-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
what do Baptists believe
- Thread starter Snowy
- Start date
- Status
GreenEyedLady
My little Dinky Doo
With a question like this, being that it is so open and broad. I would have to say........Baptist believe what the bible says. The bible is the Baptist final authority. Now, if you have questions about what the bible says, just ask!Snowy said:
GEL
Upvote
0
BjBarnett said:Yeah pretty much every Christian denomination believe in what the bible says. the problem is with the interpretation
The "problem" is:
in its authority.
in its inerrancy.
in who is allowed to interpret it.
Upvote
0
ALittleLightInDarkness
Active Member
Baptists beleive The Bible. Nothing absolutely nothing in the Bible is incorrect. We back up everything to the bible. You question what is true we back it up to the bible!
Upvote
0
Found this little gem from Menno Simon's biography:
"The real problem came when Menno, having dared to open the lids of the Bible, discovered that it contained nothing of the traditional teaching of the Church on the Mass. By that discovery his inner conflict was brought to a climax, for he was now compelled to decide which of two authorities was to be supreme in his life, the Church or the Holy Scriptures."
Sounds familiar.
"The real problem came when Menno, having dared to open the lids of the Bible, discovered that it contained nothing of the traditional teaching of the Church on the Mass. By that discovery his inner conflict was brought to a climax, for he was now compelled to decide which of two authorities was to be supreme in his life, the Church or the Holy Scriptures."
Sounds familiar.
Upvote
0
RED that's ME
*~*God *IS* Love*~*
MOD HAT ON
Just a reminder ONLY Baptist/AnaBaptist can discuss what the Baptist believe.
Per Baptist/AnaBaptist Rules nonBaptist/AnaBaptist can only post -A- question or for fellowship purposes only.
Any future post that doesn't follow the rules will be removed and appropiate actions given.
MOD HAT OFF
Just a reminder ONLY Baptist/AnaBaptist can discuss what the Baptist believe.
Per Baptist/AnaBaptist Rules nonBaptist/AnaBaptist can only post -A- question or for fellowship purposes only.
Any future post that doesn't follow the rules will be removed and appropiate actions given.
MOD HAT OFF
Upvote
0
GreenEyedLady
My little Dinky Doo
These books are not "holy books" and was not reconized as sacred scripture by both the Jews(OT) and the early church fathers.Snowy said:
These books that were taken out are historical, but to view them as "Inspired" is incorrect according to the early church fathers and the jews(for the OT).
Other denominations might claim "We GAVE you the bible." THis is also a prideful and incorrect way of thinking.
In my daily reading this morning I came across this portion of scripture.
Jeremiah 36:27 Then the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, after that the king had burned the roll, and the words which Baruch wrote at the mouth of Jeremiah, saying,
28 Take thee again another roll, and write in it all the former words that were in the first roll, which Jehoiakim the king of Judah hath burned.
29 And thou shalt say to Jehoiakim king of Judah, Thus saith the LORD; Thou hast burned this roll, saying, Why hast thou written therein, saying, The king of Babylon shall certainly come and destroy this land, and shall cause to cease from thence man and beast?
30 Therefore thus saith the LORD of Jehoiakim king of Judah; He shall have none to sit upon the throne of David: and his dead body shall be cast out in the day to the heat, and in the night to the frost.
31 And I will punish him and his seed and his servants for their iniquity; and I will bring upon them, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and upon the men of Judah, all the evil that I have pronounced against them; but they hearkened not.
32 Then took Jeremiah another roll, and gave it to Baruch the scribe, the son of Neriah; who wrote therein from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the book which Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire: and there were added besides unto them many like words
THe King had burned up the book of Jeremiah. When the Lord saw this, he told them.........I WILL PUNISH HIM! He was mad! Then he allowed His Word to be preserved again in Verse 32 and even adding some more prophesies in there. So that is proof that God in heaven expects his word to not only be heard, but to be read. He preserved His word back then in Jeremiah, He can preserve His word today without error.
Really, its not impossible.
GEL
Upvote
0
Brother Simon
And His name shall be called Wonderful...
LOL. I came over here to check on my Baptist brethren and found that I have a post about me!!BronxBriar said:
Peace be with you,
Simon
Upvote
0
BjBarnett
Viva il Papa!
- Mar 18, 2004
- 3,180
- 123
- 40
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
GreenEyedLady said:
GEL do you care to show a reference to the early church fathers that didnt consider those books canonical? ive never heard of anything of that nature. i figured since the EO and RCC both have them in the canon that pretty much included the early church fathers as well.
Upvote
0
Helping our friends with an answer 
AD 1548 - Canonicity established by Council of Trent. All the "Church Fathers" (see: Acts 20:29-30) didn't see fit until then.
"Notwithstanding this widespread reverence for it in early times, it is a remarkable fact that the book never got a foothold in the canon or liturgy of the Church. Nevertheless, all through the Middle Ages it maintained an intermediate position between canonical and merely human compositions, and even after the Council of Trent, together with Third Esdras, was placed in the appendix to the official edition of the Vulgate." -Catholic Encyclopedia [emphasis mine]
"Jerome's Vulgate distinguished between the libri ecclesiastici and the libri canonici with the result that the Apocrypha were accorded a secondary status. However, at the Council of Carthage (397), which Augustine attended, it was decided to accept the Apocrypha as suitable for reading despite Jerome's resistance to their inclusion in the Vulgate. In 1548 the Council of Trent recognized the Apocrypha, excepting I and II Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses, as having unqualified canonical status. Moreover, anyone who disputed this ecclesiastical decision was anathematized. " -D H Wallace (Elwell Evangelical Dictionary)
Emphasis mine. Anathema still in effect (re-affirmed in Vatican II).
"St. Jerome evidently applied the term [apocrypha] to all quasi-scriptural books which in his estimation lay outside the canon of the Bible..." - Catholic Encyclopedia
Just a point of information. It matters not how may people get together to vote on what God said. That goes for the Southern Baptist Convention as well. (see also the Pharisees and the Talmud)
If our guests wish to take this farther, they will note the rules and take their arguments elsewhere. Thanks for complying!
AD 1548 - Canonicity established by Council of Trent. All the "Church Fathers" (see: Acts 20:29-30) didn't see fit until then.
"Notwithstanding this widespread reverence for it in early times, it is a remarkable fact that the book never got a foothold in the canon or liturgy of the Church. Nevertheless, all through the Middle Ages it maintained an intermediate position between canonical and merely human compositions, and even after the Council of Trent, together with Third Esdras, was placed in the appendix to the official edition of the Vulgate." -Catholic Encyclopedia [emphasis mine]
"Jerome's Vulgate distinguished between the libri ecclesiastici and the libri canonici with the result that the Apocrypha were accorded a secondary status. However, at the Council of Carthage (397), which Augustine attended, it was decided to accept the Apocrypha as suitable for reading despite Jerome's resistance to their inclusion in the Vulgate. In 1548 the Council of Trent recognized the Apocrypha, excepting I and II Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses, as having unqualified canonical status. Moreover, anyone who disputed this ecclesiastical decision was anathematized. " -D H Wallace (Elwell Evangelical Dictionary)
Emphasis mine. Anathema still in effect (re-affirmed in Vatican II).
"St. Jerome evidently applied the term [apocrypha] to all quasi-scriptural books which in his estimation lay outside the canon of the Bible..." - Catholic Encyclopedia
Just a point of information. It matters not how may people get together to vote on what God said. That goes for the Southern Baptist Convention as well. (see also the Pharisees and the Talmud)
If our guests wish to take this farther, they will note the rules and take their arguments elsewhere. Thanks for complying!
Upvote
0
BjBarnett said:
Peace.
Just keepin' the mods happy! It seemed to have "debate" written all over it... and as you probably know, these topics always get me a bit on edge!
Upvote
0
Vote bleechers for MOD!! hip hip HOORAYY!!bleechers said:Peace.
Just keepin' the mods happy! It seemed to have "debate" written all over it... and as you probably know, these topics always get me a bit on edge!
Holy kisses for everyone!!
Upvote
0
GreenEyedLady
My little Dinky Doo
Thanks bleechers.......
As usual, I could not have said it better!
GEL
Ps. I wanted to state again, that these books were ADDED by the church. They were not accepted by the Jewish scribes. But one thing we must concider is that they are historical, but they are imperfect because they were written by men who were NOT moved by the Holy Spirit of God. Please keep in mind, that the Jewish scribes and scholars did not count these books into the OT because of the mistakes they found in them. Just because a church says......They are inspired does not make it so. For 2 perfect examples, the Mormons and the Jehova Witnesses think that thier additions to the bible are inspired. We all know this is false.
As usual, I could not have said it better!
GEL
Ps. I wanted to state again, that these books were ADDED by the church. They were not accepted by the Jewish scribes. But one thing we must concider is that they are historical, but they are imperfect because they were written by men who were NOT moved by the Holy Spirit of God. Please keep in mind, that the Jewish scribes and scholars did not count these books into the OT because of the mistakes they found in them. Just because a church says......They are inspired does not make it so. For 2 perfect examples, the Mormons and the Jehova Witnesses think that thier additions to the bible are inspired. We all know this is false.
Upvote
0
But GEL, a long time ago a bunch of guys got in a room and voted that their additions were inspired! How can we argue with that?
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
