A Waldensian chimes in

[Strict Baptist]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Hello SB.

I was curious so did a google search on Waldensian. Is this a fair summary:

The Waldensians (also called the Waldenses or the Vaudois) were a religious group that arose in the late Middle Ages and is now seen as a precursor to the Protestant Reformation. In the beginning the Waldensians were simply a group of traveling lay preachers within the Roman Catholic Church, but as time went on and they faced mounting persecution, they broke from Catholicism and embraced Calvinism.

Most histories trace the origin of the Waldensians to Peter Waldo (also called Valdes), a wealthy merchant in Lyons, France. In 1174, Waldo renounced his wealth, started giving his money away, and committed to living a life of voluntary poverty from then on. In 1176, Waldo became a traveling preacher. Others joined his group, and they became known as the Poor Men of Lyons. While the early Waldensians still considered themselves Roman Catholic, they soon ran into problems with the established church for two reasons: they had no formal training as clergy, and they were handing out Bibles in the vernacular (instead of Latin). Church officials told Waldo and his Pauperes (“Poor”) to stop preaching without the consent of the local clergy.

But the Waldensians continued to preach, wearing rough clothing and sandals and preaching repentance. A traveling Waldensian preacher was known as a barba and could be either a man or a woman. The barbes taught poverty, individual responsibility, and self-denial, and they promoted evangelism via public preaching and the personal study of the Scriptures (in one’s own language). The Waldensians loved the Bible and insisted that the Bible be their sole authority; at the same time, they publicly criticized the corruption of the Roman Catholic clergy. The Waldensians rejected many of the superstitious traditions of Catholicism, including prayers for the dead and holy water, and they spoke against indulgences and the doctrine of purgatory. Communion, they said, was a memorial of Christ’s death, not a sacrifice. They did not follow the church’s calendar concerning days of fasting, and they refused to bow before altars, venerate saints, or treat “holy” bread as holy. In short, the Waldensians could be seen as launching a pre-Reformation reform movement.

The Waldensians’ back-to-the-Bible approach appealed to many, and the movement quickly spread rapidly to Spain, northern France, Flanders, Germany, southern Italy, and even Poland and Hungary. But the Catholic Church did not take kindly to the Waldensian call to reform. In 1181 the archbishop of Lyons excommunicated the Waldensians. Three years later, the pope declared them to be heretics. In 1215 the Fourth Lateran Council declared an anathema on Waldensian doctrine.

In the 1230s, persecution against the Waldensians increased and lasted for three hundred years. In some areas Waldensians faced the death penalty if they refused to recant, and the Inquisition began actively seeking the leaders of the various Waldensian groups. The Waldensians went underground, and many groups retreated into remote areas in the Alps in order to survive. In 1487 Pope Innocent VIII pronounced a crusade against two Waldensian groups in the Cottian Alps along the French-Italian border, and many villages were devastated. In April 1545 two Waldensian towns in France, Merindol and Cabrieres, along with twenty-eight smaller villages, were attacked by troops sent by Cardinal Tournon, the archbishop of Lyons. The towns were destroyed, the women were raped, and about four thousand people killed. In response to such severe persecution, many Waldensians fled to Geneva, Switzerland, where they found refuge with John Calvin.

Eventually, most Waldensians became part of the churches of the Reformation, such as Presbyterian, Lutheran, or Reformed. But today there are still Waldensian churches in existence in Germany, Italy, Uruguay, Argentina, the United States, and elsewhere.

The Waldensians are properly remembered for their bravery during a dark period of history, their perseverance under the brutality of the Holy Roman Empire, their commitment to biblical authority, and their conscientious dissent in the face of Catholic error.

https://www.gotquestions.org/Waldensians.html

I will have to read that at another time, but am highly against GotQuesitons because they are Amyraldian Lordship promoters, despite what other god things might flow from their Baxterian tree. At present, I am catching up on research.

[Strict Baptist]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

The book at the link below will give you a very good place to start if you desire to do more reading and research about the Oneness movement in the 20th century:

https://www.amazon.com/Their-Story-2.../dp/B004A90BEM

This as well:

https://www.amazon.com/History-Chris.../dp/B004P8JIAG

For a scholar's take, this book has two chapters devoted to early Oneness Pentecostals, Andrew Urshan and Garfield Haywood:

https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Spir.../dp/0253216036

Tre bon!

[Esaias]

What is a "Strict Baptist"? Is that a Particular, Hardshell, Regular, Primitive, Missionary, Independent, Southern, Fundamental, Reformed Baptist?



You will find that just as "baptist" has a wide variety of meaning, so does "oneness pentecostal".

[Strict Baptist]

Originally Posted by Esaias

What is a "Strict Baptist"? Is that a Particular, Hardshell, Regular, Primitive, Missionary, Independent, Southern, Fundamental, Reformed Baptist?



You will find that just as "baptist" has a wide variety of meaning, so does "oneness pentecostal".

My, my, I am impressed! The Strict and Particular or Old Regular or Primitive Baptists, which was how almost all Baptists were at the foundation of the United States; we all we originally Strict coming from England. However, as most of our histories (Cramp, Armitage, Christian, Griggs, Bakkus, Daily et al) document, there arose beginning in the 1750s sects among us who brought in damnable heresies and unbiblical institutions. The prevailing issue became known as the Anti-Means, Anti-Missionary Baptists versus the Missionary, Means Baptists Spurgeon, Carrey, Sutcliffe, Ryland, Fuller ad nauseaum. Stanley Phillips documented well this whole sad affair in his book on hyper-Calvinism. The New School crowd, of which the defected SBC was once a part, now calling themselves one of the biggest oxymoronic misnomers, Reformed Baptist, desired to implement Raikes' sabbath schools, Bible societies, missions boards over church planting, but most alarmingly a modification of New Haven Theology and Amyraldism that is self-defeating. Some of the then-most imminent among we meek servants of Christ met for the Black Rock Address in 1832 stating our differences and unhappy separation from the Means crowd. Sadly with much violence to scripture, though we were as evangelical as that blessed George Whitefield, despite his Marrowism we deplore, we using the names we for once selected of Old School, Original and Primitive from Strict and Paticular, became bitter and lost that zeal until recently, though not all of us. These has been a concerted effort in soul-winning starting in the 1970s taking on since the 1990s not to regain the lost zeal from the New Schoolers and renamed General Baptists (most of the fundamentalists fall herein), but to obey our most blessed and only Potentate, King of Kings, Master of Masters. The term "Hardshell" is one used in derision of us but sometimes used. The original names came to designate our continuation in belief from our forefathers reaching back to the first century in predestination independently of the Protestants who we love in the truth; we did not raise our swords against them; with such names as Wycliff, the Welsh Baptists, Henricians who left Rome's evil churches bare, Bogomils, Peteobrussians, Albigensians, Novationists, Paulicians, Huss etcetera holding to the monergism Rome has ever loathed. "Strict" refers to strict communion; see JC Philpot's Strict Communion from gmchristianbooks.com, my publisher.

Here is an interesting tidbit-- had not Patrick Leeland, one of my predecessors, campaigned for Amendment I of the US Constitution, it likely never would have existed. I don't remember offhand if the Danbury association were some of us, but I think they were. I have a number of rare histories if you desire them, but am impressed a Oneness proponent knows who we are!

Kindly, can someone explain what the main Oneness groups are apart from the UPCI? It seems they get the preeminence, but they also seem to be compromising to please the dumbed-down evangelicals.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Strict Baptist

My, my, I am impressed! The Strict and Particular or Old Regular or Primitive Baptists, which was how almost all Baptists were at the foundation of the United States; we all we originally Strict coming from England. However, as most of our histories (Cramp, Armitage, Christian, Griggs, Bakkus, Daily et al) document, there arose beginning in the 1750s sects among us who brought in damnable heresies and unbiblical institutions. The prevailing issue became known as the Anti-Means, Anti-Missionary Baptists versus the Missionary, Means Baptists Spurgeon, Carrey, Sutcliffe, Ryland, Fuller ad nauseaum. Stanley Phillips documented well this whole sad affair in his book on hyper-Calvinism. The New School crowd, of which the defected SBC was once a part, now calling themselves one of the biggest oxymoronic misnomers, Reformed Baptist, desired to implement Raikes' sabbath schools, Bible societies, missions boards over church planting, but most alarmingly a modification of New Haven Theology and Amyraldism that is self-defeating. Some of the then-most imminent among we meek servants of Christ met for the Black Rock Address in 1832 stating our differences and unhappy separation from the Means crowd. Sadly with much violence to scripture, though we were as evangelical as that blessed George Whitefield, despite his Marrowism we deplore, we using the names we for once selected of Old School, Original and Primitive from Strict and Paticular, became bitter and lost that zeal until recently, though not all of us. These has been a concerted effort in soul-winning starting in the 1970s taking on since the 1990s not to regain the lost zeal from the New Schoolers and renamed General Baptists (most of the fundamentalists fall herein), but to obey our most blessed and only Potentate, King of Kings, Master of Masters. The term "Hardshell" is one used in derision of us but sometimes used. The original names came to designate our continuation in belief from our forefathers reaching back to the first century in predestination independently of the Protestants who we love in the truth; we did not raise our swords against them; with such names as Wycliff, the Welsh Baptists, Henricians who left Rome's evil churches bare, Bogomils, Peteobrussians, Albigensians, Novationists, Paulicians, Huss etcetera holding to the monergism Rome has ever loathed. "Strict" refers to strict communion; see JC Philpot's Strict Communion from gmchristianbooks.com, my publisher.

Here is an interesting tidbit-- had not Patrick Leeland, one of my predecessors, campaigned for Amendment I of the US Constitution, it likely never would have existed. I don't remember offhand if the Danbury association were some of us, but I think they were. I have a number of rare histories if you desire them, but am impressed a Oneness proponent knows who we are!

Kindly, can someone explain what the main Oneness groups are apart from the UPCI? It seems they get the preeminence, but they also seem to be compromising to please the dumbed-down evangelicals.

The modern Oneness pentecostal "movement" is composed of several organizations, the UPCI being one of the most visible. There are also numerous smaller fellowships and independent assemblies. The vast majority of people here on this forum in fact are not UPCI. There are groups such as the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World, the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Church of The Lord Jesus Christ, several Church of Jesus Christ fellowships, the World Pentecostal Fellowship, the Assemblies of the Lord Jesus Christ, the True Jesus Church, and various other international, Asian, African, European denominations (some of which are larger than the UPCI). Most of these groups tend to be ministerial organizations, meaning they are not so much associations of churches but associations of preachers and pastors.

There are also numerous other groups, including sabbatarian groups, Messianic groups, "Hebrew Roots" type groups, etc. The term Oneness Pentecostal is a very broad term, like "trinitararian charismatic" and just as there are wide ranging differences among trinitarian charismatics there are wide ranging differences among those who identify as oneness pentecostal. There are also non pentecostal Oneness groups out there.

The only thing unifying oneness Pentecostals doctrinally is a belief in the absolute deity of Jesus Christ, a belief in the availability of receiving the Spirit just as in the Bible, and a preference for baptism in the name of Jesus Christ instead of using the trinitarian formula. Beyond that, there is a wide variety of doctrine (just as there is among those claiming the Baptist label). There are in fact Oneness Pentecostal people and churches that do not even use the term Oneness Pentecostal. A lot of trinitarians, I have found, actually have a very Oneness view of God even though they use the term Trinity due to the traditions they have received.

The poster here named Steve Epley is one of the go to guys for history, he knows or knew everybody it seems and is a walking historical archive of American Pentecostal and Holiness church history. Steven Avery is another poster here with a broad knowledge of various currents in the oneness pentecostal scene. He's also a staunch defender of the Authorized Version and has done numerous articles in defense of the Word of God.

Me personally, I'm just a Christian doing my best to follow Jesus according to His Word, so labels don't mean too much to me. I believe all disciples must be APOSTOLIC, meaning we must follow the faith and practice of the apostles, otherwise we descend into heresy.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Strict Baptist

That's quite simple -- I cannot affirm what the Sabellian Oneness Pentecostal movement requires in scripture, especially considering we predate Sabellius, Noetus, Praxeaus, Noetus and others who deny hypostasis. I left Pentecostalism altogether for my roots because in reading the sacred writ I could not find but Romanism staring back at me. Recall that it is the Oneness view that baptism by immersion, glossolalia that I have come to call estatic jabberwocky and affirmation of modified Sabellianism is mandatory to be a Chrisitan according to the UPCI 2017 manual, none of which I would dare affirm save the mode of dipping.

All that matters is what is in Scripture. Who would doubt that the Father is manifest in the humanity of the man, Jesus Christ (who is the express image of His own person)? Jesus described His oneness with the Father as follows:

John 10:30
30 I and my Father are one. (KJV)

John 10:38
38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. (KJV)

John 12:45
45 And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me. (KJV)

John 14:7-10
7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. (KJV)

There is also another verse that is quite powerful:

2 Corinthians 5:19
19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. (KJV)

Imagine actually walking with Jesus for three years. How would you experience Christ's Oneness with the Father first hand? I like to explain it like this:

If you walked the earth with Jesus, you'd get to know Him as a man. He'd teach. He'd laugh. He'd eat. He'd use the restroom. He'd sleep. He'd rest. He'd pray to, and speak of, His Heavenly Father. He'd fast. He'd cry. He'd sweat. He'd bleed. However... at times you'd feel something otherworldly emanating from deep within Him. Something emanating from the very core of His being. Something powerful. Something that has authority over all creation. Something that speaks to the winds... bringing them into total and absolute obedience. Something that raises the dead and heals all manner of sickness. Something indescribable. Something "other". You'd sense the Father Himself at the core of Christ's own person. You'd realize that this man is far more than just a mere man. You'd realize that this man is... also God.

However, keep in mind...God did not reside in Christ as though He were merely a human vehicle. He didn't reside in Christ as a cat in a box. That would be Unitarianism. No, God abides in and permeates Christ's very being. A Oneness so complete, so majestic, and so divine that in Christ it can be said that God became a man... and that this very same man (from conception) was also God. In Christ Jesus, God elevated human nature into union with His own divine nature. In addition, His very own divine nature condescended to establish union with human nature.

No other religion elevates Christ to such an infinite height of majesty and honor. No other religion expresses Christ's true person to such an infinite degree. Most religions merely make Christ a prophet or seek to establish Him as being some second co-eternal divine being or person. No... Christ was not just a prophet. Christ was not a second co-eternal divine being or person. Christ also wasn't God shape-shifted or morphed into the mere appearance of a man who only pretended to pray. Christ was the authentic human tabernacle of God Himself. To deny this imperils the soul... and reduces Christ to being either a lunatic or a liar.

All authority and power has been delivered to Christ Jesus. He will judge Krishna. He will judge Buddha. He will judge Mohammed. He will judge Nanak. He will judge the followers of every false prophet and madman. He will judge all men in accordance to the Father's will as it relates to the Gospel. Through Him, the Father will judge. Because they are one.

[Strict Baptist]

Originally Posted by Aquila

All that matters is what is in Scripture. Who would doubt that the Father is manifest in the humanity of the man, Jesus Christ (who is the express image of His own person)? Jesus described His oneness with the Father as follows:

John 10:30
30 I and my Father are one. (KJV)

John 10:38
38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. (KJV)

John 12:45
45 And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me. (KJV)

John 14:7-10
7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. (KJV)

There is also another verse that is quite powerful:

2 Corinthians 5:19
19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. (KJV)

Imagine actually walking with Jesus for three years. How would you experience Christ's Oneness with the Father first hand? I like to explain it like this:

If you walked the earth with Jesus, you'd get to know Him as a man. He'd teach. He'd laugh. He'd eat. He'd use the restroom. He'd sleep. He'd rest. He'd pray to, and speak of, His Heavenly Father. He'd fast. He'd cry. He'd sweat. He'd bleed. However... at times you'd feel something otherworldly emanating from deep within Him. Something emanating from the very core of His being. Something powerful. Something that has authority over all creation. Something that speaks to the winds... bringing them into total and absolute obedience. Something that raises the dead and heals all manner of sickness. Something indescribable. Something "other". You'd sense the Father Himself at the core of Christ's own person. You'd realize that this man is far more than just a mere man. You'd realize that this man is... also God.

However, keep in mind...God did not reside in Christ as though He were merely a human vehicle. He didn't reside in Christ as a cat in a box. That would be Unitarianism. No, God abides in and permeates Christ's very being. A Oneness so complete, so majestic, and so divine that in Christ it can be said that God became a man... and that this very same man (from conception) was also God. In Christ Jesus, God elevated human nature into union with His own divine nature. In addition, His very own divine nature condescended to establish union with human nature.

No other religion elevates Christ to such an infinite height of majesty and honor. No other religion expresses Christ's true person to such an infinite degree. Most religions merely make Christ a prophet or seek to establish Him as being some second co-eternal divine being or person. No... Christ was not just a prophet. Christ was not a second co-eternal divine being or person. Christ also wasn't God shape-shifted or morphed into the mere appearance of a man who only pretended to pray. Christ was the authentic human tabernacle of God Himself. To deny this imperils the soul... and reduces Christ to being either a lunatic or a liar.

All authority and power has been delivered to Christ Jesus. He will judge Krishna. He will judge Buddha. He will judge Mohammed. He will judge Nanak. He will judge the followers of every false prophet and madman. He will judge all men in accordance to the Father's will as it relates to the Gospel. Through Him, the Father will judge. Because they are one.

I hate to burst your bubble, friend, but Hinduism actually states its demiurge is markedly similar to Socinian or Sabellian partialism by placing their false Brhama over Siva and Vishnu, thus actually making their so-called triad much akin to the Oneness view, which is not the three-one definition of classic trinitarianism where the three subsistences are the same singular essences, equal in power and glory but not rank (I John 5:6-9). Again, I'm not going to debate with you in this opening thread, but you can see the Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological & Ecclesiastical Literature for that. Frankly, I would rather begin with a discussion of baptismal regeneration as stated in the debate section.

Much thanks to Esaias for that information. I am a former Trinitarian charismatic (read charis-maniac) so I know how thin and useless that term can be. Despite being altogether backslid at the time, for my oratory they wanted to vaunt me to the zenith of their system, but I declined. How can one occupy the bishopric if they are not qualified? They even compared me to Leonard Ravenhill. The various Oneness orders are not well known there and infrequently discussed since trinitarianism is taken for granted. In all my years therein, I do not recall a full sermon dedicated to McAlister's Oneness doctrines, not to mention the various denominations. They still loathe me to this hour for asking questions, including about we Poor Men of Lyons and our beliefs. The fundamentalists likewise did not enjoy questions despite having read broadly their writings such as Dr Ian Paisley, GC Morgan, RA Torrey, Dr DA Waite, Dr DW Cloud (some of his books just came in the mail), WB Riley, Bishop Ryle, Lester Roloff, RG Lee et al ad infinitum.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Strict Baptist

That's quite simple -- I cannot affirm what the Sabellian Oneness Pentecostal movement requires in scripture, especially considering we predate Sabellius, Noetus, Praxeaus, Noetus and others who deny hypostasis. I left Pentecostalism altogether for my roots because in reading the sacred writ I could not find but Romanism staring back at me. Recall that it is the Oneness view that baptism by immersion, glossolalia that I have come to call estatic jabberwocky and affirmation of modified Sabellianism is mandatory to be a Chrisitan according to the UPCI 2017 manual, none of which I would dare affirm save the mode of dipping.

You are a Catholic?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Strict Baptist

I hate to burst your bubble, friend, but Hinduism actually states its demiurge is markedly similar to Socinian or Sabellian partialism by placing their false Brhama over Siva and Vishnu, thus actually making their so-called triad much akin to the Oneness view, which is not the three-one definition of classic trinitarianism where the three subsistences are the same singular essences, equal in power and glory but not rank (I John 5:6-9). Again, I'm not going to debate with you in this opening thread, but you can see the Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological & Ecclesiastical Literature for that. Frankly, I would rather begin with a discussion of baptismal regeneration as stated in the debate section.

Much thanks to Esaias for that information. I am a former Trinitarian charismatic (read charis-maniac) so I know how thin and useless that term can be. Despite being altogether backslid at the time, for my oratory they wanted to vaunt me to the zenith of their system, but I declined. How can one occupy the bishopric if they are not qualified? They even compared me to Leonard Ravenhill. The various Oneness orders are not well known there and infrequently discussed since trinitarianism is taken for granted. In all my years therein, I do not recall a full sermon dedicated to McAlister's Oneness doctrines, not to mention the various denominations. They still loathe me to this hour for asking questions, including about we Poor Men of Lyons and our beliefs. The fundamentalists likewise did not enjoy questions despite having read broadly their writings such as Dr Ian Paisley, GC Morgan, RA Torrey, Dr DA Waite, Dr DW Cloud (some of his books just came in the mail), WB Riley, Bishop Ryle, Lester Roloff, RG Lee et al ad infinitum.

Hinduism has a Trinity like Trinitarianism.

Hence they are a Trinity which they all work together as unified effort. Brahma the creator, Vishnu the sustainer, and Shiv the destroyer.

[Strict Baptist]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

You are a Catholic?

Sigh. The wresting of my words did not take long. I am a Baptist whose forefathers were ripped up by Rome for over a millennium for simply existing independently of them and before them. The default ideas of continuationism, namely the synergist soteriology and continuation of the ceased charisms, are readily mapped out in their cacodoxical Catechism. 623 million souls in all denominations participate in the Catholic Charismatic Renewal, which is why the antichrist papacy sees your kind as separated brethren while we are heretics. 170 million are papists in that Renewal; the remainder are in all denominations. Frankly, whatever you believe about accepting Christ and loss of salvation can be quoted near-verbatim out of the papist documents. I have come out of Babylon; the mainline Pentecostals are marching swiftly with reckless abandon into their mother of harlots. In fact, the only real soteriological difference between Oneness and Rome is the Sabellianism. They see you as one of them if you speak in tongues. They see all others as cursed over 100 times in the Trent Council.