Thursday, March 11, 2010

St. Patrick Was A Baptist, Not A Roman Catholic

St. Patrick's Day is coming soon and I'd like to once again share a good article on the real Patrick. Contrary to the Roman Catholic's claim, he was NOT Roman Cathoic, but rather a Baptist.
Here is an edited list why he was a Christian and a Baptist and not Roman Catholic (go to the link above for the full article):
Number One: St. Patrick Baptized Only Professed Believers

Contrary to Catholic dogma, which teaches that infants are to be "baptized", in all of Patrick's writings he does not mention one single incident when he baptized an infant, much less someone who had not professed Christ as their Saviour.
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. Again, 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.
Number Three: In Church Government

St. Patrick Was A Baptist During his ministry, Patrick is recorded to have "founded 365 churches and consecrated the same number of bishops, and ordained 3,000 presbyters (Ancient British and Irish Churches, William Cathcart, page 282).
Number Four: Patrick Was A Baptist In Independence From Creeds, Councils, Popes, etc.
Patrick never attended one council and recognized no authority over him, save that of the Lord Jesus Himself. 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. He recognized no Pope. He recognized no Cardinal. 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.
Number Five: In Doctrine

Patrick Was A Baptist In all of his writings, all of the doctrine that Patrick espouses adherence to is consistent with historic Baptist doctrine. The venerable preacher wrote, "It is Christ who gave His life for thee (and) is He who speaks to thee. He has poured out upon us abundantly the Holy Spirit, the gift and assurance of immortality, who causes men to believe and become obedient that they might be the sons of God and joint heirs with Christ." In this one statement, Patrick alludes to six (6) major Baptist doctrines:

a. Patrick believed in the substitutionary atonement of Christ.
He did not believe that salvation comes through catechism, communion, confession or christening. He believes what Baptists have always believed, that all are saved by the Grace of God, through faith in His Son, coming in repentance, and by His blood. William Cathcart wrote, "There is no ground for doubting but that he preached the gospel of repentance and faith in Ireland, and that his ministrations were attended by overwhelming success" (The Baptist Encyclopedia, page 887).

b. He believes in the free gift of the Holy Spirit which comes to the believer at the moment of salvation. He does not believe that the gift of the Holy Spirit is a separate work of grace, nor is He manifested by speaking in tongues (John 14:16).
c. He also firmly conveys the message of the eternal security of the believer in that those who are genuinely saved have put on immortality (II Timothy 1:10).
d. He confirms his belief that men must be drawn by God in order to be saved (John 6:44).
e. Patrick affirms his conviction in the sonship of the believer (John 1:12). He believes that while Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God, every true believer in Christ is also a son.
f. And the great Irish theologian attests to the fact that all believers are joint-heirs with Christ (Romans 8:16-17). Patrick's doctrine is also recorded by his disciples. Comgall writes, "religion does not exist in bodily efforts..." Muirchu states that the ancient poet Dubthac was redeemed under the ministry of Patrick and that he "...first on that day believed in God and it was imputed to him for righteousness" No mention of baptism for salvation. No mention of a confessional. No mention of communion. Patrick taught his disciples well that salvation comes only by and through the grace of Almighty God.

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. Also from his writings, we know that Patrick believed that the believer himself should partake of both elements of communion, the bread and the cup, and not just the administrator exclusively.
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. Dr. Jarrell wrote, "In all the descriptions of the Eucharist quoted there is no evidence that it is...", or literally becomes the flesh of Christ and His blood. The elements are merely symbols of such.
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. He knew nothing of priestly confession and priestly forgiveness. He was not acquainted with extreme unction. He strictly forbade the worship of images. Never once did he instruct his converts that they were to pay homage to Mary or worship her. He never mentions the intercession of Mary or of any departed saint. In all of his writings there is no mention at all of purgatory, of indulgences, of keeping holy days, of praying to anyone but God Himself, of the persecution of opposers of the church, of distinguishing clerical garments, of the rosary, of last rites, of mass, of allegiance to the Pope. None of these crucial Catholic doctrines and dogmas were practiced by or even mentioned by the great missionary to Ireland.


Unknown said...

It would seem to me--he never belonged to a denomination at all, but rather the independent Restoration Movement. He saw immersion as the moment when God did His work of removing the guilt of sin (Col 2:12; Rom 6; Acts 2:38). The Restoration Movement has always called for New Testament doctrines to be done the New Testament way, especially the Lord's Supper every Lord's Day.

The G

Unknown said...

I think he rather belonged to the Restoration Movement who have always insisted immersion was the moment God imputed the penalty paid in response to the sinner meeting the conditions of faith and repentance (Col 2:12-15; Acts 2:38; Rom 6:1-4). The Restoration Movement has always insisted the Lord's Supper was on the Lord's Day every Lord's Day as a memorial service and is an appointment for all believers. I don't think Patrick would've approved of denominations of any name.

Denise said...

Baptists are basically Christians who hold to biblical baptism, biblical Lord's Table, the autonomy of the local church, the sole authority of Scripture for all things pertaining to life and godliness. Baptists have been known down through the ages by various names, but with basic same distinctives.

Denise said...

In the "Tripartite Life of Patrick," the author marks this quotation concerning Patrick's views of the great commission of our Lord. He says: "Go, ye, teach. Meet is the order of teaching, before baptism. For it cannot be that the body, receive the sacrament of baptism, before the soul receives the verity of faith."(Smith, J. Lewis, Patrick of Ireland Not a Romanist, Associated Printing Co., Stockton, Calif., 1924, Pp. 17-18.) - Rev. John Summerfield Wimbish. "Saint Patrick Was a Baptist"

Patrick did not see anything efficacious in baptism b/c Scripture does not say its efficacious. Water never removes guilt, and baptism was never said to. Rather, Jesus made it clear that it was believers that are to be baptized and this we see in every instance of baptisms in Acts for example.

blah said...

"Restoration movement" = Campbellites = Church of Christ, a group that styles itself "non-denominational" but is itself a works-based cult propagating some of the vilest heresies on earth. Also rabidly anti-baptist ever since excluded from baptist fellowship in the 1800's (and rightfully so). So the knee jerk Church of Christ response to your post by "unknown" is no surprise. But St. Patrick a Campbellite? Utter nonsense.

Anonymous said...


"The Lord hath given to me, though humble, the power of working miracles among a barbarous people, such as are not recorded to have been worked by the great Apostles; inasmuch as, in the Name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, I have raised from the dead bodies that have been buried many years; but I beseech you, let no one believe that for these or the like works I am to be at all equaled with the Apostles, or with any perfect man, since I am humble, and a sinner, and worthy only to be despised."

Denise said...

Justice and Liberty,

Your claim is without merit and evidence. The evidence that Patrick was a biblical Christian and Baptistic is given in his own writing and teaching. Patrick never mentioned the pope nor the Roman Catholic Church. In fact any mention of any Roman Catholic dogma and leadership is MISSING from Patrick's writing and teaching. Instead he taught the Believer's Baptism (Matt. 28:18-19), for example, and that salvation came by way of grace alone through faith alone in the atonement of Christ alone that was completed at Calvary. He never taught indulgences, the eucharist, etc. Go back and read the article. What he held to was very much in line with Baptistic Christians.

Secondly Rome's own witness to Baptists is given through its own:

n 1524 the Roman Catholic Cardinal Hosius, who became the President of the Council of Trent (1560), admitted that Baptists dated back to the days of the Roman Emperor Constintine who was the first "Christian" Pontifix Maximus. Hosius said:

"Were it not that the Baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers." (Housius, Letters Apud Opera, pp.112,113 as quoted in Trail of Blood, p. 3, Ashland Av. Baptist Church, Lexington, KY, 1933)

Hosius further stated:

"The Anabaptists are a pernicious sect of which kind the Waldensian brethren seem to have been although some of them lately, as they testify in their apology, declare that they will no longer re-baptize, as was their former custom; nevertheless, it is certain that many of them retain their custom, and have united with the Anabaptists." (Hosius, Works of the Heresatics of our Times, Bk. I. 431. Ed. 1584 as quoted by John T. Christian).

In a court of law Hosius would be considered a hostile witness for the Baptists. The testimony of a hostile witness is the most convincing kind.

There is also a whole slew of historic facts you are ignorant of, not the least of which is the Waldensian Creed which proclaims biblical, not Roman Catholic doctrine and predates the Reformation by over 400 years. In fact, the document shows rejection of Rome and its popery. This document was written in 1120 AD.This by no means is the only group of Christians who were baptistic that we know about; there were dozens through history known by other names.

Should you choose to do your homework instead of buying an urban legend that Baptists only came about in 1600 go here for a start:

Btw, the signs you speak of were only done in the 1st century to validate the apostles and the Gospel; once established and once the Scriptures were completed, the signs were done away with.

I would suggest most importantly, that you study the Gospel of John and the book of Hebrews in order to know that works can't save one single soul, and unless you understand the absolute holiness of God and your inability to meet that holiness while God commands it, and thus your absolute utter need for salvation through Jesus Christ and His finished work alone, you can't be saved and will remain under the wrath of God and continue to earn Hell.