Its true the Waldensians changed their position to join the Geneva reformation but that was not their historical position. This is number 12 of their 1120 confession.
12 We consider the Sacraments as signs of holy things, or as the visible emblems of invisible blessings. We regard it as proper and even necessary that believers use these symbols or visible forms when it can be done. Notwithstanding which, we maintain that believers may be saved without these signs, when they have neither place nor opportunity of observing them.
Here is number 7 of their 1544 confession which is even more clear.
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.
It is your assertion that their position
changed that requires your demonstration.
These references prove nothing to your purpose whatsoever, and I wish you would provide any Waldensian writings that say otherwise. All we have in the above is that real,
believing Christians have access to the church's ordinances, something no paedo-baptist denies. But if it is the Christian PARENT's right to bring his child, then the statement has said nothing contrary to that. It is still a believer's ordinance, and non-believers have no right to bring their children to it, since they cannot come themselves.
The second quote says nothing different from what is found in about 95% of the WCF paragraphs on baptism. The theology of baptism presented there is completely in line with the WCF, which should be enough of a presumption that the REASON the Waldensians could embrace the Genevan reformation was that it didn't differ from their own basic beliefs. That is says nothing explicit about their children doesn't imply their exclusion.
Again, the Waldensians do not believe their own practice changed--that is your assertion. You would have us believe that with not a word of dissent, this group simply changed their position that they were alleged to hold contrary to the papists for centuries. Given the present baptist attachment to its form of ordinance, how is this credible? It is not.
Furthermore, you have ignored this statement from that same A.D. 1120 document (
The Spiritual Almanack), passing over it entirely, and so giving a false impression:
But this baptism is visible and material, which makes the person neither good nor evil, as in the Scripture we learn by Simon Magus and St Paul. And whereas baptism is administered in a full congregation of the faithful, it is to the end that he that is received should be reputed and held of all for a brother and a Christian, and that all may pray for him that he may be a Christian in heart, as be is outwardly esteemed to be a Christian: and for this cause we present our children in baptism; which they ought to do, to whom the children are nearest, as their parents, and they to whom God has given this charity.
So, what are we to make of this statement? Do you have any evidence that this statement is not reflective of early belief and practice? Again, it appears your argument is with the Waldensians themselves, not with me.
