Spiritual Kinship

[Allan]

No Problem :thumbsup:

If you have other questions just ask. :godisgood:

 

[CarpentersApprentice]

... The point is not that they were ALL 100% biblical but that they were never apart of the Catholic Church and their were also biblical enough (from somewhat to very) to never become a cult or outright false religion. Thus we can trace our heritage 'through' them back to the early church...

I can understand that Baptists don't want to be seen as part of the Catholic Church, but should it not give a Baptist significant pause to have to admit that their progenitors were not "100% biblical", or that they were only "biblical enough"?

CA

 

[Allan]

They were all biblical 'enough' just not 100% biblical or absolutely correct. It is MUCH better to say your lineage is from those somewhat to mostly biblical than little to non-biblical. Besides it was kinda hard to be able to develope a strong theollogical grouding when your members are hunted and slaughtered by the hundreds and sometimes thousands at a time (depending on the era). Think about it, who is 100% biblical even today?? I believe (on a personal note from personal studies) the Baptists are 'closer' to it but still none are perfect in understanding and being.

Also, it is not about NOT 'wanting' to be a part of the Catholic Church, there is suffienct historical evidence which points to the fact we never were (in lineage) apart of that religion like the protestents were. That is not to say there may have been at some time people who were catholic but that it was never a movement OUT FROM the Catholic church as a whole like the protestents.

 

[Claudia_T]

This is true Biblical spiritual lineage.

John 8:
31: Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
32: And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
33: They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?
34: Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
35: And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever.
36: If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.
37: I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.
38: I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.
39: They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.
40: But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.
41: Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.
42: Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
43: Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
44: Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
45: And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.

 

[Allan]

Jesus was speaking to the Jews and not the church. The Church is NOT spiritual Israel and therefore TRUE Israel.

However, we were speaking specifically pertaining to succesionism FROM the first church to now.

 

[Allan]

CarpentersApprentice:

Did you find what you were looking for?
Any other questions you have, I can help try to give a answer or lead to a help?

 

[CarpentersApprentice]

Allan,

I do have a couple of questions. Below you said...

They were all biblical 'enough' just not 100% biblical or absolutely correct. It is MUCH better to say your lineage is from those somewhat to mostly biblical than little to non-biblical...

Would the Paulicians and Albigenses come under the "they were all biblical enough" statement?

On the "reformedreader" site many of the authors (HC Vedder, William Hawkins, Willard Ramsey, John T. Christian, JM Cramp and John Henry Grime) count the Paulicians of the 5th century and the Albigenses of the 12 century as precursors to the Baptists.

It is difficult for me to think of Paulicians and Albigenses as any kind of Christian that present day Baptists would accept as "Christian". Their practices may have sometimes been anti-sacramental (and, thus, anti-Catholic), and they may have rightly stood against certain excesses of the Catholic Church, but their beliefs about Jesus and the spiritual side of life are anything but Christian.

Even the brief general articles found on the internet, for example, here: http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Main_Page paint a picture of these groups, "Cathars", as believing things much closer to New Age claptrap than Christian doctrine.

So... what is your opinion of the Paulicians and Albigenses and how they fit into Baptist history?

Thanks.

CA

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

CA:
"Even the brief general articles found on the internet, for example, here: http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Main_Page paint a picture of these groups, "Cathars", as believing things much closer to New Age claptrap than Christian doctrine.

So... what is your opinion of the Paulicians and Albigenses and how they fit into Baptist history?"

GE:
One thing one should not forget is that the pictures we have of the likes of the 'Cathars' beliefs, come from their worst enemy, the anti-christ itself! So one should not be too gullible.

 

[CarpentersApprentice]

One thing one should not forget is that the pictures we have of the likes of the 'Cathars' beliefs, come from their worst enemy, the anti-christ itself! So one should not be too gullible.

Gerhard,

Are you, then, allowing for the opposite as well?

That if the dualistic beliefs of the Cathars (Paulicians or Albigenses) is an accurate portrayal of who they were, then they should not be considered forerunners of the Baptists?

CA

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Gerhard,

Are you, then, allowing for the opposite as well?

That if the dualistic beliefs of the Cathars (Paulicians or Albigenses) is an accurate portrayal of who they were, then they should not be considered forerunners of the Baptists?

CA

GE:
To be quite honest I have no clue as how to answer you. All I know is I have never heard a Baptist making of those people their 'forerunners'. Rightly or wrongly Baptists generally claim their origin from the Bible. To me any Church that does baptism with water - whichever way they choose - is a Baptist, and to me is wrong in it. 'Wrong' - not Scriptural. That is, to me. That doesn't say I regard Baptists as not the Church of Christ! I have long ago made peace with the realisation Christ's earthly Body is like all earthly bodies: far from flawless! Who am I to judge, the worst of sinners? It's only when one cannot help to recognise antichrist when I loose all patience and sympathy, and am devoured for wrath ...

 

[CarpentersApprentice]

... Baptists generally claim their origin from the Bible...

I agree. And the historicity of that claim, via the Spiritual Kinship theory, is what I am hoping to explore in this thread.

My question about the Cathars is one specific issue in my exploration of the overall idea of how it is that Baptists understand they got from the first century to the present day.

I hope to discover how Baptist's understand their faith as being built on a solid historical foundation.

CA

 

[Allan]

Allan,

I do have a couple of questions. Below you said...



Would the Paulicians and Albigenses come under the "they were all biblical enough" statement?

On the "reformedreader" site many of the authors (HC Vedder, William Hawkins, Willard Ramsey, John T. Christian, JM Cramp and John Henry Grime) count the Paulicians of the 5th century and the Albigenses of the 12 century as precursors to the Baptists.

It is difficult for me to think of Paulicians and Albigenses as any kind of Christian that present day Baptists would accept as "Christian". Their practices may have sometimes been anti-sacramental (and, thus, anti-Catholic), and they may have rightly stood against certain excesses of the Catholic Church, but their beliefs about Jesus and the spiritual side of life are anything but Christian.

Even the brief general articles found on the internet, for example, here: http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Main_Page paint a picture of these groups, "Cathars", as believing things much closer to New Age claptrap than Christian doctrine.

So... what is your opinion of the Paulicians and Albigenses and how they fit into Baptist history?

Thanks.

CA

First did you happen to read WHY they considered them as a part of that 'kinship'?
Secondly, it also needs to be determinded WHEN (time period) you are refering to and which spesific sect within that time period as they ranged from 5 to 14th century and over time they went much furthur away from their own traditional teachings and is why other groups spawned off FROM them throughout time.
Here is a link that might help somewhat, but you must remember first to identify the time period and the beliefs of that time period and not them as a whole OVER TIME. I did go back and look at some of the authors and many do identify the 'WHY' they hold that view, so just read and look for yourself but remember they are not dealing with the doctrines of them as a whole throughtout their existance but during the first and up to certain time periods to which a seperation come and another group formed that held more to truth than theory. (as best as they could under the death sentence they were all under for not being Catholic)

http://www.reformedreader.org/history/ford/chapter08.htm

 

[CarpentersApprentice]

First did you happen to read WHY they considered them as a part of that 'kinship'?
Secondly, it also needs to be determinded WHEN (time period) you are refering to and which spesific sect within that time period http://www.reformedreader.org/history/ford/chapter08.htm

Allan,

I'd like to focus on the Mosheim quote about the Paulicians since he gives us the most to work with concerning theological specifics.

However, the page reference that Ford makes is incorrect. Page 258-259 of Mosheim refers to the Monothelites, not the Paulicians. What is the reference in Mosheim for the Paulicians?

Mosheim's Institutes of Ecclesiastical History:
http://tera-3.ul.cs.cmu.edu/cgi-bin/reader.pl?call=29643

Thanks, CA

 

[CarpentersApprentice]

Mosheim's Institutes of Ecclesiastical History:
http://tera-3.ul.cs.cmu.edu/cgi-bin/reader.pl?call=29643

Allan,

Found a discussion of the Paulicians in Mosheim's work in two places:

Page 320 (tera -3 web site page 361) and 384 (tera-3 web site page 425). The actual quote that Ford uses is on page 387.

According to these pages there is more to the Paulician beliefs than SH Ford cites in his "History of the Baptists". Of the section beginning at page 321, see paragraphs 5 and 6. Of the section beginning at page 384, see note 1 on page 386. Both of these areas provide information not included by Ford.

Yes, (1) the Paulicians were anti-sacramental, and (2) they did not accept the Catholic concept of the communion of saints, and (3) they did not accept the authority of Catholic bishops. All of this demonstrates that they were not Catholic, but in light of the above information about the particulars of their theology - in what manner can Paulicians be considered early Baptists ?

CA

 

[CarpentersApprentice]

In particular, what Baptist would want to have a group in their lineage that -

* Does not accept the Old Testament, or 1st and 2nd Peter as Scripture.
* Prefers the allegorical to the literal sense of Scripture, "let it should militate against their doctrines."
* Denies that the world was created by God.
* Does not believe that "God created all things from nothing by His Son."
* Believes that earth and heaven have always existed, without an original author.
* Believes that the God who created people is not the God who resides in heaven.
* Considers "the Trinity in the Godhead as being absurd."
* Believes that "Christ was not born of the Virgin Mary."
* Believes that Jesus "did not suffer for mankind, was not really laid in the tomb, and did not ride from the dead."
* Does not celebrate the Lord's Supper.
* Believes that "the crimes of the voluptuous would not meet with the recompense of punishment."

These, according to the Mosheim reference, are also the beliefs of the Paulicians.

Why, with views like these, do Baptist's believe that Paulicians are their spiritual kin?

CA

 

[CarpentersApprentice]

First did you happen to read WHY they considered them as a part of that 'kinship'?

RE Per Ford, "...the whole of religion consisted in the study of practical piety, and in a course of action conformable to the Divine laws; and they treated all external modes of worship with the utmost contempt..."

This outlook would certainly be attractive to Baptists. But most of the other statements quoted from Mosheim are more about what the Paulicians don't believe, rather than positive statements about what they do believe. It is difficult to glean the Baptist distinctives from these negative statements.

And that they rejected Baptism and the Lord's Supper should give any Baptist pause.

Secondly, it also needs to be determinded WHEN (time period) you are refering to and which spesific sect within that time period as they ranged from 5 to 14th century...

I'd like to concentrate on the Paulicians from about the 7th to about the 11th century. According to Mosheim their beliefs didn't change much over that time and, to my knowledge, there is very little discussion of their beliefs before or after this period.

Your thoughts?

CA

 

[Allan]

I will adress this in a day or two as I am at this time quite busy. I appreciate your patience with which you allow me, thank you.
You have used this term "baptist distinctives" a couple of times so I am curious what you 'think' Baptist disctives are. In understanding this I can give you a better answer to your questions with direct regard to this. One reason I say this is because if you understanding is different from what Baptists understand (or more specifically those of whom you are reading) then you couldn't put two and two together anyway.

So maybe that would be a good place for me to better understand your (whether you understanding or from some books) discriptor of Baptist distinctives, while I get back with you on the Paulicans.

 

[CarpentersApprentice]

I think article #2 on this site is a decent working definition of Baptist distinctives.

"What Makes a Baptist a Baptist?"

http://www.baptistdistinctives.org/articles_list.html

CA

 

[Allan]

I think article #2 on this site is a decent working definition of Baptist distinctives.

"What Makes a Baptist a Baptist?"

http://www.baptistdistinctives.org/articles_list.html

CA

First off - don't forget that Mosheim was a great enemy of the Paulicans and didn't write scrict truth of them on all things concerning them. He is also not the only writer of that time who spoke of the Paulicans either, though there is actaully not a lots of works regarding them either.

Here is a good book concerning the Paulican, historical documents, and other well studied men on the subject in dispute.
http://www.reformedreader.org/history/christian/ahob1/ahobc04.htm and
http://www.reformedreader.org/history/christian/ahob1/ahobc05.htm

From the second web link:

IT has already been indicated that the Paulicians came from Armenia, by the way of Thrace, settled in France and Italy, and traveled through, and made disciples in, nearly all of the countries of Europe. The descent of the Albigenses has been traced by some writers from the Paulicians (Encyclopedia Britannica, I. 454. 9th edition). Recent writers hold that the Albigenses had been in the valleys of France from the earliest ages of Christianity. Prof. Bury says that "it lingered on in Southern France," and was not a "mere Bogomilism, but an ancient local survival." Mr. Conybeare thinks that it lived on from the early times in the Balkan Peninsula, "where it was probably the basis of Bogomilism" (Bury, Ed. Gibbon, History of Rome, VI. 563).

They spread rapidly through Southern France and the little city of Albi, in the district of Albigeois, became the center of the party. From this city they were called Albigenses. In Italy the Albigenses were known by various names, like the Paulicians, such as "Good Men," and others.

This is one reason I asked to know what time frame you were looking at and the sect they were...
Remember:

In, tracing the history and doctrines of the Albigenses it must never be forgotten that on account of persecution they scarcely left a trace of their writings, confessional, apologetical, or polemical; and the representations which Roman Catholic writers, their avowed enemies, have given of them, are highly exaggerated. The words of a historian who is not in accord with, their principles may here be used. He says:
It is evident, however, that they formed a branch of that broad stream of sectarianism and heresy which rose far away in. Asia from the contact between Christianity and the Oriental religions, and which, by crossing the Balkan Peninsula, reached Western Europe. The first overflow from this source were the Manichaeans, the next the Paulicians, the next the Cathari, who in the tenth and eleventh centuries were very strong in Bulgaria, Bosnia, and Dalmatia. Of the Cathari, the Bogomils, Patoreni, Albigenses, etc. . . were only individual developments (C. Schmidt, Schaff-Hersog, I. 47)

That is to say, these parties were all of the same family, and this connection is rendered all the more forceful on account of the terms of reproach in which this writer clothes his language.

It has already been indicated that the Paulicians were not Manichaeans, and the same thing may probably be said of the Albigenses. The Albigenses were oppressed on account of this sentiment, which accusation was also made against the Waldenses. Care must be taken at this point, and too prompt credence should not be given to the accuser. The Roman Catholic Church sought diligently for excuses to persecute. Even Luther was declared by the Synod of Sens to be a Manichaean. The celebrated Archbishop Ussher says that the charge "of Manichaeanism on the Albigensian sect is evidently false" (Acland, The Glorious Recovery of the Vaudois, lxvii. London, 1857). It would be difficult to understand the Albigenses from this philosophical standpoint. They were not a metaphysical people. Theirs was not a philosophy, but a daily faith and practice, which commended itself to the prosperous territory of Southern France.

from above works - Did you note that Martin Luther was called an Albigensian which according to Mosheim (and the Catholic Church) was pretty much identical in beliefs. Would you say Luther believed much like you with regard to the core foundations of scriptures with regard to Christ, His death - burial - and resurrection, that Christ Jesus IS God, Trinity, Salvation, the Word being the sole authority, ect...

However with due regard for your words from Mosheim:

1. Does not accept the Old Testament, or 1st and 2nd Peter as Scripture.
2. Prefers the allegorical to the literal sense of Scripture, "let it should militate against their doctrines."
3. Denies that the world was created by God.
4. Does not believe that "God created all things from nothing by His Son."
5. Believes that earth and heaven have always existed, without an original author.
6. Believes that the God who created people is not the God who resides in heaven.
7. Considers "the Trinity in the Godhead as being absurd."
8. Believes that "Christ was not born of the Virgin Mary."
9. Believes that Jesus "did not suffer for mankind, was not really laid in the tomb, and did not ride from the dead."
10. Does not celebrate the Lord's Supper.
11. Believes that "the crimes of the voluptuous would not meet with the recompense of punishment."

1. Proven to be absolutely a false statement
2. The allagorical verses literal was in regard to things like the Lords Supper, infant baptism, ect.. Not that they allagoricalized the bible! Read #7 as well
3 - 6 Has never been proven via any documented findings OUTSIDE the Catholic Church as it hunted them down and killed them.
7. From the first weblink

Turning to the doctrines and practices of the Paulicians we find that they made constant use of the Old and New Testaments. They had no orders in the clergy as distinguished from laymen by their modes of living, their dress, or other things; they had no councils or similar institutions. Their teachers were of equal rank. They strove diligently for the simplicity of the apostolic life. They opposed all image worship which was practiced in the Roman Catholic Church. The miraculous relics were a heap of bones and ashes, destitute of life and of virtue. They held to the orthodox view of the Trinity; and to the human nature and substantial sufferings of the Son of God.

Baptist views prevailed among the Paulicians. They held that men must repent and believe, and then at a mature age ask for baptism, which alone admitted them into the church. "It is evident," observes Mosheim, "they rejected the baptism of infants." They baptized and rebaptized by immersion. They would have been taken for downright Anabaptists (Allix, The Ecelesiastical History of the Ancient Churches of Piedmont. Oxford, 1821).

Note: he only quotes a piece Mosheim to prove a point and not that everything obtained of them is FROM Mosheim.
8. Again a false statement.
9. See later part of first paragraph embolded in #7
10. Oh Yes they most certainly did believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is one of the reasons they are called or refered to as Adoptionists.
11. This is no where stated except in Mosheim.

Does that help?

 

[Allan]

I think article #2 on this site is a decent working definition of Baptist distinctives.

"What Makes a Baptist a Baptist?"

http://www.baptistdistinctives.org/articles_list.html

CA

From what I have thus far written, showed, and linked to - they seem to have a good hold to most of the baptist distinctives, no?