[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Ping!

Baptist history, starting way back in the first century. Next post will see the Christian churches before they were infected by the Augustinian and Calvinist heresies.

[John Leland 1789]

Thank you for the ping.

I will follow this.

[nodumbblonde]

Thanks, Titus!

[dangus]

The logic of this author is that the Paulicians lost, therefore the history we have of them is presumably tainted by their opponents, therefore we can ignore the history altogether, and substitute our own fantastical imagination for history. So when challenged how could it be that the Baptist version of Christianity had never existed before the 16th century, you can make up your own history!

The Paulicians reject the Old Testament and the Book of Revelations. Like the Gnostics, they held that the creator of this world was evil. They specifically rejected Baptisms altogether. Unlike most claims to pre-reformation Protestants, however, they at least have a few doctrinal issues in which they agree with Baptists: they were anti-hierarchical, they denigrated veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary, were iconoclastic, and did not regard the Lord’s Supper to consist of the divine presence. Their disavowal of the Blessed Virgin Mary is for a different reason than Baptists: they did not believe that Jesus was born of a woman, rather that he was an angel, and his mother was the Heavenly Jerusalem. (I would not leap to suppose they didn’t believe Jesus was God; I’ll admit one must be reluctant to draw inferences, given such wording may be chosen by their conquerors.)

They certainly did not have the early Baptists’ notion of separation of church and state; unlike the Waldensians, the Paulicians were brutal warriors, slaughtering each other over comparably minor disputes. Also unlike Baptists, they believed it was moral to echo the doctrines of and join in worship with Catholics / Orthodox, if doing so concealed them from prosecution from Catholics / Orthodox* (*This was in the East, before the Great Schism.)

[wmfights]

looks like an informative series. I'll try to keep up.

[Cronos]

The Montanists, the Novatians, and the Donatists held diverse opinions, not only from each other, but from the teachings of the New Testament; but they stressed tremendously the purity of the church

Does this guy even know what he's talking about? The Donatists were basically "If you recanted your faith under persecution from the Roman Emperors, we won't accept you back into the fold. If you were a priest, then, if you come back, we won't accept any baptisms or teachings you perform". Hardly theological differences with orthodoxy.

Montanists under Montanus, Priscilla and (I forget the name of the other lady) believed that the Bible could be supplemented with the prophecies of Montanus, Priscilla etc.

Novatians were the same as Donatists, but from a different century and location. No theological differences here either.

[Cronos]

Most modern Baptists hold that Jesus became incarnate at his birth.

Is that true? then what of him in the womb? He wasn't divine then?