Purgatory?

[MennoSota]

So you are a Baptist?

I am a Christian. I see that Baptists have been present from the very beginning of the church, but not Romans. They came later...and became bullies.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I am a Christian. I see that Baptists have been present from the very beginning of the church ...

Baptists have a confession of faith too. It is called the
1689 London Baptist Confession.

Chapter 15: Of Repentance Unto Life and Salvation

1. Such of the elect as are converted at riper years, having sometime lived in the state of nature, and therein served divers lusts and pleasures, God in their effectual calling giveth them repentance unto life. ( Titus 3:2-5 )
2. Whereas there is none that doth good and sinneth not, and the best of men may, through the power and deceitfulness of their corruption dwelling in them, with the prevalency of temptation, fall into great sins and provocations; God hath, in the covenant of grace, mercifully provided that believers so sinning and falling be renewed through repentance unto salvation. ( Ecclesiastes 7:20; Luke 22:31, 32 )
   
3. This saving repentance is an evangelical grace, whereby a person, being by the Holy Spirit made sensible of the manifold evils of his sin, doth, by faith in Christ, humble himself for it with godly sorrow, detestation of it, and self-abhorrency, praying for pardon and strength of grace, with a purpose and endeavour, by supplies of the Spirit, to walk before God unto all well-pleasing in all things. ( Zechariah 12:10; Acts 11:18; Ezekiel 36:31; 2 Corinthians 7:11; Psalms 119:6; Psalms 119:128 )
   
4. As repentance is to be continued through the whole course of our lives, upon the account of the body of death, and the motions thereof, so it is every man's duty to repent of his particular known sins particularly. ( Luke 19:8; 1 Timothy 1:13, 15 )
   
5. Such is the provision which God hath made through Christ in the covenant of grace for the preservation of believers unto salvation; that although there is no sin so small but it deserves damnation; yet there is no sin so great that it shall bring damnation on them that repent; which makes the constant preaching of repentance necessary. ( Romans 6:23; Isaiah 1:16-18 Isaiah 55:7 )

(http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc00.html)

 

[MennoSota]

Baptists have a confession of faith too. It is called the
1689 London Baptist Confession.

Chapter 15: Of Repentance Unto Life and Salvation

1. Such of the elect as are converted at riper years, having sometime lived in the state of nature, and therein served divers lusts and pleasures, God in their effectual calling giveth them repentance unto life. ( Titus 3:2-5 )
2. Whereas there is none that doth good and sinneth not, and the best of men may, through the power and deceitfulness of their corruption dwelling in them, with the prevalency of temptation, fall into great sins and provocations; God hath, in the covenant of grace, mercifully provided that believers so sinning and falling be renewed through repentance unto salvation. ( Ecclesiastes 7:20; Luke 22:31, 32 )
   
3. This saving repentance is an evangelical grace, whereby a person, being by the Holy Spirit made sensible of the manifold evils of his sin, doth, by faith in Christ, humble himself for it with godly sorrow, detestation of it, and self-abhorrency, praying for pardon and strength of grace, with a purpose and endeavour, by supplies of the Spirit, to walk before God unto all well-pleasing in all things. ( Zechariah 12:10; Acts 11:18; Ezekiel 36:31; 2 Corinthians 7:11; Psalms 119:6; Psalms 119:128 )
   
4. As repentance is to be continued through the whole course of our lives, upon the account of the body of death, and the motions thereof, so it is every man's duty to repent of his particular known sins particularly. ( Luke 19:8; 1 Timothy 1:13, 15 )
   
5. Such is the provision which God hath made through Christ in the covenant of grace for the preservation of believers unto salvation; that although there is no sin so small but it deserves damnation; yet there is no sin so great that it shall bring damnation on them that repent; which makes the constant preaching of repentance necessary. ( Romans 6:23; Isaiah 1:16-18 Isaiah 55:7 )

(http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc00.html)

Still stuck in the denomination rut there MC. You're missing the forest for the trees.
On the day of Pentacost...you see Baptists, not Romans.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I see the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church on the day of Pentecost. But is in never called "the Baptist Church".

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Still stuck in the denomination rut there MC. You're missing the forest for the trees.

Erm... Aren't you the one that tied in church historians and Baptists?

 

[MennoSota]

Erm... Aren't you the one that tied in church historians and Baptists?

Sure, but you can't seem to separate theologians from historians. My disagreement with Rome is their bad exigesis of scripture as they often force a bible text to fit their own fantasy belief. The use eisegesis rather than exigesis. That has nothing to do with historians. Although, many of the claims of Roman church followers are historically unproven.

 

[MennoSota]

I see the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church on the day of Pentecost. But is in never called "the Baptist Church".

True, but they fit the Baptist movement much better than the church at Rome. Rome cannot be seen in the early church, especially the perversion that is the Roman church today. Such perversion is why God ordained his holy Catholic and apostolic church to reform and repent 500 years ago.
Sadly, Rome refused to repent and still persists in its perversions.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Sure, but you can't seem to separate theologians from historians. My disagreement with Rome is their bad exigesis of scripture ...

At the risk of immodesty I think that your "exegesis" compared poorly against the interpretations I've offered from various sources and from myself. You denied that 1 John 4:12 actually teaches that no one has ever seen God despite the support of context and numerous other passages making the same assertion. Then you tried to pass "seeing my hind parts" as seeing God and also the passages about seeing the angel of the LORD as seeing God face to face. I can't help but think that your "exegetical principle" is "contradict Catholicism and Catholics at all costs.

 

[MoreCoffee]

True, but they fit the Baptist movement much better than the church at Rome. ...

The day of Pentecost Christians do not fit "Baptist ecclesiology" nor "Baptist sacramentology". They baptised thousands on the day, the chance that they submerged them in Jerusalem's available water supplies is low because there were not so many "pools" in the ancient city and there was no local flowing river to go to. John the Baptist baptised in Jordan and that's quite a long distance from Jerusalem, about a day's walk. Many commentators (especially the ones who are not Baptists) point to the day of Pentecost baptisms as evidence for pouring (or possibly sprinkling) as the method of baptism used rather than submerging. And the Church on the day of Pentecost is not modelled on the "independent congregational government" ecclesiology that is current among Baptist denominations. The church on the day of Pentecost was unified and had definite leadership in the Apostles of Christ and a short time later the apostles appointed deacons. In Pauls letters bishops appoint elders and there are deacons to be appointed too. The structure is Episcopal (bishop led). So I think Orthodox and Catholic Christians as well as Anglican and some Lutheran Christians can make a much better claim to reflecting the structure of the Church at the time of Pentecost. Of course Pentecostals will claim to be like the church on the day of Pentecost with respect to speaking in tongues and you are opposed to that aren't you. So all things considered the quote above is not true.

 

[Imalive]

Back to Acts is the last reformation from Torben Sondergaard.

 

[MennoSota]

At the risk of immodesty I think that your "exegesis" compared poorly against the interpretations I've offered from various sources and from myself. You denied that 1 John 4:12 actually teaches that no one has ever seen God despite the support of context and numerous other passages making the same assertion. Then you tried to pass "seeing my hind parts" as seeing God and also the passages about seeing the angel of the LORD as seeing God face to face. I can't help but think that your "exegetical principle" is "contradict Catholicism and Catholics at all costs.

Actually, your use of scripture is identical to your church. You take sentences out of context as your prooftext for your belief. I show the context and how you are misusing the sentences and then you whine. You then appeal to your theologians who do the same poor job as you. I have/am been asking you to look at context, but you ignore it. You are chained to Rome and like it, even though much of the teaching is false. It is sad to hear you parrot such poor doctrine.

 

[MennoSota]

The day of Pentecost Christians do not fit "Baptist ecclesiology" nor "Baptist sacramentology". They baptised thousands on the day, the chance that they submerged them in Jerusalem's available water supplies is low because there were not so many "pools" in the ancient city and there was no local flowing river to go to. John the Baptist baptised in Jordan and that's quite a long distance from Jerusalem, about a day's walk. Many commentators (especially the ones who are not Baptists) point to the day of Pentecost baptisms as evidence for pouring (or possibly sprinkling) as the method of baptism used rather than submerging. And the Church on the day of Pentecost is not modelled on the "independent congregational government" ecclesiology that is current among Baptist denominations. The church on the day of Pentecost was unified and had definite leadership in the Apostles of Christ and a short time later the apostles appointed deacons. In Pauls letters bishops appoint elders and there are deacons to be appointed too. The structure is Episcopal (bishop led). So I think Orthodox and Catholic Christians as well as Anglican and some Lutheran Christians can make a much better claim to reflecting the structure of the Church at the time of Pentecost. Of course Pentecostals will claim to be like the church on the day of Pentecost with respect to speaking in tongues and you are opposed to that aren't you. So all things considered the quote above is not true.

What we absolutely know is that the church wasn't Roman. What we absolutely know is that the Church at Rome is far, far away from the roots of the early church and resembles paganism more than Christianity with its relics, prayers to the saints, Mary worship and purgatory. Thus...God reformed his church and turned his head away from Rome. He saw Laodicea in Rome and spewed them out of his mouth in disgust.

 

[Imalive]

Actually, your use of scripture is identical to your church. You take sentences out of context as your prooftext for your belief. I show the context and how you are misusing the sentences and then you whine. You then appeal to your theologians who do the same poor job as you. I have/am been asking you to look at context, but you ignore it. You are chained to Rome and like it, even though much of the teaching is false. It is sad to hear you parrot such poor doctrine.

That has nothing to do with Rome. I learned it from a converted Jew. He just studied Hebrew.

 

[Imalive]

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"

He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"

Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.

 

[MoreCoffee]

What we absolutely know is that the church wasn't Roman. ...

It was Christian and in Jerusalem but there were Romans there hearing the disciples and they went back to Rome and soon after there was a church in Rome that is why saint Paul wrote a letter to the church in Rome. It's a fairly famous letter too. Protestants use it for "proof texts" about Justification.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"

He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"

Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.

:smirk:

 

[MennoSota]

That has nothing to do with Rome. I learned it from a converted Jew. He just studied Hebrew.

I was speaking to MC.
Just because a person traces his/her lineage through Judah, it does not make them knowledgeable about the Bible. It just means they have a cultural tie to the land of Israel.

 

[MennoSota]

It was Christian and in Jerusalem but there were Romans there hearing the disciples and they went back to Rome and soon after there was a church in Rome that is why saint Paul wrote a letter to the church in Rome. It's a fairly famous letter too. Protestants use it for "proof texts" about Justification.

Yes, Paul met Pricilla and Aquila and they went to Rome, sharing the good news. We have no record that anyone at Pentacost was from Rome and started the church at Rome. You keep speculating and then claim it as fact. This is the Roman way...

 

[Imalive]

I was speaking to MC.
Just because a person traces his/her lineage through Judah, it does not make them knowledgeable about the Bible. It just means they have a cultural tie to the land of Israel.

He's knowledgable enough. He has a phd in Hebrew and debates rabbi's. He can show Jews who don't believe in Jesus the Trinity from the O.T. It's also handy if you talk to jw's.

https://books.google.nl/books?id=hD...age&q=mamre of the lord michael brown&f=false

 

[MennoSota]

The day of Pentecost Christians do not fit "Baptist ecclesiology" nor "Baptist sacramentology". They baptised thousands on the day, the chance that they submerged them in Jerusalem's available water supplies is low because there were not so many "pools" in the ancient city and there was no local flowing river to go to. John the Baptist baptised in Jordan and that's quite a long distance from Jerusalem, about a day's walk. Many commentators (especially the ones who are not Baptists) point to the day of Pentecost baptisms as evidence for pouring (or possibly sprinkling) as the method of baptism used rather than submerging. And the Church on the day of Pentecost is not modelled on the "independent congregational government" ecclesiology that is current among Baptist denominations. The church on the day of Pentecost was unified and had definite leadership in the Apostles of Christ and a short time later the apostles appointed deacons. In Pauls letters bishops appoint elders and there are deacons to be appointed too. The structure is Episcopal (bishop led). So I think Orthodox and Catholic Christians as well as Anglican and some Lutheran Christians can make a much better claim to reflecting the structure of the Church at the time of Pentecost. Of course Pentecostals will claim to be like the church on the day of Pentecost with respect to speaking in tongues and you are opposed to that aren't you. So all things considered the quote above is not true.

You missed Baptist soteriology, which is by grace alone, as opposed to the works based (faux grace) teaching coming out of Rome.