Featured Church of Christ and Baptism

Actually they sort of substituted baptism for circumcision. Both are permanent and both can only be done once. Colossians 2:11-12. Of course circumcision had no spiritual efficacy per se, whereas baptism is the gateway to Christianity. It washes away sins. Acts 22:16.

 

I don't know who those people are and never heard of stuff like electricity flowing from people's hands. It looks like you are taking this topic off of scripture and trying to introduce sorcery so you can avoid addressing scripture. I have been on this board 7 years and in that time no one has explained to me why the scripture that discusses the sacraments should be nullified. I'm talking about the likes of Acts 22:16, Mark 16:16, 1 Corinthians 10:16, 1 Timothy 4:14 and James 5:14-15. You don't want to talk about them and when you do, you merely state that we need to regard these symbolically. You never say why but you know full that nothing in any of these passages says we should regard them symbolically. I have to conclude that you lack the faith to believe in the miracles of the sacraments. Do you even have any faith at all?

 

That statement only demonstrates your lack of knowledge concerning church history. The statement is absolutely false. Even a RCC cardinal, Cardinal Hosius, will attest to the presence of the Waldenses right back to the time of the apostles and they stood militantly against baptismal regeneration.[/QUOTE]

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 the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and of the Blessed and Ever-Virgin Mary. Be it noted by all the faithful that I, Valdesius, and all my brethren, standing before the Holy Gospels, do declare that we believe with all our hearts, having been grasped by faith, that we profess openly that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three Persons, one God....

"We firmly believe and explicitly declare that the incarnation of the Divinity did not take place in the Father and the Holy Spirit, but solely in the Son, so that he who was the divine Son of God the Father was also true man from his Mother.

"We believe one Church, Catholic, Holy, Apostolic and Immaculate, apart from which no one can be saved, and in the sacraments therein administered through the invisible and incomprehensible power of the Holy Spirit, sacraments which may be rightly administered by a sinful priest....

"We firmly believe in the judgment to come and in the fact that each man will receive reward or punishment according to what he has done in this flesh. We do not doubt the fact that alms, sacrifice, and other charitable acts are able to be of assistance to those who die.

"And since, according to the Apostle James, faith without works is dead, we have renounced this world and have distributed to the poor all that we possess, according to the will of God, and we have decided that we ourselves should be poor in such a way as not to be careful for the morrow, and to accept from no one gold, silver, or anything else, with the exception of raiment and daily food. We have set before ourselves the objective of fulfilling the Gospel counsels as precepts.

"We believe that anyone in this age who keeps to a proper life, giving alms and doing other good works from his own possessions and observing the precepts from the Lord, can be saved.

"We make this declaration in order that if anyone should come to you affirming that he is one of us, you may know for certain that he is not one of us if he does not profess this same faith."

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".

I was always told as a Baptist that the Waldenses were predecessors to Baptist and that they held almost identical beliefs. What a crock!

 

There is no such thing as a sacrament. By definition a sacrament is a means of grace. There is no "means of grace." All grace comes from God. It is directly from God.

"By grace are you saved through faith and that not of yourselves. It is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast."

Sacraments directly violate the basic teaching in that verse.
Also in this verse:
Romans 11:6 But if it is by grace, it is no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace.
--Sacraments, done by man, and the grace of God, don't mix. Who does the baptizing for example? Man baptizes. Man receives the baptism. It is a person that is either immersed, sprinkled or poured. It involves the WORK of a man. Grace and works do not mix.
It is either of grace or of works. It cannot be of both.
The sacrament is a work, not a means of grace. It is impossible.
Only God gives grace; man cannot do so.

Baptism and the Lord's Supper are the two ordinances of the local church. There are no others. An ordinance is a command. These are to be kept until the Lord comes. They are purely symbolic. Nothing "magical" here happens. We keep them in remembrance of the Lord's death and resurrection. It doesn't make one saved, nor more holy in any way. Thus it is not sacramental. It is only an ordinance, a command.

There is no miracle in a sacrament. That is superstition. Demonstrate a miracle in a sacrament for me. Where is the evidence, the proof.
Jesus demonstrated his miracles. He walked on water; calmed the seas; multiplied bread and fish; made the blind to see; the lame to walk; healed the lepers; etc. Those were miracles. They were visible to all.
You believe in a superstition that never happens.
I believe in Christianity that is based on rational faith--the basis of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ--that which can be attested in historical fact. It is not based on superstition.
The Hindus bathe in the Ganges River believing it will take away their sin; are you any different.
Muslims sacrifice a goat every year believing the blood that is shed will take away sin. Is your belief that much different?
They also believe if they blow themselves up they will go straight to heaven. How different are you?
I know you won't do that, but what they have is "blind faith." It is irrational. It is not based on fact. Allah tells them so, or their Muslim priests tell them so, without any basis in fact.

That is not how Christianity operates. We have a rationale faith--a faith that is based on facts. I believe because I know the promises of God are true. Water doesn't save. To believe such is irrational. Putting my hands on someone won't heal them. That is irrational. It is superstitious. If that is all it took, then why shouldn't some Christian go into the hospitals and lay their hands on all the patients in the ER and then go up and down the corridors and heal all in the hospitals. They can't. It is irrational.
The laying on of hands was symbolic. The person was healed in James 5 because of an answer to prayer and that is all. All healings today are "answers to prayer," unless it is by nature, the body's own immune system, man's ability to use medical means, etc. The "gift of healing" has ceased. That is the gift that Peter displayed here:

Acts 5:16 And there also came together the multitudes from the cities round about Jerusalem, bring sick folk, and them that were vexed with unclean spirits: and they were healed every one.

Thousands came to him. "They were healed EVERY one."
No matter what malady they had they were healed; no one turned away.
No one does that today.

Baptism doesn't save.
Laying on of hands doesn't heal.
Don't believe in superstitions.

 

Why people try to appeal to history when talking doctrine is beyond me. History is fallible, God's word is not. God's word>History, God's word> Personal Experience.

There are much more verses that show we are saved by faith than there are that say we are saved by Baptism.

1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
In Roman Catholicism the Priest is needed in the Catholic confessional in order for people to have their sins absolved (forgiven) and the Priest becomes a mediator, because without the priest one cannot perform the sacrament of confessional. In the same way the Baptismal Regenerationist preacher becomes a mediator, because one must be baptized to be saved and the church ordinance of baptism requires an administer. I fail to see a way around this, I suppose you can say God makes exceptions, but for God to make exceptions would be to go against his character and would cause God to contradict himself.

 

(Rom 3:23) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;-We are all sinners

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. –The wage for sin is spiritual and physical death

(Rev 20:14) And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.-salvations is not by deeds of the law

Rom 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Rom 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. Works- Greek:Ergon Deed, doing, or a labor.

Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness (Is Baptism a work of Righteousness?) which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Act 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? Act 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Now the bible makes it clear we are not saved by works, and we described earlier works are a doing, deed, or labor: Baptism appears to be a doing, a deed, and a labor, Therefore we must take an honest look at verses that would appear to teach baptismal salvation and we must be willing to admit that we may have misinterpreted the verses because we do not believe that the bible contradicts itself, we must be willing to admit that we may be wrong about what verses say.

 

Mat 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
Clearly here, There is a Holy Ghost Baptism that is distinct from water Baptism, so when looking at verses about Baptism if water is not specifically mentioned or alluded to, we must be willing to admit the verses may be talking about Spirit Baptism.

1Co 10:1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 1Co 10:2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
Here it is clear that sometimes the word Baptism can mean something figurative in the sense of identifying with something, The Israelites identified with Moses in the Red Sea. They were not literally Baptized into Moses with water Baptism, so we must be willing to admit the possibility of some Baptism verses meaning identification and not literally water Baptism.

 

Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. Rom 6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: -Note that water is not mentioned here, this is possibly referring to Holy Spirit Baptism, and is referring to how we are to be dead to sin in the likeness of how Christ was dead to the world.

Col 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
-Also note there that no mention of water is made, so we must be willing to admit this may be spiritual Baptism, do notice that is says we are risen through the faith of the operation of God, clearly we are going to be risen through faith in Gods operation of raising Christ from the dead, it is the faith in Christ death, burial, and resurrection that says will raise us.

Gal 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Notice 1st of that it says we are the children of God BY FAITH in Christ Jesus, Also notice that no mention of water is made, and that this verse also may be talking about Spirit Baptism and not water Baptism.

Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Notice first of all that Water is not mentioned, therefore it may be talking about Spiritual Baptism, But even if it is water Baptism, there are a few things to note. 1. If salvation is by faith alone without Baptism than the statement he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved could still be true without requiring water baptism, for example, I asked Christ to save me and I have been Baptized and I am saved, the only way water could be necessary is if it says he who is not baptized shall be damned, Now the bible says he that believeth not shall be damned, it excludes baptism, I believe God had baptism left out for a reason.

1Pe 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 1Pe 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
Notice a few things 1. The Water didn’t literally save Noah and his family, the Ark was what saved, the Ark being a picture of Jesus Christ, also it says the 8 souls were saved by water, now we know that the water did not provide them salvation, but It is still unclear to me what the meaning of the phrase saved by water, It is also very important to note the parenthetical phrase not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, notice that Baptism is the answer of a good conscience toward God, It is the expression of a good conscience towards God, this means that the person has a cleansed conscience prior to baptism which would indicate forgiveness. This is still very difficult verse though and deserve more prayerful study.

Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Perhaps this is the most often quoted verse by Baptismal salvation, there are some things we must note:
1. In English for does not always mean in order to receive, and example would be: Jesus died for the sins of the world.
2. A key word in Acts 2:38 for the baptismal salvation proponents is "for"; "baptized... for the forgiveness of sins." They insist that the meaning be interpreted "in order to obtain" the forgiveness of sins. The problem with this insistence is that the word "for" (eis, in Greek) has several connotations in New Testament Koine Greek. Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament says that eis is a versatile word which primarily "denotes entrance into, or direction and limit: into, to, toward, for, among," (p. 183).
In other words the symbol of baptism could either be pointing towards the cleansing and forgiveness (with reference to), or could pointing to the actual procuring of forgiveness (in order to).

Note some other examples where the Greek word eis is used:
(Mat 12:41) The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at (eis) the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.
They repented because of the preaching of Jonah.
1Co 10:1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 1Co 10:2 And were all baptized unto (eis) Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
Note here it does not mean in order to receive Moses.
So there eis may be used in a way that can mean someway other than in order to receive.

 

1Co 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? 1Co 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; 1Co 1:15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. 1Co 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. 1Co 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 1Co 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. 1Co 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
Notice that Paul says Christ sent him not to baptize but to preach the Gospel, If Baptism was part of the Gospel message why didn’t Paul include it? Why would Paul not baptize people if baptism was so necessary for salvation? I believe it is simply because faith alone is what saves. It also says that God saves by the foolishness of this preaching of the Gospel, if baptism is not part of the Gospel message then how does the preaching save them THAT BELIEVE.

-The thief on the cross is another example of how Salvation is without Baptism, I suppose the argument can be made that they were still under the old covenant, if that is the case though John 3:5 is not a valid support for Baptismal salvation because Nicodemus was still under the old covenant and if water baptism was not necessary then Jesus would not have been telling Nicodemus to be baptized, Personally I do not believe he even is talking about Baptism when he says Born of water, I believe born of water is a reference to being born of flesh. Because that is the context is talking about the 2 births, water baptism cannot be both the fleshly birth and the spiritual birth as some who believe in Baptismal salvation claim, it is either one the other not both.

Gen 15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
-Notice that Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness, here again we say justification by faith, apart from sacraments,ordinances, or works.

Act 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. Act 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. Act 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Act 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? Act 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
Also note here that the Holy Ghost is given before Baptism.
this is very significant in light of Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. Rom 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
(Eph 4:30) And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

-it states that the Holy Ghost seals people unto redemption (Salvation), A person can only receive the Holy Ghost if they are already God’s if Baptism is what saves then how were these people able to receive God’s spirit without baptism: We must be willing to admit that salvation is obtainable without water baptism, You can argue that God made an exception because they were gentiles to try and show Peter God had accepted them: but this argument does not hold up for a few reasons: 1 If God makes an exception then that means God has ceased to be consistent, which is against God’s character. 2. Gentiles has been grafted into Israel in the past before and would not really have been a foreign concept to Peter, In fact God knew that Cornelius was already accepted of God as seen here: (Act 10:34) Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of personsAct 10:35) But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

Act 9:17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. Act 9:18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.
Here we see that Saul lost his sight, and that there is a connection made between receiving his sight and being filled with the Holy Ghost, this is a picture of how Christ give us spiritual sight and guidance with his Spirit, Now It doesn’t specifically say, but it would seem that he was baptized after he received his sight and the Holy Ghost.

 

With everything in view and in light of comparing scripture with scripture a few notes are to be made:
1. The scriptures that stress justification and salvation by faith alone FAR outweigh the ones that seem to teach baptismal salvation and justification.
2. The small amount of scriptures that seem to teach baptismal salvation can all be misinterpreted and I have provided other possible interpretations that would make the harmonize them with Salvation by faith alone and with the fact that the scriptures stress that we are not saved by any works.
3. It is my conviction that those who hold to baptismal salvation are A. Not looking at scripture as a whole and ignoring scriptures. And B. have not come to the conclusion of Baptismal salvation by studying the bible alone but have been indoctrinated with the belief and have then read baptismal salvation into the text, much like what Jehovas Witnesses do when they deny the Deity of Christ or claim that the 144,000 Jews in Revelation are JWs.
4. It is also my conviction that a person who is trusting in Baptism to save is not saved, I like to use the example of 2 chairs, 1 chair represents Christ, and the other represents Baptism, if Christ alone is sufficient to save than we ought to place our trust and faith ONLY in him, if we sit on both chairs than we are not truly trusting Christ, We cannot rely in both. If we really believe baptism saves us than are we really trusting in the work of Christ or are we trusting in our baptism? If we are trusting in baptism than we must repent, trusting in baptism is no different from a Roman Catholic who believes he is saved by Faith in Christ and doing things like Baptism, confirmation, confessional, and alms giving,: in the end it comes back to salvation being dependant on a work of righteousness.
Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

 

You are confusing Peter Waldo with the Valenses or people of the valley's or those called "Waldenses" not because of Peter Waldo but because they lived in the Valley of the Piedmont. Their confessions of faith (which are many) teach no such thing. Their own histories repudiate your "history" connection between Peter Waldo and themselves.

 

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[/quote]
How wrong you are!!!!
Let me guess. You got your information from the revised history site of the RCC. Don't trust anything they have to say.
Here is what the Waldenses believed:

http://www.holytrinitynewrochelle.org/yourti16626.html
Do you still think that is similar to what the RCC believes?

 

How wrong you are!!!!
Let me guess. You got your information from the revised history site of the RCC. Don't trust anything they have to say.
Here is what the Waldenses believed:

http://www.holytrinitynewrochelle.org/yourti16626.html
Do you still think that is similar to what the RCC believes?[/QUOTE]

As a matter of fact, I do. The statement of faith I posted is a historical document you cannot refute. It is there in black & white. You have an article written by someone who 'claims' to know what the Waldenses believed. The Waldenses beliefs changed when they joined the Protestant Reformation. Before that their beliefs were VERY Catholic.

The Waldenses (both sects) affirmed the Real Presence in the Eucharist and the efficacy of the sacraments contrary to the claims of your article. So, right from the get-go you are believing some revisionists history (which I'm sure you need to do) in order to 'hitch your wagon' somehow to the Waldenses. This is so typical of Baptist fundamentalists and SDA's. You guys are more than willing to try to identify with the different heretical groups that objected to the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church even though their teachings were riddled with heresy. You do this ignoring the heresy that even YOU don't accept.

I would recommend reading Gabriel Audisio, The Waldensian Dissent: Persecution and Survival c.1170 - c.1570, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
You'll find out the Waldensians were heretical in SOME beliefs and were one among several heretical sects at the time. They were excommunicated and SOME of their doctrines rejected, but there are no historical sources as of the 1989 available about the life of the founder after this.

There is a lot of nonsense about the Waldenses. No historian with access to the sources holds that they go back to the apostles or Pope Sylvester (pp., 3-4, 7); as I said, they actually differed greatly from Protestant belief until they joined the Reformation and then changed their beliefs to match.

 

They are only "Catholic" to those that are Catholic and use biased Catholic sources. The Catholics have done a nice job of rewriting history. If they could they wipe out the inquisitions and murderous crusades held down throughout the centuries. So wicked were their crusades they decimated peace loving Christians such as the Albigenses.
I suppose the present "crusade" of the RCC is rewrite the history of the RCC's innocence of all sexual abuse so the future generations will see them as completely innocent of all charges. Just rewrite history; that is all.

You have your Catholic sources. Completely biased of course. And wrong.

I accept history without bias, which is not rewritten history by the RCC.

Some were excommunicated by who? The RCC :laugh:
That is because the got saved! And then they got baptized as adults (anabaptists), for which many of them died; paid the price with their blood under the heavy hand of the RCC.
The Waldenses did not start with Waldo. The word means "People of the Valley." The existed long before Waldo was ever born.

There are sources if you want to look for them.
Check Wylie.

 

I gave you a Baptist theologian as a source but you ignored him.

 

Why check Baptist or Catholic sources when you have their own confessions of faith in print?? Why check Baptist or Catholic sources when you have their own historians providing their own confessions of faith which contradict your interpretation? Also, Samuel Moreland provides their confessions in their original language and English translation in his book "Valley of the Piedmont." There are several Vallense historians that repudiate your Catholic sources and the Catholic interpretation of their origin and name.

"The contention is that the name Waldenses is from the Italian Valdese, or Waldesi, signifying a valley, and, therefore, the word means that they lived in valleys. Eberhard de Bethune, A. D. 1160, says: "Some of them call themselves Vallenses because they live in the vale of sorrows or tears" (Monastier, A History of the Vaudois Church, 58. London, 1848). Bernard, an Abbot of a Monastery of the Remonstrants, in the Diocese of Narbonne, about 1209, says that they were called "Waldenses, that is, from a dark valley, because they are involved in its deep thick darkness or errors" (Migne, CCIV. 793). Waldo was so called because he was a valley man, and was only a noted leader of a people who had long existed. This view is ardently supported by most of the Waldensian historians (Leger, Histoire Generale des Vaudois. Leyden, 1669)..........................Rainerio Saechoni was for seventeen years one of the most active preachers of the Cathari or Waldenses of Lombardy; at length he joined the Dominican order and became an adversary of the Waldenses. The pope made him Inquisitor of Lombardy. The following opinion in regard to the antiquity of the Waldenses was rendered through one of the Austrian inquisitors in the Diocese of Passau, about the year 1260 (Preger, Beitrage zur Geschichte der Waldesier, 6-8). He says:

Among all the sects, there is no one more pernicious to the church than that of the Leonists (Waldenses), and for three reasons: In the first place, because it is the most ancient: for some say that it dates back to the time of Sylvester (A. D. 825); others to the time of the apostles. In the second place. because it is the most widespread. There is hardly a country where it does not exist. In the third place, because if other sects strike with horror those who listen to them, the Leonists, on the contrary, posses a great outward appearance of piety. As a matter of fact they lead irreproachable lives before men and as regards their faith and the articles of their creed, they are orthodox. Their one fault is, that they blaspheme against the Church and the clergy,—points to which laymen In general are known to be too easily led away (Gretscher, Contra Valdenses, IV.).

It was the received opinion among the Waldenses that they were of ancient origin and truly apostolic. "They call themselves," says David of Augsburg, "successors of the apostles, and say that they are in possession of the apostolic authority, and of the keys to bind and unbind" (Preger, Der Tractat des David von Augsburg uber die Waldensier. Munchen, 1876)". - Samuel Moreland, The Churches of the Valley of the Piedmont - Chapter six

 

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

 

That was my first appeal but Walter would have none of that as uninspired Roman Catholic collecting, recording and interpreting of secular history is his final authority for interpreting scriptures and faith and doctrine.

The Biblical issue is not whether baptism saves or remits sins but HOW does it do that? Literally or figuratively? Peter clearly answers that issue - "the like FIGURE" - 1 Pet. 3:21.

 

I would really would like to see his response to all of the scripture I posted.

 

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. He uses us to witness and preach the gospel, he uses us to intercede (a form of mediating) for each other, he uses us feed and cloth the poor, etc. etc. Yes, Catholics believe Jesus to be our only mediator contrary to what you have been led to understand. The Catholic Church acknowledges Christ to be our one and absolutely unique mediator who alone can reconcile us to the Father in a strict sense. I recently read 'The Catholic Catechism', by Fr. John Hardon and he explains:

'… the Incarnation corresponds to mediation in the order of being, and the Redemption (remission of sin and conferral of grace) is mediation morally.

This kind of mediation is incommunicable. No one but the Savior unites in himself the divinity, which demands reconciliation, and the humanity, which needs to be reconciled.'

Faith is absolutely essential to our salvation. No faith, no salvation. I have no problem with any of the verses you have listed above. The problem is that you believe that it is through faith alone'. The only place in scripture that we see the words 'faith alone' is in James and he says it is NOT by 'faith alone' that we are saved. Catholics adhere to two of the important "solas" related to salvation sola gratia (by grace alone) and solo Christo (by Christ alone) but few people are aware that Catholics can also accept the formula of justification sola fide (by faith alone), provided this phrase is properly understood.

The term pistis is used in the Bible in a number of different senses, ranging from intellectual belief (Romans 14:22, 23, James 2:19), to assurance (Acts 17:31), and even to trustworthiness or reliability (Romans 3:3, Titus 2:10). Of key importance is Galatians 5:6, which refers to faith working by love. In Catholic theology, this is what is known as fides formata or faith formed by love. The alternative to formed faith is fides informis or faith unformed by love. This is the kind of faith described in James 2:19, for example.

Whether a Catholic rejects the idea of justification by faith alone depends on what sense the term faith is being used in. If it is being used to refer to unformed faith then a Catholic rejects the idea of justification by faith alone (which is the point James is making in James 2:19, as most Evangelicals agree; one is not justified by intellectual belief alone). I have read comments made by DHK and others who object to 'easy believism' which is what I heard preached in my Baptist church (and many Baptist churches) for much of my life. I have wondered how many of those people who heard this 'intellectual belief alone' gospel actually repented of their sins and chose to follow Jesus as Lord and Savior.

BTW, I appreciate the way you post without attacking.