A look at Matthew 16 vs dogma

[Dr. Walter]

I hate to tell you this but this is not the only quotation from Hosius. However, he is referring to their historical existence for the past 1200 years and other CONTEMPORARY Reformed Catholics confirm the same thing. Zwingli the Swiss reformer stated the same thing but started with the Novationists 1300 years ago instead of with the Donatists.

"The institution of the Anabaptists is no novelty, but for THIRTEEN HUNDRED years has caused great trouble to the church" - John T. Christian, A HIstory of the Baptists, (Texarkana, R: Bogard Press, 1922, Vol. I, p.86.

A more objective translator of Cardinal Hosius, Caroline White, Phd, Oxford University, Head of Oxford Latin, translates its thus:

"For not so long ago I read the edict of the other prince who lamented the fate of the Anabaptists who, so we read, were pronounced heretics twelve hundred years ago and deserving of capital punishment. He wanted them to be heard and not taken as condemned without a hearing."

Hosius and Zwingli were not the only ones to confirm this as the Lutheran historian Johann Laurenze von Mosheim also confirmed they existed before Luther or Calvin - An Ecclesiastical History, (New York, Harper & Brothers, 1860), [Reprinted by Old Pasths Book Club, Box V. Rosemead CA, Second Ed.] Vol. II, pp. 119, 120

Oh lordy... Just look at the grammatical structure. He made no such claim. If this is all you can point to then you have a real problem there DHK.



That is because, they are mutually exclusive - by the very nature of their names (I.e. sola).

Peace!.

 

[BillySunday1935]

You responded exactly as I predicted. One very good historical example that the Roman monkish historians perverted their enemies is what you say about the Paulicians as being Manicheans or dualists. We do have a preserved writing from them called "The key of truth" and they repudiate the charge of being dualists or Manicheans. However, even with their own written denial Rome continues to make the same false charge then and now.

Sources please...

Where is the evidence? It has been gathered from the writings of the Catholic Monks themselves as they were the cheif complainers. There are literally scores of protestant historians who have research the subject and have written books providing the evidence.

Sources please...

You are right that the Roman monks painted their avowed enemies in the worst light possible. However, many times they contradicted themselves as some Roman inquisitors simply told the truth because the truth demonstrated they were not Catholic in doctrine or practice nor what other monkish revisionists of history had painted them.

I never said any such thing.

Of course you don't like to hear about this and your more than willing to believe the monkish revisionists even when they contradict each other about the same groups.

Well, then show me some REAL evidence to the contrary and I will think about it. Until then, this is all speculation.

Historians who have looked at the evidence objectively reject the idea that Waldo started the Waldenses as there were groups existing beleiving the very same thing when Waldo was born. There is a historical debate over the meaning of "waldenses" as many believe it means people of the valley rather than from the term "waldo."

I think you have confused my post with lori4dogs.

Peace!

 

[BillySunday1935]

I hate to tell you this but this is not the only quotation from Hosius. However, he is referring to their historical existence for the past 1200 years and other CONTEMPORARY Reformed Catholics confirm the same thing. Zwingli the Swiss reformer stated the same thing but started with the Novationists 1300 years ago instead of with the Donatists.

snip...

A more objective translator of Cardinal Hosius, Caroline White, Phd, Oxford University, Head of Oxford Latin, translates its thus:

"For not so long ago I read the edict of the other prince who lamented the fate of the Anabaptists who, so we read [in the edict of the other prince], were pronounced heretics twelve hundred years ago and deserving of capital punishment. He wanted them to be heard and not taken as condemned without a hearing."

Do you even read what I post? Apparently not. That was my source as well.

Carolinne White, Ph.D, Oxford University, Head of Oxford Latin

Just look at the words he wrote... Cardinal Hosius did not make the statement that you are attributing to him.

Hosius and Zwingli were not the only ones to confirm this as the Lutheran historian Johann Laurenze von Mosheim also confirmed they existed before Luther or Calvin - An Ecclesiastical History, (New York, Harper & Brothers, 1860), [Reprinted by Old Pasths Book Club, Box V. Rosemead CA, Second Ed.] Vol. II, pp. 119, 120

Hosius said no such thing in your above source. As to the others, well...I'll need to look into those to see if they are credentialed historians and if they are biased.

Peace!

 

[Dr. Walter]

Either you have not studied the history of Waldenses very carefully or you are intentionally trying to deceive. I will give you the benefit of the first rather than the latter.

I have the confessions of faith of the Waldenses and any seroius student knows there are two classifications of documents within Samuel Morelands compilations. There are those which are antipedobaptist confessions and those which are pedobaptist confessions. Any student of the Waldenses knows the group in the valley of Peimont was converted to the Presbyterians and adopted the pedobaptist position. However, the earlier waldenses confessions reject the pedobaptist position and condemn Rome as the Harlot.

Here are the references for the latter if you care to examine the evidence:

pages 210-244 in "The Churches of the Valley of Piemont" by Samuel Moreland, Hewy Hills, London, 1658

Furthermore, to suggest that the Waldneses were restricted to this geographical region has no historical evidence. Prior to this portion being converted to the Presbyterians many had become preachers among those called Anabaptists.

I love the Waldenses too!!

WALDO ("Valdesius") CONFESSION OF FAITH : Catholic to the Core

"In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and of the Blessed and Ever-Virgin Mary. Be it noted by all the faithful that I, Valdesius, and all my brethren, standing before the Holy Gospels, do declare that we believe with all our hearts, having been grasped by faith, that we profess openly that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three Persons, one God....

"We firmly believe and explicitly declare that the incarnation of the Divinity did not take place in the Father and the Holy Spirit, but solely in the Son, so that he who was the divine Son of God the Father was also true man from his Mother.

"We believe one Church, Catholic, Holy, Apostolic and Immaculate, apart from which no one can be saved, and in the sacraments therein administered through the invisible and incomprehensible power of the Holy Spirit, sacraments which may be rightly administered by a sinful priest....

"We firmly believe in the judgment to come and in the fact that each man will receive reward or punishment according to what he has done in this flesh. We do not doubt the fact that alms, sacrifice, and other charitable acts are able to be of assistance to those who die.

"And since, according to the Apostle James, faith without works is dead, we have renounced this world and have distributed to the poor all that we possess, according to the will of God, and we have decided that we ourselves should be poor in such a way as not to be careful for the morrow, and to accept from no one gold, silver, or anything else, with the exception of raiment and daily food. We have set before ourselves the objective of fulfilling the Gospel counsels as precepts.

"We believe that anyone in this age who keeps to a proper life, giving alms and doing other good works from his own possessions and observing the precepts from the Lord, can be saved.

"We make this declaration in order that if anyone should come to you affirming that he is one of us, you may know for certain that he is not one of us if he does not profess this same faith." [12]

In a statement of faith submitted to the bishop of Albano, Peter Waldo affirmed his belief in transubstantiation, prayers for the dead, and infant baptism. [13] The famed Baptist historian A.H. Newman drew the only conclusion warranted by the evidence.

"Waldo and his early followers had more in common with...Roman Catholicism than with any evangelical party. His views of life and doctrine were scarcely in advance of many earnest Catholics of the time."

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num3.htm

 

[DHK]

I love the Waldenses too!!

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num3.htm

I am glad that you do Lori.
That is why your site is from a RCIA apologetic site which quotes a lot of SDA material. A little biased are we?? Perhaps you should tell Bob Ryan about your site.

 

[Dr. Walter]

The written material that Hosius is reading from declares the Anabaptists were condemned 1200 years ago. He does not read this to repudiate it. He does not deny what he is reading to be factual. Remember, This Cardinal was one of the presidents of the council of Trent that spent much of their time condemning the Anabaptists. He is affirming that this is not the first time Rome has had problems with the Anabaptists and quotes this author to prove it.

Do you even read what I post? Apparently not. That was my source as well.

Carolinne White, Ph.D, Oxford University, Head of Oxford Latin

Just look at the words he wrote... Cardinal Hosius did not make the statement that you are attributing to him.



Hosius said no such thing in your above source. As to the others, well...I'll need to look into those to see if they are credentialed historians and if they are biased.

Peace!

 

[Dr. Walter]

In a statement of faith submitted to the bishop of Albano, Peter Waldo affirmed his belief in transubstantiation, prayers for the dead, and infant baptism. [13] The famed Baptist historian A.H. Newman drew the only conclusion warranted by the evidence.

"Waldo and his early followers had more in common with...Roman Catholicism than with any evangelical party. His views of life and doctrine were scarcely in advance of many earnest Catholics of the time."

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num3.htm

The "famed Baptist historian A.H. Newman" did not do his research thoroughly and other Baptist historians who knew Newman corrected his errors (Dr. W.A. Jarrell, "Baptist Church Perpetuity or History", Dr. Thomas Armitage, "The History of the Baptists", Dr. John T. Christian, "A History of the Baptists" and Dr. William Jones "The History of the Christian Church" as well as, some Waldensian historians, Dr. Alix Munston, "Israel of the Alps,"

 

[Thinkingstuff]

That is why I do not take your approach because it is futile. You must ultimately depend upon the power of the Holy Spirit and by faith use the SWORD of the Spirit trusting him to break down the imaginations and traditions of men (2 Cor. 10:5).

Reliance on the Holy Spirit is it. However, you can't misrepresent their belief which is often done. And remember we as baptist, protestants, etc ad infinitum have our own "traditions of men". We are just as guilty there. Very few people are actually Sola Scriptura. Most are Scriptura from the understanding of their particular denominational view. or Tradition.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Let me put it to you this way. How were you converted to Christ? You were a well educated Roman Catholic! Was it through technical arguments against Catholicism?

Reliance on the Holy Spirit is it. However, you can't misrepresent their belief which is often done. And remember we as baptist, protestants, etc ad infinitum have our own "traditions of men". We are just as guilty there. Very few people are actually Sola Scriptura. Most are Scriptura from the understanding of their particular denominational view. or Tradition.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Let me put it to you this way. How were you converted to Christ? You were a well educated Roman Catholic! Was it through technical arguments against Catholicism?

I actually wasn't. I became more educated when I left the church through many years of discussions with my family who wanted to real me back in. They were educated (Particularily dad) but didn't get me past the nominal stage. What led me to Christ was the witness of missionaries by their life and their simple testimony of their words. Ultimately, it was the holy spirit. What keeps me is the observable change in my life or what I call applicability.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I actually wasn't. I became more educated when I left the church through many years of discussions with my family who wanted to real me back in. They were educated (Particularily dad) but didn't get me past the nominal stage. What led me to Christ was the witness of missionaries by their life and their simple testimony of their words. Ultimately, it was the holy spirit. What keeps me is the observable change in my life or what I call applicability.

What keeps me is the inner witness and power of the indwelling Spirit of God and the the truth of God's Word. Everything else in life, including my feelings change but when I come back to the Word of God it always says the same thing. My foundation remains "To the law and to the testimony if they speak not according to THIS WORD there is no light in them" (Isa. 8:20). Jesus said, "ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free."

The most important truth is the inspiration and final authority of the Scriptures for faith and practice. Throw this out and you will sink fast and furious.

 

[BillySunday1935]

The written material that Hosius is reading from declares the Anabaptists were condemned 1200 years ago. He does not read this to repudiate it. He does not deny what he is reading to be factual.

Nor does Hosius endorse what he is reading as factual. All we can do is look at what he did say without inference:

"For not so long ago I read the edict of the other prince"
He has read this edict from some other prince...

"...who lamented the fate of the Anabaptists..."

Again, he is stating the position of the other edict's author...

"...who, so we read..."

And what did he say that he had just read? The edict of the other prince!

"..., were pronounced heretics twelve hundred years ago and deserving of capital punishment."

Ok - the other prince believes this and wrote it in his edict.

"He [the other prince] wanted them to be heard and not taken as condemned without a hearing."

So, at most he is re-stating what the other prince believes/desires AND that the other prince is sympathetic to the plight of the Anabaptists.

Nowhere does Hosius either agree or disagree with the edict. Further, we don't really know the context of this one passage. It's just not there.

Remember, This Cardinal was one of the presidents of the council of Trent that spent much of their time condemning the Anabaptists. He is affirming that this is not the first time Rome has had problems with the Anabaptists and quotes this author to prove it.

I believe that to be one HUGE stretch and is simply inference on your part and on the part of those who hold to your views.

Ultimately, if this is the lynchpin upon which you hold to the lineage of the Anabaptists, then you really are in a pickle.

Peace!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

What keeps me is the inner witness and power of the indwelling Spirit of God and the the truth of God's Word. Everything else in life, including my feelings change but when I come back to the Word of God it always says the same thing. My foundation remains "To the law and to the testimony if they speak not according to THIS WORD there is no light in them" (Isa. 8:20). Jesus said, "ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free."

The most important truth is the inspiration and final authority of the Scriptures for faith and practice. Throw this out and you will sink fast and furious.

Ah but Dr. Walter you can't sink fast and furious for you are elect. What about the perserverance of the saints ;-)

 

[Dr. Walter]

The Context of Matthew 16:18

Jesus chose the very geographical backdrop to speak about building His church. It was near Ceaserea Philippi (Mt. 16:13). Look at the very name. It consisted of the Emperor of the empire (Ceasar) and his local authorized representative "Phillip" this corresponds to Jesus and His church.

Ceaserea Philippi was located on a large limestone plateau at the foot of Mount Hermon, thus built upon rock.

Within the City of Ceaserea Philippi there were many temples as it was the religious center of the region. The temple of Ceasar made of beautiful white marble was there but when you entered it Ceasar was not there. The temple of Pan was there but when you entered it Pan was not there. However, that day tabernacled among men in human flesh the God of heaven was standing there - Jesus Christ.



At the entrance of the valley stood a huge 1500 foot high rock upon the top of which was the fortress of Banias that guarded the entrance to the city.

It was with all of this as the backdrop that Jesus said "upon this rock I will build my church."

The question Jesus asked his disciples was not "who do men say that Peter is"? The question was who do people say that I am?" This question was followed by another "whom do you say that I am?"

This is the question of the context and it is answered in many different ways in this context. He is the Christ, the Son of the living God. He is the builder of the church. He is the bestower and thus the custodian of the Keys of the kingdom. He is the foundation upon which the true church of Jesus Christ.

When Paul wrote Timothy, he described the church of the living God to be the house of God and the pillar and ground of the truth (I Tim. 3:15) and "the truth" in particular that the church declares is who Jesus is:

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
I Tim. 3:16

Matthew 16:13-19 is not about Peter and who Peter is. It is about Christ and who Christ is. Where Peter fits into this question about who is Christ is that he characterizes the kind of material Christ uses to build His churches to proclaim Christ. In this representative capacity as a professor that Jesus is the Christ the Son of the Living God that Peter is given the "keys of the Kingdom."

This application is the testimony of Christ himself in Matthew 18:17-18 where the Church, not Peter is the final authority (v. 17) and the church not Peter holds the keys of the kingdom and administers them (v. 18).

This application is the testimony of Peter himself in 1 Pet. 2:4-8 where he characterizes the materials that "build up" the church to be that of "lively stones" in a context that gives glory to Christ as the "living Stone" (v. 4) the "the Cheif corner stone" (v. 6) and "the rock (petra) of stumbling" (vv. 7-8).

In Acts 2:11 Peter led the church in the use of the keys, but while Peter was still alive, James replaced him as the leader of the church (Acts 15) demonstrating he was not "the pope" or the holder of the keys of the kingdom.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Ah but Dr. Walter you can't sink fast and furious for you are elect. What about the perserverance of the saints ;-)

I was not speaking about ones salvation but about ones doctrinal stability and soundness in the faith. Saved people can be led into deception if they do not try the spirits by the Word of God.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The question Jesus asked his disciples was not "who do men say that Peter is"? The question was who do people say that I am?" This question was followed by another "whom do you say that I am?"

I disagree with this statement the question is

"Who do people say the Son of Man is?"

or translated with the understanding of the disciples is "who do people say the messiah is?" Jesus was referrencing the figure "son of man" menitoned in Daniel. Then later the question was

"Who do you say I am?"

Where Peter showed he got the significance of the first question and makes a large jump that no apostle had gotten to as yet.

You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

Shalom

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I was not speaking about ones salvation but about ones doctrinal stability and soundness in the faith. Saved people can be led into deception if they do not try the spirits by the Word of God.

Not if you believe in the perserverance of the saints.

 

[Dr. Walter]

You admit he is quoting the writer without disapproval and admit that you don't know the context but then you go right ahead and assume a position that the very words do not support.

Why would Zwingli acknowledge the same thing, especially when Zwingli was no friend of Anabaptists.

Even you must admit that Roman monk historians spoke of the Novationists, Donatists and Paulicians as "Anabaptists" as it is in their own history. Where do you think the term "Anabaptist" originated? Those being called "Anabaptists" hated that term and rejected it. It was Rome's term invented to condemn these people under Theodosius and the laws called "the codes of Justinian."

Rolland Bainton the Mennonite scholar in his book "The Reformation and the 16th Century" writes on page 99 that those called Anabaptists repudiated that name as it was given to them by Rome but perferred to call themselves simply baptists [Roland H. Bainton, The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, (Beacon Press, Boston), 1956, p. 99].

Don't you know your own Catholic history? Are you completely ignorant of the inquisitions? It is the Catholic Monks that called these people "Anabaptists" because they rejected the ordinances of Rome and "re-baptized" those who came to them.

Nor Hosius endorse what he is reading as factual. All we can do is look at what he did say without inference:

"For not so long ago I read the edict of the other prince"
He has read this edict from some other prince...

"...who lamented the fate of the Anabaptists..."

Again, he is stating the position of the other edict's author...

"...who, so we read..."

And what did he say that he had just read? The edict of the other prince!

"..., were pronounced heretics twelve hundred years ago and deserving of capital punishment."

Ok - the other prince believes this and wrote it in his edict.

"He [the other prince] wanted them to be heard and not taken as condemned without a hearing."

So, at most he is re-stating what the other prince believes/desires AND that the other prince is sympathetic to the plight of the Anabaptists.

Nowhere does Hosius either agree or disagree with the edict. Further, we don't really know the context of this one passage. It's just not there.



I believe that to be one HUGE stretch and is simply inference on your part and on the part of those who hold to your views.

Ultimately, if this is the lynchpin upon which you hold to the lineage of the Anabaptists, then you really are in a pickle.

Peace!

 

[Dr. Walter]

Look, I was paraphasing it as I did not have the Biblical text before me.

However, it is not true that Peter was ahead of the rest on this because all of the apostles had previously confessed this:

Mt 14:33 Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.

I disagree with this statement the question is or translated with the understanding of the disciples is "who do people say the messiah is?" Jesus was referrencing the figure "son of man" menitoned in Daniel. Then later the question was Where Peter showed he got the significance of the first question and makes a large jump that no apostle had gotten to as yet.

Shalom

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Look, I was paraphasing it as I did not have the Biblical text before me.

However, it is not true that Peter was ahead of the rest on this because all of the apostles had previously confessed this:

Mt 14:33 Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.

Are you sure they didnt add the little article "a" with that I'm not sure this is a recognition of jesus as messiah or as a man of power. Peter combines the two.