I thought you two might be interested to see where the Baptists apparently trace their patrimony.
“I thought you two might be interested to see where the Baptists apparently trace their patrimony.”
The Paulicians weren’t named after +Paul but rather an heresiarch from Antioch named Paul who denied the divinity of Christ. He was essentially, as were the Paulicians, an Adoptionist heretic though they were also iconoclast heretics which as I remember it, the bishop wasn’t. The article also points to one of their most noted failings which was their syncretism. It seems they adopted all sorts of heretical practices with which, as we know, the East was infested in the 7th and 8th centuries. My understanding has been that the Paulicians adopted a number of Mohammedan practices and beliefs so I am amused to read that there are Baptists who believe that Mohammedanism is in part a product of their claimed spiritual ancestors. The weed of heresy, like the weed of crime, bears bitter fruit!
Its 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.