Featured Were There Non-Catholic Churches Before Protestants?

The Lord's body are the believers who make up the body.
". . . For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. . . ." -- 1 Corinthians 10:17.

 

I found this

 

And, I found this regarding Baptist Succession

This idea was popularized in the early 20th century by Baptist pastor, and historian, James M. Carroll who wrote a book entitled Trail of Blood. In it Carroll claims that the Baptist church, as it is known today, descended through history under different names, such as the Anabaptists, Montanists, and Novations.

At first, this may sound tenable, but when you actually look at these groups, and what they taught, you see very quickly that their theology was anything but Baptist.

The Anabaptists denied that a person is saved by faith alone.[2]

The Montanists taught that "God, not being able to save the world by Moses and the Prophets, took flesh of the Virgin Mary, and in Christ, His Son, preached and died for us. And because He could not accomplish the salvation of the world by this second method, the Holy Spirit descended upon Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla, giving them the plenitude which St. Paul had not (1 Corinthians 13:9). [1]

The Novatians refused readmission to communion of baptized Christians who had denied their faith. [3]

"For proponents [of Baptist Successionism], writes Fr. Dwight Longenecker, "the fact that there is no historical proof for their theory simply shows how good the Catholic Church was at persecution and cover-up. Baptist Successionism can never be disproved because all that is required for their succession to be transmitted was a small group of faithful people somewhere at some time who kept the flame of the true faith alive. The authors of this "history" skim happily over the heretical beliefs of their supposed forefathers in the faith. It is sufficient that all these groups were opposed to, and persecuted by, the Catholics."

 

To my knowledge, nobody in the Early Church interpreted that passage in that way. Maybe you could point us to an early church document that says otherwise?

 

That is not quite the whole truth. The issue WAS debated earlier in the Church and the Catholic Church allowed diversity of opinions until one day when suddenly, it no longer allowed disagreement with one position and then the 'official position' became retroactive back to Jesus and Peter [according to the unchanging tradition of the universal church]. Not too different from Priests and celibacy or the opinions of Augustine on predestination and works.

 

I think the key doctrines must exist back to Paul., individual responsibility, believers Baptism, etc. no matter what names were used. Other doctrinal differences occurred but the NT ideas must be present

 

.

Then there should be historical evidence of this, right?

 

Yes, but remember many were persecuted almost out of existence through the ages. Many survived by being in remote areas

 

Lots of other heretical document's survived, why not any supporting your Baptistic doctrines?

 

The "twelve hundred years" were the years preceding the Reformation in which Rome persecuted Baptists with the most cruel persecution thinkable. Sir Isaac Newton: "The Baptists are the only body of known Christians that have never symbolized with Rome." Mosheim (Lutheran): "Before the rise of Luther and Calvin, there lay secreted in almost all the countries of Europe persons who adhered tenaciously to the principles of modern Dutch Baptists." Edinburg Cyclopedia (Presbyterian): "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." Tertullian was born just fifty years after the death of the Apostle John.

 

They exist, I am not a scholar,. Each group must be research separately

He is one example.
Tertullian was ordained a presbyter in the church at Carthage, North Africa, and began writing books addressing the issues facing the church of his day. In response to a heresy about the Godhead, Tertullian wrote Against Praxus, which for the first time used the word trinity to describe the Godhead. Concerning Father, Son, and Spirit, Tertullian said, “These three are one substance, not one person.” His longest book, Against Marcion, defended the use of the Old Testament by the Christian church, and demonstrated how to use the Scriptures to refute heresies.

 

Anabaptist did not believe in Sola-Fide, do you believe like the Anabaptist?

 

Baptist, having the meaning, New Testament churches. Ah, no New Testament churches.

 

I'm glad you brought up Tertullian because he is often used as an argument against infant baptism. First, Tertullian doesn’t reject the practice of infant baptism. He discourages it, but he doesn’t forbid it (that’s an important distinction, since it shows he viewed as possible). Second, his basis for discouraging it isn’t because the young children don’t know Christ. It’s because he’s concerned that once they’re baptized, they’ll be damned forever if they fall into mortal sin. To understand why he was concerned about this, you need to know something about the controversy, do you know about the heresy called Novatianism?

 

Commentaries right or wrong are not the authority. Holy scripture is (2 Timothy 3:15-17).

 

I think they did, You realize it was a derogatory term .I do not know if it is the same groups today, which are more like Mennonite.

 

The historical evidence means nothing to our friends, they reject what has been recorded historically and the true way only started in the 1500's and afterwards.

 

Good grief, what is that mess?

 

Anabaptists DID NOT believe salvation was by faith alone. Investigate it for yourself. But here are several evangelical theologians who state:

Theologian Timothy George, the founding dean of Beeson Divinity School, wrote in his Theology of the Reformers in 1988 (p. 269):

Menno, and Anabaptists generally, did not accept Luther's forensic doctrine of justification by faith alone because they saw it as an impediment to the truth doctrine of a 'lively' faith which issues in holy living.

Phil Johnson, executive director of Grace to You, John MacArthur's radio program, wrote online at his Spurgeon website:

But in [rejecting forensic justification] they [the Anabaptists] undermined the very foundation of the biblical doctrine of justification. They left people to try to devise a righteousness of their own to those who believe (cf. Phil 3:9; Rom 4:5-6).

 

Funny how all this could happen since the Baptist faith tradition was only founded in the early 1600's by John Smyth.