Got a couple more passages and interesting acounts.

 

1. Apostle Paul..... "Saul" was blinded on the road to Damascus by the Lord. He was told to go on into Damascus and in 3 days it would be told him what he should do. Question 1. Is there doubt Paul "saul" knew who was talking to him ? Question 2. Do you believe he truly believed on Christ at this point ? Question 3. As he was waiting in Damascus don't you think he was asking for forgiveness for his persecution of Christ's Church ? ............

 

Here we have REPENTANCE.. CONFESSION when he declared it was the Lord .. and BELIEF ...... Was he saved at this point. According to alot of faiths today you would have to say yes..... Then I ask you when Anninias was sent to him why did he say to Saul " why do you tarry... ARISE and BE BAPTIZED washing away your sins calling upon the name of the Lord." Why did he still have is sins on him ? His faith and repentance should have been enough, INTERESTING.................

 

 

2. Another instance ... Phillip and the Eunuch... The eunuch was reading from Isaih chapter 53. Philip was sent to him and he asked the Eunuch if he understood what he was reading. The Eunuch did not. It says that Philip preached to him Jesus. When they came upon a hole of water the Eunuch asked Philip " Here is water what hindereth me to be baptized ?" Question 1. Have we read Isiah 53 or for the sake of an argument any of Isiah or the Old Testament ?Question 2. Where does in the Old Testament does the word baptism occur ? It does'nt.! Question 3. How did he know then about baptism ? Conclusion ..... Phillip had to preach it to him. There is no other answer for him knowing about it.

 

 

3.Name me one instance of any one being saved after Penecost" when the New Testament church began" that was not baptized.... immediately or within the hour as in the case of the jailor.

 

 

Just something to think about ................

 

And in Acts 2. the word tells us that God was adding daily those that were being saved. I am not saved into any church on this Earth i am added to the Lord's body that is spiritual and added by the Lord himself. I once asked a baptist ministers wife if I wanted to join their church would I have to be re-baptized ? She said that I would in order to have my name put on their church roll. WHY ? If I have already been baptized why would it require a second dunking ? The only book the Bible tells me that I had better worry about my name being in is the LAMBS BOOK OF LIFE.

Got a couple more passages and interesting acounts.

 

1. Apostle Paul..... "Saul" was blinded on the road to Damascus by the Lord. He was told to go on into Damascus and in 3 days it would be told him what he should do. Question 1. Is there doubt Paul "saul" knew who was talking to him ? Question 2. Do you believe he truly believed on Christ at this point ? Question 3. As he was waiting in Damascus don't you think he was asking for forgiveness for his persecution of Christ's Church ? ............

 

Here we have REPENTANCE.. CONFESSION when he declared it was the Lord .. and BELIEF ...... Was he saved at this point. According to alot of faiths today you would have to say yes..... Then I ask you when Anninias was sent to him why did he say to Saul " why do you tarry... ARISE and BE BAPTIZED washing away your sins calling upon the name of the Lord." Why did he still have is sins on him ? His faith and repentance should have been enough, INTERESTING.................

 

 

2. Another instance ... Phillip and the Eunuch... The eunuch was reading from Isaih chapter 53. Philip was sent to him and he asked the Eunuch if he understood what he was reading. The Eunuch did not. It says that Philip preached to him Jesus. When they came upon a hole of water the Eunuch asked Philip " Here is water what hindereth me to be baptized ?" Question 1. Have we read Isiah 53 or for the sake of an argument any of Isiah or the Old Testament ?Question 2. Where does in the Old Testament does the word baptism occur ? It does'nt.! Question 3. How did he know then about baptism ? Conclusion ..... Phillip had to preach it to him. There is no other answer for him knowing about it.

 

 

3.Name me one instance of any one being saved after Penecost" when the New Testament church began" that was not baptized.... immediately or within the hour as in the case of the jailor.

 

 

Just something to think about ................

 

And in Acts 2. the word tells us that God was adding daily those that were being saved. I am not saved into any church on this Earth i am added to the Lord's body that is spiritual and added by the Lord himself. I once asked a baptist ministers wife if I wanted to join their church would I have to be re-baptized ? She said that I would in order to have my name put on their church roll. WHY ? If I have already been baptized why would it require a second dunking ? The only book the Bible tells me that I had better worry about my name being in is the LAMBS BOOK OF LIFE.

 

This is all interesting, but I think about the prostitute that was about to be stoned, did that she get baptized, how about the roman officer?

This is all interesting, but I think about the prostitute that was about to be stoned, did that she get baptized, how about the roman officer?

 

Those were all under the Old Covenant, not the New Covenant. The new Covenant was NOT established until Jesus died on the cross (and ascended following the Great Commission). Jesus's death, burial, and resurrection fulfilled the old law and established a new covenant.

 

Just prior to Jesus' death on the cross, He said "It is finished" (John 19:30). He meant that His mission was finished, as well as the Mosaic Law, which had been governing God's people since it's delivery to Moses, by God at Mt. Sinai. The Law was referred to as the First Covenant or First Testament. And Jesus in Matthew 5:17 makes it clear he is there to fulfill the law and establish a new covenant with God.

 

Here we have REPENTANCE.. CONFESSION when he declared it was the Lord .. and BELIEF ...... Was he saved at this point. According to alot of faiths today you would have to say yes..... Then I ask you when Anninias was sent to him why did he say to Saul " why do you tarry... ARISE and BE BAPTIZED washing away your sins calling upon the name of the Lord." Why did he still have is sins on him ? His faith and repentance should have been enough, INTERESTING.................

 

I'll not take credit for this. My Minister is gone to the Preaching Summit in Indy right now, but we had a sermon series on Saul's conversion back in early fall. I found this on the web which sums up our sermon series on Saul's conversion:

 

Examining all of the examples of conversion in the book of Acts is compelling, but also overwhelming. So for brevity, only the example of the conversion of Saul (later became the apostle Paul) will be examined here. If you have not already, you will want to read the account of Saul's conversion (Acts 9:1-22). After Saul's name was changed to Paul, he also recounted his conversion in two different speeches (Acts 21:37-22:24; 26:1-32).

 

Once you have read these passages, you will see that Saul was not saved after Christ appeared to Him. We know this because Christ instructed him, "Arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do." (9:6). And yet, later in the city he still was in need of having his sins forgiven three days later because God's prophet, Ananias, told Saul to "wash away your sins." (22:16).

 

The question is how did Saul wash away his sins? Let's look a little closer at this verse in the parallel account:

 

"And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord." (Acts 22:16)

 

This example teaches us that repentance alone is not enough for salvation. Reread the verses that tell what Saul did for the three days between the appearance of Christ and when Ananias came (Acts 9:8-11, 19). For three days, Saul had been fervently praying and fasting; yet, his obvious repentance was not enough. Ananias instructed him to wash away his sins through baptism. Also from this verse, we learn that is through baptism that one "calls upon the name of the Lord." This is consistent with the verse we looked at earlier about baptism being an appeal to God towards a good conscience (I Peter 3:21).

So what is the new covenant? Is it simply to believe and follow the commandmends of the Lord? I personally believe that it is! I think that baptism is a symbol of one's faith of coming from darkness into light, but the transformation has already happened!

Your baptism did not meet criteria of scriptural baptism. If you would come for membership in our church you would have to submit to be re-baptized so to speak. Honestly, I am not trying to ruffle feathers this is directly from God's Word. It is definitely not popular and probably not considered politically correct. But God's Word is God's Word.

 

Actually it's Baptist Landmarkism and follows the 19th century teaching of JR Graves and his movement that based their theology on BH Carroll's Trail of Blood which was a poor historical attempt to trace the Baptist church of today to the First Century Church in Jerusalem.

 

The term "Alien Immersion" is what you are speaking of in the old dialect and that is that you can not be received into the "true church" (Baptists in this line of thinking) without proper immersion from an ordained minister of that church (or other like thinking church).

Actually it's Baptist Landmarkism and follows the 19th century teaching of JR Graves and his movement that based their theology on BH Carroll's Trail of Blood which was a poor historical attempt to trace the Baptist church of today to the First Century Church in Jerusalem.

 

The term "Alien Immersion" is what you are speaking of in the old dialect and that is that you can not be received into the "true church" (Baptists in this line of thinking) without proper immersion from an ordained minister of that church (or other like thinking church).

 

I know exactly what it is since this is what our church teaches and what the Bible teaches. Most Independent Missionary Sovereign Grace Baptist Churches (not the Jack Hyles Independent Fundamental groups--they are Armenian in their teachings) still do teach this, though we are few and far between. It certainly isn't "politically correct." But then again, neither was our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. I would rather follow scripture than be popular.

 

By the way, I will have to disagree with your opinion on the Trail of Blood it is a very scholarly work that is thoroughly based in scripture. Churches need authority and must receive it from another church of like faith and order, not just run to Frankfort to get permission from a convention. Sometimes the truth is not very popular particularly when it comes to church authority and the doctrines of Grace. But you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

I know exactly what it is since this is what our church teaches and what the Bible teaches. Most Independent Missionary Sovereign Grace Baptist Churches (not the Jack Hyles Independent Fundamental groups--they are Armenian in their teachings) still do teach this, though we are few and far between. It certainly isn't "politically correct." But then again, neither was our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. I would rather follow scripture than be popular.

 

By the way, I will have to disagree with your opinion on the Trail of Blood it is a very scholarly work that is thoroughly based in scripture. Churches need authority and must receive it from another church of like faith and order, not just run to Frankfort to get permission from a convention. Sometimes the truth is not very popular particularly when it comes to church authority and the doctrines of Grace. But you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

 

 

You like to bring in the PC argument. I'm only speaking from history and to trace Baptists throught the people Carroll attempts to is fallacious at best and deliberate distortion at worst. My last comment on that one.

It certainly isn't "politically correct." But then again, neither was our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. I would rather follow scripture than be popular.

.

 

Wasn't Jesus popular with the masses? It was just the religious leaders whose toes he stepped on.

 

Was there anytime that he spoke ill words to an unbeliever?

Wasn't Jesus popular with the masses? It was just the religious leaders whose toes he stepped on.

 

Was there anytime that he spoke ill words to an unbeliever?

 

Jesus often criticized religious leaders and revealed their various heresies. I am talking about these teachings not being politically correct with the religious elite not the unregenerated. They have no ability to discern scripture until the Holy Spirit enables them to do so.

Jesus often criticized religious leaders and revealed their various heresies. I am talking about these teachings not being politically correct with the religious elite not the unregenerated. They have no ability to discern scripture until the Holy Spirit enables them to do so.

 

They definitely have the ability to discern the actions that Christians aim their way and for Christians should have been determined by the Scripture they read and the path the Holy Spirit directs them.

 

Same way they were able to discern from Christ's actions and treatment of them.

You like to bring in the PC argument. I'm only speaking from history and to trace Baptists throught the people Carroll attempts to is fallacious at best and deliberate distortion at worst. My last comment on that one.

 

This is your opinion, and you are entitled. However, I do not agree and neither does the scripture. My last comment on that one.

This is your opinion, and you are entitled. However, I do not agree and neither does the scripture. My last comment on that one.

 

Couldn't let it rest. :lol:

 

Here are "Successionist" (Landmarkist) claims toward one true church (Baptist) and thereby one true baptism (keeping on topic)

 

(BTW, I was wrong, J.M. Carroll wrote "Trail of Blood", BH was his brother who was one time president of Southwestern Seminary.)

 

Great links are drawn to different groups in Religious history as being actually Baptists without being known as such.

 

"In 1160 a company of Paulicians (Baptists) entered Oxford. Henry II ordered them to be branded

on the forehead with hot irons, publicly whipped them through the streets of the city, to have their garments cut short at the girdles, and be turned into the open country. The villages were not to

afford them any shelter or food and they perished a lingering death from cold and hunger."

"It must have already occurred to our readers that the Baptists are the same sect of Christians that were formerly described as Ana-Baptists. Indeed this seems to have been their leading principle

from the time of Tertullian to the present time."

 

 

http://www.baptistpillar.com/bd0172.htm

 

 

Ancient anti-paedobaptist groups, such as Mennonites, Waldenses, Albigenses, Cathari, and Paulicians, are often considered to be within this chain of tradition. However, some of those mentioned groups that has continuate existence up today, such as the Mennonites, Waldenses, and Paulicians, deny any link with the modern Baptist churches.

 

 

Here is an understanding of some of the groups that Carroll tried to claim in the succession:

 

The historical evidence shows that the Montanists and Novatians were schismatic Catholics, not Baptists.

 

St. Patrick operated under the auspices of the bishop of Rome and did not adhere to the Baptist conception of church, sacraments, or ministry

 

T.he Paulicians were not Baptists but separatists from Roman Catholicism and Greek Orthodoxy, they were anti-Trinitarian, and held an adoptionist Christology.

 

The Bogomils were an extension of a dualistic strain of Paulicianism whose theology was not even Christian, much less Baptist.

 

There is no positive evidence that Peter de Bruys, Henry of Lausanne, or Arnold of Brescia or their followers were Baptists.

 

The Albigenses inherited the extreme dualism of the Bogomils and "held almost nothing in common with modern Baptists".

 

The medieval Waldenses were similar to the Roman Catholic order of Franciscans, while the later Waldenses were more akin to Presbyterians and Methodists than Baptists.

 

Although the Anabaptists of the sixteenth century might seem on superficial consideration to be genuine ancestors of the Baptists, McGoldrick demonstrates that they held different views than Baptists on the doctrines of revelation, Christology, soteriology, and ecclesiology, and that there are no real genetic links between the Anabaptists of the continent and the Baptists of England.

 

Do a little research on many of the groups that Carroll claims connection to and you will find some "heretical" ideas about Trinity and Regeneration/salvation.

 

I understand the claims "Successionists" make for the Bible's doctrine (and agree with much of what they are saying) but the Succession theory can not stand on history and truth, it falls terribly short.

 

You are entitled to your opinion but don't expect all of it to be based on the truth of history.

Couldn't let it rest. :lol: (neither could I!

 

Ancient anti-paedobaptist groups, such as Mennonites, Waldenses, Albigenses, Cathari, and Paulicians, are often considered to be within this chain of tradition. However, some of those mentioned groups that has continuate existence up today, such as the Mennonites, Waldenses, and Paulicians, deny any link with the modern Baptist churches. (They simply may not realize it or they are a different branch now, practicing different doctrines.) (There are Baptists today that don't understand Church History)

 

 

Historians have a bias that is true. I realize that but churches who practiced immersion and taught church doctrine and the doctrines of grace have existed since Christ began his personal ministry here on earth. And yes, it was way before Penecost. Baptists are also not protestant (we never protested against the Catholic church) but I am sure you think otherwise. We will just agree to disagree.