Posted on 01/03/2014 8:59:21 PM PST by matthewrobertolson
I know you are trying to uphold the Baptists here, but this statement is wrong. The very first assembly formed at the day of Pentecost was baptist, and their doctrine has never changed.
Other imitations of The True Faith were excluded from fellowship by virtue of their doctrinal changes from that of The Disciples. Baptized regenerated believer-disciples have continually come away from the apostates, they have stayed separate, and refused to even touch the unclean thing of impure doctrine. This line has been clean and straight since the beginning.
Today's fundamental independent Bible-believing immersionists (of whicg some are now given the proper noun title "Baptists") have never changed their doctrinal base from what it was at the foot of the Risen Christ, 120 of them.
Other splinters have, with flawed and fatal changes in the understanding of Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the elements of The Saving Gospel, and that is why they are called something else rather than baptizers. Mo matter how numerous, "catholic" is one of those splinters refusing the WHOLE counsel of the Bible.
Baptists were/are/will always be the first church of The Christ. To join this movement "The Way" the individual had to believe on Christ, repent from/abandon one's sins, be baptized as a public profession, and meet regularly with fellow believers for instruction in the doctrine of the Disciples, to pray, to break bread in Remembrance, and see to each others' needs.
. An introduction and fifteen chapters of the history of baptists is here:
http://www.reformedreader.org/history/ford/
I suggest you read Chapter 15 first.
I admire a lot of things about the Baptist following. It’s good. It manages to give full throated affirmation to “No one shall snatch them out of My hand” — the preserving and destining power of Christ once accepted — which is a key point of God’s glory that the Roman Catholics have simply dropped on the floor. (I’m not affirming Calvinism as a whole, but this aspect of it is right on the nose.)
Perfect it ain’t. And it’s the same breed of arrogance that asserts that it is, that asserts in a Roman Catholic milieu that it has enough authority to add new doctrines with confidence.
Continuing condescending snark duly noted.
I do not quite grasp the sense of the last sentence of your post #362. I would be very grateful if you could take the time to clarify the thought there.
What's the "it" that's not perfect. Is "perfection" here in the Scriptural sense or the worldly sense?
And it’s the same breed of arrogance that asserts that it is, . . .
To what "it" here does "arrogance" refer? And what kind of arrogance is this "breed"? Also to what does the second "it" refer to"?
I just don't get the sense of this whole phrase.
. . . that asserts in a Roman Catholic milieu . . .
Where is this Catholic "milieu" located? This particular article and discussion do not seem to be oriented toward an audience limited to Catholicism. So, to what does this phrase point?
. . . that it has enough authority to add new doctrines with confidence.
Going on, what is the "it" here, and to which of the previous "it"s does this phrase refer? And what would these "new doctrines" be, and to what are they to be added?
This whole paragraph is not only puzzling, but obtuse. Could you please take the time to make clear what you are saying?
Thank you, in advance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.