PDA

View Full Version : These hard headed Baptists



Pages : [1] 2

The Parson
Dec 28th 2006, 11:31 PM
First I apologize to the OP of the Protestantism Vs. Evangelicalsim? (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=73572) for the derail. It wasn't intentional. Second I'd like to put forth some histories that effect even the protestant people which I love so well. This too is a form of apologetics.

Some of you may have an interest in this thread and with good cause for the very reason that the documented histories I'm about to place in front of you are rare and many times made down right scarce because of some who would rather not have you know there is and was more than the Roman Catholic Church before her creation and the wonderful reformation that took place in the 1500's and after. Most of you who are known under the protestant name are also known as reformers and God used you in a mighty way to finally stop the RCC from dominating the entire Christian World with her teaching and iron hand. Some of you are also baptistic. Meaning you have simular doctrines, views, and traditions to the anabaptists.

In this thread I plan to utilize my own strong suit, the understanding of obfuscated church history. Don't have to get a dictionary folks. For those of you who don't know, obfuscation means to hide certain facts to give a false meaning to a precept. There was a thread simular to this some time ago but don't plan to ressurect it because many of the facts that were in that thread won't be in this. Some may but not many.

First thing I want to tell you is Salvation comes to those who believe on the name of the Lamb of God. It is not something that can be found only in one sect or denomination but is free to all mankind. No I am not a Baptist Brider.

Any questions before I proceed?

dworthington
Dec 28th 2006, 11:55 PM
I think I'll just watch for a while.....;)

Offering of Praise
Dec 28th 2006, 11:58 PM
I'll be interested to see what twists and turns this road takes.

Studyin'2Show
Dec 29th 2006, 12:04 AM
You've gotten our attention, proceed! ;)

The Parson
Dec 29th 2006, 12:19 AM
OK, why don't I start with the name Anabaptists. You've heard it mentioned but probably didn't know what it meant. The term was first used in and around the 4th centuries because certain Montanists and Paterines (brethren who went under different names but shared the same doctrines) refused to take on the practice of Baptismal regeneration (The idea that a child could be baptized into a church and therefore become part of the body of Christ) that the new Roman Catholic church had introduced. These people would lead souls to the Lord, including ones who formerly identified with Rome, were branded Re-Baptizers (Ana-Baptists). The word ana means to repeat or do over in Latin.

Thought I'd take this a step at a time since I know there will be questions.

Studyin'2Show
Dec 29th 2006, 12:30 AM
When did the whole 'batizing babies' become a practice? It never made sense 'biblically' to me. I was actually baptized in the RCC as a babe but 'really' baptized, IMO, about eight years ago after I was born again.

Quickened
Dec 29th 2006, 12:33 AM
jumping in to post that i will be following this and look forward to learning and perhaps even discussing some things. I appreciate the oppurtunity to do so!

The Parson
Dec 29th 2006, 12:39 AM
When did the whole 'batizing babies' become a practice? It never made sense 'biblically' to me. I was actually baptized in the RCC as a babe but 'really' baptized, IMO, about eight years ago after I was born again.There are several historians that believe this practice started after or around the 300's Studyin and was an error that started about the time of Constantine. This is also the time that those who opposed infant Baptism were called Puritans. (Ref: J.M. Carrolls Lectures 1930's,)

threebigrocks
Dec 29th 2006, 12:47 AM
I'm following! Not surprised as to the information so far. Not that I agree. :rolleyes:

This is the way I've always known it to be with the very general timeline, from this source: http://christianity.about.com/od/denominations/a/catholichistory.htm




The Roman Empire legally recognized Pauline Christianity as a valid religion in 313 AD. Later in that century, in 380 AD, Roman Catholicism became the official religion of the Roman Empire. During the following 1000 years, Catholics were the only people recognized as Christians.
In 1054 AD, a formal split occured between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. This division remains in effect today. The next major division occurred in the 16th century with the Protestant Reformation



I have also heard that the ana-baptist movement was mentioned sometime during the early years of the church development, in the 320ishAD years or so. From this site: http://www.reformedreader.org/
"
We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther and Calvin were born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel under ground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents. Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost every sect, yet there has never existed a Government holding Baptist principles which persecuted others; nor, I believe, any body of Baptists ever held it to be right to put the consciences of others under the control of man..."—Charles H. Spurgeon


If I am wrong, someone please correct me.

punk
Dec 29th 2006, 12:53 AM
I'm following! Not surprised as to the information so far. Not that I agree. :rolleyes:

This is the way I've always known it to be with the very general timeline, from this source: http://christianity.about.com/od/denominations/a/catholichistory.htm




I have also heard that the ana-baptist movement was mentioned sometime during the early years of the church development, in the 320ishAD years or so. From this site: http://www.reformedreader.org/
"


If I am wrong, someone please correct me.

Roman Catholicism was never the official religion of the Roman Empire for the simple reason that key features of contemporary Catholicism (such as papal infallibility) were not part of official Roman Christianity.

In addition, this sort of statement places undue emphasis on events in *western* Europe, where most of Roman Christendom lived in the *eastern* part of the Empire.

The West was a cultural backwater until the Crusades.

Quickened
Dec 29th 2006, 12:57 AM
When did the whole 'batizing babies' become a practice? It never made sense 'biblically' to me. I was actually baptized in the RCC as a babe but 'really' baptized, IMO, about eight years ago after I was born again.

Same story here except instead of 8 years its this year ;)

It doesnt make sense to me either.

threebigrocks
Dec 29th 2006, 01:06 AM
Roman Catholicism was never the official religion of the Roman Empire for the simple reason that key features of contemporary Catholicism (such as papal infallibility) were not part of official Roman Christianity.

In addition, this sort of statement places undue emphasis on events in *western* Europe, where most of Roman Christendom lived in the *eastern* part of the Empire.

The West was a cultural backwater until the Crusades.

But, it all had to start somewhere. That, I believe is the nature of this thread, treading to where things first had a glimmer, otherwise it's only part history. ;)

Offering of Praise
Dec 29th 2006, 01:10 AM
I hope to add my unique experiences as a Baptist into this mix. I've been associated with the Southern Bpatists and American Baptists. I am very familiar with the different sects if you will or denominations that come under "Baptist"

Just wait til we discuss the Sin hating, pew jumping, devil chasing, King James only fundemental baptists!

(a little Mark Lowry there)

punk
Dec 29th 2006, 01:16 AM
But, it all had to start somewhere. That, I believe is the nature of this thread, treading to where things first had a glimmer, otherwise it's only part history. ;)

Well Roman Catholicism (as most would commonly understand it today) had its origins in the Cistercian reforms around the time of the Crusades.

Or if you don't like that you can at least say the Bishop of Rome didn't find himself independent of the Byzantine Emperor until around the time of Charlemagne in the early 9th century, prior to that he was nothing more than a western arm of the Byzantine Church.

Offering of Praise
Dec 29th 2006, 01:20 AM
Another note of interest for me when it comes to the Roman Catholic church is that many RC Missionaries have been practicing baptism by immersion in the mission field. I find this highly interesting considering the RC Church in America sprinkles.

The Parson
Dec 29th 2006, 02:06 AM
If any of you would like to, there is a Protestant scholar who covered some of the question about those names I started mentioning. The History of Protestantism by J. A. Wylie is online. Blew my mind to find it. Take a look and you can reference some of what I reference from that book. I'm still hoping I can find Crossing the Centuries online along with some 17th century writings by a man by the name of Smith of London. Haven't found anything on these yet. Some of his conclusions were right on. You'll even find some of the things Punk was mentioning.
http://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/Voice/History.Protestant.v1.b1.html
I'll continue on as time allows.

threebigrocks
Dec 29th 2006, 02:21 AM
Another note of interest for me when it comes to the Roman Catholic church is that many RC Missionaries have been practicing baptism by immersion in the mission field. I find this highly interesting considering the RC Church in America sprinkles.

Culture comes into play in this too. Where many in America think it odd and even just not right to "dunk 'em" in a common pool in a church, those in other countries think nothing of it. They wash and bathe in the same water, and without that body of water they would have no life. What better way, in that culture especially, to signify a new begining to life. :)

ChristusRex
Dec 29th 2006, 03:39 PM
First I apologize to the OP of the Protestantism Vs. Evangelicalsim? (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=73572) for the derail.

I didn't mind:)

I've enjoyed the different perspectives I've seen on the thread!

Love123
Dec 29th 2006, 03:59 PM
Culture comes into play in this too. Where many in America think it odd and even just not right to "dunk 'em" in a common pool in a church, those in other countries think nothing of it. They wash and bathe in the same water, and without that body of water they would have no life. What better way, in that culture especially, to signify a new begining to life. :)

Baptism is a good ritual. But the same goes for those that bath in the water.
They can bath all day every day for the rest of their lives.
If one has a mental assent to Salvation as appose to an assent from the heart.
That outward expression of the inward man is just, an act.
And all the water in the world will not wash the inward stain of sin off.
Only the blood of Jesus will wash a man whiter than the snow.

Jesus could wash a man clean in the midst of a seven-year drought.

threebigrocks
Dec 29th 2006, 04:06 PM
Oh, I agree wholeheartedly! To become baptized takes a concious decision by a person. They know they aren't going to the water to do laundry or bathe. They are going out of desire and obedience to the Lord.

Frances
Dec 29th 2006, 04:15 PM
I have a nasty feeling this thread is going off at a tangent before the Parson really gets into his subject matter . . .

threebigrocks
Dec 29th 2006, 04:19 PM
I have a nasty feeling this thread is going off at a tangent before the Parson really gets into his subject matter . . .

Very true. :blush:

The Parson
Dec 29th 2006, 04:32 PM
No, no, no, please go ahead because baptism plays an important part in who we are as Baptists and also for Protestants.

Quickened
Dec 29th 2006, 04:34 PM
If any of you would like to, there is a Protestant scholar who covered some of the question about those names I started mentioning. The History of Protestantism by J. A. Wylie is online. Blew my mind to find it. Take a look and you can reference some of what I reference from that book. I'm still hoping I can find Crossing the Centuries online along with some 17th century writings by a man by the name of Smith of London. Haven't found anything on these yet. Some of his conclusions were right on. You'll even find some of the things Punk was mentioning.
http://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/Voice/History.Protestant.v1.b1.html
I'll continue on as time allows.

Very Interesting find you have there. I will be reading this over. Thanks for sharing it http://bibleforums.org/images/icons/icon14.gif

Love123
Dec 29th 2006, 05:14 PM
I have a nasty feeling this thread is going off at a tangent before the Parson really gets into his subject matter . . .


I like the blindfold off.

poppa_50
Dec 29th 2006, 05:16 PM
I see it like this. The Church before the Reformation of 1517 was a bowl of unset jello. You could put your finger in at any point and could not be real sure what was going to come out. Now lines became clear as to shaping of identities and positions. This is due probably more to the effect of the printing press than anything else. The counter reformation would come with the CC redefining itself with its dogmas. "The historical jello" had finally set and could be separated. Anabaptists. Lutherans. Calvinists. Catholics.

Studyin'2Show
Dec 29th 2006, 10:45 PM
Oh, I agree wholeheartedly! To become baptized takes a concious decision by a person. They know they aren't going to the water to do laundry or bathe. They are going out of desire and obedience to the Lord.You're absolutely right! Which is why giving the sacrement of baptism to a baby doesn't make any sense to me. It's something someone needs to be conscious of for it to mean anything. Now dedicating a child to the Lord is something different. Jesus was dedicated in the temple so dedication, to me, is much more logical for a baby than baptism.

The Parson
Dec 29th 2006, 10:53 PM
You're absolutely right! Which is why giving the sacrement of baptism to a baby doesn't make any sense to me. It's something someone needs to be conscious of for it to mean anything. Now dedicating a child to the Lord is something different. Jesus was dedicated in the temple so dedication, to me, is much more logical for a baby than baptism.
Well then, you understand what happened to these early brethren. Infant baptism was rocking the church because people many believe "Why wait on the child to have to make their own choice? Lets do it for them." Well, after these people who were baptized as a babe became accountable and realized they needed a Savior got saved, these early brethren would then counsel them to be baptized. Remember what I said about what Ana meant?

And by the way, there should be no distinction to us between 1st century Christian and 21st century. Washed in the same Blood and sealed by the same Sweet Holy Spirit by the same method powered by the Same Living God!!! Amen???

DAISHI
Dec 29th 2006, 11:15 PM
There are several historians that believe this practice started after or around the 300's Studyin and was an error that started about the time of Constantine. This is also the time that those who opposed infant Baptism were called Puritans. (Ref: J.M. Carrolls Lectures 1930's,)

I'm almost sure that Baptism at the end of life was preferred since it covered one's sins over a lifetime. Didn't Constantine do this himself?

The Parson
Dec 29th 2006, 11:19 PM
I'm almost sure that Baptism at the end of life was preferred since it covered one's sins over a lifetime. Didn't Constantine do this himself?His was a different mindset Daishi...

threebigrocks
Dec 29th 2006, 11:45 PM
I'm almost sure that Baptism at the end of life was preferred since it covered one's sins over a lifetime. Didn't Constantine do this himself?

I'm not so sure that I agree. Repentance forgives sin, baptism is obedience. In a small nutshell anyhow. :rolleyes:

The Parson
Dec 30th 2006, 12:13 AM
So where I left off then was around the time of Constantine. this would be forth century up to him. Already we have brethren who were there called Puritans. Another name would have been Paulicians. both were labeled as Anabaptists and both believed in a simple salvation through faith, autonomy from any central government with only Christ as their head and a stubborness to two ordainances refusing to call them sacraments. The two ordainances were believers baptism and the Lords Supper. (Carroll Lectures 1920's, John C. Ridpath, 1885 History of the World)

Other names were Cathari, Tertullianists, Novationists, & Paterines. If you are wondering about these names most commonly the group or congregation or congregations that were being persicuted at whatever time were called after the most outspoken pastor at the time. I'm sure you have all heard of Tertullian. (Pierre Allix, D.D., THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF THE ANCIENT CHURCHES OF PIEDMONT originally published in 1690, (reprinted at Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1821))

DAISHI
Dec 30th 2006, 12:33 AM
I'm not so sure that I agree. Repentance forgives sin, baptism is obedience. In a small nutshell anyhow. :rolleyes:

I'm not saying I believe that, I'm just saying it was one view of baptism then.

Thanks for answering myquestion too, Parson.

The Parson
Dec 30th 2006, 12:37 AM
I'm not saying I believe that, I'm just saying it was one view of baptism then.

Thanks for answering myquestion too, Parson.Your welcome Daishi. I been meaning to ask you about your name... Is it a common name or does it carry a special meaning? Just being nosey.

DAISHI
Dec 30th 2006, 12:52 AM
It's Japanese for "Great Death".
Probably sounds kind of morbid :P I picked it up in seventh grade as my alter ego when I started making comics with a friend of mine. It was a ninja hero of sorts used in the comics we drew. She went into comic artistry, I went into writing, and I just stuck with the name for various endeavours and online usage.
Though, the translation probably makes people think oddly of me :)

The Parson
Dec 30th 2006, 12:59 AM
That brings up another issue by the way. Distinctives... The way you would measure a majority of the anabaptist line is where they stood on distinctions. Now I have read many of the Roman Catholic historian work. The very fact of them writing about us places us all the way to the end of the first century... And the letters that Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius sent to Rome even did more to chronical what distinctly got us burned at the stake from the first inquisition on to the Great Inquisitions of the 1500's. (Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius, Letters, APUD OPERA, pp. 112, 113., quoted by Christian, op. cit. pp. 85, 86. Quoted also by C. B. and Sylvester Hassell, HISTORY OF THE CHURCH OF GOD, (Middletown, NY, Gilbert Beebe's Sons, 1886), p. 504.)

Those distinctions were:
Baptism of born again believers only - Only those who are born again and saved may be baptized. Local church membership is restricted to individuals who give a believable testimony of personal faith in Christ and have publicly identified themselves with Him in believer's baptism. When the members of a local church are believers, a oneness in Christ exists, and the members can endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Self Governing - The local church is an independent body accountable to the Lord Jesus Christ, the head of the church. All human authority for governing the local church resides within the local church itself. Thus the church is autonomous, or self-governing. No religious hierarchy outside the local church may dictate a church's beliefs or practices. Autonomy does not mean isolation. A Baptist church may fellowship with other churches around mutual interests and in an associational tie, but a Baptist church cannot be a "member" of any other body.
The believer is the priest, not the clergy solely - "Priest" is defined as "one authorized to perform the sacred rites of a religion, especially as a mediatory agent between humans and God." Every believer today is a priest of God and may enter into His presence in prayer directly through our Great High Priest, Jesus Christ. No other mediator is needed between God and people. As priests, we can study God's Word, pray for others, and offer spiritual worship to God. We all have equal access to God--whether we are a preacher or not.
No Sacraments except the Blood of the Lord Jesus and only two Ordainances - The local church should practice two ordinances: baptism of believers by immersion in water, identifying the individual with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection, and the Lord's Supper, or communion, commemorating His death for our sins.
Only two offices of the church - The Bible mandates only two offices in the church--pastor and deacon. The three terms--"pastor," "elder," and "bishop," or "overseer"--all refer to the same office. The two offices of pastor and deacon exist within the local church, not as a hierarchy outside or over the local church.
Biblical Authority Only - The scriptures are the final authority in all matters of belief and practice because the Bible is inspired by God and bears the absolute authority of God Himself. Whatever the Bible affirms, Baptists accept as true. No human opinion or decree of any church group can override the Bible. Even creeds and confessions of faith, which attempt to articulate the theology of Scripture, do not carry Scripture's inherent authority.

Because of these, Cardinal Hosius in the 1540's said: "If the truth of religion were to be judged by the readiness and cheerfulness which a man of any sect shows in suffering, the opinions and persuasions of no sect can be truer or surer than those of the Anabaptists, whence there have been none for these twelve hundred years past that have been more grievously punished, or that have more cheerfully and steadfastly undergone and even offered themselves to the most cruel sorts of punishment than these people."

The Parson
Dec 30th 2006, 01:00 AM
It's Japanese for "Great Death".
Probably sounds kind of morbid :P I picked it up in seventh grade as my alter ego when I started making comics with a friend of mine. It was a ninja hero of sorts used in the comics we drew. She went into comic artistry, I went into writing, and I just stuck with the name for various endeavours and online usage.
Though, the translation probably makes people think oddly of me :)Naw, not really... thanks for sharing that.

FaithfulSheep
Dec 30th 2006, 02:35 AM
Good thread!

I'm finding this very interesting so far. (I'm Baptist.):)

Vickilynn
Dec 30th 2006, 03:17 PM
Shalom Parson,

Excellent stuff! Please keep on! :D

Quickened
Dec 30th 2006, 03:49 PM
Quite interesting Parson! Thanks for taking the time to share with us :)

Also to Daishi.. thanks for sharing because i was always wondering and for some reason never asked :lol:

The Parson
Dec 30th 2006, 05:52 PM
Thank you jdarnall2001, Vickilynn, & Quickened...

Guess I could summerize and the expound on a certain area when questioned if you like. I'm not the greatest chart maker in the world so excuse me if one or two things are out of order here...
1st Century
Jesus establishes His Church beginning at Jerusalem. The first congregation being the Jerusalem Church (Messianic)
The Apostles venture out to spread the Gospel.
Paul (Saul of Tarsus) goes cheifly to the Gentiles (Smyrna, Philadelphia, Pergamos, Antioch, etc...)
Also churches began to spring in Brittannia, Wales, Italy & Germania.
2nd & 3rd Centuries
Churches grow in numbers and are known by either their region or leaders (Montanists, Novations, Antiochians, Tertullianists)
Error starts filling some churches
Infant Baptism Baptismal Regeneration, non fellowship declared in 251 AD for those who would not agree to the new trends. The above groups in blue mainly called Puritans , Anabaptists, or Puritan Anabaptists because they refused to take on the unbiblical ideas of the other churches.
4th, 5th, & 6th Centuries
Donatists, Waldeness, Paterines, Paulicians.
Anabaptist term used to group all at or around the end of the 3rd century...
Constantine unites church and state
Popery established
Infant Baptism established by law.
Mariolotry introduced (Mary adoration and idea of her being a mediatrix)
Indulgences established (Cash for forgiveness of sins)
DARK AGES BEGIN IN 5th CENTURY
7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th Centuries
Many of the Anabaptist groups destroyed or dispersed. Main group to survive was the Paulicians and Waldenessians.
Henricans and Arnoldists added to the names of Anabaptist Puritans
Albigens also added to the names.
Roman church became stronger and continued adding pagan traditions to the Gospel
Purgatory
Saint and Image Worship
Infant Communion
Transubstantiation
Celebacy demanded of the RCC clergy
Confessionals
First of the major Inquisitions called Medieval Inquisition (1184), Papal Inquisition (1232?) and then the Spanish Inquisition (1478) I'll stop there for questions and maybe some of you would like to get deeper than I have in the chart.

ChristusRex
Dec 30th 2006, 07:14 PM
Thank you jdarnall2001, Vickilynn, & Quickened...

Guess I could summerize and the expound on a certain area when questioned if you like. I'm not the greatest chart maker in the world so excuse me if one or two things are out of order here...

1st Century
Jesus establishes His Church beginning at Jerusalem. The first congregation being the Jerusalem Church (Messianic)
The Apostles venture out to spread the Gospel.
Paul (Saul of Tarsus) goes cheifly to the Gentiles (Smyrna, Philadelphia, Pergamos, Antioch, etc...)
Also churches began to spring in Brittannia, Wales, Italy & Germania.

2nd & 3rd Centuries

Churches grow in numbers and are known by either their region or leaders (Montanists, Novations, Antiochians, Tertullianists)
Error starts filling some churches
Infant Baptism Baptismal Regeneration, non fellowship declared in 251 AD for those who would not agree to the new trends. The above groups in blue mainly called Puritans , Anabaptists, or Puritan Anabaptists because they refused to take on the unbiblical ideas of the other churches.

4th, 5th, & 6th Centuries

Donatists, Waldeness, Paterines, Paulicians.
Anabaptist term used to group all at or around the end of the 3rd century...
Constantine unites church and state

Popery established
Infant Baptism established by law.
Mariolotry introduced (Mary adoration and idea of her being a mediatrix)
Indulgences established (Cash for forgiveness of sins)
DARK AGES BEGIN IN 5th CENTURY

7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th Centuries

Many of the Anabaptist groups destroyed or dispersed. Main group to survive was the Paulicians and Waldenessians.
Henricans and Arnoldists added to the names of Anabaptist Puritans
Albigens also added to the names.

Roman church became stronger and continued adding pagan traditions to the Gospel

Purgatory
Saint and Image Worship
Infant Communion
Transubstantiation
Celebacy demanded of the RCC clergy
Confessionals

First of the major Inquisitions called Medieval Inquisition (1184), Papal Inquisition (1232?) and then the Spanish Inquisition (1478)I'll stop there for questions and maybe some of you would like to get deeper than I have in the chart.

not to be in any way rude, however may I ask your source?

The Parson
Dec 30th 2006, 07:41 PM
not to be in any way rude, however may I ask your source?Not at all:

Three Witnesses for the Baptists by Curtis A. Pugh

The Trail Of Blood by J. M. Carroll
Unger's Bible Handbook by Merrill F. Unger
Crossing the Centuries edited by William C. King and copyrighted in 1912
Foxes Book of Martyrs

Marcat1702003
Dec 30th 2006, 10:32 PM
I am really enjoying this thread! I was raised Roman Catholic. I began my search for a personal understanding of God with church history books. This is delightful to me. Thank you!

The Parson
Dec 30th 2006, 11:06 PM
A couple notes:
-I find it troubling that you date the inception of the Waldensians to several centuries prior to the birth of Peter Waldo without further comment
I'm sorry that troubled you Punk because you are absolutly correct. Ever had a group or a name that you subconsciencly relate to another? Well that is what I did. Waldeness shouldn't be even mentioned until the 12th century and beyond. You'll notice I even forgot to add the Vaudois into the 2nd and 3rd centuries... Just slackin in my old age I reckon.

As far as thier beliefs, again, you are jumping ahead and I ask that you give me time. Remember I said that there is the papish account of charges laid against these people and then there are the historiains who didn't have a bias towards them? Please hold that thought until later... OK?

The Parson
Dec 30th 2006, 11:08 PM
I still assert that the papacy in its modern guise was a creation of the Frankish Empire and the Cistercians during the Middle Ages, and was the result of a change in the nature of the office of Bishop of Rome from that existing in the Roman Empire.I'd actually love to see that one brought out in a thread in World Religions Punk. There are some Roman Catholics here on the board that may be interested in it too.

The Parson
Dec 30th 2006, 11:15 PM
I am really enjoying this thread! I was raised Roman Catholic. I began my search for a personal understanding of God with church history books. This is delightful to me. Thank you!

Thank you Marcat. It's appreciated. There are those that don't want it told however...


Originally Posted by The Parson http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1096407#post1096407)

4th, 5th, & 6th Centuries
Donatists, Cathari, Paterines, Paulicians.
Anabaptist term used to group all at or around the end of the 3rd century...
Constantine unites church and state
Popery established
Infant Baptism established by law.
Mariolotry introduced (Mary adoration and idea of her being a mediatrix)
Indulgences established (Cash for forgiveness of sins)
DARK AGES BEGIN IN 5th CENTURY
7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th Centuries
Many of the Anabaptist groups destroyed or dispersed. Main group to survive was the Paulicians and Waldenessians.
Waldeness, Henricans and Arnoldists added to the names of Anabaptist Puritans
Albigens also added to the names. Amended Chart... See anything else out of catagory???

The Parson
Dec 30th 2006, 11:23 PM
For the record Punk, as OP, I would prefer that the entire history be laid out before your well thought out questions are answered, unless they are minor ones that would not possibly derail the intent. All I am asking is that you wait until the premise is fully laid out before the indepth questions are asked. Please sir...

ChristusRex
Dec 30th 2006, 11:35 PM
I'd actually love to see that one brought out in a thread in World Religions Punk. There are some Roman Catholics here on the board that may be interested in it too.


Please by all means do:)

The Parson
Jan 1st 2007, 08:32 PM
We left off at the 15th Century so to continue on:
16th Century
More Anabaptists martyred. One of the names given were Albigenes.
Waldenessian church grows despite Inquisitions. (Side note; Jews were persicusted just as much as anabaptists at this time)
Reformation beginning officially although Wycliff is credited with being the father of it in the 1300's
1530, Luthers discourse letter, ata boy Martin...
1541, Presbyterianism began
1511, Church of England
Counsil of Trent. Cardinal Hosius (Catholic, 1524), President of the Council of Trent:
Papal proclaimations: (just a few):
Note: the word anathema means:
A ban or curse pronounced with religious solemnity by ecclesiastical authority, and accompanied by excommunication. Hence: Denunciation of anything as or is accursed.
An imprecation; a curse; a malediction.
Any person or thing anathematized, or cursed by ecclesiastical authority.
Any person or thing that is intensely disliked.
Worthy of death
"If anyone says that when they confect and confer the sacraments there is not required in ministers at least the intention of doing what the Church does, anathema sit [may he be anathema]" (DS 1611).
"If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but says that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure or force, let him be anathema" (Canons on the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, Canon 1).
This would be the Transubstantiation that Quicken asked about. Where it is believe that the priest can call the Savior bodily from heaven and have the euchrist wafer become the real body of the Lord Jesus. Also that the wine becomes the real Blood of our Lord and Savior.
"If anyone says that in the Roman Church, which is the mother and mistress of all churches, there is not the true doctrine concerning the sacrament of baptism, let him be anathema" (Canons on Baptism, Canon 3).
"If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema" (Canons on Baptism, Canon 5).
"If anyone says that children, because they have not the act of believing, are not after having received baptism to be numbered among the faithful, and that for this reason are to be rebaptized when they have reached the years of discretion; or that it is better that the baptism of such be omitted than that, while not believing by their own act, they should be baptized in the faith of the Church alone, let him be anathema" (Canons on Baptism, Canon 13).
These, among a few others are what sent more Anabaptists to the stake to be burned and even now some Protestants.
"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." (Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pp. 112, 113.) Any questions so far?

punk
Jan 1st 2007, 08:43 PM
I've been instructed not to voice objections anymore.

I will point out though that the "Albigensians" is a label for 12th century and not 16th century groups. It usually taken as basically a convenient term for what basically amounts to groups of Cathars and Waldensians on the losing side of the Albigensian Crusade.

Do you have some other group in mind for the 16th century, or do you just mean a persecution of groups in the geographical region where the Albigensians had lived several centuries earlier?

Also, did you mean to leave out the Lollards and the Hussites? It is easy to establish that Huss was reading Wycliffe, and it can be established that the Lollards had contacts with continental dissident groups.

Luther's reformation appears to be independent of all this though. At one point when someone pointed out that everything he was saying was said already by Huss he proclaimed himself a "Hussite", but the point is he appears not to have been familiar with Huss when developing his views.

The Parson
Jan 1st 2007, 08:55 PM
I've been instructed not to voice objections anymore.

I will point out though that the "Albigensians" is a label for 12th century and not 16th century groups. It usually taken as basically a convenient term for what basically amounts to groups of Cathars and Waldensians on the losing side of the Albigensian Crusade.

Do you have some other group in mind for the 16th century?

Also, did you mean to leave out the Lollards and the Hussites? It is easy to establish that Huss was reading Wycliffe, and it can be established that the Lollards had contacts with continental dissident groups.

Luther's reformation appears to be independent of all this though. At one point when someone pointed out that everything he was saying was said already by Huss he proclaimed himself a "Hussite", but the point is he appears not to have been familiar with Huss when developing his views.And you would be quite correct. From my perspective I listed them here because this was the greatest period of their growth and then demise as a people. Maybe I should be more indepth, but again I am just putting forth the premise. I wouldn't mind to see a chart on this same subject from you if you had the time, just out of curiosity, if you have the time Punk. Thank you for keeping me on my toes.

What would be your impression of the Hussites and Lollards?

punk
Jan 1st 2007, 09:08 PM
And you would be quite correct. From my perspective I listed them here because this was the greatest period of their growth and then demise as a people. Maybe I should be more indepth, but again I am just putting forth the premise. I wouldn't mind to see a chart on this same subject from you if you had the time, just out of curiosity, if you have the time Punk. Thank you for keeping me on my toes.

What would be your impression of the Hussites and Lollards?

My understanding is that the Lollards are a group which came over to England from the Netherlands and brought their beliefs with them. Although they tend to be portrayed as followers of Wycliffe it looks more likely that they predated Wycliffe and Wycliffe was just a very educated Lollard who wrote a lot of books, and then tried to use his office to advance it.

The Lollard movement itself conforms more or less to your typical medieval idealistic reform movements like the Waldensians, Franciscans, Humiliati, Free Spirit, and so on of a couple centuries earlier.

So Lollardy was more of a "bottom up" movement as it were.

I don't know enough about Huss, but he seemed more to have a "top down" view where he wanted to change the church and by the church change the people. A more authoritarian approach, and one closer to the spirit of Luther and Calvin. Wycliffe might have been a bit like that too, but I think Lollards were already better established in England than comparable groups in Bohemia.

The Parson
Jan 1st 2007, 09:26 PM
I don't know enough about Huss, but he seemed more to have a "top down" view where he wanted to change the church and by the church change the people. A more authoritarian approach, and one closer to the spirit of Luther and Calvin. Wycliffe might have been a bit like that too, but I think Lollards were already better established in England than comparable groups in Bohemia.The methodology is not dissimular to Modern Fundamental Baptists today and Amsi Dixon, who was one of the leaders of the Fundamentalist movement in the 20th century said they were not much different. ie, pastorial rule & literal intreptation. I'd like to find that paper I read on that years ago. Jumping ahead though with our fundamentalist brethren, there was a touch of Methodistology that went into that movement. I ought to be ashamed that I sometimes dismiss them as not being part of the lineage because I would be quite incorrect in that thinking. It was just a biased I had to ask forgiveness for. Probably will have to again before I see the gates of Glory.

punk
Jan 1st 2007, 10:01 PM
The methodology is not dissimular to Modern Fundamental Baptists today and Amsi Dixon, who was one of the leaders of the Fundamentalist movement in the 20th century said they were not much different. ie, pastorial rule & literal intreptation. I'd like to find that paper I read on that years ago. Jumping ahead though with our fundamentalist brethren, there was a touch of Methodistology that went into that movement. I ought to be ashamed that I sometime dismiss them as not being part of the lineage because I would be quite incorrect in that thinking. It was just a biased I had to ask forgiveness for. Probably will have to again before I see the gates of Glory.

I don't understand, what is "methodistology"?

Also, now that I'm thinking about it, I think the American groups identifying themselves as "baptist" (and Quakers for that matter) would have a much better case linking themselves back to the Lollards, than trying to link themselves to the later continental groups more conventionally known as "anabaptists."

The link of baptists to mennonites, amish, brethren, and so on seems a bit tenuous.

threebigrocks
Jan 1st 2007, 10:11 PM
Is it that the original anabaptist were so scattered and hanging by a thread for some time that they appear to not exist? Those who held those beliefs I'm sure held strongly to them, but unity strengthens.

"Wherever two or more are gathered..."

"A cord of three strands is not easily broken."

punk
Jan 1st 2007, 10:16 PM
Is it that the original anabaptist were so scattered and hanging by a thread for some time that they appear to not exist? Those who held those beliefs I'm sure held strongly to them, but unity strengthens.

"Wherever two or more are gathered..."

"A cord of three strands is not easily broken."

Well that gets back to the question of whether it is even reasonable to propose "anabaptists" existing before about the time of the Crusades. You find a lot of reform movements like the Waldensians and the Franciscans popping up during the Crusade Period.

The Parson
Jan 1st 2007, 10:22 PM
I don't understand, what is "methodistology"?

Also, now that I'm thinking about it, I think the American groups identifying themselves as "baptist" (and Quakers for that matter) would have a much better case linking themselves back to the Lollards, than trying to link themselves to the later continental groups more conventionally known as "anabaptists."

The link of baptists to mennonites, amish, brethren, and so on seems a bit tenuous.Methodistology was just a play on the word Punk...

punk
Jan 1st 2007, 10:28 PM
Methodistology was just a play on the word Punk...

Ah methodology modified by methodist, got you.

threebigrocks
Jan 1st 2007, 10:34 PM
Well that gets back to the question of whether it is even reasonable to propose "anabaptists" existing before about the time of the Crusades. You find a lot of reform movements like the Waldensians and the Franciscans popping up during the Crusade Period.


Oh I believe they existed prior to the crusades, but they had perhaps what seems to be a time where they were beaten down and they just weren't noted or noted as often or as strongly.

Like a bottleneck of sorts. For example, my grandfather emitgrated from Greece. He is the one link we have to Greece. It's only one, but that doesn't make that tie any less.

punk
Jan 1st 2007, 10:47 PM
Oh I believe they existed prior to the crusades, but they had perhaps what seems to be a time where they were beaten down and they just weren't noted or noted as often or as strongly.

Like a bottleneck of sorts. For example, my grandfather emitgrated from Greece. He is the one link we have to Greece. It's only one, but that doesn't make that tie any less.

I had been hoping that the point of this thread was to try to make a rather more concrete case for the existence of "anabaptists" in the period from say c. 30 CE to c. 1100 CE.

The Parson
Jan 1st 2007, 11:08 PM
An addition to the chart would be Menno Simons and the Mennonite movement that fragmentented the some of the Anabaptist brethren around 1536. And also gave rise to the Amish movement in or around 1693 led by Jacob Amman. The majority of these can only mostly be found in the US today... There are a few groups (ordung) left in Europe.


I had been hoping that the point of this thread was to try to make a rather more concrete case for the existence of "anabaptists" in the period from say c. 30 CE to c. 1100 CE.Hey my friend, we haven't even got into the meat of the discussion yet. Patients... I'm not wanting the thread to be some sort of college debate. The main reason for this thread is to get out this hard heads understanding of our lineage as Baptists.

What group of brethren do you identify with Punk? Should have asked a long time ago...

Marcat1702003
Jan 1st 2007, 11:25 PM
What group of brethren do you identify with Punk? Should have asked a long time ago...
Sorry, punk, I have a hard time calling anyone punk, but I am also curious as to what group you are connected to.

punk
Jan 1st 2007, 11:28 PM
Sorry, punk, I have a hard time calling anyone punk, but I am also curious as to what group you are connected to.

None.

But my wife attends a Mennonite church.

punk
Jan 1st 2007, 11:31 PM
An addition to the chart would be Menno Simons and the Mennonite movement that fragmentented the some of the Anabaptist brethren around 1536. And also gave rise to the Amish movement in or around 1693 led by Jacob Amman. The majority of these can only mostly be found in the US today... There are a few groups (ordung) left in Europe.

Hey my friend, we haven't even got into the meat of the discussion yet. Patients... I'm not wanting thie thread to be some sort of college debate. The main reason for this thread is to get out this hard heads understanding of our lineage as Baptists.

What group of brethren do you identify with Punk? Should have asked a long time ago...

I'm borderline offended at the "college debate" remark. I have no interest in debate, but the amateur history buff in me takes more interest in tangible facts that someone can work from than he does in consistent and well-constructed theories that often find it too easy to overlook the facts on the ground that get in the way as it were.

But this is because I've found that the real events of history are far far more interesting than what pops out of human attempts to simplify things. Things just happen that you can't make up and would never fly in fiction.

But again, I'm not a member of any religious body.

Faithwalker
Jan 1st 2007, 11:58 PM
Attention grabbing thread caption Parson :lol:

I am pouring over the link you posted earlier on the History of the Protestants...its new to me. Thank you for sharing...

Blessings

The Parson
Jan 2nd 2007, 03:23 AM
Attention grabbing thread caption Parson :lol:

I am pouring over the link you posted earlier on the History of the Protestants...its new to me. Thank you for sharing...

BlessingsYou are welcome Faithwalker...

We left off at the 16th Century so to continue on:
17th Century
Many places now the Ana is being left off, for instance the church started by John Smyth in the latter part of the 1600's. This is why some people believe that the Baptist faith began in this era is because of the ana being removed from the name.
Major Baptist moves to the Americas to escape persicution.
Reformation continues on.
1603, Congregationalism
1611, King James Bible published. Was, in my opinion one of the biggest kicks in the pants to the Roman catholic doctrines & dogmas
1648, "Peace of Westphalia" Treaty which resulted from that peace pact that was the three way agreement between the major denominations, (Catholic, Lutheran and Presbyterian), to stop persecuting one another. This did however spark even more harsh treatment & persecution of the Anabatists.
"At Zurich, after many disputations between Zuinglius and the Ana-Baptists, the Senate made an Act, that if any presume to re-baptize those who were baptized before (i.e. as infants) they should be drowned. At Vienna many Ana-Baptists were tied together in chains that one drew the other after him into the river, wherein they were all suffocated (drowned)." (Vida Supra, p. 61) (This account was 6 years before the pact , Peace of Westphalia, but was one of many accounts of the Anabaptists persicutions that happend at Zurich and other places in Europe over a 20 some odd year period.
Sorta quiet on the Catholic front in this era but they were still active. Believe you me... Do a search on the internet for the "Gunpowder Conspiracy" and see what you find...

The Parson
Jan 2nd 2007, 03:26 AM
I'm borderline offended at the "college debate" remark. I have no interest in debate, but the amateur history buff in me takes more interest in tangible facts that someone can work from than he does in consistent and well-constructed theories that often find it too easy to overlook the facts on the ground that get in the way as it were.

But this is because I've found that the real events of history are far far more interesting than what pops out of human attempts to simplify things. Things just happen that you can't make up and would never fly in fiction.

But again, I'm not a member of any religious body.I apologize Punk, and it wasn't directed at anyone but used in a general description of what I wanted to avoid.

Your wife is a Mennonite. Does she share your views on the anabaptist history. Hope that isn't too personal a question/questions. I was just trying to find a common ground so I could relate a bit to your questions.

punk
Jan 2nd 2007, 03:40 AM
I apologize Punk, and it wasn't directed at anyone but used in a general description of what I wanted to avoid.

Your wife is a Mennonite. Does she share your views on the anabaptist history. Hope that isn't too personal a question/questions. I was just trying to find a common ground so I could relate a bit to your questions.

History isn't a subject my wife concerns herself much with.

My experience of Mennonites is that they are more concerned with issues of social justice (such as ending the Iraq War, helping the homeless and so on) to be too concerned with the specifics of history.

BYR
Jan 2nd 2007, 06:02 PM
The Parson wrote: For those of you who don't know, obsification means to hide certain facts to give a false meaning to a precept.

Huh?

I cannot find the word at dictionary.com or m-w.com...

did you mean to say obfuscate?

I don't mean to correct you or anything but this one I had never heard of this one until I found your thread this morning. It is technical term used primarily in a specific field of study?

on the other hand... I love the thread....thanks for starting it...

byr

The Parson
Jan 2nd 2007, 06:27 PM
The Parson wrote: For those of you who don't know, obsification means to hide certain facts to give a false meaning to a precept.

Huh?

I cannot find the word at dictionary.com or m-w.com...

did you mean to say obfuscate?

I don't mean to correct you or anything but this one I had never heard of this one until I found your thread this morning. It is technical term used primarily in a specific field of study?

on the other hand... I love the thread....thanks for starting it...

byrWell, one of these days I'll larn ta spel!!! obfuscation is the word. I did correct it on the opening post. Thank you...

BYR
Jan 2nd 2007, 07:35 PM
now's that funny. I googled obsification and found it to be used on several sites. I still do not know what it means, but hey, it is out there...

thanks

The Parson
Jan 2nd 2007, 07:52 PM
now's that funny. I googled obsification and found it to be used on several sites. I still do not know what it means, but hey, it is out there...

thanksDo you suppose they have made the same spelling error I did?

We left off at the 17th Century so to continue on:
18th Century
Many Baptist congregations are coming out of hiding and being more outspoken if that were possible.
Baptists are becoming a major minority in Europe and spreading across the America's
Baptist cooperatives begin to start although not officially.
Reformation continues on.
In the Americas
1706, Presbytery of Philadelphia, the first Presbyterian presbytery in the New World although some congregations had already established here in the early 1600's.
1747, Reformed Church in America formed
1760, Methodism in America started in a lay movement
1789, Protestant Episcopal Church
1796, Unitarian church in Philadelphia
In Europe
Quiet to some extent.
Sorta quiet on the Catholic front in this era too... Catholicism not too well received in the American colonies or the new nation.

The Parson
Jan 3rd 2007, 03:06 AM
We left off at the 18th Century so to continue on:
19th Century
Some of those who held on to the anabaptist name, ie. Waldeness, remained in Europe. The vast majority were now in the US and some in Canada. That includes the Mennonites and Amish who by now had a degree of seperation in teachings because of their particular focus. The main group of Baptists were known in America as Missionary Baptists because of their support on various missionaries.
Cooperatives began to develope, ie, Southern Baptist, Northern Baptist, although not by those names exactly, but simply called associations.
Side note: a cooperative and or association is nothing more than a sharing of funds and resources for missionary efforts and to give a semi common voice. None of the coops had any regulatory power over the various congregations. To the contrary, these associations were controlled by the different congregations.
Calvanistic & Armenian type doctrines began to filter into some congregations. By 1850 the majority of Baptist brethren in the southern and a few in the northern U.S. were divided on these two different groups. These groups were:
1850's, Sovereign Grace Baptists (self named Landmarkers)
Missionary Baptists (some associationalists, some not)
In Europe:
The first "Baptist Society For Propagating The Gospel Among The Heathen" was established being newly established was one of the first recognized all out missionary efforts. I'm sure you all remember the missionary David Livingston. "Dr. Livingston I presume"!
Protestantism.
Modern Baptists, early 1800's I believe. In the Americas and in Europe there arises a group that go by the name Baptist but actually have their roots in the reformation. We know them as Modern Baptists and they for the most part can be found in the Northeastern US (New England) and some in England. This particular group are "not" actually Baptists but are a protestant group. Their roots can be found in the Presbyterian church in the 16th and 17th centuries. Their customs and ceremonies are taken directly from the reformation and there is little differentiation from them and the English isle protestants. Although they carry original Baptist doctrines to some degree, their pastors are robed and wear white collars and their ordinances are more attuned to sacraments instead of ordainances.
Church of Christ, (originally called Campbellites) established around 1810 by a former Baptist named Alexander Campbell.
Church of God, 1881, (Indiana) came out of Methodism and took on baptistic traits. They exceed the Modern Baptists in closeness to doctrine with the Baptist church except on the point of eternal security and female pastors.
I'll just give the Catholics a rest here. Shoot, I've been hard enough on them already. Although there is one instance where a new Reformation Started in the Mid Western US by a reformed, born again priest named Charles Chiniquy. (50 Years in the Church of Rome, 1886)

Vickilynn
Jan 3rd 2007, 03:40 AM
Shalom Parson,

Great stuff, I am following intently!

And Punk, thank you for the input. Very informative!

ChristusRex
Jan 3rd 2007, 04:01 AM
Catholics still outnumber all the varieties of protestants combined.

Thats certainly true numerically, however so much of Western Europe seems "culturally" rather then Faithfully Catholic.

I agrea we outnumber you all, however I think you have to take into account that as we do infant Baptism, you are officially Catholic even if you never attend Mass in your life, and don't really beleive in God.


Very Sad:(

The Parson
Jan 3rd 2007, 04:32 AM
Thats certainly true numerically, however so much of Western Europe seems "culturally" rather then Faithfully Catholic.

I agrea we outnumber you all, however I think you have to take into account that as we do infant Baptism, you are officially Catholic even if you never attend Mass in your life, and don't really beleive in God.


Very Sad:(I'm glad you posted that CR. If you don't mind me asking then, the expression I've heard a good friend of mine in the Order of St. John say: "There are good Catholics and then there are Catholics." Is that what he meant? I never really asked and it never really dawned on me until now.

ChristusRex
Jan 3rd 2007, 06:31 AM
I'm glad you posted that CR. If you don't mind me asking then, the expression I've heard a good friend of mine in the Order of St. John say: "There are good Catholics and then there are Catholics." Is that what he meant? I never really asked and it never really dawned on me until now.

I'm sure it was something like that, I don't think it is specifically Catholicism it seems to be really all of the old "Traditional" church's in Europe. I recently did a paper on this in school and the author seemed to be pointing to the Idea that the Religion is more of a cultural way of life then anything else, so perhapse you have your child Baptised, however it's not so much a loving act of faith as simply a social gathering, like a birthday party or something(But having never been to Europe, that is simply my gatherings from reaserch, not personal experience).

That is not to say that there are not sincerly beleiving Catholics in Spain or France or whereever mind you, just that it is not like that every one registered as Catholic goes to weekly Mass

In the particular book I read, the article I used "Religion is Irrelivant in Sweeden" pointed to the "sacred" becoming profane or almost secular, he compared reception of the Sacraments like Baptism(This is for the Sweedish Lutheran church, I suppose they have infant Baptism as well), as like riding on a tram, the people question as little into the Sacrament as they do in the electricity which runs the tram.

So in Catholicism there are a lot of "Cafateria Catholics" that is people who pick and choose what doctrins and such they wish to follow, but still refer to themseves as Catholic, though in some cases their Theological beleifs align more with Protestantism than Catholicism(but that seems to be more here in the South, simply because Protestantism is such an overwhelming force, the good thing is that many Catholic Teens raised in the South who are religious seem to be more active in studying the Bible, which is always a good thing:)).

I suppose it would be like if I were a Baptist child but grew up in Northern Ireland, and so while was technicall Baptist, was religiously sociolised by my community to be almost more Theologically Catholic then Baptist.

So I would think your friend would be refering to them, and to people who like I said were simply Baptised as a Child, and thus entered into the Church, and perhapse got Confirmed for grandmother, but take no real part in their religion.

If that makes sense.


Like I said I'm not argueing that Catholics are not more in number then the Protestants, I would simply find it interesting to see the numberes if you counted "Active Catholics" alone opposed to "Baptised Catholics"

As for the rest of the world I cannot say. I would imagain it is the same as protestantism, in that most are beleiving and such.

Studyin'2Show
Jan 3rd 2007, 12:35 PM
Interesting input, CristusRex. Having been born into RC I know exactly what you are saying. It left me very disallusioned. I don't consider myself Protestant but from what I've seen, their are Protestants who accept Christ and then backslide. We must, as 'the church' encourage other believers to walk in Christ.

God Bless!

MeHere
Jan 4th 2007, 01:44 PM
The Reformers and their Stepchildren , Leonard Verduin, is a good book about anabaptist history.

The Parson
Jan 4th 2007, 03:44 PM
The Reformers and their Stepchildren , Leonard Verduin, is a good book about anabaptist history.Hardly a good book of Anabaptist history, matter of fact this book more or less gives, believe it or not, a sort of glory to the Roman Catholic church saying that these were only splintering dissenters who returned to the rcc fold. When in fact they were there even before the Roman Catholic church and continued a line to modern day. It is a nice piece of propaganda though. The biggest mistake made by anyone is that the modern Anabaptists are actually the ancient Anabaptists. They are not! The Baptist Churches today are those.

So, let me make a plain statement. What I am relating to you is a continuation of a battle that has went on since the Apostolic missionary efforts. A battle for identity. Nothing would be more pleasing to the papal powers that be then to say that they and they only, are the true historic church. Then, when it comes to the eccumenical movement, they can draw more and more closer to her making it seem that because of her antiquity, she must be therefore correct in her traditions. Most of you here are protestants. And being protestants, don't you see the danger in that? Can you not actually see the beginnings of a reverse reformation here? Is that not a part of prophesy also? I sure would hate to have to stand alone against another Inquisition folks. There are some who are already prepared for just that and then some of those who are warning of it is coming.

Are you aware that those same proclaimations and laws given down from the Counsel of Trent are still papal law? You know, the ones that tell you that if you don't believe that the erchrist and the wine are not wholey and substantually the body and blood of Christ, you are worthy of death. I would ask that any new posters here would read the thread from beginning to end before they post. It would probably shed a little more light onto what you may post. Some, it may not. Some of you may say this hard headed Baptist is also crazy, that is your right.

We left off at the 19th Century so to continue on:
20th Century
Baptist Churches are in every corner of the US and many re-established in Europe, Africa, the Middle East, etc.
Cooperatives offically begin.
1907, Northern Baptist Convention begins
1920, A majority of Southern Missionary Baptists drop the Missionary from their name and form thier own denomination, Southern Baptist.
1930's, The Fundamentalist Baptists appear from New England and begin a great revival in this nation.
1960's, Many leave the Southern Baptist Conference to become the Fundamentalist Seperated Brethren although very few know this name.
1970's, Missionary Baptist revival begins in the southern US.
1990, Southern Baptists, Missionary Baptists, Seperated Brethren, and Fundamentalists start the beginnings of a fellowship that finally takes place somewhat in 2004. So we can begin now and this thread will probably take quite a while to complete. It has been asked that proof be given of this antiquity I am claiming from the beginning. Beginning in my next post is when you will receive it. I realize that there are some Roman Catholics reading this thread. I ask that in your participation, that you be patient. There are some things that will be written here that you may feel offended over. I don't have intentions of offending anyone. Please believe that.

threebigrocks
Jan 4th 2007, 07:53 PM
Please, as we all move into specifics, remember that history is history. Can't change it. I have a history of myself that ain't all that great, but it's historical fact. Can't change it. So let's place pieces into the picture and not scatter them. :)

The Parson
Jan 4th 2007, 09:59 PM
It isn't necessary to identify the first century churches as you all know them well I would hope. Polycarp was a second century pastor of the Church at Smyrna until his death by burning in about 166 A. D. ("Memorials of Baptist Martyrs" by Thieleman J. Van Braght; and "A History of the Baptists" by Thomas Armitage.) He was about the most famous of the second century pastors. You ask how I know weather he was a Baptist of not, lets look as some of what we define ourselves as Baptists congregation today and then search the internet on what Polycarp really believed.
Those are:
Its Head and Founder is Christ Jesus. He is the law-giver; the Church is only the executive. (Matthew 16:18, Colossians 1:18) Its independence of any synod, or any outside influence. Total separation of Church and State. (Matthew 22:21)
Its only guide for faith, worship, and practice is the Bible. (2nd Timothy 3:15 - 17)
Its government is congregational with all members having an equal say in all matters. (Matthew 20:24-28; Matthew 23:5-12)
Its membership is only saved brothers and sisters who have been baptized after Salvation. (Believers Baptism) (Ephesians 2:21; 1st Peter 2:5)
Only two Ordinances are believers baptism followed by the Lords Supper. The ONLY sacrament is the Blood of Jesus Christ. (Matthew 28:19-20, Matthew 26:8 )
Only 2 offices in the congregation, Pastors & Deacons. (1st Timothy 3:1-16)
Its job is to get folks saved, see them baptized and, teaching them ("to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you"). (Matthew 28:16-20)
Who were some second century congregations that believed that way? Well there is the Novatians, Donatists, and Montanists or some even called them Tertullianists.
I'll share a little bit of tradition past down to me by my forefathers. Even though we have carried many names including Christians as from Antioch, one name we have always had that was one we gave ourselves. It is: "A baptized band of born again believers in Christ Jesus." Got that from great grandpa George. Even Tertullian was classified as a Anabaptist/Baptist the same as Polycarp. Don't believe it, here is a quote by Neander's commentary on Tertullian's own writings:
"In the last years of the second century Tertullian appears as a zealous opponent of infant baptism, a proof that the practice had not as yet come to be regarded as an apostolic institution, for, otherwise, he would hardly have ventured to express himself so strongly against it. We perceive, from his arguments against infant baptism, that he introduces Matt..xix: 14. Tertullian advises that, in consideration of the great importance of the transaction, and of the preparation necessary to be made for it by the recipients, baptism should rather be delayed than prematurely applied. ‘Let them come,’ says Tertullian, ‘while they are growing up; let them come while they are learning, while they are being taught that to which they are coming; let them become Christians while they are susceptible.’ " (Neander, vol. i, p. 312).Now, let me quote you something from a Presbyterian Encyclopedia. If you will remember my previous post about the book; The Reformers and their Stepchildren, by Leonard Verduin. That book was funded by those same Presbyterians. Don't you think they should make up their minds? Emphasis in the below quote is mine...
"It must have already occurred to our readers that the Baptists are the same sect of Christians that were formerly described as Ana-Baptists. Indeed this seems to have been their leading principle from the time of Tertullian to the present time." (Edinburg Cyclopedia (Presbyterian))

ChristusRex
Jan 5th 2007, 07:35 AM
I cannot really respond much without breaking forum rules so I will only say that I do not see how you can possibly claim St.Polycap as Baptist, and think that perhapse you should check again with him, and his fameous diciple.

But history is not my srea, so I may be totally wrong.

The Parson
Jan 5th 2007, 04:16 PM
I cannot really respond much without breaking forum rules so I will only say that I do not see how you can possibly claim St.Polycap as Baptist, and think that perhaps you should check again with him, and his fameous diciple.

But history is not my srea, so I may be totally wrong.His teachings were new testament teachings that fit the above to a tee. And during the first three centuries Christian churches, all over the East, including his, existed in separate, independent bodies, unsupported by government, and consequently without any secular power over one another. (History of the Baptists, by G. H. Orchard, p. 36) The same could be said for Patrick of the British isles in the west (Ireland) and what he preached. But that is food for another thread. So much for St. Patty's day...

punk
Jan 5th 2007, 06:05 PM
I cannot really respond much without breaking forum rules so I will only say that I do not see how you can possibly claim St.Polycap as Baptist, and think that perhapse you should check again with him, and his fameous diciple.

But history is not my srea, so I may be totally wrong.

One troubling aspect about the argument given is that there appears to be a presumption that anyone who differs from the "catholic" norm must necessarily be an "anabaptist" (and I'll use "catholic" for convenience here even though I believe it introduces an anachronistic view of history).

One then looks for any assertion by the dissident in question that agrees with the "anabaptist" take. The totality of the dissidents' position is otherwise ignored. Documents which would refute a claim to the dissident being "anabaptist" are rejected as "catholic" forgeries.

This is in fact the same methodology used by the authors of a certain book called "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" which was the root source for the claims made in the well-known "DaVinci Code".

punk
Jan 5th 2007, 06:09 PM
His teachings were new testament teachings that fit the above to a tee. And during the first three centuries Christian churches, all over the East, including his, existed in separate, independent bodies, unsupported by government, and consequently without any secular power over one another. (History of the Baptists, by G. H. Orchard, p. 36) The same could be said for Patrick of the British isles in the west (Ireland) and what he preached. But that is food for another thread. So much for St. Patty's day...

Since Polycarp's surviving writings are both few and easily available it would do if you could perhaps quote from them rather than from a clearly biased secondary source such as "History of the Baptists".

The Parson
Jan 5th 2007, 06:12 PM
One troubling aspect about the argument given is that there appears to be a presumption that anyone who differs from the "catholic" norm must necessarily be an "anabaptist" (and I'll use "catholic" for convenience here even though I believe it introduces an anachronistic view of history).

One then looks for any assertion by the dissident in question that agrees with the "anabaptist" take. The totality of the dissidents' position is otherwise ignored. Documents which would refute a claim to the dissident being "anabaptist" are rejected as "catholic" forgeries.

This is in fact the same methodology used by the authors of a certain book called "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" which was the root source for the claims made in the well-known "DaVinci Code".
Mosheim also said: "the true origin of Anabaptists, is hid in the remote depths of antiquity." I'm not sure it is as well hid as Mosheim believed.

Another not so well known historian, but none the less as accurate, made a point of expressing one thing when he summed up his research. His name was I. K. Cross and the following is a quote from his work, The Battle For Baptist History. His summary is very close to mine Punk in the reasons that history shouldn't be buried and then rewritten by some one or group like has been done in the past century.

"It is not necessary to show from history that the church of Jesus Christ has continued from the time it was founded until the present. His promise alone makes that certain. However, it puts iron in the blood of real Baptists to be able to demonstrate it from history; to witness the progress of that promise as it is kept under all conditions as history progresses. It is totally unfair, if not completely dishonest, for modern day historians to reject those so-called “sects” prior to the sixteenth century Reformation as not being Baptists simply because they had no set of teachings upon which they all completely agreed, when Baptists today can certainly do no better. The truth is there is less agreement among so-called Baptists today than there was among these groups. In writing about Christianity and culture in this country in the South, Paul Gillespie edits a book in which he says, “The Baptists were everywhere, in all kinds of churches with diverse doctrines and varying practices. Southern, Independent, Missionary, Regular, Separate, and Two-seed-in-the-Spirit Predestinarian Baptist (to name only a few) might vie for the souls of the southerners, but all were Baptists, and the Baptists had southern religion sewed up (or washed up as their opponents might suggest).” True he is writing about the early days in America, and perhaps making a little light of the many brands of Baptists, some of which would not be recognized by many regular Baptist churches. But this is just the point. Why should historians demand of their predecessors what they cannot deliver themselves."

punk
Jan 5th 2007, 06:32 PM
The big difference is that Baptists (except for the briders) do not discount thier Protestant brethren because we know that salvation is received by Grace through Faith and Baptists DO NOT have a monopoly on salvation. No assumptions on that nor antiquity on my part.

Punk, do you believe the Roman Catholic church is the true church? Please answer that plainly... OK???

I don't believe there is any identifiable institution that can claim to be the "true church".

Or put another way, I think there are "true christians" scattered across institutions and non-christians scattered across institutions.

I do believe there are "true christians" within the Roman Catholic Church.

The Parson
Jan 5th 2007, 06:59 PM
I don't believe there is any identifiable institution that can claim to be the "true church".

Or put another way, I think there are "true christians" scattered across institutions and non-christians scattered across institutions.

I do believe there are "true christians" within the Roman Catholic Church.Thank you for saying that Punk and there is nothing wrong with that belief. I am relieved by the way that you answered this in the way you did. First, it made me look over the posts and reminded me to remind everone here in this thread that this history is not being brought out to try to say that the Baptist Church is the ONLY true church. Heck, if I believed that I wouldn't be a member of this forum. Church membership never saves: Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. and it isn't the church that keeps us saved: 2nd Timothy 1:12 For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.

But this passion some have to deny the antquity of the Baptists is really only an effort that has been at the forefront for the past 100 years... I wonder why because that really perplexes me. And it is being done with a passion. Maybe I am heading in the wrong direction but need to get into prophesy from here on. But that would alter the OP, wouldn't it?

punk
Jan 5th 2007, 07:03 PM
I truly thank you for saying that Punk and there is nothing wrong with that belief. I am relieved by the way that you answered this in the way you did. First, it made me look over the posts and reminded me to remind everone here in this thread that this history is not being brought out to try to say that the Baptist Church is the ONLY true church. Heck, if I believed that I wouldn't be a member of this forum. Church membership never saves: Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. and it isn't the church that keeps us saved: 2nd Timothy 1:12 For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.

But this passion some have to deny the antquity of the Baptists is really only an effort that has been at the forefront for the past 100 years... I wonder why because that really perplexes me. And it is being done with a passion. Maybe I am heading in the wrong direction but need to get into prophesy from here on. But that would alter the OP, wouldn't it?

This has always been a history thread, and has been understood to be appealing primarily to non-biblical materials.

I think any prophecy should go elsewhere. The moreso since the interpretation of prophecy is even more open to individual interpretation than the evidences of history (i.e. it is a step towards an even less reliable form of "evidence").

punk
Jan 5th 2007, 07:44 PM
The big difference is that Baptists (except for the briders) do not discount thier Protestant brethren because we know that salvation is received by Grace through Faith and Baptists DO NOT have a monopoly on salvation. No assumptions on that nor antiquity on my part.

Punk, do you believe the Roman Catholic church is the true church? Please answer that plainly... OK???

Here's a question for you Parson:

Do you believe that there are other christian groups that are neither "catholic" nor "anabaptist" in the first millennium CE?

If so could you name some and indicate why they are neither "catholic" nor "anabaptist"?

The Parson
Jan 5th 2007, 07:53 PM
Are you refering to the mystics of the first millennium, or those that actually did come out of the RCC, or different Messianic groups Punk???

punk
Jan 5th 2007, 08:11 PM
Are you refering to the mystics of the first millennium, or those that actually did come out of the RCC, or different Messianic groups Punk???

I have in mind any historically identifiable group that is neither "catholic" nor "anabaptist" in your view.

For simplicitly I'm including both "catholic" and "anabaptist" in the category of "christian". People might disagree with doing that but it is convenience for our purposes here.

My interest here is to address the issue that your argument for anabaptist history tends to take on a character of "if it isn't catholic it must be anabaptist". So I'm interested in what groups fail to be either in your view, while still being "christian" (so not muslim, or jewish, or buddhist, etc.).

The Parson
Jan 5th 2007, 09:17 PM
Yes sir... The Messianics for one. Theirs, although not always by that name is totally unbroken to the first century. That sorta thing?

punk
Jan 5th 2007, 09:23 PM
Yes sir... The Messianics for one. Theirs, although not always by that name is totally unbroken to the first century. That sorta thing?

I'm not sure who you mean by "messianics".

Would these be the Ebionites and the Nazoreans?

The Parson
Jan 5th 2007, 09:55 PM
If this is history, be honest and not be so one sided. Many heresies were introduced by the anabaptists. So says the reformers like Calvin and Luther. No RCC neded at this point. You make it appear as though they were true inerrant Biblicists. How we could all wish this were true. But this is sadly not the case. So without any sidestep, why were they persecuted? What were they doing? Just demanding re-baptism? I don't think so.

Let's deal with the Reformers and the anabaptists. Shall we?No side stepping... There was Protestant persicution of the Anabaptists and for the majority of the reasons, the foremost was "anabaptism".

"At Zurich, after many disputations between Zuinglius and the Ana-Baptists, the Senate made an Act, that if any presume to re-baptize those who were baptized before (i.e. as infants) they should be drowned. At Vienna many Ana-Baptists were tied together in chains that one drew the other after him into the river, wherein they were all suffocated (drowned)." (Vida Supra, p. 61)

We were hated for the most part because we were considered hard headed, unbending, and stubborn. Heinrich Bullinger, also a Swiss Reformer (born in1504 and died in1575), was one who hated the Baptists with a passion and yet charted our history well in his writings "Now, I think it not labour lost to speak somewhat of anabaptism. In the time that Decius and Gallus Caesar were Emperors, there arose a question in the parts of Africa of rebaptising heretics; and St. Cyprian, and the rest of the Bishops, being assembled together in the council of Carthage, liked well of anabaptism.
Decius (201 A.D. to 251 A.D.) and was the first Roman Emperor to launch an organized persecution against Christians.
Gallus Caesar (Gallerius) lived from about (201 A.D. to 311 A.D.) and was responsible for starting the persecution against Christians in 303 A.D.
Saint Cyprian of Carthage, (230 A.D. ? to ? A.D.) was a famous Roman Catholic bishop & great orator of his day.Against the Donatists St. Augustine, with other learned men, disputed. There is also an Imperial Law made by Honorius and Theodosius, that holy Baptism should not be iterated. Justinian Caesar hath published the same, in Cod. lib. I. Tit. 6, in these words. If any Minister of the Catholic Church be detected to have rebaptised any, let both him which committed the unappeasable offence, if at least by age he be punishable and he, also, that is won and persuaded thereunto, suffer punishment of death.
Augustine of Hippo (354 A.D. 430 A.D.) was the Roman Catholic Bishop of Hippo in North Africa.
Justinian Caesar (483A.D. to 565 A.D.) was a Roman emperor from about 527 A.D. who by the sixth century, had orchistrated the joining of apostate churches with imperial Rome in outlawing anabaptism as a offense punishable by death.

ChristusRex
Jan 5th 2007, 09:58 PM
His teachings were new testament teachings that fit the above to a tee. And during the first three centuries Christian churches, all over the East, including his, existed in separate, independent bodies, unsupported by government, and consequently without any secular power over one another. (History of the Baptists, by G. H. Orchard, p. 36) The same could be said for Patrick of the British isles in the west (Ireland) and what he preached. But that is food for another thread. So much for St. Patty's day...

I think it is clear I cannot truely debate your points by the board rules, and there is the fact that even if I could debate you by board rules, I don't think I would as i like you fine and debates can quickly turn people bitter.

I am confused about specifically you mean in your refrence to St. Patricks day.

The Parson
Jan 5th 2007, 10:21 PM
I think it is clear I cannot truely debate your points by the board rules, and there is the fact that even if I could debate you by board rules, I don't think I would as i like you fine and debates can quickly turn people bitter.

I am confused about specifically you mean in your refrence to St. Patricks day.That's Fine CR as I am gettin weary of debate also. The reference I made about Patrick was about what he taught. I'll see if I can find a relavent link for your study and then it will be fine to post your impressions here. As for board rules, really, the prohibition is on placing Catholic Teaching anywhere except World Religions (http://bibleforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=46) or prostylizing.

Here you are my friend...
http://www.baptistpillar.com/bd0197.htm
http://www.carmichaelbaptist.org/Sermons/landis1.htm

Studyin'2Show
Jan 6th 2007, 02:46 AM
I'm not sure who you mean by "messianics".

Would these be the Ebionites and the Nazoreans?Messianics are simply those who follow Yeshua as Messiah but still embrace the Hebrew roots of our faith. For example, all those believers in acts who met daily in the temple. That's my take on it. Of course, that was before denominational divisions became an issue.

God Bless!

RSiscoe
Jan 6th 2007, 05:10 PM
There are several historians that believe this practice [of infant baptism] started after or around the 300's Studyin and was an error that started about the time of Constantine. This is also the time that those who opposed infant Baptism were called Puritans. (Ref: J.M. Carrolls Lectures 1930's,)

I just noticed this thread. Since I am not allowed to defend the Catholic Church here, I will just prove that infant baptism did not start in the year 300. Any "historian" who thinks it started that late does not deserve the title.

Hippolytus, AD 215: "Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them." (Hippolytus - The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215])

Origin, AD 248: "Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin . . . In the Church baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous." (Origen - Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248])

Origin AD 249: "The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine sacraments, knew there is in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit." (Origen - Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 249])

A little background before the next quote. It has always been believed by that circumcision - which incorporated a male child into the Jewish religion - prefigured baptism in the new Testament (Colossians 2:11-13). Since circumcision was performed on the 8th day, some thought that infants should not be baptized until the 8th day after their birth. This is what the following quote is discussing:

Cyprian of Carthage, AD256: "As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born." (Cyprian of Carthage - Letters 64:2 [A.D. 256])

The next quote was written by St. Augustine after the year 300, but in it he is discussing the above quote from Cyprian, and confirming that what Cyprian was teaching was nothing new.

Augustine: "Cyprian was not issuing a new decree but was keeping to the most solid belief of the Church in order to correct some who thought that infants ought not be baptized before the eighth day after their birth. . . . He agreed with certain of his fellow bishops that a child is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born" (Augustine - Letters 166:8:23 [A.D. 412]).

The following is another quote from Cyprian:

St. Cyprians, AD 256: "If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another." (Adam)" (Cyprian of Carthage - Letters 64:5)

The first heretics I am aware of who denied infant baptism were the Pelagians. At the council of Carthage, which was held in AD 279, we find the following:

Council of Carthage, AD 279: "The Pelagians condemn their children to eternal death by refusing them Baptism" (Council of Carthage, 256 AD, Apostolic Digest pg. 279)

The writings of the Church fathers after the conversion of Constantine (AD 313), at which time Christianity became legal, are much more prevelant, and they are all unanimous in agreeing with the above quotes.

The truth is that infant baptism has been a practice within Christianity since day one. The devil has greatly attacked this doctrine over the past several centuries but it has fortunately survived, not only in the Catholic Church, but even within many Protestant denominations, as well as in the Orthodox, Anglican, and Episcopal Churches.

Let the above quotes prove, beyond any shaddow of a doubt, that any "historian" who claims that infant baptism started around the year 300 does not know what he is talking about.

Owen
Jan 6th 2007, 05:38 PM
I just noticed this thread. Since I am not allowed to defend the Catholic Church here, I will just prove that infant baptism did not start in the year 300. Any "historian" who thinks it started that late does not deserve the title.

Hippolytus, AD 215: "Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them." (Hippolytus - The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215])

Origin, AD 248: "Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin . . . In the Church baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous." (Origen - Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248])

Origin AD 249: "The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine sacraments, knew there is in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit." (Origen - Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 249])

A little background before the next quote. It has always been believed by that circumcision - which incorporated a male child into the Jewish religion - prefigured baptism in the new Testament (Colossians 2:11-13). Since circumcision was performed on the 8th day, some thought that infants should not be baptized until the 8th day after their birth. This is what the following quote is discussing:

Cyprian of Carthage, AD256: "As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born." (Cyprian of Carthage - Letters 64:2 [A.D. 256])

The next quote was written by St. Augustine after the year 300, but in it he is discussing the above quote from Cyprian, and confirming that what Cyprian was teaching was nothing new.

Augustine: "Cyprian was not issuing a new decree but was keeping to the most solid belief of the Church in order to correct some who thought that infants ought not be baptized before the eighth day after their birth. . . . He agreed with certain of his fellow bishops that a child is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born" (Augustine - Letters 166:8:23 [A.D. 412]).

The following is another quote from Cyprian:

St. Cyprians, AD 256: "If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another." (Adam)" (Cyprian of Carthage - Letters 64:5)

The first heretics I am aware of who denied infant baptism were the Pelagians. At the council of Carthage, which was held in AD 279, we find the following:

Council of Carthage, AD 279: "The Pelagians condemn their children to eternal death by refusing them Baptism" (Council of Carthage, 256 AD, Apostolic Digest pg. 279)

The writings of the Church fathers after the conversion of Constantine (AD 313), at which time Christianity became legal, are much more prevelant, and they are all unanimous in agreeing with the above quotes.

The truth is that infant baptism has been a practice within Christianity since day one. The devil has greatly attacked this doctrine over the past several centuries but it has fortunately survived, not only in the Catholic Church, but even within many Protestant denominations, as well as in the Orthodox, Anglican, and Episcopal Churches.

Let the above quotes prove, beyond any shaddow of a doubt, that any "historian" who claims that infant baptism started around the year 300 does not know what he is talking about.

Is it verifiable fact that it has been a practice since day one? I don't disagree that it started relatively early, but where is the fact that it started in the beginning of the church? Origen saying it was taught from the tradition of the apostles is about like many today who say their teachings were taught by the apostles. Christians of course would believe that what they take to be the basic teachings were from the apostles.

Studyin'2Show
Jan 6th 2007, 06:02 PM
You can quote as many 'early church leaders' as you'd like, I would prefer to see it in scripture. ;) I do know that the purpose of baptism is an outward symbol of inward repentance. How repentant is an infant? :hmm:

punk
Jan 6th 2007, 06:36 PM
Nazoreans were Jewish Christians of that line of early Messianics although I haven't read much about their writings. Reckon I should have. Catholic writings call them Gnostics who denied the diety of Jesus. Other writers say they did not. I believe that Ebionites did however deny his diety best I can tell find from references.

Punk, asking your opinion here. The majority of what I have been giving here is from reference materials I already have in my library. Actually about 90%. Of the other 10% I usually try to ask my mentor about before posting. Do you think that internet references are all that dependable?

The Nazoreans and Ebionites are different than the Gnostics. You'll have trouble finding their writings as all that really remains are quotes of their gospels in patristic literature. Basically the Nazoreans and Ebionites are understood to have held Jesus to be a prophet like any OT prophet and were otherwise straight-forward Jewish sects. The gnostics, for the most part, held that Jesus was entirely spiritual and only appeared to take material form, Jesus was some sort of god or angel in that view (cf. docetism).

As for reference materials. The thing is I've read quite a bit of mainstream literature about the early church on the one hand and the cathars and troubadours in Southern France on the other (as well as a fair sampling of literature from the intervening millennium) and *none* of my materials seem to agree with yours. I've read a fair chunk of the primary source materials (largely in translation) for the early church including the apostolic fathers, the nag hammadi library, and large variety of apocryphal NT documents with a good sample of the patristics, and I'm not seeing your "anabaptists".

One of your sources made a claim that there were troubadours singing parts of the bible in provencal, but in my studies of the troubadours I've never seen a reference to that outside of what your baptist source concocted. You say the cathars were anabaptists, but I can point you to primary sources that are available on the internet in translation that contradict that claim.

Although I've been referencing internet sources for convenience, I can refer to some books as well:

Limiting ourselves to the cathars:

The Other God - Stoyanov
The Cathars - Lambert
Medieval Heresy - Lambert
Massacre at Montsegur - Oldenbourg

Are each well researched and annotated works (not typical fluff cathar literature) that differ from the take of your baptist works substantially.

Some primary literature can be found at http://www.gnosis.org/library/cathtx.htm

In addition it would appear the baptist works you quote have an agenda that the above historians do not.

punk
Jan 6th 2007, 06:47 PM
Is it verifiable fact that it has been a practice since day one? I don't disagree that it started relatively early, but where is the fact that it started in the beginning of the church? Origen saying it was taught from the tradition of the apostles is about like many today who say their teachings were taught by the apostles. Christians of course would believe that what they take to be the basic teachings were from the apostles.

Well the literature gets kind of sparse that far back, and certainly the surviving literature is far from a representative sample.

Owen
Jan 6th 2007, 07:06 PM
Well the literature gets kind of sparse that far back, and certainly the surviving literature is far from a representative sample.

And that is my point. There is a lack of absence in earlier writings on infant baptism. To make a claim such as "The truth is that infant baptism has been a practice within Christianity since day one." on the basis of quotes from the 3rd century is, needless to, lacking. That is around 110 years, at the least, seperated from the apostles. Thats enough time for infant baptism to slowly begin to happen, if it was not in the original apostolic teachings. So to make a claim based upon 3rd century quotes is questionable at best.

Now, just on a side note, I don't really find the act itself objectionable, nor do I think that it could not have happened early on or even on day one (I plead ignorance on that issue). Though I do find the power of salvation of infants people place on it objectionable and I highly doubt that was taught by the apostles. But that is just an aside so people know where I am coming from and not meant to be a matter of debate itself here (my beliefs regarding baptism itself, not the way it was historically practiced).

Studyin'2Show
Jan 6th 2007, 07:11 PM
The question here is what people were doing at various points of history. This is completely independent of what the Bible might be seen to say on the matter.I'd rather be biblically correct.

Owen
Jan 6th 2007, 07:14 PM
I'd rather be biblically correct.

Ok. But that still doesn't mean we can't discuss the history of infant baptism. One can want to be both Biblically and historically correct. They are not mutually exclusive to each other.

punk
Jan 6th 2007, 07:20 PM
And that is my point. There is a lack of absence in earlier writings on infant baptism. To make a claim such as "The truth is that infant baptism has been a practice within Christianity since day one." on the basis of quotes from the 3rd century is, needless to, lacking. That is around 110 years, at the least, seperated from the apostles. Thats enough time for infant baptism to slowly begin to happen, if it was not in the original apostolic teachings. So to make a claim based upon 3rd century quotes is questionable at best.

Now, just on a side note, I don't really find the act itself objectionable, nor do I think that it could not have happened early on or even on day one (I plead ignorance on that issue). Though I do find the power of salvation of infants people place on it objectionable and I highly doubt that was taught by the apostles. But that is just an aside so people know where I am coming from and not meant to be a matter of debate itself here (my beliefs regarding baptism itself, not the way it was historically practiced).

The truth is that the lack goes both ways. The record doesn't allow one to conclude whether groups were doing adult or infant baptism.

punk
Jan 6th 2007, 07:21 PM
I'd rather be biblically correct.

Ah but this thread isn't about "biblical correctness", it is about history, and there probably has never been a historical group that was completely "biblically correct".

Owen
Jan 6th 2007, 07:25 PM
The truth is that the lack goes both ways. The record doesn't allow one to conclude whether groups were doing adult or infant baptism.

True. But my point was not to say that one is definite and the other isn't. My point was to say that one side can not say, with certainty, that it was a practice from the first day.

We are left with a fog of knowledge that as of right now we can not verify the certain truth. We should acknowledge that, instead of making statements about the fog which are not verified. Its better to plead ignorance than to try to fill in the gaps without much evidence.

Owen
Jan 6th 2007, 08:04 PM
We are told explicitly in the bible that we are to hold fast to what has been handed down from the apostles, either in writing, or orally. "Therefore, brethen, hold fast to the Traditions which you have received, whether by word or by epistle." (2 Thess 2:14 or 15).

Is it not possible that the traditions were changed, though the people were not aware of the change if it happened gradually.


The fact that all Church fathers believed in and practiced infant baptism should be a clear sign that it is a teaching that was passed down from the apostles. In the early years the Christians detested novelty (new teachings and doctrines). Any new teaching were suspect and rejected. Knowing this, and knowing that all early Christians accepted infant baptism, should make any who reject infant baptism think. For the Bible no where says not to baptize infants. The rejection of infant baptism is, therefore, unbiblical, since the Bible does not speak against it.

IF they detested all novelty, there would be no variation in the teachings between the early church fathers. But if one reads them, they see that there are differences between different people, though nothing major. Thus it is possible that infant baptism, or placing salvation in infant baptism, came up.

Traditions are perfectly capable of slightly changing without it being known to later generations.

punk
Jan 6th 2007, 08:32 PM
I have to agree with Owen, but I think a stronger claim can reasonably be made:

There was a much wider range of belief and practice among self-identified "christian" groups in the first couple centuries CE than even exists today.

The Parson
Jan 6th 2007, 10:40 PM
I go away one day and look what happens... Hey ya'll. Keep on the Infant Baptism trail. I'll try to contribute later.

The Parson
Jan 7th 2007, 01:02 AM
Although I've been referencing internet sources for convenience, I can refer to some books as well:

Limiting ourselves to the cathars:

The Other God - Stoyanov
The Cathars - Lambert
Medieval Heresy - Lambert
Massacre at Montsegur - Oldenbourg

Are each well researched and annotated works (not typical fluff cathar literature) that differ from the take of your baptist works substantially.

Some primary literature can be found at http://www.gnosis.org/library/cathtx.htm

In addition it would appear the baptist works you quote have an agenda that the above historians do not.When did I mention the Cathars in this thread Punk? You and I discused them last year, breifly, where you were working on some comparison to the Donatists I believe.

Ah but this thread isn't about "biblical correctness", it is about history, and there probably has never been a historical group that was completely "biblically correct".Holy smokes, and some have said I side stepped??? The biggest reason that Anabaptists were persicuted and made them an issue of HISTORY was Baptism vs. Pedo-Baptism. That IS the root of the history sir.

Baptism of infants is not explicitly discussed in Scripture. The Scriptures neither say we should or should not baptize infants. There are passages that allude to it, but none address it directly. .................................................. ............................................
Martin Luther: "Baptism is no human plaything but is instituted by God himself. Moreover, it is solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we shall not be saved." (Martin Luther, Large Catechism 4:6).Not dismissing your post, I can see you took great care in writing it. I read it, but to give less length to mine, I cut yours short because I have one simple question for you. Of all the baptisms documented in the scriptures, can you give me one that was an infant or a commandment to baptize an infant?


Is it not possible that the traditions were changed, though the people were not aware of the change if it happened gradually.

IF they detested all novelty, there would be no variation in the teachings between the early church fathers. But if one reads them, they see that there are differences between different people, though nothing major. Thus it is possible that infant baptism, or placing salvation in infant baptism, came up.

Traditions are perfectly capable of slightly changing without it being known to later generations.Owen just made an exellent post here. Gradual change unquestioned, becomes the norm for later generations. Pastor G.M.Davis 1930's

punk
Jan 7th 2007, 01:33 AM
You mentioned the Albigensians and the Albigensian Crusade, this includes the Cathars. In fact I would contend that this was more about the Cathars than the Waldensians.

The issue of which view of baptism is right is independent of the various histories of groups espousing differing views. I guess I've understood this thread as a history of people which held to a particular view of baptism. This is different than the question if that group is correct in asserting that view as being "Christian".

Studyin'2Show
Jan 7th 2007, 04:23 AM
Ok. But that still doesn't mean we can't discuss the history of infant baptism. One can want to be both Biblically and historically correct. They are not mutually exclusive to each other.Of course, infant baptism goes hand in hand with the subject of the thread. My comment about biblical correctness is what you would call, my opinion. :D

Ah but this thread isn't about "biblical correctness", it is about history, and there probably has never been a historical group that was completely "biblically correct".The Bible IS historical so it is about history. ;)
What would Jesus say to those who did not baptize their infants? I think he would say: "Let the children come to me, and forbid them not; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’" (Luke 18:15–16).You're right about Jesus saying to let the children come to Him. Which is why my children were dedicated, as Jesus was dedicated to the Lord as a babe.

I was baptized RC as a baby. After I had reached the age of accountability, I believe I was lost until I came to Messiah at age 31. That's how I felt. Was I covered because some water was sprinkled on my head as a baby though I was in no way repentant as an adult? I don't know. We will never know until we get to glory. If you want to dedicate your children to God through the sacrement of baptism, God bless you but I don't believe it takes away their responsibility to repent and be saved when they become accountable.

ChristusRex
Jan 7th 2007, 05:09 AM
I will ask one question, as the issue of infant Baptism isin't totally settled in modern protestantism i feel ok about discussing it.

To everyone who says that infant Baptism isin't mentioned in the Bible.

Baptism as I understand it, enteres a child into the New Covanant with God. Many people now say that Baptism should not be done on a Child beacuse the child does not concent to it.

As I understand it Circumcism entered the child into the Old Testament/Covanant with God.

If the Child did not need to concent to being entered into the old Covanant with God, while would we end the practice of entering the child immediatly into a covanant with God if Christ did not abolish the practice?

Owen
Jan 7th 2007, 05:39 AM
I will ask one question, as the issue of infant Baptism isin't totally settled in modern protestantism i feel ok about discussing it.

To everyone who says that infant Baptism isin't mentioned in the Bible.

Baptism as I understand it, enteres a child into the New Covanant with God. Many people now say that Baptism should not be done on a Child beacuse the child does not concent to it.

As I understand it Circumcism entered the child into the Old Testament/Covanant with God.

If the Child did not need to concent to being entered into the old Covanant with God, while would we end the practice of entering the child immediatly into a covanant with God if Christ did not abolish the practice?

But where is it clear that circumcision and baptism perform the same roles in both covenenants?

Again, I am not saying it can not be Biblical, but Scripture no where makes the baptism-circumcision link (At least to my knowledge). Besides, if it is truly is a link, then infant baptism and baptism as a whole can not be in any part of salvation, but it is only the seal of righteousness, just as circumcision is. The circumcision was given to the man, Abraham, who was righteous, not the man who was circumcized became righteous. Likewise, if we follow that, baptism would follow the same thing, and thus one can not place the salvific aspect of infant baptism to it.

I'm not making definitive statements here, but rather that one can not make a firm case for (or against) infant baptism in Scripture. And one can verifiably trace the tradition, to my knowledge, only as early as the early 3rd century, which is adequate time for the tradition to slightly change to include infants.

ChristusRex
Jan 7th 2007, 06:02 AM
But where is it clear that circumcision and baptism perform the same roles in both covenenants?

Are you deneying the following claims?

1)That Circumcision entered a child into the Old Testament

2)That Baptism enteres one into the New Covanant with Christ


Again, I am not saying it can not be Biblical, but Scripture no where makes the baptism-circumcision link (At least to my knowledge).

If the above two propositions are true then I think it is quite clear there is a link.


Besides, if it is truly is a link, then infant baptism and baptism as a whole can not be in any part of salvation, but it is only the seal of righteousness, just as circumcision is. The circumcision was given to the man, Abraham, who was righteous, not the man who was circumcized became righteous.[quote]

But Scripture makes it quite clear that Baptism IS vital for salvation, so clearly there are (at least) these two possible options.

1-You are Correct, and consiquesntly the first two proposition are false

2-there is a Link, and we know that Baptism is vital for salvation, and is linked in it's intention(of entrance into Covananat) with circumcision, which required a chid to be entered into the covatant, as is the purpose of Baptism, however Christ never abolished the practice of including children in the covanant



[quote]I'm not making definitive statements here, but rather that one can not make a firm case for (or against) infant baptism in Scripture. And one can verifiably trace the tradition, to my knowledge, only as early as the early 3rd century, which is adequate time for the tradition to slightly change to include infants.

But as has been shown Infant Baptism emerged much earlier then the third centurary.

"
Irenaeus


"He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).


Hippolytus


"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]). "

Owen
Jan 7th 2007, 06:23 AM
Are you deneying the following claims?

1)That Circumcision entered a child into the Old Testament

2)That Baptism enteres one into the New Covanant with Christ

If the above two propositions are true then I think it is quite clear there is a link.

No. I am simply saying, if that isn't necessarily true that baptism follows the exact same manner that circumcision was.


But Scripture makes it quite clear that Baptism IS vital for salvation, so clearly there are (at least) these two possible options.

If you hold that, that proves my point then. If circumision was merely a sign but baptism wasn't merely a sign, then one can not claim a perfect correlation between baptism and circumcision.


1-You are Correct, and consiquesntly the first two proposition are false

2-there is a Link, and we know that Baptism is vital for salvation, and is linked in it's intention(of entrance into Covananat) with circumcision, which required a chid to be entered into the covatant, as is the purpose of Baptism, however Christ never abolished the practice of including children in the covanant

Or a third possibility. That the first two propositions are true, but they do not exactly parallel each other.


But as has been shown Infant Baptism emerged much earlier then the third centurary.

"
Irenaeus


"He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

This does not speak of infant baptism anywhere. One has to presuppose infant baptism is necessary for their salvation in order to make it say that, but that is circular reasoning. It supports infant baptism because infants were saved by baptism, therefore infant baptism is true.


Hippolytus


"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]). "

And this is early 3rd century (201-300 A.D) which I was referring to. This is the earliest quote, that I know of, that speaks about infant bpatism.

ChristusRex
Jan 7th 2007, 06:54 AM
No. I am simply saying, if that isn't necessarily true that baptism follows the exact same manner that circumcision was.



If you hold that, that proves my point then. If circumision was merely a sign but baptism wasn't merely a sign, then one can not claim a perfect correlation between baptism and circumcision.

yes but coulden't you argue that as Baptism is a more perfect entrance into a relationship with God, as it is the New Testament equivalent of Circumcision, and the New Covanant perfects the Old, Baptism perfects the purpose of Circumcision?

That is only speculation.




Or a third possibility. That the first two propositions are true, but they do not exactly parallel each other.

possibly




This does not speak of infant baptism anywhere. One has to presuppose infant baptism is necessary for their salvation in order to make it say that, but that is circular reasoning. It supports infant baptism because infants were saved by baptism, therefore infant baptism is true.

But Baptism is necessary for salvation. I think I have misunderstood you.

Do you mean you have to presuppose Infant Baptism is necessary for Infant's salvation?



[quoteAnd this is early 3rd century (201-300 A.D) which I was referring to. This is the earliest quote, that I know of, that speaks about infant bpatism.[/quote]

ah yes, I have always confused that, my mistake entirely.

The Parson
Jan 7th 2007, 02:08 PM
Whoa, hold the boat... Please don't post any further in the thread before I can make my next post after services today. Then, hopefully we can have a clear direction where this thread is going. Thank you.

Quickened
Jan 7th 2007, 03:51 PM
Parson I hope you dont mind that i quick added some stuff here before you took us further. I felt compelled to quick jump in the mix here


Baptism of infants is not explicitly discussed in Scripture. The Scriptures neither say we should or should not baptize infants. There are passages that allude to it, but none address it directly.

Dont you think if it was an important practice that some hold to it today that perhaps we might have seen it occur at least once in scriptures?



In Acts 2, when the Jews ask Peter what they must do to be saved, he tells them to repent and "be baptized everyone of you in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins. And you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children..."

You mislocated your quote there. "repent and be baptised" Its a two step process in this scripture. It calls someone to repentence which takes a mind capable of understanding. You cannot repent of something when you have an undeveloped mind of an infant.


In this we see that baptism is for the remission of sins and the manner in which we received the Holy Spirit. In addition, we are told that it is also for their children.

If baptism saves us, this explains how children, who are incapable of making an act of faith, attain salvation.

Children i have no problem with. Children often times have a greater understanding for things than we give them credit for.


What would Jesus say to those who did not baptize their infants? I think he would say: "Let the children come to me, and forbid them not; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’" (Luke 18:15–16).

This gets used often when discussing infant baptism yet it has nothing to do with baptism. Jesus was laying hands.



Now, I quoted numerous Church fathers confirming that baptism was in practive before the year 300, when it was said to have begun. I challenge anyone to find a quote, by any church Father, teaching that infants should not be baptized.

Church fathers are not infallible. I would rather someone build a case using Scripture.

I wouldnt build a case for anything because i look up to certain pastors that teach the Word of God biblically no matter the level of respect I have for them. Thats how people get indocturnated into things. Just because someone is biblically sound in a certain area doesnt mean they are in all areas. None of us are perfect.

You challenge me to find a quote by a church father. I challenge you to find it in Scripture. In Scripture there is nothing that is left out that is of importance. We are shown how to pray, fasting, fellowship, sharing the Gospel and various other things. How could something that would be essentially important be removed from Scriptures?



Not all teaching of Christianity are explicitly mentioned in the Bible. Polygamy, for example, is not forbidden in the Bible. In the Old Testament it was allowed, and the New Testament is silent on the subject. The teaching forbidding polygamy was passed down orally. Those who refuse to follow the teaching of Paul by "holding fast" to both written or oral Traditions, are thereby forced to accept polygamy.

How is the NT silent? If you took another woman aside from your first wife you are committing adultry wheather or not you marry the mother woman. Thus you are sinning in the eyes of the Lord. The whole "two become one flesh" comes to mind


Martin Luther wrote: "I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture" (De Wette II, 459).

To me this shows that all men arent perfect in their thinking. Even the so called "great men of God" are lacking and are not 100% perfect. We are not infallible.


The fact that all Church fathers believed in and practiced infant baptism should be a clear sign that it is a teaching that was passed down from the apostles. In the early years the Christians detested novelty (new teachings and doctrines). Any new teaching were suspect and rejected. Knowing this, and knowing that all early Christians accepted infant baptism, should make any who reject infant baptism think. For the Bible no where says not to baptize infants. The rejection of infant baptism is, therefore, unbiblical, since the Bible does not speak against it.

Not quite because adding to Scripture is unbiblical in my eyes. Since its not there one could say that through this manner of thinking that its unbiblical. See what i am getting at?

punk
Jan 7th 2007, 05:37 PM
The Bible IS historical so it is about history.

Not if the history in question is from c. 100 CE to the present.

punk
Jan 7th 2007, 05:38 PM
Whoa, hold the boat... Please don't post any further in the thread before I can make my next post after services today. Then, hopefully we can have a clear direction where this thread is going. Thank you.

Someone should probably do some surgery on this thread and create a separate baptism thread.

The Parson
Jan 7th 2007, 06:53 PM
We will not spilt the thread over the correctness of Infant over Believers Baptism. Both sides need to put up your swords. If you want to however justify your belief over pro or con Pedo Baptism in a new thread, that's fine.

Look at the name however Ana-Baptist. It means Re-Baptizer. We rebaptized those who were saved and came into our congregations. The very name Baptist screams this. From the perspective of this thread however, we must explore the arguement that went on over the centuries that made us so hated and persicuted. BUT ONLY IN A HISTORICAL PREMISE. Of that, Punk and I agree it seems... Not a new arguement over the pro's and con's. OK??? This I believe will even make the histories more clearer.

LoveHopes
Jan 7th 2007, 07:12 PM
Between yesterday and today I have read this entire thread. I greatly appreciate the time that was put into in. Thanks. It has been a very interesting read.

Owen
Jan 7th 2007, 07:27 PM
ChristusRex. I am only going to answer the question to clarify some things but I am not going to pursue this direction further, at the request of The Parson.


yes but coulden't you argue that as Baptism is a more perfect entrance into a relationship with God, as it is the New Testament equivalent of Circumcision, and the New Covanant perfects the Old, Baptism perfects the purpose of Circumcision?

That is only speculation.

Yes. But this isn't proof of infant baptism.


But Baptism is necessary for salvation. I think I have misunderstood you.

Well. I am not arguing for or against that here (because I take neither of the two popular views). But you have to presuppose that it is necessary for infants for that text to say that. But the text in fact does not state it.


Do you mean you have to presuppose Infant Baptism is necessary for Infant's salvation?

No. I meant to say that the quote you gave supports infant baptism only if you think infant baptism is necessary for salvation. But if one holds that it isn't, you can not quote that text as proof for it.


ah yes, I have always confused that, my mistake entirely.

Its ok. :)

My whole line of argumentation is not to say what is and isn't true Scripturally or even what is historically true or not. My whole point is historical honesty and the fact that we don't know for certain. Nothing in the Bible can be said to clearly go for or against it and nothing until 215 AD indicates for or against infant baptism either (to my knowledge). Now if one wants to take an article by faith, thats one thing. We trust that God exists without having absolute proof. But we can not claim on the basis of historical knowledge that infant baptism was always taught.

The reason I am making an effort to talk about this is the fact that we often times and not purposefully, fill in history with our own understanding, whether that be verified for the times or not, and thus we come out with a possible incorrect understanding of the past. If one wants to support their belief, then it works successfully, but if one wants to truly understand the truth, then we have to recognize where the Scriptural or historical record does not make clear one way or the other. If this thread is to advance further and help people understand better, we need to recognize the fog of knowledge that we can not obtain right now.

To my knowledge, we don't have much certainty as to how the early church regarded the idea of infant baptism. We can speculate, but there is little evidence to strongly support either conclusion, and we should recognize that.

The Parson
Jan 7th 2007, 08:10 PM
Now, about those Messianics. It is written: Matthew 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Peter along with the rest of the disciples were the leaders of the Church of Jerusalem. These were the Messianics for the record. Not that Peter himself is the Rock but his faith in the Lord Jesus Christ who is the Rock. Peter is translated from petros, a piece of the Rock! Jesus is Petra, The solid Rock...

You can pick on the Messianic brethren all you want but it really won't do much good. They are part of this very same Rock also. That same church grew in numbers exponentially: Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. 2:40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. 2:43 And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles. 2:44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common; 2:45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

These brethren have been pretty much in hiding until even the last couple of centuries. Some of these Messianics were from Capidocia, Phrygia, Egypt, Libya, Rome, Persia, Crete, Arabia, (Acts 2:5-11) etc... Please don't anybody try to tell me these all disappeared into historical oblivion. They didn't. Maybe in this thread we can identify a few of them in history.

Now on to baptisms and the reason for the Baptists being called Anabaptists.

The Parson
Jan 7th 2007, 08:12 PM
Between yesterday and today I have read this entire thread. I greatly appreciate the time that was put into in. Thanks. It has been a very interesting read.
You are most welcome LoveHopes. Perhaps you have some input into it.

LoveHopes
Jan 7th 2007, 08:24 PM
You are most welcome LoveHopes. Perhaps you have some input into it.


I think I will just read for now. I could stand to learn a lot. Also my background is neither Baptist or Catholic.

punk
Jan 7th 2007, 08:26 PM
Now, about those Messianics. It is written: Matthew 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Peter along with the rest of the disciples were the leaders of the Church of Jerusalem. These were the Messianics for the record. Not that Peter himself is the Rock but his faith in the Lord Jesus Christ who is the Rock. Peter is translated from petros, a piece of the Rock! Jesus is Petra, The solid Rock...

You can pick on the Messianic brethren all you want but it really won't do much good. They are part of this very same Rock also. That same church grew in numbers exponentially: Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. 2:40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. 2:43 And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles. 2:44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common; 2:45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

These brethren have been pretty much in hiding until even the last couple of centuries. Some of these Messianics were from Capidocia, Phrygia, Egypt, Libya, Rome, Persia, Crete, Arabia, (Acts 2:5-11) etc... Plese don't anybody try to tell me these all disappeared into historical oblivion. They didn't. Maybe in this thread we can identify a few of them in history.

Now on to baptisms and the reason for the Baptists being called Anabaptists.

Okay, I was unclear, when I was asking you to name some historical groups that were neither "catholic" nor "anabaptist" I had in mind historical groups between c. 100 CE and c. 1000 CE, so groups not appearing in the biblical text, but appearing on the historical record.

*Every* "christian" group claims the biblical text supports their own take on things, and has a full fledged biblical analysis to support such a reading, so I guess I'm not finding it that interesting that anabaptists also have such a reading.

Again, my reason for asking this question is that I would contend that the timeline you gave definitely tends to make *any* group that isn't "catholic" into an "anabaptist".

Studyin'2Show
Jan 7th 2007, 09:50 PM
Acts 8:36-38
36 Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?”
37 Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.”
And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”
38 So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him.

Ironically, I read these verses during my Sunday school reading this morning and they seemed like the biblical link this thread has been looking for concerning who should be baptized. Philip is undeniably a part of the early church that is directly connected to the apostles. When the eunuch asks him what would keep him from being baptized it seems clear that Philip tells him that he needs to believe and then he may. I believe this historical (though biblical) text is showing us that there is at least one requirement for baptism and that is to be a believer.

God Bless!

The Parson
Jan 8th 2007, 02:58 PM
Ya'll seem to have a disagreement on weather Infant Baptism is correct or not. I have asked that if you respond in this thread to that matter, that you respond historically with references. Here would be some of those references:

Cave’s Primitive Christianity:
References to first and second century congregations:
"The action having proceeded thus far, the party to be baptized was wholly immerged, or put under water, which was the almost constant and universal custom of those times, whereby they did more notably and significantly express the three great ends and effects of baptism. For, as in immersion there are, in a manner, three several acts, the putting the person into water, his abiding there for a little time, and his rising up again, so by these were represented Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection; and, in conformity thereunto, our dying unto sin, the destruction of its power, and our resurrection to a new course of life. By the person’s being put into water was lively represented the putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, and being washed from the filth and pollution of them; by his abode under it, which was a kind of burial unto water, his entering into a state of death or mortification, like as Christ remained for some time under the state or power of death. Therefore, as many as are baptized into Christ, are said to be ‘baptized into his death, and to be buried with him by baptism into death, that, the old man being crucified with him, the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth he might not serve sin, for that he that is dead is freed from sin,’ as the apostle clearly explains the meaning of this rite. Then, by his immersion, or rising up out of the water, was signified is entering upon a new course of life, differing from that which he lived before, that, ‘like as Christ was raised up from the dead to the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.’ " Neander’s History of the Christian Religion:
References to primitive baptisms:
"Baptism was originally administered by immersion; and many of the companions of St. Paul allude to this form of its administration. The immersion is a symbol of death, of being buried with Christ; the coming forth from the water is a symbol of a resurrection with Christ; and both, taken together, represent the second birth, the death of the old man, and a resurrection to a new life. An exception was made only in the case of sick persons, which was necessary, and they received baptism by sprinkling." Mosheim’s Ecclesiastical History:
Reference to first century congregations:
"The sacrament of baptism was administered publicly twice every year, at the festivals of Easter and Pentecost or Whitsuntide, either by the bishop or the presbyters, in consequence of his authorization and appointment. The persons that were to be baptized, after they had repeated the creed, confessed and renounced their sins, and particularly the devil and his pompous allurements, were immersed under water, and received into Christ’s kingdom by a solemn invocation of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, according to the express command of our blessed Lord. After baptism, they received the sign of the cross, were anointed, and, by prayers and imposition of hands, were solemnly commended to the mercy of God, and dedicated to his service; in consequence of which, they received the milk and honey, which concluded the ceremony. The reasons of this particular ritual coincide with what we have said in general concerning the origin and causes of the multiplied ceremonies that crept, from time to time, into the church." "The sacrament of baptism was administered in this century without the public assemblies, in places appointed and prepared for the purpose, and was performed by immersion of the whole body in the baptismal font." I have tons of other historical references here that infant baptism was not a practice of the early Anabaptists and even more stating that this was the number one reason for our persicution.

Questions?

Studyin'2Show
Jan 9th 2007, 12:28 AM
Ya'll seem to have a disagreement on weather Infant Baptism is correct or not. I have asked that if you respond in this thread to that matter, that you respond historically with references. Here would be some of those references:

I have tons of other historical references here that infant baptism was not a practice of the early Anabaptists and even more stating that this was the number one reason for our persicution.

Questions?Yes, I have a question. Do you guys not consider the Bible itself as a historical document? Does a reference need to be extrabiblical to be considered in this discussion? :hmm: I thought the reference from Acts was clearly giving the requirement of believing in order to be baptized. :dunno:

Quickened
Jan 9th 2007, 12:42 AM
Yes, I have a question. Do you guys not consider the Bible itself as a historical document? Does a reference need to be extrabiblical to be considered in this discussion? :hmm: I thought the reference from Acts was clearly giving the requirement of believing in order to be baptized. :dunno:

Good question! I was probably thinking along the same lines

Owen
Jan 9th 2007, 12:47 AM
Yes, I have a question. Do you guys not consider the Bible itself as a historical document? Does a reference need to be extrabiblical to be considered in this discussion? :hmm: I thought the reference from Acts was clearly giving the requirement of believing in order to be baptized. :dunno:

Well. First off, the thread if focused upon history of the church. So yeah, Bible is a part of it, but it does not tell us what happens afterwards.

Secondly, just an aside, there is some doubts in the manuscripts as to whether Acts 8:37 is original or not. Not going to really discuss whether it is in fact valid or not here though.

Studyin'2Show
Jan 9th 2007, 01:22 AM
Secondly, just an aside, there is some doubts in the manuscripts as to whether Acts 8:37 is original or not. Not going to really discuss whether it is in fact valid or not here though.I had never heard of this so rather than taking this thread off on a tangent, I created another thread to discuss this. Acts 8:37 thread (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=75081)

Back to this threads topic, are there other denominations besides catholic (Greek or Roman) that perform infant baptisms? :dunno: Until this thread I thought that everyone (except catholics) baptized once a person could profess belief.

The Parson
Jan 9th 2007, 01:39 AM
Yes, I have a question. Do you guys not consider the Bible itself as a historical document? Does a reference need to be extrabiblical to be considered in this discussion? :hmm: I thought the reference from Acts was clearly giving the requirement of believing in order to be baptized. :dunno:
Good question! I was probably thinking along the same linesIn my eyes, the Bible is the foremost when any record is brought out. Including history so, yes to the Bible as a historical reference.

Owen
Jan 9th 2007, 02:02 AM
I had never heard of this so rather than taking this thread off on a tangent, I created another thread to discuss this. Acts 8:37 thread (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=75081)

Back to this threads topic, are there other denominations besides catholic (Greek or Roman) that perform infant baptisms? :dunno: Until this thread I thought that everyone (except catholics) baptized once a person could profess belief.

Methodists do, though they do not assign the salvation of infants to it. I think Lutherans do also (though I might be mistaken on that).

punk
Jan 9th 2007, 06:06 PM
Yes, I have a question. Do you guys not consider the Bible itself as a historical document? Does a reference need to be extrabiblical to be considered in this discussion? :hmm: I thought the reference from Acts was clearly giving the requirement of believing in order to be baptized. :dunno:

The Bible is a historical document up to about the end of Acts.

The question here, as I understand it, is what groups identifying themselves as "christian" believed and how they related to each other from after the end of Acts to the present.

The Parson is claiming many of these groups constitute an "anabaptist" continuity spanning 2000 years, I claim that the actual primary evidence doesn't support the claim to anabaptists existing prior to about the 14th century, and that the primary evidence shows that many groups the Parson claims as "anabaptist" diverged widely from normative anabaptist belief.

This isn't a discussion as to the correct reading of the Bible, or what the correct view of baptism is.

This is *not* a discussion about the correctness of anabaptist beliefs, it *is* a discussion as to whether the anabaptist claim to 2000 years of history is well-founded.

Studyin'2Show
Jan 11th 2007, 12:33 AM
who would you point to as the first anabaptist?Since the word anabaptist simply means to baptize again or re-baptize, wouldn't you just look for the first instance of any group that found it important to baptize those who had been baptized as babies once they came to faith in Christ?:hmm:

punk
Jan 11th 2007, 12:55 AM
Since the word anabaptist simply means to baptize again or re-baptize, wouldn't you just look for the first instance of any group that found it important to baptize those who had been baptized as babies once they came to faith in Christ?:hmm:

The issue isn't one of just any group that happens to rebaptize and hence merits the name "anabaptist".

Historians would agree that the anabaptists of the Radical Reformation and their modern day offspring (Mennonites, Amish, Brethren) form a coherent movement with traceable historical links. The question is how far back that specific movement can be reasonably traced.

Or in other words, just because you happen to rebaptize people doesn't mean you have anything at all to do with the Mennonites.

Studyin'2Show
Jan 11th 2007, 02:05 AM
Is the purpose of baptism repentance or ritual? If it is just a ritual to you then sure, baptize anyone you want. If it's to repentance then the person needs to be aware of what they are repenting for. Does that make sense? Like I say, if it's just a ritual then go to it and if they come of age and feel lost because the have never actually repented, then we will baptize them again.

God Bless!

Owen
Jan 11th 2007, 03:21 AM
RSiscoe:

Reminder. This thread is not to prove Scriptural doctrine, but rather concerned with historical accuracy. Now there is admittedly a fine line between those two in this subject, but your posts seem to be leaning towards proseletyzing about baptism instead of concerned about historical accuracy of baptism. Fine line, I know, but I would ask (though I am not a mod in this section, so it is only a suggestion) that you would try to take it a bit back more to the historical accuracy and not to doctrinal accuracy. If you wish to discuss the actual nature of baptism, please start a thread in BC or Controversial (if you can leave the Catholicism aspect of it out of the discussion) or World Religions (if you feel the need to include the Catholic aspect into the discussion).

The Parson
Jan 11th 2007, 04:29 AM
Everybody, you got so much posted here I'm going to have to play catch-up again. I'll start with Punks arguement since his is directly addressing the historical aspect as a whole...

I'm pointing to the anabaptists being an outgrowth of the medieval foment that produced the Franciscans, Waldensians, Free Spirit, Humilati, and a large variety of other groups during the time of the Crusades.

Some of these early groups managed to remain within the Catholic church (barely in the case of the early Franciscans), others didn't.

By the 14th century with have the Lollards in England for whom a claim could be made to being fairly "anabaptist", and they appear to be an offshoot of some continental movement.

I know where you are probably coming from on your train of thought Punk. Example, in Webster’s 7th New Collegiate Dictionary, c 1969, an Anabaptist is defined as a member of “a protestant sectarian movement arising in Zurich in 1524 advocating the practice of holiness, simplicity, nonresistance and the separation of church and state.” Maybe this is even be one of your sources of information. And again, the source of the information is 20th century. Perhaps the majority of the references you have are from the late 19th and the 20th century historians. Now this is just the thing that puzzles me. Before and all through the reformation historians had no problem placing the Anabaptist/Baptists with a direct lineage to the first century churches. Then, all of a sudden, after the 20th century, writers start saying this is not true. Could you explain this to me please, because the history I see written pre 20th century says otherwise:

Peter Allix (1641-1717) An Anglican historian
"These Baptists lived hundreds of years before the Protestant Reformation. They remained separate from the Romish church and maintained the same church doctrine and practice for which modern Baptists stand even to this very day. We, like them, do not regard a person as baptized or a member of Christ's church until and unless he or she is baptized on the authority of Christ as delegated to His New Testament Baptist churches."

Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531) Swiss Reformer, was contemporary with Luther and Calvin.
"The institution of Anabaptism is no novelty, but for thirteen hundred years has caused great disturbance in the church, and has acquired such a strength that the attempt in this age to contend with it appears futile for a time."

Robert Barclay (1648-1690) A Scottish apologist for the Society of Friends or Quakers.
"We shall afterwards show that the rise of the Anabaptists took place prior to the reformation of the Church of England, and there are also reasons for believing that on the continent of Europe small hidden Christian societies, who have held many of the opinions of the Anabaptists, have existed from the times of the apostles. In the sense of the direct transmission of divine truth, and the true nature of spiritual religion, it seems probable that these churches have a lineage or succession more ancient than that of the Roman Church."

David Masson (1822-1907) Masson was history professor at the University of Edinburgh.
"The Baptists were by far the most numerous of the sectaries. Their enemies were fond of tracing them to the anarchial German Anabaptists of the Reformation; but they themselves claimed a higher origin. They maintained, as Baptists still do, that in the primitive or apostolic church the only baptism practised or heard of was an immersion in water; and they maintained further that the baptism of infants was one of the corruptions of Christianity against which there had been a continued protest by pure and forward spirits in different countries, in ages prior to Luther's Reformation, including some of the English Wyclifites, although the protest may have been repeated in a louder manner, and with wild admixtures, by the German Anabaptists who gave Luther so much trouble."

John C. Ridpath (1840-1900) An American educator and historian.
"I should not readily admit that there was a Baptist Church as far back as A.D. 100, although without doubt there were Baptists then, as all Christians were then Baptists."

Sir Isaac Newton (1643-1727) British scientist, mathematician, philosopher, historian, and student of the scriptures.
"The modern Baptists formerly called Anabaptists are the only people that never symbolized with the Papacy."

By the way, none of these gentlemen mention are Baptists. I think someone mentioned I was using Baptist historians only. Now if you want to see some quotes from Baptists, how about these?

Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1834-1892)
"And now it seems to me, at this day, when any say to us, 'You, as a denomination, what great names can you mention? What fathers can you speak of?' We may reply, 'More than any other under heaven, for we are the old apostolic Church that have never bowed to the yoke of princes yet; we, known among men, in all ages, by various names, such as Donatists, Novatians, [sic] Paulicians, Petrobrussians, Cathari, Arnoldists, Hussites, Waldenses, Lollards, and Anabaptists, have always contended for the purity of the Church, and her distinctness and separation from human government. Our fathers were men inured to hardships, and unused to ease. They present to us, their children, an unbroken line which comes legitimately from the apostles, not through the filth of Rome, not by the manipulations of prelates, but by the Divine life, the Spirit's anointing, the fellowship of the Son in suffering and of the Father in truth."

I could go on and on with these writings. I'm not sure it would change your mind but I thought I would give it a try.

The Parson
Jan 11th 2007, 04:36 AM
Is the purpose of baptism repentance or ritual? If it is just a ritual to you then sure, baptize anyone you want. It it's to repentance then the person needs to be aware of what they are repent for. Does that make sense? Like I say, if it's just a ritual then go to it and if they come of age and feel lost because the have never actually repented, then we will baptize them again.

God Bless!Much more than ritual from my standpoint. It is an outward showing of the repentance that has already taken place in the believers heart that his old self has died, been buried, and has ressurected a new creature. Romans 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Studyin'2Show
Jan 11th 2007, 11:40 AM
Baptism is not a mere ritual, nor is it simply a visible sign of repentance. It is infinitely more: It is the means by which we are born again. That is not only what the Bible clearly teaches, but, as has been said, the unanimous consent of the early Church Fathers.I don't disagree with what you state about what baptism is. However, none of these mention babies. It mentions being born to new life so how will a baby know that? I've found that those who do not have a story about how they are different after the are born again usually don't appreciate being born again. But like I said, do what you wish for your children. I have dedicated all three of mine to the Lord and the first to have come of age, accepted Him for themselves and been baptized. I still have a 6 year old that has yet to come to the age of accountability.

God Bless!

dworthington
Jan 11th 2007, 12:42 PM
This may be a little tongue in cheek.........John the "baptizer" baptized Jesus.

The Parson
Jan 11th 2007, 02:47 PM
This may be a little tongue in cheek.........John the "baptizer" baptized Jesus.Oh, now that just ain't right! I remember an old Baptist preacher once told a new child of God: "The Lord went to a Baptist Preacher to be baptized, you ought to too!!" :eek:

Cute, although John was the last of the Old Testament prophets, but all the same, cute... :rofl:

The Parson
Jan 11th 2007, 05:53 PM
I want to address the above quote. I'd be interested in seeing any evidence of lineal succession of the Churches that are more ancient that that of Rome.

For my part, I will document, using the writings of the early Christians, the lineal succession of the Church of Rome.

Another question that has arrisen in this thread deals with the name of the early Church. I will also provide historical quotes showing what name was used for the Church back in those days.We would then be talking about the Roman Catholic church institution and not the idea of a "catholic" universal church. There has been a degree of word play with the RCC in that they are wanting to lay claim to Peter being the first pope and that the universalism that was spreading the Christian world was actually their beginnings. Historically, that would be incorrect. The only beginnings of the Roman Catholic church we would actually be able to find would be of when Constantine proclaimed it in the Edict of Milan in 313 AD, which placed imperial favor on Christianity in the Roman Empire. Other than that is meer speculation and sir, please forgive me if I sound blount, but this thread is not to prove or disprove Apostolic succession of the RCC nor for Roman Catholic apologetics but the antiquity of the Baptist people.

I do love your churches record keeping though because your own church has documented our history well. Especially giving dates of antiquity. Then, they want to back up and say that was a mistake. Never figured that one out except for the fact that if the RCC can claim the antiquity that isn't theirs, they can also claim that they are the one true church and try to draw the protestants and whosoever else back into them.

"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 numbers than all the reformers." Hosius Letters, ibid. Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius (1504-1579) President of the Counsel of Trent and the inquisitions.

punk
Jan 11th 2007, 05:59 PM
You're absolute right about rebaptizing not meaning you're a Mennonite. However, we're talking about the roots, not the branches. The roots would be those that were against infant baptism, correct?

Do we want to classify someone who opposes infant baptism and also believes that Jesus was fully human and just a prophet as an "anabaptist"?

The Parson
Jan 11th 2007, 06:04 PM
Do we want to classify someone who opposes infant baptism and also believes that Jesus was fully human and just a prophet as an "anabaptist"?Who believes that punk? No... certainly not.

RSiscoe
Jan 11th 2007, 06:11 PM
We would then be talking about the Roman Catholic church institution and not the idea of a "catholic" universal church. There has been a degree of word play with the RCC in that they are wanting to lay claim to Peter being the first pope and that the universalism that was spreading the Christian world was actually their beginnings. Historically, that would be incorrect. The only beginnings of the Roman Catholic church we would actually be able to find would be of when Constantine proclaimed it in the Edict of Milan in 313 AD, which placed imperial favor on Christianity in the Roman Empire. Other than that is meer speculation and sir, please forgive me if I sound blount, but this thread is not to prove or disprove Apostolic succession of the RCC nor for Roman Catholic apologetics but the antiquity of the Baptist people.

Since this threa is intended to prove the antiquity of the baptist people, Iit would be improper for me to refute what you wrote above. Therefore, I'll let it go.


I do love your churches record keeping though because your own church has documented our history well. Especially giving dates of antiquity. Then, they want to back up and say that was a mistake. Never figured that one out except for the fact that if the RCC can claim the antiquity that isn't theirs, they can also claim that they are the one true church and try to draw the protestants and whosoever else back into them.

All I will say is to read the historical documents themselves, rather than history, or "history" whichever the case may be that is written by someone who may or may not have a bias.

Also consider that we now liv in the "information age". Those who people who lived hundreds of years ago were writing history based on the information available to them. Books were much fewer and father between back then. Today we have shelves full of books and information at our fingertips. Therefore, it is more wise for us, who have access to these historical documents, to depend on them, rather than the possibly biased views of any historian.

punk
Jan 11th 2007, 06:13 PM
Who believes that punk? No... certainly not.

The point was that merely establishing a group opposed infant baptism does not make them "anabaptist", the totality of their doctrines is needed to claim a group is "anabaptist".

Owen
Jan 11th 2007, 06:26 PM
In the quotes you are referring to I was just trying to show that they believed we are born again by baptism.



Again, the quote from Irenaeus was only provided to show that he beleived we are born again through baptism. I am reading through some books now to see if I can find any quotes earlier to 200 that speak of infant baptism. So far I have located one additional quote. It is also from Irenaeus.

I think I have documented that it was the unanimous agreement of the early Church the we are born again through baptism. In the following quote, Irenaeus speaks of infants being born again:

Irenaeus AD 189: "He came to save all through Himself, - all, I say, who through Him are reborn in God - infants, and children, and youghts, and old men" (Against the Heresies Vol. 2,13:8, quoted in Faith of the early Fathers, page 87.)



Not a problem. The reason I quote more from the bible in my last few posts was for two reasons: To show how consistent the teaching of the early Fathers are with what the Bible says; and 2.) because in an earlier posts someone asked for quotes from the Bible, pointing out that it too is a historical document.

But I understand what you are saying. For this particular discussion, you want to use mostly historical documents, and less scripture. I'll try to keep the Bible verses to a minimum.

Perhaps I misread it a bit because I got lost in all the stuff. My apologies. I've done that for a couple of days. School just started up again, so my brain is a bit fried at the moment. :)

Its ok to use Scripture, though in the discussion of history after the apostles, it really doesn't document the history (though it may give us an idea of where it started).

BTW, I do agree that there is a unanimous agreement that the early church fathers linked baptism with salvific grace. And as an aside of just my personal opinion, I think they were mostly right though I think what baptism in fact got slightly confused so that it began to be a little bit more than it was originally intended to be. But as this thread is not the place for it, I'll leave it at that (though I would willingly discuss it in private or in another thread in the appropriate forum).

The Parson
Jan 11th 2007, 06:27 PM
The answer is simple: The only documents claiming an ancient history for the baptists date from about the time of the Reformation and later. There are no earlier documents claiming such a history.

Modern historians look at 2000 years of texts and say "Gee, the only texts claiming anabaptists have a history going back to the time of Christ come from c. 1400 and later."

Which is to say that the earlier historians you cited have nothing to base *their* claims on apart from hear-say (i.e. a bunch of contemporary anabaptists believed it, so it must be true). This method isn't too bad when your textual evidence is meagre and 3rd and 4th hand to begin with.

We now have substantially more historical data to work from than those historians had. We also have substantially better data.

So the alternative is either saying "Well anabaptists claim to go back to the time of Christ, so it must be true" or saying "No evidence points to anabaptists going back to the time of Christ."

Given that we certainly have no *less* evidence in the 20th century than in centuries going back to c. 1400 for a claim going back to the first century, why are you inclined to prefer historians working from less data than historians working from more data (aside from the fact that their assertions tickle your fancy)?

And yes, when it comes to natural sciences and social sciences, my inclination is to say that newer is better. As time has gone on methodologies and standards have become tighter and more evidence is properly analyzed and catalogued (i.e. later workers are able to make use of the results of earlier workers). Modern historians can rely on the results of other historians working in other areas rather than having to do all the work themselves. This leads to an ability to do a more thorough analysis of the area they are working in.You are quite correct that no Anabaptists go back to the time of Christ punk because then, there was only the new converts in Isreal and Judea and respectfully, I'm sorry but that explaination does not fly. You remember the quote I gave from the book "Crossing the Centuries"? These historians certainly were not going on heresay because they would have nothing to gain by doing so. Neither would I call the other histories hearsay either. Forgive me punk, but that seems simply an easy way to discount an arguement.

That quote I mentioned:


J. Cardinal Gibbons, Primate of the Roman Catholic Church in America, Patrick J. Healy, D.D., Catholic University of America; Theodore Roosevelt, LL.D., Associate Editor of, "The Outlook" and a former President of the United States of America; and several other distinguished scholars served as contributors to the book entitled Crossing the Centuries, copyrighted in 1912. This highly educated group of scholars gave the histories of various religious denominations in North America at that time. About the Baptists this book states:
"Of the Baptists it may be said that they are not reformers. These people, comprising bodies of Christian believers known under various names in different countries, are entirely distinct and independent of the Roman and Greek churches, have had an unbroken continuity of existence from Apostolic days down through the centuries. Throughout this long period they were bitterly persecuted for heresy, driven from country to country, disfranchised, deprived of their property, imprisoned, tortured and slain by the thousands, yet they swerved not from their New Testament Faith, Doctrine and Adherence."

The Parson
Jan 11th 2007, 06:44 PM
Since this threa is intended to prove the antiquity of the baptist people, Iit would be improper for me to refute what you wrote above. Therefore, I'll let it go.



All I will say is to read the historical documents themselves, rather than history, or "history" whichever the case may be that is written by someone who may or may not have a bias.

Also consider that we now liv in the "information age". Those who people who lived hundreds of years ago were writing history based on the information available to them. Books were much fewer and father between back then. Today we have shelves full of books and information at our fingertips. Therefore, it is more wise for us, who have access to these historical documents, to depend on them, rather than the possibly biased views of any historian.If you will note the post I just made responding to punk, you will realize that none of these that I mentioned in the quote were Baptist and certainly had absolutly nothing to gain by giving the history the way they did.

So how can anyone claim bias towards the Baptists from:
J. Cardinal Gibbons, Primate of the Roman Catholic Church in America
Patrick J. Healy, D.D., Catholic University of America
Theodore Roosevelt, LL.D., Associate Editor of, "The Outlook" and a former President of the United States of America

Studyin'2Show
Jan 11th 2007, 06:58 PM
Do we want to classify someone who opposes infant baptism and also believes that Jesus was fully human and just a prophet as an "anabaptist"?I'm assuming that you are being facetious. Accepting Jesus as God is an unbendable tenent of our faith so that fact would have to be a given. The 'evolution' of anabaptist does not affect when they may have begun.

punk
Jan 11th 2007, 07:50 PM
I'm assuming that you are being facetious. Accepting Jesus as God is an unbendable tenent of our faith so that fact would have to be a given. The 'evolution' of anabaptist does not affect when they may have begun.

So you also agree that there is more to being an "anabaptist" than opposing infant baptism.

RSiscoe
Jan 11th 2007, 08:18 PM
Parson,

In an earlier post, you said we are discussing the antiquity of the Baptist people. I am going to explain what I belive your reasoning is and then respond to it.

Firstly, when you use the term Baptist, I think you are using it as a derivative of the longer term Anabaptist. You are simply shorting Anabaptist to Baptist.

Now, Anabaptist has two meanings: One meaning is "to re-baptise" and as such would apply to all those throghout the centuries who believed in re-baptizing.

In addition to the Christians from the early years who have believed in re-baptizing, there was also a group that originated in the 16 century who was called by the mane Anabaptists. The reason they were given that name is because, amongst other doctrines, they also believed in rebaptizing.

Those who believed in rebaptizing in the 3rd and 4th centuries, however, were not the same as the group that originated in the 16th century (which was called Anabaptist).

There is one very big difference between the Anabaptists of the 16th century and those in the 3rd and 4th century who believed in rebaptizing - and this difference pertains to baptism itself.

In the early years the reason some claimed that baptism should be repeated was because they did not believe that heretics could confer a valid baptism. In other words, they taught that those who were baptized by heretics needed to be re-baptized by a non heretic. The dispute was not over infant baptism, but over baptism performed by a heretic.

One of the most well known early Chritians who believed that heretics could not validly baptise was Cyprian, who I have quoted in a previous post in this thread.

Cyprian held a council of Bishops at Carthage who agreed with him that heretics could not validly baptise. This is the same Council of Carthage that I have quoted from a few times in this thread.

Council of Carthage: "You have heard, my dearly beloved colleagues, what Jubaianus our co-bishop has written to me, taking counsel of my poor intelligence concerning the unlawful and profane baptism of heretics, as well as what I wrote in answer to him, decreeing, to wit, what we have once and again and frequently determined, that heretics who come to the Church must be baptized and sanctified by the baptism of the Church."

Technically, as they mention in the council documents, they did not believe in "rebaptizing". They taught that the first "baptism" was invalid (did not occur), and that they were merely baptizing a person who had not been baptized.

This council was not ratified by the Pope, and as such was later rejected by most, if not all, of the same Bishops who had participated in it. It was later agreed that a heretic (one who held a false doctrine) could indeed validly baptize as long as they used the correct words.

St. Jerome: "Blessed Cyprian attempted to avoid heresy, and therefore rejected the baptism conferred by heretics, sent [the acts of] an African Council on this matter to Stephen, who was then Bishop of the city of Rome, and twenty-second from St. Peter; but his attempt was in vain. Eventually those very Bishops, who had decreed with him that heretics were to be rebaptized, returned to the ancient custom, and published a new decree."

But this same council, which taught that those baptised by heretics should be repaptized (Anabaptist), also discussed infant baptism. The following was written by Cyprian who called the coucil:

Cyprian of Carthage: "As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council [the Council of Carthage] it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

As mentioned above, I think that when you use the term Baptist, you are using it as a derivative of the term Anabaptist, and implying that, since there were those who believed in re-baptizing in the early years of the Church, that these are, therefore, "Baptists". But this is a link that does not connect.

There is a big difference between those in the early years who believed in re-baptizing those who were baptized by heretics (Anabaptists), and the group that originated in the 16th century and was called by the name Anabaptist.

I am going to provide a link to the entire council of Carthage for you to read. You will probably find it pretty interesting. Here is the link: http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-124.htm

punk
Jan 11th 2007, 09:19 PM
If you will note the post I just made responding to punk, you will realize that none of these that I mentioned in the quote were Baptist and certainly had absolutly nothing to gain by giving the history the way they did.

So how can anyone claim bias towards the Baptists from:
J. Cardinal Gibbons, Primate of the Roman Catholic Church in America
Patrick J. Healy, D.D., Catholic University of America
Theodore Roosevelt, LL.D., Associate Editor of, "The Outlook" and a former President of the United States of America

But the question is whether the people in question have any force behind their opinions.

The opinion of someone who has spent years studying the evidence is worth somewhat more than the opinion of someone who has read a couple secondary sources.

As they say opinions and..., everyone has one.

If you are saying that say T. Roosevelt spent a year or two intensely studying the issue, then I'll say his opinion is important. I don't think he did, he was a historian of US history, but I don't think he studied the history of ancient and medieval europe. So I'm guessing T. Roosevelt was stating something he read somewhere else.

The fact is that your timeline put forth certain groups as "anabaptists", I believe I put forth evidence that would incline one to say they were not "anabaptists" (groups such as the Montantists and Paulicians). I can go to primary sources in translation for those. So now I am in this boat:

I believe that I can refute any claims made to the effect that this or that group between the first and fourteenth centuries were "anabaptists", which is to say I don't believe you can put forth a specific group in that time as "anabaptists". So now when I look at the evidence what I see is that you cannot produce any specific group in the time period as being "anabaptists" but you nevertheless want to claim there *were* anabaptists in that time period. Now the people you quoted might believe there were such groups in that period, but I also believe I could refute their claims as well were they here.

In short I believe I can refute any claim to a historical group in the period being "anabaptist", while you are quoting post-Reformation historians as saying "there were anabaptists then", so I believe I can refute them as well.

Yes this is because of histories I have read, but this is also because of the chunk of primary source materials I have read as well. Note the second part, I am *also* appealing to texts written during the period in question, not afterward.

RSiscoe
Jan 11th 2007, 09:42 PM
In short I believe I can refute any claim to a historical group in the period being "anabaptist", while you are quoting post-Reformation historians as saying "there were anabaptists then", so I believe I can refute them as well.

There were "Anabaptists" in the early years; that is, there were some who believed in re-baptising, which is what Anabaptist means. They weren't called "Anabaptists", and they didn't believe what the 16th century group known as the Anabaptists believed, but there were some people who believed in "rebaptism" which, technically, makes them "Anabaptist".

As I explained in my last post, there were some in the early years that believed heretics could not confer a valid baptism. Therefore, they taught that anyone who was baptized by a heretic should be re-baptized. This would technically make them "Anabaptists".

But you are right that there were no goups known as Anabaptists in the early years, at least not as far as I know. There were those who were later referred to as Anabaptist, but that is just because they believe in re-baptizing. And it is also true that the early Christians who believed in rebaptizing (those who were later referred to as Anabaptists) did not hold to the teachings of the group that originated in the 16th century.

punk
Jan 12th 2007, 01:55 AM
There were "Anabaptists" in the early years; that is, there were some who believed in re-baptising, which is what Anabaptist means. They weren't called "Anabaptists", and they didn't believe what the 16th century group known as the Anabaptists believed, but there were some people who believed in "rebaptism" which, technically, makes them "Anabaptist".

As I explained in my last post, there were some in the early years that believed heretics could not confer a valid baptism. Therefore, they taught that anyone who was baptized by a heretic should be re-baptized. This would technically make them "Anabaptists".

But you are right that there were no goups known as Anabaptists in the early years, at least not as far as I know. There were those who were later referred to as Anabaptist, but that is just because they believe in re-baptizing. And it is also true that the early Christians who believed in rebaptizing (those who were later referred to as Anabaptists) did not hold to the teachings of the group that originated in the 16th century.

You are confusing the literal meaning of a word with what it denotes. Doing this is like saying that since it is called a "butterfly" it must have some relationship to butter.

A point which I tried to make earlier is:

-There is more to what is understood by "anabaptist" than merely rebaptizing. As an example a group which rebaptizes people but denies the divinity of Christ is one we probably wouldn't want to call "anabaptist".

The original assertion that started this all was that the historical movement of the Radical Reformation known as the "Anabaptists" could trace its roots back to the first century CE. So for practical purposes what motivated this thread was to establish a historical continuum of groups which persisted over time and emerged more strongly in history as the "Anabaptists" of the Reformation.

By your definition I could call conservative (Eastern) Orthodox groups "anabaptists" since they are likely to rebaptize Protestants (as they view Protestants as lacking apostolic succession and thus incapable of properly performing a baptism). I don't think any reasonable person would want to claim that conservative Orthodox groups and modern Baptists constitute a single religious group.

Studyin'2Show
Jan 12th 2007, 02:27 AM
So you also agree that there is more to being an "anabaptist" than opposing infant baptism.Can you point out the post where someone said that opposing infant baptism was the sole belief of anabaptist? I am not an anabaptist. I am not any denomination. So nothing you say is offensive to me, surprising yes, offensive, no. Surprising because this seems very personal to you. Like if anabaptist can track their history back to the apostles it would be a really bad thing, but why? Why would that be a bad thing? Why is this so personal to you? Just curious.

The Parson
Jan 12th 2007, 02:41 AM
Maybe this will clear things up. I hope it will any way. This may narrow it down for you all. When we call someone an Anabaptist / Baptist, if it be pre 1400's it is because of their distinctions. Not because it is the name given them at that particular time in history.

The distinctions are:
Salvation by the Grace of God and affirmed by a profession of faith FOLLOWED by water baptism by immersion. Infant baptism know as "alien baptism" is totally rejected.
Congregational, democratic, form of government with Christ only as it's head. Total rejection of any earthly head of the church or churches. All members have a say in all matters concerning the operation of the individual church body (congregation).
Two offices, Bishop (pastor) and Deacon.That's the deciding factors. Nothing more, nothing less, and it is the distinction for Baptists even today.

punk
Jan 12th 2007, 02:46 AM
Can you point out the post where someone said that opposing infant baptism was the sole belief of anabaptist? I am not an anabaptist. I am not any denomination. So nothing you say is offensive to me, surprising yes, offensive, no. Surprising because this seems very personal to you. Like if anabaptist can track their history back to the apostles it would be a really bad thing, but why? Why would that be a bad thing? Why is this so personal to you? Just curious.

Well it appeared to me that some were trying to make opposition to infant baptism the *sole* criterion by which to label a group as "anabaptist".

punk
Jan 12th 2007, 02:50 AM
Maybe this will clear things up. I hope it will any way. This may narrow it down for you all. When we call someone an Anabaptist / Baptist, if it be pre 1400's it is because of their distinctions. Not because it is the name given them at that particular time in history.

The distinctions are:

Salvation by the Grace of God and affirmed by a profession of faith FOLLOWED by water baptism by immersion. Infant baptism know as "alien baptism" is totally rejected.
Congregational, democratic, form of government with Christ only as it's head. Total rejection of any earthly head of the church or churches. All members have a say in all matters concerning the operation of the individual church body (congregation).
Two offices, Bishop (pastor) and Deacon.That's the deciding factors. Nothing more, nothing less, and it is the distinction for Baptists even today.

Well, you also have to include a number of theological propositions about the trinity, the nature of the son and so on.

I only bring this up since I hold that a number of groups mentioned in the Anabaptist history list hold theological views abhorent to anabaptists, whatever their views on church structure and baptism.

The Parson
Jan 12th 2007, 02:52 AM
Can you point out the post where someone said that opposing infant baptism was the sole belief of anabaptist? I am not an anabaptist. I am not any denomination. So nothing you say is offensive to me, surprising yes, offensive, no. Surprising because this seems very personal to you. Like if anabaptist can track their history back to the apostles it would be a really bad thing, but why? Why would that be a bad thing? Why is this so personal to you? Just curious.I'm sorry Punk but actually, it does seem that way. Like it is personal that is.

I do however, understand that RSiscoe & ChristusRex, who have been very curtious and respectful in this discussion, would have a personal stake because they love their church and want to defend it. Thank you my friends.

The Parson
Jan 12th 2007, 05:53 AM
I see why you take a dim view of Teddy Roosevelt as a historian. You prefer the scientific approach to history, whereas I believe that history, although recordings of events must be taken as a whole and treated also as literature is not a cold science but a way of relating to past cultures and events by understanding who they were and what they accomplished or destroyed. An approach also taken by Teddy... Who, by the way was a highly educated man, especially in history.
There has been much discussion as to whether history should not henceforth be treated as a branch of science rather than of literature. As regards part of the discussion, the minds of the contestants have not met, the propositions advanced by the two sides being neither mutually incompatible nor mutually relevant. There is, however, a real basis for conflict in so far as science claims exclusive possession of the field.
Theodore RooseveltSee if you can find a copy of "History as Literature" by Roosevelt and you will see just how complete this man investigated history. And that conflict of methodologies he mentioned is taking place now in this thread... Cold hard science would ignore the facts that a chronicaler was most likely a hostile history writer and refuse to look for a truth inside of a biased writing. Whereas an old school historian would look at proofs no matter where the source, understanding the biased or unbiased opinions expressed by the writer by the events surrounding the writings. In other words, the writings of Cardinal Housius, reguarding the Anabaptists/Baptists, would have been ignored by the scientific minded historian and dismissed as a error or forgery because they went against the status quo of the events of that time in history. ie., the inquisitions. That same type of scientific historian would even dismiss the letters of the Apostles as invalid for historical content when actually they are rich in it. Maybe even preferring rather to follow the writings of Josephus and ignoring the words of the Apostles unless they agreed with that or other historians content if that were the case.

RSiscoe
Jan 12th 2007, 12:12 PM
You are confusing the literal meaning of a word with what it denotes. Doing this is like saying that since it is called a "butterfly" it must have some relationship to butter.


I distringuished between the two in my post. I was not necessarily disagreeing with you, but was only pointing out that there were some who did believe in "rebaptizing" in the early years. This would make them by definition (not by name) "Anabaptists". As I said, they are different from the group started in the 16th century called by the name "Anabaptists", but they did believe in rebaptizing.

The reason I pointed that out is because quotes have been provided that discuss "Anabaptists" in the early years, but these were referred to as Anabaptists, not because they are the same group now called by that name, but because they believed in rebaptizing.

That was the point I was trying to make.

Studyin'2Show
Jan 12th 2007, 02:06 PM
I distringuished between the two in my post. I was not necessarily disagreeing with you, but was only pointing out that there were some who did believe in "rebaptizing" in the early years. This would make them by definition (not by name) "Anabaptists". As I said, they are different from the group started in the 16th century called by the name "Anabaptists", but they did believe in rebaptizing.

The reason I pointed that out is because quotes have been provided that discuss "Anabaptists" in the early years, but these were referred to as Anabaptists, not because they are the same group now called by that name, but because they believed in rebaptizing.

That was the point I was trying to make.I agree with your point here. What is in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Is it about a particular 'Jesus club' and what they called themselves or is this about like minded believers. Maybe they didn't have their letterheads printed or the name on the side of the building, but if the beliefs they held were the same isn't that what matters?

For example, the early believers were called followers of 'the Way'. If there was one who passed away before Antioch, would you be able to say they were not Christian? Wouldn't you agree that they WERE Christian because of what they believed even though they had never called themselves one or been called it by anyone?

threebigrocks
Jan 12th 2007, 02:20 PM
I agree with your point here. What is in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Is it about a particular 'Jesus club' and what they called themselves or is this about like minded believers. Maybe they didn't have their letterheads printed or the name on the side of the building, but if the beliefs they held were the same isn't that what matters?

For example, the early believers were called followers of 'the Way'. If there was one who passed away before Antioch, would you be able to say they were not Christian? Wouldn't you agree that they WERE Christian because of what they believed even though they had never called themselves one or been called it by anyone?

In a nutshell, that's what matters.

In alignment with this thread, that was a portion of what was intended - to show that there were people around that were called anabaptists because they baptized again. And it wasn't only themselves that called them that, but it was also a term used for a group by political and religious leaders. They may not have remained the exact same group at their 14th century counterparts, but much is of the same premise. The ideology, their belief as studyin' pointed out, was the important part. Ditto for the 12 centuries later. Same for us now.

The Parson
Jan 12th 2007, 08:44 PM
And from your school of thought Punk, yes, you are quite correct if that indeed is your premise. I am a trained Baptist historian from my youth. Both by apprentiship and education. Even with some ties (not blood related) to J. M. Carroll (Trail of Blood) through my grandfathers although he was a Baptist brider and we are not. It is in our blood to keep the histories in the method we have and to shun over anyalysis of simple matters. We take our history the same as we take our faith in the Lord Jesus, as factual and unchanging. (If it was true then, it most certainly is true now.)

It's no wonder we are butting heads here. Tell you what. I'll continue on here with at least the presentation as I wanted to all along. You start a simular thread explaining why my process is totally wrong or in error and I will leave you unmolested in it. I'll even try to answer whatever questions you have there to the best of my feeble abilities in that thread. That way, both of our intentions can move along unhampered.

The Parson
Jan 13th 2007, 04:03 AM
Parson,

In an earlier post, you said we are discussing the antiquity of the Baptist people. I am going to explain what I belive your reasoning is and then respond to it.

Firstly, when you use the term Baptist, I think you are using it as a derivative of the longer term Anabaptist. You are simply shorting Anabaptist to Baptist. You are correct.


Now, Anabaptist has two meanings: One meaning is "to re-baptise" and as such would apply to all those throghout the centuries who believed in re-baptizing.Correct again...


In addition to the Christians from the early years who have believed in re-baptizing, there was also a group that originated in the 16 century who was called by the mane Anabaptists. The reason they were given that name is because, amongst other doctrines, they also believed in rebaptizing.

Those who believed in rebaptizing in the 3rd and 4th centuries, however, were not the same as the group that originated in the 16th century (which was called Anabaptist).That would be in error... And this is where the misconception begins. These peoples simply would have been reffered to as Puritans in the 16th century if there had been no connection. This was the nomer that was carried down through the centuries in general for a distinct sect although there were a few called anabaptists simply for the reason of rebaptism which did not share the distinctions of the line of Anabaptists. Yet all were known as heretics to the papal powers that be through the centuries. Good references by the way...

RSiscoe
Jan 13th 2007, 02:31 PM
n addition to the Christians from the early years who have believed in re-baptizing, there was also a group that originated in the 16 century who was called by the mane [meant to say "name" - RS] Anabaptists. The reason they were given that name is because, amongst other doctrines, they also believed in rebaptizing.

Those who believed in rebaptizing in the 3rd and 4th centuries, however, were not the same as the group that originated in the 16th century (which was called Anabaptist).


That would be in error... And this is where the misconception begins. These peoples simply would have been reffered to as Puritans in the 16th century if there had been no connection. This was the nomer that was carried down through the centuries in general for a distinct sect although there were a few called anabaptists simply for the reason of rebaptism which did not share the distinctions of the line of Anabaptists. Yet all were known as heretics to the papal powers that be through the centuries. Good references by the way...

This is worth discussing. But I am not sure if I understood what you were saying. When you said: "These peoples simply would have been reffered to as Puritans in the 16th century if there had been no connection[/u]", did you mean that the Anabaptists of the 16th century would have been referred to as Puritians in the 16th century if there was no connection to, what you claim, were the Anabaptists of the early centuries?

Let me re-word it this way. Are you saying: [i]There have always been a group known as the Anabaptits. These Anabaptists, who have always existed, believed just as the 16th century group believed. These are one and the same. In other words, are you saying "In the 16th century this group became more well know, but throughout the centuries there were always Anabaptists who believed what those of the 16th century believed. They just in a sense, went underground where they remained until the 16th century"

I think that is what you are saying. If so, please let me know; and if you don't mind, maybe just write the same thought again using your own words. I want to make sure I understand exactly what you mean before I respond.

The Parson
Jan 13th 2007, 04:46 PM
This is worth discussing. But I am not sure if I understood what you were saying. When you said: "These peoples simply would have been reffered to as Puritans in the 16th century if there had been no connection[/u]", did you mean that the Anabaptists of the 16th century would have been referred to as Puritians in the 16th century if there was no connection to, what you claim, were the Anabaptists of the early centuries?

Let me re-word it this way. Are you saying: [I]There have always been a group known as the Anabaptits. These Anabaptists, who have always existed, believed just as the 16th century group believed. These are one and the same. In other words, are you saying "In the 16th century this group became more well know, but throughout the centuries there were always Anabaptists who believed what those of the 16th century believed. They just in a sense, went underground where they remained until the 16th century"




I think that is what you are saying. If so, please let me know; and if you don't mind, maybe just write the same thought again using your own words. I want to make sure I understand exactly what you mean before I respond.





http://parsonscorner.org/chart2.jpg


I gave you the above chart to give you an idea of what I am trying to say. Maybe this will clear it up. The original intent of the word Puritans in the 4th century was those who resisted changes made by the majority of the churches. The term Puritans in the 16th century however fit into any group of revivalists of that day. If the Anabaptists of the 16th century were of these disenters, they most definatly would have been labled Puritans instead of the name Anabaptist which has continued on since the 3rd century AD.

This is where in the 1540's, Cardinal Housius was making the distinction also when he said: "Were it not that the Anabaptists/Baptists were sorely tormented and put to the knife these past 1200 years, there would be more reformers among us". His exact quote was Anabaptists by the way...
Side Note: All the names presented in the chart were given to those people by those writing the history. Not by the peoples themselves. As in all history, historians feel they need to slap on a name of some sorts for identity. Also, some Anabaptists were called Puritans in the early 1600's. They used to petition the daylights out of King James Court. The point I am trying to make though is if these were a new sect they would not of had the Anabaptist label on them because that distinction was already given to predicessors unless they were directly from that line.

Thou art most certainly justified in thy enquiry of me for clarification. I tend to get deep in the way I discuss things. Some of my students and evangelists call me a 17th century preacher in a 21st century body.

RSiscoe
Jan 13th 2007, 07:40 PM
[CENTER]http://parsonscorner.org/chart2.jpg
[LEFT]
I gave you the above chart to give you an idea of what I am trying to say. Maybe this will clear it up. The original intent of the word Puritans in the 4th century was those who resisted changes made by the majority of the churches.

For the record, I do not believe there were any substantial doctrinal changes around the time you mention. For example, earlier you stated that infant baptism began around that time. I provided proof that infant baptism was the common practice of the day, and even quoted at least two reliable sources from that time who said it was a practice that was handed down by the apostles.

In addition, I have never seen any quote from that time denying infant baptism. In other words, all the evidence we have points to the fact that infant baptism was a practice from the beginning of the Church age.

I also believe that I can prove that any alleged new doctrine that orignated around the time of Constantine was, in fact, a practice of the Church from the beginning. In other words, I claim that in the 4th century there was no such thing as a Puratin who rejected the changes taking place in that time because there weren't any doctrinal changes taking place in the 4th century. But, although this is related to this thread, it is more of a side issue that should be discussed in another thread. So let's continue on with the Anabaptists for now to keep things on track.


The term Puritans in the 16th century however fit into any group of revivalists of that day. If the Anabaptists of the 16th century were of these disenters, they most definatly would have been labled Puritans instead of the name Anabaptist which has continued on since the 3rd century AD.

This is where in the 1540's, Cardinal Housius was making the distinction also when he said: "Were it not that the Anabaptists/Baptists were sorely tormented and put to the knife these past 1200 years, there would be more reformers among us". His exact quote was Anabaptists by the way...

I know. I am actually trying to verify that quote and to check the context. I have found that there are actually two different quotes attributed to him; and interestingly, they both give the same reference and the same page numbers. In fact, these two different quotes (which are short) are both said to begin on page 112 and continue to page 113 of the same book.


The point I am trying to make though is if these were a new sect they would not of had the Anabaptist label on them because that distinction was already given to predicessors unless they were directly from that line.

I actually have to disagree with that. Here's why: There were groups in the early years who believed, as I have shown, that heretics could not confer a valid baptism. Therefore, they taught that a heretic should be re-baptized (Anabaptist). The word Anabaptist simply means, by definition, to rebaptise. These people were, by definition not by name, "Anabaptists" because they believed that those Baptized by heretics should be "re-baptized".

The 16th century group given the name Anabaptist, however, was quite different from the early people who believed in "re-baptizing". Not only were the doctrinal teachings of the two quite different, but even the reason they believed in rebaptising was different. As has been said, the early Christians who were later referred to a Anabaptists did not deny the validity of infant baptism as the 16th century group did. Quite the contrary: they practiced it. They were referred to as Anabaptists because they did not believe in the validity of baptism conferred by a heretic.


Thou art most certainly justified in thy enquiry of me for clarification. I tend to get deep in the way I discuss things.

Not a problem. And please excuse me as well if I repeat myself two or three times in a row. I often say the same thing more than once using different words so that I am not misunderstood.

From this point we can go in one of two direction.

1.) I was considering asking you for a list of some of the doctrinal teachings that you have been told originated after the 4th century. This would take us in the direction of me proving to you, by quoting those who lived in that day, that every single doctrine believed and practiced in the 5th century was practiced in the 3rd. But this may not be the thread to do that. Instead, maybe we should do this;

2.) Since one of the primary doctrines of the Anabaptists (the doctrine that gave them their name, no less) is that infants should not be baptized, and that if they were they should be "rebaptized" (Anabaptist) when they reach the age of accountability, I would ask for any evidence that 1.) the early Church denied infant baptism and/or 2.) that they re-baptized those who had been baptized when they were infants.

And remember, quotes from people who lived a thousand years after the fact is not worth much. Just because someone believes something or writes something does not make it true. It doesn't mean they are necessarily being dishonest, any more than you or I are. You believe infant baptism was a practice that began after the year 300, I do not. Both of us are sincere and both of us are being honest, yet we have arrived at two very different beliefs.

How have you and I arrived at what we believe? Obviously, this is not something we are born knowing. We have both relied on information we've read. But this, I believe, is the difference: What I have read are the actual writings of the early Church, whereas you have only read writings of people who lived a thousand years, and more, later. But where did these people get their information, especially when information was so much more difficult to to access in those day? Is it merely a folklore or a "tradition of men?" Was what they wrote simply what they wanted to believe or what they had been led to believe? Was it one of those lies that were repeated so often it was considered true? Was there any evidence to support what they wrote? If there was evidence then, shouldn't there be evidence now? And if there is no evidence now, why should we assume there was evidence then?

This is what you and I can do in an attempt to verify if our position is true, or merely a fable; historical, or a "tradition of men"; factual or nothing but a lie that has been repeated so often it is considered by some to be true. This is what we should do: we should search the writings of the early Church and see if we can find evidence of any people who believe what the Anabaptists of today believe. If we find that what we have been led to believe is false, or a lie, we should rejoice and thank God that we discovered the truth before it is too late. If we were right the whole time, then we will have it confirmed. In other words, there is nothing to loose and everything to gain.

Since I have already provided tons of evidence from the writings of the early Church to document my position, I would ask for you to do the same.

And if there isn't any evidence from the early years to support your position, I would ask why you would consider it to be anything but mere folklore, or a "tradition of men", that arose for no other reason than to justify a novel teaching.

The Parson
Jan 13th 2007, 09:31 PM
For the record, I do not believe there were any substantial doctrinal changes around the time you mention. For example, earlier you stated that infant baptism began around that time. I provided proof that infant baptism was the common practice of the day, and even quoted at least two reliable sources from that time who said it was a practice that was handed down by the apostles.

In addition, I have never seen any quote from that time denying infant baptism. In other words, all the evidence we have points to the fact that infant baptism was a practice from the beginning of the Church age.

I also believe that I can prove that any alleged new doctrine that orignated around the time of Constantine was, in fact, a practice of the Church from the beginning. In other words, I claim that in the 4th century there was no such thing as a Puratin who rejected the changes taking place in that time because there weren't any doctrinal changes taking place in the 4th century. But, although this is related to this thread, it is more of a side issue that should be discussed in another thread. So let's continue on with the Anabaptists for now to keep things on track.Searching back through the thread I see no place where I made the assertion that infant baptism showed up in the 400's. Must have been someone elses statement. If I did, I was wrong and apologize for it.

2nd & 3rd Centuries
Churches grow in numbers and are known by either their region or leaders (Montanists, Novations, Antiochians, Tertullianists)
Error starts filling some churches
Infant Baptism Baptismal Regeneration, non fellowship declared in 251 AD for those who would not agree to the new trends. The above groups in blue mainly called Puritans , Anabaptists, or Puritan Anabaptists because they refused to take on the unbiblical ideas of the other churches. http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1096407&postcount=45 After 100 or later in the 200's is where you will see infant baptism shows up on the scene and for me to argue that would be a falsehood.
"Pedo-baptism was unknown in the two first ages after Christ; in the third and fourth it was approved by a few; at length, in the fifth and following it began to obtain in divers places;
But for the first century it was immersion.
The sacrament of baptism was administered in the first century, without the public assemblies, in places appointed and prepared for that purpose, and was performed by immersion of the whole body in the baptismal fount. [Ecclesiastical History, Philadelphia edition, vol. 1. p. 126.]How about that... I saved you some work...


From this point we can go in one of two direction.

1.) I was considering asking you for a list of some of the doctrinal teachings that you have been told originated after the 4th century. This would take us in the direction of me proving to you, by quoting those who lived in that day, that every single doctrine believed and practiced in the 5th century was practiced in the 3rd. But this may not be the thread to do that. Instead, maybe we should do this;

2.) Since one of the primary doctrines of the Anabaptists (the doctrine that gave them their name, no less) is that infants should not be baptized, and that if they were they should be "rebaptized" (Anabaptist) when they reach the age of accountability, I would ask for any evidence that 1.) the early Church denied infant baptism and/or 2.) that they re-baptized those who had been baptized when they were infants.Please forgive me this but I really need to complete the premise and then we can discuss any rebuttals of the distinctions of doctrines. Although I think I just answered one above.


And if there isn't any evidence from the early years to support your position, I would ask why you would consider it to be anything but mere folklore, or a "tradition of men", that arose for no other reason than to justify a novel teaching.I'm not taking exception to this my freind as I do understand your viewpoint. However, I will not refer to my fathers, his fathers, his fathers fathers, & beyond plus my learned professors teachings etc., as folklore. No sir, don't think so...

RSiscoe
Jan 14th 2007, 02:35 AM
But for the first century it was immersion.

Exxclesiastical History: The sacrament of baptism was administered in the first century, without the public assemblies, in places appointed and prepared for that purpose, and was performed by immersion of the whole body in the baptismal fount. [Ecclesiastical History, Philadelphia edition, vol. 1. p. 126.]

How about that... I saved you some work...

Baptism by full immersion was the norm in the first century, that is true; but baptism was also performed by pouring. Both were valid and both were in use in the first century. The following quote is from a 1st century document knows as the Didache, or "teaching of the twelve apostles". It is dated somewhere between A.D. 50 and A.D. 90:

Didache: "And concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit in living [i.e.running] water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before. (Ch. 7)

That is a quote from a first century document that discussed baptism by pouring.


I'm not taking exception to this my freind as I do understand your viewpoint. However, I will not refer to my fathers, his fathers, his fathers fathers, & beyond plus my learned professors teachings etc., as folklore. No sir, don't think so...

I did not mean to offend you, and I hope I didn't. I do not question anyone's sincerity or honesty, but we are all humans and none of us are infallible. We should all love and respect our family, as you clearly do. And I respect you for that. But the love of God and of the truth must be greater even than the love we have for our family (Mt 10:38), as great as the love for our family must be.

As such we must seek and adhere to the truth, even if it is different than what our family has believed and taught us; and we must never avoid what we suspect the truth may be simply because it is different than what we have been taught.

The Parson
Jan 14th 2007, 03:03 AM
Baptism by full immersion was the norm in the first century, that is true; but baptism was also performed by pouring. Both were valid and both were in use in the first century. The following quote is from a 1st century document knows as the Didache, or "teaching of the twelve apostles". It is dated somewhere between A.D. 50 and A.D. 90:

Didache: "And concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before. (Ch. 7)

That is a quote from a first century document that discussed baptism by pouring.Yes sir, I am aware that pouring was used in such cases as for the sick and lame if immersion was unacceptable for some of the primitive churches. I personally know of a lady who was too large to be immersed and was poured on instead. I also know that one day I'll be faced with the same possibility. What will I do? Most likely explore the possibility of having my evangelists assist and if it were on the sick or death bed, I would also pour in the most extreme case. Not sprinkle however.

I did not mean to offend you, and I hope I didn't. I do not question anyone's sincerity or honesty, but we are all humans and none of us are infallible. We should all love and respect our family, as you clearly do. And I respect you for that. But the love of God and of the truth must be greater even than the love we have for our family (Mt 10:38), as great as the love for our family must be.

As such we must seek and adhere to the truth, even if it is different than what our family has believed and taught us; and we must never avoid what we suspect the truth may be simply because it is different than what we have been taught.I also realize that and understand you did not mean to offend. Not a problem as no offense is taken. And yes, if I found that the education I have received by my forefathers and professors was incorrect, I would abandon it for the truth. Thank you for your sincerity sir...

Never once have I mentioned why I titled this thread "Those Hard Headed Baptists". It was mainly because of a letter Tertullian wrote to ask the Emperor of Rome to stop cutting our heads off. One particular paragraph made me think of many a hard headed preacher and how blount they can be when needed:


"And now, O worshipful judges, proceed with your shew of justice, and believe me, ye will be still more and more just in the opinion of the people, the oftener you make them a sacrifice of Christians. Crucify, torture, condemn, grind us all to powder if you can; your injustice is an illustrious proof of our innocence, and for the proof of this it is that God permits us to suffer; and by your late condemnation of a Christian woman to the lust of a pander, rather than the rage of a lion, you notoriously confess that such a pollution is more abhorred by a Christian, than all the torments and deaths you can heap upon her. But do your worst, and rack your inventions for tortures for Christians, ‘Tis all to no purpose; you do but attract the notice of the world, and make it fall the more in love with our religion. The more you mow us down, the thicker we spring up--the Christian blood you spill, is like the seed you sow; it springs from the earth again and fructifies the more. [I]That which you reproach in us as stubbornness, has been the most instructive mistress in proselyting the world--for who has not been struck with the sight of what you call stubbornness, and from thence prompted to look into the reality and grounds of it; and whoever looked well into our religion that did not embrace it? and whoever embraced it [on proper grounds] that was not ready to die for it? For this reason it is that we thank you for condemning us, because there is such a happy variance and disagreement between the Divine and human judgment, that when you condemn us upon earth, God absolves us in heaven." Haweis’s Church History Maybe the most compelling statement to the antiquity of the Baptists comes from the testimony of Doctors A. Ypeij and J. J. Dermout, Chaplain to the King of Holland. They were commissioned in 1819 to prepare a history of the Dutch Reformed Church. This work was prepared under royal sanction, and officially published by the government for the King of Holland. I learned this as a young man and began to look for the reasons they made this official statement with such clarity:

"We have now seen that the Baptists, who were formerly called Anabaptists were the original Waldenses. On this account, the Baptists may be considered as the only religious community which has stood since the days of the apostles, and as a Christian society which has preserved pure the doctrines of the gospel through all ages. The perfectly correct external and internal economy of the Baptist denomination tends to confirm the truth, disputed by the Romish Church, that the Reformation brought about in the sixteenth century was in the highest degree necessary, and at the same time goes to refute the erroneous notion of the Catholics, that their denomination is the most ancient." I've already covered Tertullian and the second century church quite a bit in this thread. Maybe it is best to begin again starting with the third century. The name given to one of the third century churches which I assert are part of the Baptist line is the Donatists. Donatus was the pastor of the Church at Carthage (306AD) and this group was named because of him as when these congregations were named by their most outspoken pastors. The distinctives of this church same as the rest were a constitutional government with no outside offical over the congregation and Jesus Christ only as its Head. Born again and believers baptism were the requirements for membership. This was known as the "Seperatist" heresy and the heresy of "Open Communion" administered by the pastor. (What we call the Lords Supper)


"Conventicles of this party, where the holy supper was distributed, still remained open, as Cyprian himself gives us to understand. Commodian, who wrote his Christian admonitions at a somewhat later period, considered it needful to combat this separatist tendency." (Neander, vol. I, p. 237).

"With regard to the second main point of controversy, the idea of the church, Novatian maintained that one of the essential marks of a true church being purity and holiness, every church which neglected the right exercise of church discipline, tolerated in its bosom, or readmitted to its communion those guilty of gross sins, ceased, by that very act, to be a true Christian Church. Novatian laid at the basis of his theory the visible church as a pure and holy one." (Neander, p. 248).
I'll post more when time allows on this century. Church in the morning and I need to study.

RSiscoe
Jan 14th 2007, 02:35 PM
Never once have I mentioned why I titled this thread "Those Hard Headed Baptists". It was mainly because of a letter Tertullian wrote to ask the Emperor of Rome to stop cutting our heads off. One particular paragraph made me think of many a hard headed preacher and how blount they can be when needed:

That was a great quote from Tertullian. A portion of that quote is referred to quite often, even in our days. It is the part where he speaks of the mratyrs as being "the seeds of the Church".


I've already covered Tertullian and the second century church quite a bit in this thread. Maybe it is best to begin again starting with the third century.

Tertullian is the only early Christian I know of who questioned infant baptism. He didn't reject it. Here merely said that it "may" be best to delay it. When you read the writing where he discusses this, it's obvious that infant baptism was the common practice of his day. He even speaks of the "sponsors" - that is, those who "stand in the place" of the child and agree to raise those who are baptized as children in the Christian faith. This practice of "sponsors" for those who are baptised shows that infant baptism was a common practice if his day, which was the late 100's to early 200's. If infant baptism was not a practice of that day, there would have been no reason for sponsors "to stand in their place". Tertullian is the only early Christian I know of who even questioning delaying baptism for children; and it is evident from the writing in question that infant baptism was a common practice of his day. Yet he never says those who were baptized as infants should be rebaptized as adults. He merely questions whether it is best to delay baptism, since the "sponsors" don't know if the child will grow up and depart from the faith, thus hindering them to keep their promise.


The name given to one of the third century churches which I assert are part of the Baptist line is the Donatists. Donatus was the pastor of the Church at Carthage (306AD) and this group was named because of him as when these congregations were named by their most outspoken pastors.

Yes, I am familiar with the Donatists. I provided a quote earlier from St. Augustine, in which he is arguing against them.

The Donatists believed in apostolic succession, and their Bishops did have documentable and unquestioned succession from the apostles. If you are not familiar with apostolic succession, is the unbroken line of Bishops beginning with the apostles and perpetuating down through the centuries in an unbroken line. The first Bishops in the line were the apostles, who were ordained by Jesus personally. The apostles then personally ordained others to carry on in their stead or to rule newly converted areas. These Bishops did the same and so on, which has continued without interruption to this day. This is something that Baptists neither have, nor claim. The other doctrinal teachings of the Donatists were also quite different than the Baptists of day. For one, they did not reject infant baptism.

I don't know of any similarities between the Donatists and the Baptists of today. The Donatists were basically doctrinal Catholics who were in schism. They refuse to accept any person who, through weakness, gave into the unjust edict of Diocletian or any of the other Emporers. The first edict (A.D. 303) commanded the Christian Churches to be destroyed, and their Scriptures and sacred Books to be delivered up and burnt. The persecution became more severe when the 4th edict was isued in the year 304, which commanded the Christians to offer incense to the idols under pain of death.

Those who, through weakness, gave in to one or more of the unjust edicts, yet who later repented for what they had done, were not received by the Donatists. The Donatists believed that this was too serious a crime and would not accept them. That is the distinguishing characteristic of the Donatist schism.

You said that early Christian groups were often named after their most outspoken preacher. For the record, I believe that the early groups were named after certain men, not because they were the most outspoken preacher, but because they were the heretic or schismatic that originated the group. Thus the Arians, who denied that Jesus was God, were named after Arius; the Nestorians were named after Nestorious; the Pelagians were named after Pelagius, etc. St. Augustine has an interesting book titled Christian Combat, in which he lists all the heresies of his day.


I'll post more when time allows on this century. Church in the morning and I need to study.

OK, no rush. We can discuss one doctrine at a time if you'd like. You can choose the doctrine. But remember, I give almost no weight to what is written in a history book. I don't even give much weight to the history books that are written to defend what I believe. Unfortunately, I have seen far too many errors and obvious bias in history books, especially when the history written is Ecclesiastical.

Why waste our time with history books that may present distorted or wrong information when we can read the actual documents ourselves? When these documents were not readily available, people may have been slaves to history books, but that's not the case today. It is just as easy for us to read the actual documents as it is to read a history book. The history books I use are books that contain the writings of the Church fathers... and they are pretty interesting to read. Actually, they are very interesting to read.

Think about it, we are reading documents written in the earliest years of the Church, at a time when the Christians were being fed to the lyons. Cyprian, who I have quotes, and St. Ignatiuis of Antioch, were both martyred by being fed to the lyons.

So, if you have any historical documents that confirm what you are saying, please provide them as evidence and I'll do the same. Because, after all, everyone "claims" that the early Christians believed what they do (even the JW's who I used to spend hours with each Saturday on my front porch), but who can produce the historical evidence to support it?

That is what you and I should attempt to do. If we make a claim about the early Church, let us try to justify it with writings from that time. We owe it to each other to provide actual documentation to support what we are saying, rather than the writings of men a thousand years later that makes an unsubstantiated claim.

The Parson
Jan 14th 2007, 10:11 PM
You said that early Christian groups were often named after their most outspoken preacher. For the record, I believe that the early groups were named after certain men, not because they were the most outspoken preacher, but because they were the heretic or schismatic that originated the group. Thus the Arians, who denied that Jesus was God, were named after Arius; the Nestorians were named after Nestorious; the Pelagians were named after Pelagius, etc. St. Augustine has an interesting book titled Christian Combat, in which he lists all the heresies of his day.Basically, that is the gist of the premise.

Now sir, to discount historians for the sake of their not having a first hand account is wrong in my book and is also the same scientific method that I was at odds with one other brother over in this and simular threads. Before I continue on with the conversation the slightest way you are wanting to head, I think it fair to ask your background in church history as I have definatly shared my own.

And to add insult to injury, early Baptist writings are scant because of the very fact of near extermination by the Roman authorities over the first three centuries as you have already said. And then later on by the papal powers that be. In our own courts of law, trials are conducted by testamony and our history over the years is from a continued testamony. When dealing with the disipline of the church, before the person to whom charges are laid against, there must also be the testamony of two or more witnesses. Matthew 18:16. And these firsthand accounts of the early Baptists are no different as the eye witness has passed it on to inform the next and then the nexe, and so on... Question, You wouldn't discount Eusebius (265-399 AD), would you?

ChristusRex
Jan 14th 2007, 10:18 PM
Basically, that is the gist of the premise.

Now sir, to discount historians for the sake of their not having a first hand account is wrong in my book and is also the same scientific method that I was at odds with one other brother over in this and simular threads. Before I continue on with the conversation the slightest way you are wanting to head, I think it fair to ask your background in church history as I have definatly shared my own.

And to add insult to injury, early Baptist writings are scant because of the very fact of near extermination by the Roman authorities over the first three centuries as you have already said. And then later on by the papal powers that be. In our own courts of law, trials are conducted by testamony and our history over the years is from a continued testamony. When dealing with the disipline of the church, before the person to whom charges are laid against, there must also be the testamony of two or more witnesses. Matthew 18:16. And these firsthand accounts of the early Baptists are no different as the eye witness has passed it on to inform the next and then the nexe, and so on... Question, You wouldn't discount Eusebius (265-399 AD), would you?

I am about to start Eusebius's book.

Are you saying he was a Baptist?

The Parson
Jan 14th 2007, 10:24 PM
I am about to start Eusebius's book.

Are you saying he was a Baptist?
No CR, just asking if he was to be discounted.

RSiscoe
Jan 14th 2007, 11:47 PM
Now sir, to discount historians for the sake of their not having a first hand account is wrong in my book and is also the same scientific method that I was at odds with one other brother over in this and simular threads. Before I continue on with the conversation the slightest way you are wanting to head, I think it fair to ask your background in church history as I have definatly shared my own.

The most meritorious studies I have had in Church history came by reading the writings of the early Church fathers for myself. I have read history books, like most people have, but I have found that reading the historical documents provides an unbiased view of the times, and I personally find them much more interesting than a history book. What I found very interesting is how united they were in their belief, and how sinlessly they were during the early years.


Question, You wouldn't discount Eusebius (265-399 AD), would you?

No I wouldn't discout Eusebius' writing because he lived so close to the times. I have read parts of Eusebius' history in the past, but am going to re-read the entire work beginning now. Maybe we can start another thread to discuss it.

In case you don't have the book, here's a link to the entire work: http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/TOC.htm

The Parson
Jan 15th 2007, 02:57 AM
The most meritorious studies I have had in Church history came by reading the writings of the early Church fathers for myself. I have read history books, like most people have, but I have found that reading the historical documents provides an unbiased view of the times, and I personally find them much more interesting than a history book. What I found very interesting is how united they were in their belief, and how sinlessly they were during the early years.

No I wouldn't discout Eusebius' writing because he lived so close to the times. I have read parts of Eusebius' history in the past, but am going to re-read the entire work beginning now. Maybe we can start another thread to discuss it.

In case you don't have the book, here's a link to the entire work: http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/TOC.htmThanks for the link but I believe I have access to the work... And to be blount, we will continue to use both the quotes from original sources and historians accounts in this thread.

Hey, I found something here that may interest you folks. It was said that the Donatists did practice Infant-Baptism. Interesting because there is proof that this wasn't the norm with the Donatists in the 3rd century. Augustine wrote a paper called "On Baptism, Against the Donatists," where he says, "And if any one seek divine authority in this matter, although, what the whole church holds, not as instituted by councils, but as a thing always observed, is rightly held to have been handed down by apostolical authority." (Patrol. Lat., vol. xlii. p. 174, Migne Parisiis.) This book was written directly against the views on believers baptism held by the Donatists and was intended to correct them on the subject. He also admits that some of them doubted the divine authority of infant baptism, and tries to justify it by argueing that it is the same as circumcision. That's just plumb silly... Who would argue that because it is two distinctly different covenants? I believe however that pedo-baptism was Augustines pet sacrament from most of his writings.

I knew I had seen this before because I was involved in this same discussion with a papist aquaintance from Rome over the same subject back in the 90's. I had met him years before when I lived in LaMaddelina, Sardenia. I wish I had of saved those emails. There was quite a bit of research and the conversation nearly took a year before he finally got mad, called me a heretical hard head, and stopped emailing me. Thought ya'll might be interested...

Somewhere in this thread it was also mentioned that these early Baptists didn't believe in the Trinity. Please, everybody read what I am about to write very carefully. Otherwise there may be some misunderstanding. They didn't believe in the "Trinity" the way the Roman church did. That trinity, as the 4th century Catholics believed wasn't considered the Godhead that the Baptists believed in but was derived from pagan Babylonian & Egyption trinities. These early Baptists did believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, these Three being One, but did not use the word Trinity in any language because of the belief of the Roman church but used the word Godhead. And yes they believed that Jesus, being 100% God was also 100% man and complete in the Godhead fully. The same as the Protestants believe now. It was simply the nomenclature.

Breathe easy my dear Catholic friends, I don't intend to quote Jack Chick in this thread... I love brother Jack, but to be frank, he is as subtile as a chain saw...:D

punk
Jan 15th 2007, 03:13 AM
It occurred to me the other day that this infant versus adult baptism issue is being argued from the standpoint of a society in which infant mortality is very very low.

Infant baptism started in societies where infant mortality was quite high and any person who lived to adulthooded could reasonably expect that there would be an infant death somewhere in the not too extended family during their lifetime.

Let's all imagine we are the new parents of an infant in a society where there is a very good chance that the infant will die while still quite young. Would we not wish to provide for that child what little we can? Would we not wish that even if we couldn't preserve its life here we could provide something in the world to come?

The philosophical niceties of baptism can easily be lost on parents grieving over a dead child, and the consolation of a baptism can easily outweigh all the sermons on spiritual adulthood and accountability.

Let's not be too quick to condemn pastors caring for the well-being of their flock in the face of harsh "facts on the ground".

pnewton
Jan 15th 2007, 03:28 AM
It occurred to me the other day that this infant versus adult baptism issue is being argued from the standpoint of a society in which infant mortality is very very low.
Interestingly enough one or the early baptism arguements was over whether one had to wait eight days before baptism, as on did for circumcision. This being a result of the Jewish heritage of early Christians.

punk
Jan 15th 2007, 03:41 AM
As an aside there is a very beautiful medieval English poem called "Pearl" written by a grieving father about his daughter who had died quite young and certain theological and philosophical takes on his coming to terms with the event.

With some effort it isn't too hard to get through the Middle English, but there are translations as well.

It might be interesting to read in conjunction with thought about infant baptism related to the issue of infant mortality.

The Parson
Jan 15th 2007, 03:54 AM
As an aside there is a very beautiful medieval English poem called "Pearl" written by a grieving father about his daughter who had died quite young and certain theological and philosophical takes on his coming to terms with the event.

With some effort it isn't too hard to get through the Middle English, but there are translations as well.

It might be interesting to read in conjunction with thought about infant baptism related to the issue of infant mortality.You ought to post it here Punk. Love to read it. I have no problem with the Middle English.

punk
Jan 15th 2007, 04:04 AM
You ought to post it here Punk. Love to read it. I have no problem with the Middle English.

It's about 40 pages long, so I wont. :D

pnewton
Jan 15th 2007, 04:12 AM
This thread sure brings back the memories. Since the title is about hard-headed Baptists, I guess I won't mind posting and being hard-headed. We I attended an SBC college and seminary and remember studying Carroll's Trail of Blood theory. It didn't take long to realize that there were many problems with it. For one, he used a quote of Cardinal Hosius from the Council of Trent which has never appeared anywhere outside of Baptist Trail of Blood writings. It surely is not in any Council of Trent documents. Also, many of the religious groups he strung together have no historical connection. The doctrine between these groups (as appears in the chart above) differs greatly and has little to do with modern Baptists. The early groups especially seemed more infused with a gnostic style dualism than a Baptist theology. This is okay for Eastern mysticism but has no place in Christianity.

I have not revisited this topic in many years and I am so hard-headed that I doubt I will change unless some new historical evidence comes to light from an unbiased (non-Baptist) source. I do not worry to much about it though. Of all the Baptist ministers and ministers to be that I went to school with, I never met one of that diverse lot that bought into Trail of Blood.

ChristusRex
Jan 15th 2007, 04:16 AM
Breathe easy my dear Catholic friends, I don't intend to quote Jack Chick in this thread... I love brother Jack, but to be frank, he is as subtile as a chain saw...:D

Can I please ask what you mean by this?

The Parson
Jan 15th 2007, 04:27 AM
This thread sure brings back the memories. Since the title is about hard-headed Baptists, I guess I won't mind posting and being hard-headed. We I attended an SBC college and seminary and remember studying Carroll's Trail of Blood theory. It didn't take long to realize that there were many problems with it. For one, he used a quote of Cardinal Hosius from the Council of Trent which has never appeared anywhere outside of Baptist Trail of Blood writings. It surely is not in any Council of Trent documents. Also, many of the religious groups he strung together have no historical connection. The doctrine between these groups (as appears in the chart above) differs greatly and has little to do with modern Baptists. The early groups especially seemed more infused with a gnostic style dualism than a Baptist theology. This is okay for Eastern mysticism but has no place in Christianity.

I have not revisited this topic in many years and I am so hard-headed that I doubt I will change unless some new historical evidence comes to light from an unbiased (non-Baptist) source. I do not worry to much about it though. Of all the Baptist ministers and ministers to be that I went to school with, I never met one of that diverse lot that bought into Trail of Blood.
Those Housius quotes were substantiated in the 60's as part of the communications between Housius and his superiors at the Vatican. Interestingly enough, once this was discovered, that set of letters was put into private archives at the Vatican and there was no longer a way to deny or authenticate. Very conveinient to say the least PNewton. I tried to get a look at the collection in the 1970's and couldn't even get past the front door. My wife and I did enjoy the visit to Rome though.

And those charges about gnosticism brought through the centuries had pro and con arguements historically. Your viewpoint reflects the modernistic aspect that I also came across at Carson Newman a couple of decades ago. Most commonly in the Southern Baptist circles. If you haven't already, please do me a favor and read the entire thread before making such statements. OK? This thread was made to give an understanding from the historic Baptists perspective and was made after several requests to do so.

The Parson
Jan 15th 2007, 04:33 AM
Can I please ask what you mean by this?
You've never heard of Jack Chick and Chick Tracts? http://www.chick.com If there is ever a renewed inquisition, Jack will probably be at the top of the list. CR. That's surprising you haven't heard of him.

ChristusRex
Jan 15th 2007, 04:39 AM
You've never heard of Jack Chick and Chick Tracts? http://www.chick.com If there is ever a renewed inquisition, Jack will probably be at the top of the list. CR. That's surprising you haven't heard of him.


I am a Catholic who live in the South/"Bible Belt" please beleive me I have heard of him.

I ment when you said you loved him, do you mean in a Christain sense, or do you mean you admire/condone what he does and writes?

The Parson
Jan 15th 2007, 04:41 AM
PNewton, if I seemed course in the last post to you, please forgive that. From my perspective, even the ones who should be open to our ancient history seem to be ignoring it. Again from my view point that is one more step towards ecumenicalism... Sorry.

The Parson
Jan 15th 2007, 04:43 AM
I am a Catholic who live in the South/"Bible Belt" please beleive me I have heard of him.

I ment when you said you loved him, do you mean in a Christain sense, or do you mean you admire/condone what he does and writes?I love him as a brother CR and do not disagree with very much that he has uncovered. I do not however, agree with his approach.

ChristusRex
Jan 15th 2007, 04:50 AM
I love him as a brother CR and do not disagree with very much that he has uncovered. I do not however, agree with his approach.

You beleive that the Catholic Church has a super computer with the names of protestants on it, were behind the Holocause, and the rise of Islam, have Jesuit Preists infilitrate protestant congregations, worship mary and the saints and are damned to hell without a doubtet etc ?

Flutecrafter
Jan 15th 2007, 05:19 AM
You beleive that the Catholic Church has a super computer with the names of protestants on it, were behind the Holocause, and the rise of Islam, have Jesuit Preists infilitrate protestant congregations, worship mary and the saints and are damned to hell without a doubtet etc ?
like most folks, Jack gets some things right, and some things wrong.
he puts out some good stuff and some that is not..
sort of like most publishers.

The Parson
Jan 15th 2007, 05:22 AM
You beleive that the Catholic Church has a super computer with the names of protestants on it, were behind the Holocause, and the rise of Islam, have Jesuit Preists infilitrate protestant congregations, worship mary and the saints and are damned to hell without a doubtet etc ?Super Computer? Have no idea.
Holocaust? Have no idea.
Jesuit Preists infiltrating? It could happen but really have no idea.
Worship Mary? Yes, I believe they do.
Damned to Hell? Not if they accept the Lord Jesus Christ as their Savior.

Flutecrafter
Jan 15th 2007, 05:25 AM
Those Housius quotes were substantiated in the 60's as part of the communications between Housius and his superiors at the Vatican. Interestingly enough, once this was discovered, that set of letters was put into private archives at the Vatican and there was no longer a way to deny or authenticate. Very conveinient to say the least PNewton. I tried to get a look at the collection in the 1970's and couldn't even get past the front door. My wife and I did enjoy the visit to Rome though.

60's... that would have been about the time... I'll have to go see if I still
have that book... I think it was by Bro Byers... used to be with
Bearing Precious Seed before he went on to heaven..
I think that was about the right timeframe he was writing in..
and the first place I saw some of these men mentioned.

Thanks for mentioning it, I haven't thought of him in ages..

mark

The Parson
Jan 15th 2007, 05:29 AM
60's... that would have been about the time... I'll have to go see if I still
have that book... I think it was by Bro Byers... used to be with
Bearing Precious Seed before he went on to heaven..
I think that was about the right timeframe he was writing in..
and the first place I saw some of these men mentioned.

Thanks for mentioning it, I haven't thought of him in ages..

markHey great Mark. It would be appreciated.

The Parson
Jan 15th 2007, 05:35 AM
It's about 40 pages long, so I wont. :DYou got it online Punk???

pnewton
Jan 15th 2007, 05:36 AM
PNewton, if I seemed course in the last post to you, please forgive that. .
Not at all. I saw no problem as long as you realize that reading about half the thread over about 30 minutes was all I could devote to a topic I studied long ago in much greater detail than this thread could provide. I accept your criticism of SBC schools, especially in the 70's and 80's as valid. (Fortunately, I ran in rather conservative circles.) It might surprise you to know that this is an area of commonality between almost all denominations. I am speaking of the influx of humanism and lideral theology into seminaries. In fact, you might have more in common with some of the conservative Catholic theologians than some of the further out Baptist ones.

ChristusRex
Jan 15th 2007, 05:59 AM
Not at all. I saw no problem as long as you realize that reading about half the thread over about 30 minutes was all I could devote to a topic I studied long ago in much greater detail than this thread could provide. I accept your criticism of SBC schools, especially in the 70's and 80's as valid. (Fortunately, I ran in rather conservative circles.) It might surprise you to know that this is an area of commonality between almost all denominations. I am speaking of the influx of humanism and lideral theology into seminaries. In fact, you might have more in common with some of the conservative Catholic theologians than some of the further out Baptist ones.

Were you raised Baptist?

My history teacher was daughter of some important member of the southren Baptist movement(the one that split with Jim Hones)

pnewton
Jan 15th 2007, 06:23 AM
Were you raised Baptist?

My history teacher was daughter of some important member of the southren Baptist movement(the one that split with Jim Hones) Oh yes. I attended everytime the door opened growing up. I studied at a Baptist college and seminary and was ordained in '82. We had all sorts of fun controversies in out schools back then, as Parson pointed out. My background is part of the reason I enjoy it here so much.

punk
Jan 15th 2007, 06:25 AM
You got it online Punk???

I can only find a pure Middle English text without annotation online.

For what it's worth:

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/AnoPear.html

The Parson
Jan 15th 2007, 07:26 AM
No I wouldn't discout Eusebius' writing because he lived so close to the times. I have read parts of Eusebius' history in the past, but am going to re-read the entire work beginning now. Maybe we can start another thread to discuss it.If you do open a thread on the subject, PM me where and it's name. I'd like to participate

The Parson
Jan 15th 2007, 08:08 PM
Returning to the beginning of the thread, the sources that are rejected are from the 20th-21st century where written history seems to have been altered and rewritten. If you will look through the earlier beginnings of this thread you will find where that premise was set. If you are to quote sources, please be pre 1920's if you will RSiscoe. Anything past that point used as a reference will quite frankly be ignored.

Seems in our modernism we forget that those before us were closer to the history written.

The Parson
Jan 15th 2007, 11:46 PM
Actually I was hoping you too would bring out Eusebius. By doing so I can demonstrate that very bias you were asking me about earlier in the thread. Eusebius was the historian for Rome and reflected strictly the biased charges that were charged against whoever was against the church of Rome. The largest problem really with Novation wasn't that he was actually guilty of the charges persae, that was leived against him and the peoples who followed him and his collegues. It was that he was totally anti-romish trend so to speak. As I have said before, our history is quite often chronicaled by our accusers...


"They say Novatian was the first antipope; yet there was at that time no pope in the modern sense of the word 'pope.' They call Novatian the 'author of the heresy of Puritanism;' yet they know that Tertullian had quitted the church nearly fifty years before for the same reason; and Privatus, who was an old man in the time of Novatian, had, with several more, repeatedly remonstrated against the alterations taking place; and as they could get no redress, they had dissented and formed separate congregations. They tax Novatian with being the parent of an innumerable multitude of congregations of Puritans all over the empire, yet he had no other influence over any than what his good example gave him. People everywhere saw the same cause of complaint, and groaned for relief; and when one man made a stand for virtue, the crises had arrived. People saw the propriety of the cure and applied the same means to their own relief." (See Robinson's "Ecclesiastical Researches, (1792)" page 126; Jones, page 181). Yet when researched, Mosheim found a quite different description of these people.
"They considered the Christian church as a society where virtue and innocence reigned universally and none of whose members, from their entrance into it, had defiled themselves with any enormous crimes; and, in consequence, they looked upon every society which readmitted heinous offenders to its communion as unworthy of the title of a true Christian church. For that reason, also, they assumed the title 'Cathari' - i.e., the pure; and, what showed a still more extravagant degree of vanity and arrogance, they obliged such as came over to them from the general body of Christians to submit to be baptized a second time as a necessary preparation for entering into their society," (Mosheim Histories, Volume I, page 96).Question, would you consider Mosheim biased also?

punk
Jan 16th 2007, 05:00 PM
So as I see it we have arrived at the perfect post-modern moment:

-Every source has a bias so any part of the source can be rejected...everyone has an agenda

There is no (historical) truth.

I must say, I never expected to find post-modernism among baptists. ;)

Parson: Are you a Landmarkist? Or is that a different group?

Flutecrafter
Jan 16th 2007, 08:19 PM
I must say, I never expected to find post-modernism among baptists. ;)
only found amongst the Baptists that choose to believe they are Protestants... :rofl:

Regretably, the book I was refering earlier to only touched upon the
ana-baptist's history, and covered much the same ground that Parson
has already brought forth.
I'll have to look around to see if I have one of his books that dealt
with this issue more fully.


mark

threebigrocks
Jan 17th 2007, 11:09 PM
Effective tomorrow morning I will reopen this study on Baptist history.:)

Please keep it on track everyone. A good discussion and questions are very welcome, but all other comment ought to be addressed in another way - either PM's or start another thread in the appropriate forum.

Happy posting!

The Parson
Jan 18th 2007, 03:50 AM
Well OK, sorry about the thread closing but our moderator thought it was necessary to get it back on track. I do not disagree with her and thank her for being so on top of the situation. Many of my posts are deleted also including one where I was getting aggrivated and made a snide remark about fairplay. For that I am sorry.

Now to restate the purpose of this thread as the OP, questions are allowed even from an opposing side. However, there will not be any side tracking the thread with defence for or against pedo-baptism, Roman Catholic dogmas or doctrines, alternate historical theories concerning methodology of the histories given, etc... Histories that defend an alternate stance which fall between 100 and the 1920's AD are fine.(1) Please do not refer to historian accounts as hearsay unless you are able to give an exact reason and show that these historians were aware they were giving an account that was meerly legend. (2) These historians quoted should receive the respect they deserve as scholars and not assume they were writing something just because somebody else told them what to write. Give them the benefit of the doubt that the posterity they received was from indepth research that they were educated to perform. That included Eusebius. However, if you feel the historian was biased, please give a logical reason for feeling that way and the evidence will be weighed accordingly. (3)

Quotes given for the alternate stance from historical sources relating to the histories given are also allowed but limited to the rules set down by our Moderators. In this thread and the area it is in, I am not a moderator in this section of the board, nor will I try to preform the postion of a moderator in this thread, but will speak out only when the intent of the thread is being diverted again.

(1) It has already been shown that post 1920's accounts have mainly reversed somehow because of obfusication and can be referenced in the earlier portions of this thread without any real reason given by these modern writers.
(2) Most all historians will give reasons in the form of sources in their works as to where their information came from. This is the rule of a historian that anything unsubstantiated should be refered to as such.
(3) If it can be plainly seen that a historical writer is giving only one side of a history, that writers work would be considered biased although the circumstances of what he is chronicaling must not be ignored unless refuted by one or more historical source/sources.

The Parson
Jan 18th 2007, 04:00 AM
Parson: Are you a Landmarkist? Or is that a different group?
The term is "Landmarker" or "Landmark Baptist" punk. No, I am a Missionary Baptist. The Landmarkers today are known also as the Soveriegn Grace Baptists and many are also Baptist Briders who believe that they are the only true New Testament Church. The Landmark movement started in the 1840's or so and was one of the reasons for a major split of the Baptist Brethren. They are a Calvinistic minority however. I'm going to post a section from "The Almost Forgotten Church" which will answer many questions some of you may have. I'm still writing the book so parts are incomplete with a few other groups missing.



Chapter #2

What Are We Called Today?


Baptists (Missionary Baptists)
We now want to examine the different sects of the Baptists that exist today. I tend to stay in the Americas with this particular history because the majority of Baptists are located here these days for religious freedoms sake. It is interesting to note that these sects didn't exist until certain changes started showing up in doctrine and polity.

Originally in the America's, Baptists were known just by the name. Then, in a great push in the later part of the 17th century, some of the brethren coined the name Missionary Baptists because of the many missions that were supported by the individual churches of the day.

It is interesting to note that all Baptist churches of that day were independent in their missionary efforts and their church government. It would also be safe to say that unless a congregation is independent in missions (deciding on the dispersal of missionary funds, cooperative or not), and government (constitutional & congregational) with Christ as their only head, they would not be worthy to be called Baptist. It is impossible to be a Baptist congregation by definition without being independent in these ways.

Southern Baptists (1845)
I think its is very important to mention the name used by the largest division of Baptists today. That term or name is Southern Baptist and are a culmination for the most part of those who formerly were known as Missionary Baptists. There are many who say that the creation of the Southern Baptist Convention came into being from a split over the slavery issue. I don't doubt that for a minute even though it wasn't the only reason.

Now, from most available writings and documents you will note that this term is merely a shortening of the name Southern Missionary Baptist. In originality it was never a sect but a descriptive term used to identify those Missionary Baptists located in the Southeastern United States. The term Southern Baptist has been used since the 1820's but few forgot the missionary part of this description. It wasn't until the 1920's when the cooperative program was born that ironically the "Missionary" was dropped to give the Southern Baptist name. Go figure.

Southern Missionary Baptist Churches, for the most part are sister churches with quite a bit of diversity, ie.. differing bible versions, progressive modernistic beliefs, old time conservitive beliefs, formal, non formal, etc., who are totally autonomous but have joined together with one goal. That goal is to have reached the lost with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

However, to call an individual church a "Southern Baptist Church" is to me a misnomer. Southern Baptist has become a denominational name yet, quite frankly, this can't be because of the diversity of the sister churches which belong to the association. Here then, is how I understand the original premise of the association:
An association by definition would be a group of sister (like minded) churches, who are totally autonomous, with Christ as their only head, joining together for a common goal, (missions) where the association itself answers directly to the majority of the votes from its associates. The autonomy would then remain in the hands of the individual congregations who choose to associate in such a way and dictate to the association by majority vote. Therefore, not a denomination but an association.
If the Southern Baptist Convention were a "denomination", the administration of that association would then need to be a totally autonomous group dictating to the churches themselves. This would make them no different from the protestant congregations which operate under counsels and synods. As I pointed out earlier, we are not Protestant. I hope it never comes to that but I fear it soon will. Some local associations have already claimed autonomy from their member churches.American Baptists Incomplete

Northern Baptists Incomplete

Sovereign Grace Baptists (1850's)
Their first appearance was connected to the acceptance of a protestant teaching called Calvinism in some of the churches although there were some churches with Calvinist doctrines all the way to the 1600's. This was the most destructive doctrine ever known to the Missionary minded Baptist churches in the America's. Mind you, this same problem arose in our sister churches in Europe before the beginning of the 19th century. In short and to simplify, Calvinism in some of the Baptist churches became known as the Sovereign Grace Teachings. There were some that maintained that God will only choose a certain number to be saved. Anyone not chosen by God to be saved were just out of the Grace loop of God.

Heated debates over this teaching split the Southern Baptist Convention asunder to form the American Baptist Association in the early 1900's. Not trying to rekindle an old argument but, didn't Jesus say: John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Self named Landmarkers, these brethren are also avid church historians. Some have called them "Trail of Blood brethren" after the popular lectures by J.M. Carroll in the 1920's. This issue, loving history myself, is one of the few things I have in common with these brethren. All too many times we have forgotten that Foxes Book of Martyrs is full of our early brethren being the main target at Catholic heretic hunts. When the president of the Counsel of Trent, Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius, noted in the 1540's that we had "been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years", he wasn't just whistling Dixie folks...

Many of the Sovereign Grace (Landmark) churches are part of the American Baptists Association or independent, same as the Missionary Baptists.

Fundamental Baptists (1920's)
The second major change took place in the late 1920's with the fundamentalist movement. Names like Amzi C. Dixon in the southern U.S. and William B. Riley in the north were preaching against liberal ideals that had crept into the various Baptist associations and advocated a separatist view not dissimilar to the Mennonite movement of the 1520's. Their main thrust was the tenuous focus on a branch of eschatology known as Premillennialism and a doctrine called Dispensationalism introduced by Clarence Larkin & Cyrus Ingerson Scofield. There is further evidence of an earlier study of the Pre-Tribulational doctrine dated 1742-44 (.)

The church government in many of the Fundamentalist churches are a bit different as opposed to the original in that pastoral authority is stressed to a major degree. This means that the actual practice is done with variations or combinations of pastoral, deacon, and congregational input, and decision- making. Some of them are basically totalitarian in form, with the pastor making the majority of the decisions - in every area of the church ministry; other pastors want some input from the deacons before decisions are made - and they will still make all, or most, of the final decisions; and, there are many also, that are much more truly congregational in that the Church Body makes many decisions through voting. These variations will often change from pastor to pastor, depending primarily on what they were used to, or were taught, and the different schools they attended, or through the pastors that may have trained them.

The Separated Brethren (1960's)
Fundamentalism had already established itself in the Southern U.S. by the 1960's and there was defiantly at this time an unrest among the southern missionary Baptist churches over some of the transactions/investments made by the Southern Baptist Convention which were questionable. Monies are reported to have been invested in tenement/slum properties in major cities in the U.S. Also the issue of the newest Bible version, the NIV were in hot debate.

Instead of remaining in what was starting to look like a liberal organization, these churches removed themselves from the cooperative program and started to embrace the Fundamentalist views and teachings. Yet, in church organization/government (constitutional) and style of worship these brethren are almost indistinguishable from their associated Missionary Baptist sister churches today.
I'll continue the history shortly folks...

Frances
Jan 18th 2007, 06:06 PM
There is a 'Grace' Baptist church in this town who have recently aquired a new Pastor who was converted in a Pentecostal church. While they were considering several men for their new Pastor (the former one retired early with Brain cancer) I asked what particularly they were looking for. . . and was told 'definately of the Reformed faith'. Does that mean Calvinism? and if so, what exactly does that mean? Their new Pastor is very evangelistic.

StarscreamX-2
Jan 18th 2007, 07:19 PM
Neat study Parson...

I happen to be of the Independant Fundemental Baptist branch.....

The Parson
Jan 18th 2007, 07:26 PM
There is a 'Grace' Baptist church in this town who have recently aquired a new Pastor who was converted in a Pentecostal church. While they were considering several men for their new Pastor (the former one retired early with Brain cancer) I asked what particularly they were looking for. . . and was told 'definately of the Reformed faith'. Does that mean Calvinism? and if so, what exactly does that mean? Their new Pastor is very evangelistic.In quite a few cases it does. Landmark Baptists don't stop preaching. They believe that the preaching of the man of God awaikens the called to salvation. I think it was Charles Haddon Spurgeon who said: Imagine a sign on a building that is labeled "Who so ever". When the whosoever enter they see another sign that says "Welcome to the Elect". Or something like that, they believe they don't know who the elect are until they respond to the invitation.

My belief is that Whosoever means Whosoever. The Landmarkers however do not.

The Parson
Jan 18th 2007, 07:27 PM
Neat study Parson...

I happen to be of the Independant Fundemental Baptist branch.....Glad to have you here. Input if you want and ask whenever you need to.

The Parson
Jan 18th 2007, 10:17 PM
This is a repost made that was the finishing of Century three:

So that we can move on into the progression of the centuries, I want to quote a small chapter from a book called "Where did the Baptists come from" by S. H. Ford (1850's) http://parsonscorner.org/newpcim/bapfrom.htm




CHAPTER XIII
Century Three
Novations

Donatus was elected pastor of the Church at Carthage in the year 306. It was at that great crisis in the conflict between Christianity and Paganism, when the prestige and power of Constantine decided the religion of the Roman empire, and crushed out all independence and spirituality from those societies which were absorbed in the universal, or Catholic Church. But years before the rise of the Donatists, a class of men existed who had separated themselves from the worldly churches around them, and had long stood on the same ground now occupied by the Donatists. Similar in their principles, they were soon merged in them, and received their name; but before that movement they were known by other names, borrowed from the localities where they withdrew from the dominant parties, or, from some distinguished pastor among them.


We have found them before spread over Italy, Greece, and Asia. Among other epithets they were called Novatians. Some of these people were in Carthage up to the year 254, one Florentius Papianus, who having maintained a good confession under the pains of torture, stood in high authority as a martyr, asserted that "he was at a loss to say what he would not part with, sooner than enter into terms of fellowship with Cyprian, then bishop of the Church at Carthage."

Neander continues:


"Conventicles of this party, where the holy supper was distributed, still remained open, as Cyprian himself gives us to understand. Commodian, who wrote his Christian admonitions at a somewhat later period, considered it needful to combat this separatist tendency." (Neander, vol. I, p. 237).

So that there were those in Africa long before the Donatists, who held the same principles, separated from the majority, and contended for independent and spiritual churches. But these were linked in the more general separation, and were consequently lost in the great movement which occurred in Italy in the early part of the third century.

NOVATION was a presbyter at Rome. Of his learning and piety there was no question. It has been said that he made a party to gratify his ambition, and because he could not brook a rival. The facts are these: He protested against the lax discipline of the church in the city of Rome. He objected to Cornelius, its pastor; and, with a minority of that church, withdrew, and formed a new church, of which he was elected bishop. Neander says:
"According to the accusations of passionate opponents, we must, indeed, suppose that, in the outset, he was striving from motives of ambition after the Episcopal dignity, and was thence induced to excite these troubles, and throw himself at the head of a party. The accusations of his opponents should not be suffered to embarrass us, for it is the usual custom with the logical polemics to trace schisms to some outward unhallowed motive.
"The contest at Rome, however, had for its main-spring another individual altogether, one Novatus, who belonged, originally, to the Separatists of Africa."Neander continues:
"He was the man whenever he might be at Carthage or at Rome to become the moving spring of agitation, although he placed some one else at the head, and caused everything to move under the name of the latter." (Neander, p. 248).
"The controversy with the Novatian party turned on two general points; one relating to the principle of repentance; the other what constitutes the idea of a true church. On the first point Novatian, doubtless, went to extremes. But Novatus never advocated the absolute rejection of every one that violated his baptismal vows.
"With regard to the second main point of controversy, the idea of the church, Novatian maintained that one of the essential marks of a true church being purity and holiness, every church which neglected the right exercise of church discipline, tolerated in its bosom, or readmitted to its communion those guilty of gross sins, ceased, by that very act, to be a true Christian Church. Novatian laid at the basis of his theory the visible church as a pure and holy one." (Neander, p. 248).Such were the principles of the Separatists of Carthage and Rome in the first great schism, church independence and a spiritual church-membership.

At once the scattered minorities, which had separated from the corrupt majorities, extended fellowship to the independent Church of Novatian and Novatus. They were expelled by the majority parties; but in almost every town and city they flourished in independence, baptizing none but those who gave evidence of renewed hearts, and rebaptizing all who came among them from other organizations.

That all should be called Novatians is easily accounted for. That they should be slandered and vilified by the corruptors of Christianity, might have been expected. But they spread through Europe, through Africa, and Asia. In the mountains of Armenia they still lingered, till the name Donatists was lost in Montenses and Paulicians. In the recesses of the Alps the Novatians (called from the first Puritans) were persecuted as Paterines and Waldenses. Up through the darkness we have traced their crimsoned footprints. We have found them here, in the third century, contending for a pure and independent church, baptized on a profession of faith, and persecuted as Anabaptists. The people called Novatians were Baptists. They may justly be termed another milestone in our upward march. It will again be our inquiry: Where did the Baptists come from?

I don't usually quote in this manner but realized I couldn't have written it any different. In Chapter 14, Ford concludes from many of the quotes I have place in this thread. I can repost them if you desire but do plan on moving into the 4th centuries and beyond.

The Parson
Jan 18th 2007, 10:54 PM
Moving into centuries four and five we can see from the histories that the Donatists carried on into these centuries. Another group which held the same tenants as the Donatists and Cathari were the Numidians , named for the area/sate of Numidia. I think that is the modern area of Libya today. They were later also called Donatists when distinctions were made over their teachings. (Neander, vol. ii, p. 206)(Also by S. H. Ford in his Baptist history)

Below is a summation of the first 5 centuries:

Elder Ariel West, of Texas, prepared the following brief sketch by century of the Baptists through nineteen centuries. - Taken from The Baptists in All Ages, by Elder J. S. Newman.

FIRST CENTURY: There were churches in Asia Minor, Southern Europe and England. They were first called Christians at Antioch. Saul persecuted the churches. Nero and Trajan were emperors of the Roman Empire in this century. Small departures by some were made in the churches.
SECOND CENTURY: Baptists in same countries as first century. Pliny, governor of Bithynia (see Hassell's Church History, page 360). Polycarp was pastor of the Church at Smyrna until his death by burning in about 166 A. D. (see Shackelford, page 54). More departures over a larger territory in this century. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus came to the throne of the Roman Empire.
THIRD CENTURY: Churches in southern Europe, England, Wales, Asia Minor, and North Africa. Christian churches called Paterines, Novatians and Montanists. Diocletian became Emperor of Rome. Wholesale departures, and the above names of Christian churches given to them by those departing from the faith. (Hassell, p. 367, 377; Ray, p. 315; Robinson's Ecclesiastical Researches, p. 126.)
FOURTH CENTURY: Churches in same countries as in preceding centuries. Christian churches called Donatists in parts of north Africa; also Puritans in Wales. Constantine the Great became emperor of Rome. Council of Nice held A. D. 325. First recorded infant baptism, 370 A. D. (Hassell, p. 386, 387, 389; Shackelford, p. 49; Orchard, p. 92, 93).
FIFTH CENTURY: Those departing from the faith established and enforced popery in 416. A new name given to true Christian churches in some localities, to-wit, Cathari.

There is also a major Baptist/Anabaptist continuation on the British Isles... In the introduction to Orchard's History, J. R. Graves wrote; "Welsh Baptists contend that the principles of the gospel were maintained pure and unalloyed in the recesses of their mountainous principality all through the dark reign of popery. God had a regular chain of true and faithful witness in this country, in every age, from the first introduction of Christianity." "In no country have the principles of our faith as Baptists been more generally understood and more bravely defended than in the little principality of Wales. It is commonly believed that all through the dark reign of popery, in the seclusions of her valleys and the fastnesses of her mountains, there were those who preserved the ancient purity of doctrine and worship."
"There is much evidence that the Baptists of England and Wales date back to very early times."

History of the Welch Baptists, by Jonathan Davis (1835). "About fifty years before the birth of our Savior, the Romans invaded the British Isles, in the reign of the Welch king Cassebellun; but having failed, in consequence of other and more important wars made peace with them, and dwelt among them many years. During that period many of the Welsh soldiers joined the Roman army, and many families from Wales visited Rome; among them there was a certain woman named Claudia, who was married to a man named Pudence. At the time, Paul was sent a prisoner to Rome, and preached there in his own hired house, for the space of two years, about the year of our Lord 63. Pudence and Claudia his wife, who belonged to Caesar's household, under the blessing of God on Paul's preaching, were brought to the knowledge of the truth as it is in Jesus, and made a profession of their Christian religion. These together with other Welshmen, among the Roman soldiers, who had heard that the Lord was gracious, exerted themselves on behalf of their countrymen in Wales, who were at that time idolaters."
"How rapidly did the mighty gospel of Christ fly abroad! The very year 63, when Paul, a prisoner, was preaching to a few individuals, in his own hired house in Rome, the seed sowed there is growing in the Isle of Britain."

I have a question for everybody... Did anyone here have a clue about these English Baptists or much less even ever hear about them? This is where I believe I can trace my own roots, although that is just something carried down in my family from generation to generation. Wish I had some geneology on that one...

Questions???

The Parson
Jan 21st 2007, 03:45 AM
6th Century through to the 16th Century,

The Donatist name and the Paulician name overlap in History somewhat simular to the Cathari and Novation names. We have already covered the Donatists and need to look at the name that was given to us during what is referred to as the "Obsure Period", the Paulicians. We first start hearing of the name Paulician mainly in Armenia in the sixth century, a direct desent from Nestorianism and the Donatists. The Paulicians got their name from the Apostle Paul, whose writings were followed with a passion because he was considered the Apostle to the Gentiles which they knew they had desended from. Roman Catholic persicutors said the Paulicians were given their name because of Paul of Samosata, and gnostic philosophy. There was a story about the conversion of Constantine Silvanus in 660 AD. It was said that this he sheltered a Christian deacon (Paulician) who was trying to escape the Muslims (Mohammedians). I think they were trying to whack off his head. To thank Constantine, the Paulician deacon gave him a copy of the New Testament. "These books became the measure of his studies and the rule of his faith; and the Catholics, who disputed his interpretation, acknowledged that his text was genuine and sincere. But he attached himself with peculiar devotion to the writings and character of Paul and the name of Paulicians is derived by their enemies from some unknown leader; but I am confident that they gloried in their affinity to the apostle to the Gentiles" (Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, V. p. 386).

The most reliable way to show these peoples histories I reckon, is to show where they were persicuted by the RCC and what the persicution was about. J.M. Carroll writes: "It is well to note also that in order to prevent the spread of any view of any sort, contrary to those of the Catholics very extreme plans and measures were adopted. First, all writings of any sort, other than those of the Catholics, were gathered and burned. Especially was this true of books. For several centuries these plans and measures were strictly and persistently followed. That is, according to history, the main reason why it is so difficult to secure accurate history. About all persistent writers and preachers also died martyr deaths. This was a desperately bloody period. All of the groups of persistent heretics (So-called) by whatever name distinguished, and wherever they had lived, were cruelly persecuted. The Donatists and Paulicians, were prominent among the earlier groups. The Catholics, strange as it may seem, accused all who refused to depart from the faith with them, believe with them--accused them of being heretics, and then condemned them as being heretics. Those called Catholics became more thoroughly paganized and Judaized than they were Christianized, and were swayed far more by civil power, than they were by religious power. They made far more new laws, than they observed old ones." (Trail of Blood).

This was a period of either be Catholic or be accursed (anethema). Many historians call it the beginning of the Dark Ages. But during this time there was even a greater time of persicution. Let me see if I can break it down for you. Only way I can break it down for you though, is to list the newer errors introduced by the RCC and then the attempts to force these new heresies on the Anabaptist brethren as well as everybody else.
In the 6th century, the practice of Indulgences appeared:
"The Christians of early ages were mostly recent converts from heathenism, and needed rigorous treatment. Public penance generally consisted in exclusion from the company of the faithful; the excommunicate were only allowed to kneel in the vestibule of the Church and hear the first portion of the Mass; they were not permitted to receive holy communion, and as a rule, were not absolved until the expiration of their term of penance. During that time on fixed days they had to fast on bread and water. This public penance usually lasted seven years; it was only imposed for grave offences, such as apostasy, giving the Holy Scriptures into the hands of pagans, etc.; for heinous crimes such as murder, the period was still longer. For lesser transgressions a fast of forty days was the ordinary penance. But the Church knew that the design of God is not so much to chastise the sinner as to detach him from earthly affections and lead him to amend; thus, if the penitent showed by his conduct that his conversion was not superficial, but real, it was deemed unnecessary for him to do further penance. Consequently the penitential works were in some cases partially or wholly remitted. Now since Christians form one body among themselves, the communion of saints, they can make satisfaction for one another; hence the martyrs pleaded on behalf of the penitents. " Rev. Francis Spirago, The Catechism Explained, Tan Books (1899) p. 633. Imprimatur, +Patrick J. Hayes, Archbishop of NY, Oct. 18, 1921.
In short, instead of allowing the Lord God himself to convict and punish his own, the person was ordered to punish themselves and the church would induldge this and offer forgiveness. I'll stop here and try to pick up where I am leaving off after church tomorrow.

punk
Jan 21st 2007, 05:04 AM
Here's an interesting titbit I found on the web (here the "Key" refers to the "Key of Truth", a medieval Paulician document):

"Such doctrines lead Baptist scholar McGoldrick to conclude:

"When, by means of the Key, the Paulicans are permitted to speak for themselves, it becomes crystal clear that they were not Baptists. In fact, when judged by a traditional creed or standard of orthodoxy, they cannot be regarded as Christians at all" (Baptist Successionism 34)"James Edward McGoldrick appears to be a Baptist professor who disagrees with the views put forth by the Parson. Admittedly the quote is from a book published in 1994, but one would think a self-avowed Baptist would have reason to push Baptist origins back.

The book the quote appears to come from is called: Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History

And I've found Peter Waldo's confession of faith:

"In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and of the Blessed and Ever-Virgin Mary. Be it noted by all the faithful that I, Valdesius, and all my brethren, standing before the Holy Gospels, do declare that we believe with all our hearts, having been grasped by faith, that we profess openly that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three Persons, one God....
"We firmly believe and explicitly declare that the incarnation of the Divinity did not take place in the Father and the Holy Spirit, but solely in the Son, so that he who was the divine Son of God the Father was also true man from his Mother.
"We believe one Church, Catholic, Holy, Apostolic and Immaculate, apart from which no one can be saved, and in the sacraments therein administered through the invisible and incomprehensible power of the Holy Spirit, sacraments which may be rightly administered by a sinful priest....
"We firmly believe in the judgment to come and in the fact that each man will receive reward or punishment according to what he has done in this flesh. We do not doubt the fact that alms, sacrifice, and other charitable acts are able to be of assistance to those who die.
"And since, according to the Apostle James, faith without works is dead, we have renounced this world and have distributed to the poor all that we possess, according to the will of God, and we have decided that we ourselves should be poor in such a way as not to be careful for the morrow, and to accept from no one gold, silver, or anything else, with the exception of raiment and daily food. We have set before ourselves the objective of fulfilling the Gospel counsels as precepts.
"We believe that anyone in this age who keeps to a proper life, giving alms and doing other good works from his own possessions and observing the precepts from the Lord, can be saved.
"We make this declaration in order that if anyone should come to you affirming that he is one of us, you may know for certain that he is not one of us if he does not profess this same faith."

That doesn't sound terribly Baptist.

And here are some statements by Italian Waldensians concerning baptism and the eucharist:

To the question they [the Poor of Lyons] raised concerning baptism, we replied as follows : We affirm that no one can be saved who refuses the material water of baptism and that unbaptized infants are not saved. This we called on them to believe and profess....
"One point of difference between us and the companions of Valdes...concerned the breaking or SACRIFICE [emphasis author] of the bread. As we have verified, their judgment differs from ours...
"In the first place, some of the companions of Valdes maintain that the substance of the bread and wine is transformed into the body and blood of Christ by the Word of God, adding that the power comes not from men but from God.
"To this we objected, saying that, if the bread and wine are transubstantiated...by the mere mention of the Word of God, it follows that any person, Jew or pagan, could pronounce the Word of God on the bread and wine, and, according to this opinion, it would be transformed into the body and blood of Christ.
"This is absolutely impious and cannot be sustained by any valid authority and is unreasonable....They have acknowledged that the sacrament cannot be performed by women or laymen, but only by the PRIEST. They also said that no one, good or bad, but only He who is God and man, that is, CHRIST, can transubstantiate the bread and wine into the body and blood."

That all looks basically Catholic.

RSiscoe
Jan 21st 2007, 03:22 PM
Here's an interesting titbit I found on the web (here the "Key" refers to the "Key of Truth", a medieval Paulician document):

"Such doctrines lead Baptist scholar McGoldrick to conclude:

"When, by means of the Key, the Paulicans are permitted to speak for themselves, it becomes crystal clear that they were not Baptists. In fact, when judged by a traditional creed or standard of orthodoxy, they cannot be regarded as Christians at all" (Baptist Successionism 34)"James Edward McGoldrick appears to be a Baptist professor who disagrees with the views put forth by the Parson. Admittedly the quote is from a book published in 1994, but one would think a self-avowed Baptist would have reason to push Baptist origins back.

The book the quote appears to come from is called: Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History

And I've found Peter Waldo's confession of faith:

"In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and of the Blessed and Ever-Virgin Mary. Be it noted by all the faithful that I, Valdesius, and all my brethren, standing before the Holy Gospels, do declare that we believe with all our hearts, having been grasped by faith, that we profess openly that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three Persons, one God....
"We firmly believe and explicitly declare that the incarnation of the Divinity did not take place in the Father and the Holy Spirit, but solely in the Son, so that he who was the divine Son of God the Father was also true man from his Mother.
"We believe one Church, Catholic, Holy, Apostolic and Immaculate, apart from which no one can be saved, and in the sacraments therein administered through the invisible and incomprehensible power of the Holy Spirit, sacraments which may be rightly administered by a sinful priest....
"We firmly believe in the judgment to come and in the fact that each man will receive reward or punishment according to what he has done in this flesh. We do not doubt the fact that alms, sacrifice, and other charitable acts are able to be of assistance to those who die.
"And since, according to the Apostle James, faith without works is dead, we have renounced this world and have distributed to the poor all that we possess, according to the will of God, and we have decided that we ourselves should be poor in such a way as not to be careful for the morrow, and to accept from no one gold, silver, or anything else, with the exception of raiment and daily food. We have set before ourselves the objective of fulfilling the Gospel counsels as precepts.
"We believe that anyone in this age who keeps to a proper life, giving alms and doing other good works from his own possessions and observing the precepts from the Lord, can be saved.
"We make this declaration in order that if anyone should come to you affirming that he is one of us, you may know for certain that he is not one of us if he does not profess this same faith."

That doesn't sound terribly Baptist.

And here are some statements by Italian Waldensians concerning baptism and the eucharist:

To the question they [the Poor of Lyons] raised concerning baptism, we replied as follows : We affirm that no one can be saved who refuses the material water of baptism and that unbaptized infants are not saved. This we called on them to believe and profess....
"One point of difference between us and the companions of Valdes...concerned the breaking or SACRIFICE [emphasis author] of the bread. As we have verified, their judgment differs from ours...
"In the first place, some of the companions of Valdes maintain that the substance of the bread and wine is transformed into the body and blood of Christ by the Word of God, adding that the power comes not from men but from God.
"To this we objected, saying that, if the bread and wine are transubstantiated...by the mere mention of the Word of God, it follows that any person, Jew or pagan, could pronounce the Word of God on the bread and wine, and, according to this opinion, it would be transformed into the body and blood of Christ.
"This is absolutely impious and cannot be sustained by any valid authority and is unreasonable....They have acknowledged that the sacrament cannot be performed by women or laymen, but only by the PRIEST. They also said that no one, good or bad, but only He who is God and man, that is, CHRIST, can transubstantiate the bread and wine into the body and blood."

That all looks basically Catholic.

Great information Punk.

I originally intended to bow out of this thread, since all of the historical information I presented to correct the errors of certain historians was deleted, thereby affirming that the intent of this thread is not to present the truth, necessarily, but rather the opinion of some 18th century historians - opinions, I might add, which are contrary to all historical evidence.

What you concluded, Punk, about the doctrinal teachings of the Waldensians (as expressed in your last sentence) is basically true for all those early groups that these 18th century "historians" claim were baptist. Although there was a slight difference on minute doctrinal matters, their beliefs parallel, for the most part, what Catholics today believe. That is the reality, which is easily verified by reading the actual historical documents written at the time.

If that is so, how could these Baptist historians claim they were Baptist? I'm sure the answer will shock and amaze you, as it did me. Here it is...

As was documented earlier in this thread (but which may have since been deleted), it was not uncommon for Chrisitans in the early years to believe that a heretic could confer a valid baptism. That was the belief of Tertullian, Cyprian of Carthage, Novatius, and the Donatists, and others. They all believed that heretics could confer a valid baptism. Some went further and claimed that a sinner - and by that they meant a person who committed a serious sin after receiving Baptism - was also unable to confer a valid baptism.

QUESTION: Beliefs have consequences, right? So, what is the consequence of believing that heretics cannot validly baptise? What teaching naturally flows from that belief?

ANSWER: The teaching that flows as a consequence from believing that a heretic (or a person in serious sin as some believed) cannot validly baptise, is that those who were baptized by these heretics (or those in serious sin) must be re-baptized. That is the natural conclusion for that belief.

Now, the Latin word for the practice of re-baptizing is "anabaptist" ("ana" means "again" or "to redo" and baptismos means baptize). Therefore, since some people believed that those baptized by heretics should be re-baptized (anabaptismo), they were later referred to as anabaptists, a term which means "to rebaptise".

Now, another group, whose doctrinal teaching were completely different than those Christians of the early years who believed that heretics could not validly baptise, arose in the 16th century. One key characteristic of this 16th century group was that they did not believe an infant should be baptized. Contrary to the early Christian "anabaptists", this group did not believe that Baptism was the means by which a person was born again and received the Holy Ghost. Instead, they only considered baptism as merely an outward sign that a person had already been born again. Therefore they believed that those who were baptized as infants, or children, should be re-baptized. This is one of the key doctrinal distinctions between the Protestants of that day and the 16th century group who became known as the Anabaptists. Aside from that, their doctrinal teachings were similar to the Protestants of that day. Since this group denied infant Baptism, the Protestants labeled them as, and they became known as, "Anabaptists", which, as has been said, means to re-baptize.

Now, I'm sure that somewhere along the way members of this group wondered if there were any "Anabaptists" from the early years. It probably did not take them long to find that certain groups, and certain people, of the early years were called (defined as) "anabaptist" (since the word "anabaptist" means, by definition, "to re-baptize", and there were some back then who believed in re-baptizing those who were baptized by heretics). Therefore, since these early Christians, who did not believe that a heretic coulc validly baptise, were later referred to as "anabaptist", these later Anabaptist "historians" must have condluded that these early Christians believed as they did since the same word was attributed to them. Yet this could not be further from the truth.

They both believed in re-baptizing, that is true, but for very different reasons; and their other doctrinal teachings were no where near the same. The early groups did not deny infant baptism, as the 16th century group did, they denied that heretics, or those in the state of serious sin, could validly baptise. That is why they were later referred to as anabaptists - and the only reason.

Having read the writings of the early Chrisitans who were later referred to as anabaptists, it is truly amazing to me that any so-called "historian" could make such an obvious blunder - if indeed it was a mere blunder and not something worse.

I guess these historians just assumed that no one would ever verify what they wrote. I guess they just assumed that their readers would consider what they wrote as the Gospel truth, and not only not question it, but consider any documentation that contradicted it to be biased.

This may have worked during the 18th, 19th, and early part of the 20th century, when it took considereable effort to find the writings of these early Christians, but today these writings are at our finger tips, and thus it is very simple for those who want to know the truth to check it out... and anyone who sincerely looks into the actual evidence will find that these 18th century "historians" were either ignorant, dishonest, or a combination of the two. There's no other possibility for the errors are far too obvious.

The Parson
Jan 21st 2007, 07:48 PM
Why didn't you quote from that Key of Truth punk?

Let us then submit humbly to the holy church universal. and follow their works who acted with one mind and one faith and taught us. For still do we receive in the only proper season the holy and precious mystery of our Lord Jesus Christ and of the Heavenly Father:—to-wit, in the season of repentance and of faith. As we learned from the Lord of the universal and apostolic church, so do we proceed: and we establish in perfect faith those who (till then) have not holy baptism (Margin, That Is to say, the Latins, Greeks and Armenians, who are not baptized); nay, nor have tasted of the body or drunk of the holy blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore according to the Word of the Lord, we must first bring them into the faith, induce them to repent, and give it (Margin, Baptism) unto them (pp.76,77).

James Edward McGoldrick uses the same principles you do punk and you probably appreciate his statements. However, he has yet to this date ever given any substantial reason to doubt the earlier historians whatsoever except they are contrary to the romish ones. In other words, he has chosen to take only the histories at face value of the romish documents and excludes any that argue with them. And if you will follow his career, you will see that there is no doubt why he accepts the histories in such a way as his alliance is eccumenical towards presbyterianism and not of the historical Baptists. This man is even a proponant of the writings of G.K. Chesterton. Hardly a grass roots, died in the wool, historical Baptist. Another reason why that opinion would be rejected as far as the premise of this thread goes much less that it is post 1920's... One other thing, those views are the ones shared by a group of quasi protestant/romish people known as "The Friends". Search the internet as I believe you will find their teachings are making as much of a eccumenical ferver today as universalism is.

Also, are you aware that the "Waldo Confession of Faith" quote you gave was pre conversion and not post. Think about it, the Waldanessian New Testament is from the same text (Received Text as it was called later) as the King James and was propigated by these people. Why in the name of John Brown would they embrace this bible text as Gospel and then make statements contrary to that very text in their beliefs? The Waldenessian Confession of Faith would say otherwise. And yes, I know the arguement made by The Friends that the scriptures quoted were divided into chapters so it couldn't have been the original. That also is nonsense because the publisher of the work these Friends read was a more contemporary, 12th century one, who did not take the divisions as an issue and used what was available to him to publish the work.

Please induldge me and come up with a more reliable source to refute with.

The Parson
Jan 21st 2007, 07:58 PM
Great information Punk.

I originally intended to bow out of this thread, since all of the historical information I presented to correct the errors of certain historians was deleted, thereby affirming that the intent of this thread is not to present the truth, necessarily, but rather the opinion of some 18th century historians - opinions, I might add, which are contrary to all historical evidence. Please induldge me also RSiscoe. It seems that no matter how hard we try to at least get this perspective online, there is objection after objection. It also may seem one sided to you and for the most part you are correct. But because this view is blocked many times before it can even begin to be explained in modern days.

The sources I have used here, and I am repeating myself, are not of the majority Baptist, but actually anti-Baptist for a reason. #1, it shows that until near the last of the millennium, even the protestant and catholic historians acknowledged this history. #2, it leads one to believe that history is being covered up for some reason. If you want to find out the possible reason then follow the thread to its end. The findings may surprise you.

pnewton
Jan 21st 2007, 07:58 PM
...except they are contrary to the romish ones...
I tried to figure out that word and I finally found a definition.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/romish

punk
Jan 21st 2007, 09:57 PM
Why didn't you quote from that Key of Truth punk?

Let us then submit humbly to the holy church universal. and follow their works who acted with one mind and one faith and taught us. For still do we receive in the only proper season the holy and precious mystery of our Lord Jesus Christ and of the Heavenly Father:—to-wit, in the season of repentance and of faith. As we learned from the Lord of the universal and apostolic church, so do we proceed: and we establish in perfect faith those who (till then) have not holy baptism (Margin, That Is to say, the Latins, Greeks and Armenians, who are not baptized); nay, nor have tasted of the body or drunk of the holy blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore according to the Word of the Lord, we must first bring them into the faith, induce them to repent, and give it (Margin, Baptism) unto them (pp.76,77).

James Edward McGoldrick uses the same principles you do punk and you probably appreciate his statements. However, he has yet to this date ever given any substantial reason to doubt the earlier historians whatsoever except they are contrary to the romish ones. In other words, he has chosen to take only the histories at face value of the romish documents and excludes any that argue with them. And if you will follow his career, you will see that there is no doubt why he accepts the histories in such a way as his alliance is eccumenical towards presbyterianism and not of the historical Baptists. This man is even a proponant of the writings of G.K. Chesterton. Hardly a grass roots, died in the wool, historical Baptist. Another reason why that opinion would be rejected as far as the premise of this thread goes much less that it is post 1920's... One other thing, those views are the ones shared by a group of quasi protestant/romish people known as "The Friends". Search the internet as I believe you will find their teachings are making as much of a eccumenical ferver today as universalism is.

Also, are you aware that the "Waldo Confession of Faith" quote you gave was pre conversion and not post. Think about it, the Waldanessian New Testament is from the same text (Received Text as it was called later) as the King James and was propigated by these people. Why in the name of John Brown would they embrace this bible text as Gospel and then make statements contrary to that very text in their beliefs? The Waldenessian Confession of Faith would say otherwise. And yes, I know the arguement made by The Friends that the scriptures quoted were divided into chapters so it couldn't have been the original. That also is nonsense because the publisher of the work these Friends read was a more contemporary, 12th century one, who did not take the divisions as an issue and used what was available to him to publish the work.

Please induldge me and come up with a more reliable source to refute with.

Well when you basically rule out a priori any book I've read relevant to the question at hand - erudite books such as:

-Hamilton, Hamilton, Stoyanov "Christian Dualist Heresies in the Byzantine World c. 650 - c.1450"
-Runciman "The Medieval Manichee - A Study in Christian Dualist Heresy"

I've not much to do but scan the web and give what detritus comes up.

Anyway I might have to read McGoldrick now too. :D

punk
Jan 21st 2007, 10:32 PM
Great information Punk.

I originally intended to bow out of this thread, since all of the historical information I presented to correct the errors of certain historians was deleted, thereby affirming that the intent of this thread is not to present the truth, necessarily, but rather the opinion of some 18th century historians - opinions, I might add, which are contrary to all historical evidence.

What you concluded, Punk, about the doctrinal teachings of the Waldensians (as expressed in your last sentence) is basically true for all those early groups that these 18th century "historians" claim were baptist. Although there was a slight difference on minute doctrinal matters, their beliefs parallel, for the most part, what Catholics today believe. That is the reality, which is easily verified by reading the actual historical documents written at the time.

If that is so, how could these Baptist historians claim they were Baptist? I'm sure the answer will shock and amaze you, as it did me. Here it is...

As was documented earlier in this thread (but which may have since been deleted), it was not uncommon for Chrisitans in the early years to believe that a heretic could confer a valid baptism. That was the belief of Tertullian, Cyprian of Carthage, Novatius, and the Donatists, and others. They all believed that heretics could confer a valid baptism. Some went further and claimed that a sinner - and by that they meant a person who committed a serious sin after receiving Baptism - was also unable to confer a valid baptism.

QUESTION: Beliefs have consequences, right? So, what is the consequence of believing that heretics cannot validly baptise? What teaching naturally flows from that belief?

ANSWER: The teaching that flows as a consequence from believing that a heretic (or a person in serious sin as some believed) cannot validly baptise, is that those who were baptized by these heretics (or those in serious sin) must be re-baptized. That is the natural conclusion for that belief.

Now, the Latin word for the practice of re-baptizing is "anabaptist" ("ana" means "again" or "to redo" and baptismos means baptize). Therefore, since some people believed that those baptized by heretics should be re-baptized (anabaptismo), they were later referred to as anabaptists, a term which means "to rebaptise".

Now, another group, whose doctrinal teaching were completely different than those Christians of the early years who believed that heretics could not validly baptise, arose in the 16th century. One key characteristic of this 16th century group was that they did not believe an infant should be baptized. Contrary to the early Christian "anabaptists", this group did not believe that Baptism was the means by which a person was born again and received the Holy Ghost. Instead, they only considered baptism as merely an outward sign that a person had already been born again. Therefore they believed that those who were baptized as infants, or children, should be re-baptized. This is one of the key doctrinal distinctions between the Protestants of that day and the 16th century group who became known as the Anabaptists. Aside from that, their doctrinal teachings were similar to the Protestants of that day. Since this group denied infant Baptism, the Protestants labeled them as, and they became known as, "Anabaptists", which, as has been said, means to re-baptize.

Now, I'm sure that somewhere along the way members of this group wondered if there were any "Anabaptists" from the early years. It probably did not take them long to find that certain groups, and certain people, of the early years were called (defined as) "anabaptist" (since the word "anabaptist" means, by definition, "to re-baptize", and there were some back then who believed in re-baptizing those who were baptized by heretics). Therefore, since these early Christians, who did not believe that a heretic coulc validly baptise, were later referred to as "anabaptist", these later Anabaptist "historians" must have condluded that these early Christians believed as they did since the same word was attributed to them. Yet this could not be further from the truth.

They both believed in re-baptizing, that is true, but for very different reasons; and their other doctrinal teachings were no where near the same. The early groups did not deny infant baptism, as the 16th century group did, they denied that heretics, or those in the state of serious sin, could validly baptise. That is why they were later referred to as anabaptists - and the only reason.

Having read the writings of the early Chrisitans who were later referred to as anabaptists, it is truly amazing to me that any so-called "historian" could make such an obvious blunder - if indeed it was a mere blunder and not something worse.

I guess these historians just assumed that no one would ever verify what they wrote. I guess they just assumed that their readers would consider what they wrote as the Gospel truth, and not only not question it, but consider any documentation that contradicted it to be biased.

This may have worked during the 18th, 19th, and early part of the 20th century, when it took considereable effort to find the writings of these early Christians, but today these writings are at our finger tips, and thus it is very simple for those who want to know the truth to check it out... and anyone who sincerely looks into the actual evidence will find that these 18th century "historians" were either ignorant, dishonest, or a combination of the two. There's no other possibility for the errors are far too obvious.

Religious institutional membership has long been a bane of good history writing.

Unfortunately members of a religious body, feeling that the body's dogmas are the truth, solely set out to provide a historical foundation for the dogmas accepted as a priori true. They do not let the evidence point in whatever direction it may.

The Parson
Jan 22nd 2007, 12:11 AM
Well when you basically rule out a priori any book I've read relevant to the question at hand - erudite books such as:

-Hamilton, Hamilton, Stoyanov "Christian Dualist Heresies in the Byzantine World c. 650 - c.1450"
-Runciman "The Medieval Manichee - A Study in Christian Dualist Heresy"

I've not much to do but scan the web and give what detritus comes up.

Anyway I might have to read McGoldrick now too. :DIf you want to find papers and books on ones who desperatly want to disprove our antiquity, search for 17th and 18th century Anglican and Episcopol writings. Especially trials in the colonies...

The Parson
Jan 22nd 2007, 01:02 AM
I tried to figure out that word and I finally found a definition.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/romishI had been taught from my youth to use the term Romish as meerly a descriptive term but if it offends, I'll use another like RCC.

punk
Jan 22nd 2007, 05:59 AM
If you want to find papers and books on ones who desperatly want to disprove our antiquity, search for 17th and 18th century Anglican and Episcopol writings. Especially trials in the colonies...

I'm missing where trials in the (American?) colonies has relevance to the bogus claim of anabaptist antiquity.

The Parson
Jan 22nd 2007, 02:02 PM
The term Romish is one of scorn according to most online dictionaries and I apologize for using it to those who may have been offended by it.


I'm missing where trials in the (American?) colonies has relevance to the bogus claim of anabaptist antiquity.Yeah Punk, there were those making bogus claims that we didn't have the antiquity we claim during some of those trials. Let me see if I can find some.

The Parson
Jan 22nd 2007, 02:40 PM
Please don't take this for reference folks as I am quoting from memory. There is a paper called Church vs. State, ~ A Historical Background that is a rewrite of a paper written in the late 1800's. J. M. Pendleton wrote his comments and summations on it. In it, there were mentions of the usual persicutions facing the Baptists in America, but also some references to Baptist antiquity in the papers original form if I'm thinking of the correct paper. These references caused even more anger towards the Baptists in the New England colonies.

I mention this because it is probably a findable resource that has references back to the dark ages with quotes from sources unavailable today. It would be an interesting read.

pnewton
Jan 22nd 2007, 03:01 PM
And if you will follow his career, you will see that there is no doubt why he accepts the histories in such a way as his alliance is eccumenical towards presbyterianism and not of the historical Baptists. I understand the reluctance to discount historical information that was compileded by the Catholic Church. However, please understand that it does nothing intellectually to fall back on to authors that others may see as biased as you see Catholic historians. If all secular historians are considered to be unreliable because of Catholic influence, then know one will be convinced that is not already convinced, or looking to be. This is the error that one prominant tract writer makes. His "historians" constisist of preachers. J. M. Carroll, for example is not a historian, but a preacher. James Edward McGoldrick is a professor of history for Cedarville College in Ohio (a Baptist College) who previously taught at John Brown. Would you except a Jesuit historian?

I know that you believe secular historians have all be too heavily influenced, as indicated by your term "obsfucated", but there is no other source that can be relied on by Baptist and non-Baptist alike.

RSiscoe
Jan 22nd 2007, 03:26 PM
Parson,

Is there any historical evidence that supports what you are claiming? If not, is it your position that the reason there is no historical evidence is because the historical documents that would have supported your claim were destroyed by the dreaded Catholic Church, or by other romishly inclined persons?

If so, I have two comments: 1) This is not the way the Catholic Church has dealt with what it considers heresies. It does not sweep them under the rug, so to speak, but rather openly discusses and condemns them. In fact, this is the usual reason for holding a council - to openly expose and condemn errors that have arrisen. 2.) If there is no historical documentation to support the claim (for whatever reason) where did these "historians" that you quote get their information? Without a time machine, or without knowledge being infused into their intellect directly by God, the only way they can determine what was believed 1,400 years ago is by reading the historical documents. So the question is this: If there are no historical documents that support their claims, where did they get the information they used to arrive at their conclusions?

Frances
Jan 22nd 2007, 03:29 PM
In quite a few cases it does. Landmark Baptists don't stop preaching. They believe that the preaching of the man of God awaikens the called to salvation. . . they believe they don't know who the elect are until they respond to the invitation.

My belief is that Whosoever means Whosoever. The Landmarkers however do not.

It's mine too. Didn't D.L.Moody say the world is made up of ' whosoever will and the whosoever won't ?

I have just had a long conversation with the Pastor I spoke of. I heard him preach yesterday and had rung to thank him for his sermon - which was the clearest declaration I have ever heard in this town regarding being Born Again including "if you don't go to heaven you'll go to hell". I also asked his position re. 'election' and the 'reformed faith'. You are right. He could argue the hind leg off a donkey in favour of some being destined for Salvation and the rest have no chance of Salvation. :cry: I said the God I worship does not have two lists - one of folk He will Save and one of those He will not. I believe Christ died paying the penalty for all Sin and that anyone who repents and accepts His Gift will be Saved. . . :) . . . How can he read passages like 2 Peter 3:9; Acts 2:21; John 10:13; 1 Titus 2:4; 1 John 1:7-9, and still think some folk can never be Saved? :hmm:

threebigrocks
Jan 22nd 2007, 03:49 PM
The sources I have used here, and I am repeating myself, are not of the majority Baptist, but actually anti-Baptist for a reason. #1, it shows that until near the last of the millennium, even the protestant and catholic historians acknowledged this history. #2, it leads one to believe that history is being covered up for some reason. If you want to find out the possible reason then follow the thread to its end. The findings may surprise you.

Hanging in there, Parson. Waiting for the whole story. ;)

The Parson
Jan 22nd 2007, 04:32 PM
I understand the reluctance to discount historical information that was compileded by the Catholic Church. However, please understand that it does nothing intellectually to fall back on to authors that others may see as biased as you see Catholic historians. If all secular historians are considered to be unreliable because of Catholic influence, then know one will be convinced that is not already convinced, or looking to be. This is the error that one prominant tract writer makes. His "historians" constisist of preachers. J. M. Carroll, for example is not a historian, but a preacher. James Edward McGoldrick is a professor of history for Cedarville College in Ohio (a Baptist College) who previously taught at John Brown. Would you except a Jesuit historian?

I know that you believe secular historians have all be too heavily influenced, as indicated by your term "obsfucated", but there is no other source that can be relied on by Baptist and non-Baptist alike.Ah, but yes there is. If one relies on the testamony of historians before this sudden reversal of information appeared, there is no conflict in the information given.

Now, let say that I made a request of our friend RSiscoe to give a complete history on infant Baptism. Would he rely on the sources of the 20th & 21st centuries? No, most likely he would attempt to prove this catholic sacrament at it's earliest source as he has already abley demonstrated. Then, most likely he would also try to prove this with the testamonies of those who dealt with it at it's highest contention because this is where the most information on the subject would be available. And his defense would be against Anabaptist contentions and the later contentions of the reformation. His assertions would be quintessentially Roman Catholic and would reflect the same in his defense.

I would ask none the less in this discussion. And the sources quoted from say Carroll, would carry the same weight as any who was a student of history. Credentials are not necessarially the criteria for a sound reference as Carroll was a student of history. When I mentioned McGoldrick and his lack of zeal as a proponant of Baptist antiquity, I also mentioned the reasons why, which were sound. So then, my even paying the slighest bit of attention to the testamony of McGoldrick would be the same as me heeding the biased of a Jesuit Historian who would most likely carry the same bias.


Parson,

Is there any historical evidence that supports what you are claiming? If not, is it your position that the reason there is no historical evidence is because the historical documents that would have supported your claim were destroyed by the dreaded Catholic Church, or by other romishly inclined persons?

If so, I have two comments: 1) This is not the way the Catholic Church has dealt with what it considers heresies. It does not sweep them under the rug, so to speak, but rather openly discusses and condemns them. In fact, this is the usual reason for holding a council - to openly expose and condemn errors that have arrisen. 2.) If there is no historical documentation to support the claim (for whatever reason) where did these "historians" that you quote get their information? Without a time machine, or without knowledge being infused into their intellect directly by God, the only way they can determine what was believed 1,400 years ago is by reading the historical documents. So the question is this: If there are no historical documents that support their claims, where did they get the information they used to arrive at their conclusions?
Hey, now you are using the term romish. I thought that was a bad thiney!!!:rolleyes:

The references to these claims are those given here and countless more. Our history, or at least 75% of it, is shadowed in the history of that same Roman church who persicuted, tortured, and killed, our peoples and did well documenting it. So many of the documents remain or are referenced to by these same historians and students of history. Is it some kind of mystery or something that is unfathomable that the ones who would stand to gain by the sharing of these histories were Baptists? One wouldn't expect a Roman Catholic to intentionally chronical the Baptist history in antiquity because this would harm thier claim to Apostolic succession. Why would it be so surprising that it was mainly Baptists that had to put these histories together???

Apostolic succession, If I haven't mentioned already, is something we do not claim by the way. We assert that the last Apostles were those chosen by the Lord himself and none other. A little FYI for ya there.


It's mine too. Didn't D.L.Moody say the world is made up of ' whosoever will and the whosoever won't ?

I have just had a long conversation with the Pastor I spoke of. I heard him preach yesterday and had rung to thank him for his sermon - which was the clearest declaration I have ever heard in this town regarding being Born Again including "if you don't go to heaven you'll go to hell". I also asked his position re. 'election' and the 'reformed faith'. You are right. He could argue the hind leg off a donkey in favour of some being destined for Salvation and the rest have no chance of Salvation. :cry: I said the God I worship does not have two lists - one of folk He will Save and one of those He will not. I believe Christ died paying the penalty for all Sin and that anyone who repents and accepts His Gift will be Saved. . . :) . . . How can he read passages like 2 Peter 3:9; Acts 2:21; John 10:13; 1 Titus 2:4; 1 John 1:7-9, and still think some folk can never be Saved? :hmm:
Amen Francis... Amen... But that is another story and another history...


Hanging in there, Parson. Waiting for the whole story. ;)I'ma trying TBR, really I am...

punk
Jan 22nd 2007, 06:30 PM
Now, let say that I made a request of our friend RSiscoe to give a complete history on infant Baptism. Would he rely on the sources of the 20th & 21st centuries? No, most likely he would attempt to prove this catholic sacrament at it's earliest source as he has already abley demonstrated. Then, most likely he would also try to prove this with the testamonies of those who dealt with it at it's highest contention because this is where the most information on the subject would be available. And his defense would be against Anabaptist contentions and the later contentions of the reformation. His assertions would be quintessentially Roman Catholic and would reflect the same in his defense.



Yes, but in this case he would be looking for writers *contemporary* to the period in question to find out if infant baptism was the practice in the period in which they were writing.

If I wanted to find out about baptist beliefs and practices in the 18th and 19th centuries, I would consult writers from the 18th and 19th century.

What we are asking for are writers from 1st century to establish baptist history in the 1st century, writers from the 2nd century to establish baptist history in the 2nd century, writers in the 3rd century to establish baptist history in th 3rd century, and so on.

All you are doing is providing us with writers from the 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries to establish history in periods over 1000 years earlier.

Where are the sources contemporary to the events in question?

The fact is I and several others here don't find your history persuasive for the simple reason that we think your sources are biased (in just the same manner that you reject our sources as being biased the other way).

In fact you yourself have admitted that if we looked contemporary to your sources, we can find writers that reject your history entirely (you reject them as "romish). So in fact given these writers we can construct a continuous history of writers refuting the Baptist claims, and there was no sudden "shift" at all (if we limit ourselves to those writers). My inclination is to reject the Baptist writers as a fringe element akin to Holocaust deniers.

The only solution is to go back to the primary sources and deal with them at length. Something I've asked of you several times.

But then you get back to the claim that the "romish" types destroyed the primary sources. That is your historians have no sources upon which to base their claims. RSiscoe asked how you get around the fact that you are positing historians writing history about events in which all the source material has been destroyed. A question you also never answered.

RSiscoe
Jan 22nd 2007, 06:32 PM
Hey, now you are using the term romish. I thought that was a bad thiney!!!:rolleyes:

If I am referred to as romish, or a Papist, I consider it a compliment, even though I understand that the terms are not meant to be such. Since I am very proud to be a Catholic, I have no problem being labeled as romish.


The references to these claims are those given here and countless more. Our history, or at least 75% of it, is shadowed in the history of that same Roman church who persicuted, tortured, and killed, our peoples and did well documenting it.

I guess what I am asking is this: Is there any historical documentation that confirms that the early groups you mentioned, such as The Novatians or Donatists, held doctrinal beliefs similar to the Baptists of today. I ask that because I have looked into the historical documents, and they are uninimous in explaining what the Donatists and Novations believed. Their beliefs were no secret. Augustine wrote a lot about the Donatists, for example, and nothing in what he wrote confirms that they believed as Baptists of today.

So what I am asking is this: Is there any historical documentation (any writings from the time of the Donatists or Novations) that confirms, for example, that they denied that Baptism was a sacrament that caused a person to be born again, which was the common teaching of the day and which is contrary to what Baptists teach? Of is there any documentation showing that the Novatians or the Donatists led people in the sinners prayer, or had altar calls, something that no one did in the early years, and which is no where to be found in the Bible?


So many of the documents remain or are referenced to by these same historians and students of history.

That is what I am referring to: The historical documents that the 18th century historians refer to. Name some of these alleged documents and I will do my best to located them.

I will even go out on a limb and state here and now that there are no documents that support the conclusion that these early groups were similar doctrinally to the Baptists of today. I claim that no group in the early years believed what the Baptist today believe. All you have to do to prove me wrong is to give me the historical source that these "historians" reference and I will do the rest. I will locate these documents and post them for our review. We will then read through them and see if what these groups taught resembles what the Baptists of today teach.

And I will post them on another thread so you can keep this one on track.


Is it some kind of mystery or something that is unfathomable that the ones who would stand to gain by the sharing of these histories were Baptists?

Not at all. But what did they base their history on? In other words, why do they claim these things? What evidence is there, for example, that the Novations and the Donatists were similar theologically to the Baptists of today? What is this claim based on? Was it a "tradition"? If not, then there must be historical documents that these historians read to arrive at their conclusions. That is what I am looking for.


One wouldn't expect a Roman Catholic to intentionally chronical the Baptist history in antiquity because this would harm thier claim to Apostolic succession. Why would it be so surprising that it was mainly Baptists that had to put these histories together???

Apostolic succession, If I haven't mentioned already, is something we do not claim by the way. We assert that the last Apostles were those chosen by the Lord himself and none other. A little FYI for ya there.

I was aware that the Baptists did not claim apostolic succession, but I am surprised that they claim that "the last apostles were those chosen by our Lord himself" when this is obviously contrary to the clear words of the Bible.

Matthias, for example, is clearly said to have taken over the "apostleship which Judas hath by transgression fallen" (Acts 1:25). Do the Baptists deny that Matthias was an apostle?

What about Barnabas and Paul who are both referred to as apostles? "When the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, had heard, rending their clothes, they ran among the people..." (Acts 14: 13 or 14). Were Paul and Barnabas not real apostles?

And what about Andronicus and Junian, who are both said to be apostles? "Salute Andronicus and Junian, my kinsmen, and fellow-captives: who are of note among the apostles..." (Romans 16:14).

I realize this isn't the place for a discussion on apostolic succession, but how can the Baptists claim that the last apostles were chosen by Jesus himself when the Bible clearly says many other men were apostles?

The Parson
Jan 22nd 2007, 08:14 PM
All you are doing is providing us with writers from the 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries to establish history in periods over 1000 years earlier.And where did their history come from sir. Please don't say hearsay! We have already covered that. I submit to you that much of those Anabaptist writings cannot be found because most of church history seems to be about the Catholics and Protestants. The history of the Baptists, as Carroll wrote ,was "written in blood" for the most part. These Baptists were the hated people from before the dark ages and beyond. Baptist preachers and people were put into prison for thier beliefs and Lord knows how many were put to death. There has never been anything to compare to the suffering, persecutions, exicuted on Baptists by the Catholic courts and edicts during those dark times. During the dark ages the pope was the world's dictator. That's why the Anabaptists before the Reformation called the pope "Anti-Christ". And it blows my mind why you don't seem to get the gist of the presentation. Please let it rest and allow the presentation to continue.

The fact is I and several others here don't find your history persuasive for the simple reason that we think your sources are biased (in just the same manner that you reject our sources as being biased the other way).How do you know? For the past month it hasn't been allowed to be presented because of the derailings. When I find something I am not persuaded of, I leave it alone until the one trying to persuade can finish as is common courtesy sir.

You've all mention variations in some of the teachings shown by the evidence already brought out in this thread of the early church brethren. I would submit to you that those variances of the Baptists then is no more varied than the differences we have as Baptists today. When we do find a quote from these early brethren, it is as precious as gold. But the distinctives today are just as fresh as they were in the ending of the 1st century.
Our churches are and have been simple in organization and democratic in government and independent of each other in their internal affairs.
We do now and always have opposed infant baptism and if our church congregations don't totally degenerate with a modernistic acceptance of tradition as opposed to pure Bible doctrine we will continue to oppose it.
And the closed communion RSiscoe accused of the Donatists is quite common in our Soveriegn Grace churches to a tee. (disallowing the unrepentant to participate)
And unless I am mistaken and I am not, Church membership consisted soley of bands of repentant, BORN AGAIN, Holy Ghost filled, and then baptized believers in Christ Jesus. In that order just as it is today.That is the main thrust of this attempt. Nothing more, nothing less.

I guess what I am asking is this: Is there any historical documentation that confirms that the early groups you mentioned, such as The Novatians or Donatists, held doctrinal beliefs similar to the Baptists of today. I ask that because I have looked into the historical documents, and they are uninimous in explaining what the Donatists and Novations believed. Their beliefs were no secret. Augustine wrote a lot about the Donatists, for example, and nothing in what he wrote confirms that they believed as Baptists of today.

So what I am asking is this: Is there any historical documentation (any writings from the time of the Donatists or Novations) that confirms, for example, that they denied that Baptism was a sacrament that caused a person to be born again, which was the common teaching of the day and which is contrary to what Baptists teach? Of is there any documentation showing that the Novatians or the Donatists led people in the sinners prayer, or had altar calls, something that no one did in the early years, and which is no where to be found in the Bible?

That is what I am referring to: The historical documents that the 18th century historians refer to. Name some of these alleged documents and I will do my best to located them.

I will even go out on a limb and state here and now that there are no documents that support the conclusion that these early groups were similar doctrinally to the Baptists of today. I claim that no group in the early years believed what the Baptist today believe. All you have to do to prove me wrong is to give me the historical source that these "historians" reference and I will do the rest. I will locate these documents and post them for our review. We will then read through them and see if what these groups taught resembles what the Baptists of today teach.

And I will post them on another thread so you can keep this one on track.
Not at all. But what did they base their history on? In other words, why do they claim these things? What evidence is there, for example, that the Novations and the Donatists were similar theologically to the Baptists of today? What is this claim based on? Was it a "tradition"? If not, then there must be historical documents that these historians read to arrive at their conclusions. That is what I am looking for. Very well then, the next post following this one will be those sources and where they were referenced.

Rsiscoe, we better not get into the Matthias thingey right now. We will be stuck on that subject a while.

Please allow me to post these references for RSiscoe before anyone places their next post in responce to this thread. This may take a while.

punk
Jan 22nd 2007, 08:32 PM
And where did their history come from sir. Please don't say hearsay!

If a primary source tells me there was infant baptism, I assume that either:

-The source went out and talked to people and confirmed that those people do in fact perform infant baptism in their church, or maybe even went to the church personally and saw it.

-Otherwise spoke with someone who saw it personally and seems reasonably knowledgable and not prone to lie about such thinigs.

That is the source is writing at pretty close to the same time as the things they are describing are going on.

So it would be nice to see some writings written in say the 2nd century CE that describe Anabaptists in the 2nd century CE, and so forth.

When my work load subsides a bit I'll get around to reading the "Key of Truth", so I'll leave that as possible support for your view, since I'm unfamiliar with its precise contents.

The Parson
Jan 22nd 2007, 08:57 PM
Instead of spending the major amount of time needed to place reference after reference here, these are already listed in the writings of books that should be accessable to you RSiscoe. Here are a few of those mentioned. I've put web address's if they are available online. When you are ready for more, let me know...

A Short History of the Baptists by Henry C. Vedder http://www.baptisttop1000.com/A_Short_History_of_the_Baptists.html

A VINDICATION OF THE CONTINUED SUCCESSION OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST (NOW SCANDALOUSLY TERMED ANABAPTISTS)FROM THE APOSTLES UNTO THIS PRESENT TIME (London: Published by J. Spittlehouse and J. More, 1652) (If you can lay your hands on this one, please let me know. If you reside in a major city, you may be able to find a copy. It has very ancient references.) I have it in text file format if you want it and was waiting until I had the chance to introduce it..

Three Witnesses for the Baptists by Curtis A. Pugh http://users.aol.com/libcfl/witness1.htm

The trail of Blood by J.M. Carroll http://parsonscorner.org/newpcim/trail.htm

The Church in the Wilderness by W. W Everts, Jr. (b. 1849) http://members.aol.com/libcfl2/wilder.htm

The Parson
Jan 22nd 2007, 08:59 PM
If a primary source tells me there was infant baptism, I assume that either:

-The source went out and talked to people and confirmed that those people do in fact perform infant baptism in their church, or maybe even went to the church personally and saw it.

-Otherwise spoke with someone who saw it personally and seems reasonably knowledgable and not prone to lie about such thinigs.

That is the source is writing at pretty close to the same time as the things they are describing are going on.

So it would be nice to see some writings written in say the 2nd century CE that describe Anabaptists in the 2nd century CE, and so forth.

When my work load subsides a bit I'll get around to reading the "Key of Truth", so I'll leave that as possible support for your view, since I'm unfamiliar with its precise contents.That would be the greatest thing since peanut butter if you would punk.

Teke
Jan 22nd 2007, 09:26 PM
I guess what I am asking is this: Is there any historical documentation that confirms that the early groups you mentioned, such as The Novatians or Donatists, held doctrinal beliefs similar to the Baptists of today. I ask that because I have looked into the historical documents, and they are uninimous in explaining what the Donatists and Novations believed. Their beliefs were no secret. Augustine wrote a lot about the Donatists, for example, and nothing in what he wrote confirms that they believed as Baptists of today.

So what I am asking is this: Is there any historical documentation (any writings from the time of the Donatists or Novations) that confirms, for example, that they denied that Baptism was a sacrament that caused a person to be born again, which was the common teaching of the day and which is contrary to what Baptists teach? Of is there any documentation showing that the Novatians or the Donatists led people in the sinners prayer, or had altar calls, something that no one did in the early years, and which is no where to be found in the Bible?




This is a bit ironic to an Orthodox (me) coming from a "romish". :P

Just as the Roman church set out in their new theology, so to could have the Donatists or Novatians in becoming the current Baptist.

There are some Orthodox groups guilty of Donatist activity, such as rebaptisms into their sect. And that is a historical trait of Baptist. Maybe not all, but I know some, having been formerly a Baptist before converting to Orthodoxy.

Historically if it has to do with baptism, the Baptist have likely done it. And baptism is a sacrament to Baptist, there are just other baptisms as you know, which can be performed. No priest or preacher, whether Roman, Orthodox, Protestant, Pentecostal or Baptist, will deny a person baptism. Whether they are an infant or adult. Church denominational doctrines aside, I've never heard of such a thing.

punk
Jan 22nd 2007, 09:54 PM
Instead of spending the major amount of time needed to place reference after reference here, these are already listed in the writings of books that should be accessable to you RSiscoe. Here are a few of those mentioned. I've put web address's if they are available online. When you are ready for more, let me know...

A Short History of the Baptists by Henry C. Vedder http://www.baptisttop1000.com/A_Short_History_of_the_Baptists.html

A VINDICATION OF THE CONTINUED SUCCESSION OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST (NOW SCANDALOUSLY TERMED ANABAPTISTS)FROM THE APOSTLES UNTO THIS PRESENT TIME (London: Published by J. Spittlehouse and J. More, 1652) (If you can lay your hands on this one, please let me know. If you reside in a major city, you may be able to find a copy. It has very ancient references.) I have it in text file format if you want it and was waiting until I had the chance to introduce it..

Three Witnesses for the Baptists by Curtis A. Pugh http://users.aol.com/libcfl/witness1.htm

The trail of Blood by J.M. Carroll http://parsonscorner.org/newpcim/trail.htm

The Church in the Wilderness by W. W Everts, Jr. (b. 1849) http://members.aol.com/libcfl2/wilder.htm

I like the following quote from the page your very first reference links to:

"A history of Baptist churches going farther back than the early years of the seventeenth century would, therefore, in the present state of knowledge, be in the highest degree unscientific. The very attempt to write such a history now would be a confession of crass ignorance, either of the facts as known, or of the methods of historical research and the principles of historical criticism, or of both."

:lol: