Posted on 06/08/2009 8:20:56 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Apparently, rather, the mainstream of academic thought isn’t convinced that Conybeare’s discovery overturns previous knowledge. It was, after all, of a book that was recorded a thousand years after the Paulician heresy largely died out.
Well said, Kolo. There is a Serbian saying to the same effect but I would have to x-out 99% of the words in it! :)
It's sort of pathetic that some in ecclesial groups are so driven to find a mythological spiritual pedigree that they will embrace particularly bizarre ancient heresies in a failing attempt to find some legitimacy. Frankly, it would be far less sad if they simply stuck to the idea that the HS went off for a 1500 year nap after Pentecost and woke up in Thubingen.
True, but they know they can't blame the Holy Spirit for "napping," so adopting even a bizarre heretical family tree is better than nothing.
The point is, if this is true, is it possible that this crypto-Marcionite heresy (if one chooses to accept the traditional view of Paulcianism) or crypto-Arian heresy (if one chooses to accept Conybeare's research) has managed to survive and flourish?
Thinking of adult baptism as a sacrament and the Lord's Supper as "tasting the body and drinking the holy blood of our Lord Jesus Christ" are not Baptist beliefs. Also, the article indicates that they may have been adoptionist which contradicts an earlier reference that "they held to the orthodox view of the Trinity".
Clearly the Paulicians held the same belief as Baptists in that adult baptism after coming to faith was the ordinance they practiced and their pastors were not of an elevated rank. It really is such a shame so little dependable information can be found.
“The point is, if this is true, is it possible that this crypto-Marcionite heresy (if one chooses to accept the traditional view of Paulcianism) or crypto-Arian heresy (if one chooses to accept Conybeare’s research) has managed to survive and flourish?”
Sure its possible. On these very threads we have seen, on a regular basis, most of the ancient heresies, especially the ones relating to the nature of Christ and the Trinity, being presented as “orthodox” Christian theology from fellow Freepers who are members of various Christian ecclesial groups who haven’t the slightest notion that what they are espousing are among the most ancient of heresies.
In Greek, m, in the Our Father we end by asking that we be delivered from “to poniero” the Evil One, with Evil there having overtones of slyness and even of a trickster. He has been around for a longtime and I doubt he’ll be moving on anytime soon. Filling the minds of humans with so profound a hatred of The Church and The Faith that those same people, in complete sincerity, will embrace heresy and call it “Bible based” Christianity in contrast to what The Church always and everywhere has believed, is one of his better tricks.
>> “The point is, if this is true, is it possible that this crypto-Marcionite heresy (if one chooses to accept the traditional view of Paulcianism) or crypto-Arian heresy (if one chooses to accept Conybeare’s research) has managed to survive and flourish?” <<
I’d even suppose a middle way is quite possible: That the original Paulician movement was more similar to Photius’ descriptions of gnostic paganism(recognizing some level of mischaracterization), but evolved into something vaguely similar to Arianism over 1000 years, lacking the ability to preserve a written dogma, but maintaining an antipathy for orthodoxy.
What’s fascinating about these is the way that certain Baptist apologists find comfort recognizing vague similarities between their own heresies and the heresies of plainly only quasi-Christian groups, as if having commonality with more rank heresies make their own heresies more credible. If I might beg the argument a bit, wouldn’t you expect that given the thousands of varieties of enemies of the Church, wouldn’t you expect that a few of them would try the same tactic?
TQC, do you really think it makes Baptists MORE credible to find similarities between Baptist doctrines and heresies that assert Christ was a mere creature?
>> “The point is, if this is true, is it possible that this crypto-Marcionite heresy (if one chooses to accept the traditional view of Paulcianism) or crypto-Arian heresy (if one chooses to accept Conybeare’s research) has managed to survive and flourish?” <<
... and boasting of ties to Bogomil churches are all the stranger.
Why? It's about the most reliable single piece of source information about the Paulicians that we have - much more reliable than the third- and fourth-hand polemical Greek sources that most Catholic/Orthodox writers rely upon.
Thinking of adult baptism as a sacrament and the Lord's Supper as "tasting the body and drinking the holy blood of our Lord Jesus Christ" are not Baptist beliefs.
Well, we need to keep in mind that very few people make the strict claim that groups like the Paulicians were exactly the same as today's Baptists. Rather, these groups should be thought of as "baptistic," meaning that they displayed general doctrinal attributes that were contradistinct from the prevailing apostate Catholic/Orthodox religion surrounding them, and which are generally in line with historic Baptist positions in modern times. Indeed, the "Baptist successionism" argument is as much of an Irenaean error as is the Catholic arguments for "apostolic succession." Neither are true, and neither are necessary. Indeed, Baptists even today differ on minor, non-soteriological or Christological doctrines. That's the nature of mankind.
After all, though the Catholics make the hollow boast of "unity", can we really say that the hundreds of different types of Catholics with all their different approaches to doctrine and practice, past and present, are any less divided than Baptists or anyone else? I mean, come on, we have Catholics on this thread running their mills about the Paulicians being Adoptionists, apparently forgetting the fact that one of their own revered Doctors of the Church - Abelard - was openly and avowedly neo-adoptionist and got his writings condemned because of it. The simple fact of a political unity around the office of the papacy doesn't change the fact that Catholicism has no more unity than does Protestantism. If unity were the determining factor in orthodoxy, then we might as well all convert to Mormonism.
This being said, I would not agree with your statement that the Paulicians viewed baptism as a "sacrament" (with all the erroneous soteriological baggage from Catholicism that this term carries with it). The Key of Truth makes it pretty plain that for the Paulicians, it was believe first, then baptism. They didn't attach a saving efficacy to it, hence it isn't proper to suggest that they viewed it as a "sacrament," per se (though they certainly gave it much more respect than do many Evangelical Christians today).
As for the Paulician belief in transubstantiation? Yes, that was obviously in error. However, even in this, there is no evidence from the KoT (or any other source) that they attached the same sort of merit to taking the Lord's Supper (even with transubstantiation) that the Catholics do to the mass.
Errors? Yes. Damnable heresies that indicate they were rejecting Christ? No.
Also, the article indicates that they may have been adoptionist which contradicts an earlier reference that "they held to the orthodox view of the Trinity".
Yes, the article says that they "may" have been adoptionist - based upon what is openly admitted to be inference (at best) on the part of Conybeare. On an earlier thread, I basically had this discussion - in detail - with dangus, and he basically didn't provide any sort of response to my arguments against Paulician "adoptionism."
Conybeare's whole reasoning for the claim of adoptionism rests on his belief that, for the first three or four centuries, almost the entirety of orthodox Christianity was in fact adoptionist. He considered it likely that Patrick of Ireland was an adoptionist (which he wasn't). Conybeare thought that the use of the sign of the fish (an UNIVERSAL Christian symbol) indicated adoptionism. He thought that the practice of celebrating the Feast of the Theophany on January 6 by Eastern churches was a sure sign of their adoptionist origins (i.e. Eastern Orthodoxy would basically have started out as a bunch of adoptionist heretics, too!).
Obviously, his reasoning for these is daffy. Equally daffy is his efforts at "reading in" adoptionism into the text of the KoT by reconstructing words that were effaced from the text, always suggesting a word which would be adoptionist in doctrine - regardless of whether the word really made any contextual sense. In other words, his arguments for Paulician adoptionism from the text are circular - he invents the evidence, and then uses it to "prove" the thesis.
However, reading what the KoT actually says shows that they were NOT adoptionists.
Let's look at some facts. One typical claim is that the Paulicians got their doctrine (and their name) from Paul of Samosata. Problem with this is, none of Paul of Samosata's distinctive doctrines seem to exist in the Key of Truth. Paul taught, among other things, that Christ was born a man, but was filled with divine power from his birth (not from his baptism). He also taught that the Holy Spirit was not a personality, but merely a "power" of God. The KoT, however, barely mentions the birth of Christ, and treats the Holy Spirit as a personality. It's odd that, if the Paulicians got their doctrine from Paul of Samosata and were still identifiable as such (hence, supposedly, the name), they would not reflect any of Paul's actual distinctive beliefs.
Further, the Paulicians employed a thoroughly Trinitarian baptismal formula. As part of the credo, the Elect one doing the baptising would employ a trinitarian usage of Matthew 28:19, and the one being baptised would declare that s/he believes in and worships all three Persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit - seemingly equally. the Paulicians baptised by immersion coupled with triple pouring of water over the head. This was a common method in the Eastern church, in fact, it was common all over the Trinitarian world, being witnessed as the baptismal way by Tertullian, Jerome, Cyril, and Basil. The Catholics still baptise adult converts this way, as well. Obviously, the method is associated intimately with Trinitarian groups.
Yet, Conybeare seems to think that this triple pouring indicated "adoptionism" and "unitarianism." Why it should indicate these for the Paulicians, instead of the Trinitarianism is indicates for everyone else, I have no idea.
Also, the Key of Truth repeated uses the phrase "only-born Son" to describe Jesus - a phrase which would seem to correspond to the Greek monogenes, which as we know, is intimately bound up with Trinitarian apologetic arguments and theology.
In short, the Paulicians weren't adoptionist, by any fair-minded and reasonable reading of their actual source documents. Others may say they were adoptionist, but they don't seem to have said this about themselves.
Clearly the Paulicians held the same belief as Baptists in that adult baptism after coming to faith was the ordinance they practiced and their pastors were not of an elevated rank. It really is such a shame so little dependable information can be found.
I agree. What is also a shame is that Catholic writers, rather than just perhaps accepting the facts about cases like this, would prefer to keep bandying about out-of-date rubbish.
“We confess and believe that there is one true God, of whom our Lord Christ speaketh, John xvii. 3 : This is life Eternal, that they should know thee the only true God and him whom thou didst send, Jesus Christ. Again we confess and believe in Jesus Christ, [a new creature and not] creator, as St. Paul saith to the Hebrews, ch. iii. 2 : He is faithful to his creator, as was Moses in all his house. Again ye shall believe in the intercession of our Lord Jesus Christ and of no others. Ye shall believe in the holy apostles and in all who are the Universal Catholic Church, and are not Latins, Greeks, or [Armenians].”
Who added the brackets around “a new creature and not”? This tends to suggest an addition of the words by someone other than the author. Or, were you further trying to stress these wordes by use of the brackets?
Reading 29 posts thus far on this thread, the word of God, the Bible seems of little authority to any contributor.
I remember reading some of them in complete disbelief that they are either being regenerated or have survived all these centuries.
They all profess the same Catechisms. What they practice is a different story. All Baptists do not all profess the same catechism (some are reformed others are not, etc.) and they sure practice in much more diverse fashion than even the most diverse Catholics.
we have Catholics on this thread running their mills about the Paulicians being Adoptionists, apparently forgetting the fact that one of their own revered Doctors of the Church - Abelard - was openly and avowedly neo-adoptionist and got his writings condemned because of it
The key is if he deferred to the Church in the end or not. St. Augustine's writings are not all orthodox, but he always deferred to the Church. St. Gregory of Nyssa for a while preached universal salvation as his mentor (Origen), but he recanted those teachings. Speculation was always allowed so long as it did not involve the Holy Trinity, Christology and the Theotokos. It was the consensus patrum that determined ecumenically if a teaching was orthodox or not. Erroneous hypothesis were just that, so long as the author deferred to the Church in the end. Even Origen was not personally condemned, but only his later teachings.
The simple fact of a political unity around the office of the papacy doesn't change the fact that Catholicism has no more unity than does Protestantism
Orthodoxy is a matter of Ecumenical Councils and not of papacy. Papacy is there only to ensure it is adhered to. Or at least that's what it was in the first millennium.
Conybeare's whole reasoning for the claim of adoptionism rests on his belief that, for the first three or four centuries, almost the entirety of orthodox Christianity was in fact adoptionist
There were probably elements of that given that the Church did not formally agree on the Trinitarian and Christological dogmas until the 4th century and adoptionism was not part of them. Obviously the "entirety" of orthodox Christianity could not have been adoptionist.
[Paul of Samosata] also taught that the Holy Spirit was not a personality, but merely a "power" of God
That's consistent with Judaism, as is adoptionism: being anointed by the power of God makes him the messiah (meshiyah), or christos, "the anointed one." The Old Testament refers to Israel's kings by that title. It was St. Paul who turned that title into a personal name, and he most assuredly refers to Christ as separate from God. You can find David being called christos in the Septuagint (LXX). There is nowhere in the Bible where the Spirit of God is introduced as a "Person" or as a hypostatic reality (hypostasis ), but only as a divine breath coming from God. The early church did not have a clearly defined doctrine of the Holy Trinity or who Jesus Christ was, which is why so many Christological and Trinitarian heresies abounded.
Further, the Paulicians employed a thoroughly Trinitarian baptismal formula. As part of the credo, the Elect one doing the baptising would employ a trinitarian usage of Matthew 28:19, and the one being baptised would declare that s/he believes in and worships all three Persons
Of course they did because by then the only version of Matthew 28:19 that survived was the Trinitarian version. However, Eusebius' numerous references to Mat 28:19 prior to the first Ecumenical Council (early 4th century) seem to suggest pretty convincingly that some copies did not have the Trinitarian Formula as we know it, but rather say "go therefore and baptize all nations in my name." Likewise, all references to post-Pentecostal baptisms in the New Testament are made in the name of Jesus, which strongly suggests that the Trinitarian Formula of mat 28:19 is a latter day addition. Of course, Paulicians being a sect of the 7th century would have only the Triniatrian version to work with, so it is no surprise they made Trinitarian baptisms.
This was a common method in the Eastern church, in fact, it was common all over the Trinitarian world, being witnessed as the baptismal way by Tertullian, Jerome, Cyril, and Basil
That's novel. Can you provide references?
Also, the Key of Truth repeated uses the phrase "only-born Son" to describe Jesus - a phrase which would seem to correspond to the Greek monogenes, which as we know, is intimately bound up with Trinitarian apologetic arguments and theology.
Monogenes means only-begotten. Only-born would be monotokos. There is a huge Christological difference between them. Monogenes means that the Word is eternally generated and pre existed his birth as a man. Monotokos would mean that he didn't exist until he was born. That is adoptionist par excellence.
Conybeare had the following footnote associated with those brackets:
There are words here effaced in the text which appear to be as translated. Mr. Alex. Eritzean of Tiflis, independently examining the MS., deciphered the words partly erased in the same manner.
True, but the original post and the piece the OP quoted had little to do with the Scriptures, as well. The author of the original piece cited appears to assert your history as being through these heretical Paulicians.
So an issue of post-apostolic Church history is being discussed. And the question is, whether or not Baptists officially claim their apostolic lineage through this group or whether the other version, where apostolic lineage through the Church of England is being asserted.
As to whether or not "the Bible seems of little authority," that seems to be a little bit of a non-sequitur with this conversation.
TQC: “Further, the Paulicians employed a thoroughly Trinitarian baptismal formula. As part of the credo, the Elect one doing the baptising would employ a trinitarian usage of Matthew 28:19, and the one being baptised would declare that s/he believes in and worships all three Persons
Kosta: “Of course they did because by then the only version of Matthew 28:19 that survived was the Trinitarian version.”
The Trinitarian formula was also used by the Arians, the Sebellians and the Nestorians, all Trinitarian heretics. This proves nothing save that they were syncretists.
“Monogenes means only-begotten. Only-born would be monotokos. There is a huge Christological difference between them. Monogenes means that the Word is eternally generated and pre existed his birth as a man. Monotokos would mean that he didn’t exist until he was born. That is adoptionist par excellence.”
TQC, thinking and worse preaching that Monogenes means “only born” is precisely the sort of loose theology and lousy translating which perpetuates Trinitarian heresies throughout the Christian ecclesial groups outside The Church. If one believes that Monogenes means Monotokos, its no wonder that one would claim Trinitarian heretics as spiritual ancestors. One should not, however, recite the Creed and claim to believe it.
>> There are words here effaced in the text which appear to be as translated. Mr. Alex. Eritzean of Tiflis, independently examining the MS., deciphered the words partly erased in the same manner. <<
This is hugh and series! NOW I’m curious who made those editorial notes! Someone attempted to ERASE part of the text that belied the notion that Paulicians were Christian? Why didn’t Conybeare attempt that translation? Was he hesitant to because of its erasure, or was he covering up something? If he was hesitant to because of its erasure, then I’m real curious if he made any notes about it. If he erased it, then the notion that this exonerates the Paulicians of Gnosticism is blown to smithereens, because if he’d erase portions of a text, who knew what entire sections he might leave out. This might explain why Conyebeare’s work seems to have almost zero impact.
It might seem a lot to dismiss an entire work base on one edit, but let’s keep in mind the question here is whether the Paulicians were or were not Christian, and the evidence that has been tampered by SOMEONE was changed from declaring that Christ was creator of the universe to saying that he was not.
Thanks, Kosta. It’s great having someone who has a native appreciation of the nuances of Greek. Translated into English, the distinction between “only-born” and “only-begotten” is somewhat diminished.
>> What is also a shame is that Catholic writers, rather than just perhaps accepting the facts about cases like this, would prefer to keep bandying about out-of-date rubbish. <<
The Encyclopedia Brittanica is written by Catholic writers? When your zeal to dismiss evidence is so great that you dismiss the Encyclopedia Brittanica as Catholic writers, I just don’t know what to write. But you still seem to be under the notion that the Key of Truth is perfect evidence, when it is not; that all other evidence should be summarily dismissed; that the Key of Truth supports the notion that the Paulicians were good Christians, when it proves they weren’t.
If anything, if the Key of Truth demonstrates that there are historical antecedents for Baptist theology among the Paulicians, it doesn’t support the notion that Baptists revived a remnant of true Christianity, it obliterates it by showing that the Baptist theology actually stems from quasi-Christian heresies.
As an aside: Your digression towards Abelard (who I’ll admit to having been previously unfamiliar) is downright bizarre. Abelard is not a Doctor of the Church. He is not even a saint. From what I can gather, he is highly respected as a PHILOSOPHER because of his development of dialecticism. He also influenced the descriptions by many in the Catholic Church of the nature of Limbo. But he was recognized as a heretic in his day, and is still regarded as one now. So where’s the great inconsistency within the Catholic Church?
I think you mistake the whole meaning of the unity of the Catholic Church. The claim of unity has nothing to do with any claim of perfect adherence among those who would call themselves Catholic. The claim is based on the fact that there is a single standard upon which adherence can be measured. Certainly, the faithful, even reknowned theologians, can be wrong on certain matters. But those who are faithful accept the correction of the Church.
In fairness, what he is saying is that this is how he translated it...and the other individual came up with the same translation of the effaced portion.
Does anybody know? I don't.
The charge that they were adoptionist was something I hadn't heard before. It seems to me that it is suspect at best to try and interpret something that was effaced (erased). For all we know it may have been erased because it was a bad copy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.