Where do go if I leave the IFB movement?

[treasure_unseen]

Rather than make excuses and try to pre-emptively discredit Wikipedia (the ad hominem fallacy of "poisoning the well"), why don't you document their wrongness?

The part you left out of what I said contains why they're wrong. You know... the rest of the story.

 

[treasure_unseen]

Rather than make excuses and try to pre-emptively discredit Wikipedia (the ad hominem fallacy of "poisoning the well"), why don't you document the wrongness of the cited article?

By the way, why are you allowing fishnut to threaten me with physical harm? Do you want to join him?

 

[Ransom]

The part you left out of what I said contains why they're wrong. You know... the rest of the story.

Mmm hmmm...

There are so many flavors of baptist in existence,

See: "Making excuses," above.

you can't possibly trust a user generated document from users that don't know any better and that is controlled by ungodly people.

See: "poisoning the well," above.

The closest you come to attempting to say why they're wrong is the following, and it isn't really a reason at all:

There are many if not the majority of IFBs that reject such claims.

Of course, "some people disagree" is nowhere near the same as "Wikipedia is wrong." You still need to show why the people doing the disagreeing are right, and Wikipedia is not.

Some people disagree that human beings have walked on the moon or that the earth is spherical. The fact of their disagreement doesn't actually call the moon landing or the shape of the earth into question.

 

[Ransom]

By the way, why are you allowing fishnut to threaten me with physical harm? Do you want to join him?

If you're being physically threatened by another member of the FFF, feel free to message myself and FSSL with a link to the threatening message, and if there's a credible threat, action will be taken.

 

[tmjbog]

Wikipedia is wrong. I hope you realize that Wikipedia is controlled by ungodly people.

There are so many flavors of baptist in existence, you can't possibly trust a user generated document from users that don't know any better and that is controlled by ungodly people. Yet, here you are. There are many if not the majority of IFBs that reject such claims. They believe they can trace their heritage all the way back to the preaching of the Kingdom with John THE Baptist.

It is difficult to deal with inexperienced people like yourself. If you even had a rudimentary understand of the topic, you know better.... but here you are present nonsense as fact.



I don't care what someone does today that call themselves Christian. I don't judge the term based on their actions. I judge the term based upon Scripture. I see that you could care less what the Scripture teaches. Peter said to glorify God because you are a Christian. Yet, here you are. Too ashamed to settle for what Peter said because some looney tunes person did something bad that claimed to be one.

Well. Apply the same logic to "Baptist". There have been plenty of sorry, worthless baptist that have repeatedly sinned against God. By all means. Take your own standard and apply it equally. Reject the name.

Certainly Wikipedia can contain errors. However saying they are wrong isn't really a rebuttal. What is the history of the Baptists if this history is wrong? There are some crazy groups who claim to trace their history back to John himself. But that is not the historical Baptists and is a small fringe of today's Baptists.

Yes, you are correct their are crazy heretical Baptists and their are heretical crazy people who go to churches just called "Christian Church". That is why I say a name is just a name. Can you show in Scripture what a church is supposed to be named?

 

[treasure_unseen]

That's nice. I wasn't writing to IFBs, and care little for their "Baptists-are-not-Protestants" foolishness.

Thus, you don't know and refuse to admit it.

Speaking of IFB nonsense, don't make up stuff that isn't there. The Bible doesn't say John was "sent and ordained by God" to baptize. He was sent, according to the angel's announcement to his father, "to make ready a people prepared for the Lord" (Luke 1:17). in fulfillment of the prophet Isaiah (Matt. 3:3; Isa. 40:3).

Any reputable scholar will tell you that Paul's reference is a dig at Apollos........ who only knew the baptism of God. I know you haven't studied it because you don't care what IFBs teach until you want to argue with me. Thus, you're not really informed on the matter. You are smart. You are intelligent and informed about many other things, I just know this better than you do.

Baptism was one of the means by which he did so; it was a distinguishing characteristic of his ministry: when we are first introduced to him as an adult in the Gospels, he is baptizing people (Matt. 3:6; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3; John 1:24ff). The most famous story about John the Baptist in the Bible is, not surprisingly, the baptism of Jesus. "John the Baptist" is the name by which he is known, but nothing in the Bible says God divinely ordained that he be called that.

Wrong Paul alluded to John being sent to Baptize.

And yet, he did baptize, and names the names of some of his candidates (1 Cor. 1:14-16). He didn't refuse to do so because it was someone else's job--he just had other priorities (v. 17), and also didn't want to be the object of a cult of personality (vv. 13, 15).

Priority indicates what God sent Paul for. Just like priority was John's Baptism.

Additionally, Paul makes a distinction between the baptism of John, being a "baptism of repentance," and Christian baptism: he rebaptizes some of John's disciples in Jesus' name (Acts 19:3-5). It's clear enough that what John was doing was not adequate as a Christian sacrament. They weren't the same thing.

Thank God, you got it. You just don't know how to apply it. Even more so, Paul's actions where NOT the same. Which you just admitted. You tried to tie them together just a few moments ago. You shouldn't be double minded.

Finally, if John the Baptist was "THE Baptist based on what he was sent and ordained by God to do," then why did Jesus allow the disciples to do baptisms in his name (John 4:1-2)? Shoudln't he have known better and put a stop to it?

Nope. John was to decrease and Christ was to increase. You need to let that happen. It is still needed today Ransom.

You're still assuming, falsely, a semantic equivalence between "THE Christ" and "THE Baptist." You haven't established that John was the only "Baptist" by a long shot.

He was the only person in the Scripture with the Title/Name/Distinction. I'm trying to go by the Scriptures and you keep trying to drag me away from them.

 

[treasure_unseen]

If you're being physically threatened by another member of the FFF, feel free to message myself and FSSL with a link to the threatening message, and if there's a credible threat, action will be taken.

I'll do that but I did report it with the forum function. Thank you!

 

[tmjbog]

Any reputable scholar will tell you that Paul's reference is a dig at Apollos

So in this matter we are not to turn to Scripture but rather to "reputable scholars". Kind of sounds like you are following a man to me.

 

[treasure_unseen]

Certainly Wikipedia can contain errors. However saying they are wrong isn't really a rebuttal. What is the history of the Baptists if this history is wrong? There are some crazy groups who claim to trace their history back to John himself. But that is not the historical Baptists and is a small fringe of today's Baptists.

No it is not brother. Most southern Baptist will accept a post Reformation Baptist distinction. Most independents will not. If you press them hard enough logically..... they turn into "Landmarkers". I know, I've done it for years and years.

Yes, you are correct their are crazy heretical Baptists and their are heretical crazy people who go to churches just called "Christian Church". That is why I say a name is just a name. Can you show in Scripture what a church is supposed to be named?

I have shown you from the Scripture that you should glorify God in the Christian name. I could care less what someone names their private club they practice their traditions from. I'm looking at the Truth. Not some man's practices of tradition.

 

[treasure_unseen]

So in this matter we are not to turn to Scripture but rather to "reputable scholars". Kind of sounds like you are following a man to me.

I was just appealing to what others say. I already know that it was a dig at Apollos. I study. I ask God to help me. I mediate and seek God. I don't base what I believe on what they say. I'm simply saying I'm not alone in this particular point.

 

[tmjbog]

No it is not brother. Most southern Baptist will accept a post Reformation Baptist distinction. Most independents will not. If you press them hard enough logically..... they turn into "Landmarkers". I know, I've done it for years and years.



I have shown you from the Scripture that you should glorify God in the Christian name. I could care less what someone names their private club they practice their traditions from. I'm looking at the Truth. Not some man's practices of tradition.

You must care or you would not spend so much time trying to argue that the Scriptures indicate what a church is to be named.

 

[tmjbog]

I was just appealing to what others say. I already know that it was a dig at Apollos. I study. I ask God to help me. I mediate and seek God. I don't base what I believe on what they say. I'm simply saying I'm not alone in this particular point.

You should open a the 1st Christian Church of the Double Standard. You would make an awesome pastor there.

 

[treasure_unseen]

You should open a the 1st Christian Church of the Double Standard. You would make an awesome pastor there.

If you want to take that approach, I'd rather consult a reputable theologian than wikipedia. Maybe you can start a 1st Church of Wikipedia assembly and advocate for wikipedia to change its name to baptistpedia.... oops. That is already taken.

 

[tmjbog]

If you want to take that approach, I'd rather consult a reputable theologian than wikipedia. Maybe you can start a 1st Church of Wikipedia assembly and advocate for wikipedia to change its name to baptistpedia.... oops. That is already taken.

And yet you are unable to show where that particular wikipedia article got it wrong.

 

[treasure_unseen]

And yet you are unable to show where that particular wikipedia article got it wrong.

I told you how they got it wrong. Read it again....

There are so many flavors of baptist in existence, you can't possibly trust a user generated document from users that don't know any better and that is controlled by ungodly people. Yet, here you are. There are many if not the majority of IFBs that reject such claims. They believe they can trace their heritage all the way back to the preaching of the Kingdom with John THE Baptist.

 

[tmjbog]

I told you how they got it wrong. Read it again....

So your response to an article that gives dates and citations is to refute it with an opinion piece absent of any concrete dates or citations and based upon your personal limited experience. Did you find the verse that lets a church know what name they should go by yet?

 

[treasure_unseen]

So your response to an article that gives dates and citations is to refute it with an opinion piece absent of any concrete dates or citations and based upon your personal limited experience.

My experience isn't limited. In fact, I could make some changes myself to that article that would stay. I've done it before with other wiki articles.

Lets talk about your lack of experience. Just how long have you debating this particular subject? It is rather telling that you're extremely inexperienced on the subject. You run to wikipedia instead of the Scriptures. You reject clear commands from the apostle Peter. You question my appeal to historical commentary and you do worse with trusting the content of ungodly people. I realize you think you're being successful. You're not.

Did you find the verse that lets a church know what name they should go by yet?

Eph 3:14 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
Eph 3:15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,

Give the Glory to WHOM it is due.

 

[treasure_unseen]

Forgot this verse in reference to God's purpose in John The Baptist.

Joh 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me,

 

[tmjbog]

My experience isn't limited. In fact, I could make some changes myself to that article that would stay. I've done it before with other wiki articles.

Lets talk about your lack of experience. Just how long have you debating this particular subject? It is rather telling that you're extremely inexperienced on the subject. You run to wikipedia instead of the Scriptures. You reject clear commands from the apostle Peter. You question my appeal to historical commentary and you do worse with trusting the content of ungodly people. I realize you think you're being successful. You're not.



Eph 3:14 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
Eph 3:15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,

Give the Glory to WHOM it is due.

"my experience isn't limited" - So your experience is unlimited? You've been to every IFB, you've talked to every IFB pastor?

Let's get focused have you found anything specific that you refute and can show a proper date or a more accurate understanding of why the first Baptists were called Baptist?

Those verses in Ephesians are great but have nothing to do with what a church should call itself.

 

[treasure_unseen]

"my experience isn't limited" - So your experience is unlimited? You've been to every IFB, you've talked to every IFB pastor?

In comparison to what you've used yourself. I didn't mean what you question. No. I haven't talked to all of them. I bet that I've talked to a magnitude more than you have. Especially on this subject.

Let's get focused have you found anything specific that you refute and can show a proper date or a more accurate understanding of why the first Baptists were called Baptist?

Why don't you gain some experience and sample some IFBs yourself.

Those verses in Ephesians are great but have nothing to do with what a church should call itself.

Can you explain why not?

Historical, "The Church" is just that. "The Church". Nothing local about it. We all need each other and we are all in the "family of God". I know you don't want to see nor admit this..... Tradition has you bound in shackles of oppression to your own detriment. I'm free brother. I'm just trying to help you. If you don't want to learn, then just say so and I'll let it go.

My calling isn't to your few. Nor anyone's few. My calling is to help everyone of the living family of God on this earth. At the very least, we can help one another. Iron sharpens Iron.