The Waldensians were not only forerunners but also witnesses to the presence of Christ’s Word and Spirit in the church through the centuries. They gave expression to aspects of Apostolic religion that were threatened with extinction in the dominant church. They remind us that in every era, Christ fulfills His promise: “I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18).
HT: Scott Clark
I've heard some say that the Waldensians, Albigensians and others sects of the Piedmont valley were genuine Christians. For example, Richard Bennett from Berean Beacon and others who hold to the "Trail of Blood" Theory of Church history. Even some cults have claimed them for themselves. For example, the former Worldwide Church of God and the splinter groups that sprung up since the WCG became more orthodox and changed their name.
ReplyDeleteWhile others have said they were really heretics and that the stories of their orthodoxy aren't really historically verified (e.g. James White, Sam Waldron et al.).
A classic work allegedly documenting their general orthodoxy is the book "Some Remarks Upon the Ecclesiastical History of the Ancient Churches of Piedmont." Other modern scholars have dismissed the book. I wonder if a definitive work has been done to settle the issue.
There are various links to copies of "Some Remarks Upon the Ecclesiastical History of the Ancient Churches of Piedmont
Instead of relocating those links, I've zipped and uploaded the 3 scanned versions I've downloaded in the past.
Here's the link if anyone is interested: http://depositfiles.com/files/nr22sbk1x
All the Waldensians were was rebellious Roman Catholics. They basically maintained Roman doctrines and practices until the reformation, when they became Calvinists. About 150 years ago, they joined up with the Methodists, effectively becoming Arminians. McGoldrick's "Baptist Successionism" shows nearly all the groups some Baptists claim as ancestors were not Baptists, some like the Albigensians were outright gnostics.
ReplyDeleteAs Godfrey said, "The Reformers were not latter-day saints restoring a church that had disappeared from the face of the earth. Like the Waldensians, they wanted to purify and reform the church according to Scripture."
DeleteYour reply, Mr. Bugay, is a non-sequitur. The Waldensians, nor the Albigensians didn't "purify and reform the church according to scripture". Honest historians, like McGoldrick, admit they, and others like them, were just rebellious Roman Catholics, outright gnostics like the Albigensians, or groups like the Anabaptists, who because of the similarity of the name, and some of their practices, are erroneously claimed as ancestors of modern day groups. And since the Catholic Church is the only organization that has a proven, unbroken, historical existence with it's basic doctrines, dogmas, and practices intact since 33 AD, your 'reformation' was a rebellion against the true traditions of the church Christ founded on the Rock. And like those past groups, yours will eventually fade from history like the Albigensians.
ReplyDeletesince the Catholic Church is the only organization that has a proven, unbroken, historical existence with it's basic doctrines, dogmas, and practices intact since 33 AD, ...
DeleteThis of course is completely false, which is why you need a "theory of development".
As for the Albigensians, I'm not defending their beliefs, but you don't need to worry about them, because your infallible church turned the crusades on them and pretty much wiped them out.
Mr.Bugay, what I said was true and you know it's true.
DeleteI do believe in an "infallible church" in regard to it's teachings. My salvation depends upon a teaching church that can properly and rightly teach the written and unwritten dogmas and doctrines of the Lord and his apostles. The Catholic Church has been doing that for nearly 2000 years. You Protestants had nearly 500 years, and you have become spiritually bankrupt from your original heresies and the liberalism that followed them.
Yes, we took care of the Albigensians. They were a vicious group of people who were teaching no oath was binding, thus destroying loyalty in marriages and in the political and sacred realms. They also taught sex was 'dirty', even in marriage, thus encouraging sexual immorality and abortion. They didn't hesitate to murder or assassinate anyone who got in their way. Yep, thank God we "turned the crusades on them and pretty much wiped them out". Strangely enough, Protestantism in France sprung up in the same areas the Albigensians once dominated. Hmmmm, maybe we weren't thorough enough.
You certainly don't have your facts straight. From the Roman Catholic historian Paul Johnson:
DeleteWhere they were numerous enough, as in southern France, they organized churches and bishoprics, and constituted an alternative Church. Very few of the sect were 'perfected' - perhaps 1,000 to 1,500 in the whole of Languedoc in c. 1200. The majority were 'believers', who married, led normal lives, and 'received the consolamentum' only on their deathbeds, thus dying 'in the hands of the Good Men'. The Cathars were well-organized and orderly people. They elected bishops, collected funds and distributed them; led admirable lives. Unlike most Charismatics, they could not be broken up by a sharp cavalry charge. They got on well with the local authorities.
If I didn't know better, I'd say you're just extremely frustrated and posting comments here out of blind anger.
"They also taught sex was 'dirty', even in marriage ... "
DeleteThat sounds more like Jerome.
Mr Bugay, Paul Johnson is only one Catholic historian that you have cherry picked. The fact that the lower ranks of the believers led "normal lives" doesn't contradict what I have said. As a former cult member (Herbert Armstrong's Worldwide Church of God) I had a "normal life" too. But the upper ranks of the cult were different from us. Actually, worst than us. Just like the Albi's. "Well organized, admirable lives, got on well with the local authorities". Just like the group I was in. So you have proven nothing. Just more non-sequiturs on your part.
ReplyDeleteBlind anger? Mr Bugay, that's your shlick, not mine.
What's your source on the Albigensians? Something you heard somebody say something about them once? If I recall, that's a big way of disseminating information among Roman Catholics.
DeleteMr. Bugay, McGoldrick was one of my sources. He's a Baptist. And he says the Catholic authorities may not have liked the Albigensians, but they honestly reported what these people believed. "Jewish Influence On Christian Reform Movements" by Rabbi Louis Newman and "The Plot Against The Church" by Maurice Pinay are two more.
ReplyDeleteI don't notice McGoldrick using the kind of language that you did:
DeleteThey were a vicious group of people who were teaching no oath was binding, thus destroying loyalty in marriages and in the political and sacred realms. They also taught sex was 'dirty', even in marriage, thus encouraging sexual immorality and abortion. They didn't hesitate to murder or assassinate anyone who got in their way.
In the first place, few people have done more to debunk Baptist successionism than T-Blogger Gene Bridges.
Second, the Waldensians were not the Albigensians.
Third, the existence of these groups are a testimony to the corruption of the Roman church of that time, however "unorthodox" their doctrines may have been.
And on top of it all, your claim that "the Catholic Church is the only organization that has a proven, unbroken, historical existence with it's basic doctrines, dogmas, and practices intact since 33 AD" is still perfectly ridiculous.
Mr. Bugay, the language that I used about the Albi's is my own based on all the material I've read about them. It's kind of hard for me to be nice about a group of people who were as subversive as 20th century communists.
DeleteIf Gene Bridges has debunked Baptist Successionism, good for him. However McGoldrick's book is regarded as the standard book on the subject.
I never said the Waldensians were Albigensians. The Waldensians were just rebel Catholics, the Albi's were outright gnostics.
The existence of these groups are a testimony to their own rebellious heresies and schisms. These groups were a part of the problems in the church until they were expelled or left on their own accord.
Finally, what is "perfectly ridiculous" is a group of churches that has only been around less than 500 hundred years, is the restoration of the New Testament church. The lot of you can't agree on what to believe, yet you're going to tell me my claim is "perfectly ridiculous"?! Really?! That's more of a howler than your claim Pope Benedict is a pantheist.
These groups were a part of the problems in the church until they were expelled or left on their own accord.
DeleteThe hierarchy of what you call “the Church” was THE problem; folks like the Waldensians, and many other day-to-day believers, many of them honest Christians, were persecuted by the hierarchy. The church continued to exist through them; the ones who were more vocal faced the persecution that Jesus said all his disciples would face.
The Reformers were among this group, “the true church” which has always existed through history, and they were the first live through the experience of pointing out the hierarchy’s failings. (Have you considered the story of Hus, for example, or of Savonarola above? It’s no wonder Luther feared for his life.) The fact that Rome had to persecute people to keep them “within the fold” is evidence of the bankruptcy of the system even then.
what is "perfectly ridiculous" is a group of churches that has only been around less than 500 hundred years, is the restoration of the New Testament church
It is Roman “authority” that is the parasite upon the body. The “500 years” does not represent the existence of these groups, merely the beginning moment of their freedom.
“The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
The Reformation was a Spirit-led group of events, within the life of the continuing church.
the language that I used about the Albi's is my own based on all the material I've read about them. It's kind of hard for me to be nice about a group of people who were as subversive as 20th century communists.
DeleteBy the way, I'm under no obligation to accept your imaginings about this. The thing that they were trying to "subvert" was very much worse than what they were.