Wycliffe isnt Protestant. I was lied to

Like literally no joke. He doesnt affirm sola fide and accept prayer to saints!

These are not from any Papist apologist but from Brill's "A Companion to John Wyclife"

Like oh man. I feel cheated

Attached: Screenshot_20181009-212436_Adobe Acrobat.jpg (1080x1920 860.76 KB, 882.97K)

Wtclife soteriology

Attached: Screenshot_20181009-215009_Adobe Acrobat.jpg (1080x1920 888.41 KB, 838.73K)

Wow. Good stuff user
10/10

You don't have to believe the 5 solas to be protestant(most protties now probably don't even). He split off and protested the catholic church before the reformation. So he technically was protestant

By that definition, Orthodox are "Protestant" because they split off from Rome over theological disagreements

#ops-that-don't-understand-what-precursor-means

There is absolutely nothing new to be read or understood from this thread.
But, hey, feel free, cathbros, to pat yourselves on the back for nothing

Attached: mediaeval-orly.jpg (638x519, 101.22K)

...

What's wrong Proddie? Cant't handle a dose of reality?

Something tells me you wouldn’t use that sort of demeaning babytalk in a face-to-face convsersation.

Yeah that’s really what it boils down to. When it comes down to it, Catholics hate the Bible because they can’t read. If Catholics could read, they wouldn’t hate the Bible nearly as much. Whenever asked about regular people being able to read the Bible in the vernacular, they say stuff like “people can’t be trusted to read it, they’ll just come to the wrong conclusions!” Catholics are illiterate. That’s also why most of Latin America is Catholic.
Now to explain some big words for liddle Catholic brains: a precursor is something that comes before something else, but isn’t that thing. I’ll give an analogy you’ll understand. If I say “we watched the first three Avengers movies as a precursor to watching Infinity War,” I’m not saying the first Avengers movies ARE Infinity War, I’m saying that they come before it and give it context. Wycliffe isn’t a protestant at all, but the work he did of supporting people being allowed to read the Bible for themselves in their vernacular is what lead to the protestant movement. His work in support of reading is why he was killed by the illiterate Catholic Church. If Catholics knew how to read, they would have accepted Wycliffe for the Catholic he is, he would never be burned alive, and Protestantism wouldn’t have happened as there’d be no reason to rebel against the Bible-believing Catholic Church reformed by Saint Wycliffe. Instead, he was burned alive, which cemented the fact that he was not only right, but also didn’t go far enough in his attacks against this wicked institution.

ITT Baptist failures in history

Not salvific =/= bare empty symbol

Zero church fathers affirmed raping little boys
Zero church fathers affirmed that gay marriage was good, which the catholic leadership agrees is good now
Zero medieval Catholics believed Muslims were following God, as it says in the catechism
Face it: if the Catholic Church were the church founded by Jesus, then that would be proof hades did prevail. The only solution is that the Catholic Church just isn’t the true church

This is how satanic Catholicism is. You burn a guy alive, then 500 years later say “he actually liked being burned alive”
Put your hand on a stove for 10 seconds, then imagine that feeling all over your whole body for several hours. Catholics work as hard as they can to make the world Hell on Earth

No reason not to, considering the Vatican made a stamp commemorating Martian Luther, who was way more heretical then Wycliffe

Pic related

Attached: 78D17DE9-9219-49D8-92F2-DE760752F5FB.jpeg (645x486, 51.31K)

This is the epitome of Baptist apologetics, ignore the opponent's statements in favor of a convoluted strawman and red herrings completely unrelated to the topic.

That user is right too, no Church Father affirm Baptist beliefs, because Baptists are an innovation

There are two options: 1) the Catholic Church is not the true church of God, or 2) the Catholic Church is the true church of God but hades prevailed against it
The Bible says hades will not prevail against the true church of God
Therefore, the Catholic Church is not the true church of God

It is an empty symbol, as it does nothing but function as a "metaphor" for already saved or some public declaration of faith. That opposes so many NT scholars, even Baptist ones like Beasley Murray who opposes what the London Baptist Confession says.

Notice also he cannot show any early proto Baptists. The reason is simple. There's NONE

Too bad that true church is gone nevertheless by the end of the 1st century.

Good job Braptist

Goldstar!

There is only two options, either Proto baptist exists or Hades prevailed. The former is impossible because zero evidence of early Christians being anything like Baptists is found.

So that means the Baptist is forced to admit God lied.

Baptist worship a liar

It’s not an empty symbol, only a satanist would call baptism empty. Ordinances by Jesus are not empty symbols

I’m no historian, so I can’t tell you when the Catholic Church started raping little boys, burning innocent people alive, and siding with Muslims theologically on the most important issue of the faith, but it’s fair to say that they weren’t the true church of God when they did that

Threads like these remind me of why I am no longer a Baptist

Hello Satanist who blatantly reject Paul when he says Baptism is MORE than a symbol as I shown from unbiased sources such as Moo, a Calvinist and BDAG.

Why would there need to be proto Baptists for me to be correct that the Catholic Church is a false and demonic institution?
Here, let me give you another two options: either Catholics and Baptists are wrong, or just Catholics are wrong. There is no conceivable world in which Catholics are right, as their church is ruled by Satan himself

It’s a good thing I agree baptism is more than just a symbol. It’s Catholics saying I believe it’s just a symbol, and they’re all liars. I never said anything of the sort.

Hello Satanist who believe God lied in Matthew. Proven by how the early Christians contradict Baptists

God didn’t lie in Matthew, God said the gates of Hell would never prevail against his church. The Catholics lied when they said that Jesus was talking about their organization

Except you literally just said clearly for all that Baptism is not Salvific. Exactly as the London Baptist Confession said

Stop lying

Meanwhile in reality from early Christian catacombs

Attached: Screenshot_20180107-101542.png (1080x1920, 400.43K)

Ah yes, the only two states of things: salvific or empty symbols. There is no conceivable option that something is not salvific and is not an empty symbol.

Nowhere does that say “we need to rape little boys, burn innocent people alive, and worship the God of Muslims.”

( Romans 6:3-5; Colossians 2;12; Galatians 3:27;Mark 1:4; Acts 22:16; Romans 6:4 )

Notice something illiterate? it says A SIGN

That is sufficient proof Baptists contradict the early Christians. You are running away from reality

O COWARD

O BAPTIST

GOTTA RUN GOTTA RUN

I see. So it doesn’t say empty symbol.
Luke 2:12 says “this shall be a SIGN unto you,” in referring to the description of Jesus. John 20:30 says that Jesus’s miracles are signs. I guess Jesus himself and his miracles are empty symbols, cause according to you there the same thing

I’m not running from reality. Look at your “churches” works o Catholics, and despair!

Nothing but slander from Baptists and Catholics ITT

NT on Baptism

Baptist on baptism

TWO DIFFERENT THINGS!

O SUCH INTELLIGENCE
O MARVEL
O POWER
TRULY THE BAPTIST SHOW ME THE WAY!

ALL THE BAPTIST GOTTA RUN GOTTA RUN

OUTRUN CHURCH FATHERS!

I don’t think you’d be able to find a Baptist who says baptism isn’t participation in Christ's Death and Resurrection, putting on Christ and union with him, part of coming into the faith, where one is signing a contract to be in Christ. I’d say that’s a great description of what it is. It’s where you go “oh and if you don’t do it you go to hell automatically cause God is like a clerk waiting to put that black X next your name” where Baptists say that’s not right

Nobody ran away, I’m still here. The early fathers are nothing like modern Catholics, so if they’re also not like Baptists it doesn’t mean much to me. They just had a unique community I guess

Except there you are lying. THOSE are just signified by Baptism to Baptists. EVEN YOUR OWN CONFESSION STATES THIS LOUD AND CLEAR

Stop bearing false witness

O SNAKE
O MERCHANT
TELL A MILLION LIES

Of you think putting on Christ is physically literal and not spiritual, why don’t Catholics walk around with Jesus on their shoulders in a piggyback ride? You’re taking a very dumb position, claiming that verse refers to physical realities and not spiritual truths

If you keep posting the same false flag people are going to figure it out you retard

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

O ILLITERATE! WE ARE NOT SO SILLY LIKE YOU TO MOCK GOD'S ORDINANCES. THAT IS WHY WE DONT SAY BAPTISM IS MERELY A SIGN, A NAKED SYMBOL AS YOU PREACH

O ILLITERATE BAPTIST
O SUCH WONDER
BRAIN BLUNDER

The absolute state of Catholic argumentation

YOUR OWN MOUTH AND MOVEMENT LIKE A SNAKE

O SERPENT WHO DECEIVE EVE
NOW YOU DECEIVE ABOUT BAPTIST

Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, A SIGN of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life. 
( Romans 6:3-5; Colossians 2;12; Galatians 3:27;Mark 1:4; Acts 22:16; Romans 6:4 )

O BAPTIST
O DICTIONARY
SPEAK TO BAPTIST THE DEFINITION OF SIGN

Wycliffe was literally a gnostic heretic. It's telling that prayer to saints is the worst thing a Baptist can say about him.

St. Basil the Great (329-379). In the tenth chapter of his De Spiritu Sancto (On the Holy Spirit) he writes:

Whence is it that we are Christians? Through our faith, would be the universal answer. And in what way are we saved? Plainly because we were regenerate through the grace given in our baptism. How else could we be? And after recognising that this salvation is established through the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, shall we fling away “that form of doctrine” (Romans 6:17) which we received? Would it not rather be ground for great groaning if we are found now further off from our salvation “than when we first believed,” and deny now what we then received? …. For if to me my baptism was the beginning of life, and that day of regeneration the first of days, it is plain that the utterance uttered in the grace of adoption was the most honourable of all. Can I then, perverted by these men’s seductive words, abandon the tradition which guided me to the light, which bestowed on me the boon of the knowledge of God, whereby I, so long a foe by reason of sin, was made a child of God? But, for myself, I pray that with this confession I may depart hence to the Lord, and them I charge to preserve the faith secure until the day of Christ, and to keep the Spirit undivided from the Father and the Son, preserving, both in the confession of faith and in the doxology, the doctrine taught them at their baptism. (Chapter 10)

W]hen, I say, they have heard this and the like from us, and are besides instructed as to the process—namely that it is prayer and the invocation of heavenly grace, and water, and faith, by which the mystery of regeneration is accomplished—they still remain incredulous and have an eye only for the outward and visible, as if that which is operated corporeally concurred not with the fulfilment of God’s promise. How, they ask, can prayer and the invocation of Divine power over the water be the foundation of life in those who have been thus initiated? (The Great Catechism, part III [The Sacraments])

O BAPTIST

O FATHERS SMASH THIS BAPTIST HERESIES WITH YOUR WORDS ON BAPTISM