| |
|
|
Blunder 2 - John was a Baptist (p. 6)
And I knew him not: but that HE SHOULD BE MADE MANIFEST to Israel, therefore am I
come BAPTIZING with water. -- John 1:31
Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a
SAVIOUR, Jesus: WHEN JOHN had first preached before his coming the BAPTISM OF REPENTANCE to all the people of
Israel. And as John fulfilled his course, he said, Whom think ye that I am? I am not he. But, behold, there
cometh one after me, whose shoes of his feet I am not worthy to loose. Men and brethren, children of the stock
of Abraham, and WHOSOEVER AMONG YOU FEARETH GOD, to you is the WORD of THIS SALVATION sent. -- Acts
13:23-26
As it is written in the book . . . Prepare ye the way of the Lord . . . And ALL
FLESH shall see the SALVATION of God. -- Luke 3:4-6
The same came for a WITNESS, to bear witness of the Light, that ALL MEN through
him might believe. -- John 1:7
He that believeth ON THE SON HATH EVERLASTING LIFE . . . -- John 3:36
O'Neal (appealing to history again - p. 1,2,21,22) correctly tells us that the
post N.T. Christians were not called Baptists through the early centuries but were called by other names. Yet,
their historical Catholic enemies recognized that these early Christians were Baptists by their apologetics and
polemics.
The name "Baptist" is not the issue, for some Baptists are falsely so-called; the
doctrine is the issue, despite O'Neal's objections (p. 5). Still, "Inconsistent O'Neal" confesses (p. 4) that
he is a "Baptist" by his identification with three Baptist doctrines (while telling us that Baptist doctrine
cannot be known with certainty from documents outside the Bible - p. 4), i.e., salvation by grace, eternal
security, baptism by immersion as a testimony of one's conversion. Still, to follow O'Neal's line of reasoning
that Baptists did not exist, since they were not called "Baptists" (although they believed O'Neal's three
required Baptist distinctives), it follows that there never were any "Christians" until they were named by
their enemies (p. 9 - Acts 11:26).
Well, Baptists can identify with John's doctrine of baptism by immersion;
Protestants and Catholics cannot. Baptists can identify with Jesus, regarding salvation and eternal security
(John 10:28); Charismatics cannot. Baptists can identify with Jesus, John, Paul, and the apostles, the same way
that O'Neal identifies with Baptists - by their doctrines. If these three distinctive doctrines make O'Neal a
Baptist, why can't the early Christians be Baptists? For Mike claims (p. 5-10) that the early New Testament
Christians were not Baptists (even when they believed O'Neal's three doctrinal distinctives, which
automatically make O'Neal a Baptist). Yet, he considers the Baptist name unscriptural and their doc-trines
undiscernible. But to keep folks from thinking he is a Charismatic, Mike thinks it better (p. 4) to go the
compromising, unscriptural route (Baptist Name) instead of the scriptural route (Church of God
Name).
Brother Mike tries to make hay out of John never being called "a" Baptist and
that he was the "only" one called "the" Baptist (p. 5,6). (John was also called "John Baptist" - Matt. 14:8;
Luke 7:20). Of course, no one believes anyone else was ever called either "a" or "the" Baptist in the Bible
(his straw man objection). John was NOT the only Baptizer!
John's God given name was merely John (Luke 1:13,60). He was designated "Baptist"
by his enemies 4 times, his friends 5 times, Christ 4 times, and the Holy Spirit one time (before John ever
baptized). Believers were called "Christians" by the world once, by an unsaved man once, and by Peter once (in
regard to the enemy designation, under which they were persecuted). Still, O'Neal, disturbed at the designation
"Baptist," is not disturbed at the word "Christian." O'Neal believes that if something is not mentioned, it
does not exist, or the unmentionable's doctrine does not exist (p. 5). Yet, he is willing to accept a name that
the world gave, i.e., "Christians." He is also willing to accept the name "disciples," which exists on both
sides of the cross (without any distinction). Strange thought process!
|
Last updated:
|
|
|
