Featured Church of Christ and Baptism

Yes, I believe they are clear but not as you have been taught to interpret them. I think it is VERY important to understand that the Church from it's very start believed & taught baptismal regeneration. Early Church history proves that. Nobody disputed baptismal regeneration. If it had been considered a false teaching then there would have been debate and division over it and there was none. There certainly was debate over Arianism and other heresy. In the second century, a man named Marcion taught that the God of the Old Testament was different from the God of Jesus. Marcion equated the creator God of the Old Testament with Satan. He so disdained the God of Judaism that he developed a canon of Scripture that included only the Gospel of Luke, the Acts of the Apostles, and some of the Pauline Epistles. In response to Marcion’s heresies, the bishops of Asia Minor excommunicated him (St. Polycarp of Smyrna called him "the firstborn of Satan").

The early Church’s response to Marcion illustrates an important point: Heresy is serious business, and it should be dealt with decisively. Again, nothing disputing baptismal regeneration, just writings affirming it. It was obviously never disputed.

Heresy has been around nearly as long as the Church. It is "the obstinate denial or doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith" (Code of Canon Law, canon 751). Heresy does great spiritual and societal damage, and it must be refuted. Indeed, the Church must respond to heresy in order to protect the faithful and guard the faith.

The writings of the early Church Fathers reflect this concern for refuting heresy. In Against Heresies, for example, St. Irenaeus described the evil caused by "certain men who have set the truth aside":


Some of the writers of Early Church history sat at the very feet of the Apostles who wrote these scriptures. Do you think the Apostles wouldn't have corrected them if they were misunderstanding such an important doctrine?

 

God has nothing to do with the WORK or the ACT of baptism. He simply commands it. It is the work of a man. Even Jeremiah recognized this when he mocked such rituals:

Jeremiah 2:22 For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord GOD.

 

Sorry to take this a bit off topic again, but I can't let Walter's tirade against Protestants stand without a good rebuttal. The fact is that among Baptists unfaithful pastors are dealt with under the law and if required a jail sentence is served. They are never allowed to pastor again if there is any stain of immorality on them.
"A bishop must be found blameless.

Time and time again we find the opposite in the RCC.
In fact it is in the news weekly.
Here it is again, today's news:

http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/...wed-priests-to-rape-children-un-report-says-1


Horrible and despicable!

 

Baptism is a command of God but it is not a work of God any more than tithing or circumcision is a work of God.

Indeed, the Roman Catholic Catechism regards baptism in the New Testament as equally parallel with circumcision in the Old Testament and I quote:

CIRCUMCISION: The rite prescribed in Judaism....was a sign of the covenant between God and His people Israel and prefigured the rite of Christian Baptism...." - Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, p. 871

527 Jesus' circumcision on the eighth day after his birth....This sign prefigures that "circumcision of Christ" which is Baptism." Ibid. p. 133

Therefore, to understand the relationship of circumcision to the Old Tesament believer is to understand the relationship of Baptism to the New Testament believer according to Catholic dogma.

Thus, simply replace the words "circumcision" or "circumcise" with the words "baptized" or "baptism" in Paul's treatise in Romans 4:9-13 and you have this clear and explicit view of baptism in the mind of Paul. I have replaced the words for circumcision with the words of baptism in the following quotation to merely illustrate my point:

9 ¶ Cometh this blessedness then upon the baptized only, or upon the unbaptized also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in baptism, or in unbaptism? Not in baptism, but in unbaptism.
11 And he received the sign of baptism, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being unbaptized: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not baptized; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
12 And the father of baptism to them who are not of the baptized only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet unbaptized.

Conclusion:

1. The blessing of justification occurs NOT IN BAPTISM - vv. 9-10

2. Baptism is only an external sign and thus visible "seal" that does not communicate justification but justification occured before the sign and seal of baptism.

3. Imputed righteousness is not conferred in baptism but through faith and the unbaptized believer is imputed righteousness.

Hence, baptism like circumcision is but a "sign" or "figure" and as a sign and figure it provides an external "seal" or confimation of justification that was received while IN UNBAPTISM.

 

Peter Waldo, or more properly, ‘Waldes of Lyons’, was no friend of the Roman Catholic Church.

Instead, he and his followers were labeled ‘heretics’ for several reasons, not the least of which was their refusal to cease preaching the Gospel.

There are two significant English sources which translate original 12th and 13th century source materials containing confessions of faith written by the Waldenses as well as their alleged heresies as stated by their persecutors, the Church of Rome: Wakefield and Evan’s Heresies of the High Middle Ages (1968); and Samuel Morland’s [History of the Evangelical Churches of the Valleys of Piemont (1658).

The so-called confession of Peter Waldo was written by the Church of Rome. Waldo signed it to temporarily avoid prosecution, imprisonment, and/or death since the Inquisition was a very real threat in his day.

This fact is documented on pages 205 -206 of Heresies.

According to the Wikipedia article, Inquisition, the Waldenses were one of two non-Catholic groups which necessitated the Inquisition in the 12th century.

For a so-called ‘famed Baptist Historian’ to identify the Waldenses as sympathetic to Roman Catholicism is nothing less than a betrayal of truth and common sense.

 

This much of your own post is enough to refute your own position.
They were obviously persecuted by the RCC who wrote their history.

 

Notice how you again refer to an authority outside of the scriptures.
Church History is not inspired, Church Fathers are not infallible. Judas Iscariot walked on the earth with Christ and he betrayed Christ, Just because someone was close to or even taught by a disciple does not make their beliefs correct or make them infallible.. All men makes mistakes and are fallible, Peter was rebuked by Paul for his hypocrisy towards the Gentiles.

Scripture is infallible, But you refuse to address the scriptures. You using vain human logic and appealing to outside authority rather than trying to argue from the scriptures.

Telling me my interpretation of the scriptures is wrong based on how I was taught to interpret them is false,because the statements I made were a result of my own personal study on the verses about baptism.

Let me use your own argument against you: the interpretation of those scriptures you were taught is wrong.

Now it comes down to my word verses your word.

Use scripture to support your ideas or refrain from arguing the issue please.

2Timothy_3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

It does not say all early church councils are given by inspiration or all church history. It says all scripture.

Arguing about things like the Waldenses still doesn't change what the bible clearly teaches.

 

So according to Walter: They were Catholics who werent allowed to preach their supposed "catholic" beliefs.... Hm... Maybe because... they WEREN'T Catholic in their beliefs and practice?

 

Not sure what kind of "preaching" they were doing but in the mass the only persons allowed to deliver the homily (sermon) are priests and deacons.

 

Read the thread before you make such an absurd statement. I never said they were Catholics. Your own Baptist historians (the credible ones, not the Landmarkist nonsense) agree they were more Catholic in belief than they were Baptistic up until the Reformation.

 

If it was so clear what the bible teaches, you wouldn't have the incredible number of Protestant denominations you have today. I do use scripture to support my ideas but I also don't ignore the plethora of Early Church writings because they DO give me insight as to what the Early Church believed and practiced. No, I don't give them the weight of scripture.

Now, you Baptists HAVE to ignore the writings of the Early Church because it becomes painfully obvious that the Early Church looked nothing like your Baptist churches of today. Guess what Church does??!!

 

Thus by very definition (yours) a "credible" Baptist historian is one that "RCC-approved.

 

James McGoldrick is a credible scholar who is well regarded in academic circles. He is a Baptist and most seminarians would regard him as one of the top two or three experts on Baptist history.

 

file:///C:/Users/ProBook%204530s/Desktop/Library%20CD-ROM/FundamentalBaptistLibrary2000/WWW/fbns/waldenses02.htm


J.A. Wylie is an excellent historian when it comes to a history of the Baptists and of the early believers.

 

"It is the purpose of this book to show that, although free church groups in ancient and medieval times sometimes promoted doctrines and practices agreeable to modern Baptists, when judged by standards now acknowledged as baptistic, not one of them merits recognition as a Baptist church. Baptists arose in the seventeenth century in Holland and England. They are Protestants, heirs of the Reformers." (ibid, page 2, emphasis mine)

The following is adapted from McGoldrick's chapter on the Waldenses of the 12th and 13th centuries which examines their origins and founder Peter Waldo, their explicit Catholic doctrines and beliefs, a short account of their history, and where they are today (hint: they did later become a Protestant sect, but were never "baptistic" in belief).

The comments of Phil Porvaznik are followed by PP. Endnotes are numbered in brackets [ ].


WHAT ABOUT THE WALDENSES?

The same period of Medieval history that saw the rise and suppression of the Cathars witnessed the emergence of a very different religious movement known as the Waldenses. In contrast to the Cathars, whose dualistic world- and life-view placed them in radical opposition to historic Christianity, the Waldenses began as a reform movement within the Roman Catholic Church and never imbibed Manichaean teachings.

PETER WALDO : Founder of the Waldenses

The sect owed its origin to Peter Waldo (d. 1216), known in France as Valdes. Little is known about Waldo's life, but it is clear that he was a prosperous merchant in Lyons who suddenly divested himself of his wealth in order to pursue a life of "evangelical perfection," which, to medieval Catholics, meant following the example of Christ, including the Savior's poverty.

The sources indicate that Waldo became impressed with his need to follow Christ when he heard a minstrel relate the legend of St. Alexis, who had renounced riches and separated from his wife to undertake a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. Waldo also accepted counsel from a priest who told him of Christ's command to a rich inquirer who had come to him seeking the way to eternal life. Jesus said:


"If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." (Matthew 19:21)

His personal appropriation of the Lord's teaching to the rich young man mentioned in the Gospel reflects Waldo's habit of accepting biblical injunctions literally, and it shows his great desire to conform his life to the teachings of Christ. Waldo developed a sense of urgency to become learned in the scriptures, and to that end he paid two scholars to translate the Gospels and other portions of the Bible into his vernacular tongue.

While the behavior Waldo exhibited was unusual, it was not unprecedented, and his actions to this point did not violate the canons of the Roman Catholic Church. Vows of poverty and the study of scripture had been regular features of monastic living for centuries and enjoyed the approval of the Church. Waldo, however, was neither a monk nor a priest, but a devout layman who sought to practice "evangelical perfection" without entering a monastery. To those who ridiculed him for this, Waldo explained,


"Citizens and friends, I am not out of my mind, as you seem to think, but I am avenging myself on those who are oppressing me in making me a lover of money more than God. This act I do for myself and for you: for me, so that if from now on I possess anything you may call me a fool; for you, in order that you, too, may be led to put your hope in God and not in riches." [1]

WALDENSES UNAUTHORIZED PREACHING

Recruits to Waldo's "Poor of Lyons" came from all levels of society. A few were priests, but most were laymen. Durand of Huesca (Spain), a scholar of some ability, became unofficial theologian for the movement, but the emphasis of these "Waldenses" was, from the start, on personal piety and good works performed in imitation of Christ and the apostles.

The movement did not seek to alter Catholic dogma and was not intended to be a separatist church. The bishops at first would have found nothing about which to object had not the Waldenses assumed the right to preach. It was unauthorized preaching in public places that aroused suspicion and led the Archbishop of Lyons to attempt to stop them.

Waldo and his disciples were ordered to submit to the bishops. To render unqualified submission would, however, have meant the end of their preaching, so the Waldenses disobeyed and brought upon themselves a barrage of clerical criticism. As of yet the Waldenses had issued no pronouncements which could have been rightly construed as heresy, and in 1180 Waldo signed a statement of faith dictated by a papal legate in which the popular exponent of apostolic living subscribed to all of the major tenets of traditional Catholicism. [2]

While Waldo and his followers had no doctrinal quarrel with Rome, their defiance of episcopal prohibitions against preaching led in 1184 to their condemnation by a synod of bishops meeting in Verona. Much to their dismay, the Waldenses were excluded from the Church and declared to be heretics.

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num3.htm

Zenas is right, one can see a credible Baptist historian in McGoldrick. I think it's hilarious!

 

Walter,good quotes from McGoldrick. I have quoted him before here,but not as extensively as you have. Unfortunately a degree of Landmarkism is evident among a bunch of Baptists depit solid evidence to the contrary about their origin.

 

J. A. Wylie--renown for his hatred of Catholicism. One of his better known works is a book titled The Papacy Is the Antichrist, published in 1888. In it he concludes:

So we can certainly take comfort in knowing Wylie's conclusions are always scholarly, neutral and detached. :tonofbricks:

 

So, in order to be a credible historian, one must not only be approved by Catholics but cannot oppose the Catholic Cult or condemn it for what it really is??????

My professor of church history while I was attending Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary took the same position as McGoldrick. However, he was at least intellectually honest enough to admit that there was another credible interpretation of the evidence that supported the older Baptist historians. It was his own theological bias that caused him to lean toward the Catholic view of these pre-reformational groups.

Secular history IS: (1) Uninspired and therefore often biased; (2) Incomplete and therefore often misleading; (3) Incorrect in many cases

In direct contrast the Inspired Prophetic view of church history paints a completely different picture than that which Rome presents to the world.

 

Thus I go back to my original post:
"In your eyes to be a 'credible' historian in church history, one must be 'Catholic-approved.'"
You just stated as much didn't you?
No sense in disagreeing with me now.