e7e02b No.850175 [View All]
Daily reminder that Baptists are not Christians.
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
cab7a7 No.850471
>>850469
I had to find them myself, but many of them were compiled in other books for which I went back to find the primary source.
Also for the crossover between the terms "anabaptist" and "baptist" here are two more authentic quotes with the relevant background:
William Douglass wrote this in 1748.
>"In August 30, 1637, in Newtown was called an universal synod to condemn the errors of the Rigids and Antinomians; M. Williams, Mr. Vane, and Mrs. Hutchinson were their leaders; this synod continued three weeks: this occasioned an emigration, and the settling of the colony of Rhode-island."
in: Douglass, William, A summary, historical and political, of the first planting, progressive improvements, and present state of the British settlements in North-America (1748), p. 439.
Continuing, Douglass wrote this on pp. 443-444:
>"The Anabaptists, at their first appearance in New-England, were enthusiastically troublesome; they chose among themselves the meanest of the people for their ministers; they call themselves Baptists by way of abbreviation of the name Anabaptists, after the (d) Lollards– who were the first (in the Reformation)– followed the Lutherans and Anabaptists (e). Some of them vainly imagine, that they ought to be called by that name in a peculiar manner; their baptism being the only scriptural baptism: they would not communicate with persons baptized in infancy only; if occasionally in a congregational meeting, upon a child's being presented for baptism, they withdrew, to the great disturbance of the congregation: fines were enacted; [Obadiah] Holmes, because he would not pay his fine, was whipped thirty lashes."
>"(d) The Lollards (so called from Walter Lollard, the author of this sect in Germany in the thirteenth century) were our first Reformers; their name is now lost, the first Reformation being subdivided into many denominations. They first appeared in England, under Wickliff, D.D. of Oxford, about the middle of the fourteenth century; they clamoured against transubstantiation, auricular confession, celibacy of the clergy, hierarchy, and several pecuniary perquisites of the Roman catholic clergy; with some enthusiastical notions, viz. the church consists only of the predestinated, converting of church-effects to other uses is no sacrilege, neither public nor private succession is indefeasible, &c."
>"(e) The Anabaptists, a particular sort of devotees, first appeared about the time of Luther's Reformation, and prevailed chiefly in the Netherlands and Westphalia; their essential or distinguishing doctrine was, not baptizing of infants, and re-baptizing by dipping such as had been baptized in their infancy: hence is the denomination of Anabaptists; they pretended that infant baptism was not to be found in the Bible: at first they were moderate and orderly: Luther requested the duke of Saxony, that they might be favourably dealt with, because, their notional error excepted, they seemed to be otherwise good men. They soon ran into many pernicious wild doctrines; they condemned all civil administration and magistracy; corporal punishments (as a divine prerogative) they reserved to GOD Almighty; they despised judicial oaths; disregarded the scriptures, pretending to a personal kind of peculiar illumination, a community of goods, &c. John Buckhold a butcher, a native of Leyden, commonly called John or Jack of Leyden, having embraced the Anabaptistical seditious notions, became very popular, with many followers; the cry or parole was, Repent, and be re-baptized; in his itinerancies, at Munster in Westphalia, he fell into open sedition, and was master of the city for some time: the bishop, by blockade, recovered it, and Buckhold suffered an exemplary painful lingring death, 1534."
Of course, footnote (e) shows how they used to link the origin of the Baptists with the Münster Rebellion, which I already dealt with above. >>850461
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
cab7a7 No.850472
Joshua Thomas wrote all of the following for us around the end of the 18th century:
>"It does not appear when Mr. [John] Miles sailed for America, when he landed in that country, nor what family, friends, or neighbors accompanied him. The first account we have of him west of the Atlantic is in Mr. Backus' History above referred to, Vol. 1, Page 353, naming Mr. Miles among the ejected ministers [due to Act of Uniformity 1662], it is added, 'upon which, he and some of his friends came over to our country, and brought their church Records with them.' " […]
>"Page 506 [of Mr. Backus' History] etc. says, 'The learned and pious Mr. Miles having returned to his flock in Swanzay fell asleep in Jesus on Feb 3rd, 1683. And his memory is still precious among us. We are told that being once brought before the magistrates, he requested a Bible: and upon obtaining it he turned to these words: Ye should say, why persecute we him? Seeing the root of the matter is found in Me (Job 19:28). Which having read he sat down, and the word had a good effect upon their minds, and moved them to treat him with moderation if not kindness.'
>"It may be but right to add what a famous American writer, no less than the celebrated Dr. Cottom Mather, says of him; mentioning some godly Anabaptists, as he thought proper to style them, he names Mr. Hanford Knollys, then says: 'And Mr. Miles of Swanzay who afterwards came to Boston, and is now gone to his rest. Both of these have a respectable character in the churches of this wilderness.' (Crosby, Vol. 1, 120).
>"Dr. Calamy, in his Account of the Ejected Ministers, 2nd edition, said not more of this worthy minister than, 'Ilston, Mr. John Miles, an Anabaptist.' The name is wholly omitted in the index. Mr. Palmer only says, 'A Baptist, he afterward went to New England.' "
in: The American Baptist Heritage in Wales, pp. 61-62.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
556ed5 No.850473
>>850471
Whats your view of Anabaptist and Mennonite churches today
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
cab7a7 No.850475
>>850473
I wouldn't know without actually going to visit each individual congregation in person. Wouldn't want to pre-judge someone just for being in a different culture. But if you follow Scripture as your final authority, then that is the only means for determining what is right.
I do think if someone was too strict in their use of church discipline, that might result in stop spreading the Gospel. Historically this may have happened with some groups that followed from the converts to truth after the emergence of Christianity in Switzerland in 1523. However, you also have devout Baptist churches that clearly began to meet in continental Europe after that time as well, such as the church that Pilgram Marpeck was part of in Strasbourg in those years. I have been reading through a lot of his writings, which began in the 1530s until his death in 1556.
I don't think the churches ever unironically called themselves "anabaptist" because, as the Encyclopedia article I linked above explains, as well as the Douglass quote, this was originally derived from the rebels at Münster in 1534-35, and it signifies a belief in two actual baptisms. Baptists only believe in one, hence from the charges of their adversaries (after 1535), they changed the name "anabaptist" given to them into "baptist."
Before 1535, they were accused of other names. Zwingli for instance, who wrote against them extensively in Switzerland, called them "Catabaptists" (in 1527), and never "anabaptists."
Speaking of earlier times, Jean-Paul Perrin (translated from the French) wrote this in 1618:
>"CHAPITRE III: The names that the Vaudois have been assigned by their adversaries, and what blasphemies they have charged them with.
>"The inquisitor monks, mortal enemies of the Vaudois, not being content to bind them every day with the secular arm, have also charged them with reproaches, respecting the heresies that are in the world, which they repudiate; and often [they] impute that those monsters were forged only from the Vaudois: as if only they [the Vaudois] had been the vessels of all errors.
>"They therefore first called them, from Valdo a citizen of Lyons, Vaudois: and from the country of Albi, Albigeois.
>"In Dauphine they were called Chaignards by mockery.
>"Also because a part of them crossed the Alps, they were called Tramontains.
>"And for one of the disciples of Valdo named Joseph, who pressed in Dauphine to the bishopric of Dye, they were called Josephites.
>"In England Lollards, named after Lollard who taught there.
>"Of two pastors who taught the doctrine of Valdo in Languedoc named Henry and Esperon, they were called Henricians and Esperonnistes.
>"From one of the Barbes who preached in Albigeois named Arnaud Hot, they were called Arnoldists.
>"In Provence they were called Siccars, from an unknown tongue that means purse-snatchers.
>"Also, as they observed no other day of rest than Sunday, they were called Insabathas, because they did not observe the Sabbaths" [the true reason for this name is probably actually based on the shoes they wore called Sabot].
>"In Flanders, they are called Turlupins, inhabitants with wolves, because on account of persecution, they were often forced to live in woods and deserts.
>"Sometimes they were named from the countries and regions they inhabit, such as: from Albi, Albigeois; from Toulouse, Toulousains; from Lombardy, Lombards; from Picardy, Picards; from Lyons, Leonists; from Bohemia, Bohemians.
>"Sometimes to make them more execrable, they make them accomplices of the ancient heretics, but nevertheless under ridiculous pretexts. For as much as they make profession of purity in their life and belief, they call them Cathars. And because they deny that the host of the monstrous Priest at the Mass is God, they have called them Arians, with respect to the Divinity of the eternal Son of God; And when they rejoined that the authority of the Emperors and Kings of the earth does not depend on the authority of the Popes, they called them Manichaeans, as constituting two principles. And for other such imaginary causes they have likewise called them Gnostics, Cataphrygians, Adamites, and Apostolics."
in: Perrin, Jean-Paul, Histoire des Vaudois (1618), pt. 1, ch. III, pp. 7-10.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
cab7a7 No.850476
Beza also wrote this in 1580 (again, translation):
>"The Vaudois, who are so called, from time immemorial in opposition to the abuses of the Roman Church, have been so pursued, not by the sword of the word of God, but by every kind of violence and cruelty, joined with a million slanders and false accusations, forcing them to expand everywhere or to have little, wandering through the deserts like poor wild beasts; always having the Lord preserve and keep their abode, that notwithstanding the rage of the world, they are maintained, as they still are maintained in three countries well removed from each other: some in Calabria, others in Boismé and surrounding countries, and the others in valleys of Piedmont, which have been scattered through the districts of Provence for about two hundred and seventy years, mainly in Merindol, Cabrieres, Lormarin and surrounding neighborhoods."
Theodore Beza, Histoire ecclesiastique des Eglises reformes au Royaume de France, Vol. 1, p. 52
>"Thus in the year 1536 the Faithful of the Valleys of Piedmont, who were always beseiged and horrified by the Romans, and who had never in successive times declined in their piety, or in their doctrine, sent unto Guillaume Faren at Geneva, who was renowned for his doctrine and piety, two characters, one named Jean Girard, who has since been a printer in said city, and the other, called Martin Gonin, who having been imprisoned on his return to Grenoble, was secretly drowned there on 26 of April, to the chagrin of the Inquisitor, after having so resisted the adversaries of truth that they dared not execute it by day."
in: ibid., p. 38-39.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
cab7a7 No.850477
I also take this from the two earliest confessions of the Vaudois that lived in Piedmont from ~1209 when the Crusade happened until at least the 1530s. These churches of course were quite reasonably based on earlier ones that existed before that crusade, and that is how they inherited the received text of Scripture which has been handed down to us. Their earliest confessions from these churches based on evidence may indeed have been written approximately around the year 1120. Quoting a translation of these from Samuel Morland, in 1658:
"An ancient Confession of Faith of the Waldenses, Copied out of certain Manuscripts, bearing date Anno Dom. 1120."
>Article 9.
>Item, we believe that after this life, there are onely two places, the one for the saved, and the other for the damned, the which two places we call Paradise and Hell, absolutely denying that Purgatory invented by Antichrist, and forged contrary to the truth.
>Article 10.
>Item, we have always accounted as an unspeakable abomination before God, all those Inventions of men, namely, the Feasts and the Vigils of Saints, the Water which they call holy. As likewise to abstain from Flesh upon certain Days, and the like; but especially their Masses.
>Article 11.
>We esteem for an abomination and as Anti-Christian, all those human Inventions which are a trouble or prejudice to the liberty of the Spirit.
>Article 12.
>We do believe that the Sacraments are signs of the holy thing, or visible forms of the invisible grace, accounting it good that the faithfull sometimes use the said signs or visible forms, if it may be done. However, we believe and hold, that the abovesaid faithfull may be saved without receiving the signs aforesaid, in case they have no place nor any means to use them.
>Article 13.
>We acknowledge no other Sacrament but Baptism and the Lords Supper.
copied from: Morland, Samuel, The history of the Evangelical churches of the valleys of Piemont (1658), pp. 30-34.
Note that Samuel Morland himself was not a baptist. He simply copied the documents that he found from the churches that existed there. Here is a second confession that is equally as old.
"Another Confession of Faith of the Waldenses, extracted out of Charles du Moulin de la Mon: des Francois. Pag. 65."
>Article 5.
>We hold that the Ministers of the Church, as Bishops and Pastours, ought to be irreprehensible, as well in their life as Doctrine. And that otherwise they ought to be deprived of their Office, and others substituted in their place. As likewise, that none ought to presume to take upon him this honour, but he who is called by God as was Aaron, feeding the Flock of God, not for the sake of dishonest gain, nor as having any Lordship over the Clergy, but as being sincerely an Example to his Flock, in Word, in Conversation, in Charity, in Faith, and in Chastity.
>Article 7.
>We believe, that in the Sacrament of Baptism, Water is the visible and external Sign, which represents unto us that which (by the invisible virtue of God operating) is within us; namely, the renovation of the Spirit, and the mortification of our members in Jesus Christ; by which also we are received into the holy Congregation of the People of God, there protesting and declaring openly our faith and amendment of life.
in: ibid. pp. 37-39.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
79a6e7 No.850498
>>850477
Sorta convent how you ignored or left out everything that contradicts the Baptist doctrine, such as the very first Article in that Confession which says:
>We believe and firmly hold all that which is contained in the twelve Articles of the Symbol, which is
>called the Apostles’ Creed, accounting for Heresie whatsoever is disagreeing, and not consonant to the
said 12 Articles.
Huh, I thought Baptists rejected the historical creeds of the Orthodox-Catholic Church. Oh wait, and it gets worse because the Apostles Creed literally says in it:
>I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.
Clearly, the Waldensians saw themselves as continuing in the line of historic Catholic Christianity, just like a lot of other later Protestants do, and not coming from a line of underground churches persecuted by "da big bad meany cafowic chuwch" for centuries whilst leaving 0 evidence of their existence (lmao).
Also, there's more problems. Article 3 says:
>Here follow the Books Apocryphal, which are not received of the Hebrews. But we reade them (as
>saith St. Hierome in his Prologue to the Proverbs) for the instruction of the People, not to confirm the
>Authority of the Doctrine of the Church: 2nd Esdras, 3d Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus,
>Baruch, with the Epistle of Jeremiah, Esther from the tenth Chapter to the end, The Song of the three
>Children in the Fornace, The History of Susanna, The History of the Dragon, 1 Maccabes, 2 Maccabes,
>3 Maccabes.
Huh, I thought Baptists accorded no use to these books, I even recall your meme Pastor Steven Anderson calling Wisdom a "ripoff" of Proverbs. Oh and look! It even mentions St. Jerome, the big bag boogy man who wrote the (*gasps!*) V-V-Vulgate!!!! N-not the Vulgate!!!!!
Hey, look what article 8 has to say about Mary and the Saints:
>And as for the Virgin Mary, that she was holy, humble, and full of grace; and
>in like manner do we believe concerning all the other Saints
And literally, article 12, which you even cited, says:
>We do believe that the Sacraments are signs of the holy thing, or visible forms of the invisible grace, accounting it good that the faithfull sometimes use the said signs or visible forms, if it may be done. However, we believe and hold, that the abovesaid faithfull may be saved without receiving the signs aforesaid, in case they have no place nor any means to use them.
This is literally teaching the idea that the sacraments are means of grace, something contrary to the Baptist dogma, and its teaching that people may be saved without the sacraments in the case that they have no access to them is completely in line with Orthodox-Catholic theology.
Regardless, the last thing I'd like to point out is that the source you're using is questionable. I literally cannot find a single other source to this so called "Ancient Confession of Faith" for the Waldensians outside the book by Morland that you cited, and the source given for where he got these is incredibly vague:
>Copied out of certain Manuscripts, bearing date Anno Dom. 1120.
That's it. That's all I could find. Perhaps I am mistaken on this, maybe there is an actual source here, and I will admit that that some of the doctrines outlined in the confession are consistent with what the Waldensians believed, but others appear less so. I cannot find this supposed source of Waldensian beliefs being used anywhere else, and it's funny because you'd think historians would be all over this especially since this is supposedly coming directly from the ancient Waldensians themselves, but in fact this "confession" is used nowhere else outside of that 1658 book (at least that I can find after having searched for hours) and the only places citing this as a source are radical Calvinist sites/forums and IFB sites/forums attempting to use it in order to bolster their secessionist claims. Now from what I've read by historians, there are very little sources we have about the ancient Waldensians that actually come from the Waldensians themselves, and the sources that are cited do not include what you've provided. Again, I'm willing to admit that this may in fact be genuine and I could be wrong here and that maybe I haven't looked hard enough, I just don't know, but this does raise questions about your source. But anyway, here is what the Catholic encyclopedia says about the Waldensians that not only contradict the Baptist doctrine, but also some of what's in that confession:
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
79a6e7 No.850499
>>850477
…continued from last post…
>Among the Waldenses the perfect, bound by the vow of poverty, wandered about from place to place preaching. Such an itinerant life was ill-suited for the married state, and to the profession of poverty they added the vow of chastity. Married persons who desired to join them were permitted to dissolve their union without the consent of their consort. Orderly government was secured by the additional vow of obedience to superiors. The perfect were not allowed to perform manual labour, but were to depend for their subsistence on the members of the sect known as the friends. These continued to live in the world, married, owned property, and engaged in secular pursuits. Their generosity and alms were to provide for the material needs of the perfect. The friends remained in union with the Catholic Church and continued to receive its sacraments with the exception of penance, for which they sought out, whenever possible, one of their own ministers. The name Waldenses was at first exclusively reserved to the perfect; but in the course of the thirteenth century the friends were also included in the designation. The perfect were divided into the three classes of bishops, priests, and deacons. The bishop, called "major" or "majoralis", preached and administered the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and order. The celebration of the Eucharist, frequent perhaps in the early period, soon took place only on Holy Thursday. The priest preached and enjoyed limited faculties for the hearing of confessions. The deacon, named "junior" or "minor", acted as assistant to the higher orders and by the collection of alms relieved them of all material care. The bishop was elected by a joint meeting of priests and deacons. In his consecration, as well as in the ordination of the other members of the clergy, the laying-on of hands was the principal element; but the recitation of the Our Father, so important in the Waldensian liturgy, was also a prominent feature. The power of jurisdiction seems to have been exercised exclusively by one bishop, known as the "rector", who was the highest executive officer. Supreme legislative power was vested in the general convention or general chapter, which met once or twice a year, and was originally composed of the perfect but at a later date only of the senior members among them. It considered the general situation of the sect, examined the religious condition of the individual districts, admitted to the episcopate, priesthood, or diaconate, and pronounced upon the admission of new members and the expulsion of unworthy ones.
>The Lombard communities were in several respects more radical than the French. Holding that the validity of the sacraments depends on the worthiness of the minister and viewing the Catholic Church as the community of Satan, they rejected its entire organization in so far as it was not based on the Scriptures. In regard to the reception of the sacraments, their practice was less radical than their theory. Although they looked upon the Catholic priests as unworthy ministers, they not infrequently received communion at their hands and justified this course on the grounds that God nullifies the defect of the minister and directly grants his grace to the worthy recipient. The present Waldensian Church may be regarded as a Protestant sect of the Calvinistic type. It recognizes as its doctrinal standard the confession of faith published in 1655 and based on the Reformed confession of 1559. It admits only two sacraments, baptism and the Lord's Supper. Supreme authority in the body is exercised by an annual synod, and the affairs of the individual congregations are administered by a consistory under the presidency of the pastor.
The New World Encyclopedia says the same thing: https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Waldensians#Origins_in_the_Middle_Ages
Just admit it, your fringe theory is just one big cope. Nobody actually takes Baptist successionism seriously, literally nobody. It's a fringe bulls— theory that cherry picks a few clusters of data from various unrelated independent groups that existed in various different times in various different contexts with various different origins, whilst ignoring pretty much everything else, and then creating a pseudo-history out of it just so you can claim to have origins in the early Church since you can't psychologically deal with the fact that your sect long long long postdates the original founding of Christianity and arose specifically within the context of English separatism.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
a67c3b No.850502
>>850499
>>850498
Don't even try. You can't reason with a Baptist, it'll never work. Being a Baptist correlates with having a low IQ.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
3dd6ab No.850506
>>850499
>>850498
Wait, now he's gonna pull the "well, the troo believers were mixed in with the filthy heretics, and the heretics only got to be recorded for posterity, since they got more stuff written down, and the outsiders couldn't tell them apart".
Even when accusing orthodoxy of gnosticism, suddenly he remembers cathars were gnostic, >>850427, while elsewhere it always considers the Albigensian crusade to be an unprovoked agression against a crowd filled with poor, innocent, right-believing proto-baptists(+some filthy gnostic heretics).
So yeah, whenever some official non-christian religion is getting screwed over in hisotrical records, it's the Jed…i mean, the sekrit baptists, while when those same groups do something stupid or heretical, it's either slander, or it's actually those filthy heretics this time.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
556ed5 No.850516
>>850498
>Huh, I thought Baptists rejected the historical creeds
Why did you think that?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
cab7a7 No.850517
>>850498
>Sorta convent how you ignored or left out everything that contradicts the Baptist doctrine,
Like what?
>Huh, I thought Baptists accorded no use to these books
The main reason for that being that some people started calling them inspired. Do you think I prohibit myself from reading the apocrypha for some reason? The statement in the article is right, the "Apocryphal" books are not to confirm the authority of any doctrine. I believe this became a much more contentious point of controversy after the Council of Trent declared them inspired when they are not.
>Oh and look! It even mentions St. Jerome, the big bag boogy man who wrote the (*gasps!*) V-V-Vulgate!!!!
If you look at the history it's not as simplistic as you say. The Vulgate of today was translated by several people, many of whom are unknown (see here: http://www.bible-researcher.com/vulgate1.html), and Jerome actually made multiple translations of Psalms, one from Hebrew and one from the LXX. Later people took the Greek LXX version and put it into what became the Vulgate. What other people do with your work after you are dead is not really your responsibility.
>This is literally teaching the idea that the sacraments are means of grace, something contrary to the Baptist dogma
Ok now you are actually going off track. It says they are signs of the holy thing, not the holy thing itself. Similarly in 1 Peter 3:21, it says that baptism is "the like figure whereunto" we are saved (namely, the actual Resurrection of Jesus Christ). It does not say baptism is the resurrection, but that it is "the like figure" of that by which we are truly saved.
Even if there were wrong statements in this document, it would only prove that it was a slightly misled church though. I understand we are all fallible people here, even I make mistakes sometimes.
>I literally cannot find a single other source to this so called "Ancient Confession of Faith" for the Waldensians outside the book by Morland that you cited
Ok, I know for a fact he filed copies in the library of one of the universities that he went to. Is Morland the foundational source of some of these documents? Maybe, but he was alive during the time when these people were around.
I happen to know that the most famous prose written by these people, called "The Noble Lesson" is preserved in multiple copies in multiple countries. I compared the versions myself and translated it into modern English not too long ago. The most significant variant between the different manuscripts dealt with whether in the opening lines it claimed to be one thousand and "one" hundred years after the NT was written, or one thousand and "four" hundred. However, evidence suggests it predates many of the innovations of Rome that did not exist yet by xii century, or else it would have surely mentioned them. For the argument on this, see (Blair, History of the Waldenses (1832 ed.), pp. 219-220.)
>I cannot find this supposed source of Waldensian beliefs being used anywhere else, and it's funny because you'd think historians would be all over this
Secular historians have a pretty severe bias. If you read stuff from before modern historians, this was accepted. See for instance (Jones, W., The History of the Christian Church (1832 ed.), pp. 336-337.) Not that I make an argument that something is only true because it is accepted. I am simply telling you again what all these sources are saying, and I admit they are all fallible and have the potential for corruption so you should not rely on them for something Scripture would tell you such as the promise of continuity in Matthew 28:20.
"Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."
>Now from what I've read by historians, there are very little sources we have about the ancient Waldensians that actually come from the Waldensians themselves
Ok, if you want to get into this I have actually read several primary sources from these people that I have not even cited yet except one source from Jean-Paul Perrin. He was one of them.
I actually have six sources that all agree about the basic facts regarding these people and provide firsthand accounts of the people which they bring to the table or visited where they lived. Perrin, Morland, Leger, Monastier, Muston and Wylie.
I'm glad to respond to you even if you weren't the one I was originally answering a question for.
>Again, I'm willing to admit that this may in fact be genuine
I have many more sources besides even the ones I have so far mentioned and the six above.
The point that the Vaudois existed as churches that did not baptize infants but baptized professing believers into membership, and that they only held two ordinances, which represent (are a sign of) the existence of sacraments, is admitted.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
cab7a7 No.850518
>>850499
For the an examination of the very old argument that Valdo is not the origin of the name here, see Muston, The Israel of the Alps, A Complete History of the Waldenses of Piedmont and Their Colonies, Vol. 2, pp. 520-522.
>Just admit it, your fringe theory is just one big cope.
It is no more fringe than the idea that God is a holy God and the things he denounces like sodomy are wrong. It may be that few accept the facts of the Bible. But this does by no means show that it is false, just because you call it fringe. The modern world is very narrowsighted and self-referential in regards to its historical narrative. People are trapped in a self-referential box not that much different than what the soviet era created for itself. It is pro-catholic and pro-sodomy, among other things. Broaden your horizons and read some actual history such as for an example what I have linked. There were far better informed church historians in the 19th century who I am drawing a lot of sources from.
>Nobody actually takes Baptist successionism seriously, literally nobody.
If I'm the last non-communist in a country that is fervently communist due to the propaganda they pump out, so be it. I will never convert to modernism. I do not accept Dexter's framework or the Munster Rebellion framework as valid explanations. I see right through those for the animus-fueled propaganda that they are - and I am not convinced that just because most people fall for a lie that it therefore becomes truth. 2+2=4. You want to discourage me and make me think 2+2=5 because 2+2=4 is "fringe". Maybe you are right, but if so that is just a sad fact. It does not prove that 2+2=5. That's all this is. You are not even trying to show the accuracy of whatever your slipshod case is. It's just argument from majority of opinion. Well, the communists and many other wrong people, who were overcome by Christ used that argument.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
79a6e7 No.850538
>>850517
>Like what?
Like those articles I just mentioned. Stop playing dumb with me Baptist, that bait is not going to work on me.
>The main reason for that being that some people started calling them inspired. Do you think I prohibit myself from reading the apocrypha for some reason? The statement in the article is right, the "Apocryphal" books are not to confirm the authority of any doctrine. I believe this became a much more contentious point of controversy after the Council of Trent declared them inspired when they are not.
Lol so now you're starting to do what >>850506 said you'd do.
>If you look at the history it's not as simplistic as you say. The Vulgate of today was translated by several people, many of whom are unknown (see here: http://www.bible-researcher.com/vulgate1.html), and Jerome actually made multiple translations of Psalms, one from Hebrew and one from the LXX. Later people took the Greek LXX version and put it into what became the Vulgate. What other people do with your work after you are dead is not really your responsibility.
That wasn't my point. My point was that Baptists like you like to s— all over St. Jerome and make him out to be this big bad boogy man who helped "corrupt" the Bible and that the Vulgate this evil Satanic corrupt version of the Bible, but look, now suddenly that he is mentioned in a source you like, all of a sudden you're defending him. So thanks, I guess, for providing arguments for Jerome.
>Ok now you are actually going off track. It says they are signs of the holy thing, not the holy thing itself. Similarly in 1 Peter 3:21, it says that baptism is "the like figure whereunto" we are saved (namely, the actual Resurrection of Jesus Christ). It does not say baptism is the resurrection, but that it is "the like figure" of that by which we are truly saved.
>Even if there were wrong statements in this document, it would only prove that it was a slightly misled church though. I understand we are all fallible people here, even I make mistakes sometimes.
LOL! so again, exactly what >>850506 said you'd do. Also, it's funny how you Prots and Baptists always like to talk about the "plain meaning of the text" but when you run into something that doesn't conform with your already preconditioned world view you just preform these massive mental gymnastics and turn the text upside down and inside out to make it fit with your worldview.
>Ok, I know for a fact he filed copies in the library of one of the universities that he went to. Is Morland the foundational source of some of these documents? Maybe, but he was alive during the time when these people were around.
Maybe you're right. I don't know. Nobody can know. You've basically given us something that is unfalsifiable, it cannot be tested, which calls into question your sources.
>I happen to know that the most famous prose written by these people, called "The Noble Lesson" is preserved in multiple copies in multiple countries. I compared the versions myself and translated it into modern English not too long ago.
>Ok, if you want to get into this I have actually read several primary sources from these people that I have not even cited yet except one source from Jean-Paul Perrin. He was one of them.
>I actually have six sources that all agree about the basic facts regarding these people and provide firsthand accounts of the people which they bring to the table or visited where they lived.
>I have many more sources besides even the ones I have so far mentioned and the six above.
I cannot tell if this is a parody or not anymore. Lol, a fringe conspiracy theorist doing his own little private research and coming up with HUUUUUUGE revelations that overturn everything we know about history! Omggggggg!!! Wow, looks like we messed up big time, huh boys? Everything we know has just been refuted in a blog post that takes ten minutes to read by this clever little independent researcher who totally doesn't have a preconceived worldview and biases! I mean, c'mon, amirite guys?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
79a6e7 No.850539
>>850518
>Secular historians have a pretty severe bias. If you read stuff from before modern historians, this was accepted. See for instance (Jones, W., The History of the Christian Church (1832 ed.), pp. 336-337.)
>>850518
> It is no more fringe than the idea that God is a holy God and the things he denounces like sodomy are wrong. It may be that few accept the facts of the Bible. But this does by no means show that it is false, just because you call it fringe. The modern world is very narrowsighted and self-referential in regards to its historical narrative. People are trapped in a self-referential box not that much different than what the soviet era created for itself. It is pro-catholic
>I see right through those for the animus-fueled propaganda that they are
Ah yes, the international Catholic conspiracy among historians to suppress and keep down those poor little underground persecuted Baptists. Haha, looks like you really took them down this time! Only YOU can see the truth anon, only YOU can see through all the "propaganda", yes, the one man mission, the underdog, you can see it all!
>The point that the Vaudois existed as churches that did not baptize infants but baptized professing believers into membership,
Even if you were able to prove this, it does not prove there is some kind of succession between Baptists and Waldensians. Groups with similarities arise all of the time in history. The Adamite Gnostics in the 4th century and the Neo-Adamites in the 15th century had extremely similar beliefs and practices, and yet there is no historical connection between them, they arose completely independently of one another. You're the one making the positive claims here, which means you have to provide the evidence that there is a causative relationship, a succession, and you know what they say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The burden of proof rests on you.
>If I'm the last non-communist in a country that is fervently communist due to the propaganda they pump out, so be it. I will never convert to modernism.
That's just a false comparison. First of all, communism is an ideology, second of all, we're dealing with actual historical facts here. What you're doing is the exact opposite of that, you're attempting to create a pseudo-history not based on any actual objective analyzing of history, but based on your own worldviews which you're infusing into your research. That's the problem here. You're not actually giving an objective perspective, if you were then historians would be all over your research and ideas, they'd be teaching them in school, but oh wait that's right, when you're disproven, you just continue to specially plead or just to ad hoc conspiracy theories. Give me a break. Everyone with a brain can see through your bulls—.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
cab7a7 No.850553
>>850538
>you just preform these massive mental gymnastics
1 Peter 3:21 does say "the like figure whereunto" at the beginning of it. Does it not?
I didn't add that there, it's been there all along.
>You've basically given us something that is unfalsifiable, it cannot be tested, which calls into question your sources.
Well, the Bible passes every test.
>I don't know. Nobody can know.
Search the scripture, as Jesus commanded. John 5:39. You will find the answer, whoever searches for the truth will find according to their search.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
8b3d95 No.850561
>>850538
>>850539
>>850538
The more I see Protestants debate, the more I think Protestantism is like scarlet fever: it deprives you of your senses
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
8b3d95 No.850562
>>850539
Edit. Scarlet fever does not blind people or deprive of senses. But Parkinson's does.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
15bb6f No.854100
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
15bb6f No.854101
Ah yes, another thread where butthurt catholics/orthodoxes derail the conversation so the thread title is ignored entirely.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
f4ff70 No.854111
>>850175
>Daily reminder that Baptists are not Christians.
Christian is defined as a belief in the Nicene creed.
Not sure what any protestant believes, you ask 10 protestants and you often get 11 different answers.
What part of the Nicene creed to this species called "Baptist" reject as part of their faith?
Pro-tip the Baptist belief in hating non-baptist and smearing them is not documented baptist belief; it's just their tradition.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
f4ff70 No.854138
>>850329
>People need to stop pretending Christianity is about being nice to people.
Because Christ did NOT say "Love your neighbor as yourself".
Oh wait, he did. Christianity is about being nice to people, it's just that "nice" doesn't mean leading him into sin or not warning him that he's going to hell.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
516481 No.856022
Hol up, did the Pope die for our sins or did Jesus? Who do I believe on for my salvation?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
50a69b No.856023
>>850175
All believers in Jesus Christ are saved. Roman Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon, and Israel is a whore also. The Babylon whore’s scriptural job is to kill Christians who know what the Bible actually says.
God is both a faith and a knowledge, and the knowledge is Satan when placed on the right hand. The faith is God through Jesus Christ when on the right hand and forehead. There is no manifestation of anything material that we worship. The Father is Jesus Christ, and the Word is His Seed, King James Version is the correct version without apocrypha which is only in Roman Catholic Bibles that only they canonized because they placed the seed of another false god inside of their own womb to give birth to others. And like the Word says, whoever takes part with her in her bed shall go through great tribulation with her.
>Matthew 21:43
Therefore say I unto you[chief priests and Pharisees], The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
>John 1:12-13
But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
50a69b No.856024
>>856023
>Given unto a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
5678dc No.856051
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
b396d1 No.856083
The only Baptists who are Christian are the ones who recognize real church history and realize there is a universal church that they belong to. They behave accordingly and treat all who confess Jesus Christ with love. They may still see many differences, but their underlying brotherhood for all Christians is still there. They're willing to learn from, or help, or mingle with others Christians and realize there are greater evils to fight against.
But many Baptists don't do this. To these Baptists, they treat even other Christians like enemies. They have an alternate history (Landmarkism) that says they alone are the Bride of Christ. That everything else is a false church but them. And instead of simply teaching about repentance and believing in Jesus Christ, they teach extra commandments that you have to be baptized in a specific way, in a specific baptism, and go to their specific churches. They add to the commandments of God and behave like a cult. They're so heretical that some have even called Jesus himself a Baptist (they say John the Baptist started the movement, and Jesus was Baptized by him. Therefore Jesus himself is a Baptist, in their minds. Not even Christ himself escapes the Baptist label in their minds. That's how much of an idol they've created out of their denomination - that they think they can subject God himself to it). On top of that, they say that only people who are specifically baptized by them are the Bride of Christ. This is why so many Baptists don't recognize other baptisms in converts - and think they need to "rebaptize" them. To them, everyone is going to hell and isn't even a Christian. Only Baptists are the Bride of Christ in their minds.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
b396d1 No.856084
>>856083
BTW, I'm referring to "Briders" in the last bit. Not every Baptist is like that. But many still hold the aforementioned Landmarkist beliefs at least. I'm surprised more aren't Briders, since it's only the natural conclusion to the cult of Landmarkism to begin with.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
50a69b No.856087
>>856084
>>856083
I find it strange how anyone can think that baptists are as bad as the Roman Catholic Church because of these things. Yes, baptists can be pretty stingy and even make their church denomination stink because of the preacher thinking that the church is only his and as well as the things you listed. However, people are free to leave and join another church. I think it is their right to run their church how they want to run it though, that is American values. Will not God show them their sins in the confines of their own freedom to pursue God how they want to? Will not God help them if they repent? And more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx27wa0SpN4
Like the Cromwell movie, it is better to be throwing out Roman idols like the Mary statues than to be found the good woman trying to keep her womb chaste and ready for Jesus, her husband, when he comes back, and being too strict about being a virgin, than to be a great whore of Babylon. I don’t have any quarrels with other churches who claim to be the true church of God. Just like I wouldn’t care if a peach and a cherry and a plum and a plumcot and a cherry peach tree all thought that their fruit was the only fruit of God. If it makes their fruit tastes all that much better, than by all means, allow them to pursue their happiness. If they find joy in what they do, then I love them and I am sure they love me back because we are all Christians.
What I have a problem with actually is people who think that everyone had God without coming through Jesus Christ and His Word. Just like I have no problems with baptists believing they come from John the Baptist, since we all can, which makes the Roman Catholics mad.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
50a69b No.856088
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>856087
Testing manual embed. Wish it auto embeds, God.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
50a69b No.856089
>>856087
> What I have a problem with actually is people who think that everyone had God without coming through Jesus Christ and His Word.
Or Roman Catholics and early Protestants putting people to death for not being Catholic or Protestant.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
b396d1 No.856092
>>856087
>I find it strange how anyone can think that baptists are as bad as the Roman Catholic Church because of these things.
What's that have to do with my post? If anything, I think Landmarkists are the same as Tradcats at least, who are also obsessed with lineage and apostolic succession and see no invisible/universal church outside of themselves. None of them talk about Christ first. They talk about themselves more. It's like they borrowed the playbook from Rome. Both of them preach a Gospel outside of Christ's sole power of salvation. They themselves want to be the gateway to salvation. They don't even believe people are saved outside their churches. And I really don't care what denomination a person is: A sure sign someone working for evil is when they think nothing upon hearing of someone turning to Christ. If they don't immediately praise God and rejoice at seeing a newfound brother, there's obviously wickedness in them. If their first thought is to smugly ignore Christ's work, or worse, immediately start thinking how to dominate that person or behaving like a know-it-all with their supposed superior outlook, then they are as demonic as they come. Jesus himself portrayed God as literally running out of the house and embracing and kissing a lost person in the story of the Prodigal Son. If a mere human can't even smile, then they are working for evil. It's a good litmus test really. You can sift out all cults and wickedness just on this one little trait alone: None of them rejoice at the news of salvation. The demonic element inside of them recoils that Satan has lost control of a person. They immediately think of new ways to ensnare that person. It could be hardcore Catholics or Baptists. It could be more obvious cults like Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. You see this all the time with them especially. If they come to your house and you tell them you're a Christian already, do you notice how they never care about it? They just robotically go to the "next bulletpoint" in trying to dominate that person. But it isn't just reserved to obvious cults. Satan uses everything: cults, atheists, family, and other supposed "Christians" to bring people under domination and snuff out the joy and light of Christ.
>>856087
>I don’t have any quarrels with other churches who claim to be the true church of God.
You should be worried about anyone who doesn't put Christ at the center of everything they say. They preach a new gospel and demand new requirements which includes themselves or some other new law outside of scripture. But I think many Baptists are quite the opposite, just to be clear. I admire many Baptists teachers for keeping the Gospel simple and making it clear that Christ's sacrifice is for all who ask it, that Grace has no "fine print" and is free of charge.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
50a69b No.856096
>>856092
You didn't hear what I said. I said they can be bad, but not nearly as bad as Roman Catholic Church. They murdered christians throughout thousands of years. Not possible to be just as bad, not in America. Satan is an already defeated foe.
>You should be worried
>No smiling is satanic
That's where you're wrong. Now I know you know who I am. Come find me IRL and talk to me cupcake and reveal who you are to me and tell me your feewings. If you think you can talk to me over 8kun to agree to something, then you're looking for something that is Never going to happen. Too much smiling is of the devil, and you've got 30 years of bitterness to go.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
2d74ff No.856099
>>856092
>If anything, I think Landmarkists are the same as Tradcats at least, who are also obsessed with lineage and apostolic succession
Are there baptists that talk about apostolic succession? What I've heard them say are along the lines of quoting Scripture where it says not to follow after fables and endless genealogies. The ones that I've been around, especially the more strict ones, seem only to be concerned seriously about Christ and following His will. That's just what I've seen.
>and see no invisible/universal church outside of themselves.
So a very common theme I actually have seen with a lot of groups these days is a very laid back attitude regarding doctrine. They tend to be very angry when someone tries to tell them some truth from Scripture, accusing them of legalism, saying only those are in their church are saved, and so on. But I don't see that from the churches that I've been around, including those that hold landmarkist beliefs which is basically just reaffirming Scripture that Christ said the gates of hell shall not prevail against His church. Are we supposed to deny that and deny other doctrine in order to avoid being accused of these things? Are we supposed to be afraid of being accused of these things? Christ once said, that rather than fearing men, we should "rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."
>If they don't immediately praise God and rejoice at seeing a newfound brother, there's obviously wickedness in them.
You seem to be quick to make evil surmisings about others. We should examine whether you live up to your own standards in your post. You seem to be quick to call others "supposed Christians" on little basis. Clearly, you have a problem with anyone who doesn't believe you when you claim to be one. Yet you are at the same time not willing to believe that the people who you have dubbed "supposed Christians" are Christian either, so you seem to violate your own requirements for believeing everyone instantly. I find this rather suspicious, but I am at least willing to assume it is an honest mistake and point it out in good faith.
>You can sift out all cults and wickedness just on this one little trait alone: None of them rejoice at the news of salvation.
Now this one is kind of strange. Does everyone who disagrees with you on some point have a "demonic element"? If some false prophet were to claim the name of Christ but then preach false doctrine, we should observe what the New Testament says. Paul put it very eloquently, "Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men."
>Satan uses everything: cults, atheists, family, and other supposed "Christians" to bring people under domination and snuff out the joy and light of Christ.
Yes, and the way to see past it all is to try the spirits whether they be of God (1 John 4:1) through the application of Biblical standards in every aspect of life. There is only one truth, which is given by equal measure to all in the word of God. If a person is truly saved, and they have repented to the acknowledgement of the truth, then there is rejoicing and thankfulness in that. Because as it says, "I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth." - 3 John v. 4.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
b396d1 No.856123
>>856099
>Are there baptists that talk about apostolic succession? What I've heard them say are along the lines of quoting Scripture where it says not to follow after fables and endless genealogies. The ones that I've been around, especially the more strict ones, seem only to be concerned seriously about Christ and following His will. That's just what I've seen.
Any Baptist can be strict or conservative. I'm just talking about Landmarkism specifically. And that's basically what Landmarkism is. Apostolic Succession for Baptists. They don't even like calling themselves Protestant nor say they have anything to do with the Reformation. They say they were a hidden group for 2000 years, and trace their roots to the early church.
Sadly, some of books they base these beliefs on don't even know what they're talking about. The famous one that started a lot of this is from the 1930s called "The Trail of Blood" (whose author eventually denounced it himself lol). In this scheme, they say all of the persecuted movements by Catholics down through the centuries were secretly Baptists. That they've been upholding Apostolic Succession all this time in secret. But the thing is, some of the groups they identify with were nothing like Baptists. They say the Montanists were their ancestors, for example, but Montanists were extreme charismatics. And not just any charismatic. They laid claim that Jesus' revelation wasn't enough, and their leader Montanus was the new vessel of the Holy Spirit. So the Church excommunicated them. Baptists also say they were once the Donatists. But Donatists were heretics too. After Constantine legalized Christianity, the Donatists were a group who protested people being allowed back in the Church if they faltered during the Roman persecutions. They were right to be disappointed, but took it too far and were harsh and didn't practice mercy. They also demanded re-Baptism, after a shameful catechumen stage. But the scripture says there is only One Baptism.
Baptists also lay claim to the Cathars, of all people. This one takes the cake. The Cathars were a gnostic like group in medieval Europe, who, like the Gnostics, believed the Old Testament God was evil, and Jesus was his enemy. There's a reason why the Catholic Church didn't like any of these groups. But these Landmarkists are so hung up on the Big Bad Catholic Church that they'll apparently side with anyone - even groups who say God is evil.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
b396d1 No.856124
>>856099
>Now this one is kind of strange. Does everyone who disagrees with you on some point have a "demonic element"? If some false prophet were to claim the name of Christ but then preach false doctrine, we should observe what the New Testament says. Paul put it very eloquently, "Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men."
Sorry, should have answered this in the previous post. I didn't say anything about mere disagreement, but coldness and lack of joy and power dynamics. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
0443b2 No.856125
All denominations are abominations.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
b396d1 No.856126
>>856125
Sometimes I wonder if we're really more like the early Church than ever before, where all sincere Christians are spread out, not belonging anywhere, and where Jesus' statement about "two or three being gathered in my name" is really quite an event, rather than an everyday occurrence.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
bcee61 No.856129
>>856123
>I'm just talking about Landmarkism specifically. And that's basically what Landmarkism is. Apostolic Succession for Baptists.
The concept now called "landmarkism" was more of a mainstream belief about the church before modernism rewrote history, in a lot of places. For instance, the Edinburgh Encyclopedia in 1830 had an article on Baptists that basically agrees with what is being said here today.
That quote was already posted above in this thread >>850468
So clearly, this idea does not originate with the 1931 Trail of Blood booklet. There is an Encyclopedia entry on it more than one hundred years before it. If anything, that book is a misdirect away from better historical sources, because that book can be shown to have some unverifiable quotes, such as the Isaac Newton quote that it contains that does not actually exist.
But under the so-called 'fallacy fallacy,' just because one book arguing a point uses a fallacy, that doesn't mean others haven't made better arguments for the same point.
>In this scheme, they say all of the persecuted movements by Catholics down through the centuries were secretly Baptists. That they've been upholding Apostolic Succession all this time in secret.
Obviously, in order to discuss church history, we are primarily to rely on the promises of Christ. Some random villager in the middle ages isn't going to have all the answers, but he will at least have access, Lord willing, to the Bible. There, Christ says that the gates of hell will not prevail against His church. He says in Matthew 28:20 that He is with us until the end of the world. "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."
Now, one way to frame things would be to say that all Christians were Baptists. But that might be taken to wrong conclusions. A better way to state it is that the church has always believed what independent Baptists now do, which is nothing except Scripture, without any manmade traditions. The immediate proof to be drawn is the fact, that Scripture's early provenance is unquestioned. It is first-century, far earlier than any Catholic or other statement that ever existed. So, in the places where Scripture contradicts any manmade traditions, we see quite simply that the church would side with the word of God in every case, as its authority is greater. Hebrews chapter 2 says,
"if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward; How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?"
So we see that the basis for the church by necessity must be given the greatest authority and weight, and the manmade traditions that can only be shown to have come later must be treated as such. According to St. Paul, we see that "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."
That includes people who might come and claim to be succeeding Paul, as he warned against this explicitly while he was in the church in several places in Scripture. Consider what it says in Acts 20:28-32, 1 Timothy 4:1-4, 2 Timothy 4:2-4, and also 2 Peter 2:1-2. This all involves the infiltration of false teachers into the church, those who will place their manmade traditions as if they were godly, though nowhere in Scripture are they contained. These people are satanic, and their damnation slumbereth not, as St. Peter states.
Now, with regards to showing that the church has existed throughout history, it is not a very difficult task. Especially not for us today. Showing the nonexistence of the continuation of the church is a much more difficult task. This is even considering the fact that the majority of people are unsaved, as Christ warned in the Gospel, and, as the apostle John said, "we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness." The Romans and others have persecuted the church through the ages. That doesn't mean they managed to destroy our Scriptures, which remain faithful to the original. All they were able to do in this regard was make corrupted versions of their own and try to spread those. But God will continue to safeguard His word, just as it says in Scripture. This is what we can believe and have faith will happen, just as His church continues until the return of our Savior.
If you want to talk about those other groups, we can. But first we should recognize that there has been more than one side to many events in history. We also need to understand that what it says in the 1931 book the Trail of Blood, which is not that accurate, is not the framework on which we should work.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
bcee61 No.856130
>>856129
(cont'd)
The Cathars were gnostics. To be more specific, a branch of Manichaeans that migrated west after a Paulician schism and held a grand assembly in Saint-Félix in the year 1167. These were part of the group of Albigensians that were identified in the Third Lateran Council (1179) and Ad Abolendam (1184). However, also named among this group, in order to increase their infamy, were regular Christians who simply did not accept the doctrines of Rome. Included in this second group would be the remaining members of the so-called "Petrobrusian and Henrician" upheavals that happened in the same area of southern France, from 1119 to the 1140s, which was before the Gnostics showed up. The reason why the date 1119 is significant is because the Investiture Controversy was at its height. The Concordat of Worms was issued in 1122, and it portioned up the bishoprics in Burgundy to the pontiff of Rome for the first time. Before 1122, the Emperor had oversight over these churches. Many were not willing to accept the new regime under the papacy in southern France. Peter of Bruys was a key figure in this, as well as Henry of Lausanne and Arnold of Brescia (also known in some sources as Arnold/Arnaud Hot). They were all accused of gnosticism. Later, you had another man named Peter Waldo commission a translation of the Bible in the 1180s, which was banned after the Synod of Toulouse (1229) which established the inquisition in those countries. There are plenty of sources available to show that regular, Bible-believing Christians of the time were accused of being part and parcel with the Gnostics in order to establish the presence of Rome. In the initial invasion of 1209, total war was initiated against all Christians regardless of loyalty.
Caesarius of Heisterbach, writing from Westphalia about thirteen years after these events, relates the following account of the initial invasion:
>When they discovered, from the admissions of some of them, that there were Catholics mingled with the heretics they said to the abbot ‘Sir, what shall we do, for we cannot distinguish between the faithful and the heretics.’ The abbot, like the others, was afraid that many, in fear of death, would pretend to be catholics, and after their departure, would return to their heresy, and is said to have replied ‘Kill them all, for the Lord knoweth them that are his (2 Tim. ii. 19)’ so countless number in that town were slain.
Strange, J., Dialogus miraculorum V, ch. XXI, Vol. 1, p. 302.
Mézeray, French historian, wrote this in his 1676 history, of the time in southern France:
>Anno 1163. Alexander assisted at the Council of Tours assembled by his order; and there he thunders once more against Victor and Frederick. He caused some Decrees likewise to be made against the Hereticks who had spread themselves over all the Province of Languedoc.
>There were especially of two sorts. The one Ignorant, and withall addicted to Lewdness and Villanies, their Errors gross and filthy, and these were a kind of Manicheans. The others more Learned, less irregular, and very far from such filthiness, held almost the same Doctrines as the Calvinists, and were properly Henricians and Vaudois. The People who could not distinguish them, gave them alike names, that is to say, called them Cathares, Patarins, Boulgres or Bulgares, Adamites, Cataphrygians, Publicans, Gazarens, Lollards, Turlupins, and other such like Nick-names.
François Eudes de Mézeray, Abbregé chronologique, ou Extraict de l'histoire de France, (1676) Tome III, p. 89.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
b396d1 No.856136
>>856129
I didn't say it originated with Trail of Blood. Just that it started a lot of the popularity. It's still a good baseline to work from though, because it illustrates how twisted the people who gravitate to this can be - and how quick they'll latch on to groups like Montanists and Cathars without knowing anything about them.. just out pure desperation to feel more valid than other Protestants. They have the sin of Pride for even attempting to play the Apostolic Succession charade, and trying to feel more "special" than others. Adventists have their own variation on it too. All cults do.
It's a shame too. Because there's probably a more beautiful story to the origins of Baptists in the Reformation - but Baptists themselves are responsible for destroying it. Instead of being grateful and humble about it, they resorted to fantasies and pride.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
360c4c No.856150
“Anyone who slightly disagrees with me isn’t a real Christian guys!”
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
bcee61 No.856153
>>856150
Disagreeing over the Gospel is not a slight disagreement. Consider what the Lord actually said from His word before you start with that again. Thanks.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
50a69b No.856156
>>856136
>They have pride! Yes! You see, christians committed the same sin of pride as Satan! Because I said so! Because No one is christian if the Roman Catholic Church of hell isn't christian!
Luke 11:49-54 KJV
49Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute: 50That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; 51From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation. 52Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.
53And as he said these things unto them, the scribes and the Pharisees began to urge him vehemently, and to provoke him to speak of many things: 54Laying wait for him, and seeking to catch something out of his mouth, that they might accuse him.
The trail of blood is not just a meme, you literal sodomite and vaginal penetrating sex catholic whore that is sticking apocryphic seed of Babylon into thine womb. You're not entering into Heaven you whore!
God save us from this Satanic Thread and these Satanic whores.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
50a69b No.856157
>>856150
>Pic JesusAnime.jpg
Imagine creating a Movie with real actors and everything over the Bible. Now imagine allowing the Chinese to make an Anime Movie about Jesus and the Bible. You painfully try to make yours Biblical, they try to pervert it up with Babylon's seed. Now imagine taking Anime movie's side because most of the world thinks it's very entertaining.
But we should still keep the real Bible movie accurate. Just because they get one thing wrong, doesn't mean it is perfect and above reproach. The Devil wants to bring the Anime movie up close to it to say, see, you look really good compared to my demon one from the pits of hell. No one can criticize you therefore. Like they will say of the Beast in Revelation
>"Who can war against him?"
Star Wars Anime
https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/3/22560610/star-wars-visions-anime-anthology-trailer-release-date-disney-plus
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
50a69b No.856158
>>856157
By the way, I saw episode 1 of The Chosen free movie. They started out showing a Rabbi and Romans. We hated their chanting music with the women going AAAAHH YEAAAAA AAAAAAHH UNNNNNNHHHH. They should have just got that horrible singer lady out of there and had music, or words. The Rabbi gives some sort of a Sermon to the Fishermen of Israel, saying how beautiful the sea is, and all I could think of was how wrong this was. The Ocean is not in its pristine state, nor is the Garden of Eden accessible to what is supposed to be the holy nation of the world. Then they show that Mary is the one demonically possessed and the Rabbi can't cast her demons out of her, and then they show Joseph or the Lord, prevents Mary from sinning on alcohol or something, like this is what she was doing with her life before God came to her. Which is something Roman Catholics are shown to be Heretics by because they worship Mary as righteous, where the movie is showing she was full of sin before the virgin birth even took place, and that it was God who kept making her righteous but not of her own fleshly capability. Again, completely heretical to Roman Catholic Church standards. Still, none of these sins are written in the Bible, but we can know that Mary's sins do exist because all humans including Noah had sins. They were just repentant and the Lord didn't remember them.
Chosen.tv
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
f8c0a8 No.856199
>>856158
>this dude thinking Mary of Magdala is the mother of Jesus
Absolute state of catholicism.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
360c4c No.856204
>>856153
Baptists do not reject Christ or the four Gospels, they reject the idea of someone after Him claiming to speak for God. Also that verse is talking about rejecting Jesus as the Son of God, which no denomination actually does
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
bcee61 No.856211
>>856204
>Also that verse is talking about rejecting Jesus as the Son of God, which no denomination actually does
Oh really? Then what about Matthew 7:22. It's a very famous verse; Perhaps you've heard it before. It goes something like this:
>Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
>Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
>Baptists do not reject Christ or the four Gospels,
I know we don't. I'm talking about how other groups aside from us have presented a fundamentally different Gospel. We are told to remain separate from those that teach a false Gospel, as it says in Galatians 1:8-9… as in essence these other groups are preaching what Paul calls "another Jesus," as he says in 2 Corinthians 11:4.
Read what Paul says about such groups.
>Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
>And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
>And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
>Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
- 2 Corinthians 6:14-17
>If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
>He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
>Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
- 1 Timothy 6:3-5.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
516481 No.856223
You won't find God in a church, you find God when you're praying to Jesus at 2AM." - Alex Jones
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.