No Problem :thumbsup:
If you have other questions just ask. :godisgood:
Spiritual Kinship
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by CarpentersApprentice, Nov 7, 2006.
Page 2 of 3
-
CA -
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? -
Allan,
I do have a couple of questions. Below you said...
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 Active MemberSite Supporter
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. -
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 Active MemberSite Supporter
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 ... -
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 -
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'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 -
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 -
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 -
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.
Your thoughts?
CA -
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. -
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 -
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:
Remember:
However with due regard for your words from Mosheim:
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
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? -
Page 2 of 3