/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>850922

This guy spends a lot of time trying to tell us what the primitive christians supposedly believed, but much of what he says, is left without support from Scripture.

I spent a long time trying to find a place where he would actually quote scripture, and when he finally did, it was the New King James version. So clearly, he does not hold to preservation of Scripture either.

I noticed that he mentioned in the video on baptism, that he believes salvation is equated to being born of water and of the spirit and equals baptism. Problem is this is just an erroneous teaching, not found in scripture. He supported it with writings preserved by the catholic church. Again, not inspired scripture.

Since it's not inspired, whoever wrote that could be wrong and the original text could even be corrupted by people who copied it later. We simply don't know. If I want to know what the early church taught from a reliable witness, I will look at the New Testament only.

>>850926

>In most places it is actually hard to find Anabaptist churches though.

I think having the right doctrine is more important than the name of the church though. "Anabaptist" was a label given to primitive churches after the Munster rebellion, basically accusing them of doing two baptisms.

The church actually only believes in "one baptism." As it says in Ephesians 4:5: "One Lord, one faith, one baptism". The charge of anabaptistery was originally nothing more than an accusation made by those who performed invalid baptisms, which the primitive churches obviously did not respect.

Now to move forward in history, there were some splinter movements that advocated for radical separation, the swiss brethren who wrote the Schleitheim Confession, mennonites, and amish for example. These people actually embraced the name anabaptist, and this would be the groups you are most likely referring to under most ordinary definitions.

The baptist churches, as far as I am aware, did not seriously refer to themselves as "anabaptist" or having multiple baptisms. That was only a bitter charge laid on them by their opponents. It is documented that by the 16th century, they had abbreviated the accusation of "anabaptist," which they rejected, into "baptist" church - which is what is most commonly still used today to differentiate from protestants. Still, they recognize that many of the primitive churches were (falsely) called anabaptists by their enemies in some earlier writings, so you might find them referred to under that name in early writings. As far back as the late Roman Empire they were called a similar name, "rebaptizandi." See below:

Imperatoris Theodosii codex: Book 16, Title 6 (A.D. 413)

Reinstated in Codex Justinianus Book 1, Title 6 (A.D. 529)

>Law 16.6.6 Emperors Honorius and Theodosius Augustuses to Anthemius, Praetorian Prefect.

>No person shall resort to the crime of rebaptizing, nor shall he endeavor to pollute with the filth of profaned religions and the sordidness of heretics those persons who have been initiated in the rites of the orthodox… if after the time that the law was issued any person should be discovered to have rebaptized anyone who had been initiated into the mysteries of the Catholic sect, he shall suffer the penalty [of death], along with the person rebaptized, because he has committed a crime that must be expiated, provided, however, that the person so persuaded is capable of crime by reason of his age.

>>850932

>Imagine thinking you or a guy from the medieval period knows more about scripture than literal disciples of the Apostles

Oh, I didn't know you were that. Should we call you the successor then?

>knows more about scripture

Paul wrote these verses in 1 Corinthians 2:12-13

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

Are you saying that being saved and in the presence of God, being guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit (John 16:13) is inferior to reading some guy with a big hat's forged documents? I am happy to inform you that according to the New Testament whoever is born again has the Holy Spirit dwelling in them and receives the correct interpretations from God, the same God who inspired the Scriptures when reading it. We must call and ask for God to teach us. We have to believe in God: So has it always been. If you turn your back on Him, and try to rely on transient fables given by other men then it is bound to be a failure from the start. The Apostle John said this: "But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." (1 Jn. 2:27).

So we see that the teaching comes from God all along.

>I bet reformed people would be audacious enough to say that…

Ok now you're just throwing things at the wall. Nobody said anything like that. Just admit that you have a weak case, and return to the truth of God's word.

Whatever non-inspired stuff this guy has got, and however he wants to rewrite and reinterpret it, is not going to make the grade compared to the verbal, plenary inspired, infallible, eternally preserved Gospel.

That is where you learn from God about the Lord Jesus Christ. Also, it's the church that God founded. So it should be based on God's teachings, not man's. We don't need gimmicks like forged documents, which everyone agrees are uninspired and not the word of God anyways, which were made up by the enemies of the truth in order to contradict the Bible.

And that's why they refer to them instead of Scripture all of the time.

Mark 7:13

>Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

>>850968

If you are going to quote them, you should be able to find where the doctrine is in the Holy Bible anyway. The doctrine of sufficiency of scripture tells us that.

Acts 20:32

>And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.

2 Timothy 3:

>16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

>17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

So the question naturally becomes where in Scripture is this located if you think you have all these patristics that say a certain thing. See pic.

>like we are scripture

Sorry, I am not completely sure what you mean by this. Do you believe in the preservation of Scripture? That seems to be one of the biggest hurdles that is being set up against people these days. The word of man is subject to corruption and misinterpretation over time, We understand that. But we should also remember God's word, (according to Scripture if we are to follow that), is not subject to corruption.

1 Peter 1:

>23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

>24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:

>25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

Notice how Peter wrote "BUT" the word of the Lord endures forever. This is placing the word of the Lord in direct contrast to manmade writings which do not endure and are as he said corruptible seed. John also said "If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater" (I Jn. 5:9). If you agree w/ this already then I am glad to see you here also friend.

>>850971

>If scripture was sufficient then we wouldn't have idiotic ideas like Calvinism.

I don't follow your train of thought on this one. Can you explain why this somehow disproves sufficiency of Scripture? But you should know right away I am not a Calvinist and follow none of the tulip points.

>The volumes and volumes of their writings coming together in concord on just about every doctrinal issue

It's just your personal interpretation though— Only Scripture is "of no private interpretation," being inspired by God (see 2 Peter 1:20-21) and thus saved believers being guided into all truth about it by the Holy Spirit. See >>850936 where I quoted 1 Corinthians 2:12-13 and 1 John 2:27.

Now I can say more about this as well.

In John 14:26 the Lord Jesus says this : "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."

Now notice what he said there. He shall both teach you all things, and bring all things to their remembrance whatsoever I have said unto you. What God has said unto us that Jesus refers to is the word of God. So the Holy Spirit bringing things to our remembrance here is strictly those things the Lord has said unto us. Not other things. Also, John 16:14 again he says that the Spirit will receive of him (Jesus) and show unto us. This is special with regards to the Word given to us from the Son. And this does not apply to manmade writings. There is no inspired "one true interpretation" of those things. The only thing spoken of by Scripture that is NOT of private interpretation, is Scripture. Everything else is of private interpretation. That's why you see Peter contrast the inspired prophecy of the scripture with everything else in 2 Peter 1:20-21. The difference with Scripture is that it is not "of private interpretation."

>The thing is when you supplement scripture with interpretation from the antenicene fathers

Ok, but that's of private interpretation.

>Is some fat German monk going to know more about what scripture says than disciples of Paul and John?

They are all giving private interpretation. Instead of any of that, follow Scripture. In the case of the latter there is also a high probability that their writings have been mistranslated, misrepresented and so forth, in order to mislead people away from Scripture. Make it seem like ancient sources agree with them in order to better deceive. If it were not so, then the people that use them would simply be able to tell you where Scripture actually contains that doctrine. But they cannot.

The reason they cannot is because God supernaturally prevented anyone from permanently corrupting his Word, because it is incorruptible. They can't touch it.

You know... Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for created a whole "oral law" that they claimed was legitimately from the seventy elders at Sinai. Really it was just a bunch of stuff they made up over time, in order to undermine the inspired written word so that they would not have to follow it, but they would follow traditions from their own kind instead which enlarge themselves. Jesus rebukes these pharisees in Mark 7:7-13 if you would like to take the time to read that passage. He says that they lay aside the commandment of God in order to keep their own traditions. This is just another type of that. Each delivering a personal set of fraudulent traditions, which each one swears are legitimate, of course - but which blatantly contradict the inspired word and teach others not to follow it. Calling no man "Father" for instance. Or vain repetitions, or idolatry, etc. Really plain, obvious contradictions. They use traditions they have delivered to nullify the pure word of God and make it "of none effect" (Mark 7:13).

>Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

– Mark vii. 13

>Meanwhile the true faith existed entirely outside the influence of Luther or Calvin

Sure.

>Altogether though, we find a plain reading of scripture speaks to all these things.

The Biblical case for the ordinance of God was made in this post here >>850792

>And why would they maintain such doctrine as Jesus spoke

It's all the parts that go against the doctrine of Christ that we would have a problem with. I am just saying right now, pulling out some non-Scripture reference to argue against the word of God is simply not going to make the grade.