Problems with Orthodoxy and Catholicism

[DHK]

Just trying to determine what Paulicans believed

There are over one billion Muslims in this world today. I have never yet met a Muslim who doesn't believe that I believe in the worship of three different gods--Father, Son and Holy Spirit--3 separate gods. That is their perception of Christianity, and they teach it to all their followers.
If you try to teach them otherwise they will deny it, for even the Koran teaches that the Christians believe in three gods.

This is an example of Muslim revisionist history.

It is no different than what the Catholics have been doing throughout the centuries. They have been twisting the beliefs of true believers in Christ and accusing them of beliefs that they never had. To totally rely on the history of the enemies of Biblical Christianity is foolishness. It has been distorted and skewed.

Even the ECF had some strange ideas. Ireaneus for example believed that Jesus lived to the ripe old age of 80.

 

[chadman]

Understood - but I still want to check the Paulican primary source. From their mouths if you will...you suggested it.

And DHK - dude, what are you on me about?! So all history is ruined and untrustworthy due to the RCC conspiricy? I guess the canon was influenced by the RCC. We must be doomed.

 

[chadman]

Against that charges on this board that have been put forth to me and others....I don't want to forget one of our other Baptist historian brothers James McGoldrick quotes on the very topic we have seen here:

Unfortunately, there are aspiring historians who, in their desire to prove apostolic succession, look to any group that was suppressed by the Catholic Church as if that is proof enough of their apostolicity. They will claim that because these groups opposed the Church, the only historical record remaining is written by those who were biased against the groups in the first place. This is not necessarily true, as Baptist historian McGoldrick writes:

“However, enough primary material produced by both the sectarians themselves and by their enemies has survived, so that an informed judgment about their beliefs is still possible. Spokesmen . . . have tended to dismiss documents produced by opponents of the sects as hopelessly prejudiced and therefore unreliable. As we intend to show, this contention is not always valid, for we possess documents of Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox origin that have been cross-checked for accuracy. When two or more hostile sources who have had no evident contact with one another related the same account, there is a very high degree of probability that the account is substantially correct.” (9)​

(9) McGoldrick, James E., Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Crusade in Baptist History, Scarecrow Press, Inc., Maryland, 1994, pp 2-3.

Not all Baptist historians have this Hislop untra conspiracy view of the world.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Against that charges on this board that have been put forth to me and others....I don't want to forget one of our other Baptist historian brothers James McGoldrick quotes on the very topic we have seen here:

Unfortunately, there are aspiring historians who, in their desire to prove apostolic succession, look to any group that was suppressed by the Catholic Church as if that is proof enough of their apostolicity. They will claim that because these groups opposed the Church, the only historical record remaining is written by those who were biased against the groups in the first place. This is not necessarily true, as Baptist historian McGoldrick writes:

“However, enough primary material produced by both the sectarians themselves and by their enemies has survived, so that an informed judgment about their beliefs is still possible. Spokesmen . . . have tended to dismiss documents produced by opponents of the sects as hopelessly prejudiced and therefore unreliable. As we intend to show, this contention is not always valid, for we possess documents of Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox origin that have been cross-checked for accuracy. When two or more hostile sources who have had no evident contact with one another related the same account, there is a very high degree of probability that the account is substantially correct.” (9)

(9) McGoldrick, James E., Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Crusade in Baptist History, Scarecrow Press, Inc., Maryland, 1994, pp 2-3.

Not all Baptist historians have this Hislop untra conspiracy view of the world.

He obviously views himself above the label of "aspiring historians" to that level of accomplished historians and yet he can't even get the proper terminology correct as he confuses "apostolic succession" with "church succession.

Anyone who has even a handle on Baptist successionist historians knows that Baptists condemned "apostolic succession" and denied that was their position. He needs to read Dr. J.B. Moody's book "My Church" and the chapter dedicated to dispelling that charge.

Second, Roman versus Eastern Othodox Catholics equally hated the free church movement as they did each other. In regard to essential doctrine there is little difference between Roman and Eastern. There is plain obvious evidence that the Reformers joined in with Rome in persecuting the Anabaptists and equally spread the same false charges in order to destroy them. Hence, again his general rule is too simplistic.

I will take a look at McGoldrick's book but if it is anything like the reasoning of Morgan Patterson than it just another flimsy attempt by universalist churchites to justify their view of the church.

 

[chadman]

He obviously views himself above the label of "aspiring historians" to that level of accomplished historians and yet he can't even get the proper terminology correct as he confuses "apostolic succession" with "church succession.

Anyone who has even a handle on Baptist successionist historians knows that Baptists condemned "apostolic succession" and denied that was their position. He needs to read Dr. J.B. Moody's book "My Church" and the chapter dedicated to dispelling that charge.

Second, Roman versus Eastern Othodox Catholics equally hated the free church movement as they did each other. In regard to essential doctrine there is little difference between Roman and Eastern. There is plain obvious evidence that the Reformers joined in with Rome in persecuting the Anabaptists and equally spread the same false charges in order to destroy them. Hence, again his general rule is too simplistic.

I will take a look at McGoldrick's book but if it is anything like the reasoning of Morgan Patterson than it just another flimsy attempt by universalist churchites to justify their view of the church.

Hey - good points, but I messed up the quote, LOL. The first part of the quote is not McGoldrick's. Just the second part.

I am one of these guys, who although I believe I am right of course, always prefer to read both sides. I've been fooled before...

Yeah - I watch Fox News, then I watch MSNBC. I am always more interested in truth than in backing up my opinions. Always willing to learn something new here.

 

[Eric B]

I'm seeing claims of a link between the Waldensians and these other groups. But I have never seen that in any nonsectarian history. It's usually a jump made by those trying to string along a "trail of blood".

While they did pre-exist Peter Waldo and were named after the alps, in a book I have on them, they seemed to have started out as eighth century Catholics who simply opposed the ongoing corruptions of Rome. They had priests, monks, nuns, etc.

 

[targus]

I'm seeing claims of a link between the Waldensians and these other groups. But I have never seen that in any nonsectarian history. It's usually a jump made by those trying to string along a "trail of blood".

While they did pre-exist Peter Waldo and were named after the alps, in a book I have on them, they seemed to have started out as eighth century Catholics who simply opposed the ongoing corruptions of Rome. They had priests, monks, nuns, etc.

All roads lead to Rome.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I'm seeing claims of a link between the Waldensians and these other groups. But I have never seen that in any nonsectarian history. It's usually a jump made by those trying to string along a "trail of blood".

While they did pre-exist Peter Waldo and were named after the alps, in a book I have on them, they seemed to have started out as eighth century Catholics who simply opposed the ongoing corruptions of Rome. They had priests, monks, nuns, etc.

If you will study the geograpical spread of the Waldenses in the eighth century you will see first they were not called "Waldenses" in the eighth century but were called "Paulicians" and the Paulicians go back to the seventh century in the same geographical areas where the former Montanists, Novations and Donatists lived. There names constantly changed due to the local or due to a particular heretic or prominent person they were tied to by Rome.

 

[Matt Black]

Er...no: the Donatists were largely in North Africa, the Paulicians and Montanists in Asia Minor, the Bogomils in the Balkans, the Cathars in south-west France and the Waldensians in south-east France, Switzerland and north-west Italy; so, unless by 'same geographical spread', you mean 'the lands of the former Roman Empire', then you get an 'F' for geography.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Er...no: the Donatists were largely in North Africa, the Paulicians and Montanists in Asia Minor, the Bogomils in the Balkans, the Cathars in south-west France and the Waldensians in south-east France, Switzerland and north-west Italy; so, unless by 'same geographical spread', you mean 'the lands of the former Roman Empire', then you get an 'F' for geography.

That is correct for the most part. However, each of those groups migrated due to persecution noted by your words "were largely" etc. So the truth is they did not remain in those locations. Even the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia admits to the migration of the Montanists and Paulicians and notes them in several geographical areas of concentration. The same is true for the rest of those groups - perscution dispersed them.

 

[chadman]

One of my issues with the Waldenses is that fact that they voluntarily went to the third Lateran Council in 1179 before the RCC, asking for permission to preach. From what I have read the RCC took mainly issue with their refusal of ecclesiastical authority, not their doctrines.

Why would they even ask the RCC or anything if they were Baptist minded to begin with?! They seemed to hold RCC type doctrines. I can't make the connection that they were anything but uneducated lay catholics tyring to interpret scripture on their own - which I don't fault them for that. I just don't believe they had some un-broken chain of well established apostolic doctrine that differented greatly from RCC doctrine or the persecution and RCC opposition to them would have been MUCH more verbose and condeming.

In no way do I believe they were like modern day Baptists save a few tenets. It's too thin to believe.

 

[chadman]

And rather than stringing these groups together by some protestant tenet thread, I would love to hear from those 'trail of blood' types the known or believed doctrinal known differences between say Paulicans and Waldenses for starters.

Any takers?

 

[DHK]

One of my issues with the Waldenses is that fact that they voluntarily went to the third Lateran Council in 1179 before the RCC, asking for permission to preach. From what I have read the RCC took mainly issue with their refusal of ecclesiastical authority, not their doctrines.

Why would they even ask the RCC or anything if they were Baptist minded to begin with?!

In no way do I believe they were like modern day Baptists save a few tenets. It's too thin to believe.

It is much like the history of John Bunyan, the author of Pilgrim's Progress.
He lived from 1628-1688. He was arrested in 1658 for preaching without a license from the government, and put in prison in 1660. He was released in 1672. The last time he was in prison was in 1675, also for the same reason and then released six months later. Each time he was arrested it was for the same thing--preaching the gospel without a license from the government. His license came from God, not the government. For that he was jailed. The governments were church-state governments. The church and the state were one. It was either the Church of England or the RCC that ruled. Even today, symbolically, the Queen is the head of the Church of England, as she reigns over England. But the monarch had much more power in earlier centuries than today.

It wasn't a question of asking. It was a matter of being forced.
The Baptists and others eventually went to American because of the persecution they had felt in Great Britain and other parts of Europe; because they would find tolerance there to practice freely their own faith.

 

[chadman]

It is much like the history of John Bunyan, the author of Pilgrim's Progress.
He lived from 1628-1688. He was arrested in 1658 for preaching without a license from the government, and put in prison in 1660. He was released in 1672. The last time he was in prison was in 1675, also for the same reason and then released six months later. Each time he was arrested it was for the same thing--preaching the gospel without a license from the government. His license came from God, not the government. For that he was jailed. The governments were church-state governments. The church and the state were one. It was either the Church of England or the RCC that ruled. Even today, symbolically, the Queen is the head of the Church of England, as she reigns over England. But the monarch had much more power in earlier centuries than today.

It wasn't a question of asking. It was a matter of being forced.
The Baptists and others eventually went to American because of the persecution they had felt in Great Britain and other parts of Europe; because they would find tolerance there to practice freely their own faith.

The RCC didn't not force the Poor of Lyon's to attend a council. They choose to attend on their own. Anathema.

No DHK. It's much more like, would YOU DHK, if you believed what you believe today and you were a Waldensian at that time - would you present yourself before the RCC and ask permission for anything regarding what you could and couldn't preach?! Anathema.

Surely they knew the RCC was evil and not even the real church of Christ. Why would they attend the council - and ask permission to preach?! Why didn't the council jump all over their radical heretical doctines? I don't think they were so radical at that time. We know what the RCC would have done if they were dualists.

These guys were not like us at that time.

 

[DHK]

The RCC didn't not force the Poor of Lyon's to attend a council. They choose to attend on their own. Anathema.

No DHK. It's much more like, would YOU DHK, if you believed what you believe today and you were a Waldensian at that time - would you present yourself before the RCC and ask permission for anything regarding what you could and couldn't preach?! Anathema.

Surely they knew the RCC was evil and not even the real church of Christ. Why would they attend the council - and ask permission to preach?! Why didn't the council jump all over their radical heretical doctines? I don't think they were so radical at that time. We know what the RCC would have done if they were dualists.

These guys were not like us at that time.

History shows that more than any other group of people the Baptists fought for soul liberty--even with their blood. It has been put this way: They might not have agree with (example J.W.'s), but they agreed with their right to exercise their freedom to practice what they believed. The tolerance to practice one's faith is a strong belief among Baptists.

Having said that, they would never pick up the sword to fight for what they believed in. They would beg, plead, persuade, preach, and do what they could to persuade others and especially those in power to give them that right to practice freely what they believed to be right according to the Bible and their own conscience.

Throughout the centuries, many of those who held to Baptistic positions rose to positions of great power even as Daniel did. It would not be unreasonable to think that a Baptist in a position of power could appear before a high ranking court and present a petition requesting tolerance for the Baptists to practice freely their religion.
Does that sound reasonable to you?

 

[chadman]

History shows that more than any other group of people the Baptists fought for soul liberty--even with their blood. It has been put this way: They might not have agree with (example J.W.'s), but they agreed with their right to exercise their freedom to practice what they believed. The tolerance to practice one's faith is a strong belief among Baptists.

Having said that, they would never pick up the sword to fight for what they believed in. They would beg, plead, persuade, preach, and do what they could to persuade others and especially those in power to give them that right to practice freely what they believed to be right according to the Bible and their own conscience.

Throughout the centuries, many of those who held to Baptistic positions rose to positions of great power even as Daniel did. It would not be unreasonable to think that a Baptist in a position of power could appear before a high ranking court and present a petition requesting tolerance for the Baptists to practice freely their religion.
Does that sound reasonable to you?

Holding ONE tenet in common does not a faith define.

You know well the RCC teaches many things we Baptists teach as true. That in now way makes us the same thing.

The Waldenses did hold some Baptist tenets of soul liberty, but they were too catholic in some of their doctrines for me to ever believe they had an unbroken chain to the Apostles, or that they even started out as what we could call Protestants.

I am not saying they were wrong per se. I am saying I strongly believe based on historical facts, that they as we, developed theif doctrine until it became what we would call tyipcally Protestant in nature.

I am asking you too DHK, as I have considered for myself the same question. Would YOU, knowing what you know about the Gospel, go before an RCC council, and ask permission to preach under the authority of the RCC? Yes or No? It's one or the other.

 

[DHK]

I am asking you too DHK, as I have considered for myself the same question. Would YOU, knowing what you know about the Gospel, go before an RCC council, and ask permission to preach under the authority of the RCC? Yes or No? It's one or the other.

If the RCC council is indeed the government (there were church-state governments at that time), I indeed would go and demand my right to preach the gospel. Why not? That is the situation today in many Muslim nations.

 

[Dr. Walter]

One of my issues with the Waldenses is that fact that they voluntarily went to the third Lateran Council in 1179 before the RCC, asking for permission to preach. From what I have read the RCC took mainly issue with their refusal of ecclesiastical authority, not their doctrines.

Why would they even ask the RCC or anything if they were Baptist minded to begin with?! They seemed to hold RCC type doctrines. I can't make the connection that they were anything but uneducated lay catholics tyring to interpret scripture on their own - which I don't fault them for that. I just don't believe they had some un-broken chain of well established apostolic doctrine that differented greatly from RCC doctrine or the persecution and RCC opposition to them would have been MUCH more verbose and condeming.

In no way do I believe they were like modern day Baptists save a few tenets. It's too thin to believe.

Peter Waldo attended that council. Waldenses do not claim to originate with Peter Waldo or his last name.

 

[chadman]

If the RCC council is indeed the government (there were church-state governments at that time), I indeed would go and demand my right to preach the gospel. Why not? That is the situation today in many Muslim nations.

The third Lateran Council of the RCC was a special religious occurrence that is not the normal day to day religious or political business as usual. You know this. Is this the DHK I know? LOL. You have to be messin' with me.

Where is your hardcore, black and white demenor today friend? You seem way too reasonable today. :tongue3:

 

[chadman]

Peter Waldo attended that council. Waldenses do not claim to originate with Peter Waldo or his last name.

C'mon. Was the group associated with Peter Waldo not considered as Waldenses? Yes they were. I am not saying they were every group of them, but they were most definitively one key and well known group of them.

And this is even confirmed among Baptist historians. Justo Gonzalez ties them together in his The Story of Christianity which used to be one of the SW Seminary (DFW) history books for Baptists.