Behold over and over again I would briefly set out the words of my confession. I testify in truthfulness and gladness of heart before God and his holy angels that I never had any reason, except the Gospel and his promises, ever to have returned to that nation from which I had previously escaped with difficulty.
But I entreat those who believe in and fear God, whoever deigns to examine or receive this document composed by the obviously unlearned sinner Patrick in Ireland, that nobody shall ever ascribe to my ignorance any trivial thing that I achieved or may have expounded that was pleasing to God, but accept and truly believe that it would have been the gift of God. And this is my confession before I die. (The conclusion to Patrick’s Confession)
For more on Patrick’s legacy from an evangelical Christian perspective check out: Understanding St. Patrick (by Nathan Finn), and Dr. Russell Moore’s What Evangelicals Can Learn from Saint Patrick.
I so wanted to do a post on why Patrick wasn’t a Baptist, but just didn’t have the time. Maybe next year . . .
John,
The first link I give for further reading at the end of my post, links to Criswell’s explanation of why Patrick is a Baptist. I’m guessing he may not have been. Oh, and just having people in robes to be baptized doesn’t imply immersion, and some Catholics immersed so that doesn’t make you a Baptist.
Anyway if you have a link or some simple explanation, it’d be interesting, since I just read part of the defense for why he is one!
Thanks,
Bob
Well, maybe I’ll do a little work on it. But primarily, I’ll be benefiting from that book on Baptist Successionism by James McGoldrick which I promote from time to time. McGoldrick was a Baptist Successionist who became a historian specifically to learn the history that would back up the claims he’d always heard made by his Baptist successionist leaders, only to learn that genuine historical research undermines their claims. He devotes a chapter to Patrick. As cited in a Founder’s Journal review of the book , McGoldrick’s research will conclude “St. Patrick operated under the auspices of the bishop of Rome and did not adhere to the Baptist conception of church, sacraments or ministry.”
More on that later. . . Stay tuned, true believers!
In the meantime, the review of McGoldrick’s book, Baptist Successionism, can be read at this link:
http://capthk.wordpress.com/2006/09/25/baptist-successionism/
thanks John!
As you requested, part one of “Why Saint Patrick was NOT a Baptist” has just been posted. I’m going to deal with one point at a time until I work through McGoldrick’s entire chapter. I think it’ll prove enlightening not only for successionists, but others who’d like to learn more about St. Patrick, as well.
People, it doesn’t matter whether he was Baptist or Catholic. You don’t need a denominational label to lead people to Christ. I certainly don’t believe that when we get to Heaven there will be sections of Catholics or sections of Baptists. Get over this pettiness, and in the spirit of St. Patrick, focus on what he did–sharing the Gospel. All of this debate is just a distraction from what really matters.
Patrick was a true saint with a lower case S. He was a man of the people after the people’s hearts for God. I could say he was anabaptist; not baptist, but you would make me back it up with fact. Here is a tidbit or two though: I believe he thought like and anabaptist, taught like and anabaptist and was mostly definitely not born into Christ until he was old enough to choose for himself. In addition, he was a studier; a lifetime student of the Word of God and therefore also pietist. As an anabaptist pietist, he was certainly the very first member of the Church of the Brethren (even though the denomination wasn’t really formed till 1708). There you go. Case solved.
Erin go bragh!