Spiritual Kinship

No Problem :thumbsup:

If you have other questions just ask. :godisgood:

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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 ...

 

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

 

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.

 

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:

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

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. 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

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?

 

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?