Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Guest DSY

Origin of Baptist

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, jamesduncan said:

I was Baptized in a Catholic Church when I was a baby, circumcised the next day. In my 20’s I was Baptized in her Baptist Church.

She is no longer with me and I now just call myself a Christian. Is this act of mine a sin-?

This has nothing to do with the thread, james. Should you seriously desire to discuss this, please feel free to start a thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, weary warrior said:

If I could like this 3 times, I would do so!

Thank you for understanding WW.

17 hours ago, jamesduncan said:

I was Baptized in a Catholic Church when I was a baby, circumcised the next day. In my 20’s I was Baptized in her Baptist Church.

She is no longer with me and I now just call myself a Christian. Is this act of mine a sin-?

If I may ask, what is meant by "she is no longer with me"? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, HappyChristian said:

This has nothing to do with the thread, james. Should you seriously desire to discuss this, please feel free to start a thread.

The answer to my question would help me understand the difference between being a Catholic and a Baptist. This would give me a stronger reason to call myself one rather than the other. When it comes to the difference between the two I am a bit lost. I was just looking for some guidance. I don't think my question warrants a new thread just to cover my question. Never the less I will go else where to get my question answered

Edited by jamesduncan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

Thank you for understanding WW.

If I may ask, what is meant by "she is no longer with me"? 

I was taught that love making was for the production of children. With this in mind we only had intercourse twice. This act was by my wife’s request. And both were fruitful.

I failed to recognize that a woman’s needs go beyond child bearing and for this reason she went elsewhere to get the attention she needed. My mistake. She divorced me. Now at the age of 67 I have learned my lesson. If you have a woman that loves you, please give her the attention she so desperately needs which goes beyond child bearing.

p.s. She gave me two sons and I am a grandfather of four children

btw She remarried and is a happy camper no thanks to me

Edited by jamesduncan
formatting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, jamesduncan said:

I was Baptized in a Catholic Church when I was a baby, circumcised the next day. In my 20’s I was Baptized in her Baptist Church.

She is no longer with me and I now just call myself a Christian. Is this act of mine a sin-?

 

3 hours ago, jamesduncan said:

The answer to my question would help me understand the difference between being a Catholic and a Baptist. This would give me a stronger reason to call myself one rather than the other. When it comes to the difference between the two I am a bit lost. I was just looking for some guidance. I don't think my question warrants a new thread just to cover my question. Never the less I will go else where to get my question answered

What caused you to want to be baptized in a Baptist Church? What happens to you in the first 2 minutes following death?

Let's not continue a sidebar in this thread, please go to the introduce yourself section and you can answer these questions, ask about the differences between Catholic and Baptist belief, tell us if you are 100% certain that you are going to Heaven (and why you believe you are - or aren't) ---- all in one fell swoop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/3/2017 at 7:13 PM, DaveW said:

Honestly Wretched, sometimes I wonder...... :laugh:

I am building a house. I have the foundation down, and I am beginning the walls. A bloke walks up and says to me "You will never finish that house", to which I reply "I absolutely Will build my house, and in good time too".

It doesn't have to indicate that the process hasn't begun.

And it ABSOLUTELY doesn't point to Pentecost in particular even if you want to force it to be exclusively future tense.

 

As to who the pastor was.... really?

The pastor of that church was clearly the Lord Jesus Christ.

I never said that treasurer was an office, I said it indicated organisation - which it absolutely does.

And the disciples did question the Lord on several things - but not on this.

None of these is a solid case alone, but all of them together sort of make a point.

 

But I don't really care.

There was certainly a church prior to Pentecost.

And by your reasoning the church didn't start then because it was not named........

Well I wasn't going to respond because you said it really didn't matter to you but since you wrote so much else in this post, I can't resist.

I scratch my head sometimes too Dave. I interpret Scripture based on what it plainly says first and foremost. Not based on supposition or assumption or what it could mean if worded a little differently? I don't get your argument in this at all.

I find it strange that the title of under shepherd would be so readily bestowed on the King of Kings by a believer.

Our Lord is the Good Shepherd of all who believe (His Church) not some local church pastor (undershepherd). To use the term undershepherd for Him is blasphemous if you think it through. The Lord is Master above all while believers are all equal (Matt 23:5-12) whether bishop/pastor/deacon/teacher/pew-warmer.

You quoted Matt 16 where the Lord told Peter He would build His church on him (Peter) since Peter was also called Cephas which means a stone (or rock) John 1:42. This passage was clearly written about Peter and in future tense. Peter was obviously the leader of the first local church installed directly by our Lord prior to His Ascension.

Matthew 16: 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Our Lord clearly was not referring to Himself nor was He speaking present tense.

On top of all that a local NT church bishop/pastor is obviously a human office instituted after our Lord's Ascension having never being mentioned prior to the Epistles. Based on the qualifications of bishops listed later in Scripture that most IFBs stand by firmly, our Lord would not have been qualified to be a local NT pastor having no wife nor fathering physical children. This is another direct contradiction to the theory that our Lord was the first local pastor (a human office) during His Ministry.

You are probably right though, whats it matter...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, swathdiver said:

Here we go with this Ruckmanite stuff again Wretched, good grief.

Ha! typical for you guy. Whenever you are proven Scripturally ignorant you resort to this ruckman calling like a small child.

I will entertain you and allow you to show me and everyone where this ruckman guy you love so much said or wrote this. Take a day or two to try and scrap up something or at least come back like a man and explain how wrong you are and apologize.

Edited by wretched

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wretched said:

Ha! typical for you guy. Whenever you are proven Scripturally ignorant you resort to this ruckman calling like a small child.

I will entertain you and allow you to show me and everyone where this ruckman guy you love so much said or wrote this. Take a day or two to try and scrap up something or at least come back like a man and explain how wrong you are and apologize.

Acts 15:7-20:

"7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. 8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; 9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. 12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.

13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: 14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. 15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, 16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: 17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. 18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. 19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood."

Okay, so I made a separation noi the verses for a reason. Of course, most know the context here: the Judaizers were giving grief to new believers, telling them they had to accept Christ by faith AND be circumcised, (really, become Jews with all that it includes, circumcision being the final act of converting to Judaism), so Paul and Barnabas took it to the Apostles in Jerusalem for their judgment on the issue.

Notice, Peter is the first to speak up, and gives a great short dissertation on how the gentiles were saved the same way as they, the Jews were: by fith in Christ, and that the law, ie, Judism, cannot save, and was, in fact, a yoke that would drag them down, and wasn't able to be borne even by them or their fathers.

HOWEVER, it is JAMES that stands to give the final judgment on the issue; he says "MY sentence is..." Clearly, Peter wasnt the head apostle, or pastor of the Jerusalem church. So what then was Jesus saying when He said to Peter, "Upon this rock I will build my church"?  Simply, it was not Peter, the stone, or really, Jesus, the Rock: rather, it was foundational truth that peter declared: That Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God-THAT is the rock, and of course, by default, if you will, it was that Jesus, being the Messiah, was the rock upon which His church would be built.

Peter did a lot: he was the primary preacher on Pentecost, AND he was the one with the keys to heaven that opened the way to heaven to both Jews and Gentiles, by being the first to preach the gospel to the Jews on pentecost, and to the Gentiles through Cornelius the centurion and his family and friends. Peter went on the be the Apostles to the circumcision, while Paul went on to be the Apostle to the Gentiles, but Peter opened the way initially for both, which was the fulfillment of the keys of the kingdom of heaven that Jesus also spoke of.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

Okay, so I made a separation noi the verses for a reason. Of course, most know the context here: the Judaizers were giving grief to new believers, telling them they had to accept Christ by faith AND be circumcised, (really, become Jews with all that it includes, circumcision being the final act of converting to Judaism), so Paul and Barnabas took it to the Apostles in Jerusalem for their judgment on the issue.

Notice, Peter is the first to speak up, and gives a great short dissertation on how the gentiles were saved the same way as they, the Jews were: by fith in Christ, and that the law, ie, Judism, cannot save, and was, in fact, a yoke that would drag them down, and wasn't able to be borne even by them or their fathers.

HOWEVER, it is JAMES that stands to give the final judgment on the issue; he says "MY sentence is..." Clearly, Peter wasnt the head apostle, or pastor of the Jerusalem church. So what then was Jesus saying when He said to Peter, "Upon this rock I will build my church"?  Simply, it was not Peter, the stone, or really, Jesus, the Rock: rather, it was foundational truth that peter declared: That Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God-THAT is the rock, and of course, by default, if you will, it was that Jesus, being the Messiah, was the rock upon which His church would be built.

Peter did a lot: he was the primary preacher on Pentecost, AND he was the one with the keys to heaven that opened the way to heaven to both Jews and Gentiles, by being the first to preach the gospel to the Jews on pentecost, and to the Gentiles through Cornelius the centurion and his family and friends. Peter went on the be the Apostles to the circumcision, while Paul went on to be the Apostle to the Gentiles, but Peter opened the way initially for both, which was the fulfillment of the keys of the kingdom of heaven that Jesus also spoke of.  

Mike, I disagree with your commentary on this and I do not think it changes the meaning of the Scripture that I have already provided. Our Lord was certainly the Rock in several contexts but not the rock in this context.  Our Lord went out of His way to name Peter a rock in John for a reason. I have honestly heard preachers make the same claims for over 35 years that you have but I never accepted it because it is not what Scripture says clearly here. There is always some extra-Biblical agenda at work with these "tall tales" IMO>

Similar to our fear of using the clear Biblical term bishop instead of term pastor...the same tall tale applies in this fear of Peter being left in charge by the Lord. He was however because God says he was and not because the RCC says he was. Also, whether the other apostles liked or accepted or bucked this fact is irrelevant to this passage.

Purposely changing or ignoring clear written Scripture simply because the RCC claims something is sad exegesis. The RCC is hardly the standard by which Scripture should be interpreted by true believers. Not that you personally are claiming this but others are or will in my experience.

16 hours ago, wretched said:

You quoted Matt 16 where the Lord told Peter He would build His church on him (Peter) since Peter was also called Cephas which means a stone (or rock) John 1:42. This passage was clearly written about Peter and in future tense. Peter was obviously the leader of the first local church installed directly by our Lord prior to His Ascension.

Matthew 16: 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Our Lord clearly was not referring to Himself nor was He speaking present tense.

In addition, our Lord said nothing of this sort (below) to any other disciple:

John 21: 15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.

16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

18 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.

19 This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.

Nor did our Lord say anything close to this to any other disciple:

Luke 22:31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: 32But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

I don't personally care who the Lord left in charge or how the apostles ranked. I only care about accurate interpretation regardless of what false religions teach or believe.

Just food for thought..

Edited by wretched

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wretched said:

Mike, I disagree with your commentary on this and I do not think it changes the meaning of the Scripture that I have already provided. Our Lord was certainly the Rock in several contexts but not the rock in this context.  Our Lord went out of His way to name Peter a rock in John for a reason. I have honestly heard preachers make the same claims for over 35 years that you have but I never accepted it because it is not what Scripture says clearly here. There is always some extra-Biblical agenda at work with these "tall tales" IMO>

Similar to our fear of using the clear Biblical term bishop instead of term pastor...the same tall tale applies in this fear of Peter being left in charge by the Lord. He was however because God says he was and not because the RCC says he was. Also, whether the other apostles liked or accepted or bucked this fact is irrelevant to this passage.

Purposely changing or ignoring clear written Scripture simply because the RCC claims something is sad exegesis. The RCC is hardly the standard by which Scripture should be interpreted by true believers. Not that you personally are claiming this but others are or will in my experience.

In addition, our Lord said nothing of this sort (below) to any other disciple:

John 21: 15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.

16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

18 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.

19 This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.

Nor did our Lord say anything close to this to any other disciple:

Luke 22:31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: 32But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

I don't personally care who the Lord left in charge or how the apostles ranked. I only care about accurate interpretation regardless of what false religions teach or believe.

Just food for thought..

That Peter was used greatly doesn't change the fact the James clearly took the lead in the church in Jerusalem. Had Peter been seen as the pastor or lead Apostle, James would have had no reason, or place, especially not being one of the original 12 himself, James the Apostle already having died for his faith (Acts 12). Yet this James, widely believed to be the author of the book of James, AND the half-brother of Jesus Christ, clearly took a lead position and made the final judgment on the issue. This tlls me he was seen as the lead pastor here. The church was NOT built on Peter. In fact, if anything, the church as a whole, churches, is built upon the prophets and apostles, with Jesus Christ as the Head and Chief Cornerstone (Eph 2:19-22). So I'm sporry but scripture doesn't agree with your take on the subject. You cant base Peter's position on a couple places that are questionable and yet are clearly in opposition to other plain scriptures. Yes, Peter was tried and sifted by Satan; yes, Peter was told to feed the lambs and sheep, yes, Peter declared Jesus to be the Christ of God, but Jesus did not say that PETER was the rock upon wyhich the church was founded, He said the fact that Peter stated, which was the entire context of the conversation, was the foundation of the church. Peter being Peter is not something uupon which to found a church-it doesn't even makes sense "Thou art peter, and upon this rock..." What about the fact the peter was Peter made him worthy of having the churc founded upon him? Nothing. BUT, the fact that Jesus was the Christ, the Sonf of the living God, IS something upon which to base it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't going to comment further, but because someone is throwing around accusations of blasphemy whilst pretending to to high interpretational ground, I  feel it necessary to point out that Peter is NOT called a rock, but a stone.

A rock and a stone may be the same to that person, but they were different to the translators AND different to the writers.

And THAT  is what the Bible SAYS.

 Some people should be careful about throwing around accusations if they can't get their own points to comply with their own claims.

Edited by DaveW
Phone spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The wording in Jesus' declaration about and to Peter comes across as a bit of a "play on words" in English. But the two words for stone and rock spoken by Jesus actually denote two very different things.

1.  Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter. The word "Peter" here was "Petros", a small stone that might possibly be of a size to be held in the hand.

2. and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. The word "rock" here is "Petra", a very large stone monolith or foundation stone on which the rest of the building rests.

The Rock of Ages would qualify.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DaveW said:

I wasn't going to comment further, but because someone is throwing around accusations of blasphemy whilst pretending to to high interpretational ground, I  feel it necessary to point out that Peter is NOT called a rock, but a stone.

A rock and a stone may be the same to that person, but they were different to the translators AND different to the writers.

And THAT  is what the Bible SAYS.

 Some people should be careful about throwing around accusations if they can't get their own points to comply with their own claims.

Feel better? Reaping and sowing Dave

27 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

The wording in Jesus' declaration about and to Peter comes across as a bit of a "play on words" in English. But the two words for stone and rock spoken by Jesus actually denote two very different things.

1.  Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter. The word "Peter" here was "Petros", a small stone that might possibly be of a size t be held in the hand.

2. and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. The word "rock" here is "Petra", a very large stone monolith or foundation stone on which the rest of the building rests.

The Rock of Ages would qualify.

Ok Jim, thanks

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/5/2017 at 7:04 AM, wretched said:

Ha! typical for you guy. Whenever you are proven Scripturally ignorant you resort to this ruckman calling like a small child.

I will entertain you and allow you to show me and everyone where this ruckman guy you love so much said or wrote this. Take a day or two to try and scrap up something or at least come back like a man and explain how wrong you are and apologize.

Fat chance of that, check the archives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 45 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...