Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Baptist History Conclusion

Expand Messages
  • Matthew Cotta
    Fish, Could you please clarify this sentance: Going back thru the various posts in this thread one begins to observe the wishy-washy position taken by the
    Message 1 of 13 , Feb 1 8:27 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Fish,

      Could you please clarify this sentance: "Going back thru the various
      posts in this thread one begins to observe the wishy-washy position
      taken by the Baptist instruction of no link to the so-called reform
      groups of the 16th century and then of course the total denial of any
      sort of falling away from what is known as Roman Catholism."

      Are you saying that Baptists (in terms of their visible institutions
      and particular doctrinal emphases) have little or no continuity, or
      as you put it 'lineage,' tracing back to the church in Acts? If so,I
      agree. That is not to say, of course, that they could have no
      spiritual lineage (i.e. they are still members of the invisible
      church - recall Augustine's importance distinction).

      You'll note that the Reformers of the 16th century, however, (e.g.
      Luther, Calvin, etc.) were very concerned to demonstrate such a
      historical continuity, and did so I believe. The Baptists are more
      legitmately traced back to the so-called radical reformers (e.g.
      anabaptists).

      That being said, it seems to me that Roman Catholics beg the question
      by assuming that lineage and continuity is properly determined by
      one's relationship to the Pontifex Maximus. Even RC's are compelled
      to defend that position by an appeal to scripture. The final court
      of appeal is always scripture, not historical lineage (extra-biblical
      history). So in the end the Roman Catholic denial of sola scriptura
      is somewhat mitagated by its insistence that Matthew 16:18 proves
      Peter's primacy.

      Matt

      (yes, I'm still hanging around)



      --- In catholicquestions@yahoogroups.com, "afisherofmen11111"
      <baron_haronnen@y...> wrote:
      >
      > I find Sandra's departure premature but definitely has allowed me
      > time for reflection.
      >
      > Going back thru the various posts in this thread one begins to
      > observe the wishy-washy position taken by the Baptist instruction
      of
      > no link to the so-called reform groups of the 16th century and then
      > of course the total denial of any sort of falling away from what is
      > known as Roman Catholism.
      >
      > In post
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/catholicquestions/message/23604
      > Sandra states:
      > [Baptist history is extensive....if you are interested in their
      > history, it would be time consuming, but very easy to find
      > out more about them on the web.]
      >
      > and in post
      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/catholicquestions/message/23768
      > we then read from Sandra:
      > [Yes, and most of the Baptist history I've read are "modern"
      > writings. There is an explanation from these same historians. And
      > that is whatever was written during the time of their persecutions
      > were destroyed, usually burned. Alot of what is known is from the
      > writings of the persecutors.]
      >
      > I find that on one hand Baptist history is explained to
      > be "extensive" and yet on the other this same historical evidence
      is
      > explained away as being destroyed, usually burned. I have talked
      with
      > others besides Sandra who also speak like this in defense of a
      > Baptist history that really never was.
      >
      > Contradictions such as this run deep and I've found that the more
      you
      > engage Baptists in their own beginnings the more you are left
      > unsatisfied by the explanation of the sects beginning. In many
      cases
      > there is extremely limited knowledge of any historical background.
      In
      > others, a mish-mash of separated sects with partial doctrinal
      overlap
      > are presented as some sort of united front or commonality which of
      > course must mean to us all were Baptists.
      >
      > Regardless of the spin it is not paramount for "sola scriptura"
      > followers to press home their preceived lineage because once pushed
      > hard enough the final defense would be "my church is the church in
      > Acts".
      >
      > Terry for example when pressed presents the name of his community
      > as "Church of Christ". If the Catholic Church was to be renamed
      > Church of Christ could I assume no one would argue that we are not
      > the Church of Acts? Without the required close examination of the
      > last 2000 years of Christian practice you might ask why do some
      sects
      > resort to this type of reasoning?
      > I would say the practice developed not to reveal truth but to hide
      > it.
      >
      > History counts its obvious the Apostles thought so for when we read
      > the begin of Matthew's Gospel we read of the historical lineage of
      > Joseph. There is an immediate reflection on legitimacy. The line of
      > David is accounted for through the ages so should the Church be
      > accounted for.
      > Even in hiding early Christians wrote and to assume they did not or
      > all that was written was destroyed is once again a denial of what
      we
      > never lost.
      >
      > We must pray that our separated brethren who for the most part are
      > Godly people come to the fullness of faith. I can readily accept
      > Baptists and other Protestants as Christians let us hope and pray
      > they also begin to see us as professing Christians and investigate
      > our legitimacy and lineage as early Christians. Being divided is
      not
      > Gods will for us we must once again begin to speak with one voice
      if
      > we hope to have the world recognize Christianity as one faith and
      one
      > Church.
      >
      >
      > Fisher
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In catholicquestions@yahoogroups.com, dmacly <no_reply@y...>
      > wrote:
      > >
      > > Dana: Forgot to give the site I got this from, sorry,
      > > http://users.aol.com/butrousch/augustine/confer.htm
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In catholicquestions@yahoogroups.com, dmacly <no_reply@y...>
      > > wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Dana: You are implying there was force used, why? He prophecied
      > of
      > > a
      > > > war if they didnt help in the missionary work to the Brits, but
      > he
      > > > didnt force anyone as you seem to be saying. Prophecy and force
      > > are
      > > > two different things, entirely.
      > > > Read this, its clear what happened, the war was not between
      > > > christianity but between differing peoples, Celts vs Saxons
      > > (Brits),
      > > >
      > > > The meeting of St. Augustine with the British bishops
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
      --
      > -
      > > --
      > > > -----------
      > > > The First Conference
      > > > St. Augustine attempted to achieve the christian unity and
      > > increase
      > > > his missionary activities.
      > > > St. Augustine was acting on the instruction received from Pope
      > > > Gregory, as we can deduce from the Answers.
      > > > He tried to make contact with the Celtic (Welsh, British)
      > > Bishops.
      > > > This was rather difficult task because of the bitter animosity
      > > they
      > > > showed against the Saxon race.
      > > > It seemed that St. Augustine succeeded to summon the bishops
      and
      > > > teachers of the neighbouring British kingdoms to a conference
      in
      > > AD
      > > > 602 or 603 at a place which is still called in English
      > Augustinses
      > > > Ac, that is Augustine's Oak, on the borders of the Hwiccas (or
      > > > Huicii; our present Worcestershire) and the West Saxons
      > (Wessex).
      > > > This was traditionally identified with Aust on the Severn near
      > the
      > > > Bristol Channel. Others argued that the spot was in Down
      Ampney,
      > > > near Cricklade which would be on the border line of the
      Hwiccas
      > > and
      > > > Wessex. The meeting site was far from Canterbury, and it
      seemed
      > > > that St. Augustine and his companions had to travel long
      distance
      > > > for this purpose. This reflected the feeling of the British
      > > prelates
      > > > and their doubts for their safety in the Saxon land. But in
      > > Hwiccas
      > > > lived a Saxon people who were allied with the Welsh against the
      > > West
      > > > Saxons.
      > > > The main purpose of this first conference was to persuade the
      > > > British bishops to the following:
      > > > Preserve catholic peace with him and
      > > > Help in evangelizing the heathen.
      > > > Keep Easter Sunday at the proper time according to the Roman
      > > > tradition( fourteenth to the twentieth day of the lunar month;
      > > this
      > > > reckoning is based on an 84-year cycle)
      > > > keep many other practices of the Roman Church, in particular
      the
      > > > rite of baptism. Also probably issue of the clergy appearance
      > like
      > > > the Tonsure.
      > > > After a long dispute they were unwilling to follow St.
      Augustine
      > > and
      > > > his companions and to give their assent, preferring their own
      > > > traditions.
      > > > St. Augustine brought the long and wearisome struggle to an end
      > by
      > > > saying:
      > > > 'Let us pray God who makes men to be of one mind in his
      Father's
      > > > house o show us by heavenly signs which tradition is to be
      > > followed
      > > > and by what paths we must hasten to enter his kingdom. Let some
      > > sick
      > > > man be brought, and let the faith and practice of him by
      whose
      > > > prayers he is healed be considered as in accordance with God's
      > > will
      > > > and proper for us all to follow.'
      > > > All participants agreed unwillingly and blind Englishman was
      > > > brought forward.
      > > > He was presented to the British bishops, but they could not
      heal
      > > him
      > > > from their ministry.
      > > > Then Augustine, bowing his knees and prayed that he would
      restore
      > > > the sight to the blind man. At once the blind man's sight was
      > > > restored and all acknowledged St. Augustine to be a true herald
      > of
      > > > the heavenly light.
      > > > Then the Britons confessed that they realized that it was the
      > true
      > > > way of righteousness which St. Augustine preached but that they
      > > > could not disown their former customs without the consent and
      > > > approval of their own people.
      > > > This story was told by Bede. it was obviously the tradition at
      > > that
      > > > time.
      > > > Despite that the British Bishops could not agree and asked that
      a
      > > > conference should be held for a second time to give them time
      for
      > > > consultation and that more should attend (it seemed that not
      all
      > > the
      > > > British Bishops could attend the first conference and that
      those
      > > > attended wanted to consult with the other Bishops).
      > > > The Second Conference
      > > >
      > > > When this had been decided upon, it is related that seven
      British
      > > > bishops and many learned men came, chiefly from their most
      famous
      > > > monastery which the English call Bangorbury (Bangor Iscoed, 10-
      12
      > > > miles south of Chester). At that time it is said to have been
      > > ruled
      > > > over by Abbot Dinoot (Welsh Dunawd, or Latin Donatus). This
      > > indicate
      > > > the importance of the issue raised and the willingness to
      > > negotiate.
      > > > As they were about to set out for the conference, they went
      first
      > > to
      > > > a holy and prudent man who lived as a hermit among them to
      > consult
      > > > him as to whether they ought to forsake their own traditions
      for
      > > > the preaching of St. Augustine.
      > > > He advised them to follow him if he is a man of God,
      > > > They asked, 'But how can we tell?
      > > > The hermit answered, 'The Lord said: Take my yoke upon you and
      > > learn
      > > > of me, for I am meek and lowly of heart(Matt 11:29). If this
      > > > Augustine is meek and lowly of heart, we may well supposed that
      > he
      > > > bears the yoke of Christ himself and is offering it to you to
      > > bear;
      > > > but if he is harsh and proud, it follows that he is not from
      God
      > > and
      > > > we have no need to regard what he says'
      > > > Once more they said,' But how can we know even this?'
      > > > He said, 'Make sure that he and his followers arrive first at
      the
      > > > meeting place and, if he on your approach, he will rise to meet
      > > you
      > > > you will know that he is a servant of Christ and will listen to
      > > him
      > > > obediently; but if he despises you and is not willing to rise
      in
      > > > your presence, even though your are the larger party, you
      should
      > > > despise him in return.'
      > > > They did as he had said. It happened that St. Augustine
      remained
      > > > seated while they were coming in; when they saw this, they
      became
      > > > angry noting him as a proud man, and they argued against every
      > > thing
      > > > he said.
      > > > Then he said to them, 'There are many things on which act
      > contrary
      > > > to the customs of the universal Church; nevertheless, if you
      will
      > > > follow my advice in three points, we will tolerate all else
      that
      > > you
      > > > do, even though it is contrary to our customs. The three points
      > > are:
      > > > to keep Easter at the proper time;
      > > > to perform the sacrament of baptism, according to the rites of
      > the
      > > > holy Roman and Apostolic Church. We have one good reference
      here
      > > of
      > > > the nature of dispute. In a letter for Pope Zachary to Boniface
      > of
      > > > Mentz in AD 748 mentioned that from the time of Augustine it
      was
      > > > declared in England that baptism without the invocation of the
      > > > HolyTrinity was not valid; and that the omission of the name of
      > > any
      > > > one of the Tree Persons was fatal to the validity of the rite.
      It
      > > > seemed that the British Christianity employed a single
      immersion
      > > > only
      > > > and to preach the word of he Lord to the English people.'
      > > > They replied that they would do none of these things nor would
      > > they
      > > > accept him as their archbishop.
      > > > It was unlikely that St. Augustine behaviour was the reason for
      > > > disagreement, as Bede tried to show it. The matters might due
      to
      > > > deeper cultural, ecclesiastical as well as political influence.
      > > > St. Augustine anger was probably a reflection of the refusal of
      > > the
      > > > British bishops to join him in his missionary activities.
      > > > St. Augustine, according to Bede, uttered threatening prophecy
      > > that
      > > > if they refused to accept peace from their brethrens, they
      would
      > > > have to accept war from their enemies; and if they would not
      > > preach
      > > > the faith to the English nation, they would one day suffer the
      > > > vengeance of death at their hands. This, prophecy according to
      > > Bede
      > > > was in every point fulfilled.
      > > > The conference ended in complete failure.
      > > > It was after St. Augustine death that his successor attempted
      for
      > > > the second time to reconcile with British (Celtic) church.
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > --- In catholicquestions@yahoogroups.com, poaquino@a... wrote:
      > > > > In a message dated 27/01/2005 11:37:02 US Mountain Standard
      > > Time,
      > > > Poaquino
      > > > > writes:
      > > > >
      > > > > In a message dated 27/01/2005 10:46:29 US Mountain Standard
      > > Time,
      > > > > no_reply@yahoogroups.com writes:
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > Sandra,
      > > > >
      > > > > Is this Austin of Canterbury (the guy who founded the Church
      in
      > > > > England)
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > [and not to be picky, but there were
      > > already
      > > > churches
      > > > > established in England when Augustine arrived. His mission
      > was
      > > > to unite them
      > > > > to the Roman Catholic Church, and use force if necessary.
      > > > Explain how that is
      > > > > acceptable behaviour from the loving and peaceful lives that
      > > > Jesus said were
      > > > > an earmark of the Christian...]
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > Sandra
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > or Augustine/Austin of Hippo, the author of _Confessions_,
      > > > > _City of God_ etc.? I woulk think it more likely to be the
      > > > former.
      > > > >
      > > > > -- Teresa
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.