Posted on 03/16/2015 8:16:21 AM PDT by John Leland 1789
Our Catholic friends won’t like this revelation but facts are facts. Patrick (original name was Sucat) was born in Scotland about 375 AD and lived about 85 years dying in 460. As a teen he was captured by marauding raiders and taken to Ireland where he was sold to Milcho, a Druid chieftain and held in slavery for six years. Patrick said that he was hungry and naked during that time. He eventually walked 200 miles to the Irish coast to escape and to find his way back to Scotland.
It is my desire to dispel the myths, delusions, superstitions and lies that are circulating about Patrick. Of course, he did not drive the snakes out of Ireland but his preaching of Christ drove out the pagan Druids and removed human sacrifice; also, his assistants in his “monastery” copied and preserved the Bible and standard texts for us to peruse today. All this while the Roman Empire was crumbling and the dark ages were falling upon Europe and the Roman Church gained more and more power and riches.
Patrick was reared in a Christian home and his father was a deacon in an evangelical (or Baptistic) church. Also, his grandfather pastored in these ancient churches of Britain which had never come under the Roman yoke. An historian wrote more than a hundred years ago, "...the truth which saved him when a youthful slave in pagan Ireland was taught him in the godly home of...his father." Under that Christian influence Patrick felt called to go back to Ireland as a missionary to convert those pagan Druids who had enslaved him!
He became one of the most effective missionaries of all time, some think, only second to the Apostle Paul! He refused to take gifts from kings and preached to everyone about the grace of God. Patrick wrote that he “baptized thousands of people,” ordained men to the ministry, counseled and won wealthy women, and sons of kings and trained them for Christian service. He refused to be paid for baptizing people, ordaining preachers, and even paid for the gifts he gave to kings.
He was legally without protection since he refused the patronage of kings and was beaten, robbed, and put in chains. He says that he was also held captive for 60 days but gives no details. It is only natural that the nascent but growing Roman Church would claim him but it was and is a bogus claim. One historian wrote, "Rome's most audacious theft was when she seized bodily the Apostle Peter and made him the putative head and founder of her system; but next to that brazen act stands her effrontery when she 'annexed' the great missionary preacher of Ireland and enrolled him among her saints." Well said.
Baptists should appreciate the fact that Catholics pay homage to him, even build churches in his honor; however, it is time to realize that Patrick was only a very simple, even untrained Baptist preacher. He was not interested in power or position or possessions but in preaching the simple Gospel of Christ. From my study of him, he would be embarrassed and chagrined that a day in his honor is often turned into a drunken orgy as in Rio and New Orleans.
The early non-Catholic Churches were not called “Baptist” but most preached, practiced, and professed what modern Baptists do. If Patrick had been a Roman Catholic then somewhere there would be support for that, but there is none. Patrick wrote Confession, or Epistle to the Irish and Epistle to Coroticus and in neither did he refer to Rome. The Breastplate, a hymn is also attributed to him. Not one of his early biographers mentions any Roman connection. Moreover, there is no support for the claim that Pope Celistine sent him to the Irish people.
Furthermore, during his life, the Roman Church was only in embryo form. The Bishop of Rome was not considered the authoritarian he became much later. In fact, church authority was split in five directions: the Patriarchs at Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria all claimed to have as much authority as the Roman Bishop!
Professor George T. Stokes, a prominent scholar, declared that before the synod of Rathbresail in A.D. 1112, the rule of each Irish Church was independent, autonomous, and "...dioceses and diocesan episcopacy had no existence at all."
Neander’s History of the Christian Church says that the facts “prove the origin of the [Irish] church was independent of Rome, and must be traced solely to the people of Britain... Again, no indication of his connection with the Romish church is to be found in his confession; rather everything seems to favor the supposition that he was ordained bishop in Britain itself."
Odriscol, who, incidentally, was an Irish Catholic, in his work entitled, Views of Ireland, reveals: "The Christian church of that country, as founded by St. Patrick and his predecessors, existed for many ages, free and unshackelled. For 700 years this church maintained its independence. It had no connection with England and differed on points of importance with Rome." That’s from an Irish Catholic!
Another Irish scholar wrote that "...Leo II was bishop of Rome from 440 to 461 A.D. and upwards of one hundred and forty of his letters to correspondents in all parts of Christendom still remain and yet he never mentions Patrick or his work, or in any way intimates that he knew of the great work being done there." So, until after 461, the Roman Church had not tried to make Patrick as one of their major “saints.”
Furthermore, the Venerable Bede (Father of English History) did not refer to Patrick in his Ecclesiastical History of the English People. That fact is shattering to Patrick’s Roman connection.
Moreover, there are many other proofs that Patrick was a Baptist, not a Catholic:
He only baptized born again believers–never infants. He wrote about a convert named Enda who was saved the night after his son Cormac was born. He baptized Enda but not his infant son. And in all his letters and his books Patrick never mentions baptizing infants. He wrote of “baptized captives,” “baptized handmaidens of Christ,” baptized believers,” and he wrote, “Perhaps, since I have baptized so many thousand men,…” But never infants.
An additional proof of Patrick being a Baptist was he only baptized by immersion. Various church historians record an incident when 12,000 people were converted and baptized. “Profiting by the presence of so vast a multitude, the apostle [Patrick] entered into the midst of them, his soul inflamed with the love of God, and with a celestial courage preached the truths of Christianity; and so powerful was the effect of his burning words that the seven princes and over twelve thousand more were converted on that day, and were soon baptized in a spring called Tobar Enadhaire.”
Thomas Moore, in his history of Ireland says: "The convert saw in the baptismal fount where he was immersed the sacred well at which his fathers worshipped."
Archbishop Usher admits: "Patrick baptized his converts in Dublin, including Alpine, the king's son, in a well near Saint Patrick Church, which in after ages became an object of devotion."
Famous church historian William Cathcart stated, "There is absolutely no evidence that any baptism but that of immersion of adult believers existed among the ancient Britons, in the first half of the fifth century, nor for a long time afterwards." He also wrote, "There are strong reasons for believing Patrick was a Baptist missionary and it is certain that his Baptism was immersion." No, Patrick was a Baptist preacher, not a Roman Catholic priest.
Patrick knew nothing of confession or forgiveness by a priest; he forbade worship of images; he never told his converts to pray to Mary or any other “saint”; he never mentions purgatory, holy days, rosary, or last rites. Moreover, Patrick never mentions any pope or cardinal or gives credibility to any creed, catechism or confessional. Nor to Eucharist, relics, or dogma of the Roman Church.
Patrick was not Irish nor was he a Catholic. He preached, practiced, professed, and promoted Baptist distinctives and to declare otherwise is simply Irish blarney.
http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”
(Dr. Don Boys is a former member of the Indiana House of Representatives, author of 15 books, frequent guest on television and radio talk shows, and wrote columns for USA Today for 8 years. His shocking books, ISLAM: America's Trojan Horse!; Christian Resistance: An Idea Whose Time Has Come–Again!; and The God Haters are all available at Amazon.com. These columns go to newspapers, magazines, television, and radio stations and may be used without change from title through the end tag. His web sites are www.cstnews.com and www.Muslimfact.com and www.thegodhaters.com. Contact Don for an interview or talk show.)
"Like" Dr. Boys on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/CSTNews?ref=hl and http://www.facebook.com/TheGodHaters?ref=hl Follow him on Twitter at https://twitter.com/CSTNews Visit his blog at http://donboys.cstnews.com/
St. Patrick A Baptist!
by Dr. L. K. Landis
For centuries Roman Catholicism has laid claim to the supposition that Patrick of Ireland was a Roman priest. However, over 100 hundred years ago W. A. Jarrel, much respected author and church historian, put into print what had been known by Baptists since the very beginning, that Patrick was not a Catholic priest, but rather a Baptist missionary. It is because of this much neglected fact that we put into print this material so that this present generation may know the truth and great heritage of this early Baptist missionary to Ireland. So zealous were these historians of the 1800’s and so spirited was their conviction to this that one wrote, “Rome’s most audacious theft was when she seized bodily the Apostle Peter and made him the putative head and founder of her system; but next to that brazen act stands her effrontery when she ‘annexed’ the great missionary preacher of Ireland and enrolled him among her saints” (A Short History of the Baptists [1907], Henry C. Vedder, pg. 71-72).
Most church historians agree that Patrick, originally named Succat (or Succathus) Patricus, was born sometime between the years 360 AD and 387 AD, probably near what is now Dumbarton, Scotland. It is also generally accepted by those knowledgable of the subject that he lived to a well advanced age, some placing him at over 100 years old at the time of his death.
Cathcart, the dean among Baptist apologists, suggests that Patrick is not his name, but rather a title of honor meaning noble and illustrous and was bestowed upon him by his grateful admirers (The Baptist Encyclopedia [1881], by William Cathcart, pg. 886). His writings reveal that his father, Calpurnius, was a deacon in a Baptist church (we know that there were Baptist churches on the British Isle as far back as A.D. 63, History of the Welch Baptists [1770], by J. Davis, Page 14), having apparently been converted to Christ while on a business trip to Rome as he also served as a Roman civil officer. In spite of being reared in a godly home and taught the ways of the Scriptures, Cathcart also states that the young Patrick was “...wild and wicked until his sixteenth year...” when, while working on his father’s farm, he and several others were seized and carried away captive by a band of pirates to Ireland, where he was sold into slavery to a petty Irish clan chieftan. For over five years he suffered the atrocities of slavery. Later, however, he would recount that it was during this most dark period of his life that he, himself, was converted to Christ remembering the Christian training he had received from his godly father while but a child.
Regarding this, W. A. Jarrel wrote over one hundred years ago, “...the truth which saved him when a youthful slave in pagan Ireland was taught him in the godly home of...his father” (Baptist Church Perpetuity or History [1894], W. A Jarrel, pg. 472).
Historians also record that “...upon his twenty-first year, he escaped the chains of servitude...” and returned to his father’s home in Scotland, only to find that he had died and his land acquired by others. It was during this time that Patrick, “being a stronger Christian, the Lord soon called him back to Ireland as the missionary for that blinded country” (Ibid.). Jarrel further suggests that the more one studies the life, ministry and writings of this Irish “apostle”, “...the more he stands out as a Baptist.” He, Jarrel, is perhaps among the greatest authorities on the subject of Saint Patrick, as one full chapter of his makes several suggestions as to why Patrick could not have been a Roman Catholic priest:
1. “At the time of Saint Patrick the Romish church was only en embryo”.
2. “In St. Patrick’s time the authority of the bishop of Rome was not generally recognized.”
3. “There is no history to sustain the Romish claim that Patrick was sent to Ireland by Pope Celistine.” Not one of the early biographers of his life mentions any ties to Rome. Even in all the writings of Saint Patrick himself there is never any mention of connection with Rome.
Neander, the church historian, wrote, “If Patrick came to Ireland as a deputy from Rome, it might naturally be expected that in the Irish church a certain sense of dependence would always have been preserved towards the mother church. But we find, on the contrary, in the Irish church a spirit of church freedom, similar to that in Britain, which struggled against the yoke of Roman ordinances. We find subsequently among the Irish a much greater agreement with the ancient British than with Roman ecclesiastical usages.
This goes to prove that the origin of the church was independent of Rome, and must be traced solely to the people of Britain... Again, no indication of his connection with the Romish church is to be found in his confesssion; rather everything seems to favor the supposition that he was ordained bishop in Britain itself” (Neander’s History of the Christian Church, Volume 2, page 123).
Another Irish scholar says, “...Leo II, was bishop of Rome from 440 to 461 A.D. and upwards of one hundred and forty of his letters to correspondents in all parts of Christendom still remain and yet he never mentions Patrick or his work, or in any way intimates that he knew of the great work being done there.”
Professor George T. Stokes, still yet another prominent scholar, declares that prior to the synod of Rathbresail in A.D. 1112, the rule of each Irish church was independent, autonomous, and “...dioceses and diocesan episcopacy had no existence at all.”
Considering these indisputable and undeniable facts, it is impossible for Patrick to have been the patron Roman Catholic saint of Ireland. The material is just not there to substantiate any such claim. Baptist pastor, author and historian Gillham says that in the middle of the nineteenth century, Baptists universally accepted the fact that Patrick of Ireland was of apostolic tradition and therefore a Baptist. It was also commonly accepted that the baptism of the heirs to his ministry were also investigated and found to be New Testament in origin. It was only during these last 150 years that Baptists have been willing to relinquish Patrick to the hands of the papacy.
However, the insurmountable evidence of his position among the Baptists of antiquity comes from the writings of this great man himself. While several letters written by Patrick and sent to Christians converted to Christ under his ministry still exist, most of what we know of his beliefs are taken from two documents that he wrote: St. Patrick’s Confession, or Epistle to the Irish; and an “Epistle to Coroticus.” In these two writings that still survive, it becomes very apparent that this great preacher was not of Roman Catholic persuasion. He was a Baptist through and through, holding recognized Baptist positions on all the cardinal doctrines. Consider these eight (8) conclusive reasons why Saint Patrick was a Baptist!
Number One: St. Patrick Baptized Only Professed Believers
Contrary to Catholic dogma, which teaches that infants are to be “baptized”, in all of Patrick’s writings he does not mention one single incident when he baptized an infant, much less someone who had not professed Christ as their Saviour. Patrick records the baptism of one convert named Enda the night after his infant son, Cormac, was born. What an ideal opportunity to record the baptism of an infant, and yet Patrick makes no mention of it at all.
Only Enda, a professed believer; not his infant son who could make no claim of Christ. In all of his writings, the great Irish preacher never mentions or even alludes to pedobaptism (the baptism of infants). In fact, each time he refers to baptism at all he calls those ready for the ordinance of baptism “baptized captives”, “baptized handmaidens of Christ”, “baptized women distributed as rewards”, “baptized believers”, “men” and “women.” In one place, Patrick wrote, “Perhaps, since I have baptized so many thousand men, I might have expected half a screpall [a coin worth six cents] from some of them...” Notice that he refers to having baptized “...so many thousand men..”, no infants, but men; adult, professing, believing, responsible men. Another place he writes, “So that even after my death I may leave as legacies to my brethren...whom I have baptized in the Lord, so many thousand men.” Again he acknowledges the fact that he has baptized thousands of men, but not one infant.
Number Two: St. Patrick Baptized By Immersion Only
This has been a leading principle among the Baptists since the days of the Apostles and still is today. Again, in all of his writings there is not one shred of evidence that the Irish preacher knew anything of sprinkling. All of the records of his baptisms tell of immersion. Cathcart (along with Nennius, Todd, O’Farrell and other church historians) records one such instance, “When the saint entered Tirawly, the seven sons of Amalgaidh assembled with their followers. Profiting by the presence of so vast a multitude, the apostle entered into the midst of them, his soul inflamed with the love of God, and with a celestial courage preached the truths of Christianity; and so powerful was the effect of his burning words that the seven princes and over twelve thousand more were converted on that day, and were soon baptized in a spring called Tobar Enadhaire” (The Baptist Encyclopedia [1881], by William Cathcart, page 887). Dr. Cathcart further states, “There is absolutely no evidence that any baptism but that of immersion of adult believers existed among the ancient Britons, in the first half of the fifth century, nor for a long time afterwards.”
In 1631 the English Baptists discovered, and subsequently corresponded with, small communities of Baptists in Ireland and found them to be sound. These churches, located in Dublin, Waterford, Clonmel, Kilkenny, Cork, Limerick, Galloway, Wexford, Carrick Fergus and Kerry are listed in Joseph Ivimey’s comprehensive History of the English Baptists [1811], Volume 1, Pages 240-241. It is believed that some of these churches had histories dating to the time of Patrick. Many of them can substantiate and confirm their claims of such for nearly 1100 years, which places them within two hundred years of Patrick.
Number Three: In Church Government,
St. Patrick Was A Baptist During his ministry, Patrick is recorded to have “founded 365 churches and consecrated the same number of bishops, and ordained 3,000 presbyters (Ancient British and Irish Churches, William Cathcart, page 282). Anglican Bishop Stillingfleet refers to an account of a great council of Brevy, Wales at which there were 118 Irish bishops. Noting that if these were Catholic bishops this little island was in danger of “...going to seed -— in bishops.” Other historians concede that “...Saint Patrick placed a bishop in every church which he founded; and several presbyters after the example of the New Testament churches.” One such scholar, a Dr. Carew of Maynooth, admits that a bishop “...was simply the pastor of one congregation.” The Catholic and protestant idea of a bishop being the head over several churches in different cities was totally unknown among those early churches on the British Isles. This can be confirmed from writings of Irish clergymen dated from A.D. 1112 and reconfirmed from the same in A.D. 1057.
Number Four: Patrick Was A Baptist In Independence From Creeds, Councils, Popes, etc.
Patrick never attended one council and recognized no authority over him, save that of the Lord Jesus Himself. There is not any evidence whatsoever that even remotely suggests that the famed Irish preacher acknowledged any man to be of superior authority, power or position than he. He recognized no Pope. He recognized no Cardinal. In all of his writings it cannot be found where one time he subscribes to even the most insignificant and remote catechism, creed, or dogma of the Roman Catholic system. Of all the great Christians that Patrick refers to in his letters, he never pays homage to any Pope, nor mentions any man as being superior in church clergy. Instead, the great Irish missionary speaks of his love, regards, and terms of affection for those men whom had been ordained as pastors of the churches he founded. Upon the authority of the little Baptist church in Scotland where he was saved and from which he received his commission much as did Paul and Barnabus (Acts 15:22).
Number Five: In Doctrine
Patrick Was A Baptist In all of his writings, all of the doctrine that Patrick espouses adherence to is consistent with historic Baptist doctrine. The venerable preacher wrote, “It is Christ who gave His life for thee (and) is He who speaks to thee. He has poured out upon us abundantly the Holy Spirit, the gift and assurance of immortality, who causes men to believe and become obedient that they might be the sons of God and joint heirs with Christ.” In this one statement, Patrick alludes to six (6) major Baptist doctrines:
a. Patrick believed in the substitutionary atonement of Christ. He did not believe that salvation comes through catechism, communion, confession or christening. He believes what Baptists have always believed, that all are saved by the Grace of God, through faith in His Son, coming in repentance, and by His blood. William Cathcart wrote, “There is no ground for doubting but that he preached the gospel of repentance and faith in Ireland, and that his ministrations were attended by overwhelming success” (The Baptist Encyclopedia, page 887).
b. He believes in the free gift of the Holy Spirit which comes to the believer at the moment of salvation. He does not believe that the gift of the Holy Spirit is a separate work of grace, nor is He manifested by speaking in tongues (John 14:16).
c. He also firmly conveys the message of the eternal security of the believer in that those who are genuinely saved have put on immortality (II Timothy 1:10).
d. He confirms his belief that men must be drawn by God in order to be saved (John 6:44).
e. Patrick affirms his conviction in the sonship of the believer (John 1:12). He believes that while Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God, every true believer in Christ is also a son.
f. And the great Irish theologian attests to the fact that all believers are joint-heirs with Christ (Romans 8:16-17). Patrick’s doctrine is also recorded by his disciples. Comgall writes, “religion does not exist in bodily efforts...” Muirchu states that the ancient poet Dubthac was redeemed under the ministry of Patrick and that he “...first on that day believed in God and it was imputed to him for righteousness” No mention of baptism for salvation. No mention of a confessional. No mention of communion. Patrick taught his disciples well that salvation comes only by and through the grace of Almighty God.
Number Six: In Terms Of The Lord’s Supper, Patrick Was A Baptist.
From his writings we know that he rejected the Roman Catholic view of salvation in the ordinance. Also from his writings, we know that Patrick believed that the believer himself should partake of both elements of communion, the bread and the cup, and not just the administrator exclusively. In writing of the conversion of the two daughters of Irish King Loeghaire under his ministry, Patrick tells them to put away their idols and trust Christ alone. His instructions to them regarding the Lord’s Supper is that they receive both elements representative of His body and blood.
Number Seven: Patrick Rejects The Roman Catholic Dogma Of Transubstantiation
Patrick believed that the elements were only pictures of Christ’s body and Christ’s blood. Dr. Jarrell wrote, “In all the descriptions of the Eucharist quoted there is no evidence that it is...”, or literally becomes the flesh of Christ and His blood. The elements are merely symbols of such.
Number Eight: Patrick Never Affirmed His Belief In, Or Adherence To, Many Crucial Catholic Pecularities
St. Patrick was a Baptist and the first Irish churches were Baptist churches. He knew nothing of priestly confession and priestly forgiveness. He was not acquainted with extreme unction. He strictly forbade the worship of images. Never once did he instruct his converts that they were to pay homage to Mary or worship her. He never mentions the intercession of Mary or of any departed saint. In all of his writings there is no mention at all of purgatory, of indulgences, of keeping holy days, of praying to anyone but God Himself, of the persecution of opposers of the church, of distinguishing clerical garments, of the rosary, of last rites, of mass, of allegiance to the Pope. None of these crucial Catholic doctrines and dogmas were practiced by or even mentioned by the great missionary to Ireland.
It is my firm conviction that it has sufficiently been shown that Saint Patrick was not a Roman Catholic in doctrine or practice, but rather an early Baptist preacher following in the footsteps of the Apostles themselves, believing what they believed, practicing what they practiced. In conclusion, it seems that the words of W.A. Jarrell on this subject are most fitting, “Were Patrick not turned to dust, and were the body able to hear and turn, he would turn over in his coffin at the disgrace on his memory from the Romish church claiming him as a Roman Catholic” (Baptist Church Perpetuity or History, page 479).
Speaking of Baptists:
An Irishman is stumbling through the woods, totally drunk, when he comes upon a preacher baptizing people in the river. He proceeds into the water, subsequently bumping into the preacher. The preacher turns around and is almost overcome by the smell of alcohol, whereupon, he asks the drunk, “Are you ready to find Jesus?” The drunk shouts, “Yes, I am.” So the preacher grabs him and dunks him in the water.
He pulls the man back and asks, “Brother, have you found Jesus?” The drunk replies, “No, I haven’t found Jesus!”.
The preacher, shocked at the answer, dunks him again but for a little longer. He again pulls the man out of the water and asks, “Have you found Jesus, brother?” The drunk answers, “No, I haven’t found Jesus!”
By this time, the preacher is at his wits end and dunks the drunk again — but this time holds him down for about 30 seconds, and when he begins kicking his arms and legs about, he pulls him up. The preacher again asks the drunk, “For the love of God, have you found Jesus?”
The drunk staggers upright, wipes his eyes, coughs up a bit of water, catches his breath, and says to the preacher, “Are you sure this is where he fell in?”
That is possible. However in Patrick's long Confession there is no mention of such a visit.
Why can’t we all just agree that Patrick was a Holy Spirit gifted evangelist.
Sounds good to me!
I see a pattern here. Dr. is an honorary degree from a college that no longer exists and is, perhaps, a church school now.
Dr. L. K. Landis is the Senior Pastor of the Fellowship Baptist Church and is a man of varied talents, abilities, and interests. He was born and raised in a Christian home in the panhandle of Texas, saved and called to preach as a teenager and as of February, 1997 will have been preaching the gospel for 30 years. He attended Franklin and Marshall College in Lancaster, Pennsylvannia and the Baptist Bible College in Springfield, Missouri and holds an honorary Doctorate of Divinity from the Great Plains Baptist College in Sioux Falls, South Dakota.
We had corned beef and cabbage for dinner this evening.
i’m Catholic and i don’t care...
I’m a Irish Catholic and I don’t care either...
I’m a baptist and I don’t care and and I don’t care that you don’t care. Ha!
CORRECT. They did. Baptists, Quakers, and others were tortured, murdered, deprived of liberty and property by Reformed Protestants of New England. Anglican priests ordered British Militia into the North Carolina Piedmont in the 1740s to burn the farms and homes of Separate Baptists.
Of all the children of the Korah/Prottie rebellion, none were more liberal then the baptists.
But the irony of the enemy of mankind is that they are called baptists, when they are clueless on baptism. Baptism replaced circumcision which took place on the 8th day and made one the people of God. Bar Mitzvah is when the Jewish young people accepted their religion on their own when they came of age.
The real question is...Is there such a thing as a conservative Baptist? Yes and No. They are very conservative on their uber liberal theology!
You have to at least give some credit to the other rebellion sects...Lutherans at least claim Luther, calvinists at least claim their leader, etc. Baptists are kept clueless and therefore like the uber liberal does...they have to invent history day by day.
There was a sick sect that called themselves Christian. They accompanied the Muslim invasion of Europe to destroy Christ’s Church. Do you suppose they were baptist? They had a Jewish commander too. (You can find that online in the Jewish encyclopedia...I commend the Jewish people to state the facts. The wonderful thing about Jewish people, right of left...they seldom lie.
If the baptist claims to have been in the early days...
give proof. Claiming St. Patrick is demonic as it’s clear as day that he is Catholic!!! How liberal of liberaism of the epitome of baptists!!! Truth does not matter!
Can you give us a list of all the Saints of the baptist church? funny thing, I’ve never heard a baptist call anyone a Saint except themselves.
C’mon, give us a list of all the baptist saints in the first 10 centuries? Amuse us please? When did they first claim St. Patrick in the 5th century of after? Can you provide us with a document? Hey, I claim Queen ... in the 8th century and King ... in the 6th century. Oh wait, I have no proof, then again I’m not a baptist. Liberals need no proof...
shhh...they were underground for 1500 years. In the 16th century, King James evidently stole their 1st century bible that Christ personally gave them. That mysterious sola scriptura 1st century baptist bible has yet to be discovered. Heck, they probably had the bible before the apostles even wrote it decades later since they are sola scriptura.
Every regenerated, sanctified soul in Jesus Christ is a saint. All references to saints in the Scriptures are saved people; no special class of regenerated people called saints.
Well, we were saved in Christ, we are being saved and we hope to be saved on our final breathe as scripture teaches us. I don’t believe in presumption.
And therein lies the problem. I live in an elderly apartment building and I’m the only Catholic and most of them think they are saved.
I had a baptist, a non-denominational and a Lutheran over for pizza. I made the outrageous statement of calling Jesus, my love, Lord. Well, the non-denom freaked out that I called Jesus Lord...he was just the Son...not God the Father. I looked at the Lutheran and asked if he thought Jesus was God. He say NO...just the son The baptist had no idea...he thought lucifer was a brother of God. The best book he ever read was the divinci code. I had to tell him that was not what baptist taught.
The really sad thing is that this elderly apt building has a church service on tuesdays. Guess what...the service is put on by a gay church and the people that put on the service are homosexuals.
Are they saved? Are they saints? They think they are cause that is what they are taught as you have been taught.
I don’t believe we can call ourselves saints until we have run the race til the end on our last breathe.
It’s a journey my friend...just as the ancient Israelites went from Egypt (sin) through the desert (the world) to the promised land. (heaven) ...we too can fail.
We are given the promise but as we see from the above...many failed.
I’m trying to help you out here. I understand that Baptist have an identity crisis. The truth be told is that Baptist seminaries have rejected this as well as the Southern Baptist convention. It’s a place that you really don’t want to go...because wherever it lands...it is not what Baptist believe now. If it be the Waldensians or the Donatists...they actually believe in most of Catholic theology including Mary and the Eucharist.
As a matter of fact, St Augustine stated in his refute to the Donatists...”Would anyone be so impious (wicked, demonic) not to baptize infants”.
Do you see the problem? It only makes Christianity a laughing stock to the disbelievers. That is why Jesus prayed that they all be one so the world would know him.
If I myself were to have a strong impact on the country where we worked; if many came to Jesus Christ under my ministry, it would not be surprising if, at sometime after my death, I myself would be claimed by Rome as a Catholic, and future generation told that I was a Catholic rather than a Baptist, in order to gain control or to keep control of that population.
When the Catholics vote as consistently pro-life as the Baptists do, we can talk.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.