Baptist History

[andrewstx]

Not entirely true. The RCC now has some Anglicans under its flock. I believe they are not considered a rite,but nonetheless, back in the fold.

But don’t these Anglican Catholics have to be re-ordained?

 

[cococandy]

But don’t these Anglican Catholics have to be re-ordained?

just a side note – it was the Baptist fight for religious freedom that made it possible
for Catholics to settle in colonial America

 

[pablope]

Not at all. Your comment was that all Protestantism leads back to Luther, and that just isn’t the case. Now, they may all have borrowed from him, but they borrowed from Rome, too, and from others.

They did indeed…but made it worse but throwing out bishopric authority in favor of their own.

So did Cardinal Cajetan, and earlier St. Jerome. Unlike protestants, Luther kept the DC books, even though he was under no compulsion to do so.

 

[pablope]

True, and there is no truly ecumenical council that determined the canon of scripture for the whole Church, before or after the Schism, before or after the Reformation.

Jon

No council was needed because there was no dispute as to the Canon. Only when Luther’s friends and successors started questioning and the ditching the canon was there a need to define the canon so as to have no doubt what the canon is.

 

[pablope]

But don’t these Anglican Catholics have to be re-ordained?

Yes…as their orders are considered invalid as to form and intent.

 

[GKC]

Yes…as their orders are considered invalid as to form and intent.

That’s close. Intent and form were considered invalid (in Apostolicae Curae), at the point (not specified, but most likely around 1559) when the line of Apostolic Succession was assumed to be lost. That means that, hence forward, no valid minister of the sacrament could be confected, through the use of that form. The form was changed (for reasons unrelated to the subject) in 1662, and is now, itself, not subject to the criticism in AC. So, now, Anglican orders are considered invalid (by those folks who do so), for a couple of reasons (invalid subject, for example), but, in general, for lack of valid sacramental ministers.

GKC

 

[BeProfOSX]

For the record:

The notion that there have always been Baptists from the time of the Apostles until now and that only the Baptist church is the true church is called Landmarkism.

Landmarkism is a minority view amongst Baptists. Outside of a few IFB churches that also tend to be KJV only, it’s almost unheard of amongst Baptists. Indeed, the response amongst most Baptists, or at least seminary educated Baptists, is to greet Landmarkism with the same kind of eye-roll usually reserved for KJV-onlyism and Chick Tracts.

 

[JustaServant]

In my Baptist days I encountered IFB churches that were not KJV only who used “Trail of Blood” booklets too to try to prove Landmarkism. Can’t speck for Southern Baptists, I know it’s unknown among American Baptists.
Revisionist history has been around a long time.

 

[JonNC]

=pablope;11419793]

They did indeed…but made it worse but throwing out bishopric authority in favor of their own.

Many of them did.

Ah…the old Cajetan and Jerome bogeyman of opposing the DC…but omits mentioning that in the end, both said to obey the bishops, and relegated their opinions to obeying the Church on the DC books.

And Luther indeed showed deference to the historic Church by seeing to it that they were included in his translation. It isn’t a bogeyman of opposition. I think much more highly of both men, particularly St. Jerome, than that. they expressed opinions, allowed before Trent. Luther did the same.

Which they did not before 1054, it seems.

Indeed before 1054, since Tradition from the councils before that makes no mention of it, and apparently contradicts it.

And why have you not followed Melanchthon’s willingness to return to Rome?

Here is the way forward to do so, understanding that some issues no longer impede progress.

**But the bishops either compel our priests to reject and condemn this kind of doctrine which we have confessed, **or, by a new and unheard-of cruelty, they put to death the poor innocent men. These causes hinder our priests from acknowledging such bishops. Thus the cruelty of the bishops is the reason why the canonical government, which we greatly desired to maintain, is in some places dissolved. Let them see to it how they will give an account to God for dispersing 26] the Church. In this matter our consciences are not in danger, because since we know that our Confession is true, godly, and catholic, we ought not to approve the cruelty of those who persecute this doctrine. 27] And we know that the Church is among those who teach the Word of God aright, and administer the Sacraments aright, and not with those who not only by their edicts endeavor to efface God’s Word, but also put to death those who teach what is right and true; 28] towards whom, even though they do something contrary to the canons, yet the very canons are milder. Furthermore, we wish here again to testify that we will gladly maintain ecclesiastical and canonical government, provided the bishops only cease to rage against our Churches. This our desire will clear us both before God and among all nations to all posterity from the imputation against us that the authority of the bishops is being undermined, when men read and hear that, although protesting against the unrighteous cruelty of the bishops, we could not obtain justice.

bookofconcord.org/defense_13_ecclesiasticalorder.php

Jon