Are there any denominations that don't believe everything from the Bible?

[Ain't Zwinglian]

For example, I recall seeing the claim made that the Donatists believed in infant baptism, which is obviously incorrect for anyone who has read the objections to donatism from the early church fathers, which do not even mention baptism, but rather object to their idea that the efficacy of the sacraments depends on the personal sanctity of the officiating clergy.

Yes. The reason why "I believe in ONE baptism for the remission of sins" was inserted in 381 AD was due to tragic influence of Donatism in North Africa. You say correctly their error depended up personal sanctity. Hence, Donatists invalidated baptisms across the board. There have been plenty of wolves in Shepard's clothing in the history of the Christian Church, but the validity of baptism does not reside in the Shepard's faith (called or uncalled). The validity of baptism resides in the Word and the public intent of the faithful in the congregation.

Unfortunately, Donatism was never eradicated from North Africa until they were conquered by the Muslims.

 

[The Liturgist]

Unfortunately, Donatism was never eradicated from North Africa until they were conquered by the Muslims.

Except for Egypt of course, which is the only place in North Africa where Christianity survived, and one of only two lands, the other being Abyssinia (the Numidian Orthodox, who were an autonomous Oriental Orthodox church like the Ethiopians under the Coptic Orthodox omophorion (great stole, meaning aegis) in the Sudan were killed off.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Except for Egypt of course, which is the only place in North Africa where Christianity survived, and one of only two lands, the other being Abyssinia (the Numidian Orthodox, who were an autonomous Oriental Orthodox church like the Ethiopians under the Coptic Orthodox omophorion (great stole, meaning aegis) in the Sudan were killed off.

So did Donatism survive in these two regions? or did Donatism die out after a period of time in these two regions? I know individuals have been Donatists through out history (and condemned by Councils) but did Donatism exist as a corporate belief from the 7th to 10th?

 

[The Liturgist]

So did Donatism survive in these two regions? or did Donatism die out after a period of time in these two regions? I know individuals have been Donatists through out history (and condemned by Councils) but did Donatism exist as a corporate belief from the 7th to 10th?

It died out completely in those regions. The Alexandrian churches, both Greek and Coptic, were very strict about Orthodoxy and the Donatists had been a pest there in the 4th century, but were not significant afterwards.

Interestingly the only churches from antiquity that survive are the Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and the Assyrian Church of the East and Ancient Church of the East (which have been in a schism since the late 1960s due to an ill-advised calendar change by the last hereditary Patriarch, Mar Shimun XXIII, combined with the fact that an Indian bishop who was one of the founders of the ancient church of the East found the ancient canon, which is also prominently featured in the Eastern Orthodox compendium of canon law called the Pedalion (meaning Rudder), that precludes having a hereditary episcopate or patriarchate, and thus the entire hereditary system in use there, and also if I recall for a time in the Chaldean Catholic Church, which separated from the Church of the East in a number of schisms in the 16th-18th century where bits of Eastern churches for various reasons were separated and entered into subordination to the Roman Pontiff, not unlike the Anglican Ordinariates at present (and indeed the proposed Lutheran Ordinariates). Of course we have fired back in a sense with Western Rite Orthodoxy, although WRO was more about meeting the needs of disaffected traditional Anglo-Catholics (very high church Anglicans) tired of their Patristic faith being interfered with by Broad Church, Liberal Catholic and Low Church/Evangelical movements in Anglicanism.

 

[Postvieww]

Or who don't believe it's the word of God, or the perfect word of God.

I believe everything in the Bible, and that it is the perfect word of God, and that Jesus really did resurrect from the dead. That Noah really did build a ark and there was a flood, and that giants have existed, and the snake in the garden was actually talking to Adam and Eve. I also believe that Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt and parted the Red Sea to allow them to cross. All these things really happened.

And when the book of Revelation says that there will be these scorpion creatures that will sting people, and when the Bible says they will have human like faces I believe it.

I was having a discussion with a non-denomination Christian, and he said those scorpion like creatures are probably just human made tanks, and that humans are the ones driving it, his explanation was that this was their way of describing a tank to people back then because they would have no idea if we just said a machine with tracks, and a long cannon in the front, so the people who wrote the Bible just said scorpion creatures that will sting people.

But this makes absolutely no sense what he just told me, what tank on this earth has a stinger and a face that looks human?

I would say that most if not all denominations are wrong about something.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

It died out completely in those regions. The Alexandrian churches, both Greek and Coptic, were very strict about Orthodoxy and the ç had been a pest there in the 4th century, but were not significant afterwards.

Interestingly the only churches from antiquity that survive are the Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and the Assyrian Church of the East and Ancient Church of the East (which have been in a schism since the late 1960s due to an ill-advised calendar change by the last hereditary Patriarch, Mar Shimun XXIII, combined with the fact that an Indian bishop who was one of the founders of the ancient church of the East found the ancient canon, which is also prominently featured in the Eastern Orthodox compendium of canon law called the Pedalion (meaning Rudder), that precludes having a hereditary episcopate or patriarchate, and thus the entire hereditary system in use there, and also if I recall for a time in the Chaldean Catholic Church, which separated from the Church of the East in a number of schisms in the 16th-18th century where bits of Eastern churches for various reasons were separated and entered into subordination to the Roman Pontiff, not unlike the Anglican Ordinariates at present (and indeed the proposed Lutheran Ordinariates). Of course we have fired back in a sense with Western Rite Orthodoxy, although WRO was more about meeting the needs of disaffected traditional Anglo-Catholics (very high church Anglicans) tired of their Patristic faith being interfered with by Broad Church, Liberal Catholic and Low Church/Evangelical movements in Anglicanism.

Modern Donatism revisited.

A made up senario....

Suppposing we had a church in the mid west which was Bible believing and independent. The church had been decreasing in size over the past 50 years due to population shift to the cities. What you have left are senior citizens who had been worshiping in the same congregation for their lifetime.

Then an idea occurred. Why not get a young pastor from the University religion department to bring some energy back to the congregation and attract more young people. They called a young man with alot of chrisma and charm to rebuild the congregation.

However, when the young pastor performed his first baptism....he baptized in the name of the Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier. Is this a valid baptism? Does the sin of one man who is a called pastor invalidate that particular baptism?

The congregation itself was in shock and immediately fired him. The public intent of the Congregation were baptism were only performed under the Trinue formula. So now we have two issues....the sin of the pastor vs. the public intent of the congregation.

I also can envision another scenario, where the congregation of liberalism has been using the inclusive language addition of the liturgy and of the Bible for the past 25 years. They have no problem with baptizing in the name of the creator, redeemer and sanctifier. Is this a valid baptism.

My answer is the second senario would be invalid, because the congregation itself believes, teaches, and confess inclusive language and all the baggage it brings....along with the pastor. This would be a sin the whole congregation engages in therefore unchristian.

But the first senario is a little harder to resolve. With more and more men and women being influence in liberal seminaries....modern day Donatism is a reality.

Rome as a hierarchical institution invalidates all baptisms with inclusive language. Solving this problem with small independent churches with liberal and unbelieving pastor is different.

 

[PloverWing]

However, when the young pastor performed his first baptism....he baptized in the name of the Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier. Is this a valid baptism? Does the sin of one man who is a called pastor invalidate that particular baptism?

This doesn't sound like Donatism to me, if I'm correctly understanding Donatism. The scenario described here is one in which the form of the sacrament is incorrect. The question would then be, how far off from the correct form are we allowed to go and still have the sacrament be valid? It's similar to the debates over whether the wine at Communion can be replaced by grape juice, or by some other beverage. We need to think about the question carefully, especially if we value liturgical tradition, but it's a different question from the personal virtue of the pastor.

I think a better parallel would be if the pastor was secretly taking half of the offering money each Sunday and spending it on luxury vacations. The pastor is sinning, but this doesn't invalidate the baptisms he performs.

Have I understood the church's decision on Donatism correctly?

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

This doesn't sound like Donatism to me, if I'm correctly understanding Donatism. The scenario described here is one in which the form of the sacrament is incorrect. The question would then be, how far off from the correct form are we allowed to go and still have the sacrament be valid? It's similar to the debates over whether the wine at Communion can be replaced by grape juice, or by some other beverage. We need to think about the question carefully, especially if we value liturgical tradition, but it's a different question from the personal virtue of the pastor.

I think a better parallel would be if the pastor was secretly taking half of the offering money each Sunday and spending it on luxury vacations. The pastor is sinning, but this doesn't invalidate the baptisms he performs.

Have I understood the church's decision on Donatism correctly?

My post in question deals with the possibility of modern day Donatism with the example of Baptism. I am not going comment on a "kitchen sink" approach where everything and anything is a possibility. Life is to short in answering "everything but the kitchen sink" questions.

The Liturgist is a smart enough person to know what I was talking, but let me add some more material to clarify..... if modern day Donatism exists using only the example of baptism.

********

What makes a valid or invalid baptism? Our definition from Scripture is baptism is at least three things:1) water applied to the human body 2) In the name of the Trinue God, 3) another Christian baptizing you.

THE WATER
In the 1960’s, it was recorded there was clergy person from a mainline denomination who baptized hippie chick’s children with rose petals in Golden Gate park. Is this Christian baptism? No. And even if the Triune formula was used, it is not in accordance with Scripture nor with public intent of the denomination. This is abuse of an official act of Jesus' Church worthy of defrocking.

Any kind of water in its natural state can be used for Ocean water, sea, river, lake, pond stream, sterile water, distilled water, cloudy or clear; Water at 14C or 24C, and there is no specified amount of water needed. Water needs to be applied to the body via the modes Immersion, sprinkling, pouring, drenching.

THE TRIUNE FORMULA
Mormon baptism contains water, has the Triune formula and has another person baptizing the recipient. Is this Christian baptism? No. Why? Because the Jesus of Mormonism is not the same Jesus of Scripture. In Mormonism, Jesus is the spirit brother of Satan and is one god in a pantheon of gods. Those witnessing Mormon baptisms...are giving public testimony to polytheism.

It is not the sound of the words "in the name of the Father, the Son and the HS" that gives meaning and validity to baptism, but the MEANING OF THE SOUND...."in the name of the F, S and HS"....that gives meaning and validity to baptism.

So what is Mormon baptism? It is just WATER, and no Christian baptism.
So what about our hippie chick's baptism of her child? It is just ROSE PETALS and no Christian baptism.

********
Post #26 gives two scenarios. 1) In a Bible believing church, a new pastor deliberately changes the meaning of the Trinue formula to inclusive language. The public intent of the congregation is all baptisms are to be done with the Trinue formula. Is this baptism a valid baptism? Or is this just water?

2)In a liberal church where inclusive language is used in the liturgy and from Scriptural reading, and the baptism is done in the name of the Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier....and congregation has no problem with these labels....is this a valid baptism? Or is this just water?

My opinion is for #1: I am not sure....but will lead on the side of validity.
My opinion for #2: Invalid.

 

[The Liturgist]

However, when the young pastor performed his first baptism....he baptized in the name of the Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier. Is this a valid baptism?

Since most denominations aside from the most liberal mainline churches would rebaptize, I would say no, but that’s not Donatism. Mormons use the correct formula, but their baptisms are also invalid since baptism is a sacrament, a Holy Mystery of the Church, and not a magical incantation.

A requirement of not being a schismatic heretic furthermore, as a precondition for valid ordination, has not generally been considered Donatist - this was the view of St. Cyprian of Carthage, who predated the Donatist schism, and the Donatist clergy were ironically lacking in legitimacy under his understanding of qualifications for ordination.

Rather the key problem of Donatism is the requirement that the sacraments be performed only by righteous men, for example, by those who had not capitulated to the Roman Empire during the Diocletian persecutions or during the period of official Arianism. The problem is that even among those who had not capitulated, there was still no guarantee of righteousness - indeed no one is truly righteous apart from God, and those who he sanctifies, and there is no way for us to ascertain with certainty whether or not God is at work with someone or not, at least during their lifetime, and what is more, even someone who is presently righteous has almost certainly engaged in grave sins earlier in life.

Rome as a hierarchical institution invalidates all baptisms with inclusive language. Solving this problem with small independent churches with liberal and unbelieving pastor is different.

They are not alone in this. Most churches do not accept this. But rejecting such baptisms is compatible both with the 2nd century St. Cyprian of Carthage, and with St. Augustine of Hippo, who taught in response to Donatism that the sacraments function ex opere operanto. Under Augustinian sacramental theology, since the form used in the sacrament is invalid, so too is the sacrament. Likewise, the sacramental matter must be valid - in baptism that means a Christian who has not been previously baptized (for this reason, traditional churches when in doubt as to whether someone is baptized or not will use the form “if thou be not baptized, then I baptize you (in the Trinitarian formula).

This is also why we cannot celebrate the Eucharist with water and wine, or with milk and honey as a group of feminine clergy engaged in at the ReImagine! conference.

 

[The Liturgist]

It is not the sound of the words "in the name of the Father, the Son and the HS" that gives meaning and validity to baptism, but the MEANING OF THE SOUND...."in the name of the F, S and HS"....that gives meaning and validity to baptism.

That’s true, but since the Congregation disagreed with the person doing the baptism about the meaning of the words, and also since any of them could have validly baptized, since baptism is the one sacrament laity can do when needed without a clergy, I just can’t see either scenario as valid.

I do see your point on scenario one, but it is still invalid due to formal invalidity.

Now, I can think of a case wherein the congregation thought the baptism was valid, because they did not hear the new pastor use the invalid words, and assumed he used the correct one, which is more of an edge case.

Also if someone is inadvertantly rebaptized that is not the end of the world.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

I do see your point on scenario one, but it is still invalid due to formal invalidity.

I believe you are on the side of the majority I would think.

Also if someone is inadvertantly rebaptized that is not the end of the world.

Yeap.

 

[PloverWing]

2)In a liberal church where inclusive language is used in the liturgy and from Scriptural reading, and the baptism is done in the name of the Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier....and congregation has no problem with these labels....is this a valid baptism? Or is this just water?

I still think you're describing a situation where the form of the sacrament is incorrect. (I'd say that this situation is iffy, and I'd probably want to follow up with a quiet conditional baptism, "If you are not already baptized, I baptize you...".)

What would you say about situation (3): In a church where inclusive language is normally used in the liturgy and an inclusive-language translation of the Scriptures is used for reading, a priest baptizes someone in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Is this baptism valid? (I would say yes, because the form is now correct, and there's correct intent behind the form.)

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

I'd probably want to follow up with a quiet conditional baptism, "If you are not already baptized, I baptize you...".)

Yes. This is good pastoral advice. Deals with whether an older person was baptized into the Christian faith when he was younger, eliminates if one parent were Mormon.... was the candidate baptized into Mormonism/JW etc.? Plus excludes the Credobaptist practice of re-baptism. Plus other circumstances living within the human condition.

 

[The Liturgist]

Yes. This is good pastoral advice. Deals with whether an older person was baptized into the Christian faith when he was younger, eliminates if one parent were Mormon.... was the candidate baptized into Mormonism/JW etc.? Plus excludes the Credobaptist practice of re-baptism. Plus other circumstances living within the human condition.

These conditional baptisms, as I mentioned earlier, are the norm in most liturgical churches, since they avoid crypto-Credobaptism. In the Nicene Creed we confess one baptism for the remission of sins, and thus if a valid baptism has been performed it ought not be repeated.

 

[jas3]

These conditional baptisms, as I mentioned earlier, are the norm in most liturgical churches, since they avoid crypto-Credobaptism.

I've wondered in the past, is there historical/patristic precedent for conditional baptisms? As far as I know there's no such thing in Orthodoxy.

 

[The Liturgist]

I've wondered in the past, is there historical/patristic precedent for conditional baptisms? As far as I know there's no such thing in Orthodoxy.

We Eastern Orthodox do have conditional baptisms. Indeed it was in an Eastern Orthodox context where I first heard of the practice. This letter from an OCA bishop in 1983 mentions them: HTC: Acceptance into the Orthodox Church There are other mentions if you just Google it, for example, on the OrthodoxWiki and other sites: Baptism - OrthodoxWiki

I don’t know if the Oriental Orthodox have conditional baptisms; I’ve never asked. Some Oriental Orthodox churches, for example, the Copts, regard baptisms not performed using three full immersions (which is how they are done in the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Assyrian Church of the East as well as the Oriental Orthodox) to be formally invalid as far as reception into their church is concerned, whereas the Eastern Orthodox and the Syriac Orthodox accept, for example, Roman Catholic baptisms and correctly performed Protestant baptisms.

 

[ExTiff]

I was having a discussion with a non-denomination Christian, and he said those scorpion like creatures are probably just human made tanks, and that humans are the ones driving it, his explanation was that this was their way of describing a tank to people back then because they would have no idea if we just said a machine with tracks, and a long cannon in the front, so the people who wrote the Bible just said scorpion creatures that will sting people.

But this makes absolutely no sense what he just told me, what tank on this earth has a stinger and a face that looks human?

 

[ExTiff]

Or who don't believe it's the word of God, or the perfect word of God.

I believe everything in the Bible, and that it is the perfect word of God, and that Jesus really did resurrect from the dead. That Noah really did build a ark and there was a flood, and that giants have existed, and the snake in the garden was actually talking to Adam and Eve. I also believe that Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt and parted the Red Sea to allow them to cross. All these things really happened.

And when the book of Revelation says that there will be these scorpion creatures that will sting people, and when the Bible says they will have human like faces I believe it.

I was having a discussion with a non-denomination Christian, and he said those scorpion like creatures are probably just human made tanks, and that humans are the ones driving it, his explanation was that this was their way of describing a tank to people back then because they would have no idea if we just said a machine with tracks, and a long cannon in the front, so the people who wrote the Bible just said scorpion creatures that will sting people.

But this makes absolutely no sense what he just told me, what tank on this earth has a stinger and a face that looks human?

You are getting your images mixed. A viewer of a modern battle tank from above on a battlefield would see turrets like a lions mane and stabilised guns as ‘the means by which the tank moved beneath them, their tails appearing to be the means by which they wound’. Much as the way observers on earth see the sun revolve around the earth. Where as the earth revolves around the sun. The stinger locusts would be as an ancient observer might describe an attack helicopter with human face windshield, firing missiles and having a stabilising rotor ‘sting’ in its tail. Exhaust gasses from gas turbine engines described as looking like human hair flowing out behind them.

 

[FireDragon76]

Or who don't believe it's the word of God, or the perfect word of God.

I believe everything in the Bible, and that it is the perfect word of God, and that Jesus really did resurrect from the dead. That Noah really did build a ark and there was a flood, and that giants have existed, and the snake in the garden was actually talking to Adam and Eve. I also believe that Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt and parted the Red Sea to allow them to cross. All these things really happened.

And when the book of Revelation says that there will be these scorpion creatures that will sting people, and when the Bible says they will have human like faces I believe it.

I was having a discussion with a non-denomination Christian, and he said those scorpion like creatures are probably just human made tanks, and that humans are the ones driving it, his explanation was that this was their way of describing a tank to people back then because they would have no idea if we just said a machine with tracks, and a long cannon in the front, so the people who wrote the Bible just said scorpion creatures that will sting people.

But this makes absolutely no sense what he just told me, what tank on this earth has a stinger and a face that looks human?

The issue isn't really biblical inspiration or inerrancy here, it's hermeneutics. People that are obsessed with prophecy and wrangle it to fit their present circumstances risk getting off track and not seeing the forest through the trees.