Posted on 08/18/2010 6:13:43 PM PDT by wmfights
Our view of church history. It may come as a surprise to contemporary Protestant and Roman Catholics to learn that Baptists did not originate at the Reformation. The more ancient historians, even those opposed to Baptist principles, admitted this; the more modern writers tend to ignore, dismiss or deny it. There is abundant evidence to affirm that evangelical churches, sound in the essentials of the faith, known by various names, existed in Europe from the days of the Apostles down through the middle ages. The Waidensian Confession of 1120 is an example of sound gospel belief during those times.
These Anabaptists, as they were deridingly called by their foes, were bitterly persecuted by the official pseudo-Christianity which apostatized under Constantine. These valiant people were our forefathers in the faith. (Of course, we do not identify with some truly heretical sects who were erroneously classified with them.) Many have forgotten that some of Calvin's theology was shaped by an Anabaptist cousin. Calvin acknowledged . . . that he too "was at one time a Waidensian." (Leonard Verduin, The Anatomy of a Hybrid, p. 199.)
(Excerpt) Read more at baptisthistoryhomepage.com ...
We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther or Calvin were born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the very days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel under ground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents . . . (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, 1861, p. 225.)
. . . we, known among men, in all ages, by various names, such as Donatists, Novatians, Paulicians, Petrobrussians, Cathari, Arnoldists, Hussites, Waldenses, Lollards, and Anabaptists, have always contended for the purity of the Church, and her distinctness and separation from human government. Our fathers were men inured to hardships, and unused to ease. They present to us, their children, an unbroken line which comes legitimately from the apostles, not through the filth of Rome . . . (Ibid., p. 613.)
I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. I immediately ran over and said, “Stop! Don’t do it!”
“Why shouldn’t I?” he said.
I said, “Well, there’s so much to live for!”
“Like what?”
“Well ... are you religious or atheist?”
“Religious.”
“Me too! Are you Christian or Jewish?”
“Christian.”
“Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?”
“Protestant.”
“Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?”
“Baptist.”
“Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?”
“Baptist Church of God.”
“Me too! Are you Original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?”
“Reformed Baptist Church of God.”
“Wow! Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?”
“Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!”
To which I said, “Die, heretic scum!” and pushed him off.
Hey, let’s make this a Caucus thread! :-)
(Ducking for cover....)
If we are overly loud it will be a Raucous Caucus thread!
(follows Larry out the door, hands over head...)
To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant."
Cardinal John Henry Newman - Anglican convert to Catholicism
The “Waldensian Confession of 1120” is apparently a forgery based on two 16th century manuscripts.
I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. I immediately ran over and said, “Stop! Don’t do it!” “Why shouldn’t I?” he said.
I said, “Well, there’s nothing to live for!”
“Huh?”
“Well ... are you religious or atheist?”
“Religious.”
"Die, Scum!
Now now, don’t go upsetting their apple cart of made up history that somehow never made history.
The original "Christians" were Messianic Jews.shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiachThe wheels came off in the Fourth Century.
I'll look for it, thank you.
I know the answer to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
None. The good angels don’t dance.
The more I learn of Catholic Church history, the more I’m amazed that the Reformation took as long to occur as it did.
Amen
It was by the grace of God that Gentiles were brought in to the fold.
Sounds like Spurgeon is just laying claim to whatever heresies and schismatics he can find in history. The various heretic sects were very different from each other. The Donatists, in particular and the Albigensians/Cathari, the Cathati being quite Gnostic, are curious. They are radically different from each other and I can’t see any Baptist I know claiming the tenets of either. Perhaps he is saying that Baptists are just like all the other heretics.
And to have history on your side is to be a Baptist.
The Waldensians themselves say their origin traces to 1174.
The force of the state can be pretty strong.
Hasn’t your church declared several putative church “fathers” heretic over the centuries, and even a Pope or two?
Amen
It was by the grace of God that Gentiles were brought in to the fold.
Paul goes into great detail discussing 'Grafting in" in Romans. Amen!
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
The main problem with your argument is that, when it comes to these various out-groups, Catholicism holds to a completely false view of them that is largely based off of the highly biased views of inquisitors and the like. Personally, I see no reason to take anything that medieval Catholic inquisitors say about the Albigenses at face value. Nor I do I see any reason to think that Cyprian's account of the Donatists is anything more than polemical balderdash. Frankly, Catholicism's understanding of these groups is in the same vein as the pagan Roman observers who said that early Christians ate human flesh and shared their wives in common - it was all purposefully polemical claptrap intended to bias the general population against them.
You must mean the Schism.
The term ‘Reformation’ implies that something got reformed. The thousands of protestant churches we have today can hardly be said to be a reformation of anything except continuously iterated dissent.
What's ironic is that some of the medieval Catholic prelates and whatnot who opposed the Waldensians admitted that the Vaudois were of extremely ancient origin (as in, dating back to anywhere from the late first century during the Neroan persecutions up to the 4th century). The notion that the Waldensians appeared with Peter Waldo in 1174 is not supportable.
Quite right. All these heretics were heretics in different ways, believing different things.
Spurgeon is saying that the Baptists are like a super-set of all these heresies? Bit of a slap in the face if you ask me .
...who were baptistic in doctrine and practice!
Yes he does and he also makes it very clear GOD is not done with the Jews. Their partial blindness is for the benefit of the Gentiles, but when the fullness of the Gentiles are brought in then He will save them.
Have you been up to Valdese, NC to visit the Waldensians and tour their museum?
Quite false.
Baptists are anabaptists who stem neither from Luther, nor Calvin, but from Menno Simons, who btw was a Catholic Priest.
They split off in the Americas. Anabaptists who wanted to fight for their new country became baptists, and those who did not, and wanted to keep their pacifism remained mennonites.
No I haven't, is it good?
Wow, looks like amateur hour has officially started!
We may not have an exact date, but we do know they existed long before the Reformation.
Well it surely wasn't the corruption of the Catholic church in Rome, that took the rise of nation states.
As opposed to the unbiased view of Baptist "historians"? LOL
Great point.
...who were baptistic in doctrine and practice!
Where what is called Baptism was known as
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
a Mikvah as a ritual cleansing prior to going
up to the Temple.
Then those “Messianic Jews” were a lot different than the ones that have that name today.
Actually, the wheels came off the "Messianic Jews" well before the Fourth century, when most of them either returned to Judaism or fell into the heresy of Ebionism, which denied the divinity of Christ.
True. There have been dissenting groups inhabiting the Piedmont, Languedoc, and Savoy since long before Waldo. Indeed, Jerome argued with some of them in the early 5th century, and it's possible that these churches were planted via missionary work conducted by Irenaeus. The charactre of the vernacular Latin-derived intermediary idiom used by the Waldensians in some of their writings has been shown, linguistically, to be extremely old - as in, it originated long before the High Middle Ages, when Old French was dominant. Likewise, the Old Latin text-type used by the Waldensians testifies to their retention of the pre-Vulgate Italic style of text, which is very old.
This is a "dog ate my homework" non-falsifiable argument. "I don't trust any of the evidence" isn't a rational ground for making up your own.
If you want to claim that the Albigenses were something other than what medieval Catholic inquisitors said they were, you ought to actually present some evidence. "Well, the Albigenses weren't Catholics, so the Albigenses must have been the good guys" isn't evidence, or an argument, or anything. It's just wishful thinking.
Relatively? Yes, actually.
Look, let's face it. It is patently idiotic to think that the testimony of men who had been tasked with "rooting out error," even to the extent of killing people for essentially holding different religious views, when speaking of these various out-groups in the context of finding every reason they can to condemn and persecute them, holds even the least bit of reliability, from a historical perspective. Quite frankly, anybody who's views about these groups are derived solely from Catholicism's own records as it persecuted them, is uninformed and completely incompetent to even be having this discussion.
This is completely true. They originated almost 100 years after the Reformation.
Lord, have mercy.
Why do we come here? Seriously. The intellectual gymnastics necessary to justify such ahistorical utter nonsense are simply stunning at times.
I read once about a sect who claimed to be directly descended from “Nestorians.”
You dig that, K? Nestorians.
One wonders if they had the FIRST CLUE what Nestorius taught.
Here we are, a few centuries further on, and there are about ~ 33000 active protestant denominations.
And one Catholic, Universal, Church.
‘Schism’ seems like the right word.
Likewise, the mere fact that you really, really want to believe the garbage that your religion has said about these groups does not mean anything. There are solid grounds for impeaching the reliability of the testimony of those who are hostile enough witnesses to kill somebody for their religion. After all, you don't believe the pagan Roman polemicists when they said that early Christians ate each other and shared their wives in common, do you?
But if it makes you feel good about yourself, then by all means, continue to hold onto your comfortable fairy tales.
Actually, the wheels came off the "Messianic Jews" well before the Fourth century, when most of them either returned to Judaism or fell into the heresy of Ebionism, which denied the divinity of Christ.
It took the Council of Nicea to reject Interesting hypothetical construct.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
the keeping of YHvH commanded Feast
of Passover and replace it
with the Pagan feast of Easter.
Split into a myriad of different doctrinal groups.
I find the Voudoun Catholics of Haiti especially intriguing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.