วีดีโอ

Thanks Frankie!

Hi and thanks for commenting. I would prefer to say "early churches" since there was more than one and they obviously were different. Peter, Paul, John and Jude all warned that there were false doctrines already before the first century was finished. I do not consider either the didache nor the writing of Ignatius authoritative. Ignatius was a heretic and the ditdache, though I think helpful, is not Scripture. These early writing continue to exist only because they were the ones the future Catholic church wished to exist. They destroyed everything they could that was written by those with whom they disagreed. My point is that those churches that did not align with Catholicism, and we KNOW there were lots of them, are the forefathers of Baptists.

@ApologeticsAdvocates if the Church destroyed every document they didn't like, and scrubbed them from history so effectively we have zero evidence of an early Baptist body of believers, why do we have dozens of copies of the Gnostic gospels? Nor do we see writings from people like Ireneaus, wrote extensively against heresies, mention a group that sounded anything like proto baptists. The entire "The Trail of Blood" narrative is as historical as the DaVinci Code. It makes for an exciting story that simply didn't happen.

I tend to subscribe only to the Bible. I know what you mean and I am not trying to be trite. But any system made by men has flaws. So I really do attempt to be true only to Scripture.

@@ApologeticsAdvocates Fair enough.

Thought the SDA is in heretical error, that is technically true because they are a heresy off of Baptists.

I’d like to attempt to answer your questions and then offer you a free book I’ve written that I think will answer more completely. Most but not all IFB churches would not consider themselves denominational. Sometimes they behave as a denomination inadvertently. I know most people think of Baptist as a denomination just like all the rest. It’s one of the reasons why I try to produce so much content to make people at least aware of another view. Those that did not align with Catholics did not call themselves Anabaptists. It’s what the Catholics called them since they would not accept the baptism of those who left Catholic churches to unite with them. Anabaptist and Baptist are really a description of their faith and practice, not a name by which they called themselves. Biblically the churches were called by their location (they were, after all, local churches and not universal). The three mainline Protestants are Lutheran, Presbyterian, and Anglican. Everything else is some branch of them. For instance, Methodists are a branch of Anglican. Bible churches are a branch of Presbyterian. Charismatics are a branch of Methodism (realize I am speaking in general terms). Evangelicals is a broad term that might apply to a lot of doctrinally different groups just as Fundamentalist might apply to groups that are doctrinally different but agree on the fundamentals as outlined by a series of articles written in the 30s. If you would message me your email address, I would be happy to send you an e-version of a book written on the subject called Roots Matter. You can read more about it here. www.amazon.com/dp/B0CSPHT497

Are you born again?

:-)

Thanks for commenting. The history I am giving here has been written about for centuries. Its not revisionist at all. But it is contrary to the popular Catholic narrative. I offer it simply so those who fon't know there is another option can take a look into it if they so desire. But it is wrong to be led to believe that only one view is valid.

thanks for commenting. To eachh his own.

@@Joe-x6s5h peter who?

Funny

Thanks for commenting, but I disagree. I believe that the only way to earnestly contend for the faith (as were are instructed to do) is to honestly present our doctrinal and historical ideas to the table. I do not believe we need to be mean spirited, and I do not think I have been. But if we do not look at these ideas, they get lost and the faith once delivered gets watered down to nothingness. I am afraid that is exactly what some professing believers want to happen.

@@ApologeticsAdvocates Baptists don't follow the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles. Baptists have their own gods and a different gospel. (They aren't alone.)

And you say this why? What Gods of our own? If you speak of the gospel the Catholics proclaim, I will cheerfully agree ours is different than that! We believe in a gospel where Christ saves. Not religious action. HEY, THANKS FOR COMMENTING.

Frankie8648, I created a short video in response to you. th-cam.com/video/-lvrXWLn0Fg/w-d-xo.html

@@ApologeticsAdvocates You know who your three gods are. Your gospel is going to heaven when you die. These things are not taught in the bible.

I am very sorry for your experience, but you experience has nothing to do with historic Christian faith. Believers for almost 1500 years were executed by other people claiming to be Christians. Rather than denouncing God, those being executed for their faith preached Christ until dead. Most modern professing Christians have been introduced to a false Christ.

Thanks for commenting. I am not entirely sure where you're coming from with your question but, assuming you ae sincere, this is my answer. Not everything that claims to be a church belongs to God. We have the God given liberty to study the Word of God, and unite with a local church aligns with our convictions. We also have the responsibility to do so.

@@ApologeticsAdvocates Most people think they are being taught the word of God at church yet they are being taught things like the rapture or that once they become a disciple of Christ that they are "saved" and all they have to do is their best as far as getting rid of sin. They are taught tithing or prosperity. They are taught that Christmas is Jesus's birthday or that Easter celebrates His resurrection. They do not teach the gifts with orderly worship or often do not teach the power of God at all.

@@jannaswanson271 Wow - let's just shotgun a bunch of your pet peeves. I can't conceive of anything other prophetical outcome than the rapture. A person is "saved" and then a disciple of Christ. We don't have to do out best to get rid of sin, Christ has already forgiven our sin. As childtren of God we grow closer to Him and farther from sin. If you aren't tithing you're robbing God. I believe there is more than reasonable evidence of December 25 and that it is a distracting hoax to teach otherwise (gullible people). I prefer the use of the term "Resurrection Sunday" however the use of the word "easter" in the King James Version does confirm that the word can refer to the resurrection of Christ. And the gifts thing - well - I'm not charismatic, because some of the gifts have ceased in this age, but the service gifts are still very much in effect and useful. The error in them is focusing on them rather than on the Lord. Our original conversation was soul liberty. You have the absolute right to believe what you do. but sound to me like you are very wrong.

@@ApologeticsAdvocates In John 6:66 we see that some of Christ's disciples turned away from following Him. Would you consider them "saved"? Where in Scripture does it say December 25th is Jesus's birthday and why do the pagans also worship their sun god's "birthdays" at this time? Easter is not always celebrated at Passover. Jesus died at Passover. The date is figured by the Jewish calendar and Ezekiel 45:21, not by the moon. The Gifts have not ceased, they were given to the church. Do you not believe in Mark 16:17-18? Maybe you do not believe. Maybe you "have a form of godliness but deny the power". The rapture is false doctrine proved by Matthew 24:29-31, Matthew 24:22, Hebrews 9:28 and Revelation 3:10. I could give you so many others but I doubt you would care how these douse your rapture fantasies. What will happen is that when people are not raptured that they will be facing the mark of the beast with no oil in their lamps because they were never taught they had to prepare their faith. They will fall. "Anyone born of God refuses to practice sin, because God’s seed abides in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God." I John 3:9 This is what being born again means, a disciple can still turn away- and many, many do. Read the warnings to the churches in Revelation 2-3. Does it sound like they are all irrevocably saved? No.

You are sure a nice person....

There's gonna come a day when you wish you did not make that comment..

Thanks for commenting. My observation is that the farther people get away from God the more they look and act like animals - just saying.

@@Jasonboogie1976 Well my god says your god is a phony.

@millerman3019 who is your god?

@ Me

what does namaste mean?

It’s a salutation

It translates: That which is good in me salutes that which is good in you.

Hi Jordan. Thanks for writing. I respectfully disagree. First, you don't know they were gnostics except that some Catholic scholar (or a Protestannt who was trained by them) said so. Those who denounce Anabaptists as heretics (there are some Protestant forms of Baptists included) always do so on the grounds of what their Catholic persecutors wrote about them. I once had a man attending our church (not a member) who began dating a Catholic young lady. She agreed to come to church with him a few times but quit because she said we were charismatics. We weren't even close! A lot of modern Baptists would consider us stuck in the 50's style of worship. But we did sing out loud, we had public prayer, and I preach with some passion. Her perception of us was tainted by her preconceived ideas of how church was supposed to be done. Any time a Catholic (or someone who has swallowed their lessons) says something about those Christians who refused to align with Rome, I pretty much dismiss them. By the way, many if not most Baptists identify with the Anabaptists. Those that don't are not, in my considered opinion, genuinely Baptist.

@ albigensians, not anabaptists. We do have surviving primary sources from Albigensians outlining their beliefs. They’re gnostic dualists who reject both the incarnation and the God of the Old Testament. All Christian’s today both Catholic and Protestant would consider them heretics if not a different religion entirely. Zero evidence they were anything close to baptists

@@ApologeticsAdvocatesalbigensians, not anabaptists. We have surviving writings of albigensians, we don’t have to rely on Catholic sources. They were gnostic dualists who rejected both the incarnation and the God of the Old Testament. Every christian today, both Protestant and Catholic would consider them heretics (if they would consider them Christian at all) Zero evidence they were anything close to modern Baptist

@@jordanmiller3927 to say that all Albigensians was gnostics isn’t right. It’s like saying all Baptist today is right. You would be lucky if 10% of baptists was scriptural today. and that is stretching it. Try and find a baptist church that doesn’t celebrate a pagan holiday. The seven churches of Asia all started out right but like the albigensis turned bad. I was raised in a scriptural Baptist church and over the years the Lord like the albigensis got spued out. That’s my two cents!!!!

@ they believe the material world was evil. That’s textbook Gnosticism. Their beliefs aren’t a mystery, you can easily look up what they believed online They also denied the physical incarnation and resurrection, believed in 2 gods, and thought the God of the Old Testament was evil, why would you ever want to identify with them?

How do you follow the Lord, without the Bible presented to you by The Catholic Church?

Hi Gerald, it is an historic mistake to claim the Catholic Church gave us the Bible. All of the books of the Bible already existed and were already in use by Christians, even those who never aligned with Catholicism. All the Catholics did was to grab what Christians already knew was the inspired New Testament writing, add a few other non inspired books with them and then make some unsanctioned changes to what was the Word of God. To repeat, Baptist people already had the bible, never got it from the Catholics, and the KJV translators leaned most heavily on manuscripts that had not been corrupted by the Catholics.

Hi thanks for commenting. My apologies, but I am not sure what your point is....

Hi. Thanks for asking. We know that Paul urged believers in those churches he wrote to to share his letters with other churches. We also know that Peter referenced Paul's writings as Scripture. John said that he wrote what God had given to him so others could have the same fellowship with God that he and the other apostles had. It is a misunderstanding of History, and of the working of God to believe that the Catholic church gave the world the Bible. All of the books of the Bible were written before Catholicism, were shared, before Catholicism, were understood to be the Word of God before Catholicism. All the Catholics did was to confirm what Christians already knew, add a few things Christians already knew were not Bible and to corrupt what was Bible. Historically remember that there was another line of Christians that existed before and alongside Catholicism but would never align with Catholicism. They had the New Testament scriptures at the same time as the Catholics, and did a better job of protecting it than the Catholics. The Received Text takes into account those manuscripts that were held by this other line of Christians. I suspect that is why Catholics and Protestants alike hate the Received Text, and the only English Bible translated from it, the King James Version, so much.

Almost everything that remains about those early non Catholic believers was written by the Catholics. History tells us that the Catholics not only did their best to exterminate any Christians that would not align with them, but also to destroy anything they wrote. We have to take what the Catholics wrote about them with a grain of salt and understand their criticism are probably not true. Still, there are some writings that remain. a little from Polycarp and some from Tertullian. Tertullian was born in 160 AD. He is considered a church father by the Catholics except that in his later years he converted to Anabaptist doctrine. Therefore they deny his later writings.

:-)

And again, with all due respect, your view is limited. There are at least four views of where Baptists derive. Only one of them is plainly Protestant. Scholarship, as I am sure you are aware, is a credentialed field. The key is who gives out the credentials. I agree that not all Protestantism is, as you put it, "Roman Catholic light." But you must admit that much of it is. The book of Revelation, I believe, tells us all those little Roman Catholic babies will one day fly home to Momma. And we see that happening in an ever increasing rate these days.

Good point. But my position is that all those that existed prior to and outside of Catholicism were, by definition, Baptist.

As far as I heard, no. But he did get the opportunity.

It's not difficult to trace non-catholic groups of Christians all the way to before the founding of Roman Catholicism. That's the point. Your confusing Baptist as a denomination. Baptists are a people who trace their roots outside of Catholicism and Protestantism. We are not all the same (though we all have some distinctives in common) A Baptist is simply someone whose roots were never Catholic, who practices Baptism of believers and not infant baptism, and who has never aligned with Rome.

@@ApologeticsAdvocates To use the two groups I mentioned as examples though is inaccurate, though, for the reasons I pointed out. More importantly, where is the positive evidence for Baptists always being there? It's not enough to just assume they must have always been there. Unless actual groups can be proven to be there that align completely with Independent Baptist beliefs at large, there's no valid historical reason to think they have been there the whole time.

They had a Bible before the Council of Nicia. The topics of which books to include didn’t even come up; they had already been established

@@odavis1364 Untrue. Another excerpt; "The Council of Nicaea, which took place in 325 CE, was a significant event in the history of Christianity. One of the most important outcomes of this council was the formation of the Biblical canon - a collection of sacred texts that were recognized as authoritative and inspired by God. Prior to the Council of Nicaea, there was no clear consensus on which texts should be included in the Bible. Different communities had their own collections of sacred writings, and there was much debate and disagreement about which texts were truly inspired by God." The council not only relegated arianism to heresy but gave us the Canon of scriptures. Baptists remain a sect of the reformation.

The idea that the Christians had no Scripture until the Romans legalized it is absurd. Peter knew what Paul had written was Scripture. Paul instructed churches to share the letters he wrote with other churches. The believers KNEW what was inspired. Catholicism just hoped on a moving train and called it their own. Of course, they derailed it in the process.

@@ApologeticsAdvocates The apostles were writing letters and memoirs. Counseling and instructing their followers. Trying to avoid being executed by the Romans and growing in the faith. Who was the authority that told them what was inspired and what was heretical? That authority was the Catholic Church, and the councils of bishops. The notion that they "knew they were writing scriptures" is what's absurd. Without the authority of the Church and the Holy Spirit, any of the heresies that cropped up could have sidetracked Christianity, just like arianism was trying to do.

@@khakhy Hi, thanks for writing. That's so simple. GOD told them. John, Paul, Peter all indicate in their writings that they knew what they wrote was inspired by God and that they knew each other's work was. To claim the church had to decide what was Scripture puts the church before God. Of course that's a gimme for Catholicism. Everything I have read tells me that they put the church and the Pope before God. (Here is an interesting film if you are interested. th-cam.com/video/pNd7tAkiZI4/w-d-xo.htmlsi=YJhC_nlt53xDV_4z)

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT and they can't provide any proof such as local church records or mentions in the writings of the Church Fathers or pagan sources to document the alleged existence of such supposed churches.

This is not entirely correct. I would not deny that Smyth started something, but it wasn't the first Baptist Church. There are at least four sources of Baptist history. Each of them has some validity. I only count as Baptists those whose roots trace outside of Protestantism.

Give and account of those Christians who refused to identify with Rome since its beginning.

:-)

Yes. There are at least four documented lineages for Baptist groups. While they have a right to call themselves anything they please, I do not consider any group that has Protestant ties a genuinely Baptist church.

Unfortunately that is correct

I respectfully disagree. Just because the Catholics hold to SOME doctrines taught in the Bible does not mean the doctrine is false.

@@ApologeticsAdvocates The Athanasian creed predates any protestant denomination by over a 1000 years. It claims that worshipping God as a trinity is the Catholic faith. Catholicism doesn't tend to hijack Biblical concepts, it changes them. God has HIs Holy City, Catholicism has its holy city. God had His priesthood, Catholicism has its priesthood. God has His day of rest, Catholicism has Sunday. God has His Holy Days, Catholicism has xmas, easter, etc. God has His declaration of faith, The Shema, that God is One. Catholicism has the Athanasian creed, that God is worshipped as 3 in one. Those who worship God as 3 in one are practicing the Catholic faith.

There is a great deal of evidence of non-Catholic churches throughout Europe,. Of course in the first century they would be Jesus, Peter, Paul, etc. 2nd, 3rd, centuries, have numerous names who refused to align with what became Roman Catholicism in the 4th century. The Welsh people have a long history of churches that pre-date Roman Catholicism's introduction there. (The man typically called "St Patrick" in fact predated the Catholics and was no Catholic at all. His doctrinal position was much more in line with the Baptists. Luther knew of and was aided by Baptists in Germany when the Pope tried to hunt him down and kill him. Luther chose not to join the Baptists because he could not fathom a people who would obey God without government coercion. That we have little documentation concerning them is of no consequence. There is plenty of documentation from the Catholics of their fierce hunting down and killing of them and of them destroying as many of their writings as possible. Concerning Arius, Baptist's are much more likely to preach the truth than to attack when they think is error. It's one of our doctrinal platforms. We believe in individual soul conscience. A man has a right to worship God according to the dictates of their own conscience. We want to preach what we believe to be true, but we don't want to attack anyone whose doctrines are not the same as ours.

@@ApologeticsAdvocates You failed to mention any Baptist preacher in the ancient church. Try again

The thing is, I doubt you would be willing to do any research on your own. "the year 180, when two ministers by the names of Faganus and Damicanus, who were born in Wales, but were born again in Rome, and there becoming eminent ministers of the gospel, were sent from Rome to assist their brethren in Wales." History of Welsh Baptists from 63 to 1770 J Davis

Thanks for calling me buddy. :-)

Wow - you need to read other studies. More importantly, you need to meet Jesus. :-) I'll make a new video in response. You might want to look out for it.

Hi, thanks for commenting. History reveals that that Catholic Church was never built by Jesus but almost 300 years later by the Roman Government.

:-)

:-)

Hi, this is a common minsterpretation. John was a Baptist in that it was a description of his practice (which is what we Baptists claim). Jesus was from Nazareth. It wasn't His doctrine, it was his hometown. Jesus was baptized by the Baptist.

@@ApologeticsAdvocates I think he was making a joke!

He does

I knew someone would try a ridiculous reply. First, please watch the links in the description. They will give you more context to write and intelligent response. Second, when did that become your need? It’s a desire but it’s sure not your personal need. Third, God will answer all these sorts of requests in His good time.

Oh my goodness! With all do respect, NO WAY! You need to spend A TON more time thinking before you write. But, KNOCK YOURSELF OUT if you want. :-)

@ApologeticsAdvocates Great, so before getting into the meat of biblical "slavery" I usually find discourse facilitated by a common understanding of what "Chattel Slavery" is and the morality of it. This often will demonstrate evasion and dishonesty on the part of the apologist, hopefully that will not be the case here, so........... Please tell me, do you regard the practices that occurred in the Antebellum American South over more than 200 years to be "Chattel Slavery" *YES or NO* ?? Do you regard this to be an example of true "slavery" and immoral *YES or NO* ? what was it that made it so ? please list specific examples of the treatment of these people that made it immoral. This should be really easy as it is widely regarded as one of the most abhorrent of practices mankind has engaged in for obvious reasons that your response hopefully will highlight. Remember I am asking specifically about the slavery of the Antebellum South *NOT THE BIBLE* which we will move onto AFTER you have clarified you position with regards to "Chattel Slavery"

@ApologeticsAdvocates Present what you think is the first difference between the two dear