Debating Catholicism

[Eleventh Doctor]

So supporting a state that kills civilians, breaks international law, and is currently practicing apartheid is fine? You can love the individuals in a country without supporting or loving that country. I agree the Christians in the ME are under a lot of persecution, I just don't know of any Christian communities in say Egypt or Syria that would support Israel.

Old Judge, can you give me an example of a Baptist from 251 AD? Also of Wycliffe, Huss, Savonarola, Zwingli, and Tyndale, only Zwingli could even be somewhat considered Baptist. And the first recorded Baptist church was in Amsterdam, 1609, 78 years after Zwingli's death not by persecution but in battle. So I really don't see how Zwingli was Baptist. Also that quote by Cardinal Hosius is a well known fake, please cite where in the Council of Trent he said that.

[The Old Judge]

While several of the larger churches began to err in the first two centuries after Christ's ascension, other churches did stick faithful, or mostly so, to His teaching. The schism came to a head in A.D. 251, when a formal separation was made from the erring churches. Traced through history, this group would eventually spread into what has become the Baptists. And I would like to see that Cardinal Hosius is fake.

[Eleventh Doctor]

Please provide any documentation of this formal separation. Who were their leaders? Where are their writings?

No, please cite in the Council of Trent where Cardinal Hosius mentioned Baptist. I cannot prove a negative.

[The Old Judge]

I do not disagree with having an open mind. However, sir, you have the Wikipedia mindset of Baptists. I have heard the 1609 reference myself. That was the first Baptist church in name. Throughout the Middle Ages, though, we were known by many names in different parts of Europe. The main one was Anabaptists. Baptist simply became an abbreviation for Anabaptist. I will admit according to this article, written by an unbiased person, as you shall see, presents that Dr. Carroll was misquoting that reference. He had got it from an 1824 article, which apparently had been mistranslated. Here is the article: http://www.drbentownsend.com/Documents/ ... tBooks.pdf

He does not give the date as A.D. 251, but clearly the time frame runs to about that time, as shown in Hosius' real quote:

"For not so long ago I read the edict of the other prince who lamented the fate of the Anabaptists who,
so we read, were pronounced heretics twelve hundred years ago and deserving of capital punishment.
He wanted them to be heard and not taken as condemned without a hearing."

This passage was translated from its original Latin by a university professor. Anabaptists are specifically referenced as being pronounced heretics and condemned to capital punishment without hearings. This was done either by the Catholics themselves, or the Dark Age monarchs, who were puppets of the Roman Catholic Church. If you read the article, in other quotes, Hosius gives mention to "Donatists." Donatists were one of our earliest names.

[Eleventh Doctor]

I will cede the point about Baptist being an abbreviation of Anabaptist.

But let's actually take a look at this so called connection to the Donatists of whom Cardinal Hosius is mentioning in that quote, and just to be clear the reference in Hosius quote is referring to Donatists and you are simply putting in the word Anabaptist in there to signify the connection, correct? Meaning you believe Baptist were called Donatists in 251 and that Donatists are the group Hosius is refering to, correct?

And I also want to be 100% sure that you are saying that the modern day Baptist church, of which you are affiliated, directly traces its theological and spiritual lineage from the Donatists? If you have any points of disagreement with the Donatists please lay them out now before I respond to this point.

[The Old Judge]

I am not schooled in the religious beliefs of the Donatists, I am sorry. If we could dig up some text on it, 'twould be wonderful. You may not be fond of this statement, but aside from the Hosius mistake (which I'm pretty sure was unintentional), I haven't heard people denounce Carroll as a heretic. He knew what he was talking about. Of course, you being Eastern Orthodox, you wouldn't do d a Baptist minister's statements credible. However, the backing of Hosius would assure you somewhat, I thought.

Looking at the Trail of Blood Timeline, Donatists and Anabaptists (the names) seemed to have sprung up at the same time. Anabaptists persevered while other names took center stage, such as Waldensians, Paulicians, and Arnoldists. From what I gather, all these names would fall under the "Baptist" moniker today, and that certain sects in certain parts of the continent donned titles after notable leaders. Anabaptists, and eventually Baptists, has been the main name.

[Eleventh Doctor]

I'm not saying Carroll is a heretic. I'm just saying the belief that Donatists, Waldensians, Paulicians, and Arnoldists were early Baptist is untrue. I don't view him as uncredible because he's a Baptist minister but because he's wrong. Let's take a look at the beliefs of these groups.

Arnoldists, they denounced baptism and communion. Do modern day Baptist denounce baptism and communion? The Paulicians are Arnoldists by a different name, they also denounced baptism and communion. They also rejected the Old Testament, do modern day Baptist use the Old Testament? Waldensians, I concede that they are very closely connected to Anabaptist. This of course is a more recent name, from 1107 and since they used the Old Testament, believed in baptism and communion they can't be said to have a connection to the Arnoldists and Paulicians. So let's look at the Donatists, who were they and what did they believe? Paraphrased from this article from the Encyclopedia Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... 9/Donatist

After the persecution of Christians between 302 and 305 certain bishops of the church in Africa believed that sacraments given by priests and bishops who had seriously sinned, mostly those that were seen as having betrayed Christians to the Romans, were not valid. It eventually reached the point were there was a Donatist bishop in every city in Northern Africa. So do modern day Baptist have priests and bishops? Because the Donatist did, also they clearly believed in baptism and communion so they aren't connected to the Arnoldists and Paulicians. And they clearly believe in bishops and priests so they can't be connected to the Waldensians and Anabaptist who were against bishops and priests.

So I guess I'm wondering, what exactly connects these groups in your mind? They seem to have nothing in common.

[The Old Judge]

You're correct, Eleventh Doctor. I apologize. It's been a while since I've read the Trail of Blood, and when I did, apparently some of the context was not clear to me. When Dr. Carroll writes of the Arnoldists, Paulicians, Donatists, etc., he refers to other religious sects that were persecuted harshly by the Roman Catholic Church, along with the Anabaptists, instead of being sects of the Anabaptists themselves. If anything, the Donatists had the Baptist beliefs with the form of the Catholic hierarchy.

[Eleventh Doctor]

So what Baptist beliefs did the Donatists hold?

What descriptions of their services we have describe them as very charismatic, they were defined by their spontaneity and their Spirit led prophecy, are your services still very charismatic? Another change they made from the Early Church, was that they practiced the sacrament of confession as a public rite. Instead of confessing to just the priest the Donatist would confess to the whole congregation, do modern day Baptist still practice public confessions? In a letter of St. Augustin to Boniface we learn that the Donatists believe that the church is made manifest only in Africa, do you hold to this belief? In his letter, On Baptism, Against the Donatists, St. Augustin looks at the belief of the Donatist about baptism. He notes that there is no disagreement about the grace given by baptism, meaning they still see baptism as being more than a symbol and indeed as a sacrament of the church by which one washes away sin. Is this something that Eastern Orthodox and Baptist still agree on? In fact what you believe about baptism would seem to be central to being a Baptist, so if you do not see baptism as being a sacrament and responsible for washing away sin then I would really question the connection of Donatists to Baptists.

[The Old Judge]

I seem to have been mistaken again. I'm sorry. Like I said, I do not know each sects beliefs well. You said they believed in baptism and communion in your next to last post, so I made the assumption (incorrectly) that they believed the same as we did, with the exceptions of priest and bishop. If I had read the article, I would have known. I mainly stick to the forum, though.

As Baptist, we believe that baptism is merely a symbol to convey to the church and the world your salvation. The water does not wash away sin. It is not holy water. Our baptistry gets new water each month, and it's just normal plain ol' water. Nothing special about it. Confessing sins publicly is not something we expressly do, though someone on our church staff had sinned about a year ago. We fired him and made it known to the church what he did. I do know of a fellow IFB church that still in certain cases practices confession before the church.

[Eleventh Doctor]

So some IFB churches practice public confessions but so far that seems like the only belief Donatists and Baptist share. So do you still stand by your claim that Donatists were the first Baptists?

[The Old Judge]

I never said Donatists were the first Baptists. Donatists and Anabaptists originated around the same time. Before I disappear from this debate, (which has been wonderful. Thank you.), from what you've said, they practiced communion and baptism. And public confession. Though the differences with baptism are noticeable, of they took the Lord's Supper as an observance/ordinance and not a sacrament, that would equal about three simlilarities between the Donatists and old-school Anabaptists. After learning all this, they seem to have been a moderately fundamental branch of African Catholicism during the early portion of the Middle Ages with some similarities to the Anabaptists. Now, I'm done.

After that massive rabbit trail, we bring you back to your regularly scheduled debate.

[Eleventh Doctor]

Nope, according to St. Augustine they viewed communion as a sacrament as well. The whole point of disagreement between the Church and the Donatists was whether the sacraments, including communion, were valid if they came from certain priests or bishops. There are no similarities between Anabaptists and Donatists, they considered confession a sacrament as well, and no evidence that Anabaptists originated at the same time. There are no writings that mention the Anabaptists as a denomination. The quote from the Cardinal uses the word "anabaptista" which means "one who baptizes over again" referring to the practice of the Donatists who would baptize people again if they were baptized by a priest or bishop the Donatists disagreed with, the quote is specifically referring to the Donatists and not to another denomination around at the same time. There is no historical evidence that Anabaptist existed until the reformation in the 16th century.

[NateVONgreat]

Most of those words I have never heard before,
I think we should just forget the arguing, and agree that anyone who says he is a follower of Christ, and does according to his commandments, we should consider a brother in the faith, and not judge him.
Because at the end of the day, all of us will stand in front of God and find out what we did wrong. so either we can live in peace until (I think Until should have 2 l's) then or live with prejudice.

[Eleventh Doctor]

I disagree, those denying things like communion and baptism are not Christians.


But let's get back to Israel, they as a country are doing horrible things and should not be supported in those actions. I will also ask again, can you give me an example of a Christian community in Syria or Egypt that supports Israel? In fact give me an example of Israel supporting Christians in any way.

[Pound Foolish]

I think we should just forget the arguing, and agree that anyone who says he is a follower of Christ, and does according to his commandments, we should consider a brother in the faith, and not judge him.
Because at the end of the day, all of us will stand in front of God and find out what we did wrong. so either we can live in peace until (I think Until should have 2 l's) then or live with prejudice.

Nate, wrong. People like conversations, but when one goes on too long or gets a bit heated, people sometimes go "Hey, cool it" as if something was wrong. Nothing's wrong, we all like each other. It's just one of us is wrong and we are logically working our way closer to whatever the truth is. What's wrong with that? What you just stated, Nate, sounds so good and is really so bad. It discourages conversations that can be enlightening and helpful. It has nothing to do with "judging." Like OJ said, it's been wonderful.
The Old Judge, I hope you continue this, because Eleventh is doing quite a good job. You'd think he wouldn't know anything about Baptist history, and yet he stands firm with logic and facts. Far from proving "Catholics weren't always the nice people they were today" you have stood corrected more than once! You were corrected about facts on your denomination! Sorry, I just can't contain this. I love my faith, and when people are corrected about misconceptions about it, it makes me so happy. We're all that much closer to reality. I hope you won't really drop the discussion, because it's going nicely.
High five, Eleventh.

guess I did post something from someone who held that view. I don't think I meant to articulate that as my personal viewpoint though.

Oh. My apologies, Christian. Thanks for clarifying that, and for digging through your statements to find what you said. Since you posted it, it was assumable that was indeed a view you held with. I'm afraid I said something rather vicious in reply. Insulting the leader of my faith is a good way to get on my nasty side. Anyhow, let's consider all that forgotten on both sides?

[Samantha14]

Insulting the leader of my faith is a good way to get on my nasty side. Anyhow, let's consider all that forgotten on both sides?

Random Question: Shouldn't Jesus be the leader of your faith? >.>

[Metal15]

I think we should just forget the arguing, and agree that anyone who says he is a follower of Christ, and does according to his commandments, we should consider a brother in the faith, and not judge him.
Because at the end of the day, all of us will stand in front of God and find out what we did wrong. so either we can live in peace until (I think Until should have 2 l's) then or live with prejudice.

I don't think this is bad at all, PF, geez.

Eleventh and OJ may not be "Arguing" per se, but I think there is WAAAAAY too much conflict between different christian "sects", on who's right and who's wrong. I think there's a lot of wisdom in what Nate just said.

[The Old Judge]

And now you are insulting my faith. And Eleventh Doctor corrected me about the Donatists. I know my Baptist history, and since he thinks Baptists had their origin in 1609, he doesn't seem to know as much as you think he does.

Delightful observation, Samantha.

[Eleventh Doctor]

We're not even discussing who's right or wrong, we're discussing historical fact and clearing up misconceptions.

Old Judge, you have provided no evidence that there was a group of people that were the origin of Baptists in 251. It is a historical fact that Baptists and Anabaptist were part of the Reformation of the 1500s (i.e. the 16th century) Sorry for the confusion about 1609, I recognize the historical fact that there were Anabaptist in the 1500s. I do not however agree that they had their origin in 251.

Who were the leaders of this schism in 251? Where are their writings? Where is one record of this schism that is the origin of Baptists? You need to provide evidence, otherwise we go with the evidence that currently exists; Anabaptist were part of the Reformation.