Baptists = Donatists?


Think that accusation is too harsh? I quote:

“candidates must have been baptized in SBC-affiliated churches or have received believer’s baptism by immersion in another denomination or non-denominational church. If the candidate received baptism in another tradition, it must be viewed as symbolic rather than sacramental or regenerative. Also, the church or denomination in which the baptism took place must adhere to the doctrine of the “security of the believer,” or the belief that one cannot lose one’s salvation.”

From (see the bottom paragraph)

In other words, for the Baptism to be valid (at least for missionaries) it must be performed by a Baptist (or one who basically is a Baptist in theology) The theology of the minister apparently can invalidate the power of God through the sacrament, didn’t know ministers could over-ride the will of God like that, silly me…Seems you would never know if it was valid or not, what if the minister secretly didn’t believe in eternal security, or maybe thought it was sacramental, are Baptists going to start re-baptizing themselves until they know for sure?

Other thoughts?


[quote=Knight4God]Think that accusation is too harsh?

Maybe. The question of the validity of Baptism by heretics was VERY controversial in the Early Church. My favorite Early Church Father is St. Cyprian of Carthage, who (wrongly, as we now know) argued vehemently against the validity of such Baptism. This ECF was of such renown and influence that he was called “The African Pope” (he was never Pope, of course, but this shows how much influence he had). He would not even use the term “Baptized” for those ceremonies - he used the expression, “those made wet by heretics” (ya gotta love this guy!). He asked: If the heretics were not themselves even validly Baptized, how could they give what they did not even possess? He made a compelling case.

The Church eventually declared that the validity of the Sacrament was not contingent on the worthiness of the minister (because, really, nobody is “worthy” to administer Grace), and the Church further declared that it’s possible for anyone to be a valid minister of the Sacrament of Baptism (and this particular aspect is unique to this Sacrament).

But there’s no reason to hold Baptists to this understanding (after all, they reject many other infallible teachings – what’s one more?) If great Saints of the Early Church could not agree on this point, why should the Baptists (who lack the clarity that the Church later provided)?


Maybe NOT!

When you compare Baptist "ME"ology to Catholic Theology people seem to get dizzy when trying to sort out all the Baptist contridictory beliefs. Do all Baptists believe the same thing on Baptism? NO. I went to Baptist sect churches that had some members that believed what you say but most did not. That’s one thing about Baptists, no two believe alike. Wait for the wind to shift and they’ll teach something knew and odd. OK, I guess that was two things.

Baptists in no way think they are more powerfull then God. Their ill-gotten and under thought out "ME"ology may put them above God without them even realizing it though. To go into theology makes you Catholic so they don’t seem to try to get into deep thought. Just eazy one liners and easy "ME"ology.

When Baptists study the Bible in context and not just one verse at a time. When they study history and not revisionist history. When they study what the early Church taught. They come home to Catholicism in great numbers.


Donatus, Bishop of Carthage, during the Great Persecution, went to prison. When he got out, he proclaimed all priests and bishops who had yielded to the persecution and turned over the scriptures and sacred vessels to be excommunicated. Ultimately, he accepted that they might be allowed back into the Church, but could never resume their former offices.

The theological implications of Donatism is that “the validity of a sacrement is contingent on the state of grace of the celebrant” – in other words, a sacrement is no good if the priest or bishop has a sin on his soul. This is obviously nonsensical – it would make each of us responsible for someone else’s sins.

The Donatists split from the Church and refused to accept the validity of baptism performed by other Christians – because of the issue of the state of grace of the celebrant.

The Baptist requirement for new baptism is not based on the Donatist position, but on their assumption that no other sect can baptise.

The Catholic position is that literally anyone can baptise – provided the intent is to baptise, water is used, and it is done in the name of the Trinity – although baptism by a priest is to be preferred.


Were Donatist protestant ?


The difference is the radically different view of the church espoused by the Anabaptist forefathers of the Baptists - which was based on their view of infant baptism (coupled with the influences of Sola Fide, Once saved always saved (if ever saved), Calvinism, etc.)

In my tiny brain it comes down to this: The church is either a hospital for sinners or a shrine for the “saved.” In church, I sit next to holy people and sinners both. It has always been so in the Church that Christ founded - and he said it would always be so.

Donatists? It might fit.


Question-- were waldenses also protestant?
I think I will just skip purgatory if you don’t mind !!


[quote=allischalmers]Were Donatist protestant ?

Nope. Donatists emerged in the Third Century, Protestants in the 16th.

closed #9

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit