I'm looking for evidence that the Baptists were the Christians that were practicing the religion from the beginning

The church of Christ movement was a motivator for Baptist landmarkism in the American south. CoC do practice works salvation in the same sense that Catholics do: baptism is required for salvation

Well, maybe they do. In my case, I became Orthodox.. but I don't see myself too different theologically as before. Where the Church of
Christ is wrong is being anti-history (almost obsessively so). Not necessarily anti-biblical. I still find them more consistent and faithful to the scriptures than Baptists or any other Protestant sect.

In which areas do you find them more consistent than Baptists?

The same copout all Protestants use. Nothing specific to Baptists. They consciously or unconsciously wave off the Incarnation and Life of Jesus to the side and hold up the crucifixion as the main thing worth examining. "Sola Fide" is absolutely essential to their theology (you can't deny this, I think), and any sense of moral teachings or Jesus denying the young rich man if he didn't pick up his cross and follow.. any sense of demands fades into obscurity and plays little importance in the light of Faith Alone. Pure Calvinists have workarounds like Sanctification to give importance to the Christian Life, but it's like a sword with a blunt edge. The pain and strictness of Christ's demands still fall to the wayside in light of Sola Fide.

The Church of Christ is willing to be honest about this stuff. But a "pattern" doesn't make the true church (nor was it ever lost. The whole assumption behind this is still a bleak view of the Holy Spirit working through history, much like other Protestants have).

To explain in a little more detail as to these dissenting churches:
Donatits were a schismatic denomination of the 4th and 6th centuries, named after Bishop Donatus Magnus, who believed that only those free of sin were worthy to administer the sacraments to the faithful, and considered themselves the true Church, as opposed to Rome, who upheld that all consecrated priests could administer the sacraments. They flourished in North Africa for a short time, yet ultimately died out due to the efforts of Augustine and his followers.
The Cathars were a gnostic movement that arose in the late middle ages, which in turn arose from the similar Paulican and Bogomil movements, whom landmakists also claim heritage from. They were duotheists who believed that while the material world was created by the God of the Old Testament, identified with Satan, the spiritual realm was created by the God of the New Testament, and only those undergoing their own sacrament of consolomentium, becoming "Cathar Perfects," would be saved. After slaying a papal legate, the Albigensians, as they were also known, were eventually suppressed by force.
The Waldensians and the Anabaptists were both protoprotestants, their beliefs each arising from Peter Waldo in the 12th century and Thomas Munster and the zwickau prophets in the 16th century respectively. The latter, in particular, preached believers baptism, although modern groups who claim to be anabaptists range from the Amish and Menonites to certain evangelical groups.
These are the groups that, according to landmarkists, preserve and unbroken chain of Christs's teachings for over 2000 years. Or not unbroken, depending on which part of this post you read.

Your depiction of Baptists isn't very clear, especially since you're conflating us with all protestantism.
The church of Christ follows the strawman of sola fide you're complaining about, to the point of the regulative principle. Is that what you mean that they're "more consistent"?

Landmarkists claim unbroken, kinship doesn't

Okay, for the record I'm not an atheist and I admit my post was in poor taste. That said, what OP is asking for is really a tall order. There is a certain component of faith that comes into play when dealing with the things of God.

Attached: 1546385095579.jpg (400x400, 24.12K)

you will find the study of such a desire to be found in the "landmarkism" movement. Ultimately I am unconvinced- but out of all denominations that hold to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Baptists preach it and hold to it well.

As for believers baptism vs paedobaptism, you won't find much for either side, which is just as suspicious as it is "convincing" that paedobaptism was just wholeheartedly accepted.

The presbyterians & paedobaptists will say that because there isn't significant literature of disputes revolving baptism that therefore it was just universally agreed upon is just as conspiratorial and assumptive as the baptist perspective.

Baptism to me is a sign of newness of life in Christ, others will make the case that Baptism is a sign of the covenant. I disagree

Matthew 26:28
"for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."
Note: KJV renders covenant as "new testament" but in reality those are interchangeable.

go on…

With all due respect I am unsure about what you want me to go on about. I mentioned the landmarkism movement, basic level views on baptism, and my view that communion is as a rememberance/a sign of the new covenant whereas baptism is a sign of newness in life in Christ

it was a joke

Why are you even here?

I don't know what you mean about them following sola fide. Never heard anything of the sort. I've only seen dismissals of it, just like Orthodox and Catholics (I'm talking about the independent churches of Christ though.. not the larger denomination. I'm talking about the old timers who don't even use instruments in church… because they follow the New Testament pattern to a T, as I said).

As for consistency, I mean they're consistent about "sola scriptura" at least. A lot of Protestants say that, but I don't know anyone who actually follows it through like the CoC does. As I said, others especially have a sort of cognitive dissonance in ignoring Jesus' calls to holiness and self-sacrifice and picking up our crosses. It's seems to be an inconvenient truth to them, and they'd rather just focus on the Billy Graham "belief/faith" moment. I can't say this about all Protestants, but I've even heard one say that Jesus could have just been incarnated straightway on to a cross and that would be good enough for the world. Literally, from the heavens and plopped right down on the cross. This is how dismissive his notion of Sola Fide was when it came to the life of Christ. That it was literally all irrelevant, except the cross. Like Jesus was just wasting his time, waiting to die.

Just to clarify, I could have sworn that was RC Sproul who said something like that (a Calvinist/Presbyterian), but I could be wrong. I don't want to slander him, because I think he was a decent guy, but I'm throwing this out here just in case someone knows what I'm talking about.

Found this recently.

Thoughts?

Attached: Brief History of Baptists.jpg (3264x2448, 1.09M)

the catholic mods can go back in time and hide the apostolic independent fundamentalist baptist churches

wonder why the KJV wasn't discovered until 1519? catholics!

i think its full blown retarded.

You mean these memes?

Attached: baptist-spurdo.png (3264x2448 329.69 KB, 1.09M)

I thought baptists broke off around the same time as other protestants?

Catholics like to say they did, but I've also seen stuff like pic related say otherwise.

Attached: anabaptists.png (780x200, 176.33K)

Anabaptists were protoprotestants by about 100 years. There is absolutely no evidence that either they or modern baptists existed at any point prior to that. At most, you see two or three edicts forbidding the rebaptism of those baptized as infants from around the 4th to 6th centuries, without any of the usual condemnations of errors that accompany organized heretical movement, and the only evidence I ever see Anderson put forth is the Bible itself, which actively refutes half his theology.

How so?

Sola Fide is actively refuted by James and essentially every edict of the Sermon on the Mount, I don't even think I need to cite the various verses against OSAS, but Luke 8:13, Matt 10:22, 2 Peter 2:20-22, and Philippians 2:12, and there is absolutely nothing in Romans 1 to support the concept that reprobates, or anyone for that matter, is beyond salvation.

Why not? Just cite them.

…I did.

I got the impression that you posted SOME but not ALL of the ones that you claim contradict OSAS.

Attached: 1546496672862.png (300x350, 130.8K)

I mean I don't have an exact list prepared if that's what you mean, I'm just pulling the clearest quotes from each of the NT figures, and they all definitively shuts down the doctrine as is.

Chapter 17. The Christians are refused Polycarp's body

But when the adversary of the race of the righteous, the envious, malicious, and wicked one, perceived the impressive nature of his martyrdom, and [considered] the blameless life he had led from the beginning, and how he was now crowned with the wreath of immortality, having beyond dispute received his reward, he did his utmost that not the least memorial of him should be taken away by us, although many desired to do this, and to become possessors of his holy flesh. For this end he suggested it to Nicetes, the father of Herod and brother of Alce, to go and entreat the governor not to give up his body to be buried, lest, said he, forsaking Him that was crucified, they begin to worship this one. This he said at the suggestion and urgent persuasion of the Jews, who also watched us, as we sought to take him out of the fire, being ignorant of this, that it is neither possible for us ever to forsake Christ, who suffered for the salvation of such as shall be saved throughout the whole world (the blameless one for sinners ), nor to worship any other. For Him indeed, as being the Son of God, we adore; but the martyrs, as disciples and followers of the Lord, we worthily love on account of their extraordinary affection towards their own King and Master, of whom may we also be made companions and fellow disciples!

newadvent.org/fathers/0102.htm

Irenaeus contra Gnostic

3. For this purpose, then, he had come that he might win her first, and free her from slavery, while he conferred salvation upon men, by making himself known to them. For since the angels ruled the world ill because each one of them coveted the principal power for himself, he had come to amend matters, and had descended, transfigured and assimilated to powers and principalities and angels, so that he might appear among men to be a man, while yet he was not a man; and that thus he was thought to have suffered in Judæa, when he had not suffered. Moreover, the prophets uttered their predictions under the inspiration of those angels who formed the world; for which reason those who place their trust in him and Helena no longer regarded them, but, as being free, live as they please; for men are saved through his grace, and not on account of their own righteous actions. For such deeds are not righteous in the nature of things, but by mere accident, just as those angels who made the world, have thought fit to constitute them, seeking, by means of such precepts, to bring men into bondage. On this account, he pledged himself that the world should be dissolved, and that those who are his should be freed from the rule of them who made the world.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.ii.xxiv.html

Anderson Pro Gnostic

The title of my sermon tonight is Once saved always saved. It’s about the eternal security of the believer, the fact that once we get saved there is nothing we can ever do to lose our salvation

faithfulwordbaptist.org/once_saved_always_saved.html

Here are your early Baptists

[vi. 22] Wherefore, beloved, flee and avoid such observances: for you have received release, that you should no more bind yourselves; and do not load yourselves again with that which [[252]] our Lord and Saviour has lifted from you. And do not observe these things, nor think them uncleanness; and do not refrain yourselves on their account, nor seek after sprinklings, or baptisms, or purification for these things. For in the Second Legislation, if one touch a dead man or a tomb, he is baptized; but do you, according to the Gospel and according to the power of the Holy Spirit, come together even in the cemeteries, and read the holy Scriptures, and without demur perform your ministry and your supplication to God; and offer an acceptable Eucharist, the likeness of the royal body of Christ, both in your congregations and in (p. 119) your cemeteries and on the departures of them that sleep – pure bread that is made with fire and sanctified with invocations – and without doubting pray and offer for them that are fallen asleep. For they who have believed in God, according to the Gospel, even though they should sleep, they are not dead [cf. Jn 11.25]; as our Lord said to the Sadducees: Concerning the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which is written: I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? And he is not the God of the dead, but of the living [Mt 22.31-33]. And Elisha the prophet also, after he had slept and was a long while (dead), raised up a dead man; for his body touched the body of the dead and quickened and raised it up [2Kgs 13.21]. But this could not have been were it not that, even when he was fallen asleep, his body was holy and filled with the Holy Spirit.

earlychristianwritings.com/text/didascalia.html

Here are the evidence

Attached: Screenshot_20190112-103742_Adobe Acrobat.jpg (1075x1200 521.25 KB, 553.54K)

Nice, Here's more proof of early Christians contradicting Baptists

3. When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made,4462 from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him?—even as the blessed Paul declares in his Epistle to the Ephesians, that “we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones.”4463 He does not speak these words of some spiritual and invisible man, for a spirit has not bones nor flesh;4464 but [he refers to] that dispensation [by which the Lord became] an actual man, consisting of flesh, and nerves, and bones,—that [flesh] which is nourished by the cup which is His blood, and receives increase from the bread which is His body. And just as a cutting from the vine planted in the ground fructifies in its season, or as a corn of wheat falling into the earth and becoming decomposed, rises with manifold increase by the Spirit of God, who contains all things, and then, through the wisdom of God, serves for the use of men, and having received the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ; so also our bodies, being nourished by it, and deposited in the earth, and suffering decomposition there, shall rise at their appointed time, the Word of God granting them resurrection to the glory of God, even the Father, who freely gives to this mortal immortality, and to this corruptible incorruption,4465 because the strength of God is made perfect in weakness,4466 in order that we may never become puffed up, as if we had life from ourselves, and exalted against God, our minds becoming ungrateful; but learning by experience that we possess eternal duration from the excelling power of this Being, not from our own nature, we may neither undervalue that glory which surrounds God as He is, nor be ignorant of our own nature, but that we may know what God can effect, and what benefits man receives, and thus never wander from the true comprehension of things as they are, that is, both with regard to God and with regard to man. ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vii.iii.html

More Irenaeus against the Baptists:

Here Irenaeus contradicts Baptist doctrine by stating there is only ONE church contra the Baptist and Andersonite denial of a single unified church. Whoops, Irenaeus says here those who sow schism in this Church, not a bunch of autonomous IFB churches will be judged. And like a proto papist, Irenaeus says the following right after:

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vi.xxxiv.html

Baptists reject apostolic succession and any view of the Church or churches as dependent on bishops or pastors or clergy to preserve God's Word or the infallibility of the Church, which Irenarus takes for granted when he says only the Church can sustain the reproach of those who suffer persrcution

Irenaeus the Baptist? More like Irenaeus the Papist. Showing Baptists as so hating the early christians, they have to "pretend" and blatantly act like they dont know the source

Spoiler: there is none

Ana Baptist as used here doesn't refer to any particular denomination, but rather any one who re-baptised someone previously baptized. It could be applied to the oriental Orthodox who would do just that to Catholic converts.

When was that written? 1563?
The oriental Orthodox split from christendom in about 1200 years before then and were condemned as monophyiste heretics.

The use of Anabaptist does not refer to modern IFBs.

Testament comes from the word testimony–it's an oral affirmation of something.
Covenant means contract.

They are not interchangeable.

That's not how etymology works

ecumenism done right
Catholic, Orthadox, or prot i'm proud of all you funposters who did your part in making this MP4 possible.

Attached: christian2.png (512x327, 204.57K)

I don't think that is a common baptist belief though. Most baptists believe in a universal church. Anderson is an outlier, not just on this but on a lot of things.

The southern Baptist confession of faith affirms the universe church

Universal