom he gace all authority.

Picture yourself in a boat on a river, with tangerine trees and a marmalade sky....

What in the world are you talking about?    I didn't bring Servatus into this, and, although I didn't approve (I complained about it to Johnny C. at the time), Catholics weren't the ones who burned him at the stake.

Bringing a random name into the mix in a non-logical way just to divert the point proves only one thing: your point can't stand on its own two feet.

btw, you seem to know far less about the religious authorities in Jesus' time than you think. I'd suggest a deeper reading of the history of that time and the origins of the Pharisees.

So you truly did not follow from the start? That does make a difference, but not one that is good for you.

Servetus's name is not random and not tossed out to confuse. You, and all Protestants, assume sola scriptura, which requires you to agree with Luther also that scripture is perspicuous. If scripture is perspicuous, then we have the matter of Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli all declaring one another heretical for their readings of scripture, and all of them declared Servetus heretical, though Servetus wrote a book titled Christianity Restored in which he argued that the true, undaluterated Christianity was unTrinitarian - making Sevetus the least Catholic of all reformers.

Who burned Servetus is not the issue; the inevitable fruits of chaos produced by sola scriptura are.

Why don't you educate us all about Pharisees - a new thread.

Offline Bon Voyage

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16049
  • Manna: 408
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #68 on: Fri Jan 09, 2009 - 20:19:20 »
And Tantor, you've posted long enough to know that only one person's view of scripture is infallible. 

Gary.

::lookaround::

That's only because I agree with God.  If you disagree with me, you disagree with God.  And that's the bottom line because God's Word says so.

Offline ole Jake

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 241
  • Manna: 27
    • View Profile
Re: When did Baptist come to be?
« Reply #69 on: Fri Jan 09, 2009 - 20:19:31 »
btw, I could have sworn this thread--and board--was about Baptist theology and history, not Catholic.  I realize that you guys are much more important, but give the Baptists a little space, please and don't make everything about you.

Baptist history is post-Luther, as said long ago.

Christ founded a church in c. 30 AD, and because He declared His church would stand until His return, His church will have a visible history all the way back to then.