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.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Not all Calvinists are the same
- Thread starter Reformed
- Start date
This is getting to be so repetitive. I agree with all of the above. I was about to say virtually the same thing without as much detail. So many folks want to lump a great many diverse groups under the umbrella as early Baptists despite their heterodox positions. Brother Joe has more in common with the PCA and the OPC than the secs he cited.
BrotherJoseph
Well-Known Member
Hi Brother,
You do realize much, if not all of the historical writings of the information regarding these unorthodox views allegedly held by these ancient people were in fact recorded by the enemies, torturers, and persecutors of these people the mother whore of Babylon the Roman Catholic church, therefore such writings are not reliable. Little writings outside of those from their torturers exist from these people to establish a historical basis for their doctrines, however sufficient historical evidence does exist to establish their practice regarding baptism. I don't doubt the Catholics would have burned any biblical truths these people would have written just as they had a ban on the Bible being in the hands of the common people and burned people for trying to distribute the scriptures to the layman as it is written, "(Of whom the world was not worthy they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth" (Hebrews 11:38), perhaps the same may be said of these ancient believers.
BrotherJoseph
Well-Known Member
Brother Rippon,
Amen to this getting repetitive! I also agree with your assertion that doctrinally I probably have more in common with the PCA then the ancient Baptists of old doctrinally, but perhaps not in practices such as baptism by which the Baptists get their name. No Baptist for instance practice infant baptism and all Baptists practice full body immersion as opposed to sprinkling. These ancient Baptist's doctrinal knowledge was limited prior to the reformation, I believe mainly due to their suppressors and persecutors the Catholics who tried to withhold the scripture from the layman and drive out and kill those who believed any truth . Scriptures says, "Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages" (Ephesians 3:21), thus scripturally it cannot be that from the time of Constantine to the reformation there existed no true church, only the Catholics. If this were so, how can what Jesus have said be true, "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" (Matthew 16:18). If His church ceased from the time of Constantine to the time of the Reformation while the Catholics reigned, then these two scripture couldn't possible be true as that is the vast majority of the post apostolic age. These two scriptures alone I think are sufficient to establish my argument as we know scripture trumps even the historical records which we may both disagree on.
I have enjoyed the conversation, but think we have exhausted it. I appreciate everyone's contributions and do not get me wrong, I am thankful for the reformation, without it I doubt few would know the doctrines of grace, have access to free reading and ownership of scripture, and have the liberty to worship as desired. I will give anyone else who wants it the final word on this topic. As brother Rippon said, it has been exhausted.
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.
Last edited:
BrotherJoseph
Well-Known Member
Brother,
I am sorry you put so much confidence in Roman Catholic church history sources, do you also adhere to their history of the reformation accounts in order to be consistent? At any rate, we are beating a dead horse. We are not going to agree on this. Scripture is clear that God's church would be "in all ages" and the "Gates of Hell will not prevail", thus the Roman Catholic church could not be the only "church" from Constantine to the reformation, otherwise how can these scriptures be valid? These two verses mandates their must have been Baptist churches throughout all ages from the time of the apostles.Certainly if no true church existed from Constantine to the Reformation the Gates of Hell did prevail as this is the vast majority of history after the apostolic age, unless of course you consider the Catholic church a "true church". Answer me this one question, do you consider the Catholic church a "true church"? I consider that church's leader the antichrist (all popes throughout history, not just this one, for that matter) and their teachings "another gospel" and the church itself the "whore of Babylon" as most Baptists throughout history have (though there may be some children of God who are in that church who believe the truth and don't embrace their official church dogma). I'll let you answer my question, as for me, as I stated in my prior post I am out on this topic. I will not be posting any more on this topic, have enjoyed the discussion though. Have a good one.
God bless,
Brother Joe
Brother Joe
Last edited:
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.
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.
Last edited:
It is factual history.
Wow! How have you come up with this stuff?The Lord indeed has had His own people through the ages;a remnant. But to claim that these people must have been Baptists is sheer nonsense. Sorry to be blunt. Matthew 16:18 cannot support your contention.
Again, you need to read and listen to the works of Jim Renihand and Michael Haykin to start you off in the realm of factual Church History regarding this matter.
Last edited:
BrotherJoseph
Well-Known Member
Hi Brother Rippon and Brother Jon,
Scripture doesn't just proclaim that God has a people throughout all ages, it goes further than that, it declares, "Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages" (Ephesians 3:21). What churches brother Rippon and brother Jon do you believe gave Him that glory from the time of Constantine up until the time of the Reformation? I would like you to please name a few. I also find it funny I never received an answer from Brother Jon on if he considered the Catholic church a "true church", do you care to answer Brother Jon.
As far as my claim that the people were Baptist, I did so mainly because, "the Novatians, Donatists, Cathari, Paterines, Paulicians, Petrobrusians, Henericans, Arnoldists, Albigenses, Waldenses, Lollards, Mennonites and baptists, nearly all of whom were occasionally designated Anabaptist or re-baptizers by their enemies, because they disregarded infant or unregenerate baptism, and baptize all adults, whether previously baptized or not, who, upon a credible profession of faith, applied to them for the membership in their churches-thus insisting upon a spiritual or regenerated church membership, the First and most important mark of the apostolic church. " (Source Hassel, History of the Church of God). Why doesn't this qualify them as Baptists?
Brother Jon, as far as sources and evidence go that you have asked me for, I cited Hassel above and in numerous of my posts on this thread. He provides many citations in his work on church history and is an exhaustive work. If you are interested I refer you to his book. It can be found here http://pbministries.org/History/S. Hassell/church_of_god.htm You will probably disqualify himas he is was admittedly Baptist Elder, thus you will probably contend he was not objective impartial, but you and Brother Rippon apparently trust Catholic sources and writings regarding the enemies they persecuted and killed and burned as reliable sources, thus perhaps you should reconsider. It is true many Baptist historians have written sharing the perspective on the history of the church that you and brother Rippon seem to have in common, but the source documents used by these historians are Catholic in origin from those who persecuted these people and not from the people themselves . If I am wrong and the sources for your historians are not Catholic in origin, can you please provide me the writings of the source documents you have for the Waldenses written at the time of their origin or close there about?
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.
Last edited:
BrotherJoseph
Well-Known Member
Brother Jon,
First,thanks for the post and the time and effort you put into it. You did provide a lot of information about the various groups, but in my prior post you are replying to I specifically asked you for non Catholic sources regarding the Waldenesis (not for info on the other groups you mentioned) written around the time of their origin and there is nothing in your post that addresses it. In regards to this group you basically admit that # 1- I am right and you don't really have anything as you said, "All we really of their belief are those Catholic charges of heresy". # 2 You also admit the Waldenesis were, "considered heretics for holding baptistic ecclesiological views". Brother, one can argue this fact alone would make them Baptist.
Paul told us, "Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, what churches from Constantine up until the time of the reformation do you believe fulfilled this? Either you must say the Catholics who preach another gospel, or there weren't any (which would make scripture invalid), or your third alternative is you can say history hasn't recorded any, but there were some (which would prove my assertion that God has always had a "true church" outside of Rome,). Finally, you did not answer my other question that I now ask for a third time, do you believe the Roman Catholic church is a true church?
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?
Last edited:
BrotherJoseph
Well-Known Member
Hi Brother,
I appreciate your answer regarding the Catholics. I do not believe any of their local assemblies had lit candles. I also just don't see how God can derive glory "through" the church as Paul said in Ephesians would happen if there were no true local assemblies (only Roman Catholic ones) in the dark ages. At any rate, as for me, as I said a in a couple of posts to you I think we have exhausted the subject so I am bowing out. I have enjoyed our discussion. Have a nice weekend!
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.
Last edited: