Yeah, it was a trend in his time among a number of churches actually

But it got shut down fairly quickly. Jeremias deals with this situation in the second to last chapter of his first book on infant baptism

He refers to it as "A Crisis Averted"

As for Baptists, I will say that the London Baptists did affirm the Apostle's, Nicene, and Athanasian Creed.

Though not explicitly in their confessions

The later Baptists really ruin it though. I have a much harder time with them.

And it's sad that they have lost any sense of historical liturgy :(

Went to a Pontifical TLM at Shrewsbury yesterday.

Very pleasant, and the Bishop has handed over the Cathedral to the ICKSP.

Neato

Baptists are Amerimutt tier

@SirLoin97 Emperor Constantine is a saint, dingus, and called the First Ecumenical Council. By Providence was he a tool that saved and expanded Christianity.

Miss me with that gay shit.

https://youtu.be/-xHJeFVTaf0

I think his point is that still he isnt a good reference for theology

Independently of other virtues

His making him out to be a heretic is where I draw the line. He could be right about the other matter, but not this.

He didn't say he was a heretic

Constantine was an Emperor, not a theologian. That's something we should all keep in mind.

I think Dant is getting that from, "Constantine is also not someone to base anything theological on, considering he favored the Arians and was baptized by an Arian."

Saying he favored Arians is a stretch though

He favored them relatively to many others

But that's like saying we shouldn't base any theology on Eusebius because he favored Arians relatively more than many others

We also use Tertullian and Origen for theology today even though they were both heretics

Constantine is no theologian, but he's certainly not a heretic

he was not baptized by an Arian

He was baptised by a former Arian who accepted the council(s) that condemned Arius

^^^

That too

MFW been accused of donatism by a boomed Australian papist but denying Constantine's baptism is actually donatist

Well an Arian baptism may not be valid because the trinitarian formula doesn't mean the same thing

It would be a baptism of, "The father, creature, and creature." Or "The father, creature, and Holy Spirit."

That's an issue certainly

No baptism outside the church anyway tbh

As long as the baptism is done with the correct formula is valid, which is why there is one baptism and it is wrotten how people who joined the Church from mildly heretical groups werent rebaptized

@Mozalbete ⳩ Yeah, but it's not a magical use of words, otherwise it would have to be said in Koine or maybe Aramaic

IE, if the meaning is changed, then it isn't the same thing

When an Arian says "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit," they do not mean the same thing as us

Mormons are peak example

Of course