[quote=JSmitty2005]Okay, actually, here’s the one that I was looking for:
My friend (Mike) mentions several groups that he claims that the Baptists have descended from. Here’s what he said:
Do you guys know anything about these groups? I’ve never even heard of some of them before. I’d like to try and show him that they held contradictory views with each other or with present-day Baptists.
Just look up those groups on New Advent. Montanists were a group that had a prophet and 2 prophetesses who spoke as God, being posessed by him, somewhat akin to Evangelicals without the speaking in tongues. Stuff about chastity preparing them for their trances. You can read Tertullian about them (he eventually defected from the church and joined them). Basicaly one of the early gnostic groups in Asia Minor.
Donatists hail from N. Africa, lasted from around 300 AD to 400AD. A schismatic group that used to seek out martyrdom on purpose. Read St. Augustine on Donatus. Something about contestation of bishopric as well.
Novatian was a schismatic Roman catholic priest. For a guy who was baptist he sure tried to convince people he was pope. After Fabians death he tried to convince the other churches that he was pope instead of Comelius. Long story short, he lost. So how is it he is a baptist?
Basically all of the groups you mentioned are unrelated and in different parts of the world, some are schismatics, some are fringe groups claiming to be christian. When you look up their doctrines they don’t have anything in common, for example albigensians were dualists, yet they never did the prophet/prophetess thing.
Here is going to be your Landmark baptist friends arguement. Those are lies by the catholic church, though when asked for proof he doesn’t have any. We burned all their documents throughout the centuries, so again they have no record of themsleves. The second bible to them is the trail of blood, which no honest baptist gives credability to any more. It’s been disproven too much and is untennable (except to some kooks and Landmark Baptists)
I debate with one of their pastors now and again, he can’t answer questions except with the typical conspiracry theory stuff. However apparently they have begun using catholic language i.e. they are the ones who gave scripture to the world, though they can’t prove it, no councils etc. (amazingly enough you might ask there is tons of evidence for groups thorughout the ages, but none for landmark baptists, highly suspect over a 2000 year history that there isn’t one thing about them at least somewhere.)
They apparently recently changed their view (at least the pastor I debate) from Sola scriptura, to scripture and other sources (they hate the word tradition (at least over the last 2 years)) So if they preserved scripture, they must have some ancient manuscripts around somewhere that they have been passing along. Oh yeah, we burned those too. Ermm then how did they preserve them?
They are a finge group way out of touch with reality, relying on loose connections tied together in the “trail of blood” of groups from different centuries, different beliefs, and different geographical areas, that share pretty much nothing in common, though some of them rebaptized. Amazingly enough they didn’t discover their heritage until that book was published Fascinating for people who claim such grand succession. How come they weren’t aware of it before that?
You’ll have to do some homework to show the truth, but even then they usually don’t listen. It’s somewhow better to believe (alluring really) conspiracy theories. He is going to continue to tell you that history is wrong and that we (the catholic church) made up history, yet he will be unable to prove his side. It’ll be a circular arguement.
They also think baptist conferences are heretics for giving up the trail of blood. The other baptist groups apparently are all going to hell, go figure.
Good luck but don’t hold your breath.
Peace and God Bless