The writings of the Church Fathers span tens of thousands of works, orders of magnitude more vast than the Jewish collection of the Talmud or the Muslim Hadiths. The Patrologia Latina alone spans 217 volumes in total!
>>18257011And they will all burn in hell for worshipping the crucified heretic Yeshua ben Pandera. “Thou shalt not have other gods before me”
Why should I care? They're all in hell. Become Baptist.
>>18257017You're gonna burn in hell for all eternity. Tick tock!
>>18257019Cope. Only God is God, Yeshua ben Pandera was a heretic and a liar whose burning in hell as we speak.
>>18257018The guy who wrote the "Sermon on the Passion of Saints Donatus and Advocatus" (in Patrologia Latina Vol. 8, cols. 752-758.) was alright.He exposes the hypocrisy of the pro-Constantine Catholicism faction, showing that they took part in persecuting believers (both before and after the legalization of Christianity).>>18257022Begone, gnostic offshoot.
>>18257011And?
>>18257157Can you elaborate on that? Sounds interesting
>>18257389Sure, why not. I have some English-translated excerpts from the sermon. Notice how he starts off with similar wording to Luke 3:1, and later condemns "Catholicism"."A Sermon on the Passion of Saints Donatus and Advocatus"Given on the 4th day before the Ides of March, written circa AD 317-320.>translated from: Patrologia Latina Vol. 8, cols. 752-758.§ Now then, let's proceed with the situation. [...] The incident occurred at Carthage when Caecilian Pseudoepiscopus was there, and Leontius had been appointed comes, Ursatius was dux, Marcellinus tribune, and the Devil appeared as counsellor for all of them. Their practices were rooted in the old Serpent who had already shown himself the enemy of the Christian Name. By deceitful fraud, he strove to lay hold of those he could not conquer by direct persecution. The author of deception lay hidden so that his deception might proceed more easily. But divine precepts are always the arms of victory for those who recognize the snares of the Flatterer, and they are not frightened by his raging harassment.Knowing this, when the contriver came face to face with times of peace, that by worldly seduction, he revived those minds he had overcome in battle by fear of torture. He took away their humility, the only way to tame the anger of an indignant God, and he substituted pride, which he knew for certain would gravely offend God. He promoted the idea that the lapsed, the deserters of heavenly ordinances, could illicitly hold ecclestiastical office again.As much as he recently took pleasure in their weakness of faith, so now he rejoices in this fraud. He is even more secure when they are called 'bishops' or 'Christians', than when they fell to ruin in their denial of the Christian name. As we have already said, this is how he holds onto those he deceives by false use of the Name. Not only does he delight these miserable men with vainglory but he also ensnares the greedy by royal friendship and earthly gifts.
>>18257398§ Nevertheless, this rapacious robber was frustrated that he did not control everyone by this ruse. So the enemy of salvation concocted a more subtle conceit to violate the purity of faith. "Christ," he said, "is the lover of unity. Therefore, let there be unity." Those people who were already fawning on him and were deserted by God came to be called 'Catholics'. By prejudice in favor of the name, those who refused to communicate with them were called 'heretics'. He sent funds so that he might weaken their faith or provide an occasion for avarice, through the publication of the law.§ O most faithful brothers and sisters, it is a crime even to publish what was said and done among the banquets of lascivious youths where despicable women were present.What grief to see such a crime in the house of the Lord, this place accustomed to pious prayers, now profaned by impure deeds and illegitimate incantations! Now I ask you, what person in whatever desperate condition would allow this to be done in their own home? No one would consent except the sort of person who would actually do it. Who denies that such deeds have the children of the Devil as their authors? Who calls the authors of these actions Christians, except the person who wishes to excuse the Devil himself or to disavow Christ the Lord? What diligence by the Serpent! So many evils let loose! How many hatched so that its family might assume the divine Name and hide itself from that Name, the Name it disgraces by its deeds! O the strength of the divine patience so worthy of praise, bearing up while the villainy of evil is spreading! Divine patience puts up with having the deeds of the crafty enemy imputed to itself or to its Name. Let no one think that something trivial happens when so many schisms and heresies arise. Satan's disguise surely dishonors God and Christ through this wicked ministry and adulterous work.
>>18257399§ But lest we wander too far from the main point, let us omit their defilement of holy virgins. I repress any mention of their slaughter of the priests of God. I keep silent about their assaults, their pillaging, their booty. This way even they may know that we deliberately select few things from among many and we expose it quickly and modestly, seeing that we are eager not to exact vengeance on our enemies but to free the souls of these miserable people from the jaws of the ravenous wolf, indeed from the very mouth of the Dragon.Therefore, the one who corrupts holy discipline would violate the chastity of faith under the by-word of unity, i.e., by compelling unity with himself, not with God. Neither the rulers of this world nor those of darkness arrange things to happen in such a way that what is ordered might reveal the person giving the order.§ Let us proceed to the final events. They erupted in open threats and unmistakable fury once their subterfuges failed and their snares wore out. At that time you could have seen bands of soldiers serving the Furies of the traditors. Behold, in imitation of the Lord's passion, this cohort of soldiers marshalled by latter-day Pharisees sets forth from their camps to the death of Christians.It is this very sanctuary, I say, between whose walls so many bodies were cut down and buried. Here, in the inscriptions, memory preserves the name of the persecution as 'Caecilianist' until the end of time, lest after his episcopate the parricide deceive others who were not privy to the things done in his name.
>>18257400§ This day will reflect on how Highest Piety itself did not permit everyone to be butchered here. Scrutinizing the hearts of all, God honors with the reward of the martyrs those whom He saw suffering with the full measure of devotion, for He seeks not the blood but the faith of believers. However, we must hold Caecilian responsible for the blood of all, for we are sure that he arranged for the whole populace to be killed.§ Nonetheless, there was an even greater madness: even after so nefarious a deed, the killer thought he could take control of the same sanctuary.So he persecuted those who avoided the contagion of communion with him while he promised indemnification to those who would communicate with him even after he committed the killings. O imprudence mixed with vanity and madness! This is how the vilest of robbers was blinded.§ And so, I think we must inquire what sort of apostasy this may be if it is so worthily called 'Catholic'. For as an enemy of the Name, it manages quite well to the enormous detriment of the Name, so that the common people take it as Catholic when the Caecilianists commit without penalty what is forbidden under common law.
>>18257401§ O mystery truly divine, so very different from human wisdom! Thus says the Lord through the prophet: "My thoughts are not your thoughts," he says, "nor are my ways your ways: for as far as heaven is from the earth, so far are my ways from your ways, and your thoughts from my understanding."To be slain in the battle line as an adversary of the Gentiles, this is victory; to be killed by the enemy in our combat is triumph. But the murderer who has lived on after his victory is truly a wretched conqueror.Instructed in heavenly teachings, you struggle unsullied in a battle for which you cannot be blamed. A multiplicity of battles tests you on earth, crowns you in heaven, and commends you to the Lord Christ. Thus one conquers who, after victory, does not know how to be conquered again; thus one triumphs, for whom triumph has no bounds.(Translated directly from the original sermon in Patrologia Latina Vol. 8)
>>18257398>>18257399>>18257400>>18257401>>18257404Augustine describes a particularly violent sect of the Donatists called the Circumcelliones. They were basically extremist Christians, the ISIS of their day, and they would go around attacking Catholics. Augustine writes in Letter 111:1. My heart has been filled with great sorrow by your letter. You asked me to discuss certain things at great length in my reply; but such calamities as you narrate claim rather many groans and tears than prolix treatises. The whole world, indeed, is afflicted with such portentous misfortunes, that there is scarcely any place where such things as you describe are not being committed and complained of. A short time ago some brethren were massacred by the barbarians even in those deserts of Egypt in which, in order to perfect security, they had chosen places remote from all disturbance as the sites of their monasteries. I suppose, moreover, that the outrages which they have perpetrated in the regions of Italy and Gaul are known to you also; and now similar events begin to be announced to us from many provinces of Spain, which for long seemed exempt from these evils. But why go to a distance for examples? Behold! In our own county of Hippo, which the barbarians have not yet touched, the ravages of the Donatist clergy and Circumcelliones make such havoc in our churches, that perhaps the cruelties of barbarians would be light in comparison. For what barbarian could ever have devised what these have done, viz. casting lime and vinegar into the eyes of our clergymen, besides atrociously beating and wounding every part of their bodies? They also sometimes plunder and burn houses, rob granaries, and pour out oil and wine; and by threatening to do this to all others in the district, they compel many even to be re-baptized. Only yesterday, tidings came to me of forty-eight souls in one place having submitted, under fear of such things, to be rebaptized.
2. These things should make us weep, but not wonder; and we ought to cry unto God that not for our merit, but according to His mercy, He may deliver us from so great evils. For what else was to be expected by the human race, seeing that these things were so long ago foretold both by the prophets and in the Gospels? We ought not, therefore, to be so inconsistent as to believe these Scriptures when they are read by us, and to complain when they are fulfilled;
Augustine describes persecutions and violence from Donatists against Catholics further in Letter 18525. However, before those laws were sent into Africa by which men are compelled to come in to the sacred Supper, it seemed to certain of the brethren, of whom I was one, that although the madness of the Donatists was raging in every direction,
yet we should not ask of the emperors to ordain that heresy should absolutely cease to be, by sanctioning a punishment to be inflicted on all who wished to live in it; but that they should rather content themselves with ordaining that those who either preached the Catholic truth with their voice, or established it by their study, should no longer be exposed to the furious violence of the heretics. And p. 643 this they thought might in some measure be effected, if they would take the law which Theodosius, of pious memory, enacted generally against heretics of all kinds, to the effect that any heretical bishop or clergyman, being found in any place, should be fined ten pounds of gold, and confirm it in more express terms against the Donatists, who denied that they were heretics; but with such reservations, that the fine should not be inflicted upon all of them, but only in those districts where the Catholic Church suffered any violence from their clergy, or from the Circumcelliones, or at the hands of any of their people; so that after a formal complaint had been made by the Catholics who had suffered the violence, the bishops or other ministers should immediately be obliged, under the commission given to the officers, to pay the fine.
For we thought that in this way, if they were terrified and no longer dared do anything of the sort, the Catholic truth might be freely taught and held under such conditions, that while no one was compelled to it, any one might follow it who was anxious to do so without intimidation, so that we might not have false and pretended Catholics. And although a different view was held by other brethren, who either were more advanced in years, or had experience of many states and places where we saw the true Catholic Church firmly established, which had, however, been planted and confirmed by God's great goodness at a time when men were compelled to come in to the Catholic communion by the laws of previous emperors, yet we carried our point, to the effect that the measure which I have described above should be sought in preference from the emperors: it was decreed in our council, John 16:2 and envoys were sent to the court of the Count.
27. With regard to the aforesaid bishop of Bagai, in consequence of his claim being allowed in the ordinary courts, after each party had been heard in turn, in a basilica of which the Donatists had taken possession, as being the property of the Catholics, they rushed upon him as he was standing at the altar, with fearful violence and cruel fury, beat him savagely with cudgels and weapons of every kind, and at last with the very boards of the broken altar. They also wounded him with a dagger in the groin so severely, that the effusion of blood would have soon put an end to his life, had not their further cruelty proved of service for its preservation; for, as they were dragging him along the ground thus severely wounded, the dust forced into the spouting vein stanched the blood, whose effusion was rapidly on the way to cause his death. Then, when they had at length abandoned him, some of our party tried to carry him off with psalms; but his enemies, inflamed with even greater rage, tore him from the hands of those who were carrying him, inflicting grievous punishment on the Catholics, whom they put to flight, being far superior to them in numbers, and easily inspiring terror by their violence. Finally, they threw him into a certain elevated tower, thinking that he was by this time dead, though in fact he still breathed. Lighting then on a soft heap of earth, and being espied by the light of a lamp by some men who were passing by at night, he was recognized and picked up, and being carried to a religious house, by dint of great care, was restored in a few days from his state of almost hopeless danger. Rumor, however, had carried the tidings even across the sea that he had been killed by the violence of the Donatists; and when afterwards he himself went abroad, and was most unexpectedly seen to be alive, he showed, by the number, the severity, and the freshness of his wounds, how fully rumor had been justified in bringing tidings of his death.
Augustine describes action taken against Donatists as defense, they were known for having violent extremists among them, who were basically terrorists on a suicide mission to obtain martyrdom. Yes, they were legit like Christian Salafis and thank God they no longer exist. 28. He sought assistance, therefore, from the Christian emperor, not so much with any desire of revenging himself, as with the view of defending the Church entrusted to his charge. And if he had omitted to do this, he would have deserved not to be praised for his forbearance, but to be blamed for negligence. For neither was the Apostle Paul taking precautions on behalf of his own transitory life, but for the Church of God when he caused the plot of those who had conspired to slay him to be made known to the Roman captain, the effect of which was that he was conducted by an escort of armed soldiers to the place where they proposed to send him, that he might escape the ambush of his foes. Acts 23:17-32 Nor did he for a moment hesitate to invoke the protection of the Roman laws, proclaiming that he was a Roman citizen,
who at that time could not be scourged; Acts 22:25 and again, that he might not be delivered to the Jews who sought to kill him, he appealed to Cæsar, Acts 25:11 — a Roman emperor, indeed, but not a Christian. And by this he showed sufficiently plainly what was afterwards to be the duty of the ministers of Christ, when in the midst of the dangers of the Church they found the emperors Christians. And hence therefore, it came about that a religious and pious emperor, when such matters were brought to his knowledge, thought it well, by the enactment of most pious laws, entirely to correct the error of this great impiety, and to bring those who bore the standards of Christ against the cause of Christ into the unity of the Catholic Church, even by terror and compulsion, rather than merely to take away their power of doing violence, and to leave them the freedom of going astray, and perishing in their error.29. Presently, when the laws themselves arrived in Africa, in the first place those who were already seeking an opportunity for doing so, or were afraid of the raging madness of the Donatists, or were previously deterred by a feeling of unwillingness to offend their friends, at once came over to the Church. Many, too, who were only restrained by the force of custom handed down in their homes from their parents, but had never before considered what was the groundwork of the heresy itself — had never, indeed, wished to investigate and contemplate its nature, — beginning now to use their observation, and finding nothing in it that could compensate for such serious loss as they were called upon to suffer, became Catholics without any difficulty; for, having been made careless by security, they were now instructed by anxiety. But when all these had set the example, it was followed by many who were less qualified of themselves to understand what was the difference between the error of the Donatists and Catholic truth.
Source. Translated by J.G. Cunningham. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 1. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1887.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. <http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102111.htm>.
Above anon quoting the Patrologia is a Funde Baptist who is trying to spread the pseudo-historical trail of blood theory. He is deliberately twisting the facts as part of a theological agenda he has. He believes "we wuz donatists". I refute him everyday.
>>18257460>>18257461>>18257482>>18257486What's interesting about all this is that Augustine's letter #93 to Vincentius seems to imply that at least some of the people labeled "Donatist" (such as Vincentius) were simply people who were unwilling to use the Roman state or other threats of force to convert people to Christianity.In that letter, Augustine of Hippo tries to argue that the church should use the imperial government to compel people to join their religion, on pain of forfeiture of property or worse. He argued that Constantine and later emperors had done "the right thing."Meanwhile, faithful Christians who would not go along with this were persecuted by Constantine's henchmen. Likewise during the Inquisition, the primitive credobaptist churches were similarly persecuted for refusing to compel anyone to the faith. They believed only those who made a profession of faith should be eligible for baptism, and only the bible-believing church was qualified to administer it otherwise the rite was invalid.It's interesting how you see that dichotomy all the way back in the Donatist era in classical antiquity, and it's still around during the Inquisition and Reformation era as well. During the Inquisition they called them "Petrobrusians," "Henricians," "Vaudois," and sometimes also "Albigensians" when lumping these Christians in unfairly with the gnostic Cathars. During the Reformation era, they started calling them "Catabaptists" or "Anabaptists". But this dispute seems to go back to the Constantinian shift in the 4th century, if not earlier.What I oppose is the concept of "swordpoint conversion". I believe the Augustinian view presented in the letter to Vincentius is entirely unbiblical, since no one should be compelled to the faith. He was basically a jihadist by another name, and thankfully the USA has since done away with that practice.>>18257492>He is deliberately twisting the facts as part of a theological agenda he has.Nah.
>>18257496>He was basically a jihadist by another name,I guess you could also call him a proto-jihadist, since actual jihad hadn't been invented yet.It's a good thing we have since established religious liberty and freedom of conscience within the free world we know today. I believe this is God's will as well. As it says in the book of Revelation, "And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely."
>>18257496And yet Augustine gives as reason the persecution of Catholics by Donatists as a reason for state suppression of their religion>Wherefore, if we were so to overlook and forbear with those cruel enemies who seriously disturb our peace and quietness by manifold and grievous forms of violence and treachery, as that nothing at all should be contrived and done by us with a view to alarm and correct them, truly we would be rendering evil for evil. For if any one saw his enemy running headlong to destroy himself when he had become delirious through a dangerous fever, would he not in that case be much more truly rendering evil for evil if he permitted him to run on thus, than if he took measures to have him seized and bound? And yet he would at that moment appear to the other to be most vexatious, and most like an enemy, when, in truth, he had proved himself most useful and most compassionate; although, doubtless, when health was recovered, would he express to him his gratitude with a warmth proportioned to the measure in which he had felt his refusal to indulge him in his time of phrenzy. Oh, if I could but show you how many we have even from the Circumcelliones, who are now approved Catholics, and condemn their former life, and the wretched delusion under which they believed that they were doing in behalf of the Church of God whatever they did under the promptings of a restless temerity, who nevertheless would not have been brought to this soundness of judgment had they not been, as persons beside themselves, bound with the cords of those laws which are distasteful to you!
>>18257496You're deliberately mishandling the facts of this sectarian dispute in YOUR favor to promote KJV Baptist conspiracy theories. Fact of the matter is the Catholic-Donatist schism was a messy one and I'm not even going to theologically defend Augustine on every single point he makes. You're trying to connect disparate groups across large swaths of time into a neat little narrative you call the "trail of blood" so as to justify your existence as a sect of Christianity in opposition to mainstream Christianity. You overlook GLARING differences between all of these groups and the GLARING differences they have with what modern Baptists believe in. Pro-tip: None of these groups, except for perhaps the Anabaptists, had the same views on baptism as modern Baptists>>1 do.
>>18257503The Circumcelliones were literally Christian Jihadis ready to inflict violence on Catholics even to the point of martyrdom. That's literally what Islamic Jihadis do now. And you call Augustine a proto-Jihadist? You're an idiot.
>>18257512islamic Jihadis mostly defend themselves from judeochristian genocidal armiesISIS is jewish and follows noahide law and over 90% of their victims are Muslims
>>18257523Fuck off Gnostic schizo.
>>18257512You don't justify swordpoint conversion or proto-jihadism simply by the fact that your enemy does it too.
>>18257510>Fact of the matter is the Catholic-Donatist schism was a messy one and I'm not even going to theologically defend Augustine on every single point he makes.You know the pro-Constantine side of that historical incident eventually went Arian too, right? Constantine himself and his successors were semi-Arians who denied the divinity of Christ. Doesn't that signal something?
>>18257927I didn't justify anything. You're merely twisting the facts of the Catholic-Donatist schism in a way that supports your theological agenda with the express intent to polemicize against Nicene Christianity, and in particular against Catholicism. No the Donatists were not early Baptists and to think this is frankly, and excuse my French, fucking retarded. It is a prime example of a pseudo-historical theory. An actual conspiracy theory. >>18257938Yes I'm aware. And? I'm not even defending Constantine or the Roman Emperors here. Arians also persecuted Catholics. Emperor Valens and his wife Domnica exiled Catholic bishops from their sees and promoted persecution of Catholics in favor of Arianism. Athanasius was exiled five times! The situation on the ground was messy at times. It's not this clear cut narrative you want to push, which is utterly ridiculous and has no good historical backing for it.
>>18257983>No the Donatists were not early Baptists and to think this is frankly, and excuse my French, fucking retarded.Well it's interesting because actual scholars give credence to this view. I'm not saying anything that hasn't been said already by multitudes of others.For example, The Edinburgh Encyclopedia, written in 1830, says the following:>It must have already occurred to our readers, that the baptists are the same sect of Christians which we formerly described under the appellation of ANABAPTISTS. Indeed, this seems to have been their great leading principle from the time of Tertullian to the present day.Edinburgh Encyclopedia (1830), Vol 3, p. 251.>It's not this clear cut narrative you want to push,You mean like Rome always being right?
>>18257990>Well it's interesting because actual scholars give credence to this view.>Cite an Encyclopedia from 1830This is like saying >Actual scientists think the sun revolves around the earth>*Cites source from 1500Literally no modern historian or scholar except for Fundes think Baptist successionism has historical merit. Most modern Baptist scholars reject it. Your sources are largely outdated and the book in pic rel explains a bit of the history of Baptist successionism/landmarkism (Baptist Theology: A Four-century Study (2009), pg. 55-57) Of course, as with all things stupid, it originated in the American south. Also I can't find your source outside of Baptist websites espousing Baptist successionism alongside a fake quote of Isaac Newton espousing Baptist successionism lol. Not saying your source isn't real but as of right now it's questionable until shown otherwise. But I digress. >You mean like Rome always being right?Tu quoque fallacy.
>>18258052>Tu quoque fallacy.That's the exact "clear cut narrative" simplified view of history that these people want to promote, which I am saying is false. Rome was always right, they say. Nobody disagreed with their view for however many years until the first time they're willing to accept that some Christians dissented (the exact time this supposedly happened varies, could be any time; some people unironically think there was never any disagreement about anything until 1517 when suddenly everyone started having theological disputes).This is the simplistic view I am saying is a fantasy and a convenient narrative. It's promoted by people who don't want you to think any further. They want you just to go with whatever they say.But the reality is that the Bible-believing church has always existed, and we even have our uncorrupted Bible with us. It's called the received text. The forces of evil and satanism, through all that time, couldn't do anything to destroy a single word of our Scriptures. Thanks to God.>Also I can't find your source outside of Baptist websites espousing Baptist successionism alongside a fake quote of Isaac Newton espousing Baptist successionism lol.Just go to archive.org or google books and look up the Edinburgh Encyclopedia volume 3. It takes all of two minutes to find the page.https://books.google.so/books?id=0bIkTUZAbxcCSee page 251 at the above link for the whole quote in context. Or just see my screenshot of the quote.My point is, this is not a new idea.
>>18258084>This is the simplistic view I am saying is a fantasy and a convenient narrative.Ok well if you want to critique historical narratives, best not to make up your own fantasy as an alternative, which is exactly what Baptist successionism is. A fantasy. >But the reality is that the Bible-believing church has always existed,Loaded language, obviously, since all Christians consider themselves "Bible-believing". Although I guess you use it as a sectarian designation for your particular version of Christianity. Baptist successionism is literally a conspiracy theory though. A hall mark of conspiracy theories is that they cannot be falsified. Conspiracy theories, and any unfalsifiable theories, are constructed in such a way that they are made to fire whatever evidence or observation there is no matter what. No matter how much evidence I present to you showing you that in fact, no, Donatists or Bogomils or whatever were not Baptists, you'll just go ahead and claim that there's some conspiracy or whatever to distort the history.
>>18258084>https://books.google.so/books?id=0bIkTUZAbxcCIt's crazy because however this encyclopedia is defining "Baptist" it's most certainly beyond the pale of what we would consider today modern Baptists. It even wants to lump in St. Cyrpiran of Carthage with what it is considering "Baptist" (pg. 250). If we're going to deem anyone who re-baptizes a Baptist (which is essentially what is being done here), then great I guess the Russian Orthodox and Coptic Orthodox are Baptists now because they re-baptize anyone coming from Catholicism or Protestantism. Fact of the matter is, almost every single person or group that Baptist successionists like to cite as being pre-reformation Baptists held beliefs and doctrines wildly at variance with what modern day Baptists believe. Some of them didn't even believe in the Trinity. Tertullian, for example, was a literal Montanist, but this book wants to lump him in with "Baptist" because the Montanists were one of the many rigorist sects in antiquity. Their particular theological motivations for re-baptism are not the same as modern Baptists, and none of them believed what modern Baptists believe about baptism, about ecclesiology, and about sacramentology. You're conflating old controversies with new ones because they have superficial similarities. The sources you cite are outdated and equivocate on categories. Just accept that your tradition doesn't exist before the 17th century.
I wanted this to be an interesting thread, but of course, a swamp dwelling hillbilly Baptist has to shit up the thread with "WE WUZ DONATISTS N SHEEEIT" and "PREEEEEEEISE JAYSUS! HAAAALLELUYAR!" Baptists have to be among the most low IQ groups of people on this planet.
>>18258246>No one ever did X or believed XDo you know every person that ever lived? Unless your answer is yes, you can't make statements like this, no matter how much you may want to. And I'm guessing you also ignore the counterexamples that prove otherwise on top of this since it isn't convenient. Well, you can ignore everything in the Bible and all the counterexamples and witnesses against it, but I'm going to believe the primary sources and I have every reason to do so.>Their particular theological motivations for re-baptism are not the same as modern Baptists, and none of them believed what modern Baptists believe about baptism, about ecclesiology, and about sacramentology.There you go with your simplistic view of things again, anon. I say the truth has always existed, and you say that can't be possible because some people believed some false things. It's fallacious at its core and you know it.>Fact of the matter is, almost every single person or groupOh, so not every one then?The church has always existed. The enemies and antichrists of this world have never managed to corrupt the word of God that we still use today. In Matthew 16:18 it says, "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."And again, in Matthew 28:19-20 it says,"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."
>>18258052>PicThe same "modern scholars" today have taken to arguing that sodomites are not a problem and even something to be encouraged. This shows you their implicit bias and agenda. They argue many things today that are simply not true. On many things, older scholarship was more accurate. This is one example where that is the case.
>>18258268>I say the truth has always existed, and you say that can't be possible because some people believed some false things. It's fallacious at its core and you know it.I don't think anybody thinks this, not even classical Protestants.>PicWow, great job, an obscure heretic who founded a sect that lasted only a few generations. I'll give you props for finding the most niche and autistic shit possible for your conspiracytardation. As with literally every single sect you want to point to though, there is no continuity between this group and modern day Baptists. But of course you're going to move the goalpost and claim "spiritual continuity". Whatever that means. You're not the only type of Protestant that does this. Lutherans and Reformed try looking for, an in some cases do find, obscure figures of the past who have a theology that resembles what they believe in, however vague it might be. You know Jehobah's Witnesses like to claim "spiritual continuity" with a bunch of heresies from antiquity too right? Like the Arians. Sabbatarians do the same shit. You're not convincing anybody, Cletus.>Crashing out with "proof-texting".Honestly not even going to engage because Church continuity is an entirely different discussion. You're not the only Christians who believe in the continuity of the Church. You're just using it as a red-herring. It has nothing to do with the verity of Baptist successionism, which has been thoroughly refuted.>>18258268>The same "modern scholars" today have taken to arguing that sodomites are not a problem and even something to be encouraged. This shows you their implicit bias and agenda. They argue many things today that are simply not true. Oh and here we go, you're doing exactly what I said you'd do in >>18258243 Typical conspiracynut, your whole reply here is one big appeal to emotion. Go back to drinking moonshine with your sister who is also your wife, Cletus.
>>18258344>an obscure heretic who founded a sect that lasted only a few generations.Wrong on both counts. The church has continued in the exact same way until now. And the origins of Bible-believing Christians go further back than their enemies would want you to think.The Catholic historian Mézeray even said, in his passing remarks on the year 1163, the Henricians of that time "held almost the same doctrines as the Calvinists." So they didn't go away after Peter of Bruys' death. And historians later recognized the similarities in the views of the Henricians/Petrobrusians to later groups. There is a clear connection between them and the Vaudois who survived during the Inquisition that started in the 13th century. Later scholars have also noted this, for example, Theodore Beza and Pierre Allix.For the source on the quote, see: Mézeray, Abbregé chronologique, ou Extraict de l'histoire de France (1676), Tome III, p. 89.>you're going to move the goalpost and claim "spiritual continuity".Well, I do agree completely with the position of these historical witnesses on baptism and most of what verifiably came from them, as it is Biblical. Some of the slanders against them by hostile witnesses I question, of course, like where a Catholic source sometimes claimed they didn't recognize marriages, or where they claimed they were exactly the same as the gnostics. That is obviously just slander. Another source I have, Reinerius, at one point admitted as much.>You know Jehobah's Witnesses like to claim "spiritual continuity" with a bunch of heresiesThey are a cult that didn't exist until the 1870's.>Lutherans and ReformedHistorically speaking, the Reformers are a spinoff of Constantine's catholicism. Arguably, that goes back to the 4th century AD, sure. Functionally they have the same history as other types of Catholicism, since they ultimately originate from the same doctrinal errors. The Bible-believing church historically always practices believer's baptism.
GOD rescued me from my strong enemy and from those who hated me, for they were too mighty for me.They confronted me in the day of my calamity, but YAHU was my support.He brought me out into a broad place; he rescued me, because he delighted in me.YAHU dealt with me according to my righteousness; according to the cleanness of my hands he rewarded me.For I have kept the ways of YAHU, and have not wickedly departed from my God.For all his rules were before me, and his statutes I did not put away from me.I was blameless before him, and I kept myself from my guilt.So YAHU has rewarded me according to my righteousness, according to the cleanness of my hands in his sight.With the merciful you show yourself merciful; with the blameless man you show yourself blameless;with the purified you show yourself pure; and with the crooked you make yourself seem tortuous.For you save a humble people, but the haughty eyes you bring down.For it is you who light my lamp; YAHU my God lightens my darkness.For by you I can run against a troop, and by my God I can leap over a wall.This God—his way is perfect; the word of YAHU proves true; he is a shield for all those who take refuge in him.
>another orthocuck threadyawn
>>18258255He doesn't seem to realize the Donatists had *bishops* and we're extremely angry about the *sacraments* being administered by people who had once betrayed the church under threat of death but had repented.Like, monarchical episcopate and sacramentology aren't usually Baptist positions but that won't stop their grifters from latching onto literally anything ancient at all for cred even if those same people would have absolutely condemned them.It's really bizarre how they just repeat the same lies, post the same pastas and info graphs, over and over again for years and when called out on the fact that they have no legitimate connection to the real Donatists at all they just shut up and hope nobody notices.
>>18258516>He doesn't seem to realize the Donatists had *bishops* and we're extremely angry about the *sacraments* being administered by people who had once betrayed the church under threat of death but had repented.You are applying the modern uses of both words when that isn't necessarily what the Biblical writers meant.The term "bishop" in the New Testament is interchangeable with "pastor." See 1 Peter 2:25 for example, where the Lord is called τὸν ποιμένα καὶ ἐπίσκοπον τῶν ψυχῶν ὑμῶν (lit. "the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls").You seem to be so ignorant you do not even know this connection. You are like a Mormon who came centuries later trying to apply your perverse definition of saints and bishops onto the far more ancient, true and faithful biblical tradition.>and when called out on the fact that they have no legitimate connection to the real Donatists at all they just shut up and hope nobody notices.Nobody so far has even attempted to respond to >>18258368 or >>18258258 . It seems like everyone now agrees on that part now since they're not saying anything against it. I could post more information beyond what those posts contain if somebody wanted to try disagreeing with those conclusions, but I have to say the truth is apparently accepted as being obvious by this point.
>>18258537I am not interested in entertaining your headcanon mental gymnastics.You've been posting the same bullshit here for years now.I have seen this dog and pony show of yours time and again, and despite my correcting you several times before you persist in the lie as if you had never seen the truth of it.>I have to say the truth is apparently accepted as being obvious by this point.The truth speaks for itself, it doesn't need you to repeat it ad nauseam.The fact that you even feel the need to say that the silence of contempt surrounding your posts is evidence that it must be obviously true is in fact evidence that you are insecure in this position.The Donatists believed in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.In fact, they believed the effacatiousness and validity of the sacraments were dependent on the individual virtue or fidelity of the specific minister.Which is why they rebaptized people, because they were virtuous and faithful unlike those others who had given up the location of hidden sacred scriptures to the state authorities under pain of death.You are willfully lying when you say they believed the same thing as you when it comes to church governance and sacramentology. They are called Donatists because they followed a bishop with that name. One who upheld the sacramental nature of his own ordination, a doctrine you have abandoned in your confusion.In aligning yourself with them, you paradoxically assent to their heresy that the effectiveness of grace can be thwarted by human iniquity.
>>18258368>More obscure heretics from the middle ages with no known continuity with modern BaptistsIt's funny because Jehovah's Witnesses also claim both the heresiarchs that you've mentioned, as well as the Waldensians, for themselves (https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/w20120115/True-Christians-Respect-Gods-Word/, para. 16-17)This is a common tactic that American cults employ, the particular variety that Baptist polemicists employ is Landmarkism, a distinctively 19th century phenomena which has been largely discredited (Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History [2004], James E. McGoldrick). Pic rel. I can post more screenshots, as the author examines the claims of Baptist successionists point by point with regards to all the different groups they claim for themselves. Cletus, you're still not convincing anybody.
>>18258556>The fact that you even feel the need to say that the silence of contempt surrounding your posts is evidence that it must be obviously true is in fact evidence that you are insecure in this position.The fact that the other anon had to lie by saying that I stopped posting and "hope nobody notices" is absolutely false. The fact he couldn't even recognize that I wasn't the one who stopped responding speaks volumes as to the confidence he had.He thought that trying to pretend I hadn't posted those sources, and claiming that I had "stopped talking," was his best possible argument, even though it was obviously false. That speaks volumes, anon.>>18258572>This is a common tactic that American cults employ,You haven't explained or responded to anything in >>18258368 or >>18258258 . Get back to us when you do.
>>18258556I'm explained this to him as well. Just a few days I provided him a source which itself cited numerous first hand sources about what the Donatists believed in, their sacramentology and ecclesiology and all, and as is typical of conspiracy theorists, he dismissed it out of hand, because his theory is unfalsifiable. No matter what evidence to the contrary you show he will dismiss it as part of the conspiracy, whether that be from Catholics or liberals or whatever. This is a universal tactic all conspiracy theories share.
>>18258575I did address them. They don't reveal anything particularly interesting. You don't have any evidence these obscure medieval heresies hold any historical connection to the modern Baptist movement. As the other anon said though, there is no point in entertaining your conspiracy theories. You are selectively using sources to your own advantage, you did that first thing with the Donatists until I demonstrated how your characterization of them was deliberately twisted and that the situation was much more complex than what you are parroting. You're engaging in nothing more than petty gish galloping. This is not how real historians do history.
>>18258581>You don't have any evidence these obscure medieval heresies hold any historical connection to the modern Baptist movement.Sure I do. The Bible proves all of it. Ignore God's word at your own peril.
>>18258581>you did that first thing with the Donatists until I demonstrated how your characterization of them was deliberately twistedYou mean Bullinger's characterization of them in 1560? It wasn't mine.
>>18258575By all means keep replying to yourself instead of admitting the truth, that the Donatists themselves would have called you a heretic for denying the real presence of Christ in the eucharist and the real power of baptism as a means of grace for the remission of sins.That's not to mention your abandonment of apostolic succession, which they upheld.Not only that, but there exists antique testimony of Catholic priests received into orthodoxy who were baptized *as infants* by the Donatists.All these facts are not for your consideration. You will completely ignore them and come right back another day posting the same lies again, because the truth is offensive to you.They are for the edification of others, because you would never admit their being true. This is due to your hardness of heart, and stiffnecked obstinacy.
>>18258597>the Donatists themselves would have called you a hereticI'm sure some of them would, no matter what belief you held, since there were a large number of different beliefs among those who rejected Constantine at the time. They were not a monolith.Again, you are oversimplifying things. Trying to create a simplistic narrative. The anti-Constantine party was not a monolith. I already mentioned earlier >>18257496 that Vincentius was clearly different than the Circumcellions or many of the other numerous groups who were labeled "Donatists." You don't seem to be able to grasp this, though. I have however pointed it out repeatedly.I'll repeat what I said again word for word, since you never answered it so far: I say the truth has always existed, and you say that can't be possible because some people believed some false things. It's fallacious at its core and you know it.>You will completely ignore themNo, all of these things you bring up commit the same basic fallacy. Some people believed some false things -- that doesn't mean all of the people opposed to Constantine believed those things, it just means some of them did. They were not a monolith.It's similar with the "Albigensians" later, too. The orthodox, Bible-believing churches were lumped together (very fallaciously) with the gnostic Cathars. This was a way to blanket condemn them together with non-Christian heresies, but without having to deal with what they really believed. Countless people were tortured under the Inquisition regime based on that flimsy excuse. But the day of God's judgement is coming. And in that day, all the facts and the whole truth, everything that the enemies of the Gospel want to hide, will be revealed. You should know that they will not be able to hide then.>you would never admit their being true.None of the things you bring up matter, though, whether or not they are true. As I have been repeatedly saying... that doesn't apply to all of them; you're oversimplifying.
>>18257017Kike, on your bike.
>>18258624Except Vicentius was not a Baptist because he held to sacramentalism, just as the Catholics did:> You will say, Why then do you seek us? Why do you receive those whom you call heretics? Mark how simple and short is my reply. We seek you because you are lost, that we may rejoice over you when found, as over you while lost we grieved. Again we call you heretics; but the name applies to you only up to the time of your being turned to the peace of the Catholic Church, and extricated from the errors by which you have been ensnared. For when you pass over to us, you entirely abandon the position you formerly occupied, so that, as heretics no longer, you pass over to us. You will say, Then baptize me. I would, if you were not already baptized, or if you had received the baptism of Donatus, or of Rogatus only, and not of Christ. It is not the Christian sacraments, but the crime of schism, which makes you a heretic. The evil which has proceeded from yourself is not a reason for our denying the good that is permanent in you, but which you possess to your own harm if you have it not in that Church from which proceeds its power to do good. For from the Catholic Church are all the sacraments of the Lord, which you hold and administer in the same way as they were held and administered even before you went forth from her. (Augustine Letter 93, Chapter 11)Vicentius wasn't particularly unique among the Donatists. Even if was, how would this establish Baptist successionism? For the sixth gorrilionth time not a single one of the groups cited by Baptist successionists have continuity with Baptist. When this is pointed out to you though you want to change your positionMotte:>There were a variety of heresies in Church history which share superficial similarities with Baptists and therefore we have a spiritual kinship with them. Bailey:>There is a continuing line of Baptist churches stretching back to the NT times who were called Novatians, Montanists, Donatists, etc.
>>18258673>Novatians, Montanists,I myself never mentioned them, actually. Scroll back and look.>There is a continuing line of credobaptist churches stretching back to the NT timesFinally, we're getting somewhere. That's exactly right. The term "Baptist" itself didn't come into use until the 17th century, but this has never been contradicted.As it says in the Bible, which is the word of God, the gates of hell shall not prevail against His church.
>>18258691>Finally, we're getting somewhere.Clearly not since you can't seem to get it through your thick skull that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of a continuing line of Baptist churches from the NT to the present day. You have been thoroughly refuted in this thread. Baptist successionism is a discredited, debunked, pseudo-historical theory. >As it says in the Bible, which is the word of God, the gates of hell shall not prevail against His church.You keep tossing in this red-herring as if it means something. As if it somehow confirms Baptist successionism from the Bible (lol. lmao even.). It doesn't. I already told you that you are not the only Christians who claim Church continuity. Far from it. Church continuity =/= Baptist successionism.
>>18258700There's no point anon. You already won. You will never get through to someone like this. He's like every other cultist. No different from the JW anon that used to post here. He doesn't respond to facts and evidence.
>>18258700>As if it somehow confirms Baptist successionism from the BibleIf you look in the Bible you see that the apostles all practiced believer's baptism throughout the book of Acts, and they were told to "teach all nations" before "baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" in the Great Commission in Matthew 28:18-20."And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."- Matthew 28:18-20
>>18258709Jesus is not laying down a strict temporal order about baptism in Matthew 28:18-20. The context of the verse is Jesus sending out the disciples to be missionaries. It has nothing to do with either credobaptism or paedobaptism. You're not going to refute 2000 years of in-depth Catholic-Orthodox-Protestant theology with your simplistic interpretations and proof texting. That's not how theology works. Anyway I'm not going to be discussing the issue of infant baptism and scripture with you in this thread because that's off topic. You are derailing the thread and have been ever since you started talking about Baptist successionism (and got completely btfo'd about it btw). Either discuss the Church Fathers, which is this thread's topic, or go make another thread about your theological autism about baptism.
>>18258727>You are derailing the threadHow is the Bible off topic for this thread? Is your idea of "Church fathers" a group of people who consider the Bible off topic? That's what all the ancient Christian writers were referring to. The Bible itself cannot possibly be off topic by any sane definition of ancient Christian writings.>and have been ever since you started talking about Baptist successionismHow is me bringing up Augustine's letter to Vincentius off topic? That makes no sense.The first person to mention the subject of successionism in this thread was this person here: >>18257486If that's truly off topic for this thread (since that's what you're turning to now in desperation), then whoever wrote that post was the one that initially derailed the entire thread.>You're not going to refute 2000 years of in-depth Catholic-Orthodox-Protestant theology with your simplistic interpretations and proof texting.I don't really have to, the Bible already does.>That's not how theology works.Yes, I know that; it's based on the Bible, not on anyone's interpretations. That is why, you know, I have been the one quoting it.>Anyway I'm not going to be discussing the issue of infant baptism and scripture with you in this thread because that's off topic.I will accept this concession, especially since there are plenty of patristic sources that support me (see pic rel, and the various other sources posted here).>It has nothing to do with either credobaptism or paedobaptism.I know you already conceded that you won't discuss scripture, you clearly don't have much to say there. But the Matthew 28 passage obviously has massive implications regarding how baptism is supposed to be done. And many patristic writings and ancient Christians referred to it quite often.
>>18258750>The first person to mention the subject of successionism in this thread was this person here: >>18257486Meant to link the post right below them: >>18257492They were the first one to mention it. My mistake.
>>18258750>The first person to mention the subject of successionism in this thread was this person here:You're being dishonest. Your post here >>18257157 was clearly written with the aim of promoting Baptist successionism, even if you didn't explicitly say that. It's also rooted in a fundamentally anti-Catholic polemic. >How is the Bible off topic for this thread?Because the Bible is a distinct corpus of writings from the Church Fathers. It's really that simple. >I don't really have to, the Bible already does.No it doesn't. >Yes, I know that; it's based on the Bible, not on anyone's interpretations. That is why, you know, I have been the one quoting it.No it's based on your interpretation which is extremely controversial and not in any way agreed upon by a multitidue of other Christians who have read the Bible as thoroughly as you claim to have done. Honestly your rhetoric is disgusting. >I will accept this concession, especially since there are plenty of patristic sources that support me (see pic rel, and the various other sources posted here).No concession was ever made you're just arguing out of bad faith because you're not really seeking the truth anymore. No anyone who reads this thread knows you just want to win at any cost because of how your beliefs have been exposed as extremely foolish. >But the Matthew 28 passage obviously has massive implications regarding how baptism is supposed to be done. Agreed but not in the way you think. It's not at all "obvious" that this has anything to do with credobaptism because it doesn't.
>>18258825>Your post here >>18257157(You) was clearly written with the aim of promoting Baptist successionismDisagree.>Because the Bible is a distinct corpus of writings from the Church Fathers. It's really that simple.What's going on here is that you want to be able to pretend to be talking about Christian topics, but without having to deal with those pesky facts from the inspired Scripture. You want to get away from that somehow. So you actually unironically try to cry off-topic now when anything in the Bible is brought up as being relevant to the OP subject.It's kind of like how atheists are always wanting to make a religion board on here because they want to pretend their view of history is the default. They don't want to deal with those facts about Christianity being treated on the same level as other historical sources, even though they clearly deserve to be. There is no reason to artificially exclude Christianity from history or humanities, as if the two were assumed to be mutually exclusive.You have done the same here. You would like very much to assume that what you consider to be church fathers (i.e. patristics) is something to be discussed entirely distinctly from the Bible itself. It seems you want to be rid of the Bible. Any crossover between the two in your mind is equated to some kind of contamination and automatically makes the subject off-topic. When it's really not at all. And many of the actual people you are quoting would, I imagine, abhor such a view. They wouldn't want you to talk about their works in complete isolation to the Bible, as if we were in some kind of a vacuum - to the point where you object to any reference to it as being off topic. At least, the believing ones wouldn't want that.
>>18258840>What's going on hereWhat's going on here is that you're a bad faith debater that wants to make it appear like they've won. It's that simple, honestly. What's going on is that you derailed this thread into a discussion about Baptist successionism but now you want to change the topic to infant baptism in scripture because of how badly you got defeated by the other posters in this thread. It's your way of retreating and then declaring victory because nobody wants to engage you on a topic you've been engaged on a million different times in a million different threads. As the other anon said above you've been spamming your bullshit here for years. You're like the JW poster that used to be here a while back. You've not won a single convert here Cletus and you won't ever because anyone with two brain cells can see through your obvious bullshit.>inb4 victim signaling and triumphalist rhetoric to paint yourself as the victor Yeah it's not going to work, Cletus. We know how you work at this point.
>>18258840Forgot pic to >>18258858
>>18257011>Church FathersThanks for admitting you're LARPing. Enjoy Hell.
