Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Adamski

Hail Mary Prayer In The 1611 Kjv Bible ?

Recommended Posts

I grew up IFB and now I go to a Bible Church. I'm here to learn as much as I can. I thank everyone for their input. I'm learning that our Christian faith is so rich and deep going back 2,000 years to Jesus. I've found if you don't ask questions you'll never learn. I want to do whatever the earliest Christians did. That's why I'm reading the "Didache" because it's one of the oldest surviving books written by the apostles outside of the Bible. Not inspired by the Holy Spirit like the Bible sure, but it's fascinating to know how things were done in the infant stages of Christianity. If anyone can recommend other early Christian documents please do.

The above quote is from the pope thread.
You will notice that he says "Bible church" with capital letter, indicating the kind of church.

He is clearly trying to indicate that he is something other than catholic.
This was in direct answer to my question in that thread.

He deliberately set out to deceive, trying to make people think he was seeking answers when it clearly is not the case.
You will see from my answers to many of his questions that I treated him with respect until he revealed his true motives. Edited by DaveW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having read this thread I am unable to find where this gentleman was lying or being misleading. This type of response is what sickens me about the IFB movement of which I am embarrased to say I am a part of. While the RCC may be very wrong on many points of doctrine yet sadly this is also a fact amongst many IFB churches today - I do not see how his statement that he is a christian belonging to a bible believing church would evoke such harsh words. It is a known fact that the IFB HATE the RCC yet I say look to your own house before judging anothers, the very foundation of the IFB is rotten to the core these days yet they continue to look outwards in harsh condemnation and judgmental critisism rather than repairing their own house and leading in gentleness and truth which is the very nature of Christ.
Though the RCC may be in doctrinal error as an institution, there are many saved believers within that institution as is the case in many others and just as there are many saved in the RCC there are as many wolfs, cultists and doctrinaly bigoted idiots within the IFB.

36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

When us IFB's can live as Christ above commanded we will lead the world unto truth as men not as pouting spoilt children bickering amongst ourselves and believing that we are the only saved and doctrinally correct bunch out there!

Why don't you check out his most recent posts........everywhere, where he is espousing false doctrines all over the place.

Then check out what I actually said against the facts. He is a deceiver, and he is trying influence and corrupt readers of this site with false doctrines.

Then you might just want to not be so judgemental of me.pointing out a wolf, and instead get on board with defending the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't you check out his most recent posts........everywhere, where he is espousing false doctrines all over the place.

Then check out what I actually said against the facts. He is a deceiver, and he is trying influence and corrupt readers of this site with false doctrines.

Then you might just want to not be so judgemental of me.pointing out a wolf, and instead get on board with defending the truth.

Dave, I only read this thread and pointed out that in this thread he had not lied nor mislead. Other posts/threads I can not comment on as I have not read them.

 

He may be a deciever, a troll or any number of things yet that does not give us the right to categorically state that he is not a believer nor part of a bible believing church, EVEN if it is a RCC church!!

 

My apologies if you feel I was being judgmental towards you and calling you a wolf, that was not my intention. You just happened to reply in a manner that befits the attitude of IFB's world round these days and does not do much to mirror the image of Christ. And don't tell me about how he treated the pharasees etc- That was HIS right and is not ours.

 

There are many non IFB's that come to this sight looking for that attitude to prevail and they always find it - thus justifying there belief that we are bigoted, legalistic bible bashing bullies and then off they go having learnt nothing when with a little humilty on our side they could have learnt much and left or stayed without being called things like decievers, liers, false teachers etc. Jesus never expected us to come up to His level, but rather he made Himself a servant and came down to ours- maybe we should practice what we preach.

Edited by 2Tim215

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And look at my replies to his questions - I could see his leanings, and was trying to answer respectfully.
But when he revealed his true colours, I called him for what he is.
His latest replies shows his true motives.

By the way, I didn't think you were calling me a wolf - I was calling him a wolf - as he is. The phone sometimes is less than accurate and I got the stop instead of space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do know that St. Polycarp is considered a Church Father in the Catholic Church right? As you said he was the Bishop of Smyrna. I agree he was a master of scripture much like the other Church Fathers were. By the 2nd century the Catholic Church had solidified through apostolic succession that both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition were both important. You can read St. Ignatius of Antioch's letters about Sacred Tradition. Never did Polycarp say Bible only. He emphesized the importance of the scripture but Apostolic Tradition is used many times in early Church Father writings. Catholics never denied people from reading the Bible ever. Anyone who could read (which was few) could read the Bible at any time. Sola scriptura came about from the Reformation. I appreciate your stab at it. We can respectfully agree to disagree.


I know that you'd like to think of him as Catholic, but again you don't know your history. The Roman church didn't even begin to assert its influence until late in the 2nd century. It exerted nothing over outlying churches in Polycarp's day (Polycarp died 155 AD - middle of the 2nd century). Polycarp's own authority in the church did not extend past the church in Smyrna. In that day, the churches still followed the bishop-presbyters-deacons model which more closely resembles the senior pastor-associate pastors-deacons model that most IFB (and other) churches use today. The Roman church did indeed begin claiming authority based on apostolic succession in the late-2nd century and eary-3rd century as people like Origen and Irenaeus were combating gnosticism, but this can hardly be claimed as the beginning of the Catholic church. The Roman Catholic church exerted no official influence or authority until very late in the 3rd century and really well into the 4th-century under Constantine. No less than a century after Polycarp. So unless you want to say that the Catholic church actually began in Smyrna, then Polycarp is no more Catholic than the Apostle Thomas and the Apostle John or even Timothy and Titus. Despite what Catholics like to think, the Roman church was just one of many for the first 2-3 centuries at least until the Roman Empire began exerting control over all churches through Rome.

Regarding the lack of Polycarp explicitly saying "Bible only", please carefully re-read my post. There is no reason you would find such a reference in the first- and second-centuries because it wasn't the issue of the day. They had a littany of other heresies to deal with and you'll find they is the subject of their writings. Furthermore, most people/places did not have the completed canon of Scripture at that time anyway, so yes, they certainly did rely on apostolic tradition. The difference between then and now is that they learned directly from the Apostles who had the authority of revelation because they received it directly from Jesus. The Catholic church and popes do not. We also today have the completed canon of Scripture and since there will be no more revelation that's all we need.

If you think the Catholic church never denied people the right to read and interpret the Bible on their own, you really need to study the Middle Ages and Renaissance again.

You did not engage with the entire point of the post which was that there necessarily would not have been discussions on sola scriptura in the sub-apostolic and ante-Nicene eras because it was not an issue in those days and you're asking for evidence that won't exist. It's like asking for 1st century arguments against Darwinism. Instead you presented a straw-man argument about Polycarp being Catholic. Again, I would ask you to please study more history before using it as the basis of your argument.

**edits: spelling errors again...I type to fast... Edited by TheSword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wanted to thank you for putting your trust in our Catholic bishops (Church Fathers in general) like St. Polycarp. The Catholic Church thanks you too.

 

I don't put trust in your Catholic bishops or Polycarp.  I put my trust in my savior Jesus Christ. Polycarp was just a man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly, there IS a place for traditions in churches. It is how they are used and how highly they are placed that is important for us to consider. Paul does, indeed, speak of traditions in a positive light-but traditions are just that-traditions, made by man, for their purposes, and can NEVER be exalted higher than, or as high as, scripture. They are things that are an aspect of our liberty in Christ, but at the same time, cannot disagree with scripture. For instance, in our church, being a very rural church, in a farming community, its rare to see a suit, except on me, and I even sometimes doff the tie and jacket. However, in some more urban centers, a pastor without suit and tie would be unthinkable-its a tradition, a fine one, but not scripture, and will neither make or break a church either way. If I went to a church that carried that tradition, I would follow it for their edification and in recognition of their authority in that church, but I would expect not to be judged for sometimes not wearing them in our church. Suit and tie=tradition. Neat and modest, however, are Bible and God-honoring. 

What the RCC follows, however, are traditions of men, believed to have equal or higher authority than scripture, and that is the same error of the Pharisees which Jesus condemned. When a man stands and claims to speak with complete authority over the world, in the place of God, that is wickedness and will be judged as such. Altar Christus? Another Christ? I think not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having read this thread I am unable to find where this gentleman was lying or being misleading. This type of response is what sickens me about the IFB movement of which I am embarrased to say I am a part of. While the RCC may be very wrong on many points of doctrine yet sadly this is also a fact amongst many IFB churches today - I do not see how his statement that he is a christian belonging to a bible believing church would evoke such harsh words. It is a known fact that the IFB HATE the RCC yet I say look to your own house before judging anothers, the very foundation of the IFB is rotten to the core these days yet they continue to look outwards in harsh condemnation and judgmental critisism rather than  repairing their own house and leading in gentleness and truth which is the very nature of Christ.

Though the RCC may be in doctrinal error as an institution, there are many saved believers within that institution as is the case in many others and just as there are many saved in the RCC there are as many wolfs, cultists and doctrinaly bigoted idiots within the IFB.

 

36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

 

When us IFB's can live as Christ above commanded we will lead the world unto truth as men not as pouting spoilt children bickering amongst ourselves and believing that we are the only saved and doctrinally correct bunch out there!

Gosh that's a bad attitude :) Jesus commands us to love, especially the Catholic Church he founded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly, there IS a place for traditions in churches. It is how they are used and how highly they are placed that is important for us to consider. Paul does, indeed, speak of traditions in a positive light-but traditions are just that-traditions, made by man, for their purposes, and can NEVER be exalted higher than, or as high as, scripture. They are things that are an aspect of our liberty in Christ, but at the same time, cannot disagree with scripture. For instance, in our church, being a very rural church, in a farming community, its rare to see a suit, except on me, and I even sometimes doff the tie and jacket. However, in some more urban centers, a pastor without suit and tie would be unthinkable-its a tradition, a fine one, but not scripture, and will neither make or break a church either way. If I went to a church that carried that tradition, I would follow it for their edification and in recognition of their authority in that church, but I would expect not to be judged for sometimes not wearing them in our church. Suit and tie=tradition. Neat and modest, however, are Bible and God-honoring. 

What the RCC follows, however, are traditions of men, believed to have equal or higher authority than scripture, and that is the same error of the Pharisees which Jesus condemned. When a man stands and claims to speak with complete authority over the world, in the place of God, that is wickedness and will be judged as such. Altar Christus? Another Christ? I think not.

If you're referring to Apolostolic Succession then yes we follow the men Jesus left in charge. Then again think of how many people (congregations) follow a minister or preacher. Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture has worked for us for 2,000 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're referring to Apolostolic Succession then yes we follow the men Jesus left in charge. Then again think of how many people (congregations) follow a minister or preacher. Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture has worked for us for 2,000 years.

No, I'm not speaking of Apostolic Succession-there is no such thing. Apostles were for the beginning of the church, and no more-there were only 12 Apostles of the Lamb. There is no sacred tradition, except for what some men chose to call such and that doesn't give them the authority.

 

No, I am speaking fo Christian liberty; the Bible lays out some clear boundaries for our lives and how we are to conduct business in the assembly of the church-outside of those specific things, we have some liberty, again, things such as dress styles, how or if we use music/instruments, facial hair, how long service is, times and days of assembling, etc. In such, there are no specific rules of how, though there may be some in forms and the like, as in, keeping worldliness out, modesty in dress, and the like. No judging one another in such things, and respecting one another's liberties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I'm not speaking of Apostolic Succession-there is no such thing. Apostles were for the beginning of the church, and no more-there were only 12 Apostles of the Lamb. There is no sacred tradition, except for what some men chose to call such and that doesn't give them the authority.

 

No, I am speaking fo Christian liberty; the Bible lays out some clear boundaries for our lives and how we are to conduct business in the assembly of the church-outside of those specific things, we have some liberty, again, things such as dress styles, how or if we use music/instruments, facial hair, how long service is, times and days of assembling, etc. In such, there are no specific rules of how, though there may be some in forms and the like, as in, keeping worldliness out, modesty in dress, and the like. No judging one another in such things, and respecting one another's liberties.

Sure there was Apostolic Succession, the disciples of the apostles then became the first bishops in the early first and second centuries. We can trace back all of our bishops to the apostles. Pretty cool huh? I'm glad you put your faith in our Bible so much. The Catholic Church thanks you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure there was Apostolic Succession, the disciples of the apostles then became the first bishops in the early first and second centuries. We can trace back all of our bishops to the apostles. Pretty cool huh? I'm glad you put your faith in our Bible so much. The Catholic Church thanks you.

If you read my post as faith in the Catholic false bible, then I can see why you are Catholic-apparently you don't read, or understand, very well. As for the apostolic succession you count as being the beginnings of the RCC, this is according to Catholic history only, not actual history, including Peter as the first bishop of Rome.  If you remember in the Bible, Paul said that Peter was given the job as the apostle to the circumcision, while he, Paul, was the apostle to the Gentiles. Since Rome was Gentile, there is no reason to believe Peter ever did any service there as Bishop or otherwise. The Epistle to the Romans never mentions Peter as being there, which would be odd if he was there as Bishop, or in ANY form, seeing as how he was one of the 12, and Paul would have been remiss to forget to name him in the epistle. Just Catholic tradition, no more, no less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm so glad you love our Bible as much as us Catholics. We had St. Jerome for translate it into Greek and those bishops at Nicea for canonizing the Bible as we know it today. Thank you for your appreciation for our Bible.

 

We have a Bible thanks only to our Lord, not the Catholics, if the Catholics had their way no one would have had a Bible outside of the leaders of the RCC. Please, please stop trying to rob God of His glory placing it on the false teaching RCC. ALL glory goes only to our Lord.

 

Its become quite clear that your here to promote the RCC, & its false teachings, not to learn God's truths. I've graciously replied to you several times point you to Bible truths & you reject them putting forth the false teachings of the RCC.

 

And please remember, I did not go to a RCC forum promoting God's true teachings & pointing out the false teachings of the RCC, you came to a Baptist forum telling us our teachings are wrong, & the RCC teachings are correct.

 

I would not expect to be graciously accepted if I went to a RCC forum doing what you've done here.

 

Your teachings leads souls though the wide broad gate into the pits of hell not though the narrow strait gate that leads to life. At least in this forum you have been exposed to God's truth, my prayer is that a seed of truth has been planted in your mind, & at some point it will be watered & God will give the increase.

 

 

1Co 3:5 ¶ Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
1Co 3:6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
1Co 3:7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.
 
With the direction your taking this, promoting RCC's false teachings over God's truth, I bow out of this discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure there was Apostolic Succession, the disciples of the apostles then became the first bishops in the early first and second centuries. We can trace back all of our bishops to the apostles. Pretty cool huh? I'm glad you put your faith in our Bible so much. The Catholic Church thanks you.

 

Which Apostle does the Roman church trace to then?  It can't be Peter or Paul; upon examination of Scripture they were not in Rome until well after the founding of the church (please don't use the Peter-rock argument unless you want to look silly).  Thomas was in Smyrna.  John spent his final days on Patmos.  James was martyred in Jerusalem.  Andrew went north to the Black Sea area (perhaps beyond). Philip was primarily in Syria, Phrygia, and Greece. Bartholomew/Nathaniel went to India.  The other James is said to have gone to Egypt.  Thaddeus and Simon the Zealot stayed in/around the Levant.  Aside from the information on Peter and Paul, the information on the rest of the Apostles is based on historical tradition, but none of them appear to have made Rome their mission field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gosh that's a bad attitude :) Jesus commands us to love, especially the Catholic Church he founded.

 

There was no 'catholic church' until the time of Constantine, when disputes between the Latin and Greek speakers, caused a separation.  The Latins called themselves Catholic and the Greeks Orthodox.

 

The Roman Church is the most evil and corrupt organisation on earth, as well as the richest.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was no 'catholic church' until the time of Constantine, when disputes between the Latin and Greek speakers, caused a separation.  The Latins called themselves Catholic and the Greeks Orthodox.

 

The Roman Church is the most evil and corrupt organisation on earth, as well as the richest.  

Is that what your pastor told you? The world "Catholic Church" was around in the 2nd century well before Constantine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which Apostle does the Roman church trace to then?  It can't be Peter or Paul; upon examination of Scripture they were not in Rome until well after the founding of the church (please don't use the Peter-rock argument unless you want to look silly).  Thomas was in Smyrna.  John spent his final days on Patmos.  James was martyred in Jerusalem.  Andrew went north to the Black Sea area (perhaps beyond). Philip was primarily in Syria, Phrygia, and Greece. Bartholomew/Nathaniel went to India.  The other James is said to have gone to Egypt.  Thaddeus and Simon the Zealot stayed in/around the Levant.  Aside from the information on Peter and Paul, the information on the rest of the Apostles is based on historical tradition, but none of them appear to have made Rome their mission field.

I respect your IFB interpretation of the Bible. We believe otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have a Bible thanks only to our Lord, not the Catholics, if the Catholics had their way no one would have had a Bible outside of the leaders of the RCC. Please, please stop trying to rob God of His glory placing it on the false teaching RCC. ALL glory goes only to our Lord.

 

Its become quite clear that your here to promote the RCC, & its false teachings, not to learn God's truths. I've graciously replied to you several times point you to Bible truths & you reject them putting forth the false teachings of the RCC.

 

And please remember, I did not go to a RCC forum promoting God's true teachings & pointing out the false teachings of the RCC, you came to a Baptist forum telling us our teachings are wrong, & the RCC teachings are correct.

 

I would not expect to be graciously accepted if I went to a RCC forum doing what you've done here.

 

Your teachings leads souls though the wide broad gate into the pits of hell not though the narrow strait gate that leads to life. At least in this forum you have been exposed to God's truth, my prayer is that a seed of truth has been planted in your mind, & at some point it will be watered & God will give the increase.

 

 

1Co 3:5 ¶ Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
1Co 3:6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
1Co 3:7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.
 
With the direction your taking this, promoting RCC's false teachings over God's truth, I bow out of this discussion.

The Bible is the Words of God in the words of men. Someone wrote them down years after they occurred. Do you believe that someone was sitting next to Mary and Joseph when Jesus was born, or John was writing the accounts of the crucifixion as they happened? No of course not. John's gospel wasn't written until 20-30 years after the resurrection. Who canonized the Bible? Are you going to say the Holy Spirit? Catholic Bishops at Nicea canonized the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. And for that I thank you for reading the Bible we translated and canonized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gosh that's a bad attitude :) Jesus commands us to love, especially the Catholic Church he founded.

Name one verse in the bible where Jesus has commanded us to "especially" love the Catholic church! It's most defenitly not in my bible. The catholic church was not even arround when He walked this earth. And just as a tiny little note:
  • Idolatary is not acceptable to God and the RCC has made Mary, the saints, any relic and even the pope an idol that is worshiped by the masses.
  • Jesus is the way to salvation, there is no other!! So the pope being the "vicar of christ" is an abomination - there is no such title bestowed apon man in the Word, and no man is given sole authority over the church - that belongs to Jesus and Him alone.
Edited by 2Tim215

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you read my post as faith in the Catholic false bible, then I can see why you are Catholic-apparently you don't read, or understand, very well. As for the apostolic succession you count as being the beginnings of the RCC, this is according to Catholic history only, not actual history, including Peter as the first bishop of Rome.  If you remember in the Bible, Paul said that Peter was given the job as the apostle to the circumcision, while he, Paul, was the apostle to the Gentiles. Since Rome was Gentile, there is no reason to believe Peter ever did any service there as Bishop or otherwise. The Epistle to the Romans never mentions Peter as being there, which would be odd if he was there as Bishop, or in ANY form, seeing as how he was one of the 12, and Paul would have been remiss to forget to name him in the epistle. Just Catholic tradition, no more, no less.

Who taught you that Catholicism is so bad?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Name one verse in the bible where Jesus has commanded us to "especially" love the Catholic church! It's most defenitly not in my bible. The catholic church was not even arround when He walked this earth. And just as a tiny little note:

  • Idolatary is not acceptable to God and the RCC has made Mary, the saints, any relic and even the pope an idol that is worshiped by the masses.
  • Jesus is the way to salvation, there is no other!! So the pope being the "vicar of christ" is an abomination - there is no such title bestowed apon man in the Word, and no man is given sole authority over the church - that belongs to Jesus and Him alone.

The word Catholic came about in the 2nd century. St. Ignatius of Antioch was one of the first to use the term "Catholic Church." Jesus said he was going to start one church and he was going to leave someone in charge. No where does Jesus say I want you to write about this and make a book we'll eventually call the Bible. No where in the Bible does it mention anything about reading about His ministry.

 

I whole heartedly agree. We condemn idolatry too. We do not worship Mary or anyone else the same as Jesus. You have to use the correct usage for worship (latria or dulia). Latria means adoration. We latria God. Dulia means to venerate or honor (much like honoring your parents). We NEVER worship (latria) Mary or anyone else. But we honor Mary because she is the mother of God incarnate.

 

I can see we have a huge gap in interpretation. It has nothing to do with reading the Bible. I read it the same way the early Church Fathers read the Bible. And just because the Bible says "word of God" does not mean in written form only. Oral tradition as well. There we have tradition again. Who's tradition? God's tradition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tell you what. How about you hit me with your best shot. Ask me why Catholics do what they do. Keep an open mind in doing so. I think people get the notion Catholics are evil because someone's pastor said they were. We're not exactly disappearing thanks be to God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come to think of it, if you go strictly by the Bible and not traditions of men then you would have to do away with altar calls, the sinners prayer, and revivals. In fact Sunday school and Bible studies would also have to go since the Bible does not explicitly say we have to read God's word in the NT. Everywhere I look it's hearing God's word which sounds a lot like oral teaching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bible is the Words of God in the words of men. Someone wrote them down years after they occurred. Do you believe that someone was sitting next to Mary and Joseph when Jesus was born, or John was writing the accounts of the crucifixion as they happened? No of course not. John's gospel wasn't written until 20-30 years after the resurrection. Who canonized the Bible? Are you going to say the Holy Spirit? Catholic Bishops at Nicea canonized the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. And for that I thank you for reading the Bible we translated and canonized.

What do you make of this verse then?

 

KJV 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:"

 

Edited to add:

 

All means all. Not a little here, or most of it, or some of it; all of it. So according to the Bible, there is not a single word of man in it.

Edited by Fixation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 36 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...