Featured Not all Calvinists are the same

I was borderline on that one (I listed it because of disagreements about what would actually be matters of conscience) but in retrospect you are probably right to disagree with me on that point.

 

I'm sorry, exactly what evidences did you provide about the beliefs if those people?

The defense "history got it wrong" does not apply here, Bro. Joe. We can actually affirm many of the accounts we have as reasonably accurate. The RCC had no need of inventing heresies (in fact, there are a few instances where the charge is a doctrine that we hold). If those churches were like us then that would be all the justification the RCC needed to convict. Such an elaborate scheme of creating histories, leaders, and conflicts are not warranted and should be easily dismissed. In many of these cases we have records of the actual arguments and historical circumstances. I believe yours a poor argument here, friend, but I am always open to evidences to the contrary - but this desire to be linked to a mother church is, IMHO, misplaced human tradition. It is best we appreciate those Christians who have gone before us, whether Reformed, Anabaptists, or Catholic but look squarely back to God's Word to find our identity in Christ.

 

Brother Joe, many of those movements have histories and claims of their own. Many of us who have studied the history of the Church have also studied historical circumstances both internal and external to the Catholic church. Another area of interest is historical theology or the reactionary development of doctrine relevant to circumstances contemporary to the church. The evidence is strong, brother, and it is unfortunate that a hatred for one false theology has removed centuries of Christian history from your grasp. It is unfortunate because regardless of your acceptance that history belongs to you as well. There is no reason to doubt these accounts (although there are a few cases where interpretation may betray misunderstanding). But no, most here do not take Catholic doctrine as historical evidence.

Which brings up this elephant in the room: What evidence are you providing, Brother?

I've considered many historical documents, confessions, creeds, arguments and defenses, and views. I am willing to consider your evidence as well.

Anyway, Bro Joe, that's my position. No sense in debating it or going down history. I would love to know your evidences, but that's about it. There are others who reject the influence of Anabaptists doctrines and the Radical Reformation on Baptist faith. One thing that became painfully obvious when the Dan Brown books came out is that many prefer historical fiction (using "historical" loosely) to history and many seek theories no matter how far fetched if it caters history to their liking.

 

Brother Joe, I'll answer your question and provide non-Catholic sources, but keep in mind that this is short summery and I even apologize for this being so lengthy a post. This is a very interesting time in both world and Church history and I cannot do it justice here. But I can address your comments.

I could, of course, provide an abundance of contemporary historians, but then I suppose we'd be at a stalemate as you have provided a contemporary author as source for me. I have read this "research" in an undergrad Baptist history course. It was interesting, but unfortunately several of the author's conclusions were proven false and more simply unfounded. But that's not why I replied. You asked for non-Catholic sources for history. I am not going to go through all of these groups (some that you list do not have recorded information, that's why I did not debate your use of them even though your author has nothing but his imagination to know what they believed).

First, an inconsistency noted: You mentioned the Waldenses (the early Waldenses, I'm sure we are all aware of the latter Waldenses, if anything for Piedmont Easter). What we know of their origins is derived from Catholic history. All we really know of their belief are those Catholic charges of heresy. I find it extraordinarily ironic that it is exactly this history you an Hassell accept as genuine history because it says what you want it to say. All we really know is that they were considered heretics for holding baptistic ecclesiological views. But this only serves to validate those histories which I have quoted. The RCC did not have a need to make up elaborate lies as they legitimately considered baptistic belief heresy and worthy of persecution. You are leaning on that history here.

But lets move on to the topic, and to encourage your own study and personal development (not to "spoon feed" you) let's look at the Donatists.

Sources for information of Donatist belief: Non-Catholic sources include: “Petilian Against the Catholics,” “Cresconius Against Augustine,” “Neander (extracts)” Catholic sources actually confirm non-Catholic accounts (they disagree on who is right, but they affirm the accuracy of the history). Much of this history can also be understood by looking at Augustine's arguments (those doctrines he was arguing against).

So let's look at the Donatists, who you say were “Baptists” under another name.

First, a little history of these “Baptists.”

These "Baptists" were North African Catholics, and the controversy is their schism with Rome. On Feb 23 303, Diocletian outlawed Christianity. In 304 he ordered all to offer incense to idols or be executed. What ended up being the main targets of this persecution was initially the Manicheans and then Christians.

In North Africa we have three factors that did not exist to the same extent anywhere else in the world: a very strong Roman governing presence, a significant number of Manichaenas who had initially been persecuted, and a significant number of Christians.

During the persecutions, any Christian who renounced their faith, made offerings to the state gods, burned sacred Christian texts were spared execution. Those who refused were usually killed. Some clergy were faithful, resisted, and were martyred. Many clergy instead renounced Christianity and were spared.

After Diocletian, the persecution died down and Christianity began to resurface. These North African Christians remained cautious, however, afraid of invoking another persecution.

Now, Brother Joe, we get to the point of the RCC. After Diocletian we come to his successor – Constantine. Between the end of Diocletian’s persecution and the Edict of Milan, the Church in North Africa made due with what clergy were willing to return. Some had escaped, but a large number had renounced Christianity. Many did not want a lapsed clergy as they considered it offensive towards those who had remained faithful and died for the faith. They would allow these to return as laymen once repentance was evidenced, but never as clergy.

In 312 Caecilian was elected Bishop of Carthage. Ceacilian favored Rome, but many rejected his appointment and elected instead their own bishop, Majorinus (who denounced the “Roman collaborators” and refused to restore lapsed clergy). When Majorinus died in 315, the “purists” elected Donatus Magnus (Bishop of Carthrage from 315-355) who ended up being the spokesman for the movement.

So two bishops coexisted. Over time, each side built its own churches, often side by side. So across North Africa we see essentially two overlapping churches; one Donatist, the other traditionalist. For the most part, their doctrines are identical. Their main difference is a matter of lapsed clergy. After several decades some other differences emerge. For Donatists, they become strongly charismatic, confession becomes a public rite where sins must be confessed before the congregation. For the traditionalists, confession becomes private, between the priest and the penitent.

This dueling church system (with each calling the other illegitimate and heresy) never resolved. But this remained with Donatists holding a church in North Africa into the 7th century.

Donatist Heresy

Ultimately what you have is the Donatists, citing Cyprian and Optatus, and claiming that sacraments are effective depending on the morality and holiness of the minister administering the sacrament. The Catholic church countered that sacraments are effective not from the minister but from the grace of Christ.

That is your “Baptist” church. Hassell looks to the Donatists a "baptist" because they rejected Rome. But what he ignores is the reasons for this rejection and doctrines that they did hold. They did not reject Rome because they rejected Roman ecclesiology. They rejected Rome because of the persecutions that had befell their Church and they rejected the legitimacy of this restored clergy. But why? Because the validity of sacraments depends on the morality of the clergy, therefore those who were baptized by a minister who complied with the demands of Roman persecution needed to be re-baptized. This, brother, is so far from Baptist doctrine that I truly believe the account of the Donatists (who's history is available) discredits your position and Hassell because it highlights the agenda through which your interpretation arose and which was read into what little history was considered in creating this fiction. There is no need to say "but look at the...." because the theory is already defunct, the credibility ruined.

Brother, again, this is not a matter that will come between us. But I do encourage you to seriously study the history of the Church. I think you will find it is a real history with ups and downs, truths and errors, and it is as interesting as it is edifying. Unless you have a better source than that of a minority and often discredited view by a contemporary author then let's leave it here. This isn't the OP and you are either going to dismiss everything without realizing your error or you are going to start studying which will be a rewarding but lengthy process. Good lock with either path you choose.

 

Brother Joe,

First of all, let me address your question about the Catholic Church. I apologize as I did not recognize the question as one being seriously directed and I left it unanswered. So, do I believe the Roman Catholic Church to be a true church? I think that this question betrays a misunderstanding of exactly what is “true church.”. A true church is a congregation of believers. So, if you mean when Rome incorporated Christianity as a state religion did it somehow invalidate the salvation of those congregations of believers that preexisted Constantine? The answer is no.

Did this false doctrine (Christendom) nullify the gospel of Jesus Christ? And the answer is still no. So we are not taking about the church itself (the people), but the doctrines (those official doctrines accepted throughout the RCC). And hence all of these early debates and heresies. This is how we know that the record is correct. The RCC was working out its theology, Christians were working out this theology, and ultimately Catholic doctrine became apostate in that it officially held and taught another gospel. Is Catholic Doctrine another gospel? Yes. Does this retroactively apply to all of Church history? Of course not. But looking for a “true church” is a false and RCC influenced idea. The True Church is the Body of Christ, and all assemblies of believers regardless of error (if they are true believers and teach the gospel of Christ) are genuine churches. What you are looking for, brother, are congregations that contained no error (which never existed) or those which affirmed secondary issues that you feel important (the logic of which I admittedly do not fully grasp as you take within your view genuine heresy). There is no “true church” except for assemblies of true believers.

Second, you point out that I “also admit the Waldenesis were, ‘considered heretics for holding baptistic ecclesiological views’. And conclude that one can argue this fact alone would make them Baptist.” I will point out that Seventh Day Adventists, Unity churches, Churches of Christ, Onness Pentecostals, and emerging churches also hold this same ecclesiological views. Are they Baptist?

The reason that I did not discuss the Waldenesis is that there is very little known of this sect and all we know of them is from that history you reject (but inconsistently accept in this case). What we do know is found in the charges against them by the Catholics, and within Catholic history (which you readily and oddly accept as true here). But this confirms what I have been saying. The RCC was faithful to its apostate doctrines. They did condemn and document as “heresies” doctrines we would hold. This verifies the accuracies of these histories.

There is another group called Waldenesis which you will find of interest as well. While it is doubtful this group can be traced to the 10th century people you look to, this movement is one we are all know from Piedmont Easter. From our interaction here, I think you would appreciate the history.

Insofar as my mention of the Donatics….well….we have more information there that undeniably denounces your position that they were “Baptists.” We agree that the only information that we have of the Waldenesis is that they rejected RCC authority...as did Luther and Calvin….are they Baptists?

My charge, brother, is that your view of this “true church” existing as pure and local Baptist churches is nothing more than “romish” doctrine packaged as Baptist. You have invented a history that falls apart upon examination. But no, you are not right about the Waldenesis for you are quoting a source you deny as legitimate. All we know is that the Catholics tell us their only crime was rejecting the authority of the RCC. You have built a history off that little fact. That’s why I did not cover this group – there was nothing to discuss and I did not need to go further than the Donatists to disprove the theory.

I proved the Donatists were not a Baptist church and I provided non-catholic references (and this one was the earliest churches you offered). Your turn. I ask you, sourcing non-Catholic references (not contemporary opinion), why do you believe the other churches listed were Baptist churches?

 

Thanks, Brother Joe. I was about to respond that except you have evidence to support your theory this topic probably cannot move forward. The issue is that most of those you point to held what we view as false doctrine, as did the RCC. You are looking for a hypothetical that cannot be shown to exist for sixteen hundred years. I think that fact alone points to the conclusion you may need to redefine "true Church.".

But it has been a pleasure discussing this topic with you. Church history is a love of mine, and there is so much to learn it is a shame its often ignored. I am not saying that this is as important as Scripture, but a good understanding of Church history and historical theology helps understanding how and why some of our doctrines and theories developed. We can then look back with a greater appreciation for those brethern who sacrificed for Truth towards our benefit.