The theological bankruptcy of Sola Scriptura

Still waiting for those contemporary primary source documents, Bob...

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

And, pray tell, which of Mosheim, Hosius (if he existed), Newton and the author of the Edinburgh Cyclopedia lived prior to the 1160s? That's the meaning of 'contemporary' in this context, Bob.

Still waiting...

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Bob, you are missing the point here. By contemporary primary source document I mean a document that we know was created at the time to which it relates that is evidence of the contemporary events and facts which it describes. For example, I know that the Byzantine Emperor Justinian codified the laws of his Empire in the early 530s. How do I know this? Because I have read a copy of his Codex and his Digest, the original MSS of which date from the 530s. These are therefore primary source documents that evidence the assertion that that event happened in history.

Now, with the Waldenses, we have a somewhat different evidential scenario. Let me try to follow your argument, and correct me if I go wrong at any point:-

1. The Waldenses were proto-Baptists, proto-Adventists and/ or proto-evangelicals.

2. They existed prior to the 1160s, and indeed go back to the Apostles.

3. You know this because 'historians' like Carroll and Mosheim say so.

4. Some of the ECFs eg: Tertullian and the Didache support your contention.

Correct so far?

Now, let me start with the last of your assertions. Yes, the Didache is a contemporary primary source document from the 2nd century. But all it tells us is the method of baptism; it makes no mention of what the Christians of the time thought baptism actually did. Similarly, while Tertullian is contemporary and primary from the end of that century, again, to ascribe to him proto-Baptist beliefs is stretching it a bit. True, he did not believe in infant baptism. But the reason for that belief was very different from that of modern Baptists: Tertullian believed that not only did baptism regenerate the sinner and forgive all sins, but he also believed that sins committed after baptism could not be forgiven; therefore he was in favour of deferring baptism for as long as possible - ideally until the candidate was at the point of death. Now, I think you'll agree with me that that is very different from the modern Baptist view of baptism.

Mosheim and Carroll and Co lived many centuries after the 1160s and cannot in any way be described as contemporary primary source material; nor, crucially, do they adduce any such material.

To reiterate, Bob, so that you can be perfectly clear what is required to support your contention re the Waldenses, if you are asserting that they existed in, say, the 8th century, you need to produce an 8th century document showing that to be the case. Otherwise your assertions are pure conjecture.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

#1. The Waldenses are french - not arabs.
#2. They were nicknamed the Waldenses -- so the "name" does not go beyond the assigning of the nick=name.
#.3 The DOCTRINE is that of anabaptists - refusing to baptize infants.
#4. The DIDACHE SHOWS this to be the case when IT WAS written.
#5. Tertullian SHOWS this to be HIS belief.
#6. The other ECF sources quoted by the Catholic Digest on the EVOLUTION of baptism SHOW that it starts as believers baptism by full water emersion.
#7. "Christians make Christians of others". It is through that doctrinal "lineage" that the French Christians are traced.

That is my position.

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]#1 I never said they were Arabs. Where are you getting this from??!
#2 Granted
#3 But you still have not adduced any primary source documents from, say, the 8th century to support your thesis that Anabaptist/ believers' baptism beliefs existed at this point
#4 No, the Didache merely tells us how to baptise, not whom.
#5 Yes, but for non-Anabaptist reasons - it was because he believed in baptismal regeneration to such an extent that no forgiveness could be granted for sins committed afterwards
#6. The ECF documents show they believed in baptismal regeneration
#7. And the primary source documents for this are what, exactly?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Yes, but the quote about Baal is in Scripture and that is why I believe it. Mosheim, Carroll et al are not Scripture!

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Yes it is but i'm not sure what your point is?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

One does not have to BE a Baptist to believe in BELIEVER's baptism. I am proof of that fact.

The salient point between infant baptism and BELIEVERS baptism is that one must CHOOSE Baptism. One must REPENT FIRST (as Tertullian said) AND THEN be Baptized.

As soon as you accept that fact - infant baptism is dead. No such thing as magic waters of the sacrament that can forgive sins (or a priest with the POWER to forgive sins) IF it is VOID without FIRST repenting.

That ends the discussion before it gets started on infant baptism.

As for the fact that Tertullian himself DID NOT wait until death for baptism - left as an exercise for the reader.

AS for whether Tertullian regarded himself as "sinless since baptism" and never in need of repentance or forgiveness -- I have not seen that proven. But I am open to some document saying that is how he viewed himself.

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Some sources for you:-

"Sole Opponent -- A Heretic
In the 1,500 years from the time of Christ to the Protestant Reformation, the only bonafide opponent to infant Baptism was Tertullian (160-215), bishop of Carthage, Africa. His superficial objection was to the unfair responsibility laid on godparents when the child of pagans joined the church. However, his real opposition was more fundamental. It was his view that sinfulness begins a the "puberty of the soul," that is "about the fourteenth year of life" and "it drives man our of the paradise of innocence" (De Anima 38:2). This rules out the belief in original sin.

Tertullian's stance, together with other unorthodox views, led him to embrace Montanism in 207. Montanism denied the total corruption and sinfulness of human nature. With its emphasis upon the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit, it was the precursor to the modern Charismatic Movement.

Except for Tertullian's heretical views, marking his departure from mainstream Christianity, the only other opposition to infant Baptism came during a brief period in the middle of the fourth century. The issue was the fear of post-Baptismal sin. This heretical view also denied Baptism to adults until their death-bed. It was not in reality a denial of infant baptism in and of itself. In fact, the heresy encouraged Baptism of infants when death seemed imminent, as it also did for adults."

SOURCE

Tertullian himself (NB this is rather turgid stuff!)

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

It's not a 'few centuries,; it's more like a millenium. I'm not saying I know what people in the Vaud believed in the 8th century; that's just the point, I don't know and neither do you; neither did Mosheim and Carroll. None of us were there and none of us have any documents from that time to prove the assertions of you and Messrs Carroll, Newton and Mosheim. Your argument is one from total silence.

We do however have ample evidence of what the Church believed at that time

Yours in Christ

Matt