Church of Christ and Baptism

[Walter]

Why appeal to history that can be biased when the scriptures are so clear on the issue?

Yes, I believe they are clear but not as you have been taught to interpret them. I think it is VERY important to understand that the Church from it's very start believed & taught baptismal regeneration. Early Church history proves that. Nobody disputed baptismal regeneration. If it had been considered a false teaching then there would have been debate and division over it and there was none. There certainly was debate over Arianism and other heresy. In the second century, a man named Marcion taught that the God of the Old Testament was different from the God of Jesus. Marcion equated the creator God of the Old Testament with Satan. He so disdained the God of Judaism that he developed a canon of Scripture that included only the Gospel of Luke, the Acts of the Apostles, and some of the Pauline Epistles. In response to Marcion’s heresies, the bishops of Asia Minor excommunicated him (St. Polycarp of Smyrna called him "the firstborn of Satan").

The early Church’s response to Marcion illustrates an important point: Heresy is serious business, and it should be dealt with decisively. Again, nothing disputing baptismal regeneration, just writings affirming it. It was obviously never disputed.

Heresy has been around nearly as long as the Church. It is "the obstinate denial or doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith" (Code of Canon Law, canon 751). Heresy does great spiritual and societal damage, and it must be refuted. Indeed, the Church must respond to heresy in order to protect the faithful and guard the faith.

The writings of the early Church Fathers reflect this concern for refuting heresy. In Against Heresies, for example, St. Irenaeus described the evil caused by "certain men who have set the truth aside":


Some of the writers of Early Church history sat at the very feet of the Apostles who wrote these scriptures. Do you think the Apostles wouldn't have corrected them if they were misunderstanding such an important doctrine?

 

[DHK]

Baptism is a work of God. He uses man to administer it. The washing away of sins is only through Him who died and shed His blood for us.

God has nothing to do with the WORK or the ACT of baptism. He simply commands it. It is the work of a man. Even Jeremiah recognized this when he mocked such rituals:

Jeremiah 2:22 For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord GOD.

 

[DHK]

One needs to look no further than YOUR Protestant (yes, Baptist ARE Protestants) churches. Ordaining gay ministers, denying the deity of Christ, denying His physical resurrection, and on, and on, and on! American Baptists churches participated in a festival which worshipped the goddess Gaia! Apostasy is happening NOW.

Sorry to take this a bit off topic again, but I can't let Walter's tirade against Protestants stand without a good rebuttal. The fact is that among Baptists unfaithful pastors are dealt with under the law and if required a jail sentence is served. They are never allowed to pastor again if there is any stain of immorality on them.
"A bishop must be found blameless.

Time and time again we find the opposite in the RCC.
In fact it is in the news weekly.
Here it is again, today's news:

Vatican policies allowed priests to rape children, UN report says

The Vatican "systematically" adopted policies that allowed priests to rape and molest tens of thousands of children over decades, a UN human rights committee said Wednesday, urging the Holy See to open its files on pedophiles and bishops who concealed their crimes.



In a devastating report hailed by abuse victims, the UN committee severely criticized the Holy See for its attitudes toward homosexuality, contraception and abortion and said it should change its own canon law to ensure children's rights and their access to health care are guaranteed.



The Vatican promptly objected and its UN ambassador accused the committee of having betrayed the international body's own objectives by allowing itself to be swayed by pro-gay ideologues. He said it appeared the committee simply hadn't listened when the Holy See outlined all the measures it has taken to protect children.



The report, which took the Vatican by surprise in its harsh tone, puts renewed pressure on Pope Francis to move decisively on the abuse front and make good on pledges to create a Vatican commission to study sex abuse and recommend best practices to fight it. The commission was announced in December, but few details have been released since then.
The committee issued its recommendations after subjecting the Holy See to a daylong interrogation last month on its implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the key UN treaty on child protection, which the Holy See ratified in 1990.



Critically, the committee rejected the Vatican's longstanding argument that it doesn't control bishops or their abusive priests, saying the Holy See was responsible for implementing the treaty not just in the Vatican City State but around the world "as the supreme power of the Catholic Church through individuals and institutions placed under its authority."



'Code of silence'
In its report, the committee blasted the "code of silence" that has long been used to keep victims quiet, saying the Holy See had "systematically placed preservation of the reputation of the church and the alleged offender over the protection of child victims." It called on the Holy See to provide compensation to victims and hold accountable not just the abusers, but also those who covered up their crimes.



"The committee is gravely concerned that the Holy See has not acknowledged the extent of the crimes committed, has not taken the necessary measures to address cases of child sexual abuse and to protect children, and has adopted policies and practices which have led to the continuation of the abuse by, and the impunity of, the perpetrators," the report said.



It called for Francis' nascent abuse commission to conduct an independent investigation of all cases of priestly abuse and the way the Catholic hierarchy has responded over time, and urged the Holy See to establish clear rules for the mandatory reporting of abuse to police and to support laws that allow victims to report crimes even after the statute of limitations has expired.



No Catholic bishop has ever been sanctioned by the Vatican for sheltering an abusive priest, and only in 2010 did the Holy See direct bishops to report abusers to police where law enforcement requires it. Vatican officials have acknowledged that bishop accountability remains a major problem and have suggested that under Francis, things might begin to change.



Non-binding recommendations
The committee's recommendations are non-binding and there is no enforcement mechanism. Instead, the UN asked the Vatican to implement the recommendations and report back by 2017. The Vatican was 14 years late submitting its most recent report.



The committee is made up of independent experts, not other UN member states — the case on the larger and often politicized UN Human Rights Council, which also sits in Geneva. The Committee on the Rights of the Child is one of 10 UN bodies that monitor implementation of the core UN human rights treaties, and its 18 members include academics, sociologists and child development specialists from around the globe.
Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, who headed the Vatican delegation at the Jan. 16 session in Geneva, was clearly taken aback by the scathing tone of the report.



"It seems as if the document was prepared before the committee meeting, where the Vatican gave detailed responses on various points that weren't reported in this concluding document or seem to not have been taken into consideration," he told Vatican Radio.
While most attention has focused on child sex abuse, the committee's recommendations extended far beyond, into issues about discrimination against children and their rights to adequate health care, matters that touch on core church teaching about life and sexual morals.

http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/...wed-priests-to-rape-children-un-report-says-1


Horrible and despicable!

 

[The Biblicist]

Baptism is a work of God. He uses man to administer it.

Baptism is a command of God but it is not a work of God any more than tithing or circumcision is a work of God.

Indeed, the Roman Catholic Catechism regards baptism in the New Testament as equally parallel with circumcision in the Old Testament and I quote:

CIRCUMCISION: The rite prescribed in Judaism....was a sign of the covenant between God and His people Israel and prefigured the rite of Christian Baptism...." - Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, p. 871

527 Jesus' circumcision on the eighth day after his birth....This sign prefigures that "circumcision of Christ" which is Baptism." Ibid. p. 133

Therefore, to understand the relationship of circumcision to the Old Tesament believer is to understand the relationship of Baptism to the New Testament believer according to Catholic dogma.

Thus, simply replace the words "circumcision" or "circumcise" with the words "baptized" or "baptism" in Paul's treatise in Romans 4:9-13 and you have this clear and explicit view of baptism in the mind of Paul. I have replaced the words for circumcision with the words of baptism in the following quotation to merely illustrate my point:

9 ¶ Cometh this blessedness then upon the baptized only, or upon the unbaptized also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in baptism, or in unbaptism? Not in baptism, but in unbaptism.
11 And he received the sign of baptism, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being unbaptized: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not baptized; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
12 And the father of baptism to them who are not of the baptized only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet unbaptized.

Conclusion:

1. The blessing of justification occurs NOT IN BAPTISM - vv. 9-10

2. Baptism is only an external sign and thus visible "seal" that does not communicate justification but justification occured before the sign and seal of baptism.

3. Imputed righteousness is not conferred in baptism but through faith and the unbaptized believer is imputed righteousness.

Hence, baptism like circumcision is but a "sign" or "figure" and as a sign and figure it provides an external "seal" or confimation of justification that was received while IN UNBAPTISM.

 

[Protestant]

Really, DHK? Did you know that Waldo and his disciples upheld the orthodox Catholic belief in many ways. Because Waldo's confession of faith is quite specific in its affirmation of loyalty to traditional Catholicism, it bears quoting at length:

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

Peter Waldo, or more properly, ‘Waldes of Lyons’, was no friend of the Roman Catholic Church.

Instead, he and his followers were labeled ‘heretics’ for several reasons, not the least of which was their refusal to cease preaching the Gospel.

There are two significant English sources which translate original 12th and 13th century source materials containing confessions of faith written by the Waldenses as well as their alleged heresies as stated by their persecutors, the Church of Rome: Wakefield and Evan’s Heresies of the High Middle Ages (1968); and Samuel Morland’s [History of the Evangelical Churches of the Valleys of Piemont (1658).

The so-called confession of Peter Waldo was written by the Church of Rome. Waldo signed it to temporarily avoid prosecution, imprisonment, and/or death since the Inquisition was a very real threat in his day.

This fact is documented on pages 205 -206 of Heresies.

According to the Wikipedia article, Inquisition, the Waldenses were one of two non-Catholic groups which necessitated the Inquisition in the 12th century.

For a so-called ‘famed Baptist Historian’ to identify the Waldenses as sympathetic to Roman Catholicism is nothing less than a betrayal of truth and common sense.

 

[Walter]

Peter Waldo, or more properly, ‘Waldes of Lyons’, was no friend of the Roman Catholic Church.

Instead, he and his followers were labeled ‘heretics’ for several reasons, not the least of which was their refusal to cease preaching the Gospel.

There are two significant English sources which translate original 12th and 13th century source materials containing confessions of faith written by the Waldenses as well as their alleged heresies as stated by their persecutors, the Church of Rome: Wakefield and Evan’s Heresies of the High Middle Ages (1968); and Samuel Morland’s [History of the Evangelical Churches of the Valleys of Piemont (1658).

The so-called confession of Peter Waldo was written by the Church of Rome. Waldo signed it to temporarily avoid prosecution, imprisonment, and/or death since the Inquisition was a very real threat in his day.

This fact is documented on pages 205 -206 of Heresies.

According to the Wikipedia article, Inquisition, the Waldenses were one of two non-Catholic groups which necessitated the Inquisition in the 12th century.

For a so-called ‘famed Baptist Historian’ to identify the Waldenses as sympathetic to Roman Catholicism is nothing less than a betrayal of truth and common sense.[/QUOTE]

Oh, really? He isn't the only Baptist hisorian to admit that the Waldense's were VERY Catholic up until the Reformation. If fact, most reputable Baptist historians admit that fact. Here is another example: Baptist historian James Edward McColdrick debunks the claims of Landmark Baptist & SDA sabbatarians in Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History
Far from being non-Catholics who rejected Catholic doctrine, they saw themselves as good Catholics and had a deep devotion to Jesus' Mother-they readily confessed belief in the Virgin Mary. Indeed, Waldo himself took his vow of poverty on August 15, the Feast of the Assumption of Mary.

Again, Baptist historian James Edward McGoldrick published a definitive debunking of successionism entitled Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History. In the preface, McGoldrick writes:
``Although no reputable Church historians have ever affirmed the belief that Baptists can trace their lineage through medieval and ancient sects ultimately to the New Testament, that point of view enjoys a large following nevertheless. It appears that scholars aware of this claim have deemed it unworthy of their attention, which may account for the persistence and popularity of Baptist successionism as a doctrine as well as an interpretation of church history. Aside from occasional articles and booklets that reject this teaching, no one has published a refutation in a systematic, documented format.'' (McGoldrick p. iv)
McGoldrick's book includes a chapter in which he considers whether the Waldenses could be considered spiritual and historical ancestors of the Baptists. Coupled with the information in Giorgio Tourn's You Are My Witnesses, McGoldrick's book presents a picture of the early Waldenses that bears little if any resemblance to the picture presented in Seventh-Day Sabbatarian literature.
Compare that account to the way McGoldrick relates the reasons Waldo and his movement fell afoul of the Catholic Church:
``The bishops at first would have found nothing about which to object had not the Waldenses assumed the right to preach. It was unauthorized preaching in public places that aroused suspicion and led the Archbishop of Lyons to attempt to stop them. Yep, they found nothing wrong. They were sacramentalists (easily demonstrated by their history) ``In 1179 a small delegation of Waldenses appeared at Rome during the Third Lateran Council and asked Pope Alexander III (1159-81) for his approval of the Waldenses' ministry. At that time the Waldenses gave the pope a copy of their Bible translation. The pope and council recognized the Waldenses' right to practice evangelical perfection but denied them the right to preach.'' (McGoldrick pp.71-72)
Your desire to make the Waldenses 'protestants' up until the Reformation is easily refuted and just wishful thinking on the part of Baptist successionist and SDA's.

 

[DHK]

At that time the Waldenses gave the pope a copy of their Bible translation. The pope and council recognized the Waldenses' right to practice evangelical perfection but denied them the right to preach.'' (McGoldrick pp.71-72)
Your desire to make the Waldenses 'protestants' up until the Reformation is easily refuted and just wishful thinking on the part of Baptist successionist and SDA's.

This much of your own post is enough to refute your own position.
They were obviously persecuted by the RCC who wrote their history.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Yes, I believe they are clear but not as you have been taught to interpret them. I think it is VERY important to understand that the Church from it's very start believed & taught baptismal regeneration. Early Church history proves that. Nobody disputed baptismal regeneration. If it had been considered a false teaching then there would have been debate and division over it and there was none. There certainly was debate over Arianism and other heresy. In the second century, a man named Marcion taught that the God of the Old Testament was different from the God of Jesus. Marcion equated the creator God of the Old Testament with Satan. He so disdained the God of Judaism that he developed a canon of Scripture that included only the Gospel of Luke, the Acts of the Apostles, and some of the Pauline Epistles. In response to Marcion’s heresies, the bishops of Asia Minor excommunicated him (St. Polycarp of Smyrna called him "the firstborn of Satan").

The early Church’s response to Marcion illustrates an important point: Heresy is serious business, and it should be dealt with decisively. Again, nothing disputing baptismal regeneration, just writings affirming it. It was obviously never disputed.

Heresy has been around nearly as long as the Church. It is "the obstinate denial or doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith" (Code of Canon Law, canon 751). Heresy does great spiritual and societal damage, and it must be refuted. Indeed, the Church must respond to heresy in order to protect the faithful and guard the faith.

The writings of the early Church Fathers reflect this concern for refuting heresy. In Against Heresies, for example, St. Irenaeus described the evil caused by "certain men who have set the truth aside":


Some of the writers of Early Church history sat at the very feet of the Apostles who wrote these scriptures. Do you think the Apostles wouldn't have corrected them if they were misunderstanding such an important doctrine?

Notice how you again refer to an authority outside of the scriptures.
Church History is not inspired, Church Fathers are not infallible. Judas Iscariot walked on the earth with Christ and he betrayed Christ, Just because someone was close to or even taught by a disciple does not make their beliefs correct or make them infallible.. All men makes mistakes and are fallible, Peter was rebuked by Paul for his hypocrisy towards the Gentiles.

Scripture is infallible, But you refuse to address the scriptures. You using vain human logic and appealing to outside authority rather than trying to argue from the scriptures.

Telling me my interpretation of the scriptures is wrong based on how I was taught to interpret them is false,because the statements I made were a result of my own personal study on the verses about baptism.

Let me use your own argument against you: the interpretation of those scriptures you were taught is wrong.

Now it comes down to my word verses your word.

Use scripture to support your ideas or refrain from arguing the issue please.

2Timothy_3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

It does not say all early church councils are given by inspiration or all church history. It says all scripture.

Arguing about things like the Waldenses still doesn't change what the bible clearly teaches.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

This much of your own post is enough to refute your own position.
They were obviously persecuted by the RCC who wrote their history.

So according to Walter: They were Catholics who werent allowed to preach their supposed "catholic" beliefs.... Hm... Maybe because... they WEREN'T Catholic in their beliefs and practice?

 

[Zenas]

So according to Walter: They were Catholics who werent allowed to preach their supposed "catholic" beliefs.... Hm... Maybe because... they WEREN'T Catholic in their beliefs and practice?

Not sure what kind of "preaching" they were doing but in the mass the only persons allowed to deliver the homily (sermon) are priests and deacons.

 

[Walter]

So according to Walter: They were Catholics who werent allowed to preach their supposed "catholic" beliefs.... Hm... Maybe because... they WEREN'T Catholic in their beliefs and practice?

Read the thread before you make such an absurd statement. I never said they were Catholics. Your own Baptist historians (the credible ones, not the Landmarkist nonsense) agree they were more Catholic in belief than they were Baptistic up until the Reformation.

 

[Walter]

Notice how you again refer to an authority outside of the scriptures.
Church History is not inspired, Church Fathers are not infallible. Judas Iscariot walked on the earth with Christ and he betrayed Christ, Just because someone was close to or even taught by a disciple does not make their beliefs correct or make them infallible.. All men makes mistakes and are fallible, Peter was rebuked by Paul for his hypocrisy towards the Gentiles.

Scripture is infallible, But you refuse to address the scriptures. You using vain human logic and appealing to outside authority rather than trying to argue from the scriptures.

Telling me my interpretation of the scriptures is wrong based on how I was taught to interpret them is false,because the statements I made were a result of my own personal study on the verses about baptism.

Let me use your own argument against you: the interpretation of those scriptures you were taught is wrong.

Now it comes down to my word verses your word.

Use scripture to support your ideas or refrain from arguing the issue please.

2Timothy_3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

It does not say all early church councils are given by inspiration or all church history. It says all scripture.

Arguing about things like the Waldenses still doesn't change what the bible clearly teaches.

If it was so clear what the bible teaches, you wouldn't have the incredible number of Protestant denominations you have today. I do use scripture to support my ideas but I also don't ignore the plethora of Early Church writings because they DO give me insight as to what the Early Church believed and practiced. No, I don't give them the weight of scripture.

Now, you Baptists HAVE to ignore the writings of the Early Church because it becomes painfully obvious that the Early Church looked nothing like your Baptist churches of today. Guess what Church does??!!

 

[DHK]

Read the thread before you make such an absurd statement. I never said they were Catholics. Your own Baptist historians (the credible ones, not the Landmarkist nonsense) agree they were more Catholic in belief than they were Baptistic up until the Reformation.

Thus by very definition (yours) a "credible" Baptist historian is one that "RCC-approved.

 

[Zenas]

Thus by very definition (yours) a "credible" Baptist historian is one that "RCC-approved.

James McGoldrick is a credible scholar who is well regarded in academic circles. He is a Baptist and most seminarians would regard him as one of the top two or three experts on Baptist history.

 

[DHK]

James McGoldrick is a credible scholar who is well regarded in academic circles. He is a Baptist and most seminarians would regard him as one of the top two or three experts on Baptist history.

[Table of Contents to "History of the Waldenses" by J.A. Wylie]​

CHAPTER II​

THE WALDENSES—THEIR MISSIONS AND MARTYRDOMS​

Their Synod and College—Their Theological Tenets—Romaunt Version of the New Testament—The Constitution of their Church—Their Missionary Labours—Wide Diffusion of their Tenets—The Stone Smiting the Image.
One would like to have a near view of the barbes or pastors, who presided over the school of early Protestant theology that existed in the valleys, and to know how it fared with evangelical Christianity in the ages that preceded the Reformation. But the time is remote, and the events are dim. We can but doubtfully glean from a variety of sources the facts necessary to form a picture of this venerable Church, and even then the picture is not complete. The theology of which this was one of the fountain-heads was not the clear, well-defined, and comprehensive system which the sixteenth century gave us; it was only what the faithful men of the Lombard Churches had been able to save from the wreck of primitive Christianity. True religion, being a revelation, was from the beginning complete and perfect; nevertheless, in this as in every other branch of knowledge, it is only by patient labour that man is able to extricate and arrange all its parts, and to come into the full possession of truth. The theology taught in former ages in the peak-environed valley in which we have in imagination placed ourselves was drawn from the Bible. The atoning death and justifying righteousness of Christ was its cardinal truth. This, the Nobla Leycon [Noble Lesson] and other ancient documents abundantly testify. The Nobla Leycon sets forth with tolerable clearness the doctrine of the Trinity, the fall of man, the incarnation of the Son, the perpetual authority of the Decalogue as given by God [this disproves the charge of Manicheism brought against them by their enemies], the need of Divine grace in order to good works, the necessity of holiness, the institution of the ministry, the resurrection of the body, and the eternal bliss of heaven. [Sir Samuel Morland gives the Nobla Leycon in full in his History of the Churches of the Waldenses. Allix (chap. 18) gives a summary of it.] This creed its professors exemplified in lives of evangelical virtue. The blamelessness of the Waldenses passed into a proverb, so that one more than ordinarily exempt from the vices of his time was sure to be suspected of being a Vaudes. [The Nobla Leycon has the following passage:--"If there be an honest man, who desires to love God and fear Jesus Christ, who will neither slander, nor swear, nor lie, nor commit adultery, nor kill, nor steal, nor avenge himself of his enemies, they presently say of such a one he is a Vaudes, and worthy of death."]
If doubt there were regarding the tenets of the Waldenses, the charges which their enemies have preferred against them would set that doubt at rest, and make it tolerably certain that they held substantially what the apostles before their day, and the Reformers after it, taught. The indictment against the Waldenses included a formidable list of "heresies." They held that there had been no true Pope since the days of Sylvester; that temporal offices and dignities were not meet for preachers of the Gospel; that the Pope’s pardons were a cheat; that purgatory was a fable; that relics were simply rotten bones which had belonged to one knew not whom; that to go on pilgrimage served no end, save to empty one’s purse; that flesh might be eaten any day if one’s appetite served him; that holy water was not a whit more efficacious than rain-water; and that prayer in a barn was just as effectual as if offered in a church. They were accused, moreover, of having scoffed at the doctrine of transubstantiation, and of having spoken blasphemously of Rome as the harlot of the Apocalypse. [See a list of numerous heresies and blasphemies charged upon the Waldenses by the Inquisitor-Reynerius, who wrote about the year 1250, and extracted by Allix (chap. 22).]

file:///C:/Users/ProBook%204530s/Desktop/Library%20CD-ROM/FundamentalBaptistLibrary2000/WWW/fbns/waldenses02.htm


J.A. Wylie is an excellent historian when it comes to a history of the Baptists and of the early believers.

 

[Walter]

"It is the purpose of this book to show that, although free church groups in ancient and medieval times sometimes promoted doctrines and practices agreeable to modern Baptists, when judged by standards now acknowledged as baptistic, not one of them merits recognition as a Baptist church. Baptists arose in the seventeenth century in Holland and England. They are Protestants, heirs of the Reformers." (ibid, page 2, emphasis mine)

The following is adapted from McGoldrick's chapter on the Waldenses of the 12th and 13th centuries which examines their origins and founder Peter Waldo, their explicit Catholic doctrines and beliefs, a short account of their history, and where they are today (hint: they did later become a Protestant sect, but were never "baptistic" in belief).

The comments of Phil Porvaznik are followed by PP. Endnotes are numbered in brackets [ ].


WHAT ABOUT THE WALDENSES?

The same period of Medieval history that saw the rise and suppression of the Cathars witnessed the emergence of a very different religious movement known as the Waldenses. In contrast to the Cathars, whose dualistic world- and life-view placed them in radical opposition to historic Christianity, the Waldenses began as a reform movement within the Roman Catholic Church and never imbibed Manichaean teachings.

PETER WALDO : Founder of the Waldenses

The sect owed its origin to Peter Waldo (d. 1216), known in France as Valdes. Little is known about Waldo's life, but it is clear that he was a prosperous merchant in Lyons who suddenly divested himself of his wealth in order to pursue a life of "evangelical perfection," which, to medieval Catholics, meant following the example of Christ, including the Savior's poverty.

The sources indicate that Waldo became impressed with his need to follow Christ when he heard a minstrel relate the legend of St. Alexis, who had renounced riches and separated from his wife to undertake a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. Waldo also accepted counsel from a priest who told him of Christ's command to a rich inquirer who had come to him seeking the way to eternal life. Jesus said:


"If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." (Matthew 19:21)

His personal appropriation of the Lord's teaching to the rich young man mentioned in the Gospel reflects Waldo's habit of accepting biblical injunctions literally, and it shows his great desire to conform his life to the teachings of Christ. Waldo developed a sense of urgency to become learned in the scriptures, and to that end he paid two scholars to translate the Gospels and other portions of the Bible into his vernacular tongue.

While the behavior Waldo exhibited was unusual, it was not unprecedented, and his actions to this point did not violate the canons of the Roman Catholic Church. Vows of poverty and the study of scripture had been regular features of monastic living for centuries and enjoyed the approval of the Church. Waldo, however, was neither a monk nor a priest, but a devout layman who sought to practice "evangelical perfection" without entering a monastery. To those who ridiculed him for this, Waldo explained,


"Citizens and friends, I am not out of my mind, as you seem to think, but I am avenging myself on those who are oppressing me in making me a lover of money more than God. This act I do for myself and for you: for me, so that if from now on I possess anything you may call me a fool; for you, in order that you, too, may be led to put your hope in God and not in riches." [1]

WALDENSES UNAUTHORIZED PREACHING

Recruits to Waldo's "Poor of Lyons" came from all levels of society. A few were priests, but most were laymen. Durand of Huesca (Spain), a scholar of some ability, became unofficial theologian for the movement, but the emphasis of these "Waldenses" was, from the start, on personal piety and good works performed in imitation of Christ and the apostles.

The movement did not seek to alter Catholic dogma and was not intended to be a separatist church. The bishops at first would have found nothing about which to object had not the Waldenses assumed the right to preach. It was unauthorized preaching in public places that aroused suspicion and led the Archbishop of Lyons to attempt to stop them.

Waldo and his disciples were ordered to submit to the bishops. To render unqualified submission would, however, have meant the end of their preaching, so the Waldenses disobeyed and brought upon themselves a barrage of clerical criticism. As of yet the Waldenses had issued no pronouncements which could have been rightly construed as heresy, and in 1180 Waldo signed a statement of faith dictated by a papal legate in which the popular exponent of apostolic living subscribed to all of the major tenets of traditional Catholicism. [2]

While Waldo and his followers had no doctrinal quarrel with Rome, their defiance of episcopal prohibitions against preaching led in 1184 to their condemnation by a synod of bishops meeting in Verona. Much to their dismay, the Waldenses were excluded from the Church and declared to be heretics.

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num3.htm

Zenas is right, one can see a credible Baptist historian in McGoldrick. I think it's hilarious!

 

[Rippon]

Walter,good quotes from McGoldrick. I have quoted him before here,but not as extensively as you have. Unfortunately a degree of Landmarkism is evident among a bunch of Baptists depit solid evidence to the contrary about their origin.

 

[Zenas]

J.A. Wylie is an excellent historian when it comes to a history of the Baptists and of the early believers.

J. A. Wylie--renown for his hatred of Catholicism. One of his better known works is a book titled The Papacy Is the Antichrist, published in 1888. In it he concludes:

We do not hesitate to say, that we have nearly as full and convincing evidence that the Roman Papacy is the Antichrist, as we have that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ.

So we can certainly take comfort in knowing Wylie's conclusions are always scholarly, neutral and detached. :tonofbricks:

 

[The Biblicist]

J. A. Wylie--renown for his hatred of Catholicism. One of his better known works is a book titled The Papacy Is the Antichrist, published in 1888. In it he concludes: So we can certainly take comfort in knowing Wylie's conclusions are always scholarly, neutral and detached. :tonofbricks:

So, in order to be a credible historian, one must not only be approved by Catholics but cannot oppose the Catholic Cult or condemn it for what it really is??????

My professor of church history while I was attending Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary took the same position as McGoldrick. However, he was at least intellectually honest enough to admit that there was another credible interpretation of the evidence that supported the older Baptist historians. It was his own theological bias that caused him to lean toward the Catholic view of these pre-reformational groups.

Secular history IS: (1) Uninspired and therefore often biased; (2) Incomplete and therefore often misleading; (3) Incorrect in many cases

In direct contrast the Inspired Prophetic view of church history paints a completely different picture than that which Rome presents to the world.

 

[DHK]

J. A. Wylie--renown for his hatred of Catholicism. One of his better known works is a book titled The Papacy Is the Antichrist, published in 1888. In it he concludes: So we can certainly take comfort in knowing Wylie's conclusions are always scholarly, neutral and detached. :tonofbricks:

Thus I go back to my original post:
"In your eyes to be a 'credible' historian in church history, one must be 'Catholic-approved.'"
You just stated as much didn't you?
No sense in disagreeing with me now.