Refutation Part II

Even if one were to concede that St. Patrick was a Baptist (which we most certainly are not doing), he/she would have to admit that he was a strange kind of Baptist, as the following will demonstrate.

First, in his "Confession" and "Letter to Coroticus", Patrick mentions priests and bishops. One might suppose these are Baptist priests and Bishops. The argument will then be that these bishops are just pastors of Baptist churches. Fine. Who or what are these “priests” of whom he speaks? He mourns in paragraph 1 of the Confession that the people of Ireland have been “quite drawn away from God, we did not keep his precepts, nor were we obedient to our priests who used to remind us of our salvation.” So undoubtedly, he felt obedience to these priests was important and that disobedience was something for which repentance was needed. That certainly doesn’t sound like any Baptist I’ve ever heard. In fact, I am not aware of them giving obedience to any man.

In paragraph 6 of the Letter, he gives us a very interesting piece of information concerning these priests:

“Coroticus, a man who has no respect for God nor for His priests whom He chose, giving them the highest, divine, and sublime power, that whom ‘they should bind upon earth should be bound also in Heaven.’”

That sounds vaguely catholic (little “c” on purpose) to me. It sounds as if he is speaking of the power pronouncing the forgiveness of sins to the penitent. Although it has been a while since I have been to a Baptist church, I don’t think things have changed so much as to include a pronouncing of forgiveness to the penitent. The way Patrick speaks of this “highest, divine, and sublime power” certainly does not sound like any Baptist I have ever heard or heard about ever.
Patrick talks about some other non-typical Baptist folk in paragraph 13 of the Letter:

“Ravening wolves have devoured the flock of the Lord, which in Ireland was indeed growing splendidly with the greatest care; and the sons and daughters of kings were monks and virgins of Christ - I cannot count their number.”
And here from "The Confession" (par. 41): “the sons of the Irish [Scotti] and the daughters of the chieftains are to be seen as monks and virgins of Christ.”

While in the next paragraph of the same, he rejoices,

“a most beautiful, blessed, native-born noble Irish [Scotta] woman of adult age whom I baptized; and a few days later she had reason to come to us to intimate that she had received a prophecy from a divine messenger [who] advised her that she should become a virgin of Christ and she would draw nearer to God.”

Again, I was unaware that the Baptist have monks or virgins for Christ (nuns). When did this begin? Where is the Southern Baptist Monastery located? One wonders how many Baptist women have divine prophecies given to them to become nuns and how many Baptist Bishops would give God praise if any women did. We have to admit that Patrick is sounding less and less (rather than increasingly) Baptist.
Patrick also mentions some very un-Baptist acts in his writings.

Note the following:

“I plead with you earnestly, ye holy and humble of heart, it is not permissible to court the favor of such people, nor to take food or drink with them, nor even to accept their alms, until they make reparation to God in hard-ships, through penance, with shedding of tears….” (Letter, par. 7)

“The day after the newly baptized, anointed with chrism, in white garments (had been slain) - the fragrance was still on their foreheads when they were butchered and slaughtered with the sword….” (Letter, par. 3)

I have not been apprised of the fact that the Baptist have now begun practicing penance or anointing the newly baptized with oil. When did this start? We all know that it has not started and never will.
Patrick speaks about the “Roman Christians of Gaul” (Letter, par. 15). It would not be too hard to guess what kind of Christians these were. It is certain that they were not Baptist. And it is unthinkable for this Baptist Bishop to be commending a catholic as a Christian at all.

While Landis et al. may be thoroughly convinced of the truth of their claims, there is absolutely no historical evidence to back them up. He asserts that Patrick could not be Catholic because the Catholic Church was “an embryo” during Patrick’s time. If that is the case, we can also say he was not a Baptist because the Baptist church was not even an embryo then and would not begin for another 1000 years at least.

Refutation of St. Patrick the Baptist Part 1

Recently I was exposed to another example of the Baptist penchant for rewriting Christian history (I’ve talked about the Trail of Blood previously). The name of the article/sermon was “St. Patrick A Baptist!” by Dr. L. K. Landis (http://www.carmichaelbaptist.org/Sermons/landis1.htm). As I dug a little bit into the subject, I discovered that Landis was not the first to try to Protestantize St. Patrick. In fact, he quotes from Henry C. Vedder who declares that the Catholic theft of St. Patrick was among the worst of their crimes. This statement came from is from Vedder’s A Short History of the Baptists dated 1907.

In 1952, John Summerfield Wimbish delivered a sermon entitled St. Patrick was a Baptist to the congregation at Calvary Baptist Church in New York City (http://www.reformedreader.org/history/patrick.htm). W. A. Jarrel goes so far as to assert that scholars have “have succeeded in stripping his history of much of the Romish fables.” (http://www.baptistpillar.com/bd0197.htm)

Since Landis is seems to be the stand out among the group, I would like to deal with his work.

The first thing that jumps out at me is the fact that much of what Landis has to say is based on the notoriously weak evidence of argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio). The problem with this kind of argument is one of the least effective arguments that can be adduced; it is insufficient grounds for believing something simply because there can be found no evidence to the contrary.

Let’s look at Landis’ use of argumentum ex silencio:

In relation to infant baptism, Landis states, “in all of Patrick's writings he does not mention one single incident when he baptized an infant.”

In relation to baptism by immersion, we read, “in all of his writings there is not one shred of evidence that the Irish preacher knew anything of sprinkling. All of the records of his baptisms tell of immersion.”

On the subject of church relations, Landis says, “There is not any evidence whatsoever that even remotely suggests that the famed Irish preacher acknowledged any man to be of superior authority, power or position than he.”

In addition, Landis tells us in relation to Patrick made “No mention of baptism for salvation. No mention of a confessional. No mention of communion.”

None of these arguments will hold water because they are trying to positively prove something that is not denied by the Saint but is merely unmentioned by him. The fact that we have only two certainly genuine writings (“The Confession of St. Patrick” at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/patrick/confession.txt and his “Letter To Coroticus” at http://www.yale.edu/glc/archive/1166.htm) by him highlights the paucity of material that we have.

The majority of Landis’ arguments are from silence and he, thus, establishes nothing but the absence of certain things in Patrick’s writing. If we are to buy into the fable that Patrick was actually a Baptist, we will have to have some positive evidence to prove it. Otherwise, we cannot reliably conclude that he was.

Actually, this kind of argument can be turned around and used against Landis very easily.

For example, Landis says, “He also firmly conveys the message of the eternal security of the believer in that those who are genuinely saved have put on immortality.” Notice the words of St. Patrick from "The Confession" (par. 4): “And he poured out his Holy Spirit on us in abundance, the gift and pledge of immortality, which makes the believers and the obedient into sons of God and co-heirs of Christ who is revealed….” If he meant that they were eternally secure this would have been a great place to mention it. Since he does not mention it here or anywhere else, how can we accept that he believed it. According to Landis’ methodology, this “proves” that the Saint was NOT a believer in eternal security which means he was not a Baptist. (One might note that this passage connects eternal life not only with believing but also with obedience in a very non-Baptist style)

This specious kind of argumentation does nothing to help bolster the case for St. Patrick being Baptist. But then again, if I were trying to prove that point, I would want to avoid sound arguments and logic also.

Is Every Promise in the Book Mine?

A well-worn saying with many Pentes (and other Christians too, I guess) is “Every promise in the book is mine.” Some maintain that there are 365 promises in the Bible—“one for every day of the year.”

I heard a “preacher” just today speaking on one of the Word of Faith networks (which one I shall refrain from saying). He was talking about the ridiculous concept of “a financial anointing.” He had seven points (which I did not bother to listen to) but he used one verse as a promise for those who get into the financial anointing: Isaiah 45:3. He said that this tells us that God will give “secret riches” to those who have an impartation of this so-called financial anointing.

Without going into the ludicrous nonsense of a financial anointing, I want to look at the concept that he used to arrive at this promise. It is a very common use of Scripture to pull promises out of context and claim them for oneself. I have heard people advised to choose a verse that relates to their need and claim the promise of the verse for themselves.

Is this a valid way to use Scripture? Is this what God gave us His Word for and how he intends us to use it?

The short answer is “No. No. No.” But we need to expand a little bit on that brief reply.

First, when we see a promise in the Bible, we need to understand to whom it was given and under what circumstances. There are general promises (“Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”); however, there are also promises that are specific to a certain person, place, time, or circumstance.

Let’s look at the aforementioned verse in Isaiah:

Thus says the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have grasped, to subdue nations before him and ungird the loins of kings, to open doors before him that gates may not be closed: 2 "I will go before you and level the mountains, I will break in pieces the doors of bronze and cut asunder the bars of iron, 3 I will give you the treasures of darkness and the hoards in secret places, that you may know that it is I, the LORD, the God of Israel, who call you by your name."

Isaiah 45:1-3

To whom is the verse given? Cyrus of Persia.
Does it apply to anyone else? No.

The whole context militates against applying this to me or to anyone other than Cyrus. I cannot legitimately appropriate this verse to myself. I cannot take this verse any more than I can take Exodus 3: 17 to mean that God is going to carry me to Israel. Or to believe that God will give me twice as much as I once had if I will only pray for my friends because of Job 42: 10. Nor would it be appropriate for me to “claim” the promise of Acts 27: 24 in order to assure people on a ship with me that none of them was going to die even if the ship sinks.

When looking at Bible promises one must determine if it is extended to more than just the originally intended person(s). To ignore the context is very dangerous and quite silly.

So in reality, every promise in the book is NOT yours or mine. There are “many great and precious promises” which we can hold to and on which we can stand securely. Others, however, are not ours for the taking and no matter how much faith we have, we cannot legitimately make them our own.

Where is the Evidence?

If one were to inquire as to what the distinctive doctrine of Pentecostals is, most would have to admit that the Initial Evidence doctrine (hereinafter referred to as IE) is it. Simply stated, this doctrine says that THE initial physical evidence of a person being baptized in the Holy Ghost is that he/she speaks in tongues as the Spirit gives utterance. Please note that this does not say that it is the only evidence but it is considered the incontrovertible proof of the reception of this experience.

As I stated in my last post, I have come to question IE. In order to understand my questioning one must consider the facts behind the doctrine.

One pertinent question in doctrinal issues is origin, viz., where did this doctrine come from and who was the first to espouse it. For some Pentes it might come as a surprise to learn that in the whole history of Christianity no one taught this doctrine prior to 1900 or thereabouts. The man who is given “credit” (or blame, according to which way you look at it) for first propounding IE is Charles Fox Parham as even some Pentes attest.

From the Assembly of God:

“It is much to Parham’s credit that defined the chief doctrinal distinctive of the Movement: the truth about speaking in tongues as the uniform ‘Bible evidence’ or “initial evidence” of baptism in the Holy Spirit.”

[Enrichment Journal, Summer 1999; Tongues, The Bible Evidence: The Revival Legacy of Charles F. Parham by Gary B. McGee at enrichmentjournal.ag.org/199903/068_tongues.cfm]

From the International Pentecostal Holiness Church (IPHC):

“Parham formulated the doctrine that tongues was the "Bible evidence" of the baptism in the Holy Spirit.”

[ASPECTS OF IPHC HISTORY: CENTENNIAL NOTES by Dr. Harold D. Hunter at http://www.pctii.org/arc/timeline.html]

According to the Guided by Truth website (a decidedly non-Pentecostal source):

“Charles Parham is said to be the originator of the belief that speaking in tongues was the evidence of the Spiritual baptism. Parham, who founded a Bible School in Topeka Kansas, began teaching this before he had ever seen or experienced this phenomenon. After teaching that speaking in tongues was the evidence of Spirit baptism one of his students finally began speaking in tongues. Up until this time, there were no other churches, denominations or sects that taught speaking in tongues was the evidence of Holy Spirit baptism.”

[http://www.guidedbytruth.com/pentecostalhistory.php]

Although Parham is the originator of the doctrine, it became standard belief for the majority of Pentecostal denominations including but not limited to, the Assemblies of God, the Church of God (Cleveland, TN), the International Pentecostal Holiness Church ( IPHC), United Pentecostal Church (UPCI), and The International Church of the Foursquare Gospel (ICFG).

We can conclude from the foregoing that this doctrine was never taught by the Apostolic Church, the Fathers of the Church, or anyone else in all of church history. This is true although there were a number of ecstatic outbreaks of tongue speaking among various groups prior to this time.

When confronted by these things, one is impelled to ask several questions. For one thing, are we to believe that no one before Parham had believed this “truth” if indeed it was the “Bible evidence”? Can we seriously contend that Parham found something in Scripture that had been missed by the likes of Augustine, Athanasius, Irenaeus, or the Didachaist? These ideas stretch credulity to the breaking point.

The fact is IE is a 20th Century innovation of Christian doctrine. It cannot be supported by the foundations of Scripture or Tradition. It miserably fails the test of true doctrine delineated by St. Vincent of Lerins ("universality, antiquity, and consent") because it was not believed or even taught anywhere, ever, or by anyone prior to Parham.

So are we to take Parham’s word in opposition to the saints, bishops, and Apostles? God forbid!

Questioning Things Pentecostal

As I have made clear previously, I am at this moment the pastor of a traditional Pentecostal (not Charismatic) Church. Having said that, however, I must admit that there are some things that I have questions about—I mean some specifically Pentecostal things at that.

Before I go any farther, I must ask the reader to be patient with me. Do not for one moment think that I am denigrating Pentes nor their experience with God—not the case at all. I am being open and honest about questions that have occurred to me, that have come to my mind after being in a Pente church for almost my whole life.

I have no doubt whatsoever that the Holy Spirit can move people to speak in languages that they have never learned. I have no qualms about the experiences of the Spirit as related in the Book of Acts. My questions deal with Pente experience that I have seen and heard.

I will now list some questions that have come to my mind about the glossalalia (speaking in tongues):

1. If those who speak in tongues are actually speaking languages, why are there so many that are just repeated syllables? Why do most of them bear little to no resemblance to a language at all? One man I heard “giving out a message” only said one word (one letter, actually) and many only repeat similar phrases.
2. Why do the interpretations vary so greatly in length and tone from the messages they are supposed to be interpreting?
3. How can very ungodly people speak in tongues and interpret and their gifts be considered genuine by a whole church full of “Holy Ghost filled” people?
4. If tongues and interpretations are God speaking (“thus saith the Lord”) then why are the utterances considered fallible? How trustworthy are they? Are parts fallible and parts not? If so, how does one differentiate between the two?
5. How much if any of modern tongues speaking is psychologically induced?
6. How were tongues actually manifested in the First Century Church?
7. Is praying in the Spirit praying in tongues? Or is it to be identified more with the “groanings which cannot be uttered"? (And why do people identify tongues which are uttered with “groanings which cannot be uttered”?
8. If tongues and interpretation are God speaking, why do they always reflect the theology (and often the idiosyncrasies and misinterpretations of Scripture and doctrine) of the one giving the interpretation?
9. Since a person can change their interpretation style (for instance, one decided to quit saying “saith the Lord” and changed to “says the Lord”—I know this has been done), how much of the “interpretation” can be changed or altered according to the taste or belief of the person giving it? And if it can be altered in this way, can it be altered in other ways that would change the meaning or intent?
10. Why has no linguist who studied the glossalalia ever been convinced that the tongues were a real language regardless of the group studied?
11. How do we reconcile Paul’s question (“Do all speak with tongues” which is manifestly to be answered in the negative) with the Pentes’ decidedly affirmative answer to it (according to them not only do all speak with tongues but also everyone must speak in tongues)?

My biggest questions stem from the idea that tongues are the “initial evidence” of the baptism in the Holy Ghost. This novel theory was first promulgated in the early 20th Century. Thus, it is immediately admitted that it is not of apostolic or early church origin (although there have been many attempts to give it such a basis). Here are some of my questionings on this subject:

1. Why would there be only one gift from God that came with “initial evidence?” Does one even need any immediate physical evidence that something has occurred?
2. Since Mormons, pagans, and witch doctors speak in tongues, how much evidentiary value can they possess?
3. How can something be quality evidence when it can be faked or emotionally induced (without the person “receiving” even realizing it)? [An example of someone faking tongues can be found here: http://www.pentecostalfreedom.org/faking_tongues.html]
4. If this doctrine of initial evidence is true, why was it never mentioned in the Bible or in the history of the Christian Church until the early 20th Century?
5. Why does no one in the Bible accounts of people being baptized in the Spirit (Acts 10 and 19) seem to expect that the believers would speak in tongues? Why were they not told, “You will know you have received when you speak in tongues” or something like that?

Don't judge me because of my questions. I am not at this point (or maybe ever) offering answers. But the questions have been with me for several years and they do make me wonder.