Replies

Re your #438. (Re ur screen name - don't you wish!)

You either did not read very much of the site:

http://www.users.aol.com/libcfl/libc.htm

Or, you were intentionally trying to mislead or deceive (no RC would do that - would they?). Lurkers,(and others) check out the site for yourselves.

The site is that of the Landmark Independent Baptist Church of Archer, FL. The only reference to Calvinism relates to Sovereign Grace (Eph 1:4-5) which has always existed - long before Calvin.

Anyone that might think Baptists would accept or agree to "infant baptism" is truly ignorant. Thousands of baptists (anabaptists and other baptists by other names) have been martyred for resisting this heresy. Independent Baptists believe in Scriptural baptism of Believers, as did ALL early Christians, and NOT infant baptism. This website clearly explains why.

This website is also a source for describing the New Testament Church that was founded by Jesus and exists today. This is the church of God from which apostate Baptists with the error of infant baptism began the Roman Catholic Church beginning about 250 A.D.

I am certain "IMRight" (LOL) is aware of this.

This is the church of God from which apostate Baptists with the error of infant baptism began the Roman Catholic Church beginning about 250 A.D.

FC, I have begun to develop mental pictures of all the guys and gals that partisipate on these threads, and if I was as good at cartooning as I used to be, I would love to do caricatures of all you people.

As far as you are concerned, I haven't got all your details worked out yet, but I'll tell you this much, for you I would start with a likeness to a pit bull, and work from there.

Congratulations, you are wearing them down.
your friend, JH

"What was all that gibberish you posted about? I could not recognize a response to anything that I have posted - although you addressed it to me. Don't bother trying to rephrase it.

That's OK. I didn't expect you to see the connection (no offense intended). I just felt it was rude to comment "behind your back" if you will. This new "self search" option makes it easy to miss related posts that are not directed to us (accepting that you don't view it as related)

Anyone that might think Baptists would accept or agree to "infant baptism" is truly ignorant. Thousands of Baptists (Anabaptists and other Baptists by other names) have been martyred for resisting this heresy. Independent Baptists believe in Scriptural baptism of Believers, as did ALL early Christians, and NOT infant baptism. This website clearly explains why.

Believe me. I'm well aware of Baptists views on infant baptism (I married one and have attended a similar church for almost a decade now - similar that is, to Southern Baptists. Your church seems slightly more...fringe).

I did not read through the whole site (you do an adequate job of explaining their views). I was merely pointing out that Calvin ang historical Calvinists would not have identified with your church in the slightest (yet you identify with him). He was, in fact, one of the main reasons so many were "martyred for resisting this heresy". You are also at odds with virtually every major Protestant denomination.

I would have liked an explanation on one point: You mention much earlier references to "Anabaptists" as your historical forbearers (and I have recently been educated on some very early Anabaptists - most historical texts refer to them solely as part of the radical-reformers part of history). If you were there first... Why did you call yourselves "anabaptists". Who were you re-baptizing? And who had performed the original (presumably infant) baptism that was invalid?

Take your time. I'm out all day.