tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31664716.post4636591780009389970..comments2024-02-04T21:16:17.306-08:00Comments on Surph's Side: St. Patrick Was A Baptist, Not A Roman CatholicDenisehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14770822482205703050noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31664716.post-5304618666359964722012-10-23T15:37:03.753-07:002012-10-23T15:37:03.753-07:00Justice and Liberty,
Your claim is without merit ...Justice and Liberty,<br /><br />Your claim is without merit and evidence. The evidence that Patrick was a biblical Christian and Baptistic is given in his own writing and teaching. Patrick never mentioned the pope nor the Roman Catholic Church. In fact any mention of any Roman Catholic dogma and leadership is MISSING from Patrick's writing and teaching. Instead he taught the Believer's Baptism (Matt. 28:18-19), for example, and that salvation came by way of grace alone through faith alone in the atonement of Christ alone that was completed at Calvary. He never taught indulgences, the eucharist, etc. Go back and read the article. What he held to was very much in line with Baptistic Christians.<br /><br />Secondly Rome's own witness to Baptists is given through its own:<br /><br />n 1524 the Roman Catholic Cardinal Hosius, who became the President of the Council of Trent (1560), admitted that Baptists dated back to the days of the Roman Emperor Constintine who was the first "Christian" Pontifix Maximus. Hosius said:<br /><br />"Were it not that the Baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers." (Housius, Letters Apud Opera, pp.112,113 as quoted in Trail of Blood, p. 3, Ashland Av. Baptist Church, Lexington, KY, 1933)<br /><br />Hosius further stated:<br /><br />"The Anabaptists are a pernicious sect of which kind the Waldensian brethren seem to have been although some of them lately, as they testify in their apology, declare that they will no longer re-baptize, as was their former custom; nevertheless, it is certain that many of them retain their custom, and have united with the Anabaptists." (Hosius, Works of the Heresatics of our Times, Bk. I. 431. Ed. 1584 as quoted by John T. Christian).<br /><br />In a court of law Hosius would be considered a hostile witness for the Baptists. The testimony of a hostile witness is the most convincing kind.<br /><br />There is also a whole slew of historic facts you are ignorant of, not the least of which is the Waldensian Creed which proclaims biblical, not Roman Catholic doctrine and predates the Reformation by over 400 years. In fact, the document shows rejection of Rome and its popery. This document was written in 1120 AD.This by no means is the only group of Christians who were baptistic that we know about; there were dozens through history known by other names.<br /><br />Should you choose to do your homework instead of buying an urban legend that Baptists only came about in 1600 go here for a start: http://www.pbministries.org/History/Goodwin_&_Frazier/churches_02.htm <br /><br />Btw, the signs you speak of were only done in the 1st century to validate the apostles and the Gospel; once established and once the Scriptures were completed, the signs were done away with. <br /><br />I would suggest most importantly, that you study the Gospel of John and the book of Hebrews in order to know that works can't save one single soul, and unless you understand the absolute holiness of God and your inability to meet that holiness while God commands it, and thus your absolute utter need for salvation through Jesus Christ and His finished work alone, you can't be saved and will remain under the wrath of God and continue to earn Hell. Denisehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14770822482205703050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31664716.post-84886171402405360052012-10-23T15:07:57.971-07:002012-10-23T15:07:57.971-07:00SOME BAPTISTS ARE REALLY CRAZY THERE WERE NO BAP...SOME BAPTISTS ARE REALLY CRAZY THERE WERE NO BAPTISTS BEFORE THE 1600 ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO RAISED THE DEAD AND HEALED THE SICK AS ST. PATRICK DID!<br /><br />"The Lord hath given to me, though humble, the power of working miracles among a barbarous people, such as are not recorded to have been worked by the great Apostles; inasmuch as, in the Name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, I have raised from the dead bodies that have been buried many years; but I beseech you, let no one believe that for these or the like works I am to be at all equaled with the Apostles, or with any perfect man, since I am humble, and a sinner, and worthy only to be despised."<br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31664716.post-40364438995006634292012-03-30T13:14:17.469-07:002012-03-30T13:14:17.469-07:00"Restoration movement" = Campbellites = ..."Restoration movement" = Campbellites = Church of Christ, a group that styles itself "non-denominational" but is itself a works-based cult propagating some of the vilest heresies on earth. Also rabidly anti-baptist ever since excluded from baptist fellowship in the 1800's (and rightfully so). So the knee jerk Church of Christ response to your post by "unknown" is no surprise. But St. Patrick a Campbellite? Utter nonsense.blahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05242947285648671540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31664716.post-27900322939195212682012-03-13T22:25:08.193-07:002012-03-13T22:25:08.193-07:00In the "Tripartite Life of Patrick," the...In the "Tripartite Life of Patrick," the author marks this quotation concerning Patrick's views of the great commission of our Lord. He says: "Go, ye, teach. Meet is the order of teaching, before baptism. For it cannot be that the body, receive the sacrament of baptism, before the soul receives the verity of faith."(Smith, J. Lewis, Patrick of Ireland Not a Romanist, Associated Printing Co., Stockton, Calif., 1924, Pp. 17-18.) - Rev. John Summerfield Wimbish. "Saint Patrick Was a Baptist" http://www.reformedreader.org/history/patrick.htm<br /><br />Patrick did not see anything efficacious in baptism b/c Scripture does not say its efficacious. Water never removes guilt, and baptism was never said to. Rather, Jesus made it clear that it was believers that are to be baptized and this we see in every instance of baptisms in Acts for example.Denisehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14770822482205703050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31664716.post-58650683548475807922012-03-13T22:14:48.601-07:002012-03-13T22:14:48.601-07:00Baptists are basically Christians who hold to bibl...Baptists are basically Christians who hold to biblical baptism, biblical Lord's Table, the autonomy of the local church, the sole authority of Scripture for all things pertaining to life and godliness. Baptists have been known down through the ages by various names, but with basic same distinctives.Denisehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14770822482205703050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31664716.post-82919446630885128732012-03-13T12:35:27.050-07:002012-03-13T12:35:27.050-07:00I think he rather belonged to the Restoration Move...I think he rather belonged to the Restoration Movement who have always insisted immersion was the moment God imputed the penalty paid in response to the sinner meeting the conditions of faith and repentance (Col 2:12-15; Acts 2:38; Rom 6:1-4). The Restoration Movement has always insisted the Lord's Supper was on the Lord's Day every Lord's Day as a memorial service and is an appointment for all believers. I don't think Patrick would've approved of denominations of any name.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08475845291992428733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31664716.post-47977832935007450522012-03-13T12:32:39.488-07:002012-03-13T12:32:39.488-07:00It would seem to me--he never belonged to a denomi...It would seem to me--he never belonged to a denomination at all, but rather the independent Restoration Movement. He saw immersion as the moment when God did His work of removing the guilt of sin (Col 2:12; Rom 6; Acts 2:38). The Restoration Movement has always called for New Testament doctrines to be done the New Testament way, especially the Lord's Supper every Lord's Day.<br /><br />The GUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08475845291992428733noreply@blogger.com