Michael: Hi Joseph, we were sharing our last conversation with our friend Martha who is a member of the Baptist Church. She gave us very interesting comments that I would like you to hear. That is why we have invited her.

Joseph: With pleasure.

Martha: Glad to do so, friend.

Joseph: Me too, Martha, tell me.

Martha: Believe it or not, I agree with much of what you have commented to my friends.

Joseph: Regarding what?

Martha: I agree with you on several key points.

First, that Christ founded only one Church. This is clear from the Bible when it says: “That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church” (Matt 16,18). This verse of Scripture teaches the words of the Lord who also is the builder of the Church, as He said, “I will build my Church”. If Christ Himself built it, it is not a human institution, but a divine institution. Others, both men and women have built pseudo-churches. Their names are remembered in history: Luther, Calvin, Henry VIII, John Wesley, Joseph Smith, Alexander Campbell, Ellen White, and many others. They founded institutions made by men. But there is only one Church and only one Christ built.

If Jesus called it “my Church”, He is implying an intimate relationship between Himself and her (His Church). Looking forward through the centuries, He saw the confusion in the multiplication of pseudo churches[1].

Joseph: In this, we fully agree then, right? Christ founded one Church and the Church has not ceased to exist since it was founded 2000 years ago.

Martha: Indeed. And I agree with you in your concept of indefectibility.

Note that the same text later (Matt 16,19) adds that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”, therefore the Church that Jesus built was not an inert body, weak, temporary, made by humans, that would cease to exist during the centuries of obscurantism, as my friends and I believe as some of our pseudo-historians have even argued; but a militant, victorious Church, sustained by grace to overcome all opposition, and to be triumphant until the end of time.

As a Baptist, I say and maintain that never during the twenty centuries that have passed, has this Church ceased to exist, and never until the end of time will it cease to exist, according to the word of our Lord who founded it and spoke of it as His Church.

Joseph: Yes, we could not agree more on this.

Martha: I also agree with your notion of the visible Church. This is a matter of great importance because there are those who argue that when Christ said, “I will build my Church”, he was not talking about the local and visible church, but the invisible universal Church comprised of all believers. Such an interpretation, in my opinion, is impossible. If that were taught in the Scriptures, how a universal and invisible Church could have been built centuries before this, or what the characters of the Old Testament, Enoch, Abraham, Jacob, David, the prophets? Were these not in it? How could one decide their grievances in a universal and invisible assembly that has never met?

It is clear that Christ was talking about the assembly or local and visible congregation. If there is a body as a universal and invisible Church, it will never be congregated, and will never gather until the redeemed reach the heavenly home. And so I emphasize that the word Church is never used in this sense, except metaphorically.

So when Christ was on earth, He instituted a visible, organized Church, with officers, with authority to receive and exclude members. Many examples in the Bible are: “If he will not hear them: tell the Church. And if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.” (Matt 18,17). There is also talk of the excommunication of the incestuous man in 1 Corinthians 5,1-8 and heretics in 1 Timothy 1,20 and 2 Timothy 2,17.

Joseph: Yes, we agree, I find it very interesting that you reached these conclusions by reading the Bible.

Martha: This is not only my conclusion; it has been the position Baptists have always held and which is explained very well in the book “Strange Baptism” by M. L. Moser, Jr[2], and also in the book “Trail of Blood” by J.M. Carroll[3].

Where we do not agree is on which one is that true, visible and indefectible Church founded by Christ two thousand years ago. You think it’s the Catholic Church, and we believe it is the Baptist Church.

Joseph: But if Baptists emerged after the Protestant Reformation, how will it be possible that they were a visible and indefectible Church since the time of the apostles?

Martha: Yes, they were. There were always loyal churches that for their faithfulness incurred the wrath of the devotees of the religion of the state, most of whom were not genuine Christians. These faithful churches were denied the name Christian, and they put many other names, so that sometimes they were called by one and sometimes by another; for example, “Montanists”, “Tertullianists”, “Novatians”, “donatists”, “Albigenses”, “Cathars”, “Paulicians”, “Petrobrusians”, “Waldensians”, “Anabaptists”, etc., but although he had other names, they were really true Baptists.

Joseph: Honestly, that does not make sense. Are you saying that all these groups, some older than others were Baptists?

Martha: Yes.

Joseph: But if these groups were really Baptists, it means that they kept the same faith and doctrine, as you hold now.

Martha: Indeed. Although we do not say that these groups have always been loyal in every way to the teachings of the New Testament, we believe that essentially they were.

Joseph: Let me tell you something. I have studied the history and doctrine of these groups and I assure you that not only were they not faithful to the teachings of the New Testament, but they did not even share the doctrines that Baptists considered essential. Go and check some of them and see for yourself.

Martha: Go ahead.

Joseph: Let’s start with the Montanists. Its founder, a certain Montanus, who lived in the mid-second century and claimed that Jesus had not taught everything, but he had promised His disciples a Paraclete with the task of completing his education.

Martha: True, Christ did promise a Paraclete, of course: the Holy Spirit.

Joseph: The problem is that he claimed to be the Paraclete and that the task of clarifying Christian teaching had been entrusted to him. Do you believe that?

Martha: Not that, but I do believe that those who had fallen from the true faith should be baptized again.

Joseph: You are confused, they did not support that, but after baptism serious sins, such as apostasy and adultery were unforgivable even upon receiving the sacrament of penance. Also, they rejected marriage and conjugal relations and considered women’s childbirth as diabolical. I have understood that Baptists do not share those doctrines, or am I wrong?

Martha: I have no knowledge that the Montanists believed that. I would need to research and verify this[4].

Joseph: Okay, let’s go now with the Tertullianists, which were founded by Tertullian, a noted Catholic ecclesiastical writer who lived in the middle of the second century and the beginning of the third. Unfortunately, he ended up becoming mountaineer and then abandoned them to found his own sect. His doctrine we know today by their own writings[5] where sticklers defend postulates, who like the Montanists, prohibit remarriage even for widowhood, and also denied the forgiveness of grave sins and establishes the obligation of fasting.

Martha: Yes, I agree that we do not share that sins after baptism have no forgiveness. The blood of Christ can grant forgiveness of all sins.

Joseph: So I do not see how you can argue that they were spiritual Baptists. If you have admitted that the true Church is visible, indefectible and imperishable, you must necessarily maintain the same doctrine and the same faith. If we are honest, modern Baptists condemned these doctrines as heretical.

Martha: As I was saying, as with the case of the Montanists, I did not know that they believed that.

Joseph: Of course, but all I’m saying here is that you can check on various sources of history, not only Catholics but Protestants, and even check in the writings that remain from those movements.

Now let’s go with the Novatians, shall we?

Martha: Go ahead…

Joseph: The Novatians separated from the Church in the third century, and essentially shared all Catholic doctrines. Their schism was caused by reasons completely different from the differences we maintain with the Baptists. They denied that the Catholic Church had the authority to administer the forgiveness of sins to those who in times of persecution apostatized from the faith but were now repentant. They claimed that the Church was corrupt, being too lenient with sinners, and demanded that those who had drifted away from the faith be baptized again.

Martha: Precisely, they agreed with us that those who had received an invalid baptism should be rebaptized.

Joseph: You have not understood me well. They did not insist on rebaptizing because they believed that their baptism was invalid, nor because they refused the baptism of children, but because they considered certain serious sins as unforgivable[6]. Novatian had refused absolution to those who worshiped pagan gods during the chase to save their lives, and his followers spread his doctrine to all the sins that we consider “deadly” (idolatry, murder and adultery, or fornication). If you were to believe the same, you have to do a baptism every time that you commit a serious sin, which do not. Or do you have a rebaptism every time you sin?

Martha: Certainly not, because in the blood of Christ, I have gained the forgiveness of my sins forever, not only those I have committed but also those I will commit.

Joseph: Well, without going into how precise your affirmation is[7], it is clear that they did not believe the same as the Baptists. Besides that, many of them also forbade remarriage even in cases of widowhood, like the Montanists, and it is natural because they used much the works of Tertullian and Phrygia that were combined with the Montanists.

Another related group that you also mentioned, the Donatists; let’s study them.

Martha: Go ahead.

Joseph: Donatism was a schismatic movement of the fourth century, which, if we look closely, was also much more akin to the Catholics than to the Baptists, since they also shared almost all Catholic doctrines. Their mistake was to believe that the Church was composed only of the good, and that the bad were excluded, so that those who in times of persecution shunned the test of martyrdom, and those who were not willing to accept it should the case arise, no longer belonged to the Church; therefore the sacraments administered by Catholics lacked value for them[8].

The Donatists did believe in the apostolic succession, unlike Baptists, and had validly ordained bishops. They also believed in the validity of the sacraments given by them, including the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, baptized children, something you reject emphatically as a heretical corruption of the Church. Besides that, you also believe that the Church is composed only of good, but recognize that in it there are also sinners and that sin is not irretrievably a section of the Church.

Martha: As you say, I’ll check.

Joseph: Let’s see the Cathars. It was a heretical movement of the tenth century that believed in a creative duality (God and Satan)[9]. Furthermore, they rejected the Old Testament, which in their opinion, recounted the facts of Satan and prince of this world. They believed that the Tables of the Law were given to Moses by the Devil, and that Jesus was the most prestigious of all the “sons of God” chosen and adopted immediately as his son so that outside the world with the mission “eon” to know and honor his name. There was therefore for them the obligation to venerate as his older brother in God.

And if that were not enough, they did not baptize adults or children, but had a single sacrament called the “Consolamentum” which was a kind of baptism, communion and last rites together and considered the baptism of the Holy Spirit[10].

Now, you tell me whether a group that does not share either with you or with us, the same faith in a Triune God, may be considered Baptist or even Christian.

Martha: Certainly not[11].

Joseph: Now for the Petrobrusians.

Martha: I understand that Pedro de Bruys, in the twelfth century and his followers were most pious Christians who denied that it was valid to baptize children, because they could not believe, an indispensable requirement for being baptized. He denied as falsehoods transubstantiation and the efficacy of prayer for the dead, all doctrines that we share.

Joseph: It’s true, yes they had that in common with you, but only that, the differences being many more.

Martha: For example…

Joseph: They rejected the Old Testament, and of the New Testament they only accepted the Gospels. That alone would be enough for you to dismiss them as spiritual Baptists.

They also proclaimed that churches should be burned and replaced with stables. In addition, they preached the destruction of all the crosses because of the horror that true Christians must feel when remembering the Lord’s Passion. They distinguished themselves by going through the lands of the Dauphiné and southern France pillaging temples and burning crosses, insulting the clergy and sowing discord everywhere they went. Pedro de Bruys was finally arrested and condemned to the stake in 1130.

Martha: I’ll check…

Joseph: Let’s study the Paulicians. They did not accept the Old Testament either, and only part of the New. They were dualists and had a deep opposition between spirit and matter. For them, Christ had not had more than an apparent body, and Mary had been only the channel through which he had manifested himself. Subsequently, they ceased to have priests and administered neither baptism nor the Eucharist.

Again, note that there are notable differences with the Baptists. You do not reject the Old Testament, or believe that there are two gods, much less that Christ had no real body.

Martha: It’s true, we do not believe that. Let me see if they really believed that.

Joseph: But if they did believe it, they were not spiritual Baptists either.

Let’s go now with the Waldensians.

Martha: Of the Waldensians I know that they rejected infant baptism, confession of sins to the priest, transubstantiation, the cult of saints, rejected purgatory and indulgences. You could say virtually the same Catholic doctrines that we Baptists reject today.

Joseph: They did not accept the concept of transubstantiation, but believed that the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist was wrought in the mouth of the one who received it worthily. They also believed in the sacrament of penance, but believed that it was holiness, and not ordination, that was the sufficient and necessary condition for the valid celebration of the sacraments, so they confessed and absolved among themselves, and not before duly ordained priests. The Waldensians also rejected the possession of land, and marriage that did not have the sole purpose of procreation.

It is true that they rejected infant baptism, the veneration of saints, the doctrine of purgatory and indulgences, but it is somewhat simplistic to consider them spiritual ancestors of the Baptists for that reason, for if we look closely, all Protestant denominations reject many of those points and are not for that reason considered Baptists[12].

The only group that I could recognize as a point of origin of the Baptists are the Anabaptists, but we are already talking about the sixteenth century, and yet there are still many differences with Baptists today.

What I am trying to make you understand is that while you have realized certain characteristics that the true Church must have: 1) Unity and perpetual Visibility, 2) Catholicity, 3) Holiness and indefectibility, 4) Apostolicity, and that has led you to seek its trace in history, the solution is not to seek it in those groups, many of which have been embedded in gnostic and Manichean tendencies that make it even impossible to consider them as Christians.

Martha: The option that you propose is to seek it in the Catholic Church, and that is even more unlikely because it cannot be a Church that has fallen into idolatry and apostasy.

Joseph: Consider that you may have acquired prejudices that do not allow you to recognize it as the true Church, but that you have to study the Catholic Church and its doctrine objectively and sincerely, and make sure it’s really all you think it is.

According to the venerable Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen: “There are no more than 100 people in the world who truly hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they believe is the Catholic Church.”

Notes

  1. The arguments for this conversation were taken from the book “The Strange Baptism”, by M. L. Moser Jr. (Arkansas Baptist Central Church from 1965 to 1990), in the translated edition by W.M. Nevins. Also from the book, “The trail of blood”, published in 1931 by Baptist minister, J.M. Carroll. ↩
  2. M.L. Moser Jr. was a Baptist minister in the Arkansas Baptist Central Church from 1965 to 1990. The minister defends the hypothesis sustained by Baptists, because of the Landmarkism, raised in 1851, in southern United States, where it is established that is possible to find a visible Baptist church during history, connecting with the New Testament church. ↩
  3. The original book that it is referenced is “The trail of blood”, published in 1931 by Baptist minister, J.M. Carroll. ↩
  4. There is a trend that can be considered as majority within the Baptists, that after investigating more thoroughly the history and doctrines of these primitive heretical movements, Baptists have separated from the position Martha defends in this dialogue. Baptist minister and historian, Justo Anderson, in the first volume of his book titled: “Historia de los Bautistas” (History of the Baptists), edited by Casa Bautista de Publicaciones, he recognizes: “A careful analysis of Montanists demonstrates that it is a mistake to consider them as a starting point of the Baptist denomination. As Troeltsch says, they were the first «sect – type» within Christianism. At the beginning, they did not deviate from faith but started a morbid effort for morality and practical discipline or a Pentecostal puritanism. For the Baptist, the most serious slip was the substitution of the continued prophecy by the final revelation in Christ… Much of what’s been said of Montanists, is also applied to Novatians and Donatists” (Translated from Justo Anderson, Historia de la Iglesia Bautista, Vol I, Casa Bautista de Publicaciones, Colombia 2006, p.130) ↩
  5. Among them De fuga in persecutione, De Monogamia, De ieiunio adversus psychicos, De pudicitia, De virginibus velandis. They are all freely available, though in English, at www.tertullian.org. ↩
  6. The Baptists historians used to mistakenly relate diverse conflicts about baptism as a support to their disapproval of children baptism. Justo Anderson about this writes: “The opposition to re – baptism, was originated in the primitive church, that declares it in a very clear way: «One Lord, one faith, one baptism» (Eph 4,5). Nonetheless, around the year 250, Bishop Cyprian of Carthage, Northern Africa, insisted in re – baptizing the Schismatic and heretics that presented themselves to be members of his Church”. (Translated from Justo Anderson, Historia de la Iglesia Bautista, Vol I, Casa Bautista de Publicaciones, Colombia 2006, p.12). It is true that Saint Cyprian of Carthage did have a conflict with the Pope, because he pretended to baptize heretics again, but he did not deny children baptism as valid, but he defended that need, just as he leaves constancy in his owns writings (See Cyprian of Carthage, A Fido about children Baptism, Ep 58) ↩
  7. The Baptists profess the doctrine of “Once Saved, always saved”, that is also heretic because it denies that men can fall from God’s grace even if the man commits a mortal sin and dies with no repent. This doctrine is paradoxically opposite to the Novatians. ↩
  8. The Donatists were characterized by an exaggerated fanaticism that led them to pursue Catholics violently, killing them, burning their altars, throwing to dogs consecrated species and not because they did not believe in the real presence of Christ in Eucharistic, one thing you do not believe, but because they only permitted as consecrated their species. They even made collective suicide. The Schism was suffocated by having Donato exiled and Donato’s bishops ousted, but during the reign of Juliano, the apostate, it took a greater power, but divisions among them caused them even to murder themselves. In the Carthage council, their doctrine was stricken, ratified after this judgement by Pope Honorio in 411. They ended up disappearing with the Vandals invasion that pursued equally Donatists and Catholics. ↩
  9. The Cathars preached salvation through asceticism and a strict rejection of the material world, perceived by them as a demonic work. It postulates the existence of the two Manichaean principles of Good and Evil, which are equally Light and Darkness, Spirit and Matter. However, the All and the Nothing are two aspects of the same principle which, because of the tendency of the Nothing to become “something”, engender an unlimited number of eternal beings, sons of the principle God. At the head of this unlimited multitude of sons of God are the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ. They were not considered properly God (Trinity) except insofar as they effectively proceeded from Him, the Father being the only absolute God, while the Son and the Holy Spirit do not participate in omnipotence. For more details, you may consult H. Masson’s work, Manual de Herejías, Ediciones Rialp SA, 1989. ↩
  10. The “Consolamentum” was administered to adults (considered more faithful, who became “Parfaits” or “Perfect Ones”, and who remained celibate and vegetarian) and to those that were moribund. Those who received the “consolamentum” came to practice another rite known as the “endura”, in which they fasted until death, considering this as a mystical death. ↩
  11. Justo Anderson admits in this regard: “The other dissident groups, the Bogomils from the Balkans, and the Cathars (Albigensians) from southern France, were a historical continuation of Paulicians. Some say that the Baptists arose from their successors. However, as Vedder says: «The Paulicians, Cathars, Bogomils and Albigensians were, more or less, Christians…although their dualist theories are essentially anti-Christian, and rudely separate them from those who profess to be guided solely by the Word of God». Really, IT WOULD BE HARD TO NAME IN ALL CHRISTIAN HISTORY GROUPS THAT HAD LESS IN COMMON WITH BAPTISTS THAN THEM.” (Translated from Justo Anderson, Historia de la Iglesia Bautista, Vol I, Casa Bautista de Publicaciones, Colombia 2006, p.142) ↩
  12. Baptist historian Justo Anderson recognizes in this regard: “THE WALDENSIANS HAD VERY LITTLE IN COMMON WITH BAPTISTS. The same can be said with respect to the Lollards and the Hussites. Even though those groups rejected infant baptism and practiced rebaptism, they had a lot in their doctrine that modern Baptists would not accept. I agree
    with Doctor Vedder, when he says: «It is unquestionable that for 4 entire centuries before Reformation, there were Christian groups with various names, defamed by Roman Church as heretics, that professed approximately … faith and practice of modern Baptists. This is quite different than proving the substantial identity of these sects with modern Baptists. It is one thing to prove that the various sects gave testimony, now one, now another, to this or that truth sustained by a modern denomination, and another quite distinct is to identify all or some of these sects with any modern corporation.”
    (Translated from Justo Anderson, Historia de la Iglesia Bautista, Vol I, Casa Bautista de Publicaciones, Colombia 2006, p.147-148) ↩