Why Saint Patrick was NOT a Baptist, part 1

To most people, this is almost a pointless distinction to make. “Everyone knows that Saint Patrick was a Roman Catholic priest, right?” Not so.saint-patrick There are some wishful thinkers out there in the realm of Baptist fundamentalism who attempt to annex this 4th to 5th century missionary to Ireland into their pantheon of ancient prototypical “Baptists.” Granted, this is a minority view among Baptists, however, it is the view with which I was raised. This view of Baptist history is called by scholars “Baptist Successionism,” but among its adherents it’s usually known as “Landmarkism.”

 As you know St. Patrick’s Day has come and gone two days ago. March 17th is officially recognized by Roman Catholics as the feast day of St. Patrick, commemorating the date of his death. Like most years, about a day before this holiday arrives, I think to myself, I ought to do a little homework to combat this notion that St. Patrick is a Baptist, but I usually run out of time before I can make any headway. So I drop it until about March 16th of the following year. Well, this year, I happened to read a St. Patrick’s Day devotional post by Bob Hayton  at Fundamentally Reformed. I commented that I’d intended to post a view contrary to the successionist view of St. Patrick, and missed my “deadline,” but Bob encouraged me to go ahead and do it anyway, so here goes. Looks like this might turn into a series.

 I’m by no means a historical scholar, just a Christian who cares to learn the truth about Baptist history, having been burned by so much bad history in the name of promoting the Baptist tradition. A few years ago, I read a book review in the Founders Journal of a book called Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History, by Dr. James Edward McGoldrick, a professor of church history at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary. I was encouraged by the review, ordered the book, and found that it does a very good job of examining the claims of Baptist Successionism in the light of academic Baptist Successionismhistorical scholarship. Chapter 4 of this book, “St. Patrick: A Baptist?” will serve as the basis of this series.

 The only concession one can make about the beliefs and practices of Saint Patrick is the undocumented and therefore uncertain nature of them. This is where Baptist successionists find the wiggle room to make the claims that they make. McGoldrick writes on page 24:

 All who have undertaken serious research on the life and thought of Saint Patrick have discovered early that the materials available for the reconstruction of his career are few, and some that have been employed are of dubious reliability. Scholars, both within and without the Roman Catholic Church, have recognized this problem, and, consequently, they have had to admit that their findings are tentative. Only two brief, nontheological writings of Patrick are extant, so interpreters are not in a position to make dogmatic judgments about his doctrinal position. Collateral evidence from the period of Patrick’s life is very scant and does not enlarge our knowledge of his beliefs very much. Moreover, legends abound about practically every phase of Patrick’s life, and separating fact from fiction may, at points, be impossible. The saint’s own works, The Confession and the Letter to Coroticus, are the only unimpeachable sources of information about his views. These, and Muirchu’s monograph on Patrick composed in the seventh century, provide little more than a biographical sketch [see St. Patrick: His Writings and Muirchu’s Life, ed. and tr. A. B. E. Hood (Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield, 1978)].

 So a little biographical material is all we can trust. His theological views, his views on the sacraments (ordinances, for my Baptist readers), his views on church government and ministry, if they are to be known at all, will have to be read carefully between the lines within the context of Patrick’s day and age. By the time this series is finished, I think Dr. McGoldrick will have helped us realize that the Baptist Successionist view is little more than wishful thinking.

 Part two will examine Saint Patrick’s probable, or possible, views on revelation, and compare it with the Protestant, Reformed, Evangelical and Baptist view historically known as Sola Scriptura.

update: Dr. Russel Moore at his “Moore to the Point” blog directs us to a more constructive way to benefit from the legacy of St. Patrick (read blog here). He recommends Dr. Philip Freeman’s biography, St. Patrick of Ireland. You can also view a short television interview with Dr. Freeman about St. Patrick (view segment here).

Advertisements

4 responses

  1. Am reading JEM right now and learning from it. He’s quite right to react to the Trail of Blood approach of rooting around in history to find proto-Baptists but he over reacts a bit by denying connections (and then admitting them) between Particular and General Baptists and the Anabaptists. He concedes that the early 17th cent PBs and GBs took their view of Baptism from the Mennonites. Further, he’s right that the Albigenses and Waldenses etc were not “proto-Baptists” but some of the dissenting groups did reject paedobaptism and they do form the background for the Anabaptist rejection of paedobaptism. We should come down between the Trail of Blood and the successionist view.

  2. It’s been a couple of years since I read the entire book, at the time I didn’t notice what you point out about first denying then admitting the connection between Anabaptism and Baptism. I think that instinct to deny what is so clear to impartial observers is very telling about the foundation of Baptist distinctives. Like I pointed out two posts ago, having spent years thinking, reading and praying through the issues of Baptist faith and practice, I’ve concluded that whatever is right about the Baptist tradition they learned from Reformed theology, and whatever is wrong about it, they learned from Anabaptism.

    Thanks for your comments, Dr. Clark.

  3. John,

    I think that Criswell used the Patrick’s letter to Coroticus to aid his theory of Patrick baptizing converts Baptist style. Let me know if you need the link to his article. It’ll help your research.

    Don’t all Baptists, though, love wiggle room?

  4. I’m planning to read Criswell’s sermon. I’ll take a look at how he deals with baptism. Thanks for the tip.

    And, yes, a little wiggle room lets them get it out of their system so they can keep up the whole “no dancing” thing. 😉

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: