Comments following the article-- One Holy, Baptist, and Apostolic Church
_Matt Fradd_ (http://www.catholic.com/profiles/matt-fradd) April 30, 2013 I have always found the historical argument for the Catholic Church utterly compelling: 1. Jesus Christ established a Church (not several, or several thousand). 2. The only Church which can trace its lineage unbroken to the time of Christ and the apostles is the Catholic Church. 3. And therefore, Jesus Christ established the Catholic Church. Why am I a Catholic? Because I wish to belong to the Church which Christ himself established, the Church of which he said, "the powers of death shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:18). Baptist Successionism? Some (few) Baptists have claimed that they too can trace their lineage back to the time of Christ and the apostles. This idea was popularized in the early 20th century by Baptist pastor, and historian, James M. Carroll who wrote a book entitled _Trail of Blood. _ (http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Books,%20Tracts%20&%20Preaching/Printed%20Books /trail_of_blood_jm_carroll.htm) In it Carroll claims that the Baptist church, as it is known today, descended through history under different names, such as the Anabaptists, Montanists, and Novations. At first, this may sound tenable, but when you actually look at these groups, and what they taught, you see very quickly that their theology was anything but Baptist. The Anabaptists denied that a person is saved by faith alone._[2]_ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01445b.htm) The Montanists taught that "God, not being able to save the world by Moses and the Prophets, took flesh of the Virgin Mary, and in Christ, His Son, preached and died for us. And because He could not accomplish the salvation of the world by this second method, the Holy Spirit descended upon Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla, giving them the plenitude which St. Paul had not (1 Corinthians 13:9). _[1]_ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10521a.htm) The Novatians refused readmission to communion of baptized Christians who had denied their faith. _[3]_ (http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/novation.htm) "For proponents [of Baptist Successionism], writes Fr. Dwight Longenecker, "the fact that there is no historical proof for their theory simply shows how good the Catholic Church was at persecution and cover-up. Baptist Successionism can never be disproved because all that is required for their succession to be transmitted was a small group of faithful people somewhere at some time who kept the flame of the true faith alive. The authors of this "history" skim happily over the heretical beliefs of their supposed forefathers in the faith. It is sufficient that all these groups were opposed to, and persecuted by, the Catholics." Thankfully intellectually honest Baptists, such as James McGoldrick who was once himself a believer in Baptist successionism are conceding that this "trail of blood" view is, frankly, bogus. McGoldrick writes: Extensive graduate study and independent investigation of church history has, however, convinced [the author] that the view he once held so dear has not been, and cannot be, verified. On the contrary, surviving primary documents render the successionist view untenable. . . . Although free church groups in ancient and medieval times sometimes promoted doctrines and practices agreeable to modern Baptists, when judged by standards now acknowledged as baptistic, not one of them merits recognition as a Baptist church. Baptists arose in the 17th century in Holland and England. They are Protestants, heirs of the reformers. (Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History [1994], 1–2) We should applaud these Baptists for desiring to be part of the Church Christ established, and then, with gentleness and reverence point them away from fallacious history to actual history, and let the evidence speak for itself. For as convert, John Henry Newman wrote: to be steeped in history, is to cease to be Protestant. ------------------------------------------- Religious Origins Actually, in the context of serious historical research, if the truth of history matters to you, the categories "Protestant" and "Catholic" --or Eastern Orthodox for that matter-- are not crucially important. They still have meaning, especially if we think about history since the era of Luther ( the Reformation started in 1519 ) this meaning is sometimes profound, but in the sense of Bible-centered faith a different set of considerations come into play. The article is over-simplistic. Are all Baptists successionists ? In actual fact, only a small minority are any such thing. But the larger point is that what the Reformation was all about was recovery of the original Church and restoration of its Biblical roots, recognizing that the first Church was only a distant memory in the 16th century. Apostolic succession proves nothing if, along the way, the character of the Church of the Apostles was hopelessly compromised. In that case, succession merely keeps alive corrupted traditions which have no justification. This does not say that 100% of the traditions carried along are corrupt ; it is recognized that part of the traditions remain true and good. But it does say that there are so many traditions in the mix that are unrelated to the first Church, or even antagonistic to it, that the overall Tradition, with a capital "T," must not be allowed to stand and should be replaced with the original, or as close to the original as it is possible for us to get. In a sense, then, what Protestants in the Lutheran confession say is that Apostolic succession ran from the time of Christ until Constantine ; there is dispute about this, but certainly the line was broken no later than the 8th century by the time of Charlemagne. The Reformation restored Apostolic tradition by a radical return to the recognized authority of the early Church, Christ foremost, his "essence" communicated by the Holy Spirit, his words and all words directly related to them in the form of the Bible, and, lastly, leadership by responsible clergy and other (figuratively) anointed stewards of the Christian community, like deacons, and (to at least use the word loosely although some would argue it should also be literal) "prophets" and also "prophetesses." In other words, leaving aside the question about whether the Lutheran Church as it has become has lost sight of Luther's message and needs its own new Reformation, Catholic understanding of Apostolic succession is irrelevant except as a cultural artifact specific to Catholics only. What does matter is what Protestants call the "fundamentals." The source of all meaningful history --in a spiritual sense-- must be the Bible --in its original form. If you agree with this proposition you are a "Fundamentalist." As the word is commonly used these days there are other meanings attached to the term, but they are extraneous except to cultural historians and journalists. But what this says when you think about it, focusing on the essential meaning only, is that, in a sense, and I think that he would agree, Luther was the first Fundamentalist. If we focus on the essential meaning of the word, however, there is a serious problem for all Fundamentalists : What happens if the original text of the Bible is different than some version of the contents of the King James Version, or RSV, or NEB, or still other versions ? Suppose the original is found ? Suppose it exists, in part, under our noses within the pages of the Bible as we know it now ? Suppose it also exists in the form of texts from Ur and other Mesopotamian cities where Abraham and Sarah once lived ? What then ? All questions of Apostolic succession need to be dramatically reinterpreted. All questions about restoring the original Church take on radically new meaning. For starters..... Billy -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
