The Call to Repentance Over Baptism

Status
Not open for further replies.

Semper Fidelis

2 Timothy 2:24-25
Staff member
Might I interject a quote from the most Rev. Divine Spurgeon on this topic of Secession and then I will fade back in my screen...


" 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 from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel under ground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents. Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost every sect.

—Charles H. Spurgeon"

Landmarkism anyone?

- break, break -

Chris, non dignus, et al...

This debate is getting pointless. Trudging out the evil paedobaptists or the evil credobaptists on either side doesn't prove a point.

Someone can correlate doctrinal decline to an excessive emphasis that either side could make. Pharisess were paedo-circumcisionists but it didn't keep them from turning circumcision into some sort of salvific act in the same way that some Christian bodies view baptism.

Orthodoxy is hard to hold, period. Paul was rebuking paedobaptist Churches in his Epistles after all. How do I know that? Because paedobaptism is taught in the Scriptures. ;) (I obviously expect that Credo-baptists will say the same of their own view. The point is that either side would have to acknowledge that error creeps in quickly regardless of your sacramental view and the perversions were not all corruptions in sacramentology).

This discussion is about Church discipline regarding one's views of the Sacraments. If there's nothing further to say along that line of discussion then let's move on. :judge:
 

Coram Deo

Puritan Board Junior
Ahemmmmmmm


Though Secessionism is one aspect of Landmarkism, Secessionism is by no means limited to Landmarkism AND many other Baptist groups hold to the same belief without holding to Landmarkism..................................................

:judge:

Michael

Landmarkism anyone?

- break, break -
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
The Waldenses which is one group he is refering to was very Calvinistic and very Baptistic way before the reformation and by some account as old as the 2nd century. They later merged with the Reformers and became paedo but they did have higher ecclesiastical pedisgrees then the reformational anabaptist groups.

THE WALDENSES
No Anabaptists, but
Presbyterians.

TO THE REV. JAMES WHAREY.

Rev. and Dear Brother—

You request me to give some solution of the question, why in the "History of the Waldenses," by Mr. William Jones, of the Baptist denomination, which has been extensively circulated in the United States, nothing appears to indicate the pædobaptist belief and practice of those far-famed witnesses of the truth? In reply to this inquiry, I have only to say, that two facts are unquestionable. The one fact is, that the ancient records of the Waldenses do contain abundant and conclusive evidence that they did baptize their children. The other fact is, that Mr. Jones has carefully withheld all the evidences of this fact from his readers. What were his motives for doing this, and how he reconciled it with historical candour and verity, are questions which it is not incumbent on me to answer, and on which I dare not pronounce. They must be submitted to the judgment of every impartial reader. But both facts are unquestionable.

1. As to the first fact, it is not necessary to go into much detail, but on the accuracy of the following quotations you may rely.

In an old "Defence," which the Waldenses of Bohemia sent to Ladislaus, their king, who had severely persecuted them, dated A.D. 1508, about ten years before the Reformation by Luther commenced, they repel a number of calumnies, which had been circulated against them by the Romanists. In this defence we find the following unequivocal passage:

"The fourth calumny was concerning Baptism, which it was said, they denied to little infants, but from this imputation they acquit themselves as follows: Neither is the time or place appointed for those who must be baptized. But charity and the edification of the church and congregation ought to be the rule in this matter. Yet notwithstanding, we bring our children to be baptized, which they ought to do to whom they are nearest related, as their parents, or they whom God hath inspired with such a charity." "True it is," say they, "that being for some hundreds of years constrained to suffer our children to be baptized by the Roman priests, we deferred the doing of it as long as possible, because we detested the human inventions annexed to the institution of that holy Sacrament, which we looked upon as pollutions of it. And by reason that our pastors, whom we call Barbes, are often in travels abroad for the service of the church, we could not have baptism administered to our children by our own ministers; we therefore sometimes kept them long without baptism, upon which delay, the priests have charged us with that reproach." Perrin, Part II. Book I. Chap. IV.

In a "Treatise of the Old Waldenses and Albigenses, concerning Antichrist, Purgatory, Invocation of Saints, and the Sacraments," and dated by Perrin in 1220, the following passage, under the head of Sacraments, occur. 'That which is of no necessity in the administration of baptism, is the exorcism, the breathing on, the sign of the cross upon the infant's breast and forehead, the salt which they put into his mouth, the spittle put into his ears and nose, &c." Perrin. Part II. Book V. Art. IV.

In a "Brief Confession of Faith," made with general consent by the ministers and heads of families of the churches in the valleys of Piedmont, assembled at Augrogne, Sept. 12, 1532, the following explicit declaration is found:

"Concerning the matter of the Sacraments, it has been determined by the Holy Scripture, that we have but two sacramental signs left us by Jesus Christ; the one is Baptism, the other is the Eucharist, which we receive to show that our perseverance in the faith is such as we promised when we were baptized, being little children, and moreover, in remembrance of that great benefit given to us by Jesus Christ, when he died for our redemption, and washed us with his precious blood." Morland, Book I. Chap IV.

Again, Perrin tells us that, in the year 1506, that is about eleven years before the Reformation by Luther commenced, Louis XII. king of France, having been informed that a certain people inhabited a particular part of his dominions, who refused to commune with the Church of Rome, and were represented as exceedingly corrupt in their practices, sent a trusty agent to visit them and inquire into their real character and habits. The agent on returning, reported that he had found the people whom he had been charged to examine, and that they were by no means so corrupt as they had been represented; nay, that the information which had been given concerning the Waldenses of Provence, was notoriously false; "that they were not any ways guilty either of sorcery or adultery, but lived like honest men, doing no hurt or injury to any man; that they caused their children to be baptized, and taught them the articles of the creed, and the commandments of God; that they carefully observed the Lord's day, and that the word of God was purely expounded unto them." Perrin, Part II. Book II. Chap. VIII.

Perrin mentions this report concerning the Waldenses in another place, as a remarkable instance of a testimony in their favour, extorted from adversaries. Perrin, Part II. Book I. Chap. V.

I might quote several other passages from the early documents of these ancient people, but these are enough. They establish, incontestably, the first fact to which I referred, as well as ten thousand. Now,

2. As to the second fact which I mentioned, it is certain that not a syllable of the Foregoing extracts, or anything like them, is to be found in Mr. Jones's history. He refers familiarly to the works of Perrin and Sir Samuel Morland, and speaks of them as the principal sources from which he had drawn his materials, but carefully excludes every thing which they say that savours of infant baptism. Nay more, he expressly quotes the "Treatise on Antichrist, &c." and the "Defence," sent to king Ladislaus, and seems to regard them as perfectly authentic documents, worthy of entire credit, and proceeds to pick out from them what suited his purpose, as a Baptist; but the facts, so clearly and unequivocally stated, which make against the Baptist cause, he studiously withholds from his readers.

But this is not the worst. The last extract above stated, from Perrin, found in Book I. Chap. V. of his History, Mr. Jones directly tampers with, and falsifies. In other cases, he was only chargeable with withholding from his readers, testimony of the most direct kind, which lay plainly before him, and which, from his manner of quoting, it is impossible he should have overlooked. But in the case before us, he is guilty of direct forgery! The statement in Perrin stands thus:

"King Louis XII. having received information from the enemies of the Waldenses, dwelling in Provence, of several heinous crimes which they fathered upon them, sent to the place Monsieur Adam Fumèe, Master of Requests, and a certain Sorbonnist Doctor, called Parui, who was his confessor, to inquire into the matter. They visited all their parishes and temples, and neither found there any images, or sign of the ornaments belonging to the mass, or ceremonies of the Romish Church. Much less could they discover any of those crimes with which they were charged. But rather, that they kept the Sabbath duly; caused their children to be baptized, according to the primitive Church; taught them the articles of the Christian faith, and the commandments of God. The king, having heard the report of the said commissioners, said, with an oath, that they were better men than himself or his people." Book I. Chap. V.

Now, this passage Mr. Jones professes to quote: and expressly refers to Perrin as the source from which he derived it. But, instead of honestly copying the statement above quoted—"they caused their children to be baptized, according to the primitive church;"—he alters and makes it read thus—"They kept the Sabbath day; observed the ordinance of baptism, according to the primitive Church; instructed their children in the articles of the Christian faith," &c. Jones, II. Chap. V. Sect. IV. p. 71. Here is neither more nor less than the very essence of forgery! It is solemnly, in the face of the public, representing an author as saying what he does not say; and that, most evidently, to serve a sectarian turn.

On these facts further comment is unnecessary. Such management is unworthy of a good cause. I leave the whole matter to be estimated by every candid reader.—If Mr. Jones had told his readers that there were such passages as I have quoted to be found in the documents from which he professed to derive testimony, and had, at the same time, assigned his reasons for refusing to believe them, all would have been well. But, as the matter now stands, can he be exculpated from the charge of premeditated deception?

I know that some of our Baptist brethren have ventured to allege that the Waldenses were Antipædobaptist, because the followers of Peter de Bruis, who was considered as belonging to those people, is said to have rejected infant baptism. But the Petrobrussians were only a small fraction, probably not more than a thirtieth or fortieth part of the whole Waldensian body; and entirely differed from the mass of their brethren on this subject. Just as well might it be said that the Baptist denomination in the United States, keep Saturday as their Sabbath, because there are a few seventh day Baptists in our country. Besides, after all, the form in which the Petrobrussians held the Antipædobaptist doctrine, renders it wholly unavailing to the cause of our Baptist brethren. Peter de Bruis taught that infants were incapable of salvation, and THEREFORE ought not to be baptized. But if we wish to know the opinions of the Waldenses as a body, we must go to their Confessions, and other public documents. This we have done.

It may be shown, with equal evidence, that these pious witnesses of the truth not only baptized their children, but also that they adopted the Presbyterian form of Church government. That is, they had no bishops, in the prelatical sense of the word; their ministers were all equal; each church was governed by a bench of Ruling Elders; and their whole body regulated and bound together by a Synodical Assembly, which met once a year, at which time their candidates for the ministry were commonly examined and ordained. I think we may say with confidence, that if ever there were Pædobaptists and Presbyterians in Scotland, they were also found, long before the Reformation, in the Valleys of Piedmont.

I am, reverend and dear sir, with great respect your brother in Christ,

SAMUEL MILLER.
Princeton, N.J.
March 7, 1838.
 

Semper Fidelis

2 Timothy 2:24-25
Staff member
Ahemmmmmmm


Though Secessionism is one aspect of Landmarkism, Secessionism is by no means limited to Landmarkism AND many other Baptist groups hold to the same belief without holding to Landmarkism..................................................

:judge:

Michael

I take your :judge: and raise you :judge: :judge:

The similarity is in form not completely in substance although it goes to the heart of the fact that some want to deny that they broke away from the Church's historic testimony of a practice by supplanting their own version of it no matter how strained it is. I think Spurgeon is engaging in wishful thinking on this point. He was a great preacher but hardly an authority on that subject. I consider that an assertion.

BUT...this thread is not about that stuff. It's about Church discipline...

:judge: :judge: :judge:
 

Coram Deo

Puritan Board Junior
Waldensians where BAPTIST


Waldenses Confession of 1544

1. We believe that there is but one God, who is a Spirit - the Creator of all things - the Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all; who is to be worshipped in spirit and in truth - upon whom we are continually dependent, and to whom we ascribe praise for our life, food, raiment, health, sickness, prosperity, and adversity. We love him as the source of all goodness; and reverence him as that sublime being, who searches the reins and trieth the hearts of the children of men.

2. We believe that Jesus Christ is the Son and image of the Father - that in Him all the fullness of the Godhead dwells, and that by Him alone we know the Father. He is our Mediator and advocate; nor is there any other name given under heaven by which we can be saved. In His name alone we call upon the Father, using no other prayers than those contained in the Holy Scriptures, or such as are in substance agreeable thereunto.

3. We believe in the Holy Spirit as the Comforter, proceeding from the Father, and from the Son; by whose inspiration we are taught to pray; being by Him renewed in the spirit of our minds; who creates us anew unto good works, and from whom we receive the knowledge of the truth.

4. We believe that there is one holy church, comprising the whole assembly of the elect and faithful, that have existed from the beginning of the world, or that shall be to the end thereof. Of this church the Lord Jesus Christ is the head - it is governed by His word and guided by the Holy Spirit. In the church it behooves all Christians to have fellowship. For her He [Christ] prays incessantly, and His prayer for it is most acceptable to God, without which indeed their could be no salvation.

5. We hold that the ministers of the church ought to be unblameable both in life and doctrine; and if found otherwise, that they ought to be deposed from their office, and others substituted in their stead; and that no person ought to presume to take that honour unto himself but he who is called of God as was Aaron - that the duties of such are to feed the flock of God, not for filthy lucre's sake, or as having dominion over God's heritage, but as being examples to the flock, in word, in conversation, in charity, in faith, and in chastity.

6. We acknowledge, that kings, princes, and governors, are the appointed and established ministers of God, whom we are bound to obey [in all lawful and civil concerns]. For they bear the sword for the defence of the innocent, and the punishment of evil doers; for which reason we are bound to honour and pay them tribute. From this power and authority, no man can exempt himself as is manifest from the example of the Lord Jesus Christ, who voluntarily paid tribute, not taking upon himself any jurisdiction of temporal power.

7. We believe that in the ordinance of baptism the water is the visible and external sign, which represents to as that which, by virtue of God's invisible operation, is within us - namely, the renovation of our minds, and the mortification of our members through [the faith of] Jesus Christ. And by this ordinance we are received into the holy congregation of God's people, previously professing and declaring our faith and change of life.

8. We hold that the Lord's supper is a commemoration of, and thanksgiving for, the benefits which we have received by His sufferings and death - and that it is to be received in faith and love - examining ourselves, that so we may eat of that bread and drink of that cup, as it is written in the Holy Scriptures.

9. We maintain that marriage was instituted of God. That it is holy and honourable, and ought to be forbidded to none, provided there be no obstacle from the divine word.

10. We contend, that all those in whom the fear of God dwells, will thereby be led to please him, and to abound in the good works [of the gospel] which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them - which are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, sobriety, and the other good works enforced in the Holy Scriptures.

11. On the other hand, we confess that we consider it to be our duty to beware of false teachers, whose object is to divert the minds of men from the true worship of God, and to lead them to place their confidence in the creature, as well as to depart from the good works of the gospel, and to regard the inventions of men.

12. We take the Old and the New Testament for the rule of our life, and we agree with the general confession of faith contained in [what is usually termed] the apostles' creed.

THE WALDENSES
No Anabaptists, but
Presbyterians.

TO THE REV. JAMES WHAREY.

Rev. and Dear Brother—

You request me to give some solution of the question, why in the "History of the Waldenses," by Mr. William Jones, of the Baptist denomination, which has been extensively circulated in the United States, nothing appears to indicate the pædobaptist belief and practice of those far-famed witnesses of the truth? In reply to this inquiry, I have only to say, that two facts are unquestionable. The one fact is, that the ancient records of the Waldenses do contain abundant and conclusive evidence that they did baptize their children. The other fact is, that Mr. Jones has carefully withheld all the evidences of this fact from his readers. What were his motives for doing this, and how he reconciled it with historical candour and verity, are questions which it is not incumbent on me to answer, and on which I dare not pronounce. They must be submitted to the judgment of every impartial reader. But both facts are unquestionable.

1. As to the first fact, it is not necessary to go into much detail, but on the accuracy of the following quotations you may rely.

In an old "Defence," which the Waldenses of Bohemia sent to Ladislaus, their king, who had severely persecuted them, dated A.D. 1508, about ten years before the Reformation by Luther commenced, they repel a number of calumnies, which had been circulated against them by the Romanists. In this defence we find the following unequivocal passage:

"The fourth calumny was concerning Baptism, which it was said, they denied to little infants, but from this imputation they acquit themselves as follows: Neither is the time or place appointed for those who must be baptized. But charity and the edification of the church and congregation ought to be the rule in this matter. Yet notwithstanding, we bring our children to be baptized, which they ought to do to whom they are nearest related, as their parents, or they whom God hath inspired with such a charity." "True it is," say they, "that being for some hundreds of years constrained to suffer our children to be baptized by the Roman priests, we deferred the doing of it as long as possible, because we detested the human inventions annexed to the institution of that holy Sacrament, which we looked upon as pollutions of it. And by reason that our pastors, whom we call Barbes, are often in travels abroad for the service of the church, we could not have baptism administered to our children by our own ministers; we therefore sometimes kept them long without baptism, upon which delay, the priests have charged us with that reproach." Perrin, Part II. Book I. Chap. IV.

In a "Treatise of the Old Waldenses and Albigenses, concerning Antichrist, Purgatory, Invocation of Saints, and the Sacraments," and dated by Perrin in 1220, the following passage, under the head of Sacraments, occur. 'That which is of no necessity in the administration of baptism, is the exorcism, the breathing on, the sign of the cross upon the infant's breast and forehead, the salt which they put into his mouth, the spittle put into his ears and nose, &c." Perrin. Part II. Book V. Art. IV.

In a "Brief Confession of Faith," made with general consent by the ministers and heads of families of the churches in the valleys of Piedmont, assembled at Augrogne, Sept. 12, 1532, the following explicit declaration is found:

"Concerning the matter of the Sacraments, it has been determined by the Holy Scripture, that we have but two sacramental signs left us by Jesus Christ; the one is Baptism, the other is the Eucharist, which we receive to show that our perseverance in the faith is such as we promised when we were baptized, being little children, and moreover, in remembrance of that great benefit given to us by Jesus Christ, when he died for our redemption, and washed us with his precious blood." Morland, Book I. Chap IV.

Again, Perrin tells us that, in the year 1506, that is about eleven years before the Reformation by Luther commenced, Louis XII. king of France, having been informed that a certain people inhabited a particular part of his dominions, who refused to commune with the Church of Rome, and were represented as exceedingly corrupt in their practices, sent a trusty agent to visit them and inquire into their real character and habits. The agent on returning, reported that he had found the people whom he had been charged to examine, and that they were by no means so corrupt as they had been represented; nay, that the information which had been given concerning the Waldenses of Provence, was notoriously false; "that they were not any ways guilty either of sorcery or adultery, but lived like honest men, doing no hurt or injury to any man; that they caused their children to be baptized, and taught them the articles of the creed, and the commandments of God; that they carefully observed the Lord's day, and that the word of God was purely expounded unto them." Perrin, Part II. Book II. Chap. VIII.

Perrin mentions this report concerning the Waldenses in another place, as a remarkable instance of a testimony in their favour, extorted from adversaries. Perrin, Part II. Book I. Chap. V.

I might quote several other passages from the early documents of these ancient people, but these are enough. They establish, incontestably, the first fact to which I referred, as well as ten thousand. Now,

2. As to the second fact which I mentioned, it is certain that not a syllable of the Foregoing extracts, or anything like them, is to be found in Mr. Jones's history. He refers familiarly to the works of Perrin and Sir Samuel Morland, and speaks of them as the principal sources from which he had drawn his materials, but carefully excludes every thing which they say that savours of infant baptism. Nay more, he expressly quotes the "Treatise on Antichrist, &c." and the "Defence," sent to king Ladislaus, and seems to regard them as perfectly authentic documents, worthy of entire credit, and proceeds to pick out from them what suited his purpose, as a Baptist; but the facts, so clearly and unequivocally stated, which make against the Baptist cause, he studiously withholds from his readers.

But this is not the worst. The last extract above stated, from Perrin, found in Book I. Chap. V. of his History, Mr. Jones directly tampers with, and falsifies. In other cases, he was only chargeable with withholding from his readers, testimony of the most direct kind, which lay plainly before him, and which, from his manner of quoting, it is impossible he should have overlooked. But in the case before us, he is guilty of direct forgery! The statement in Perrin stands thus:

"King Louis XII. having received information from the enemies of the Waldenses, dwelling in Provence, of several heinous crimes which they fathered upon them, sent to the place Monsieur Adam Fumèe, Master of Requests, and a certain Sorbonnist Doctor, called Parui, who was his confessor, to inquire into the matter. They visited all their parishes and temples, and neither found there any images, or sign of the ornaments belonging to the mass, or ceremonies of the Romish Church. Much less could they discover any of those crimes with which they were charged. But rather, that they kept the Sabbath duly; caused their children to be baptized, according to the primitive Church; taught them the articles of the Christian faith, and the commandments of God. The king, having heard the report of the said commissioners, said, with an oath, that they were better men than himself or his people." Book I. Chap. V.

Now, this passage Mr. Jones professes to quote: and expressly refers to Perrin as the source from which he derived it. But, instead of honestly copying the statement above quoted—"they caused their children to be baptized, according to the primitive church;"—he alters and makes it read thus—"They kept the Sabbath day; observed the ordinance of baptism, according to the primitive Church; instructed their children in the articles of the Christian faith," &c. Jones, II. Chap. V. Sect. IV. p. 71. Here is neither more nor less than the very essence of forgery! It is solemnly, in the face of the public, representing an author as saying what he does not say; and that, most evidently, to serve a sectarian turn.

On these facts further comment is unnecessary. Such management is unworthy of a good cause. I leave the whole matter to be estimated by every candid reader.—If Mr. Jones had told his readers that there were such passages as I have quoted to be found in the documents from which he professed to derive testimony, and had, at the same time, assigned his reasons for refusing to believe them, all would have been well. But, as the matter now stands, can he be exculpated from the charge of premeditated deception?

I know that some of our Baptist brethren have ventured to allege that the Waldenses were Antipædobaptist, because the followers of Peter de Bruis, who was considered as belonging to those people, is said to have rejected infant baptism. But the Petrobrussians were only a small fraction, probably not more than a thirtieth or fortieth part of the whole Waldensian body; and entirely differed from the mass of their brethren on this subject. Just as well might it be said that the Baptist denomination in the United States, keep Saturday as their Sabbath, because there are a few seventh day Baptists in our country. Besides, after all, the form in which the Petrobrussians held the Antipædobaptist doctrine, renders it wholly unavailing to the cause of our Baptist brethren. Peter de Bruis taught that infants were incapable of salvation, and THEREFORE ought not to be baptized. But if we wish to know the opinions of the Waldenses as a body, we must go to their Confessions, and other public documents. This we have done.

It may be shown, with equal evidence, that these pious witnesses of the truth not only baptized their children, but also that they adopted the Presbyterian form of Church government. That is, they had no bishops, in the prelatical sense of the word; their ministers were all equal; each church was governed by a bench of Ruling Elders; and their whole body regulated and bound together by a Synodical Assembly, which met once a year, at which time their candidates for the ministry were commonly examined and ordained. I think we may say with confidence, that if ever there were Pædobaptists and Presbyterians in Scotland, they were also found, long before the Reformation, in the Valleys of Piedmont.

I am, reverend and dear sir, with great respect your brother in Christ,

SAMUEL MILLER.
Princeton, N.J.
March 7, 1838.
 

JM

Puritan Board Doctor
It is the strict Baptist alone that follows the precept of the Lord of the house by holding and practicing first, discipleship; secondly, baptism; thirdly, communion.
―J.C. Philpot

BUT...as Semper wrote this thread is not about that stuff. It's about Church discipline...

I was told I'd be allow to join the local ARP but would be disciplined for not having my children sprinkled. What would the next step be if I continued to refuse?

Thx.

j
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
7. We believe that in the ordinance of baptism the water is the visible and external sign, which represents to as that which, by virtue of God's invisible operation, is within us - namely, the renovation of our minds, and the mortification of our members through [the faith of] Jesus Christ. And by this ordinance we are received into the holy congregation of God's people, previously professing and declaring our faith and change of life.

There is no exclusive claim being made here for personal profession of faith. The WCF along with other reformed confessions teach the same thing with relation to adult converts. Samuel Miller's article provides their own testimony as to their practice of baptising infants. That suffices to prove they were paedobaptist.
 

Coram Deo

Puritan Board Junior
He wrote that in 1838 long after the Waldensians were absorbed into the Reformational camp and over 1000 years since they wrote their own writing in the 9th and 10th Century which are clearly baptistic......



There is no exclusive claim being made here for personal profession of faith. The WCF along with other reformed confessions teach the same thing with relation to adult converts. Samuel Miller's article provides their own testimony as to their practice of baptising infants. That suffices to prove they were paedobaptist.
 

Coram Deo

Puritan Board Junior
I am not going to respond anymore to the secessionism argument so this thread can get back on track.......

I have said my peace....

Michael
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
He wrote that in 1838 long after the Waldensians were absorbed into the Reformational camp and over 1000 years since they wrote their own writing in the 9th and 10th Century which are clearly baptistic......

The article was written in the 19th century but it provided testimony which is dated prior to the Reformation. There is nothing clearly baptistic, that is, antipaedobaptist, from the Waldensians.
 

JM

Puritan Board Doctor
So, when the Waldenses wrote the Confession of 1544 they didn't know what they were confessing?
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
So, when the Waldenses wrote the Confession of 1544 they didn't know what they were confessing?

Larger Catechism, answer 166: "Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him."

Waldensian Confession (1544), thesis 7: "And by this ordinance we are received into the holy congregation of God's people, previously professing and declaring our faith and change of life."

Both knew exactly what they were confessing, and neither of them is antipaedobaptist.
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
Matthew, from where is this letter taken?
THE WALDENSES
No Anabaptists, but
Presbyterians.
TO THE REV. JAMES WHAREY.
Rev. and Dear Brother—
<snip>
SAMUEL MILLER.
Princeton, N.J.
March 7, 1838.
Miller has a footnote in his 1835 work on Infant Baptism where he more briefly addressed the work of Mr. Jones: "See John Paul Perrin's account of the Doctrine and Order of the Waldenses and Albigenses; Sir Samuel Morland's do.; and also Leger's Histoire Generale des Eglises Vaudoises. Mr. William Jones, a Baptist, in a work entitled, a History of the Waldenses, in two volumes octavo, professes to give a full account of the Faith and Order of these pious witnesses of the truth; but, so far as I have observed, carefully leaves out of all their public formularies and other documents, every thing which would disclose their Paedobaptist principles and practise! On this artifice comment is unnecessary." Samuel Miller, Infant Baptism Scriptural and Reasonable (Philadelphia, Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1835) 29.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top