Why Calvinists Need Man-Made Creeds

[Vince Massi]

INTRODUCTION

For this series, I am defining "Baptist" as any born-again Christian who practices immersion after conversion.

It's easy to prove that Baptists existed before both Calvinists and Protestants--the Four Gospels and the Book of Acts clearly show that the first Christians were Baptists. Period. The entire New Testament shows that the first Christians weren't Calvinist. Period.

The Catholic Church would later destroy, falsify, and preserve records to show that Catholicism was the first Christian religion, and therefore, NO HISTORICAL RECORDS OF THIS PERIOD CAN BE COMPLETELY TRUSTED.

Just as modern Baptists have been corrupted by Calvinism and modernism, history shows that Baptist groups like the Paulicians, Albigenses, and Vaudois lasted for centuries while being corrupted by some blend of Catholicism and paganism. And since the Catholic Church controlled history, even these records are suspect.

The Church Fathers were an early Christian source of theology, and I want to tell you three deep, dark secrets about them:

1) At a time when communication, organization, and transportation were poor; and when most people couldn't read, the Church Fathers were isolated scholars whom most Christians never met, never heard of, never learned from, and never studied. How did the Catholics corrupt the Baptists so quickly? They didn't--most Baptists never listened to the Church Fathers.

2) Not a single one of the Church Fathers believed the Catholicism of today, Calvinism, Protestantism, or the Orthodox religion of today. Even those Church fathers who were later declared saints or Doctors of the Church were not Catholic. They were scholarly theologians who had found a new religion to play with.

3) The Church Fathers heavily contradicted and even condemned one another--they are not a source of doctrine, and despite their historical importance, the Bible never tells us to listen to them. Then, as now, most Baptists ignored the Church Fathers.

We used a Protestant Church History textbook at HAC (that gave a lot of praise to monasteries). The author could not hide his frustration at the rapid and sudden emergence of Baptist congregations all over Europe as soon as Catholicism lost its grip in an area. Where did these Baptists come from? Were they Catholics who believed the Gospel, and were now able to break away? Were they Baptists who pretended to be Catholics in order to protect themselves? Were they secret Baptist congregations that had met in home churches? We don't know, but we know that they existed before both Calvinists and Protestants.

 

[bgwilkinson]

INTRODUCTION

For this series, I am defining "Baptist" as any born-again Christian who practices immersion after conversion.

It's easy to prove that Baptists existed before both Calvinists and Protestants--the Four Gospels and the Book of Acts clearly show that the first Christians were Baptists. Period. The entire New Testament shows that the first Christians weren't Calvinist. Period.

The Catholic Church would later destroy, falsify, and preserve records to show that Catholicism was the first Christian religion, and therefore, NO HISTORICAL RECORDS OF THIS PERIOD CAN BE COMPLETELY TRUSTED.

Just as modern Baptists have been corrupted by Calvinism and modernism, history shows that Baptist groups like the Paulicians, Albigenses, and Vaudois lasted for centuries while being corrupted by some blend of Catholicism and paganism. And since the Catholic Church controlled history, even these records are suspect.

The Church Fathers were an early Christian source of theology, and I want to tell you three deep, dark secrets about them:

1) At a time when communication, organization, and transportation were poor; and when most people couldn't read, the Church Fathers were isolated scholars whom most Christians never met, never heard of, never learned from, and never studied. How did the Catholics corrupt the Baptists so quickly? They didn't--most Baptists never listened to the Church Fathers.

2) Not a single one of the Church Fathers believed the Catholicism of today, Calvinism, Protestantism, or the Orthodox religion of today. Even those Church fathers who were later declared saints or Doctors of the Church were not Catholic. They were scholarly theologians who had found a new religion to play with.

3) The Church Fathers heavily contradicted and even condemned one another--they are not a source of doctrine, and despite their historical importance, the Bible never tells us to listen to them. Then, as now, most Baptists ignored the Church Fathers.

We used a Protestant Church History textbook at HAC (that gave a lot of praise to monasteries). The author could not hide his frustration at the rapid and sudden emergence of Baptist congregations all over Europe as soon as Catholicism lost its grip in an area. Where did these Baptists come from? Were they Catholics who believed the Gospel, and were now able to break away? Were they Baptists who pretended to be Catholics in order to protect themselves? Were they secret Baptist congregations that had met in home churches? We don't know, but we know that they existed before both Calvinists and Protestants.

What was the Name of the Protestant Church History text book?

 

[IFB X-Files]

What was the Name of the Protestant Church History text book?

Church History for Dummies?

 

[Vince Massi]

What was the Name of the Protestant Church History text book?

Church History for Dummies?

No, it wasn't as accurate as that series. Brant Holladay, a very Godly BJU graduate, taught the course. One day I objected to the book's blatant praise of monasteries, and three other students quickly joined it. Mr. Holladay was so shocked that he actually froze for several seconds. But he was a good, Godly man despite the textbook.

After acknowledging that Baptists appeared all over Europe in areas where Catholicism lost its control, the author argued that Baptists shouldn't believe that they pre-date Protestantism, because there are so many great Baptist preachers who came after the Reformation.

It was pointed out by the students that there were many great Baptist preachers BEFORE the Protestant Reformation:  John the Baptist, Jesus, Peter, the Apostle Paul...

Because I do not keep known error, I threw the textbook away decades ago and cannot remember the name.

 

[Ransom]

For this series, I am defining "Baptist" as any born-again Christian who practices immersion after conversion.

LOL, okay.

 

[Ransom]

The Catholic Church would later destroy, falsify, and preserve records to show that Catholicism was the first Christian religion, and therefore, NO HISTORICAL RECORDS OF THIS PERIOD CAN BE COMPLETELY TRUSTED.

Just as modern Baptists have been corrupted by Calvinism and modernism, history shows that Baptist groups like the Paulicians, Albigenses, and Vaudois lasted for centuries while being corrupted by some blend of Catholicism and paganism. And since the Catholic Church controlled history, even these records are suspect.

So where do the Landmarkers, Briders, Trail O' Bludders and various other Baptist successionists get their reliable history that groups such as the Paulicans, Albigenses, and Vaudois were orthodox, Christian, Baptists?

This sounds like a tacit admission that their "Baptist" "history" is made up.

Just like Vince's.

 

[bgwilkinson]

That would make the church my mom grew up in Baptist according to your definition.

After she professed faith in Christ she was immersed.

It was a Swedish Conservative Covenant Church with a split chancel and the altar as the focal point as in a Luther Church. They had the Euchrist every Sunday, although they did not believe Transubstantiaton.

They sure weren't Baptist as we understand it now, even though they immersed after salvation.

 

[Ransom]

For this series, I am defining "Baptist" as any born-again Christian who practices immersion after conversion.

So Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and Seventh-day Adventists are Baptists, then?

 

[FSSL]

Vince's man-made creed has problems he is not willing to defend.

 

[Vince Massi]

For this series, I am defining "Baptist" as any born-again Christian who practices immersion after conversion.

So Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and Seventh-day Adventists are Baptists, then?

Are you stating publicly that these are born-again Christians?

 

[Ransom]

Are you stating publicly that these are born-again Christians?

Obviously not, as anyone who can tell the difference between a statement and a question could have told you.

Are you publicly stating that the Paulicans, Albignesians,and Vaudois were born again? How would you know this, since you already admitted that there are no trustworthy contemporary sources?

 

[Thomas Cassidy]

For this series, I am defining "Baptist" as any born-again Christian who practices immersion after conversion.

So Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and Seventh-day Adventists are Baptists, then?

It looks to me as if the criteria is two fold:

1. Born again.

2. Baptized by immersion.

I would hesitate to say that any Jehovah's Witness or Mormon is saved, and sincerely doubt most SDAs are, so it seems to me they would not meet Vince Massi's criteria.

 

[Ransom]

I would hesitate to say that any Jehovah's Witness or Mormon is saved, and sincerely doubt most SDAs are, so it seems to me they would not meet Vince Massi's criteria.

Who voted Vince the arbiter of a) what defines a Baptist; or b) who gets to be born again?  If he's going to admit the Albigenses, on what grounds does he exclude the Watchtower?

 

[Thomas Cassidy]

Paulicians

Were accused of being Dualistic Gnostics but that charge was made against just about any dissenting group at that time. We really don't have a lot of information regarding their doctrine.

Albigenses and Waldenses

Although the Albigenses were possibly descended from the Paulicians, we do have a little more information regarding their doctrine as found in "The Noble Lesson" from their sister group the Waldenses and the well researched book "The Ecclesiastical History of the Ancient Churches of the Albigenses" by Peter Allix. Both sources seem to indicate their were pretty squarely in agreement with what later became known as "Reformed Doctrine." And Waldenses churches still exist today in Italy and seem to be main stream evangelical.

Vaudois

Another name for Waldenses, See above.

It is always hard to say exactly where one of the ancient dissenting groups stood doctrinally in light of the attacks made against them by the Church of Rome. But they, like Baptists today, probably came in many different shades and tones and subtle nuance.

 

[Thomas Cassidy]

Who voted Vince the arbiter of a) what defines a Baptist; or b) who gets to be born again?  If he's going to admit the Albigenses, on what grounds does he exclude the Watchtower?

He did start his thread with a definition he was using for the purposes of this thread.

For this series, I am defining "Baptist" as any born-again Christian who practices immersion after conversion.

I would note there is a huge difference, based on the historical understanding of their doctrine, between the Albigenses and the JWs. At least the Albegenses have a Christ who is not a created being and incarnation of Michael.

 

[Ransom]

[Paulicans] Were accused of being Dualistic Gnostics but that charge was made against just about any dissenting group at that time. We really don't have a lot of information regarding their doctrine.

So how do you know they were orthodox Baptists?

The kind of historiography that Vince is doing, and you seem to be in agreement with, strikes me as neither objective nor intellectually honest. It appears that he believes recorded history is unreliable when it conflicts with his assumptions about the groups that form the line of "Baptists" throughout church history, but reliable when it reinforces them. Talk about assuming one's conclusions a priori!

Albigenses and Waldenses

Although the Albigenses were possibly descended from the Paulicians, we do have a little more information regarding their doctrine as found in "The Noble Lesson" from their sister group the Waldenses and the well researched book "The Ecclesiastical History of the Ancient Churches of the Albigenses" by Peter Allix.[/quote]

Aha, so there is reliable history of the period! Vince was wrong again!

Both sources seem to indicate their were pretty squarely in agreement with what later became known as "Reformed Doctrine."

And he won't be too happy about that, as he claims Baptists were corrupted with Reformed theology in the 19th century by an apparently time-travelling John Gill.

And Waldenses churches still exist today in Italy and seem to be main stream evangelical.

Vaudois

Another name for Waldenses, See above.

My understanding is that they were originally a separatist group, preaching voluntary poverty, rejecting transubstantiation, and  practicing congregational church government, advocating for the people to have the Bible in their own language, and other distinctives.  In that respect they were not terribly different from the English Lollards a century and change later, except that they were credobaptists while John Wycliffe never abandoned pedobaptism as far as I know.

However, they later embraced the Reformation in the 16th century, and brought their doctrine and practice more in line with the Reformed churches'.

But they, like Baptists today, probably came in many different shades and tones and subtle nuance.

If what defines a "Baptist" is a born-again Christian who practices believers' baptism, there' s not an awful lot of room there for "nuance."  Of course, you, I, and any other informed person knows that Vince's definition of "Baptist" is hopelessly reductionistic.

 

[Thomas Cassidy]

So how do you know they were orthodox Baptists?

I don't. They probably practiced infant baptism amongst their own children and baptism of adult converts by affusion.

Aha, so there is reliable history of the period! Vince was wrong again!

Yeah. I think so too.

And he won't be too happy about that, as he claims Baptists were corrupted with Reformed theology in the 19th century by an apparently time-travelling John Gill.

LOL! Well, my goal for today was not to make Vince happy so I don't feel too bad about disappointing him.

My understanding is that they were originally a separatist group, preaching voluntary poverty,

The Poor Men of Lyon.

rejecting transubstantiation, and  practicing congregational church government, advocating for the people to have the Bible in their own language, and other distinctives.  In that respect they were not terribly different from the English Lollards a century and change later, except that they were credobaptists while John Wycliffe never abandoned pedobaptism as far as I know.

Agreed.

However, they later embraced the Reformation in the 16th century, and brought their doctrine and practice more in line with the Reformed churches'.

Agreed again.

If what defines a "Baptist" is a born-again Christian who practices believers' baptism, there' s not an awful lot of room there for "nuance."  Of course, you, I, and any other informed person knows that Vince's definition of "Baptist" is hopelessly reductionistic.

I agree, but understood his definition to be for the purposes of this discussion thread only. It is ridiculously reductionist (and obscurantist too) when taken beyond the limited confines of this discussion.

 

[Ransom]

At least the Albegenses have a Christ who is not a created being and incarnation of Michael.

Some Cathari were apparently Arians, if that's who Bernard of Clairvaux opposed in Toulouse.

And if not, are Docetists and Adoptionists better than Arians?

 

[Ransom]

I agree, but understood his definition to be for the purposes of this discussion thread only. It is ridiculously reductionist (and obscurantist too) when taken beyond the limited confines of this discussion.

And the whole discussion is pretty much nullified when it's founded on a false premise.

 

[FSSL]

The earliest Baptists did not immerse.