DHK,your lack of desire to look into history to substantiate the truth of your faith isn't very commendable. You probably have not read a single primary historical source to substantiate this claim of your"Baptist successionism." or" Non denominational Christian" Instead, you mentioned earlier in a previous post the booklet Trail of Blood by J.M. Carroll, which puts forth the ideas he passed on to you, or even a similar book.
I have only used one quote from J.M. Carroll, and that is the quote of the persecution of Christians by the RCC--millions upon millions of Christians during the dark ages--That is the only quote I have used.
I did not quote about the Montanists, Waldenses, etc., from Carroll.
I also spent a very extensive post explaining to you how I don't believe in successionism. So why are you bringing this up again. Go back and read where I explained that to you already. We don't believe in successionism.
Let’s examine the authors claims about the sects that he mentions. He claims descent from the Anabaptists, Montanists, and Novations, but was their theology of a Baptist slant?
I have studied both Baptist History and have had a course in "church history." I quoted from my Baptist History books, but took note that many of my Baptist History Books quote directly from original source material that I don't have.
The Anabaptists baptized babies, and so can in no way be considered the spiritual ancestors to the present-day Baptists.
This is about the most unintelligent thing one can say.
The word "ana-baptist" means to "baptize again." "ana" means again.
The RCC would so persecute the Anabaptists that they would round them up, imprison them, and kill them (usually by drowning). Why? Because they "baptized again," that is they baptized adults or those that believed in Christ by faith were then baptized--
even if they had been baptized as infants. (which the RCC took as a personal insult). Thus the name "anabaptist."
It was the RCC that baptized infants. The anabaptists "baptized again" 'adults.' Thus the name.
Novations taught that those who had fallen from the faith should never be allowed to repent and return to the fold, since God cannot forgive their sin. The same council that defined the divinity of Christ (Nicea in A.D. 325) condemned the Novations.
You don't document your sources. So I don't know where this stuff comes from that you are posting.
Here is what J.T. Christian says from his book, "A History of the Baptists."
Note also the sources he quotes:
The rise of the Novatian churches was another outcropping of the old strife between the lax and strict discipline. In the year 250 Novatian strenuously opposed the election of Cornelius as the pastor of the church in Rome. Novatian declared that he did not wish the office himself, but he pleaded for the purity of the church. The election of Cornelius prevailed, and Novatian carried many churches and ministers with him in his protest. The vast extent of the Novatian movement may be learned from the authors who wrote against him, and the several parts of the Roman empire where they flourished.
On account of the purity of their lives they were called the Cathari, that is, the pure. "What is still more," says Mosheim, "they rebaptized such as came over to them from the Catholics" (Mosheim, Institutes of Ecclesiastical History 1.203. New York, 1871). Since they baptized those who came to them from other communions they were called Anabaptists. The fourth Lateran Council decreed that these rebaptizers should be punished by death. Accordingly, Albanus, a zealous minister, and others, were punished with death. They were, says Robinson, "trinitarian Baptists." They held to the independence of the churches; and recognized the equality of all pastors in respect to dignity and authority. (Robinson, Ecclesiastical Researches, 126. Cambridge, 1792).
This information is much more accurate and documented than what you have given to me.
Montanists were a movement centering around the false prophet Montanus, who taught that the heavenly Jerusalem would soon descend upon his home town, the Phrygian village of Pepuza, and that, to prepare for the imminent coming of Christ, one must practice severe asceticism.
I told you about the Montanists. Why must I repeat myself. The RCC has very inaccurate information.
Tertullian was a Montanist. One can learn much about them from him.
Last time I quoted Armitage. This time I will quote from J.T. Christian:
They held that science and art, all worldly education or gay form of life, should be avoided, because such things belonged to paganism. The crown of life was martyrdom. Religious life they held to be austere.
The holiness of the church was simply the holiness of the members.
The substance of the contentions of these churches was for a life of the Spirit. It was not a new form of Christianity; it was a recovery of the old, the primitive church set over against the obvious corruptions of the current Christianity. (Moeller, Montanism in Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia, III.1562).
The Montanists were deeply rooted in the faith, and their opponents admitted that they received the entire Scriptures of the Old and the New Testaments, and they were sound in their views of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (Epiphanius, Hoer, XLVJII. 1). They rejected episcopacy and the right of the bishop’s claim to exercise the power of the keys.
The attractiveness of Montanism to many was its strictness of living a pure life--what you term as asceticism. The fact is that we must all live sacrificial pure lives in preparation of the coming of Christ always realizing that he could come at any minute. That is what they believed, and that is what the Bible teaches. Why should you be surprised? Do you think you can take your bank account to heaven?
For a person to reject the Baptist successionist view is actually a compliment to the Baptists. In fact, years after having written Trail of Blood, Mr Carroll wrote of himself, "Extensive graduate study and independent investigation of church history has, however, convinced [the author] that the view he once held so dear has not been, and cannot be, verified. On the contrary, surviving primary documents render the successionist view untenable. . . . Although free church groups in ancient and medieval times sometimes promoted doctrines and practices agreeable to modern Baptists, when judged by standards now acknowledged as baptistic, not one of them merits recognition as a Baptist church. Baptists arose in the seventeenth century in Holland and England. They are Protestants, heirs of the reformers"
I don't know the veracity of this statement.
But I don't believe the successionist view and neither did Carroll. You are a typical RCC, slandering the Baptists without a proper knowledge of their beliefs. Go back where I have explained this and find out what he believed. I explained it to you. I am not going to do it again now.
