Trail of Blood? Truth or Fiction?

DHK,

From Thinkingstuff's description, I don't exactly understand your position is - but above you did say that spiritual kin of the baptists did exist under different names, so, I guess my question still obtains:

What names did they exist under?

Thanks.

Greg

 

Two groups that I will mention are the Waldenses and the Albigenses.
Both of these groups were large, varied, and lasted for long periods of times. Thus it is unfair to pick some heretical doctrine out of one small sect of them and paint the whole group with it. That is what some RCC historians have done.
The Albigenses were God-fearing Bible-believing Christians whom Innocent III gave a command to carry out a crusade against. He feared their evangelistic "threat" and wanted them wiped out.
Albigenses are those that come from "Albi" a place in France. They are from the eastern part of France.
The Waldenses are commonly attributed to Peter Waldo, but I don't think that is their founder, though he may have been linked with them at one time. I believe the word valdeses means valley. The Waldenses were people of the valley--peaceful living people that believed the Bible, not war, and yet were persecuted for their faith anyway. One RCC cardinal testified that their existence went right back to the time of Christ. And he lived in the 12th century!

There are many others of course. But this is not the forum to study Baptist History.

 

The Waldenses were not early Baptists. If anything they were early Presbyterians. The Waldensians still exist today in Northern Italy at the French border. They have about 50,000 people in 200 congregations. The are officially part of the Italian Reformed Church, a Presbyterian Church. In this area they also have a close association with the Methodists.

The Waldensians themselves trace their existence from Peter Waldo in the late 1100's. Waldo's profession of faith, written about 1180, shows clearly that he was Catholic. He starts his profession In the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, "and of the Most Blessed Mary, ever virgin." Overtime, of course, they became Protestant.

Reference:

The History of the Waldenses of Italy by Emilio Comba (1889).
You Are My Witnesses: The Waldensians Across 800 Years by Giorgio Tourn (1989)
The Waldensian Story: A Study of Faith, Intolerance, and Survival by Prescot Stephens (1998)

CA

 

I would be hesitant to claim the the Albigenses were "Bible-believing Christians."

They believed:

* in two gods, a good God and a strange god.
* that the Mosaic law was imparted by the evil god.
* they do not believe in the resurrection of the bodies of this world
* they believe that when the soul leaves the human body it passes to another body, "unless the person dies while under their instruction."
* they believe that Christ was only of this world in a spiritual sense

Reference. Heresies of the High Middle Ages, selection #37.

CA

 

This is very typical of those who would revise history to suit their own means. The Albigenses were as numerous and varied and their beliefs as the Baptists. Now if you want me to point you to a Baptist Church I can tell you that I know a Baptist Church that:
approves of homosexuality, denies the deity of Christ, denies the existence of hell and heaven, etc. This is what the typical Baptist believes today.

Anyone can mischaracterize an entire movement by describing just a few extremists. That is what you have done. That is what I have done (with my "Baptist illustration"). It is not honest research.

 

DHK,

I am not revising history, or mischaracterizing an entire movement. I am summarizing some 13th century documents. The primary source documents that support my statements are found in Heresies of the High Middle Ages:

Selection 37, An Exposure of the Albigensian and Waldensian Heresies by (possibly) Ermengaud, the Catholic Bishop of Beziers from 1205-1208. Written ca. 1208-1213.

Selection 38. A Description of Cathars and Waldenses by Peter, a Cistercian monk from the abbey of Vaux-de-Cernay. Written ca. 1213.

Selection 57, The Catharist Rituals. Author Unknown. Latin text written ca. 1240-1250; Provencal text written 1250-1280.

What primary source documents support your belief that the Albigenses were Bible-believing Christians?

CA

 

That is BBF's belief. (BBF is Baptist Bible Fellowship -- HQ in Springfield, Missouri).

 

The very title of the book betrays its bias. Why not look in history book that is researching the history of Baptists and not the history of heretics?? If you start with a bias you will end with a bias.

This is from Orchard's Baptist History. Look at the difference:

file:///C:/Library%20CD-ROM/FundamentalBaptistLibrary2000/WWW/articles/orchard1-02.htm

 

DHK,

I don't understand your reply. You cited 18th & 19th century opinions (Wall and Orchard) about a primary source from ca. 100-165 AD, Justin Martyr. We are discussing the Albigenses in the 1200's.

Please cite your primary sources for your belief that the Albigenses of the 13th century were Bible-believing Christians.

CA

 

Deafening silence...

 

"We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the Reformation, we were Reformers before Luther and Calvin were born; we never came out of the Church of Rome, for we were never in it. but we have an unbroken line of succession up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the very days of Christ; and our principles, though sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel underground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents. Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost every sect, yet there has never existed a Government holding Baptist principles which has persecuted others; nor, I believe, has any body of Baptists ever held it to be right to put the consciences of others under the control of man. We have ever been ready to suffer, as our martyrologies will prove ; but we are not willing to accept any help from the State, or to prostitute the purity of the Bride of Christ by any alliance with earthly Governments."" ---Charles Spurgeon

 

I'm sorry, but this does strike me as prideful. Just like when the Church of Christ does it, and the Jehovah's Witnesses, and some of the sabbathkeeping Church of God sects--all claiming the same sects through the centuries. (And Catholics and Orthodox claiming their big institutions were the true Church all along as well).
It's all about "look at us! We're the original true group". We were holy and persecuted for the truth. We always existed. We stand apart from those "Protestants" and Catholics. There isn't even anything about Christ in these statements. It's all about the group name.

I once fell into this mindset, desiring to find such a group, (but at least with a better historical claim of continuity, like Christian families in Israel who go all the way back), and then I realized it was just a form of collective pride. What's the point, otherwise?

 

Hi Jerome,

Per the link on my previous post, "primary sources are original records created during the time period you are studying, and are not filtered by interpretation. Primary sources may also be materials created at a later date by a participant or observer of the time period through memoirs, auto biographies or oral histories."

Thus, Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892), living 600 years after, is not a primary source for the Albigenses of the 1200's. Even if we were to consider Spurgeon's opinion, the quote you provided above does not address the Albigenses.

Does Spurgeon consider the Albigenses to be among those "honest and holy adherents" in the "river which may travel underground for a little season?" If yes, upon what primary sources does he base this belief?

CA

 

Don't be silly! Everyone knows that the Anglicans are the One True Church...no, stop laughing!

 

Eric, I notice that you are a member of a non-denominational church, but that it is Baptistic, and you have Baptist roots. Why did you choose that particular church? I'm assuming that you believe a church should follow scriptural doctrines and practices. Does yours? Is your congregation a true New Testament fellowship?

I'm assuming you believe so, and I assume that if it were not, you would not be there.

Do you believe that God has always had a witness? Surely, you do not want to take the position that for hundreds of years, there were no New Testament congregations in existence. Surely you do not want to hold that the gates of Hell did, in fact, prevail against the church Jesus established, and those which followed.

I believe that the Baptist congregation I serve is a New Testament church. How is it prideful to believe that my church teaches, preaches and practices in a scriptural manner? How is it prideful to claim spiritual kinship with other similar congregations all the way back to apostolic times? How is it prideful to conclude that if your church is a New Testament congregation, that by definition some others are not?

Now, I've assumed some things here, and have asked some rhetorical questions. I am open to your setting the record straight.

 

I don't think it's prideful at all...I actually left a Baptist congregation that I spent my life in until 5 years ago to become Orthodox Christian, due to the same reasons you remain in your Baptist church.

In XC
-

 

DHK,

I didn't want to lose my request from the previous page. Please cite your primary sources for your belief that the Albigenses of the 13th century were Bible-believing Christians.

Thanks.

CA

 

I'm in an independent, non-demonimational church, that does agree with the Baptists on the essentials. This is the closest kind of thing I can find to what I believe is the NT pattern. I actually believe it was not organized as the Church came to be later, and was actually more home-oriented (after being expelled from the established temple and synagogues, which were not the church anyway).

The mistake all the groups claiming this "kinship" make is in resting it (and the "gates of hell not prevaling") on denominational institutions and names. Hence a supposed "Baptist" (Or JW, or CoC, etc) "group' that lasted 1900+ years, through all of these groups, despite their vastly different teachings. But these are not "the church" Christ is engaged to. They are just names/labels of holding bodies framed around particular doctrines, and which own the buildings, pay the "executives', er. leaders, etc.

If one insists on an institution, then the RCC and EOC have you beat in terms of continuity, and this is the same thing I have told them. Anyone who held the faith during the centuries, were the witnesses and had the spiritual kinship with the NT. Even while all the visible institutions (large and small) were doctrinally qnd or politically corrupt. The Albigenses and others did not have this kinship, except in being persecuted, but that alone does not make any group a NT Church. The big powerful churches persecuted anything that did not follow their authority.

 

Good answer, good answer.

Believers did meet "from house to house" early on. Imagine 3,000 people gathering at homes on Sunday. No wonder there were many elders. They had a lot of meetings to preach to or lead Scripture study.

Church buildings as we know them came later.

When I talk about spiritual kinship, I'm not referring to an institution or denomination. I'm referring to groups of believers who have held to NT doctrines and practices. I believe such groups have existed since NT times. (And apparently so do you).

Those groups were imperfect, of course, just as they are today, and just as they were when Peter, Paul and others were writing to them,correcting, instructing and encouraging them.