/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>850185

Telling people to commit the mortal sin of suicide because they're sinners is of Satan, not Jesus our Lord and Our God.

It's also hypocritical, as if he was without sin.

>>850189

Their error is that they should be on their left knee, not both. Venerate, not worship.

Easy enough to get confused. This could be just a venial sin out of ignorance; unless they're that Cult that actually worships the blessed virgin, then it's a mortal sin. There is but one Triune God.

There are Catholics who are more Christian than most Baptists.

There are Baptists who are more Christian than most Catholics.

The Spirit blows on who He wills. God's Own are known only to God himself.

>>850185

>teaching something 1:1 that the Bible preaches

>not Christian

People need to stop pretending Christianity is about being nice to people.

>>850319

Perennialism and wrong. Relativism. There is one truth.

Acts 4:12

Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

>>850329

Just as bad is preaching things that aren't even technically true for shock value. The passage clearly says "it would be better for them if" that happened. It does not say you have to tell them to go do it. That is kind of ridiculous. As it says in Proverbs 9, He that reproveth a scorner getteth to himself shame: and he that rebuketh a wicked man getteth himself a blot.

What would be better would be to advocate the state return the death penalty for such crimes (i.e. sodomy). Since Anderson is a libertarian, he won't do that.

>>850175

>pic

based

>text

cringe

>>850185

based

>>850334

I mean if Anderson were to say it's better if all sodomites were put to death. He kinda is saying that they should die.

>Since Anderson is a libertarian, he won't do that.

He absolutely believes in the death penalty. Not sure what you mean on this

My biggest criticism of baptists is that they generally try to force scripture to coincide with modern liberalistic philosophies. This critique can't be applied to all baptists since each one interprets the scriptures differently.

>>850347

What's an example in your view? Baptists champion expository teaching

>>850343

He just thinks the government should not get involved in anything. I understand that. So then, instead of advocating for something like I said, in place of that he would go for something more shocking. The problem is, it falls flat because of the above truth.

Whether this situation is caused due to him being against the people who typically control government now, or being against it in every form, I can not read that deeply into his reasoning. I just know he is famous for resisting routine border inspectors, and also thinks the country itself is Babylon (See his documentary Babylon USA) rather than it being the whore that sits on a beast, symbolizing the merging of religion and state in Rome. He differs from that by saying the country that he lives in is Babylon, including all of the people that live in it. Which, would seem to include himself by choice.

Maybe these views are also for shock value, but maybe not. I can not read that deeply into it. But the part about rebuking the wicked despite what Proverbs 9 says, plus not having much reason for not doing what Romans 13 says, is definitely for shock value. Why would you or any Bible believing encourage suicide rather than criminalization and justice in a court of law if that is the right thing to do.

And as I said above, I believe this is just as much of an error as worshipping good intentions, and saying everything is about being nice - meaning, do everything they want you to do, say what they want you to say - which is way more common but equally off base.

>>850347

At least you don't have any criticism of the Scripture that they follow - Every human may be fallible, as you say, we can all be criticized. But they are doing right for purely following it, rather than some other fallible person. That is, provided we are talking about the uncorrupted received text of course. Because if not, then they are following whoever changed it from the original sources the Bible uses.

>>850344

>implying sola scriptura is good and not a total heresy

>implying that the Baptist faith isn't a tradition

<inb4 MUUUHHH BUT OUW BEWIEFS AWE FWOM DA SCRIPTUWES ALONE

>lol okay: lutheran.jpg, reformed.jpg, the hundreds of other protestant denominations that claim literally the exact same thing.jpg

>implying that Tradition is not from the apostles despite the fact that the Bible literally tells us to follow Tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15, 1 Corinthians 11:2)

>implying neither Jesus nor Paul promoted Tradition despite the fact that they actually did (Matthew 23:3, 1 Corinthians 1:10, 2 Timothy 3:8)

>>850352

>>implying sola scriptura is good and not a total heresy

Yes

<inb4 MUUUHHH BUT OUW BEWIEFS AWE FWOM DA SCRIPTUWES ALONE

Yes

>utheran.jpg, reformed.jpg, the hundreds of other protestant denominations

baby baptizers are not sola scriptua. Also Luther believed you needed to be baptized in order to be saved, so he also is not sola fide. Many of those reformers were former catholic priests, and still held onto many of the traditions of the RCC

>implying that Tradition is not from the apostles despite the fact that the Bible literally tells us to follow Tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15, 1 Corinthians 11:2)

The majority of the time tradition is mentioned it is bad (as I posted in Mark 7)

Not all the Bible was written yet, so the early Christians often had to go based off of what the apostles said, that would also later be written down. Such as Acts 2 was written after the fact, but the stuff taught then still was written down later.

Now all the NT is written. And Jesus specifically rebukes the Pharisees for adding things that were not found in the scriptures

>>850361

Amen. There's a reason they didn't allow anyone to read the Bible or hear a sermon in their own language for thousands of years.

"Oy vey goyim, it must be in Latin for literally no reason"

>>850362

That's not based in any history outside the West. Orthodox have always encouraged reading scripture. And engaged in numerous translations long before the Reformers revived the practice again in the West. Don't blame the entire world on what a small region of Latin schismatics did. Russians and other Slavs had the Cyrillic based texts. Copts (Egyptians) had theirs. Ethiopians had their translations. Along with Syrians, Armenians, Arabs, you name it.

The entire story Protestant victimhood from being forbidden to read scriptures is just a Western thing. Not indicative of the whole Christian world.

Listen to John Chrysostom here, for example. He's insistent on how crucial scripture reading is. Nor were Byzantines in his day illiterate or didn't have access to scripture. He's telling them outright to read daily, and discuss it with family and friends daily:

“The mouths of the inspired authors are the mouth of God, after all; such a mouth would say nothing idly—so let us not be idle in our listening, either… Pay precise attention, however: the reading out of the Scriptures is the opening of the heavens.”

“Any time must be considered suitable for discourse on spiritual topics. If we have a precise realization of this, we will be able while relaxing at home, both before eating and after eating, to take the Scriptures in our hands and gain benefit from them and provide spiritual nourishment for our soul… This is our salvation, this is spiritual treasure, this security. If we thus strengthen ourselves each day—by reading, by listening, by spiritual discourse—we will be able to remain unconquered, and render the snares of the devil ineffectual.”

“Let us not simply imprint this on our minds, but also discuss it constantly with one another in our get-togethers; let us constantly revive the memory of this story both with our wives and with the children. In fact, if you want to talk about a king, see, there is a king here; if about soldiers, about a household, about political affairs, you will find a great abundance of these things in the Scriptures. These narratives bring the greatest benefit: it is impossible – impossible, I say—for a soul nourished on these stories ever to manage to fall victim to passion.”

>>850370

The whole concept of worshipping images and polluting church with images came from the east or Orient. Image worship, along with gnosticism and a whole array of false ideas came from there - it originated there - into Christian lands. The whole procession of image/idol worship started there. In the mid-1st millenium sometime before 1000. Do I want to have anything to do with pagan idolators who then brought this practice with them into the west? No, not at all. They are idolators. They are this openly, it is not even hidden. And the New Testament as we know, teaches that idolatry is a grave sin.

So do I want anything to do with idolatry? No, I will be in church where there is, and continues to be, none of that stuff introduced.

Psalm 115 talks about the idols that men make. It talks about how they are silver and gold. Also wood, stone and brass. The Psalm talks about how the heathens have formed them with their own hands and then bow down to worships those things. The Psalm talks about how those idols have eyes but do not see, ears, but do not hear. It talks about how they have hands, but do not handle, and about how those idols have mouths which yet do not speak. The Bible talks about how the idols do not speak, talk or walk. It says that those who make the idols are alike to them, and so is every one that trusts in the idols. Someone is still following these commandments, tyvm

>>850371

Orthodox were not Gnostics. They laid the foundation for every manner to blow out Gnostics. Gnostics were completely obliterated because of these teachers, for over a thousand years, until recently. At best, Gnostics had to hide in secret societies. To accuse the people of eliminating Gnostics of actually being Gnostic is just dumb. If it wasn't for them, you'd see more Gnostics.

Orthodox don't "worship" images. They are teaching tools and highly stylized (not to be to the subject itself, but just a rendition). And the validation of using images was revealed by Christ himself. Once he became Word Incarnate, God took on an image. You can't use the Jew argument about idols without criticizing Christ himself, who said that if you see him, then you see the Father. As John states as well: "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life" - 1 John 1:1

Anyone still following the Torah prescription on idolatry just wants to be a Jew. Not a follower of Christ, who fully revealed God. By their actions, they demonstrate that they don't believe Christ is God or took on an image of God. This core belief about Christ's nature is precisely what separates Christians from Muslims and Jews, who are still grasping at laws about idols. They do this because they reject Christ and don't truly know God. But you're even worse than Muslims. You claim to follow Christ, but reject his Incarnation in the same breath. You should think more carefully about which camp you're actually in. If you want to be a Jew or Muslim, this board is only going to disappoint you.

>>850207

>Steven Anderson is aheretic because he believes what the Bible says.

hmmm

>>850370

It was directed more towards catholics because that is what is more prevelant in the West and what more people are familiar with. But Orthodox don't follow the Bible either >>850344

I will at least say that Greek Orthodox at least preach the NT in the orginal language, which at least makes some sense. Now they often still do to non-greek speakers which doesn't help the congregation at all (1 Cor 14:9/19), but it at least makes some sense.

There is no basis for catholics to have such an obsession with Latin. Literally zero words of the Bible are in Latin, and if God wanted Latin to be so important he probably would have the NT in that language. Which he could have done since it was still a prevalent language back then.

>>850371

Both catholics and orthodox also copied monastaries and monks from buddhism

>>850377

>Once he became Word Incarnate, God took on an image. You can't use the Jew argument about idols without criticizing Christ himself, who said that if you see him, then you see the Father.

Even though people of course saw Jesus, still no one made images of him while he was on earth. The Bible never mentions the apostles or anybody making paintings of Jesus, and there are no images from that long ago from when someone could have actually seen him. The oldest image is from around the 200s or 300s, which is long after Jesus walked the earth, so anybody that would have seen him would be dead by then. So any image of Jesus is just the author's imagination, or it is a painting of someone that was posing for it.

So when you venerate whatever painting of Jesus or Mary you are doing that to a rondom person that is not Jesus nor Mary.

>>850393

>In the mid-1st millenium sometime before 1000.

Then the oriental churches should have been iconoclasts, and made a big deal out of it, given that by then, we were at each other's throats for centuries.

>Both catholics and orthodox also copied monastaries and monks from buddhism

Ah, yes, from the great Buddhist monasteries of Egypt.

>>850425

>Ah, yes, from the great Buddhist monasteries of Egypt.

Lmao. Baptists really do make some of the most ridiculous claims, don't they? I guess we can't expect a man made sect from the early 17th century to have much historical literacy.

>>850426

It's not even regular baptists.

It's the crazy landmarkist we wuzzers, and those tend to spawn into new prophetic movements(Mormons, Millerites->Adventists and JW's, etc.)

After all, if you go down the route of "there is a secret, eternally recurring fringe chain of true believers that survive, despite being close to becoming extinct time and time again" it doesn't take long for some person like White or Smith to go "well, they did become extinct, and my newly restored prophet ass has to reboot the little flock franchise".

>>850428

Historians trace the earliest "Baptist" church to 1609 in Amsterdam, Dutch Republic with English Separatist John Smyth as its pastor.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptists

>>850428

>that pic

WE WUZ APOSTOLICS

>>850430

I'm glad you can laugh about it all. But I find it to the most damning part of their group. They take things handed down to them (like the Trinity, the Canon, etc), and then claim it all as their own, whilst at the same time slandering the very people who died and fought to bring it to them. Such as slandering the Orthodox as "Gnostics" in this thread, for example. How can the very people who united and prayed for guidance from the Holy Spirit to form the NT Canon, and who deliberately fought Gnostic writings from ever being included in that Canon, be the "Gnostics"? How can teachers who wrote apology after apology defending the faith and have sermons in droves criticizing Gnostic teachings be the actual Gnostics?

Baptists are incapable of learning from others directly - completely unteachable and full of pride - but will happily steal the very same teachings, and then say it was theirs all along. And create clownish alternative histories to try to support their theft. They don't have Christian love or even a fraction of just a simple masculine code of honor. A "bro code", if you will. They have the mentality more typical of conniving whores and thieves and conmen who take good things from others, and claim it all as their own. I don't even want them to "convert" or stop being Baptists necessarily either. I just want them to know where they fit in history, and to have an appreciation for history. But they'd rather behave dishonorably.

People who can't even act honorably with sacred things couldn't be trusted with trivial matters either. You'd be a fool to even buy a set of tires from a Baptist. Their problem is not only that they're not Christian - they aren't real men either. They're all bitches and scoundrels who cheat and lie their way through life.

>>850440

>Mr. Neale, in his History of the Puritans saith, that Mr. Perry was a Welsh divine, and gives him an excellent character for learning, piety, ministerial gifts, diligence, etc., though not a hint that he was a Baptist. However, A. Wood, in Ath. Oxon. many years before Neale, speaks out plainly saying, that Perry "was a notorious Anabaptist, of which partly he was the Coryphous (or leader)." He was educated at Oxford, and went to Cambridge, preached at both places; and was, says Wood himself, "esteemed by many a tolerable Scholar, and edifying preacher, and a good man." This was a great character given by those authors to a Baptist in those days. The noted Strype wrote sufficiently acrimonious against Mr. Perry blaming him for saying that popery then was intolerable in Wales. Though even Mr. Strype owns that Mr. Perry expressed a great concern for his native country; yet chargeth him with anabaptistery. So great was the rage and fury against him in those days, that he was apprehended, condemned and put to violent death in 1593 or 1594, aged 34. Dr. Henry Sampson names Mr. Perry among "the several persons that were troubled, deprived, and silenced by Whitgist or agents in the high commissions court, the star chamber, and the courts' ecclesiastical." The Dr. S. Calamy's Abridgement, second edition preface.

in: The American Baptist Heritage in Wales, quotation of Joshua Thomas, pp. 14-15.

>>850449

You're one to talk, considering I continue to see you promoting the worship of idols. The false version of history bit I can understand. Everyone does that when in denial of the truth. But ignoring the New Testament is not something to be done by accident. I literally just linked you to the passages of the New Testament where the apostles condemned idolatry. So what gives?

You said anyone that is "still grasping at laws about idols" does this because, AND I QUOTE, "They do this because they reject Christ and don't truly know God."

So then the apostles who wrote against idolatry in the New Testament (1 John 5:21, 2 Corinthians 6:16, 1 Corinthians 5:11 etc.) apparently fall under your condemnation, anon. If you are unwilling to answer for yourself after having said this, I guess it only further explains how inconsistent this position truly is.

>>850440

Oh yeah and >Wikipedia

Any source that says homosexuality is okay and alright should probably be doubted without providing further proof.

>>850459

Ok two things here. John Smyth was an Arminian, the first confessional baptist who started the general Baptists. You can find a lot of claims about him based on the guy who derided baptists, Henry Martyn Dexter, who wrote a book in 1881 that claimed he was the first baptist ever to exist. But if you read Dexter's book, you soon realize, he had a strong animus against Baptists in his day. That's one thing and that's where your theory comes from.

Writers had already disproven such claims in numerous earlier writings. Only after Dexter in 1881 do you see claims to the effect that you are saying. The Edinburgh Encyclopedia of 1830, just as one example, does a tremendous job in showing the true origins of the Baptist Christian faith. Another earlier myth that this one replaced, was the claim that baptists originated in the Münster Rebellion of 1534-35. For this reason they started to call them "anabaptists" after after 1535. In 1538, November 29, the first execution of so-called "anabaptists" as (supposed) seditionists of the Münsterite brand occurred in England. Their names were Peter Franke, his wife (unnamed), and Jan Mathijsz van Middelburg (not the same as Jan Mathijsz van Haarlem, who was part of the Munster Rebellion several years earlier).

Names taken from: van Braght, Thieleman J., The Bloody Theatre or Martyrs’ Mirror, (Lampeter Square, Penn. 1837 Ed.), part second, p. 376.

However, another execution of fourteen men and women took place in England three years earlier where the "anabaptist" label had been yet developed.

>"on the 25th of May, 1535. nineteen Men and six Women were examined in Saint Paul’s Church London; that fourteen of them were condemned, a Man and a Woman of them burnt in Smithfield, and the other twelve sent to other Towns, there to be burnt." […] "Mr. Lewis adds, ‘That Bishop Latimer said in one of his Sermons before King Edward VI. that he had heard, of credible Men, that they [the aforesaid fourteen Persons] went to their Death even intrepidè, as ye will say, without any Fear in the World.’ "

in: Crosby, A Brief Reply to John Lewis’s Brief History of the Rise and Progress of Anabaptism in England (1738), p. 13.

>Okay, you have a point

So you realize Joshua Thomas had a point when he talked about John Perry—M.A, and his attestation in the real historical records. You should realize then that John Perry's existence, how he died as a Baptist minister in either 1593 or 1594, is entirely lacking in modern retellings based on Dexter's framework centered about John Smyth.

>>850461

Also in case you want to say that Believer's baptism in England at the time was limited to a small number of immigrants with no presence in the culture, you would probably have to deal with the existence of the below discourse, written by a bishop in the Church of England back in 1550. He said this:

>"If this reason should take place, "The apostles used it not, ergo it is not lawful for us to use it"—or this either, "they did it, ergo we must needs do it"—then all Christians may have no place abiding, all must, under pain of damnation, depart with their possessions, as Peter said they did, Ecce nos reliquimus omnia, ["Behold, we have left all things," note: Matt. 19:27] &c.; we may have no ministration of Christ's sacraments in churches, for they had no churches, but were fain to do all in their own houses; we must baptize abroad in the fields as the apostles did; we may not receive the holy communion but at supper, and with the table furnished with other meats, as the Anabaptists do now stiffly and obstinately affirm that it should be; our naming of the child in baptism, our prayer upon him, our crossing, and our threefold abrenunciation, and our white chrisom, all must be left, for these we cannot prove by God's word, that the apostles did them. And, if to do anything which we cannot prove that they did be sin, then a greatest part is sin that we do daily in baptism. What followeth then other things, than to receive the Anabaptists' opinion, and to be baptized anew? O wicked folly and blind ignorancy!"

"Reply of Bishop Ridley to Bishop Hooper, 1550" in: The Writings of John Bradford, M.A. Edited by Aubrey Townsend, 1853. Vol. 2, pp. 382-383.

>>850459

John Smyth didn't found the Baptist church because theres no such thing as "the baptist church", and he wasnt a "schismatic" you're trying to see everything through your lens and its demonstrating you're not familiar with this topic

There are four theories of baptist origins: English separatism, biblical Anabaptist influence, biblical continuity, and organic successionism.

>>850466

And if we are to take what their opponents grant of them, this is a historical belief.

>"For not so long ago I read the edict of the other prince who lamented the fate of the Anabaptists who, so we read, were pronounced heretics twelve hundred years ago and deserving of capital punishment. He wanted them to be heard and not taken as condemned without a hearing."

Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius (1504-1579), in: Opera Omnia Coloniae, Epistle 150: Alberto Bauariae Duci, p. 309.

>"Here our Anabaptists again disclose their ignorance, when they teach that no one should be compelled to that which is good, or to the faith… They resemble the ancient Anabaptists, the Donatists, in every respect. These were of the opinion, that heretics should be allowed to live without restraint and with impunity in their faith;"

in: Bullinger, Adversus Anabaptistas Libri VI. (1560), p. 181.

>"As we shall afterwards shew, the rise of the "Anabaptists" took place long prior to the formation of the Church of England, and there are also reasons for believing that on the continent of Europe small hidden christian societies, who have held many of the opinions of the "Anabaptists," have existed from the times of the Apostles. In the sense of the direct transmission of Divine Truth, and the true nature of spiritual religion, it seems probable that these Churches have a lineage or succession more ancient than that of the Roman Church."

in: Robert Barclay, The Inner Life of the Religious Societies of the Commonwealth, pp. 11-12. (1876)

>O marvelous! God, by his wise providence has preserved the purity of the Gospel in the Valleys of Piedmont, from the times of the Apostles to our times.

Boyer, Abrege de l'histoire des Vaudois, p. 23. (1691)

>"It must have already occurred to our readers, that the baptists are the same sect of Christians which we formerly described under the appellation of ANABAPTISTS. Indeed, this seems to have been their great leading principle from the time of Tertullian to the present day."

The Edinburgh Encyclopedia, Vol 3, p. 251. (1830)

>"Of the Baptists it may be said that they are not reformers. These people, comprising bodies of Christian believers known under various names in different countries, are entirely distinct and independent of the Roman and Greek churches, have had an unbroken continuity of existence from Apostolic days down through the centuries. Throughout this long period they were bitterly persecuted for heresy, driven from country to country, disfranchised, deprived of their property, imprisoned, tortured and slain by the thousands, yet they swerved not from their New Testament Faith, Doctrine and Adherence."

William C. King, Crossing the Centuries (1912), p. 174.

>>850468

This is a great collection of relevant quotes. Did you find them compiled in a book or a blog?

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.

>>850471

Whats your view of Anabaptist and Mennonite churches today

>>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.

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.

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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>850498

>Huh, I thought Baptists rejected the historical creeds

Why did you think that?

>>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.

>>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.

>>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?

>>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—.

>>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.

>>850538

>>850539

>>850538

The more I see Protestants debate, the more I think Protestantism is like scarlet fever: it deprives you of your senses

>>850539

Edit. Scarlet fever does not blind people or deprive of senses. But Parkinson's does.

>>850319

I agree

>>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.

>>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.

Hol up, did the Pope die for our sins or did Jesus? Who do I believe on for my salvation?

>>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.

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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>856087

Testing manual embed. Wish it auto embeds, God.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

All denominations are abominations.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

“Anyone who slightly disagrees with me isn’t a real Christian guys!”

>>856158

>this dude thinking Mary of Magdala is the mother of Jesus

Absolute state of catholicism.

>>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