How will your church celebrate the Reformation?

[TCassidy]

There were a group near here some of them, at least, mentioned by Foxe who were called a sort of Anlgicised anti Calvinist Anabaptists, due to persecution in this area they went over the water to Bocking in Essex.

Humphrey Middleton and Nicholas Shetterton were burned at Canterbury in 1555.

I have the complete Foxe's Book of Martyrs which is 12 volumes. (Although Foxe hated the name Foxe's Book of Martyrs. He said he never wrote such a book, and his book was called Actes and Monuments.)

Unfortunately the present one volume book has been greatly redacted, largely due to a religious form of Political Correctness.

 

[TCassidy]

111111


I can't say I agree with the last mark, mainly because I don't quite understand it.

He is saying the Lord's Supper should be closed to that church's members only and it is in remembrance only and imparts no saving merit.

(He does tend to be a bit long winded.)

 

[David Kent]

Baptist roots seem to me to be bifurcated between Baptist which trace their linage through the Reformation via the Church of England and those dissenters from the CoE such as the Puritans who preferred Congregationalism over the CoE polity, and those who trace their linage through the Radical Reformation of the Mennonites and Anabaptists.

It is the latter group who see the Anabaptists as successors to Waldensians, Montanists, Petrobussians, Turtulianists, etc.

I believe there is sufficient historical evidence to effectively argue both positions.

I believe my faith/doctrine dates to the time of Christ, but the name "baptist" is most likely a diminutive of "anabaptist" and thus owes its origin to Continental Europe rather than England.

The Montanists were a charismatic group who had many strange doctrines including believing in Venal sins and mortal sins later incorporated into the RCC. Before the reformation the Waldenses accepted the mass once a year. After the reformation they seemed to mostly be absorbed into Lutherism. At the diet of Worms, Luther was accused of being a Hussite. He denied it, but then realised he did not know what the Hussites believed, so he went to the library and read up on Huss. The next day he admitted that he was a Hussite. The Hussites were close to the Waldensians The Waldensians gave in the Rome before the Hussites.

 

[David Kent]

Humphrey Middleton and Nicholas Shetterton were burned at Canterbury in 1555.

I have the complete Foxe's Book of Martyrs which is 12 volumes. (Although Foxe hated the name Foxe's Book of Martyrs. He said he never wrote such a book, and his book was called Actes and Monuments.)

Unfortunately the present one volume book has been greatly redacted, largely due to a religious form of Political Correctness.

Mine was 8 volumes 1846. Shetterton and co were in Vol 5. My grandson has it now. The Evangelical Library in London had a three volume set in old English black letter type. I think it was 1700 and something. Some of the pages had been affected by damp in the past.

If you look up Andrew Hewet died July 4th 1533, he was from my former hometown of Faversham, about 8 miles from here. It was called Feversham then. In the Domesday Book it was called Favreshant.

 

[TCassidy]

The Montanists were a charismatic group who had many strange doctrines including believing in Venal sins and mortal sins later incorporated into the RCC.

The important thing to remember when researching ancient dissenters is that the winner always writes the history books.

There is no doubt that some, or even most, Montanists were what we might call "charismatics."

However, when we look at all those who fly the standard of "Baptist" we will also discover some serious irregularities, including charismatic practices. But that cannot be legitimately applied to all Baptists without distinction.

It is claimed that Montanus said he was the Paraclete, and that his followers claimed extra-Biblical revelations. Unfortunately there is no proof to support these charges. The spirituality and life of Montanist churches so contrasted with the formality and deadness of the main-stream churches, that such conclusions may easily have been drawn. If a Roman Catholic or High Anglican came to a Bible-believing Baptist church today, he would probably think it was very emotional too, what with strong preaching, contemporary music, pianos, drumbs, and often an invitation at the end!

The Lutheran historian Mosheim accuses Montanus of calling himself the Paraclete, but the translator of his history, McLean, adds the following footnote: "Those are undoubtedly mistaken who have asserted that Montanus gave himself out that he was the Holy Ghost" (Church History, Mosheim, Volume I, Page 188).

Armitage concludes, "For this reason Montanus was charged with assuming to be the Holy Spirit, which was simply a slander" (Armitage, T.; A History of the Baptists, page 175).

W. A. Jarrell cites Tertullian's explanation of an "ecstasy" and concludes that he probably meant nothing more than what David said - "My cup runneth over."

Tertullian, referring to visions and extra-Biblical revelations said: "But truly according as the Scriptures are read, or Psalms are sung, or addresses are given, or prayers are offered, thence, from that medium are materials by which we are assisted by visions." The context of this statement clearly indicates what we would call "illumination" today. Nothing "extra-Biblical" about that! It is generally admitted that the Montanist churches accepted the received doctrines of the "established" church - their only differences being that of emphasis and practice.

It is possible, but not conclusively proven, that some Montanist churches did hold to questionable or unscriptural practices, such as some condemn, the ordination of women. Some churches may have allowed women to preach because of their belief that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are dispensed to Christians of every condition and sex, without distinction.

Triune immersion may have been practiced in some Montanist churches.

Some of the Montanist Pastors may have remained celibate, but no conclusive statement to that effect can be found, however, it may have been the more practical precaution in time of persecution according to 1 Corinthians 7:26-29 (compare to verses 8 and 9).

They were accused of practicing harsh asceticism by those who lived very liberal life styles, and that they practiced harsh church discipline. It should be noted that each of these practices, even if true, are not unknown in some Baptist churches today.

The preaching of the Montanists had far ranging results. Tertullian was a noted convert to Montanist ideals, who helped to refine those teachings and left a legacy in North Africa (Tertullianists) which would later give rise to the Donatists.

Several church councils were called against the Montanist movement, and it was finally officially condemned by the "established" churches. The influence of this movement may be seen in the Novatian schism, the Donatus schism, and through its contacts in Armenia and the rise of the Paulicians.

Several defenders among historians may be found for the Montanists, some of whom are cited here:

1. The conclusion of an early historian, Dr. William R. Williams, is that it was hard to find doctrinal errors in their teaching. Their emotionalism stemmed from their belief that a true experience of grace is evident in the believers life, as many other teachers have stressed in much later periods of reform.

2. Dr. Dorner wrote of their movement that it was a democratic reaction of the church members against the movement to install church leaders as overlords in the church body.

3. Moller, contributor to the Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopedia, wrote, "But Montanism was, nevertheless, not a new form of Christianity; nor were the Montanists a new sect. On the contrary, Montanism was, simply a reaction of the old, the primitive church, against the obvious tendency of the day, to strike a bargain with the world and arrange herself comfortably in it." (Quoted from : Griffith, J. W., A Manual of Church History: Volume II, page 36).

 

[David Kent]

Humphrey Middleton and Co also met in Faversham before they went to Essex.

 

[David Kent]

However, when we look at all those who fly the standard of "Baptist" we will also discover some serious irregularities, including charismatic practices. But that cannot be legitimately applied to all Baptists without distinction.

Wesley said he thought the Montanists were misrepresented.

 

[Iconoclast]

You know half the time people use the Prayer button I an not sure what they are wanting to communicate, but it looks like they are wanting to use it as a means to disagree. What an abuse of it and the idea of prayer.

That's because crybabies wanted any dislike or disagree emoticons removed.
There should be a full range of emoticons.

 

[Iconoclast]

Me either.

They want to dislike the post so they can only indicate it by laughing, or by using the prayer emoticon to say......your post missed the point so badly onlybprayer can restore you to your right mind.

 

[David Kent]

Humphrey Middleton and Nicholas Shetterton were burned at Canterbury in 1555.

I have the complete Foxe's Book of Martyrs which is 12 volumes. (Although Foxe hated the name Foxe's Book of Martyrs. He said he never wrote such a book, and his book was called Actes and Monuments.)

Unfortunately the present one volume book has been greatly redacted, largely due to a religious form of Political Correctness.

The Martyrs Memorial, Canterbury

Only about 9 miles from here.

 

[Lukasaurus]

True Baptist's Faith and Practice was in place and viable 1600 years before Luther or Calvin were born.


Bro. James

Ahh yes, the Novatians and Donatists.

That true baptist faith which said that after baptism, if you sinned, you could not repent and were out of the church.

Or the anabaptists, which taught sinless perfection

From the Augsberg Confession Article 12

The Novatians also are condemned, who would not absolve such as had fallen after Baptism, though they returned to repentance.

 

[TCassidy]

That true baptist faith which said that after baptism, if you sinned, you could not repent and were out of the church.

Uh, no. What they did was deny those who, under persecution, had denied the faith and betrayed other Christians to the persecutors, to return to their place in the congregation. They could no longer be trusted if such were to happen again.

Or the anabaptists, which taught sinless perfection

No, again. I suggest you read Anabaptism and Asceticism: A Study in Intellectual Origins By Kenneth R. Davis.

He says, on page 187, "Luther, Zwingli, and the Strassburg Reformers charged the Anabaptists with proclaiming and upholding a doctrine of perfectionism. If the charge meant, as some historians have assumed, that they believed in the possibility of achieving some kind of permanent state of absolute perfection or sinlessness in this life, such a charge is readily refuted by simple reference to the Anabaptist's stress both on the need of the ban and on its restorative function.

"Sinless perfection as an issue is essentially a "straw man." The sources show abundantly and clearly that the Anabaptists rejected any exaggerated charges of this type."

 

[David Kent]

http://providerfiles.thedms.co.uk/eandapics/TK/3039762_1_1.jpg

Westgate Tower in Canterbury where a number of Martyrs were starved to death

 

[David Kent]

Uh, no. What they did was deny those who, under persecution, had denied the faith and betrayed other Christians to the persecutors, to return to their place in the congregation. They could no longer be trusted if such were to happen again.

No, again. I suggest you read Anabaptism and Asceticism: A Study in Intellectual Origins By Kenneth R. Davis.

He says, on page 187, "Luther, Zwingli, and the Strassburg Reformers charged the Anabaptists with proclaiming and upholding a doctrine of perfectionism. If the charge meant, as some historians have assumed, that they believed in the possibility of achieving some kind of permanent state of absolute perfection or sinlessness in this life, such a charge is readily refuted by simple reference to the Anabaptist's stress both on the need of the ban and on its restorative function.

"Sinless perfection as an issue is essentially a "straw man." The sources show abundantly and clearly that the Anabaptists rejected any exaggerated charges of this type."

I did read somewhere that Anabaptists were sprinklers and Catabaptists were dippers,

 

[TCassidy]

Catabaptists

Catabaptists are those who deny any baptism at all. Today most of them are Ultradispensationalists.

 

[Reformed]

I believe my faith/doctrine dates to the time of Christ, but the name "baptist" is most likely a diminutive of "anabaptist" and thus owes its origin to Continental Europe rather than England.

Obviously, all Christians can trace their faith back to the time of Christ and the Apostles. We are all Christ's posterity. It's when we try to make the incipient aspects of the faith into denominations that have lasted two millennia that we run into problems. One of the creeds of the Reformation was Semper Reformanda — Always Reforming. The Reformation did awaken truths were all but dormant. I say "all but" because movement such as the Waldensians (which you mentioned) held on to core parts of the Gospel, much to the disdain of Rome. Baptist faith and practice found itself coming out of the Reformation and took two distinct tracks. Today there are more types of Baptist groups than Baskin Robbins has flavors! The part about Landmarkism that causes me some concern is their attempt, along with Eastern Orthodoxy, to trace themselves back to the incipient stages of the New Testament Church*. If you are part of Landmarkism than you know the movement generally considers other denominations, including Baptists, of not being true local churches. You may not believe that, but one of the founding fathers of Landmarkism, J.R. Graves, did.

Here is how I prefer to view it (and I understand that this is my view. I am speaking only for myself), "the faith once delivered" came to the early church from Christ and the teachings of the Apostles. Almost directly after the time of Augustine of Hippo, the evangelical message of the Gospel began to be usurped by Roman teaching. While the Gospel never disappeared, its proclamation was harder to find and hear. The Reformation did not rediscover the Gospel, it was used by God to cause the Gospel to be preached all over the world, and where the Gospel is preached, the Church experiences growth. There isn't a Christian denomination existing today that doesn't owe its existence to the events of the early 16th century.

*When I speak of the early church, I do so in a non-Dispensational manner. I believe the Church traces its birth back to Genesis. There have always been one called-out people of God.

 

[Reynolds]

They want to dislike the post so they can only indicate it by laughing, or by using the prayer emoticon to say......your post missed the point so badly onlybprayer can restore you to your right mind.

Yep, I only use the laughing when I like something that is funny.

 

[Iconoclast]

The Montanists were a charismatic group who had many strange doctrines including believing in Venal sins and mortal sins later incorporated into the RCC. Before the reformation the Waldenses accepted the mass once a year. After the reformation they seemed to mostly be absorbed into Lutherism. At the diet of Worms, Luther was accused of being a Hussite. He denied it, but then realised he did not know what the Hussites believed, so he went to the library and read up on Huss. The next day he admitted that he was a Hussite. The Hussites were close to the Waldensians The Waldensians gave in the Rome before the Hussites.

All of these groups and more did contain error,sometimes many errors.
Their very existence shows that not all believers were in the Roman church.I do not know what they had to work with as far as written material and copies of scripture before the time of the printing press.
To look back and pick them apart after reading our commentaries, and 15 different versions of the bible, and multiple Google searches does not seem to be equal footing does it?
In fact we have no choice but to own those Anabaptist who were faithful to God,despite their defective theology....for similar reasons.
While the trail of blood cannot quite be proven to be sustained,the truth is somewhere close to it.

 

[Covenanter]

The problem with the Reformation was that it succeeded because it was supported politically. Gospel Christians had no freedom under Rome & were suffered accordingly. Hoped for freedom through the Reformation did not occur because the Reformed churches allied with the new "powers that be."

That situation continues throughout the world, under atheism, communism, Islam, Hinduism & all other religions, including modern Christianity increasingly.

The religion-state links continue to oppress, as seen in Acts 4, & under Catholicism with the "conversion" of Constantine & suppression of the Donatists who refused to conform. Baptism of anyone "baptised" by the Catholic church became a capital offence.

Gospel Christians should be free under any & every secular power. The problem occurs when state & religion act together, so that non-conformists & supposed heretics are seen as rebels.

The Westminster Confession declares:

23:III. (The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide, that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.
​

The Congregational/Independent Savoy Declaration reads:

24:3 Although the magistrate is bound to encourage, promote, and protect the professors and profession of the gospel, and to manage and order civil administrations in a due subserviency to the interest of Christ in the world, and to that end to take care that men of corrupt minds and conversations do not licentiously publish and divulge blasphemy and errors, in their own nature subverting the faith and inevitably destroying the souls of them that receive them: yet in such differences about the doctrines of the gospel, or ways of the worship of God, as may befall men exercising a good conscience, manifesting it in their conversation, and holding the foundation, not disturbing others in their ways or worship that differ from them; there is no warrant for the magistrate under the gospel to abridge them of their liberty.​

The 1689 Baptist confession has no corresponding clause, simply expecting:

24:3. Civil magistrates being set up by God for the ends aforesaid; subjection, in all lawful things commanded by them, ought to be yielded by us in the Lord, not only for wrath, but for conscience sake; and we ought to make supplications and prayers for kings and all that are in authority, that under them we may live a quiet and peaceable life, in all godliness and honesty​

 

[percho]

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. Matt 16:18

Re-formed?