Problems with Orthodoxy and Catholicism

[chadman]

History shows that more than any other group of people the Baptists fought for soul liberty--
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.

I agree with you on this. But even as Gibbons writes regarding the Paulicans, whom I think you believe to be a type of Baptist, they had a military force at times. So this doesn't really hold true - can't have it both ways again.

Gibbons:

"and the neighbouring hills were covered with the Paulician fugitives, who now reconciled the use of the Bible and the sword. During more than thirty years, Asia was afflicted by the calamities of foreign and domestic war; in their hostile inroads, the disciples of St. Paul were joined with those of Mahomet; and the peaceful Christians, the aged parent and tender virgin, who were delivered into barbarous servitude, might justly accuse the intolerant spirit of their sovereign. So urgent was the mischief, so intolerable the shame, that even the dissolute Michael, the son of Theodora, was compelled to march in person against the Paulicians: he was defeated under the walls of Samosata; and the Roman emperor fled before the heretics whom his mother had condemned to the flames. The Saracens fought under the same banners, but the victory was ascribed to Carbeas; and the captive generals, with more than a hundred tribunes, were either released by his avarice, or tortured by his fanaticism. The valour and ambition of Chrysocheir, (19) his successor, embraced a wider circle of rapine and revenge. In alliance with his faithful Moslems, he boldly penetrated into the heart of Asia; the troops of the frontier and the palace were repeatedly overthrown; and pillage Asia Minor. the edicts of persecution were answered by the pillage of Nice and Nicomedia, of Ancyra and Ephesus; nor could the apostle St. John protect from violation his city and sepulchre (The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire, chap liv)
​

Do you deny the Paulicans took up the sword in defense? It doesn't really prove anything to me DHK. But you said it and I am just thowing this out to see if you believe this.

​

 

[DHK]

I agree with you on this. But even as Gibbons writes regarding the Paulicans, whom I think you believe to be a type of Baptist, they had a military force at times. So this doesn't really hold true - can't have it both ways again.

Gibbons:


Do you deny the Paulicans took up the sword in defense? It doesn't really prove anything to me DHK. But you said it and I am just thowing this out to see if you believe this.

[/INDENT]

I think it has been pointed out to you that not everyone who names the name of Christ is a Christian. Not everyone who takes the name of Baptist is a Baptist or is saved. And so it was with the Paulicians, Albigenses, and Waldenses. In all three of these groups there were splinter groups--groups that the main body would not associate with. One cannot paint with one broad brush anyone group, just as one cannot paint all Baptists with a singular brush.

I would hate to put the American Baptist Convention in the same group as I am. They have female preachers and are very liberal in doctrine. Do they even deserve to be called "Baptist"? I don't know. The same goes for "Charismatic Baptists."

 

[chadman]

I think it has been pointed out to you that not everyone who names the name of Christ is a Christian. Not everyone who takes the name of Baptist is a Baptist or is saved. And so it was with the Paulicians, Albigenses, and Waldenses. In all three of these groups there were splinter groups--groups that the main body would not associate with. One cannot paint with one broad brush anyone group, just as one cannot paint all Baptists with a singular brush.

I would hate to put the American Baptist Convention in the same group as I am. They have female preachers and are very liberal in doctrine. Do they even deserve to be called "Baptist"? I don't know. The same goes for "Charismatic Baptists."

That sounds reasonable enough. However, since this is history that you and others seem to place a great deal of stock in, show me instances of Waldensians speaking against other Waldensian doctrines or practices. Same thing for Paulicans vs. Paulicans, Albigenses vs. Albegensis.

I am not saying they were all identical, in fact, I'll be the first in line to say they were not all the same at all. And this is exactly why I don't buy the line that they were the true Christians with the 'deposit of faith' delivered by the Apostles with some Evangelical across the board doctrine with a clear trail of blood back to the 1st century. I don't even come close to buying that line.

I believe strongly that Evangelical Christianity developed, just as Roman heresy developed over centuries.

 

[DHK]

That sounds reasonable enough. However, since this is history that you and others seem to place a great deal of stock in, show me instances of Waldensians speaking against other Waldensian doctrines or practices. Same thing for Paulicans vs. Paulicans, Albigenses vs. Albegensis.

After fighting the good fight, and keeping the faith for so long, J.T. Christian in his book "A History of the Baptists" describes the end of the Waldenses this way:

Every institution has its vicissitudes, and after progress comes decline. On the eve of the Reformation everything was on the decline—faith, life, light. It was so of the Waldenses. Persecution had wasted their numbers and had broken their spirit and the few scattered leaders were dazed by the rising glories of the Reformation. The larger portion had gone with the Anabaptist movement. Sick and tired of heart in 1530 the remnant of the Waldenses opened negotiations with the Reformers, but a union was not effected till 1532. Since then the Waldenses have been Pedobaptists.

It happens everywhere and in every age. It happened in the age of the Apostles.



1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

 

[chadman]

Nice post DHK, that had kind of a very nice, well ending to it after all the heated debate. Good words to read and a little sad - I could almost hear the music as it faded to black there.

That isn't really what I was asking for, but hey, maybe we ought to give it little break - too much intensity for one day, LOL.

I think the Waldensians had a great ending. I see them as truly coming in a way out of the Roman church in the fervent and pious tradition of St. Francis, whom I respect for his actions.

To me, the Waldensians grew into the Reformation and well.... reside as Prebetarians to this day as you probably know. Anywhere better than Rome right? *wink*

They fed off the engery and thoughts and study of the Reformers as it should have been. A happy ending I think.

 

[Grace&Truth]

Do you know how to read contextually?

What is your diffinition of "contextually"? I found this difinition:

Contextual Theology = ...a way of doing theology in which one takes into account: the spirit and message of the gospel; the tradition of the Christian people; the culture in which one is theologizing; and social change in that culture, whether brought about by western technological process or the grass-roots struggle for equality, justice and liberation.

In other words, the Bible in, and of itself, is not free-standing....other factors (culture, ethnicity, history) must be taken into consideration, and with those factors, the message of the Bible must be adjusted to fit. Faith Undone by Roger Oakland pg. 42 & 43.

Is this what you mean????? If not please give what you mean by this....Thanks!!!!!

 

[Matt Black]

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.

Indeed. It is more correct to call them - at least at that point in their history - proto-Franciscans, since they adopted and called for similar virtues of simple preaching and simple living including vows of poverty as espoused by Francis of Assisi 50 years later. Their tragedy was to call for these 50 years too soon...

 

[Matt Black]

If the RCC council is indeed the government (there were church-state governments at that time),

Er...no. Just ask Pope Gregory VII and Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV...of King Henry II of England and Thomas a Becket...or Pope Innocent III and King John of England etc

 

[Matt Black]

Do you deny the Paulicans took up the sword in defense? It doesn't really prove anything to me DHK. But you said it and I am just thowing this out to see if you believe this.

And there's the small matter of the Cathar murder of Pierre de Castelnau, the Papal legate in January 1208...and their fortification of Montsegur. Such a peaceful sect! (None of which, of course, excuses the monstrous behaviour of Catholics like the elder Simon de Montfort and King Louis IX of France.)

 

[Matt Black]

I think the Waldensians had a great ending. I see them as truly coming in a way out of the Roman church in the fervent and pious tradition of St. Francis, whom I respect for his actions.

To me, the Waldensians grew into the Reformation and well.... reside as Prebetarians to this day as you probably know. Anywhere better than Rome right? *wink*

They fed off the engery and thoughts and study of the Reformers as it should have been. A happy ending I think.

Indeed. I had the privilege of attending a service at a church which claims descent from the Waldenses in St Raphael in Provence in 2006. Although as you say they are now part of the Presbyterian Eglise Reformee de France, they trace their descent from the Waldenses and are affiliated to Waldensian congregations in southern Italy and Sicily.

 

[chadman]

Great input Matt! That is pretty cool that you got to attend a service with those connected to the this group.

The rest of middle ages/dark ages history aside, even studying Christianity it never ceases to amaze me how easily and quickly human beings will take up the sword and kill for any number of reasons. It's always been a bit depressing to me how natural it seems for humans to turn to violence to get things they want - even if just a thought process.

Anyway, I am frankly surprised we ever made it to some semblance of a civilized society! It's still heinous out there with geonocidal tendencies never seeming to leave our character.

 

[targus]

One cannot paint with one broad brush any one group...

Unless they are Catholics - right? :smilewinkgrin:

 

[DHK]

Unless they are Catholics - right? :smilewinkgrin:

Pretty much. Catholicism has their Catechism. All must adhere to it.
Catholicism has their Pope. One dare not cross him.
Catholicism has its hierarchy. One must respect it.
Catholicism is made up of mindless pawns who are not allowed to think for themselves but must be spoonfed by its leadership. It is the blind leading the blind, and we know where that leads.

 

[chadman]

Unless they are Catholics - right? :smilewinkgrin:

But of course, at least on this forum where logic and reason have a very small place. :smilewinkgrin:

Just because others do this, doesn't mean it's reality, and there is much more to the Catholics and Anglicans I know personally, who are actually well educated and Bible studied up.

The beauty of of debating on anything Catholic is that since they are one organization, we get the dubious pleasure of painting them with a broad brush, even if it's based on isolated or cultural issues.

Us Baptists are 'independent', and you can't lump us in with the rest of the crazies out there who may also be Baptist.

I didn't say it fair, or right, or reality. It's what happnens on THIS forum though.

 

[DHK]

Us Baptists are 'independent', and you can't lump us in with the rest of the crazies out there who may also be Baptist.

I didn't say it fair, or right, or reality. It's what happnens on THIS forum though.

I was a Catholic for 20 years. In 20 years I never heard the gospel once. It is a message of works. The message of the RCC is a message that consistently condemns people to hell. One cannot believe the doctrine of the RCC and go to heaven. One can be in the Catholic Church and go to heaven in spite of their doctrine and remain there as a disobedient Christian. But one cannot believe in the RCC doctrine and be a Christian at the same time. Biblical doctrine and RCC doctrine are at polar extremes with each other.

 

[chadman]

I was a Catholic for 20 years. In 20 years I never heard the gospel once. It is a message of works. The message of the RCC is a message that consistently condemns people to hell. One cannot believe the doctrine of the RCC and go to heaven. One can be in the Catholic Church and go to heaven in spite of their doctrine and remain there as a disobedient Christian. But one cannot believe in the RCC doctrine and be a Christian at the same time. Biblical doctrine and RCC doctrine are at polar extremes with each other.

Yeah, yeah, we know, you tell us every other day. LOL.

PS. I'm glad you are not in charge up there in heaven.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Justification by faith Alone without works

The issue is dealt with by Paul in a very technical manner in Romans 3:24-5:2 but in the issue of the Law of Moses as opposed to works is specifically dealth with in Romans 3:27-28.

27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

There are several particulars that must be noted in this very technical and efficient treatise by Paul.


1. There is a question - "Where is boasting then?

This question has to do with the immediate preceding verses (vv. 23-26) where the problem and the provision for that problem is provided by God through the Person and work of Jesus Christ. The problem is found in verse 23. The provision is found in verses 24-26. In this provision there is absolutely nothing provided by the sinner to resolve the problem. Indeed the text begins with "freely by grace." The only part that involves the sinner in this provision is their faith and the only part their faith plays in this provision is in its OBJECT:

"through faith IN his blood,"
"believeth IN Jesus."

Hence, their faith plays no part, provides no provision but simply acts as a receiver of that provision by placing their faith IN the provision. In direct contrast "faithfulness" is what you do for God but justifying faith is receiving what God did for you through the shed "blood" and Person of "Jesus."

Therefore, the question that directly follows is "Where is boasting then?"


2. Paul introduces the use of the term "law" in verse 27 that has nothing to do with the Law of Moses or any other statutary human or divine law.

He introduces it in the sense of a PRINCIPLE or RULE in regard to his further developed question. The question is "where is boasting then?" and then the question is further developed to ask what "Law" or PRINCIPLE would provide boasting and what "Law" or PRINCIPLE would exclude boasting.

By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

Paul does not use the plural "Laws" but the singular "law" asking by what PRINCIPLE or RULE would include or exclude boasting.


3. There is now provided the reader two contrasting PRINCIPLES to consider and to answer that question.

Those contrasting options are characterized by two words placed in opposition to each other:

1. The principle of WORKS
2. The principle of FAITH

These words characterize two opposing PRINCIPLES for justification. Hence, the question is which PRINCIPLE of justification excludes or includes boasting. Does the PRINCIPLE of justification by FAITH include or exclude boasting or does the PRINCIPLE of justification by WORKS include or exclude boasting?

Which PRINCIPLE excludes boasting (1) Works; (2) Faith


4. Paul does not leave this question without an answer but provides the answer:

of works? Nay: but by the law of faith

Hence, Paul addresses the issue by defining the underlying PRINCIPLE that characterizes ALL POSSIBLE WAYS of justification. He reduces all possible ways down to fit under one of two contrasting PRINCIPLES. You are either justified by the PRINCIPLE of works or you are justified by the PRINCIPLE of Faith and they are in placed in opposition to each other and therefore ruling out an syngerism of the two.


5. Hence, you are either justified by the principle of FAITH ALONE or you are justified by the principle of WORKS ALONE:

The principle of FAITH ALONE not only denies one can be justified by the law of Moses but any law that operates by the principle of works.

Romans 3:24-26 is justification "freely by grace" "through faith in his blood" believing "in Jesus" and therefore it is justification by the PRINCIPLE of faith without works:

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.


6. Therefore, by this PRINCIPLE of justification the ground is made level for both Jews and Gentiles under One God because the law of Moses is by PRINCIPLE justification by works:

29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:
30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

Note the repitition of "faith" in verse 30 "by faith" and "through faith" for both Jews and Gentiles.



7. Justification by faith without works does not invalidate the Law of God whether written upon stones (Rom. 2:12-13) or upon the conscience of man (Rom. 2:14-15) but is the ONLY WAY TO validate it

Paul is now taking the reader back to Romans 3:26 and the words:

26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

Jesus Christ in his own person satisfied (the propiation) the full demands of God. He satisfied the wrath of God by "his blood" (v. 25) and He satisfied fully the righteousness of God (v. 26). Therefore, that provision by Christ enabled God to be "Just" in imputing Christ's propitiation to the believer by faith and thus "the justifier of him" without violating His own righteous standard as Christ acted in behalf of the believing sinner and the believer received it "freely by grace."


8. Now, the same question "where is boasting then" is applied to Abraham:

1 ¶ What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

The word "glory" represents the very exact same word translated "boasting" in Romans 3:27. Paul proceeds in a very systematic way to prove that Abraham was justified "WITHOUT WORKS" of any kind coming from His person but was justified by the works coming from the Person of Christ through IMPUTATION.

1. Justified by faith without works by grace (imputation by faith) - vv. 3-5
2. Remision of sins without divine ordinances - vv. 6-12
3. Justified by the principle of faith not by the principle of law - vv. 13-15
4. Justified by faith without any kind of personal performance - vv. 16-21
5. Justified by faith as a completed action at the point of faith in the gospel - 4:22-5:2

CONCLUSION: Any doctrine of justification that is characterized by the principle of "works" is ANOTHER GOSPEL as the doctrine of justification by faith in the Person and work of Jesus Christ is the essence of the gospel (Gal. 1:8-9).

 

[DHK]

Yeah, yeah, we know, you tell us every other day. LOL.

PS. I'm glad you are not in charge up there in heaven.

Then why do I have to repeat myself.

 

[targus]

Then why do I have to repeat myself.

Who knows - because in the latest repetition it wasn't even remotely related to the post that you were responding to.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Who knows - because in the latest repetition it wasn't even remotely related to the post that you were responding to.

He tells you because he loves you enough to tell the truth of the gospel over and over again hoping that the Holy Spirit might one day allow you to see the truth of the real gospel of Jesus Christ.

If you want to take issue with my assessment, then please give me an intelligent and thoughtful response (minus the ridicule) of my previous post #177.

I bellieve that post spells out the primary shortcoming of Rome and much of Protestantism in regard to the most important truth in the Bible - the question of justification by faith or by works. Spare me the ridicule and provide some thoughtful response that is worthy of serious consideration.