• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

What about these ana-baptists?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Reader Antonius

Lector et Didascalus
Nov 26, 2007
1,639
402
36
Patriarchate of Old Rome
Visit site
✟48,568.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
The ones that don't see the body of Christ as universal-

they see it as a congregation or assembly

with the family of God as universal

why aren't they included in the definition of ana-baptists?


cos these guys have been around since at least A.D 100!
Could you explain what you mean? I am a little confused.
 
Upvote 0

nzguy

Member
Feb 27, 2008
332
28
✟23,126.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
okay.. to clarify.. in the forum thread of what is an ana-baptist it has given the statement of faith for menonites.

I don't know much about this group of Christians but I do know the ana-baptists I have studied in the Trail of Blood and in Real Churches or a Fog don't see the body of Christ as all redeemed on earth, but as an assembly or congregation.

So I am wondering why these ana-baptists don't seem to be represented in this forum.

so there you go
 
Upvote 0

Crazy Liz

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2003
17,090
1,106
California
✟23,305.00
Faith
Christian
There aren't many of us here, of any kind of Anabaptists. Barely enough for our own forum, but a few of us do check in fairly frequently.

Can you tell us a little about your sort of Anabaptist?

I have never heard anyone call themselves an Anabaptist from the Trail of Blood tradition, and I've never heard of the Fog thing.

Why don't you tell us a little about yourself, rather than telling us what's wrong with us?
 
Upvote 0

nzguy

Member
Feb 27, 2008
332
28
✟23,126.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
ok sweet, I go to a little church in Christchurch New Zealand, called Christchurch Family Baptist. We have been in Christchurch for about 8 years, I have been a member for about 3 years.

I have lived in New Zealand for 26 years.. the other 3 being in Western Samoa.

I finished university study in 06- B.A in Human Services. I will be doing a course in teaching English to speakers of other languages on 21 April.

I am also part-time in the weekends doing a theology course at Aotearoa Bible College.. that my church started last year.

My church has an association fellowship with churches in the States in the American Baptist Assocation.. mostly Missionary Baptist churches. They are all independent, but have mostly the same teaching and help eachother out with finances and missionary sending.

With the Trail of Blood and Real Churches or a Fog, both books show what the real meaning of 'church' is.. as an assembly or congregation..

like when we say 'the dog' we mean all dogs plural
when we say 'the bar' we mean the one down the road.. the local tavern or pub

so 'the church' is the singular meant for the plural churches.

Anyway, these are distinctive markers of a line of churches that were never part of the reformation, and were around before Catholicism, tracing themselves right back to when Jesus formed His first church with the disciples.. with John 'The Baptist' being the first baptist :)

I guess with the doctrine of the church being always local and not universal I would like people to think about it.. see whether it lines up better with scripture than the universal church.. or the universal body of Christ.

I don't expect too much, but the doctrine of a universal church is predominant amongst all denominations.. but is it really biblical?
 
Upvote 0

PetersKeys

Traditionalist Catholic , Paleo-conservative
Mar 4, 2008
536
36
44
✟23,376.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The ones that don't see the body of Christ as universal-

they see it as a congregation or assembly

with the family of God as universal

why aren't they included in the definition of ana-baptists?


cos these guys have been around since at least A.D 100!


Ummm, no. They sprouted around 1500 years after Christ died. Only Catholic Christians existed at 100 A.D...Show me in any writing in 100 A.D. that talks about "anabaptists"

Tracing Baptists to John the Baptist simply because he had the name "Baptist" in it is ludacris. No serious theologian would take that seriously.

In fact all early churches saw the importance of infant Baptism. None of them denied it.
 
Upvote 0

tulc

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!
May 18, 2002
49,401
18,804
70
✟286,600.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I don't expect too much, but the doctrine of a universal church is predominant amongst all denominations.. but is it really biblical?

Hmmm some of that is based on this scripture:
Ephesians 4 1I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,
2With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;
3Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
4There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

7But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.
8Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.
9(Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?
10He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)
11And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
15But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
16From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.
(emph. added)
notice the bolded parts? Were the Apostles only for one small portion of the Church or for all the Church? The Church is (IMHO) made up of all people (living or dead) who are Christians. :)
tulc(just a thought) :wave:
 
Upvote 0

nzguy

Member
Feb 27, 2008
332
28
✟23,126.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
okay with the Ephesians verses.. the 'there is' in there is one body... is inserted. When you look at the Greek.. there is no definite article so it could be read.. One body one faith one baptism.. also the whole letter is to the church at Ephesus.

Some analogies in the book of Ephesus for church...

Eph 2:21,22..

"In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord; in whom ye also are built together for an habitation of God through the Spirit"

notice.. FITLY FRAMED TOGETHER.. this can fit with a local church, where a congregation can work together and be faithful.. but apply this to a universal church and it can't really be said it can be fitly framed together.. seeing as it never meets together.. has every kind of different schism.. so doesn't fit together.

As S.E Anderson sites in the writings of R.Nelson Colyar, in his book Real Churches or a Fog..

"Where there is no assembly there can be no church for the same reason that there can be no body where there is no corporate assemblage of parts"

Also remember that the word for church in teh Greek is ecclessia.. which means an assembly or congregation so when you look at the verses Eph 1:22-23

"And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all,"

you can easily replace church with congregation or assembly.

It is the same case where the singular stands for the plural..

when we say 'man' was created.. we mean people plural.

when we say 'the dog is a faithful animal' we mean all dogs plural.. not one universal dog.

So it is for the word 'church' and for the body of Christ.. singular acting for plural.

Another quote in Real Churches or a Fog from Davis W. Huckabee...

"The word 'body' cannot be applied to a nebulous, scattered, partly dead, partly living, partly non-existent, partly visible, partly invisible institution without giving a hideously distorted view of the word"
(The origin and Nature of the Church, p. 78)

through Ephesians there are numerous verses with 'together' in them..

God "hath quickened us together," 2:5. "And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together," 2:6. "The building fitly framed together," 2:21. "In whom ye are also built together," 2:22. "From whom the whole body fitly joined together," 4:16.

How do apply these verses to a universal church that never meets together?

You can apply it to an assembly or congregation that comes together..

So yeah.. I could go on alot more.. but this is already quite a long post :)

God bless
 
Upvote 0

nzguy

Member
Feb 27, 2008
332
28
✟23,126.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
As for the Catholics being the first Christians in a church.. well according to their own records and records from Protestant churches aswell.... from the Trail of Blood:


Cardinal Hosius (Catholic, 1524), President of the Council of Trent:

"Were it not that the baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers." (Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pp. 112, 113.)

These 1200 years preceded the reformation.

Sir Isaac Newton:

"The Baptists are the only body of known Christians that have never symbolized with Rome."

Mosheim (Lutheran):

"Before the rise of Luther and Calvin, there lay secreted in almost all the countries of Europe persons who adhered tenaciously to the principles of modern Dutch Baptists."

Edinburg Cyclopedia (Presbyterian):

"It must have already occurred to our readers that the Baptists are the same sect of Christians that were formerly described as Ana-Baptists. Indeed this seems to have been their leading principle from the time of Tertullian to the present time."

Tertullian, according to J.M Carroll in the Trail of Blood was born only 50 years after the apostle John.

So here you have it.. Christians around before Catholicism and Protestants from churches nicknamed 'Ana-Baptists' and 'Baptists'

 
Upvote 0

nzguy

Member
Feb 27, 2008
332
28
✟23,126.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
the point with the verses about what church is to how that the concept of the universal church may not be biblical

the point with the history of ana-baptists is to show that they have been recorded in Catholic and Protestants own records as having been around before them, in reply to the other post from the catholic fella.

so ultimately I would like to see the statement of faith for churches that don't see the body of Christ as universal in the ana-baptist forum definition for what is an ana-baptist.

so there you go :)

from

NZguy
 
Upvote 0

Crazy Liz

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2003
17,090
1,106
California
✟23,305.00
Faith
Christian
I don't think you'd find consensus on that here.

"I will build my church." -- Jesus.

I am not advocating any exclusion of Landmarkism. You're certainly welcome to discuss Landmarkism here. However, I would not like to see it as part of the definition of who can be a member of this forum.
 
Upvote 0

PetersKeys

Traditionalist Catholic , Paleo-conservative
Mar 4, 2008
536
36
44
✟23,376.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
As for the Catholics being the first Christians in a church.. well according to their own records and records from Protestant churches aswell.... from the Trail of Blood:


Cardinal Hosius (Catholic, 1524), President of the Council of Trent:

"Were it not that the baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers." (Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pp. 112, 113.)

These 1200 years preceded the reformation.

Sir Isaac Newton:

"The Baptists are the only body of known Christians that have never symbolized with Rome."

Mosheim (Lutheran):

"Before the rise of Luther and Calvin, there lay secreted in almost all the countries of Europe persons who adhered tenaciously to the principles of modern Dutch Baptists."

Edinburg Cyclopedia (Presbyterian):

"It must have already occurred to our readers that the Baptists are the same sect of Christians that were formerly described as Ana-Baptists. Indeed this seems to have been their leading principle from the time of Tertullian to the present time."

Tertullian, according to J.M Carroll in the Trail of Blood was born only 50 years after the apostle John.

So here you have it.. Christians around before Catholicism and Protestants from churches nicknamed 'Ana-Baptists' and 'Baptists'



Cardinal Hosius and that infamous "statement": Is it genuine?

The statement reads as follows:
"Were it not that the baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers." (Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pp. 112, 113.)" Quoted in the "Trail of Blood" by J. Carroll.
Does this statement exist in his complete works? No.

The complete works of Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius were published in two volumes in 1584 in Cologne, under the title "Opera Omnia". The complete title reads as follows:
D.STANISLAI HOSII, S R E CARDINALIS, MAIORIS POENITENTIARII; ET EPISCOPI VARMIENSIS
"Opera Omnia in Duos divisa tomos, quorum primus ab ipso auctore plurimus subinde in locis, integris & dimidijs paginis sic auctus & recognitus, ut novum opus fere censeri possit. Secundum autem totus novus, nuncque primus typis excusus."
Coloniae
Apud Maternum Cholinum
Anno M. D. L XXXIIII
The purported statement is nowhere to be found in the letters of Cardinal Hosius
  • There is no section titled "Apud Opera" among Hosius‘ complete works. And there is no letter of that name. So the reference "Letters, Apud Opera" is apparently meaningless. Similarly, I could find no publication of his with this title.
  • I decided to check all of Cardinal Hosius‘ letters for references to the Anabaptists. The section in his "Opera Omnia" entitled "Liber Epistelarum" contains all of Cardinal Hosius‘ letters, 277 in total, written in Latin. I have read through all of these letters, and in only 12 of them (letters XXVIII, XLI, XLIII, CV, CXVI, CXXVIII, CXXIX, CXXXIV, CL, CLVII, CLVIII, and CLX) is there any mention of the Anabaptists. In none of them is to be found the statement cited at the top. To all intents and purposes, this statement appears to be a fake.
  • Nowhere in the letters of Hosius are the "reformers" referred to as such. Rather, they are referred to as "Lutherani", "Calvinisti", "Zuingliani" and, especially in his other works, "haeretici". The purported statement of Hosius uses language he never uses in his "Opera omnia", and so its authenticity must be called into question.
  • The citation by various Baptist websites of two completely different purported statements by Cardian Hosuis, both given the same page reference, adds to the doubt about the genuineness of either. (The second purported statement is quoted in Note 1 below). The said statements are purported to be found on pages 112, 113 of "Apud Opera". However, only one statement can be found crossing over from page 112 to 113. How can you get two different statements, both starting on page 112 and both ending on page 113? (The only possibility would be if one statement were embedded in the other, but that is clearly not the case here.)
-----------
PART II: What Cardinal Hosius DID have to say about the "Anabaptists".
Cardinal Hosius meant by the term "Anabaptist" a general term for any kind of re-baptizing sect. We see the proof of this in his assertion that the Donatists were Anabaptists. But we know, of course, that the Donatists had completely different beliefs from modern day Baptists (or even 16th century Anabaptists). For example, they only believed in re-baptism for those Christians who had apostasized under persecution and later returned. Thy did not say infant baptism was wrong, they did not day baptism must be by immersion only, they did not say baptism was merely a symbol. So it is absolutely wrong for modern-day Baptists to suggest that Cardinal Hosius testifies to their existence at the time of Augustine!
See Catholic Encyclopedia: Donatists

a) The following is an extract from "Liber Primus De Haeresibus Nostri Temporis" found in "Opera Omnia" on page 432 of the Cologne, 1584 edition. It shows clearly how the Anabaptists of the time of Hosius could not agree among themselves, just as the anabaptist groups of Augustine’s time were also likewise hopelessly disunited.
(Note: original Latin will be shown in italics)
( Margin heading: Anabaptistae inter se dissecti)
"But this sect of Anabaptists is greatly divided. For they neither agree on the main doctrines among themselves .."( Est autem & haec Anabaptistarum secta valde dissecta: Neque enim doctrine capitibus inter se conveniunt. ) It has also been in Augustines century, (fuit etiam Augustini seculo, & ficut aliae pleraeque omnes haereses) all heresies immediately from the beginning divided into many parts (sic & haec statim ab initio multas in partes fuit divisa).
b) Cardinal Hosius then goes on to list some of the anabaptist heretical groups of Augustine’s time. This is significant, because among other things it shows that Hosius regarded the Donatists as „anabaptists“ or re-baptizers. However, since we know exactly what the Donatists believed (and it certainly wasn’t what Baptists believe) we see that Hosius used the term "anabaptist" as a generic term for sects which re-baptized. Here is his quote:
(Nam alij vocabantur Donatistae, alij Rogatistae, alij Maximianistae, Circenses alij, qui conversi tandem sunt a factione Donatistarum ( hoc enim nomen caeteris erat celebrius) ad Ecclesiae Catholicae societatem. )
(„For some are called Donatists, others Rogatists, other Maximinianists, othere Circenses, which at length are changed from the faction of the Donatists to the Catholic Church“)
c) And he continues by listing some of the sects of the sixteenth century.
"Muncerani, alij Orantes, alij Silentes, Somniantes, pueris similes, Synceri, Impeccabiles a Baptismo, Liberi, Binderliani, Sabbatarii, Maderanii, Hoffmannici, & post eos exorti Circumcisi: fortassis & Adamitae ad Anabaptistarum sectam pertinent."
So it is clear from this that Hosius grouped all re-baptising sects together under the heading "Anabaptists". This is very important to note, for it destroys conclusively any notion that the Baptists of today can trace their lineage back to the time of Augustine.
d) A quote from letter CLVII "Carolo Archiduci Austriae" (from "Opera Omnia", Liber Epistolarum)
"Nonne videmus a Lutheranismo ad Calvinismum, a Calvinismo ad Anabaptismum, ab Anabaptismo ad Trideismum, a Trideismi ad Atheism iam esse ventum? "
("Do we not already see the wind to be from Lutheranism to Calvinism, from Calvinism to Anabaptism, from Anabaptism to Trideism, from Trideism to Atheism?").
Proof again, if it were needed, that Cardinal Hosius certainly didn’t see the Anabaptists of his time being in any way descended from the groups at the time of Augustine.
e) Letter CL "Alberto Bavariae Duci" (ibid.): in this letter we do have a reference to Anabaptists from 1,200 years earlier ("quos ante mille ducentos annes haeretisos"), however as we have seen, this refers to sects such as the Donatists, who did not reject infant baptism or baptism by sprinkling, they merely insisted that apostates should be "re-baptized", hence their status as "ana-baptists".
"Nam & alterius Principis edictum non ita pridem legi, qui vicem Anabaptistarum dolens, quos ante mille ducentos annes haeretisos, capitalique supplicio dignos esse pronunciatos legimus, vult, ut audiantur omnino, nec indicta causa pro condemnatis habeantur."
f) Finally note the following reference. Again Hosius is goruping the Donatists as anabaptists:
Page 436 "Liber Primus De Haeresibus Nostri Temporis" (ibid.)
Neque vero tantum Augustini seculo tales fuerunt: Ante quadringentos etia annos, quibus Bernardus vixit, fuerunt Anabaptistae non minus vitae prodigi, quam Donatistae."
("Not only in the time of Augustine were they as such. 400 years ago, during which Bernard lived, there have been anabaptists no less prodigious of life than the Donatists.")
(Refs Augustus epist. 50 "Donatistae mortis oppetendae cupidi"; Bernardus. sermo 66 in cantic.)
Once again, there is absolutely no connection in Hosius' mind between the groups of the time of Augustine and those of the sixteenth century.
-----------
In summary:
We have shown that (i) it is almost certain that Cardinal Hosius never made that remark which is attributed to him, for reasons given in section I above, and (ii) that Cardinal Hosius certainly did not regard the Anabaptists of his time as being in any way descended from the sects of the time of Augustine.
An understanding of the general nature of the term "anabaptist" as simply meaning "re-baptizer" will clarify why Hosius says they existed as early as Augustine`s time. Note that in contrast, the term "Catholic" has always meant something quite specific, union with the See of Peter in the universal Church. For this reason, the Catholic Church of today CAN and DOES claim continuity from the time of the Apostles.
As a final comment, it is well to note that the Catholic Church has much more ancient testimony than anything the Baptists can come up with. Just read the Early Church Fathers on Baptism, the Eucharist, the Primacy of Peter etc. See for example www.catholic.com or www.newadvent.org
The Baptists cannot provide any kind of support of this kind for their position.
-----------
Catholic Encyclopedia Links: The following are some links to Catholic Encyclopedia articles relating to pre-reformation heretical sects. The casual reader will note that the teachings of these groups vary widely and can in no way be seen to be doctrinally consistent with modern-day Baptists!
 
Upvote 0
C

catlover

Guest
Ummm, no. They sprouted around 1500 years after Christ died. Only Catholic Christians existed at 100 A.D...Show me in any writing in 100 A.D. that talks about "anabaptists"

Tracing Baptists to John the Baptist simply because he had the name "Baptist" in it is ludacris. No serious theologian would take that seriously.

In fact all early churches saw the importance of infant Baptism. None of them denied it.

If anyone attempted to exist outside of the Catholic faith they would be silenced in one way or another so an absolute authority does not mean no one besides the Catholic Church existed-it's just they were silenced.
 
Upvote 0

nzguy

Member
Feb 27, 2008
332
28
✟23,126.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
that is the thing! The reason there are sparse records of churches existing outside Catholicism.. and around before it.. is because their records have been mostly eradicated and denied by Catholics and Protestants!

Anyway.. in regards to the references.. I think I need to read up a bit more about the Trail of Blood.. but as a few people have pointed out to me.. I am not going to find anyone saying The Trail of Blood is sound history if I go looking at the people who oppress the churches from that history!

anyway.. I need to read up a bit more, I definitely don have the same level of historical study as is in Peterkeys post... but I am sure I will find the history of churches around b4 Catholism with no universal church teaching is there..
 
Upvote 0

tulc

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!
May 18, 2002
49,401
18,804
70
✟286,600.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
anyway.. I need to read up a bit more, I definitely don have the same level of historical study as is in Peterkeys post... but I am sure I will find the history of churches around b4 Catholism with no universal church teaching is there..

So you're going to look for the history or you're going to look for proof you're right? There's a difference you know. :sorry:
tulc(just a thought) :)
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.