What's wrong with this article?

[RichardT]

http://www.baptistpillar.com/bd0547.htm

It's about bible believing christians throughout the dark ages.
I see nothing wrong about it.

[Tonks]

http://www.baptistpillar.com/bd0547.htm

It's about bible believing christians throughout the dark ages.
I see nothing wrong about it.

Interesting article. The Roman Church, obviously, did not particularly care for the Montanists due to their position of revelation vis-a-vis authority. I mention that only to provide context, not to judge the relative merits of their position.

They were problematic for two reasons (that I suspect would also apply to Baptists): their canon of Scripture (dealing with the NT, they used the LXX otherwise) was somewhat different than what we use today (ie - there was more than just a theological dispute over the "7" books....fwiw). The article is slightly incorrect on that point - at least from the perspective of the ecumenical canons.

Secondly, (and I'm not sure how this falls into general Baptist and / or Reformed theology) they taught that one someone fell away they could not be restored to Grace. I'm not sure, properly, how that fits in with you all. It's not my place to comment on prophecy et al.

Tertullian - particularly his later writings, as he converted from Christianity to Montanism (which at the time was considered qutie distinct) are illustrative and entertaining. I think that many that post here would enjoy them.

The bit on the Donatists is pretty good - though I've never run across a reference to them being called Puritains or Anabaptists ca. 4th century, perhaps later however. The article also does not address the issues of Sacramental Reconciliation that was a huge part of the split between Donatist theology and Christian theology. Augustine, when not writing variously on predestination and original sin has several, er, "remarks" with respect to the Donatists.

I'm not famliar with the other groups. I'm not writing to debate you or the points in the article - which I actually enjoyed quite a bit. I'm slowly learning more about the earliest beginnings of Christendom and it is interesting (to me) to view things that aren't covered in my particular tradition.

Pax tecum.

[HypoTypoSis]

bible believing christians throughout the dark ages.

Sounds like a contradiction in terms.

When was the bible published and made available to "bible believing Christians"?
What was the period of "the Dark Ages"?

[Abbadon]

Differences between Montanism and orthodox Christianity:

-The belief that the prophecies of the Montanists superseded and fulfilled the doctrines proclaimed by the Apostles.
-The view that Christians who fell from grace could not be redeemed, also in contrast to the orthodox Christian view that contrition could lead to a sinner's restoration to the church.
-The prophets of Montanism did not speak as messengers of God: "Thus saith the Lord," but rather described themselves as possessed by God, and spoke in his person. "I am the Father, the Word, and the Paraclete," said Montanus (Didymus, De Trinitate, III, xli); This possession by a spirit, which spoke while the prophet was incapable of resisting, is described by the spirit of Montanus: "Behold the man is like a lyre, and I dart like the plectrum. The man sleeps, and I am awake" (Epiphanius, "Hæreses", xlviii, 4).
-A stronger emphasis on the avoidance of sin, church discipline, and apocalyptic living than in orthodox Christianity. They emphasized chastity, including forbidding remarriage.
-Their trinity was modalistic (one God with three names, instead of three persons in one God).

The Novatianists and Donatists refused to accept Christians that were forced to verbally deny thier faith during persecution. Apparently, faith in Christ can't save us from that sin.

In fact, one group of Donatists (known as the "Circumcellions") became so obsessed with matryrdom that they went about beating people with sticks to goad the victims into "martyring" their attackers.

The Celtic churches of Britain and Ireland were Catholic, but in areas that weren't readily supervisable.

Oh, and the Paulicians? They were Gnostics who rejected the Old Testament. They weren't Manichean dualists, but they were Gnostics.

The Albigenses? They were Docetist Gnostics who believed this world was hell and rejected the Old Testament. End of story. To claim they were otherwise is ignoring actual historical fact.

The Waldensians are one of the few folks that were actually orthodox Christians, and could be considered early protestants, but to say that protestantism or the Baptist church as a whole is derived from this is folly, the two are not related.

Anabaptists are where we, the Amish and a few other groups come from. They're orthodox.

This site repeatedly distorts, omits, or denies historical facts. These fellows weren't Baptist anymore than the Manicheans. The groups he mentioned are seperated by time and space, and could not have been a continuous line from Christ to the modern Baptist church. He denies the fact that the Baptists are less than 500 years old. We split from the Anglican church.

We are protestants. We protested the actions of the MEDIEVAL Catholic church. The Catholics managed to realize they need to stop certain things, why haven't some of us realized they've stopped? This fellow is a landmarkist, not someone who has half an idea how history went between the founding of the church and today.

Also, only the Waldenses and Anabaptists would have had access to the KJV, which was translated by the Anglican (r.e. CATHOLIC) church.

[RichardT]

Differences between Montanism and orthodox Christianity:

-The belief that the prophecies of the Montanists superseded and fulfilled the doctrines proclaimed by the Apostles.
-The view that Christians who fell from grace could not be redeemed, also in contrast to the orthodox Christian view that contrition could lead to a sinner's restoration to the church.
-The prophets of Montanism did not speak as messengers of God: "Thus saith the Lord," but rather described themselves as possessed by God, and spoke in his person. "I am the Father, the Word, and the Paraclete," said Montanus (Didymus, De Trinitate, III, xli); This possession by a spirit, which spoke while the prophet was incapable of resisting, is described by the spirit of Montanus: "Behold the man is like a lyre, and I dart like the plectrum. The man sleeps, and I am awake" (Epiphanius, "Hæreses", xlviii, 4).
-A stronger emphasis on the avoidance of sin, church discipline, and apocalyptic living than in orthodox Christianity. They emphasized chastity, including forbidding remarriage.
-Their trinity was modalistic (one God with three names, instead of three persons in one God).

The Novatianists and Donatists refused to accept Christians that were forced to verbally deny thier faith during persecution. Apparently, faith in Christ can't save us from that sin.

In fact, one group of Donatists (known as the "Circumcellions") became so obsessed with matryrdom that they went about beating people with sticks to goad the victims into "martyring" their attackers.

The Celtic churches of Britain and Ireland were Catholic, but in areas that weren't readily supervisable.

Oh, and the Paulicians? They were Gnostics who rejected the Old Testament. They weren't Manichean dualists, but they were Gnostics.

The Albigenses? They were Docetist Gnostics who believed this world was hell and rejected the Old Testament. End of story. To claim they were otherwise is ignoring actual historical fact.

The Waldensians are one of the few folks that were actually orthodox Christians, and could be considered early protestants, but to say that protestantism or the Baptist church as a whole is derived from this is folly, the two are not related.

Anabaptists are where we, the Amish and a few other groups come from. They're orthodox.

This site repeatedly distorts, omits, or denies historical facts. These fellows weren't Baptist anymore than the Manicheans. The groups he mentioned are seperated by time and space, and could not have been a continuous line from Christ to the modern Baptist church. He denies the fact that the Baptists are less than 500 years old. We split from the Anglican church.

We are protestants. We protested the actions of the MEDIEVAL Catholic church. The Catholics managed to realize they need to stop certain things, why haven't some of us realized they've stopped? This fellow is a landmarkist, not someone who has half an idea how history went between the founding of the church and today.

Also, only the Waldenses and Anabaptists would have had access to the KJV, which was translated by the Anglican (r.e. CATHOLIC) church.

Edit: Sorry didn't see the references first time I read it...

[HypoTypoSis]

The Celtics weren't Catholic. At least, the influence was not there until after Augustine's visit and even then it didn't last. In fact, it was in all likelihood an early precursor to the Reformational split at which time the majority of what was retained were Universalist influences that had already long since invaded the Catholic Church such as accoutrements, customs, holidays, traditions and the related coincidentals of the immortality of the soul, eternal torment and a place for them to reside beyond the grave.