Was it Calvin who saved the Waldensians?

[Eliyahu]

GE:

Colossians 2:16, "Do not you let yourselves be condemned (or) judged by anyone (of the world) concerning your eating and drinking ("feasting", of Jesus Christ spiritually), in fact, concerning (your feasting) of Feast, of month's or of Sabbaths', which thing is a spectre of things-a-coming, even the Body of Christ's Own . . . holding to the Head from which all the Body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God!"

You are disagreeing with Calvin.
Calvin claimed that the Lord Supper must be obeserved at least once a week, which is absolutely correct.
Christ didn't order us any other rituals than these 2, Baptism and Lord Supper. His will was that people should believe and be Baptized, and then remember Him with the Bread and Wine. He asked His disciples to remember Him with the Lord Supper.
The disciples kept this commandment as we read Acts 20:7 and 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 says that Paul received such commandment again directly from the Lord. I believe the Lord appeared Paul for this specific purpose " I have received of the Lord". When did Paul receive this commandment?
Then read 1 Cor 11:24 : this do in remebrance of me.
25 : this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remebrance of me.
26 : As often as ye eat thuis bread and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come.
( KJV reflected Hosakis for Often quite correctly, while MV's not)

Why is this different from other rituals?

This is the direct reflection of Jesus Christ and His work at the Cross, and the one of the 2 important Sacraments commanded by Jesus.
Jesus didn't give us other rituals than these.

Lord Supper teach us to practice our faith in :
- His broken Body ( many modern version omit, " which is broken for you")
- His Blood shed at the Cross
- His death
- His resurrection
- His second coming
-Sharing the same faith, same body, same blood among the fellow believers.
- Let the Believers examine themselves so that they may avoid sins and thereby be holy and spotless ( 28-29)

So, the Lord Supper has been the core of the worship service among the true believers such as De Vauis, Waldensians, Brethren ( and all the proto-Baptists and Proto-Brethren since the Early Church).

Calvin knew about this well and reflected this truth in his 4th book ch 17, article 44-47.

He refuted the Transubstantiation and Consubstantion rightly.

 

[Eliyahu]

I have traveled more than 20 countries and checked many churches in various countries. But the most of the Presbyterians that I know didn't perform the Lord Supper every week, though my survey may be very much limited in this aspect. As for Infant Baptism, there may be a little more variety and could be some Presbyterian churches which perform Infant Baptism, but I have not encountered any yet.

One of my friends living in Los Angeles has a neighbor( Scottish or English) who was a pastor at Presbyterian Church. He realized the Baptism should be done by immersion, then he went to a Baptist church and was baptized there. Later on he may have told such experience to his fellow believers saying that he realized the Baptism by immersion is Biblical. Then such fact was reported to the local Presbytery and they asked him to clarify his position, and thereafter he was fired from the Pastor position there and was excommunicated from the church. The charge was that he was disturbing and confusing the whole church society.

Even though you may say " The Mode of Baptism may be either Immersion or Sprinkling, and it should be left Free", the reality is not so.
If you decide that I want to be baptized by immersion, it may not be easy for you to be immersed for Baptism. Even though your church may decide on Baptism by immersion, your pastor and the whole of your church may be excommunicated from your Regional Presbytery. If you think you can change any of the sacraments there, you can try it and then will find the reality is quite different. Religion is like that and I think Satan works hard behind such human bindings.

-If your church conduct Infant Baptism, then were you baptized again after you grew up and confess your faith?
If you were not baptized with another Baptism, you have only the Infant Baptism, which means you were not baptized after you repent and believe, as in Mt 28:19 and Acts 2:38.

- If you had the Infant Baptism and then were baptized again after you believed, then you are Anabaptist ( Wiedertaufer), not the Presbyterian, disagreeing with Calvin.

Which one are you ?

 

[Eliyahu]

Calvin said " we believe the Church "
Can we find any statement like that in the Bible?
We are the part of the Church, but his concept of Holy Catholic Church must be distinguished from Church described in Ephesians 1 ( I would rather call Holy Heavenly Church instead of Holy Catholic Church).
If the Church means the Heavenly Church, we are part of it. We believe in Jesus who is the head of the church.

If the Church means local churches, we sometimes rebuke when they are wrong as Paul rebuked the Galatian church, according to the Biblical teachings.

"There is no salvation outside the Holy Catholic Church " such phrase is found nowhere in the Bible.

 

[Eliyahu]

If you google a little on the Waldensians, you may find there are variety of the historical assessments on their doctrines.
But if you read the histories written by the True Believers who believe that there have been True Churches outside the Roman Catholic, throughout the history, you will find they believe that Waldensians performed the Credo-Baptism( Believers Baptism), Objection to Infant Baptism( with exception due to the persecution), Rejected Transustantiation, Baptism by Immersion ( with exception due to the persecution), refused Mass, Excommunication as a discipline( without Civil Criminal Punishment). You can find such explanation from the book " Pilgrim Church" written by EH Broadbent, a German Brethren, covering upto 1930.http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/thailand/PC-B-000.htm


His book clearly shows that Christian churches have not deviated from Roman Catholic, but Roman Catholic deviated from Christianit church. He illustrates Montanists, Donatists, Paulicans, Novatianists, Nestorian, De Vauis, Waldensians, Bogomils, Bohemian Brethren, Moravian Brethren, etc.
They may have had some errors in their doctrines, but refused the idol making for Mary and others, refused calling Mary as Mother of God and Catholic Mass. It seems that Calvin didn't stand on this type of true believers historical views, but on the Roman Catholics in condemning those believers group.

Dr Cassidy who posts sometimes on this board wrote such history of Biblical Churches as well.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Colossians 2:16, "Do not you let yourselves be condemned (or) judged by anyone (of the world) concerning your eating and drinking ("feasting", of Jesus Christ spiritually), in fact, concerning (your feasting) of Feast, of month's or of Sabbaths', which thing is a spectre of things-a-coming, even the Body of Christ's Own . . . holding to the Head from which all the Body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God!"


Eliyahu:

"You are disagreeing with Calvin."

GE:

I know; it doesn't mean I don't regard him as a great champion of Truth though. Nevertheless, read this, which Calvin wrote:
"Thus, in the present day, not only the unlearned vulgar, but every one in proportion as he is inflated by worldly wisdom, is wonderfully captivated by the glare of ceremonies, while hypocrites and silly women think that nothing can be imagined better or more beautiful. But those who thoroughly examine them, and weigh them more truly according to the rule of godliness, in regard to the value of all such ceremonies, know, first, that they are trifles of no utility; secondly, that they are impostures which delude the eyes of the spectators with empty show. I am speaking of those ceremonies which the Roman masters will have to be great mysteries ('sacraments'), while we know by experience that they are mere mockery. Nor is it strange that their authors have gone the length of deluding themselves and others by frivolities, because they have taken their model partly from the dreams of the gentiles, and partly, because they like apes, have rashly imitated the ancient rites of the Mosaic Law . . . ." (4/12)

In my mind, Calvin did exactly so in his own defence of infant baptism --- like which his behaviour would have been, acted he in defense of baptism by immersion and of the adult, instead. i still take as superb and irrefutable Calvin's teaching on real truth, like election.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

If you google a little on the Waldensians, you may find there are variety of the historical assessments on their doctrines.
But if you read the histories written by the True Believers who believe that there have been True Churches outside the Roman Catholic, throughout the history, you will find they believe that Waldensians performed the Credo-Baptism( Believers Baptism), Objection to Infant Baptism( with exception due to the persecution), Rejected Transustantiation, Baptism by Immersion ( with exception due to the persecution), refused Mass, Excommunication as a discipline( without Civil Criminal Punishment). You can find such explanation from the book " Pilgrim Church" written by EH Broadbent, a German Brethren, covering upto 1930.http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/thailand/PC-B-000.htm


His book clearly shows that Christian churches have not deviated from Roman Catholic, but Roman Catholic deviated from Christianit church. He illustrates Montanists, Donatists, Paulicans, Novatianists, Nestorian, De Vauis, Waldensians, Bogomils, Bohemian Brethren, Moravian Brethren, etc.
They may have had some errors in their doctrines, but refused the idol making for Mary and others, refused calling Mary as Mother of God and Catholic Mass. It seems that Calvin didn't stand on this type of true believers historical views, but on the Roman Catholics in condemning those believers group.

Dr Cassidy who posts sometimes on this board wrote such history of Biblical Churches as well.

GE:

I still don't care what this or that movement of yonder times did or did not believe. I still say to the Bible only is the test and norm for truth. And that certainly implies the true Church of Christ have not only sometimes, but often and for far longer periods than not, practically disappeared from the face of the earth, so that all sound doctrine, would not be found upon it in any existing church-movement. Then with the visible true Church of Jesus Christ, has virtually disappeared sound doctrine in general as well as in particular. So for instance did the Sabbath disappear during the partriarchal period after the flood, and even before it --- to be revealed only a few centuries before Christ through the redemption of the People of God from Egypt. Then through and in jesus Christ, God to the utmost, revealed His Sabbath Day to His Church --- only so that that Church soon after would lose it and would offer it up to gain its idolatrous substitute, Sunday-venration.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Eliyahu:

"Calvin said " we believe the Church "
Can we find any statement like that in the Bible?"

GE:

The Apostolic Confession states: "I believe the Church". Can we find any statement like that in the Bible? We find the Bible speaks of the Holy Spirit; therefore we must confess the work of the Holy Spirit; which is the Church. Therefore if we confess God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, we - according to the Scriptures - must also believe and confess, Yes, according to the Bible we believe the Church....
But is stops not there! "I believe the forgiveness of sins"? Is that statement-confession found in the Bible? No! So must we not believe the forgiveness of sins? Then also should we not believe in Jesus Christ!

Nor does it stop here - which was just by the buy! For if we believe the Holy Spirit, we must believe the Church; and if we believe the Church - we consistently and consequently, MUST GN and believe and confess: 'I believe the Sabbath Day of the the LORD your Mighty (Saviour God)", for where the Church is there is its Congregating, and where its Congregation is, there God's Day of Worship Rest manifests itself according to the will of God and not of man.

 

[Eliyahu]

Colossians 2:16, "Do not you let yourselves be condemned (or) judged by anyone (of the world) concerning your eating and drinking ("feasting", of Jesus Christ spiritually), in fact, concerning (your feasting) of Feast, of month's or of Sabbaths', which thing is a spectre of things-a-coming, even the Body of Christ's Own . . . holding to the Head from which all the Body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God!"


Eliyahu:

"You are disagreeing with Calvin."

GE:

I know; it doesn't mean I don't regard him as a great champion of Truth though. Nevertheless, read this, which Calvin wrote:
"Thus, in the present day, not only the unlearned vulgar, but every one in proportion as he is inflated by worldly wisdom, is wonderfully captivated by the glare of ceremonies, while hypocrites and silly women think that nothing can be imagined better or more beautiful. But those who thoroughly examine them, and weigh them more truly according to the rule of godliness, in regard to the value of all such ceremonies, know, first, that they are trifles of no utility; secondly, that they are impostures which delude the eyes of the spectators with empty show. I am speaking of those ceremonies which the Roman masters will have to be great mysteries ('sacraments'), while we know by experience that they are mere mockery. Nor is it strange that their authors have gone the length of deluding themselves and others by frivolities, because they have taken their model partly from the dreams of the gentiles, and partly, because they like apes, have rashly imitated the ancient rites of the Mosaic Law . . . ." (4/12)

In my mind, Calvin did exactly so in his own defence of infant baptism --- like which his behaviour would have been, acted he in defense of baptism by immersion and of the adult, instead. i still take as superb and irrefutable Calvin's teaching on real truth, like election.

RCC had 7 sacraments and there may have been more rituals. He rightly broke them.
But as for Predestination or Election, though I agree on the principle, I believe we should not develop further theory than what the Bible says.
If Bible stated the Election or Predestination, that's it. But I heard some people say that whether a person will accept Jesus and come to the salvation was predetermined by God before the Creation of the world, and therefore we don't have to be eager about preaching the gospel to that person. That weakens the Evangelical work. We are not supposed to develop further theory from the Bible. We just deliver the message of it as it is, and that's it. There are many verses which rather command us to work on the free will of ours based on the free choice.
As for the Lord Supper Calvin emphasized it very much, differentiating it from other rituals. Read the chapter 17 of 4th Book.

 

[Eliyahu]

GE:

I still don't care what this or that movement of yonder times did or did not believe. I still say to the Bible only is the test and norm for truth. And that certainly implies the true Church of Christ have not only sometimes, but often and for far longer periods than not, practically disappeared from the face of the earth, so that all sound doctrine, would not be found upon it in any existing church-movement. Then with the visible true Church of Jesus Christ, has virtually disappeared sound doctrine in general as well as in particular. So for instance did the Sabbath disappear during the partriarchal period after the flood, and even before it --- to be revealed only a few centuries before Christ through the redemption of the People of God from Egypt. Then through and in jesus Christ, God to the utmost, revealed His Sabbath Day to His Church --- only so that that Church soon after would lose it and would offer it up to gain its idolatrous substitute, Sunday-venration.

I am rather generous to both sides of Sunday worship and Sabbath worship, though I find more reason to stay with Sabbath these days. Apparently there was a certain common idea or consensus between pagan and Christianity to worship on the Day of Holy Sun since 321 AD, but we also find the legitimate reasons for the First Day of the Week as we read Acts 20:7 and 1 Cor 16:2. That cannot be the most important criteria for discerning the true churches.

The most important criteria is whether the church consisted of the Born Again Believers or not. As for that, Jesus said, by their fruits ye shall know them. Most of the true churches refused Papacy, Calling Mary as Mother of God, Mass, Transubstantiation, Infant Baptism, Clergy System like RC priests, many rituals of RCC.

Again if you read the Pilgrim Church by EH Broadbent, you will realize that your understanding about the Church history in the past was absolutely wrong.

 

[Eliyahu]

Eliyahu:

"Calvin said " we believe the Church "
Can we find any statement like that in the Bible?"

GE:

The Apostolic Confession states: "I believe the Church". Can we find any statement like that in the Bible? We find the Bible speaks of the Holy Spirit; therefore we must confess the work of the Holy Spirit; which is the Church. Therefore if we confess God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, we - according to the Scriptures - must also believe and confess, Yes, according to the Bible we believe the Church....
But is stops not there! "I believe the forgiveness of sins"? Is that statement-confession found in the Bible? No! So must we not believe the forgiveness of sins? Then also should we not believe in Jesus Christ!

Nor does it stop here - which was just by the buy! For if we believe the Holy Spirit, we must believe the Church; and if we believe the Church - we consistently and consequently, MUST GN and believe and confess: 'I believe the Sabbath Day of the the LORD your Mighty (Saviour God)", for where the Church is there is its Congregating, and where its Congregation is, there God's Day of Worship Rest manifests itself according to the will of God and not of man.

We must be based on Bible only.
Can you find any statement in the Bible that we must believe in Ecclesia?
Where is it?
This shows that you are not waken up enough from the sleep of RCC.
Why did Paul condemn Galatian Church so much? Why did Paul find faults with Corinthian Church? Do we believe God the Father, Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ and the Ecclesia?
We are parts of Ecclesia, and the Ecclesia is the Bride of Christ, Body of christ. It sounds like we should believe in us if you say we should believe in Church. The local churches can make mistakes and errors.

As for Creeds ( either Apostles Creeds or Nicean Creeds etc), we Brethren churches don't practice it.
I would not say that it is wrong, but it lacks the overall-whole truth sometimes, or can cause misunderstanding, and we don't read anywhere that the early church practiced such. This may be quite a difference between Presbyterian and Methodists, and Brethren.

Shortly let me show you:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
( God created the universe thru Jesus Christ as we read Eph 3:9-KJV, Creatorship of Jesus is omitted)

and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary, ( This doesn't tell Jesus was the Creator of Mary, and Mary was a virgin at that time, but it doesn't mean that she was the perpetual virgin as RCC claims.)

suffered under Pontius Pilate, ( Pontius Pilate was the person who tried to save Jesus while Priests and elders tried to kill Him)

was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell. ( This is a kind of interpretation, not the expression of Bible, which can be arguable)

The third day He arose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy *catholic church, ( This is the most contentious and arguable word which RCC delights in)

the communion of saints, ( RCC interprets this as the communion with the dead saints, which is absolutely wrong!)

the forgiveness of sins, ( Forgiveness of sins was done already and most RCC and many Protestants misinterpret this as the forgivenes in the future when we confess the sins)
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.
Amen.

Depending on the views, there can be more arguments on the Creeds.

Again there is no record that the Early Church practiced the Creeds.

I don't think the true churches like Waldensians, Brethren memorized this every week, except the time of persecution.