Saint Patrick a Baptist! Not!
One bit of fiction that makes it way across the Internet this time of year is "St. Patrick A Baptist!" by Dr. L. K. Landis. Dr. Landis, for whatever reason, wants to convert Saint Patrick from Catholic to Baptist post-mortem. Several Baptist church sites and bloggers have discovered Dr. Landis' fictional account of Saint Patrick and have posted it to their sites without any concern for historical accuracy. How any true Baptist could believe that Saint Patrick was a Baptist is almost beyond explanation. I suspect the believers are Landmark Baptists, who still believe the long discredited Trail of Blood is an accurate account of Baptist history.
So, on behalf of all the Catholics and Baptists who know the truth regarding Saint Patrick, I offer this meager apologetic against Saint Patrick being a Baptist.
"Number One: St. Patrick Baptized Only Professed Believers - ... in all of Patrick's writings he does not mention one single incident when he baptized an infant"
All of Patrick's writings consist of just two surviving documents. Not only do they not record baptising infants, they also do not record baptising only professed believers. They do record baptised individuals being confirmed and annointed with chrism, both clearly Baptist distinctives, are they not?
"Number Two: St. Patrick Baptized By Immersion Only - This has been a leading principle among the Baptists since the days of the Apostles and still is today."
First, nothing in either of the two surviving works by Patrick mentions baptism by immersion. Second, Catholics have also baptised by immersion since the days of the apostles. Read the Didache or Cyril of Jerusalem. Catholics are filling the immersion pool at the Catholic Church I attend for the adult believer baptisms at the Easter Vigil Mass. Perhaps they too are Baptists?
"Number Three: In Church Government, St. Patrick Was A Baptist - Patrick is recorded to have "founded 365 churches and consecrated the same number of bishops,"
These would be Baptist bishops?
"Number Four: Patrick Was A Baptist In Independence From Creeds, Councils, Popes, etc. - Patrick never attended one council..."
Only one church council was held during Patrick's lifetime and it was at Chalcedon. Perhaps British Rail was on strike and prevented Patrick's attendance?
"Number Five: In Doctrine - In all of his writings it cannot be found where one time he subscribes to even the most insignificant and remote catechism, creed, or dogma of the Roman Catholic system."
In all two of his writings this is largely correct, except for Patrick's mention of Catholic distinctives like confirmation, chrism, monks and nuns, purgatory, etc.
"Number Six: In Terms Of The Lord's Supper, Patrick Was A Baptist - From his writings we know that he rejected the Roman Catholic view of salvation in the ordinance."
No, we don't, as this subject is not discussed in either surviving document. We do know from his Confession that Patrick had an altar and that communion tables are not mentioned.
"Number Seven: Patrick Rejects The Roman Catholic Dogma Of Transubstantiation - Patrick believed that the elements were only pictures of Christ's body and Christ's blood."
That's also false as neither the Eucharist nor transubstantiation are discussed in either of Patrick's two surviving documents. Also the elements of the Eucharist being only "pictures" is an unbiblical belief per Isaiah 55:11 and Genesis 1:3. That said, I will heartedly agree with any and all Baptists who wish to claim that their communion is a picture or symbol.
"Number Eight: Patrick Never Affirmed His Belief In, Or Adherence To, Many Crucial Catholic Pecularities - St. Patrick was a Baptist and the first Irish churches were Baptist churches."
The Baptist sect didn't exist until around 1600. There were no Baptist churches in existence during Patrick's lifetime. No credible Baptist historian makes that claim. I recommend Baptist Successionism by James Edward McGoldrick. McGoldrick, a professor of history at Cedarville College, was swept up by "Trail of Blood" as an undergraduate but in his later investigations into Baptist history discovered them to be historically untenable.
"It is my firm conviction that it has sufficiently been shown that Saint Patrick was not a Roman Catholic in doctrine or practice, but rather an early Baptist preacher following in the footsteps of the Apostles themselves, believing what they believed, practicing what they practiced.
I'm sure Dr. Landis was firmly convicted, but the author's evidence is not sufficient and does not bear up to scrutiny. Baptists have many things in their short history to be proud of, but Patrick of Ireland is not one of them.
I would encourage everyone to read Patricks surviving writings for themselves:
Confession
The Letter to Corotocus
Source: St. Patrick A Baptist!
So, on behalf of all the Catholics and Baptists who know the truth regarding Saint Patrick, I offer this meager apologetic against Saint Patrick being a Baptist.
"Number One: St. Patrick Baptized Only Professed Believers - ... in all of Patrick's writings he does not mention one single incident when he baptized an infant"
All of Patrick's writings consist of just two surviving documents. Not only do they not record baptising infants, they also do not record baptising only professed believers. They do record baptised individuals being confirmed and annointed with chrism, both clearly Baptist distinctives, are they not?
"Number Two: St. Patrick Baptized By Immersion Only - This has been a leading principle among the Baptists since the days of the Apostles and still is today."
First, nothing in either of the two surviving works by Patrick mentions baptism by immersion. Second, Catholics have also baptised by immersion since the days of the apostles. Read the Didache or Cyril of Jerusalem. Catholics are filling the immersion pool at the Catholic Church I attend for the adult believer baptisms at the Easter Vigil Mass. Perhaps they too are Baptists?
"Number Three: In Church Government, St. Patrick Was A Baptist - Patrick is recorded to have "founded 365 churches and consecrated the same number of bishops,"
These would be Baptist bishops?
"Number Four: Patrick Was A Baptist In Independence From Creeds, Councils, Popes, etc. - Patrick never attended one council..."
Only one church council was held during Patrick's lifetime and it was at Chalcedon. Perhaps British Rail was on strike and prevented Patrick's attendance?
"Number Five: In Doctrine - In all of his writings it cannot be found where one time he subscribes to even the most insignificant and remote catechism, creed, or dogma of the Roman Catholic system."
In all two of his writings this is largely correct, except for Patrick's mention of Catholic distinctives like confirmation, chrism, monks and nuns, purgatory, etc.
"Number Six: In Terms Of The Lord's Supper, Patrick Was A Baptist - From his writings we know that he rejected the Roman Catholic view of salvation in the ordinance."
No, we don't, as this subject is not discussed in either surviving document. We do know from his Confession that Patrick had an altar and that communion tables are not mentioned.
"Number Seven: Patrick Rejects The Roman Catholic Dogma Of Transubstantiation - Patrick believed that the elements were only pictures of Christ's body and Christ's blood."
That's also false as neither the Eucharist nor transubstantiation are discussed in either of Patrick's two surviving documents. Also the elements of the Eucharist being only "pictures" is an unbiblical belief per Isaiah 55:11 and Genesis 1:3. That said, I will heartedly agree with any and all Baptists who wish to claim that their communion is a picture or symbol.
"Number Eight: Patrick Never Affirmed His Belief In, Or Adherence To, Many Crucial Catholic Pecularities - St. Patrick was a Baptist and the first Irish churches were Baptist churches."
The Baptist sect didn't exist until around 1600. There were no Baptist churches in existence during Patrick's lifetime. No credible Baptist historian makes that claim. I recommend Baptist Successionism by James Edward McGoldrick. McGoldrick, a professor of history at Cedarville College, was swept up by "Trail of Blood" as an undergraduate but in his later investigations into Baptist history discovered them to be historically untenable.
"It is my firm conviction that it has sufficiently been shown that Saint Patrick was not a Roman Catholic in doctrine or practice, but rather an early Baptist preacher following in the footsteps of the Apostles themselves, believing what they believed, practicing what they practiced.
I'm sure Dr. Landis was firmly convicted, but the author's evidence is not sufficient and does not bear up to scrutiny. Baptists have many things in their short history to be proud of, but Patrick of Ireland is not one of them.
I would encourage everyone to read Patricks surviving writings for themselves:
Confession
The Letter to Corotocus
Source: St. Patrick A Baptist!
Labels: Apologetics, Baptist, Catholic, Catholicism, Early_Church, Saints
5 Comments:
Thank you for my comment on my blog. I do agree that professors can be wrong. Thanks for reminding me. ;-)
I also agree that St. Patrick wasn't a Baptist per say. And that the Baptist "name" wasn't around that time.
However, there were groups of people that never adhered to Catholic doctrine. Or Protestent for that matter.
Since you say in your own post that St. Patrick's writing's never mentioned those points you were making, it never mentioned being bound by Rome either.
His only confidence was in Christ alone. Catholic doctrine is very adment on adhering to the "church" and such. You think at least some of his writings would reflect that, eh?
Cathloics as well as protestents used force to covert people and to *keep* people in the bondage of their religion.
St. Patrick never used force. You may say that Catholics are peaceful; however look at church history. What about all the burning at the steaks? What about all the drownings?
You can't ignore that. It is like how some people say the holocost never happened. Hogwash.
I am not a "BAPTIST" myself. I posted the article from my professor who *happens* to be a Baptist preacher. His point was that St. Patrick adhered to baptist "disticivies" not the name.
My faith is only in Christ and what he did on the cross for me. It isn't in the "church" of Rome.(Or Baptist for that matter. Believe me, I have been burned by people named Baptist) It isn't the eucrrucist, it isn't in the waters of baptism (By the way, I am impressed that your church actually believes what the Bible says with the greek regarding immersion) and it isn't in anything else but Christ and his scarfice in my behalf.
THANK YOU LORD I do not have to do anything but TRUST in JESUS. Jesus did it all for me. WHAT A SAVIOUR!
>"However, there were groups of people that never adhered to Catholic doctrine"
Sure. The Cathars, the Ishmaelites, etc. However, Patrick did adhere to Catholic doctrine. There is nothing in Patrick's two surviving writings that contradicts Catholic doctrine.
>"it never mentioned being bound by Rome either."
That brings us to the fallacy of "absence of proof is not proof of absence". The good professor seems to hang much of his arguement on because it doesn't say X then that proves X wasn't believed or practiced.
>"Catholic doctrine is very adment on adhering to the "church" and such. You think at least some of his writings would reflect that, eh?"
Not necessarily. With only two surviving writings, I'm surprised we know as much as we do about Patrick. If only two random documents that you wrote during your lifetime survived through the coming centuries, could you guarantee that they would include your views on "church"? Is this something you include in every letter your write or are you holding Patrick to a higher standard?
>"St. Patrick never used force. You may say that Catholics are peaceful; however look at church history. What about all the burning at the steaks? What about all the drownings?"
First, the Church has never burned anyone at the stake or drowned anyone. There have been some individual Catholics who may have abused their authority and engaged in that behavior. There's a tremendous amount of myths about the Church.
Second, the vast majority of Catholics who have ever lived have never burned anyone at the stake nor drowned anyone.
Third, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Canon Law forbid conversion by force. Submission to Christ and His Church is strictly by free will.
>"My faith is only in Christ and what he did on the cross for me. It isn't in the "church" of Rome."
No one is asking you to have faith in the Church. What does scripture tell us about the Church?
It is the pillar and foundation of the truth. (1 Timothy 3:15)
Christ says that if someone refuses to listen even to the Church we are to treat them as we would a pagan.(Matthew 18:17)
God bless...
"That brings us to the fallacy of "absence of proof is not proof of absence". "
It can work the other way around too. ;-) I don't know why you seem to think that because there was nothing said about the Catholic Church, that he even said anything about the Catholic Church?
"First, the Church has never burned anyone at the stake or drowned anyone. There have been some individual Catholics who may have abused their authority and engaged in that behavior. There's a tremendous amount of myths about the Church."
Um, I beg you to check your history that isn't of the Catholic Church. My Dad raised a Catholic, says the Catholics call the Dark ages the golden ages. It is a *very* slanted history when you get your sources from the Catholic church.
When I was in St. Augustine, I was on a tour, and they said that the river Mantazas was named that because when the Catholic Spainards invaded the city, they forced the protestants to convert. If not, they were beheaded and thrown into the river. This happened right here in the US. Of course that wasn't the united states, but they were going on the authority of the "Chuch".
I am sure there were individuals that went "nuts" so to speak. But Kings and Queens all executed with the Church's support.
I think you are sticking your head in the sand on this one. Do you know that there are people that actually believe that the holocost never happened in Germany? There are. I have seen letters written to Jewish centers, that state that the Jews are lieing about the holocost. And to make matters even more funny, was that Hitler was Catholic.;-)
"There is nothing in Patrick's two surviving writings that contradicts Catholic doctrine."
There are many points in Catholic Doctrine that I agree with. It is those that I don't agree with, that I have a problem with.
Catholics also have the tendecy to twist the scriptures into what they want them to say. So I can see why you would think that there is nothing in his writings that would contradict the Catholic Church. I could agree with the Nician Creed. It is what is missing from that Creed is where I have the issues. :)
"
Second, the vast majority of Catholics who have ever lived have never burned anyone at the stake nor drowned anyone.
"
I don't have issues with individual Catholics that never burned anyone at the steak. It is the fact that the Church has supported this. Eith by turning their head, or actually doing it themselves.
"Third, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Canon Law forbid conversion by force. Submission to Christ and His Church is strictly by free will."
But was it always this way? Or has the Catechism changed since the beginning of the church? Mormons forbid pologomy, but there was a time when it was allowed. What about the "holy" cursades?
"It is the pillar and foundation of the truth. (1 Timothy 3:15)"
The Church is actually the body of Jesus Christ. We that are trusting only in him for our salvation are the Church. It isn't some institution that the Catholics have made it up to be. That passage goes on to say that God was manifested in the flesh, and other things about God. It is drawing our eyes to God, not us,the church. God is the pillar and ground of the truth. Not the Church!Or the *Catholic* church for that matter.
"Christ says that if someone refuses to listen even to the Church we are to treat them as we would a pagan.(Matthew 18:17)"
Again, the church is the body of Jesus Christ, and we are the church. The Church is individuals who are trusting in Jesus. Not the "Institution" of the Catholic Church. When there is something going on with a brother. He is to go to the "Church" meaning other believers trusting in Jesus. Not the institution of what the Catholics say Church is.
And the context is of if an individual trespass against you. You are supposed to deal with it between you and him only. If he won't hear you, then you are to take "witnesses" those who have seen this man offend the other.
If he doesn't hear the witnesses, then he is to go before the "whole" body of believers that he assembles with. The Church doesn't have a dictator like the Pope. The Church is individuals working *together*.
Can ask you too, why did the Catholic Church forbid the reading of the Word of God in the people's own language for so long? Why did they forbid it to be printed? Which they did.
You are getting your interrpretation from the "Church" and not from the Holy Spirit.
Read the Word of God for what it says, without all the Catholic doctrine tied to it. :)
Oh I forgot to add. If the Catholic Church was such a big part of my life, I would think that my two surrving documents would include at least some of what was important to me.
If I ever write about Jesus Christ. I always try to make sure I say as clearly as I can that Christ's death on the cross is all that is needed to secure one's salvation. Nothing Else.
Hebrews 10:9-14
Then said he, Lo, I come to do they will O, God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesu Christ *once for all.*
And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins;
But this man, after he had offered *one* sacrifice for sins *for ever*, sat down on the right hand of God;
From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
For by *one offering* he hath *perfected for ever* them that are sanctified.
The Matanzas River derives its name from the massacre of a group of 250 shipwrecked French Huguenots from Fort Caroline, lead by Jean Ribault, by Spanish settlers led by Pedro Menéndez de Avilés. The Huguenots were executed near the present site of Matanzas Inlet in 1565. Menéndez had been ordered to kill all Protestants he found in the New World. "Matanzas" means "massacre" in Spanish.
FROM WICKPEIDA, a non-Catholic, and non protestant, and non Baptist source. ;-)
<< Home