Would Baptists even exist without Catholicism?

What do protestants and Baptists have to do with each other?

Well considering the Baptist church tries to follow the doctrine and beliefs of the earliest church fathers (the Bible), I imagine we would suffice alright without the Catholic Church.

UNP
Adam

 

It is more proper to say that protestants and separatists exist in spite of the RCC and their attempts to exterminate them.

HankD

 

Well the counter question is; would the RCC as we know it today exist without the protestants?

 

A quote from the Baptist historian Thomas Armitage might answer this question:

"The attempt to show that any religious body has come down from the Apostles an unchanged people is of itself an assumption of infallibility, and contradicts the facts of history. Truth only is changeless, and only as any people have held to the truth in its purity and primitive simplicity has the world had an unchanging religion. The truth has been held by individual men and scattered companies, but never in unbroken continuity by any sect as such. Sect after sect has appeared and held it for a time, then has destroyed itself by mixing error with the truth; again, the truth has evinced its divinity by rising afresh in the hands of a newly organized people, to perpetuate its diffusion in the earth.

"It is enough to show that what Christ?s churches were in the days of the Apostles, that the Baptist churches of today find themselves. The truths held by them have never died since Christ gave them, and in the exact proportion that any people have maintained these truths they have been the true Baptists of the world. The writer, therefore, refused to be bound in his investigations by an iron obligation to show a succession of people who have held all the principles, great and small, of any sect now existing--no more and no less.

"When Roger Williams left his followers they were in great trepidation lest they had not received baptism in regular succession from the Apostles, as if any body else had. They heard, however, that the Queen of Hungary had a list of regularly baptized descendants from the Apostles, and were half persuaded to send their brother, Thomas Olney, to obtain it at her hands. Still, on the second sober thought, they could not swallow this dose of the essence of popery, and concluded not to make themselves ridiculous. Whereupon Backus solemnly says, that at length they ?concluded such a course was not expedient, but believing that now they were got into the right way, determined to persevere therein.? Thus, once more, wisdom was justified in her children, UNDER THE APPLICATION OF THE RADICAL ANTI-ROMISH PRINCIPLE THAT THE NEW TESTAMENT IS THE ONLY TOUCH-STONE OF CHRISTIAN HISTORY" (Thomas Armitage, A History of the Baptists. Vol. 1, 1890, preface, pp. iii,iv).

DHK

 

Would you like me to elaborate?... Brother Glen

 

Do you really want me to answer that question? Let me give you a helpful website, and a quote from it:

[1] It follows from the principles taught in this chapter, that the Church (so called) of Rome has no right to rank amongst Christian Churches. She is not a Church, neither is her religion the Christian religion. We are accustomed to speak of Popery as a corrupt form of Christianity. We concede too much. The Church of Rome bears the same relation to the Church of Christ which the hierarchy of Baal bore to the institute of Moses; and Popery stands related to Christianity only in the same way in which Paganism stood related to primeval Revelation. Popery is not a corruption simply, but a transformation. It may be difficult to fix the time when it passed from the one into the other; but the change is incontestible. Popery is the gospel transubstantiated into the flesh and blood of Paganism, under a few of the accidents of Christianity.
by Rev. J.A. Wylie, LL.D.
http://www.fbinstitute.com/papacy/b1c1.html

DHK

 

Where would Baptists be without Roman Catholics?

It would kinda be like

Superman without Lex Luther

Batman without the Joker

Captain America without Red Skull

HeMan without Skeletor...

Okay, enough

The problem is with the premise, Jim. It assumes the early Catholic Church was Roman Catholic. Catholic simply means Universal and Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox continually point out to the RCC the absent of a pope at Nicea or Chalcedon. The Church of Rome was just one of many churches and it can be argued that Alexandria and Constantinople were just as influential.

The early Catholic Church cannot be exclusively claimed by the RCC or any denomination and was no more Roman Catholic than they were Anglican, Baptist or Pentecostal.

[ May 05, 2002, 10:01 PM: Message edited by: Kiffin ]

 

Hey Jim:
In A.D. 33, there was only the church.(Acts 2:47). The saved were called Christians.(Acts 11:26). There were no ists or ims in the New Testament Church. There was only the faith.(Jude 3, Eph. 4:5).
Frank

 

Frank,

When did Catholics start believing in the "Real Presence" of the Eucharist?

 

AStralis:
I do not know. I am not catholic. I have not studied in detail their books.
Frank

 

Baptists wouldn't have the NT as we know it today if it wasn't for the Catholic Church.

 

If you are referring to the Catholic Church that the Nicene Creed is referring to you are correct. If you are referring to the Roman Catholic church that has it's origins in the the 6th to 8th century you are incorrect.

 

No, I'm talking about the RCC that had its origins with Jesus, the apostles, and the early Christians.

 

There is no such thing as Baptist or Protestant truth. The things which you believe which are true originated with the Catholic Church. The rest, that which the Church denies, is simply heresy, pure and simple. Man made ideas having no substance in good exegesis of the Bible.

Example:

The Diety of Christ -- You may thank the Catholic Faith that you are not all Arian heretics. In fact, even AFTER the Council of Nicea, it was St. Athanasius and the pope who OPPOSED THE KNOWN RELIGIOUS WORLD in standing for this truth. All were against them, including all the Orthodox bishops. Their firmness kept the Church from official heresy.

The resurrection -- Belongs to the Catholic Church. Made a tenet of the Faith at Nicea.

The natures of Christ -- Again, you must thank the Catholic Faith for defining the proper understanding. Had it not been for the Catholic Church, y'all would be Nestorians, Monophysites, Monothellites, or some other breed of heretic.

The canon of Scripture -- There we NO BAPTISTS OR PROTESTANTS at the Council of Chaldedon. Again, thank the Catholic Faith that holy men, guided by the Holy Spirit, weeded out that which was of man and canonized that which was divine.

The Lord's Supper -- There was nothing like this in Judaism. Christ began it in the Upper Room, but it was left to the Church, the Catholic (universal) Church, to define it and establish its proper understanding and practice. Same you have changed it into a basically meaningless ritual.

The Return of the Lord in Judgement -- Nicene Creed again.

That's about all I can think of that rings of truth (probably missed something). All the rest, things such as so-called "believer's baptism", the "rapture", crackers and grape juice for "communion" as a bare rememberance, and a host of other things are merely the additions of men who were uninspired and had not the leading of the Holy Spirit. The fractiousness and divisions between Anabaptist groups and Protestant groups doctrinally proves this.

You really LOVE that quote from Wylie, don't you DHK? Well, he is in a state of higher enlightenment (I would love to see the faces of Baptists when they are introduced the Blessed Virgin!!) now and I'm sure has made pennance for such intemperate remarks. I am just glad that God brought me to my senses so that I could repent of such rash statements before I died and had to face Christ at the Judgement.

Kiffin, your comment lacks any backing at all other than your own prejudices. The seat of Peter, which makes the Catholic Church what it is, was recognized as early as the 3rd century and was called upon at Nicea (as at all councils). Our Lord gave St. Peter the keys to the kingdom. That makes his office special, even if you do not care to recognize it.

Cordially in disagreement,

Brother Ed

 

Bro. Ed,

With all due respect to you my friend, your whole view lacks historical validity. I grow weary as do your Eastern Orthodox and Coptic friends in continually pointing out the total asbsent of a pope at Nicea and Chalcedon. There was no Roman Catholic Church nor pope then(Of course Roman Catholic is a contradiction of the term Catholic) The Church of Alexandria, Church of Antioch, Church of Constantinople did not take orders from Rome and it was the Church of Alexandria not Rome that spearheaded the effort against Arius (Not Rome).

There is no historical evidence of the bishop of Rome up until the 5th century exercising power outside of his jurisdiction of Rome. Certaintly the Church of Rome had great preeimenence and honor because of her stand for the faith up until then but from the middle 5th to 8th century Rome through political power corrupted herself leaving the apostolic faith for political power.

So Rome's claim for exclusive rights of the Church Fathers and early Catholic Church has as much validity as do Southern Baptists, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Assembly of God, Methodist etc....in claiming them.

 

Naaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh.....you been readin' dem wrong books. (You know, Philip Schaff, Lorraine Boettner, Jack Chick, all dem hate Katlics bunch!!) History is not history with them, it is what they say it is, which is quite different from the facts.

The pope was not present at the Council of Nicea, but the final outcome was submitted to him for his approval as the head of the Church.

As for the noisy Orthodox and their claim to "infallibility" of doctrine and an unchangeable line of orthodox doctrine, they tend to forget that between 512AD and 516AD, EVERY Eastern bishopprick was held by an ARIAN HERETIC!! Not a good claim to being infallible in doctrine. In fact, every heresy had its beginning in the East, not in Rome. Bad form, old chap.

Not so with the Bishop of Rome, the head of the Church.

But my contention still stands. The Church was ONE, both East and West, and practiced UNIFORMLY those things which you Protestants do not. East and West were agreed upon (and still are to this day) baptismal regeneration, the Real Presence in the Eucharist, the honor accorded to the Blessed Virgin Mary, who is the new Eve and the ark of the New Covenant, as well as other truths which were appropriated by Protestants in the 16th century. Without the basic universal (catholic) beliefs of the Church, Eastern and Western, y'all would be either Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, or some form of outright pagan heresy done in the name of.....well, God, I guess, since it wouldn't be the Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

My point stands. The Orthodox are wrong and do not know either history (all of us kinda conveniently forget when it torpedoes our little theories) or the covenantal format of the kingdom which God established here on earth. I have never seen ONE good discussion of the covenant by any Orthodox writer. The word "covenant" appears over 280 times in Scripture, yet it is like a foreign phrase to most folks, which is really sad. If Jesus said "This is the NEW COVENANT in my Blood...." then we ought to really learn what the covenant is.

Know the covenant and you will know why there MUST be ONE head over the Church here on earth. It comes from the covenantal principle of hierarchy (headship). Perhaps one day someone will teach it to the Orthdox and they will wise up.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

[ May 06, 2002, 11:00 PM: Message edited by: CatholicConvert ]