Follow
There is a tendency in some Christian circles to view all things eschatological through the lens of current events. This was epitomized in the late 1980s and early 1990s by a popular T-shirt that read, “If you want to understand the Book of Revelation, just read the headlines!” Every earthquake, every war, every powerful new politician was understood as evidence that the end times were now upon us. This method of interpretation is nothing new.
In some senses, we can say that Luther used this method to interpret Daniel and Revelation: “The world runs and hastens so diligently to its end,” he wrote. “The Turk has reached his highest point; the pomp of the papacy is fading away, and the world is cracking on all sides” (Luther, Letter to John Frederic, Duke of Saxony, February/March 1530). In his commentary on Daniel, he stopped expounding beyond 11:39, “for only in experience can this chapter be understood” (Luther, Preface to the Prophet Daniel, (1530)). Current events, it seems, would be sufficient to interpret the text.
There are many other examples. Pope Gregory the Great, in the introduction to his commentary on Job, wrote that “the end of the world is at hand,” and “the times are disturbed by reason of the multiplied evils thereof” (Pope Gregory I, An Exposition on the Book of Blessed Job, Vol. I—The First Part). Athanasius thought that Constantius II, Roman Emperor from 337 to 361, had “surpassed those before him in wickedness,” and had “devised a new mode of persecution” and therefore must be the Antichrist (Athanasius, History of the Arians, Part VIII.74). Jerome informs us of Judas, an obscure writer of the sub-apostolic era, who believed that the end of the world was at hand in the year 202, “because the greatness of the persecutions seemed to forebode the end of the world” (Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men, Chapter LII). The list could go on, and the temptation is ever before us to use current events as the benchmark, and work backwards to make our eschatology fit.
A more reliable method, however, is to work from a benchmark established in Scripture and work forward. One of the most widely used benchmarks is Daniel’s vision of coming empires in Daniel chapter 7. Four beasts, signifying four empires, arise and fall in succession: A Lion (Babylon), a Bear (Medo-Persia), a Leopard (Greece), and “a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible” ( 7:7), which is understood to be Rome.
But the vision did not end there. The fourth beast “was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns” (7:7), and among those ten, an eleventh was to arise, “speaking great things” (7:8) “against the Most High” (7:25), who “shall wear out the saints of the most High” (7:25). This period of the ten horns is likened to the ten toes of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in Daniel chapter 2, in which the fourth kingdom “shall be divided” (2:41) and “they shall not cleave one to another” (2:43). If one were to assume an unbroken continuum of history from Babylon to Rome, then the post-apostolic era was ripe for the fulfillment of the last part of Daniel’s vision, namely, the dividing of the Roman Empire, and the rise of the Eleventh Horn.
And so did many Church Fathers reckon the times. The 4th Beast had arrived, and the time of division was now upon them. We provide their words in chronological order:
Barnabas (early 2nd Century)
“The final stumbling-block approaches, concerning which it is written, … ‘Ten kingdoms shall reign upon the earth, and a little king shall rise up after them….’ ” (Epistle of Barnabas, ch. IV).
Justin Martyr (mid 2nd century)
“…the times now running on to their consummation; and he whom Daniel foretells would have dominion for a time, and times, and an half, is even already at the door, about to speak blasphemous and daring things against the Most High” (Dialogue with Trypho, ch. XXXII).
Irenaeus (late 2nd Century)
“Daniel too, looking forward to the end of the last kingdom… And its ten horns are ten kings which shall arise; and after them shall arise another, who shall surpass in evil deeds all that were before him” (Against Heresies, Book V, XXV.3)
“In a still clearer light has John, in the Apocalypse, indicated to the Lord’s disciples what shall happen in the last times, and concerning the ten kings who shall then arise, among whom the empire which now rules shall be partitioned.” (Against Heresies, Book V, XXVI.1
Hippolytus (early 3rd century)
“Then he says: ‘A fourth beast, dreadful and terrible; it had iron teeth and claws of brass.’ And who are these but the Romans? … And after this, what remains, beloved, but the toes of the feet of the image, in which part is iron and part clay, mixed together?” (Treatise on Christ and Antichrist, ch. 25)
“Already the iron rules; already it subdues and breaks all in pieces; already it brings all the unwilling into subjection; already we see these things ourselves.” (Treatise on Christ and Antichrist, ch. 33)
Lactantius (early 4th Century)
“Therefore, as the end of the world approaches, the condition of human affairs must undergo a change… And—my mind dreads to relate it, but I will relate it, because it is about to happen—the cause of this desolation and confusion will be this; because the Roman name, by which the world is now ruled, will be taken away from the earth…” (Divine Institutes, Book VII, Of a Happy Life, ch. XV).
“But lest anyone think this incredible, I will show how it will come to pass. First, the kingdom will be enlarged, and the chief power, dispersed among many and divided, will be diminished. … until ten kings arise at the same time, who will divide the world … then a most powerful enemy will suddenly arise…” (Divine Institutes, Book VII, Of a Happy Life ch. XVI)
“These things are said by the prophets, but as seers, to be about to happen.” (Epitome of Divine Institutes, ch. LXXI)
Cyril of Jerusalem (late 4th Century)
“But this aforesaid Antichrist is to come when the times of the Roman empire shall have been fulfilled, and the end of the world is now drawing near. There shall rise up together 10 kings of the Romans, reigning in different parts perhaps, but all about the same time: and after these and eleventh, the Antichrist, by his magical craft shall seize upon the Roman power;” (Catechetical Lectures, XV.12)
Augustine (early 5th Century)
“As for the ten kings, whom, as it seems, Antichrist is to find in the person of ten individuals when he comes, … he may come unexpectedly while there are not ten kings living in the Roman world.” (City of God, Book XX, ch. 23).
The testimony of all of the Fathers is not unanimous here, but there exists at least one clear and consistent line of interpretation among them that saw Daniel 7 as a continuum of historical events with no unexplained gaps. It had not been fulfilled in the recent past under the Greek empire (as some modern commentators have said), and it was not to be fulfilled several thousand years into the future (as others have taught). Simply put, there had been three empires before, the fourth was in its in decline, and the ten-way division was upon us, as Daniel had prophesied. The rise of Antichrist simply could not be far away.
But Antichrist never came. Daniel’s prophesy, it turned out, had been “mysterious” and “allegorical,” signifying the struggles of the Church against the world, culminating in a conflict in some distant unspecified future prior to the return of Christ. Instead of the saints of the Most High being persecuted and worn out by the coming antagonist in Rome, Christ established His Church there. It was there that the sheep were taught and guarded by His representative on earth, the Pope, for they had taken over the Roman empire which had been carefully prepared for them in advance. There was no antagonist to fear after all. Daniel may have been a little loose with the chronology, but the important thing is that God’s people were safe, they had taken over the Roman Empire, and their shepherd was established in its capital. All’s well that ends well.
At least, that’s what we’ve been told. In fact, Roman apologist and former Protestant, Taylor Marshall, would have us believe this narrative in his recent book, Eternal City. He assures us,
“The culmination of Daniel’s Four Kingdoms—the Roman Empire—is handed over to people of Jesus Christ. The Church is not the Roman Empire, but it receives the Roman Empire. Daniel spoke of this before the coming of Christ, and the recorded history after Christ bears witness to this truth.”
Marshall’s interpretation here is based largely on Daniel 7:27:
“And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High….”
Based on this verse and the secular histories, Marshall believes that the “kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom” refers to the Roman empire being handed over to the Church of Christ.
But Marshall’s chronology is wanting here. Daniel 7 does not have the Roman Empire handed over to the saints. Daniel saw the Roman Empire handed over to the Eleventh Horn, which had “a mouth speaking great things” ( 7:8, ) and which “shall wear out the saints of the most High” (7:25). This Eleventh Horn is the Beast of Revelation 13, which was “given a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies” (13:5). Dominion over the Roman Empire was given to him, not to the saints: “…and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations” (13:7). It is the Eleventh Horn, this Beast of Revelation 13, not the Church of Jesus Christ, that would take over the Roman Empire. And it was the Eleventh Horn that would “make war with the saints, and … overcome them” (Revelation 13:7). Thus, Marshall has inadvertently identified the Roman Catholic Church as the Eleventh Horn of Daniel 7 and the Beast of Revelation 13. She is the Antichrist, the very Antichrist indeed.
But it would be a mistake to think that the Church Fathers were afraid of Antichrist. They were not. They were afraid of something much, much worse—that Antichrist would come, and that the Church would not even realize it. Listen to them as they worry, not about Antichrist, but that church might miss his coming, and be deceived by the craftiness of his disguise:
Barnabas
“We take earnest heed in these last days; for the whole [past] time of your faith will profit you nothing, unless now in this wicked time we also withstand coming sources of danger, … That the Black One may find no means of entrance, let us flee from every vanity, let us utterly hate the works of the way of wickedness. … Take heed, lest resting at our ease, as those who are the called [of God], we should fall asleep in our sins, and the wicked prince, acquiring power over us, should thrust us away from the kingdom of the Lord. … Let us beware lest we be found [fulfilling that saying], as it is written, ‘Many are called, but few are chosen.’ ” (Epistle of Barnabas, Ch. IV)
Irenaeus
“Moreover, another danger, by no means trifling, shall overtake those who falsely presume that they know the name of Antichrist. For if these men assume one, when this shall come having another, they will be easily led away by him, as supposing him not to be the expected one, who must be guarded against.” (Against Heresies, Book V, Chapter XXX.1).
Hippolytus
“Wherefore we ought neither to give it out as if this were certainly his name, nor again ignore the fact that he may not be otherwise designated. But having the mystery of God in our heart, we ought in fear to keep faithfully what has been told us by the blessed prophets, in order that when those things come to pass, we may be prepared for them, and not deceived.” (Treatise on Christ and Antichrist, 50
Cyril of Jerusalem
“Guard thyself then, O man; thou hast the signs of Antichrist; and remember them not only thyself, but impart them also freely to all. If thou hast a child according to the flesh, admonish him of this now; if thou hast begotten one through catechizing, put him also on his guard, lest he receive the false one as the True. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work. I fear these wars of the nations; I fear the schisms of the Churches; I fear the mutual hatred of the brethren. But enough on this subject; only God forbid that it should be fulfilled in our days; nevertheless, let us be on our guard. And thus much concerning Antichrist.” (Catechetical Lectures, XV.18)
Augustine
“As for the ten kings, whom, as it seems, Antichrist is to find in the person of ten individuals when he comes, I own I am afraid we may be deceived in this, and that he may come unexpectedly while there are not ten kings living in the Roman world.” (City of God, Book XX, ch. 23).
No, Augustine wasn’t afraid of Antichrist, for Antichrist must come. Augustine was afraid that Antichrist would be so cleverly disguised that even the Church could mistake his lies, idolatry and false gospel for the very truth of God. Despite these cautions of the Fathers, the whole world with one voice, for nearly two millennia has accepted the Roman Catholic religion as if she were the religion of Jesus Christ.
But the Church of Jesus Christ has not.
True, Powerful! 2 Thessalonians, he puts himself up as God in the Temple. Holy Father, Head of the Church on Earth, Vicar. Sounds like the Trinity right. These are the names possessed by the Pope himself. A great Puritan theologian once said the Pope is the Antichrist, and any child of God who does not see it is under a strong delusion. Rome has bewitched the gullible world. Spurgeon said as to what Antichrist, no sane man should raise the question, it can be none other than the Popery of Rome. The true church has always known this and separated herself from it.
“A great Puritan theologian once said the Pope is the Antichrist, ”
A great Pope once said puritans are the antichrist.
Kevin, Happy Easter
Tim,
The Easter Bunny left this at my house and asked me to give it to you.
I am assuming you know the speaker.
Jim,
That link is a great example of why I say Sola Ecclesia is at once Rome’s Axiom, Conclusion and gospel. That Roman Catholicism is the Church is assumed as an axiom by which all of history and the Scriptures is interpreted, and the conclusion of any investigation into history and the Scripture is the same as the Axiom: Roman Catholicism is the Church. Then, because the infallible magisterium leaves everyone guessing as to what is infallible and what is not, the Roman Catholic’s only option is to set aside everything else and just believe the Church, and hope faith in the church will save them.
In the link you sent, at the end there is the testimony of a woman who had recently converted to Roman Catholicism. The radio host asked, incredulously, if she really had embraced the Assumption dogma. The woman replied that she did not believe it, but that she was not asked to believe it as a condition of joining the church. They only asked her one question as a condition of joining: “Do you believe everything taught by the Roman Catholic Church as revealed?”
Of course, every Roman Catholic has a different interpretation of what that question means, because every Roman Catholic must sort out on his own what the Roman Catholic Church teaches. In the end Roman Catholic faith comes down to faith in the Church. But faith in the Church does not save. Jesus did not say, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Church, that whosoever believeth in it should not perish, but have everlasting life,” yet the church is the object of every Roman Catholic’s faith.
Thanks for your comment, and I appreciate your participation.
Tim
Tim, ”Faith in the Church does not save” you say. But Faith in Christ does save, right Tim?
Without the Church, you don’t know who Christ is. The Church IS Christ on earth.
Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium all work together in revealing Christ.
Have you been following your fellow Protestant, Robert, on the other blog demanding examples of Apostolic Tradition? I have given him some only to have him dismiss every example given on his own authority. A major Tradition is the Trinity. Is it in Scripture. Of course. But why did it centuries of councils and Pope Leo’s Tome to clarity the doctrine.
You know,over the Triduum I have really paid attention to Tradition and how the Liturgy teaches doctrine. I have also learned a couple of interesting things on how Tradition comes out of the Bible in the case of covering our images with purple on the 5th Sunday of Lent. Or why the O.T. readings are read in the dark and the N.T. ones in the light. It is all interwoven.
Think of the Christology associated just with Holy Saturday. Contra Calvin’s horrendous views, Tradition spoke of Satan being terrified when Christ descended to the netherworld to “preach to those in prison from the time of Noah” and to “take captivity captive”. Many non Catholics deny Christ had a human soul. The correct view says that Christ’s body and divinity were in the tomb while his soul and divinity went to bring those in the Bosom of Abraham and Purgatory the good news. The is huge for the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. No soul sleep here. No waiting for the Resurrection.
And Holy Saturday has implications for the Mass. If the Apostles had attempted to say Mass while Christ’s soul and body were separated, they couldn’t have.
Bible, Tradition , Authority all together.
You wrote, “That Roman Catholicism is the Church is assumed as an axiom by which all of history and the Scriptures is interpreted, and the conclusion of any investigation into history and the Scripture is the same as the Axiom: Roman Catholicism is the Church. ”
Okay Tim. I’ll bite. When did the Romish church usurp the Real Church?
As for your example of the woman convert, I would say she was poorly prepared. Much as a woman in my local parish was some months ago. She was brought in from Presbyterianism but a short time later revealed her pro-choice views. The priest was too lazy or something to do it right.
Tim, I am sure I don’t know all that the Church knows. But I believe it all. Whether i know it or not. Faith is based on authority. I submit.
Still waiting for Kevin and/or Walt to explain how Sola Scriptura was possible before people had Bibles ( 1450).
The doctrine certainly had never been promulgated until then. No way for the Spirit to testify with peoples’ spirits without every Joe six pack having his own Bible at home.
I hope your family, including your mom, has a nice Easter.
Thanks, Jim,
A lot of questions there, but I’ll take a shot at some of them for now.
By this, I take you to mean, “When did Antichrist usurp the real Church?” but even that may not be the right way to ask. Antichrist never usurped the church. He attempted and still attempts to usurp Christ, and does so by representing himself as the church. But the church was never “usurped.” Nor was Christ. At no point did the Antichrist prevail over the church doctrinally, and therefore the church was never usurped, and the gates of hell never prevailed against it.
Daniel 7:21-25 has the Eleventh Horn making war against the saints and prevailing against them for “times, time and the dividing of time.” I take this to be the same time frame as described in Revelation 13:5-7 in which the Beast does the same thing for “forty and two months.” Because the Beast of Revelation 13 is a composite of Daniel’s four visions, I take the “1 day = 1 year” principle, and understand this be mean that Antichrist will reign for 1,260 years. (More on this on another day.)
The Serpent, who gives his power to the Beast (Revelation 13:4) also tries to cause the Woman (whom I take to be the Church) “to be carried away of the flood” (Revelation 12:15), but is unable to do so because “the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth” (Revelation 12:16). The Church is therefore nourished and protected from the face of the serpent “for a time, and times, and half a time” (Revelation 12:14). The Church simply was never extinguished and never fell.
Note that Antichrist is able to “wear out the saints” and prevail against them, but the Woman is nourished and protected from the Serpent for the same duration. How can the Beast, who gets authority from the Serpent, prevail against the saints while at the same time the saints are protected from the Serpent?
I take this to mean that the Antichrist prevails over them physically, but is unable to prevail over them doctrinally, for if they were to give into him, they would not be “written in the book of life of the Lamb” (Revelation 13:8), and therefore they would not be saints. The saints simply refused to give in and would not be “carried away of the flood.” “Here is the patience and faith of the saints” (Revelation 13:10, c.f. 14:12).
The answer to when this happened is found by determining when the the Serpent attempted to carry the church away in a flood of false doctrine. Not just the typical false apostle here and there, but a torrent of false doctrine. 2 Thessalonians 2:3 says there must come a falling away first, and Paul warns us what that will look like: “some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils … Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth” (1 Timothy 4:3). The apostle John was very concerned with the arrival of Antichrist (1 John 2:18, 22; 2 John 7), and also warned that Antichrist is already in the world (1 John 4:3). His last instruction to the flock in his first epistle was, “Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.” (1 John 5:21).
The false doctrines of Eucharistic Adoration, priestly celibacy, abstinence from perfectly good foods and veneration of relics came to prominence at the end of the 4th century, and in my opinion reached “flood levels” when the Church anathematized Vigilantius and Jovinianus. We do not know much about these men, except through Jerome’s intemperate invectives against them, but they were condemned for holding that virginity was not superior to marriage, that abstinence from food is not superior to receiving food with thanksgiving, that ministers of the gospel could marry, that Jesus was born through natural parturition, and that we should not venerate relics or pray to saints. Small wonder that Cardinal Newman considered Jovanianus and Vigilantius the equivalents of “the Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli of the fourth century.” Jerome’s epistle against Vigilantius was “one of the most violent of St Jerome’s polemical treatises,” and his epistle against Jovanianus “was couched in abusive and intemperate language … excessive in its praise of virginity and in depreciation of marriage.” Yet all Vigilantius and Jovanianus had done was to support their positions from the Scriptures. Jerome’s ridicule of them was merciless. But Jerome’s views prevailed. That was when Antichrist doctrines began to hold sway before the world, but not within the Church of Jesus Christ. She was nourished and protected from the face of the Serpent the whole time. I will address this topic in much more detail later. This is just a brief sketch and should be regarded accordingly.
You cannot believe what you do not know, Jim. That would be like saying “I believe in fidelity, but I don’t know what fidelity is.”
The Scriptures predated the printing press. The Spirit testifying with our spirit can be done when the Scriptures are opened to us through preaching: “Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?” (Luke 24:32). Jesus did not have the written word of God in His hands as He walked, but nonetheless, He opened the scriptures to them. When Jesus drew near to the men on the road to Emmaus, he was not carrying all of the scrolls of the Old Testament, and yet, “beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures” (Luke 24:27).
Best regards,
Tim
Tim,
I thought you said you were a mainline Presbyterian. Now it seems like you are just giving your own views on history and prophecy.
Abstain from “perfectly good foods”? You meat meat.
It looks like you are stressing the goodness or the badness of the foods by using the words “perfectly good”. Of course meat is good*. We cannot abstain from what is bad as gift to God.
It is like Jerome’s ( since you bring him up ) defense of consecrated virginity. Marriage is not given up because it is bad.
One can indeed believe in doctrines they don’t know. The faith is in the authority of the person revealing the doctrines, not the reasonableness of the doctrines.
It’s funny that you insist a person a can accidentally worship bread although they intend otherwise, but demand that same person have detailed knowledge of what they submit to by Faith.
You know Tim, I have had sneaky suspicion ever since your insistence that Catholics worship bread, that you were not just trying to irritate, but maybe really believe it despite my explanation that one can neither worship nor sin mortally without intention. This latest post on abstaining from “perfectly good foods” makes me wonder about your Catholic upbringing. It seems weird.
* If God didn’t want us to eat animals, why did He make them out of meat?
Tim, I posted below this one but forgot to address your response to me on the canon/sola scriptura.
I find your answer amazing. Jesus, who is the Revelation of God Incarnate spoke without reading from the OT. Of course. What does that have to do with my question? Surely you are not asserting that every time someone preaches today, with or without a Bible, the Holy Spirit will open the ears and hearts of the listeners.
Beside, until the printing press, the only preaching being done was the Catholic Church.
My other responses are below this one.
Jim, you wrote,
I was responding to your question, “how [was] Sola Scriptura possible before people had Bibles?” and your observation that there is “No way for the Spirit to testify with peoples’ spirits without every Joe six pack having his own Bible at home.” In that context, you implied that it is impossible for the Holy Spirit to testify with peoples’ spirits unless they have a personal copy of the bible in their possession. What I demonstrated was simply that it was by the Scriptures that the Holy Spirit testified with the spirits of the men on the road to Emmaus without anyone having a copy of the text in their possession. Yet it was the Scriptures that were opened to them that day, long before the printing press was invented.
You responded that “the Revelation of God Incarnate spoke without reading from the OT,” but Luke 24:27,32 does not say, “And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he demonstrated His vast knowledge of things… Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he demonstrated His vast knowledge of things?” It says “he expounded unto them in all the scriptures,” and “while he opened to us the scriptures.”
Thus, it is possible for the Spirit to testify to His written Word even if His written Word is not in the immediate vicinity of the preacher or the hearer.
As long as what is preached is the written Word of God, and as long as it pleases the Holy Spirit to do so, that is exactly what I am asserting. But He is by no means obligated to do so simply because the Bible is available to the hearers. He does as He pleases (John 3:8).
Thanks,
Tim
Jim wrote:
Without the Church, you don’t know who Christ is. The Church IS Christ on earth.
Response:
An affirmation includes a denial. You affirm that Christ came in the flesh because the “Church IS Christ on earth” depends on it.
If I deny that the “Church IS Christ on earth”, then I deny the Christ came in the flesh. Does that follow ? I can flat out deny Christ came in the flesh and confirm myself an Antichrist. Can someone affirm Christ came in the flesh and deny it by adding a falsehood ?
But false prophets also arose AMONG the people just as there will also be false teacher AMONG you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even DENYING the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruct upon themselves. (2Peter 2:1)
Jim, I hope you do not consider William Lane Craig in the video as a true Christian. The fruits and words of Dr. Craig confirm he is not a Christian, but rather someone who calls himself a Christian by name only.
How do I know this? Firstly, he holds to the doctrine of “pretended liberty of conscience”. He sincerely believes that “in good conscience” that he cannot be a Roman Catholic, a Presbyterian, a Episcopalian because it violates his conscience. He believes his conscience is governed by his reason and his logic, not by the final authority of Scripture.
RationalWiki says:
“Dr. William Lane Craig, born August 23, 1949 in Peoria, Illinois, is an American Christian apologist, philosopher, and theologian. He received a Bachelor of Arts from theologically-moderate evangelical protestant Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois, a summa cum laude Master of Divinity from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois, a Ph.D. in Philosophy from the University of Birmingham (England), and a Ph.D. in Theology from the University of Munich. Craig claims that religious faith must be supported by reason and logic or atheism will triumph.[1] He has admitted multiple times that he will not change his faith no matter what the evidence points to, because he has “witnessed the Holy Spirit in his heart”.[3]”
Notice that his grounds for salvation is that he has “witnessed the Holy Spirit in his heart”, and that test of true faith is an error…even with his testimony that Jesus is his Lord. Even the devils believe Jesus is Lord and tremble. What Craig is doing is randomly declaring that some things violate his conscience, but he TOLERATES all religions, false doctrine, false worship, false government, and hypocrisy, etc. as long as he does not join them. That is not Christian, that is pagan and secular as they tolerate everything except mostly Christians.
This view is not new in history. I want to quote a long section that will take the reader through this history of the major issues effecting true Christians on this doctrine. This is a very helpful summary (although the book is only 214 pages).
The Absurdity and Perfidy of All Authoritative Toleration of Gross Heresy, Blasphemy, Idolatry, Popery, in Britain by John Brown of Haddington discusses it at length.
The sub-title reads: “In two letters to a friend in which the doctrine of the Westminster Confession of Faith relative to Toleration of a False Religion, and the power of the civil magistrate about sacred matters; and the nature, origin, ends and obligation of the National Covenant and Solemn League are candidly represented and defended.”
Here Brown deals with three major Reformation attainments (anti-tolerationism, establishmentarianism and the obligations of lawful covenants as they biblically bind posterity) that Satan has always been especially concerned to overthrow — in every major demonic move to open the floodgates of lawlessness, anarchy and misrule.
Fletcher, in the preface to the 1797 edition, relates this truth as it comes to bear on various religious professors, stating, “Papists were enemies to our covenants because they were a standard lifted up against their system of abominable idolatries. Episcopalians were enemies to them, because they were a standard lifted up against their anti-scriptural church-officers and inventions of men in the worship of God. Some Presbyterians are enemies to them in our day through ignorance of their nature and ends; and others through fear of being too strictly bound to their duty” (Cited in Johnston, Treasury of the Scottish Covenant, p. 486).
It is also interesting to note the long list of backsliders and heretics that often oppose one or more of these points. “The ancient Donatists, a sect of Arian separatists, who appeared about the beginning of the 4th Century, seem to have been among the first who held out these opinions to the Christian world. Feeling the weight of the arm of power for their schismatical practices, by way of reprisal, they stript the magistrate of all power in religion;–maintaining that he had no more power about religious matters than any private person, and refusing him the right of suppressing the propagators of doctrines different from those professed by the Church, or the observers of a different form of worship.
From them the German Anabaptists adopted the same views. Then the Socinians (i.e. an early form of Scripture-denying liberals–RB) and remonstrant Arminians, whenever the magistrate ceased to patronize their cause. The English Independents during the time of the Long Parliament were the zealous supporters of the same opinions.
In their rage for liberty of conscience, they formed the strongest opposition in the Westminster Assembly which the Presbyterians had to encounter. Through their influence that venerable body was much embarrassed (hindered– RB) in their proceeding; and by their means (in collusion with that “Judas of the Covenant,” Cromwell–RB), certain passages of the Confession of Faith never obtained the ratification of the English Parliament.
The English Dissenters of the present age are generally in the same views, especially the Socinians, the Arians, and the Quakers, who have most to dread from the Laws of the Land against their blasphemies. And who knows not that the high reputation of Mr. Locke as a Philosopher… has given these opinions such an air of respectability, that many youth in the Universities have been thereby inclined to embrace them?” (Preface, pp. vi-vii).
In our day the tree of toleration (and the anti-Scriptural principles which logically grow out of it) has spread its branches in ways that could have never been envisioned by those that took the first steps away from biblical and covenanted uniformity.
What Brown is fighting against here is an error so foundational that when left unchecked it permeates all of society, cutting out the foundational roots that are necessary for all national Reformations — and “if the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (Ps. 11:3).
Furthermore, as the preface notes “liberty of conscience and of opinion” are “the great idols of the day.” Here Brown takes out his covenantal hammer and smashes these idols with an inconoclastic zeal worthy of our earlier Reformed forefathers.
This book is especially useful in answering the persistent fear and questions that always arise when these old Reformed views are discussed: that is, the questions dealing with religious persecution. Brown spends much time in clearing the Westminster Divines of such false charges, while also setting these controversial Reformed teachings on a thoroughly biblical foundation.
Interestingly, in the section defending the continuing obligation of the National and Solemn League and Covenant, we also note that the Westminster Assembly considered the Solemn League and Covenant an “everlasting covenant.” Brown cites the following as proof, “That the body of the English nation also swore the Solemn League and Covenant, is manifest. The Westminster Assembly and English Parliament, affirm, ‘The honourable house of Parliament, the Assembly of Divines, the renowned city of London, and multitudes of other persons of all ranks and quality in this nation, and the whole body of Scotland, have all sworn it, rejoicing at the oath so graciously seconded from heaven. God will, doubtless, stand by all those, who with singleness of heart shall now enter into an everlasting covenant with the Lord'” (p. 161).
The footnote tells us that the section Brown was quoting was taken from “Exhortation to take the Covenant, February, 1644.” Brown also includes a helpful section on a point some modern day malignants are once again attempting to use to overthrow the biblical attainments of the covenanted Reformation. This section shows that the “(t)he intrinsic obligation of promises, oaths, vows, and covenants which constitutes their very essence or essential form, is totally and manifestly distinct from the obligation of the law of God in many respects” (p. 120).
Finally, we cite a portion of Brown’s dying testimony to his children given in the introduction (p. xix). Such testimonies, from notable Christian leaders, often contain singularly pertinent charges to their hearers. (For another notable example of this see James Renwick’s dying testimony, as he was about to be martyred for his adherence to the Solemn League and Covenant, when he recounts what was later to become most of the terms of communion in Covenanted Presbyterian churches. This testimony can be found in Thompson’s A Cloud of Witnesses for the Royal Prerogatives of Jesus Christ Being the Last Speeches and Testimonies of those Who Have Suffered for the Truth in Scotland Since… 1680).
Here are Brown’s dying words to his children: “Adhere constantly, cordially and honestly to the Covenanted Principles of the Church of Scotland, and to that Testimony which hath been lifted up for them. I fear a generation is rising up which will endeavour silently,’ (O how prophetic!) ‘to let slip these matters, as if they were ashamed to hold them fast, or even to speak of them (as with many “reformed” publishers and preachers today, who dare not touch the topics Brown deals with in this book–RB). May the Lord forbid that any of you should ever enter into this confederacy against Jesus Christ and his cause! This from a dying father and minister, and a witness for Christ” (Signed) ‘John Brown.’
If you have the moral courage to compare the original Reformed faith with that which is often promoted under its name today (and in many ways the old Reformed faith bears little resemblance to the “new light” Reformers and innovators of our day), then this is an ideal book to obtain and study.
Walt,
Please. As a Bible only Protestant, how can you judge Bill Craig or any other Bible only Protestant?
How can Craig judge you?
You don’t like Quakers, Socinians or Arians. Why should I be impressed with your Scottish Covenanters over them?
It is all just one Protestant’s opinion over another’s. Opinions are like belly buttons. Everybody has one.
Happy Easter.
Jim,
This was not addressed to me, but I hope you won’t mind if I pipe in. You wrote,
This is why I always insist that Roman Catholics provide me a list of infallible papal statements. Yes, Protestants disagree over their source of revelation. They argue over the right interpretation of scripture, and they appeal to scripture to try to understand it. There are entire schools of thought on the right method to do this. Roman Catholics look at this and say, “You Protestants need an infallible magisterium!”
What Roman Catholics fail to realize is that they are no better off with their magisterium. John Paul II issued a statement, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, on the male priesthood and there are so many schools of thought on that, it is difficult to categorize them all. One guy at ETWN says it’s infallible, and he cites four reasons. One person on Jason’s blog says it appears to be infallible to her on its face. Another person at Jason’s blog says he used to be of that opinion, but now he’s not, because he read a document from the Congregation on the Divine Faith which was a Reply to a Clarification of the original Decree, and now, based on his reading of the Reply to the Clarification of the Decree, and because the Reply to the Clarification was published with the approval of the pope, he came to the conclusion that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was not infallible. But the Reply and the Clarification came from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, “doctrinal decisions or instructions issued by the Roman congregations, even when approved by the pope in the ordinary way, have no claim to be considered infallible.” So ultimately he was not relying on an infallible magisterium to help him make his decision. He was relying on a fallible judgement by a Roman congregration.
Since there is no infallible list of criteria by which a papal statement may be determined to be infallible, each Roman Catholic ends up choosing his own set of criteria, and judging for himself which papal statements are infallible, and which are not. The Reply to the Clarification to the Decree said the Decree itself was not infallible, but the decree itself meets the three criteria for infallibility that Scott Butler provided in Jesus, Peter and the Keys. However, it does not meet the four criteria provided in the Catholic Encyclopedia. So here are just two scenarios that demonstrate the fatal flaw that undoes “papal infallibility”:
Scenario 1: Billy reads Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, and using Scott Butler’s three criteria, he judges it to be infallible on its face. The Congregation for the Divine Faith issues a clarification saying it is not infallible, but Billy knows that “doctrinal decisions or instructions issued by the Roman congregations” are not themselves infallible, so he rests with his original assessment and concludes that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is infallible.
Scenario 2: Bobby reads Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, and using the Encyclopedia’s four criteria, he judges it not to be infallible. When the Congregation for the Divine Faith issues a clarification saying Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was not infallible, Bobby thinks this confirms his original assessment and concludes that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was not infallible.
Billy and Bobby show up at Church on Easter Sunday and worship the eucharist, thanking it that they are members of an infallible church, and not like those Protestants who have to sort these things out on their own.
Yes, Jim, “Opinions are like belly buttons.” And Roman Catholics have belly buttons, too.
Tim
Tim, you wrote:
“Since there is no infallible list of criteria by which a papal statement may be determined to be infallible, each Roman Catholic ends up choosing his own set of criteria, and judging for himself which papal statements are infallible, and which are not. ”
Thank you so much for this statement. I had never thought about it before your argument above. My dad never knew what Papal comments were infallible as I used to ask, and now I understand why.
There is no infallible rule by Rome to determine what is infallible even though they believe they are infallible. It was right before my eyes. Once I was blind, but now I see.
Jim’s belly button says he is a true christian believer and submits to an authority given by God. Who is Jim to judge himself a true believer ? Jim’s RC witness is only an opinion.
Tim,
OOPS! I almost forgot. You have a new article.
Rome. Yes. Paul was told to leave Troas ( Troy ) and and go over to Europe and along with Peter become the New Romulus and Remus. But unlike those brother s( Rom killed Remus ) their new Rome was built on love.
The Fathers had much to say on the New Eve, Peter,Baptismal Regeneration.
Speaking of the New Eve, Jesus has appeared to her first!
Christ is Risne!
“The Counter Reformation is generally considered to have three aspects: the Jesuits, the Inquisition, and the Council of Trent. In view of the significance of the Protestant apocalyptic interpretation of history which prophetically pinpointed step by step the events covering the whole Christian era from the beginning to the end (i.e. Historicism-ed.), it seems justifiable to suggest a fourth aspect, namely the preteristic (Preterism-ed.) and futuristic (Futurism-ed.) interpretations launched by Catholic expositors as a counterattack.” – Kevin Reed, from his book review titled “The Ecclesiology of John Foxe: A book review by Kevin Reed of John Foxe and the Elizabethan Church by V. Norskov Olsen, 1973, citing Olsen on p. 47.
“… when the classic historicist position is studied, the fulfillment in the case of Islam and Revelation chapter nine is seen to be so striking and well attested that ‘even advocates of other approaches who are adamant in their rejection of the historicist system of interpretation have admitted the convincing nature of this particular identification'” – Steve Gregg, commenting on Rev. 9:1-6 in Revelation: Four Views, p. 176.
“Wycliffe, Tyndale, Luther, Calvin, Cranmer; in the seventeenth century, Bunyan, the translators of the King James Bible and the men who published the Westminster and Baptist confessions of Faith; Sir Isaac Newton, Wesley, Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards; and more recently Charles Spurgeon, J.C. Ryle and Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones; these men among countless others, all saw the office of the Papacy as the antichrist.” – Michael de Semlyen, All Roads Lead to Rome, p. 205, 1991.
“Prophecy shows that a time is coming when the Kingdom of Christ shall triumph over all opposition and prevail in all the world. The Romish Antichrist shall be utterly destroyed. The Jews shall be converted to Christianity. The fullness of the Gentiles shall be brought in and all mankind shall possess the knowledge of the Lord. The truth in its illuminating, regenerating and sanctifying efficacy shall be felt everywhere, so that the multitudes of all nations shall serve the Lord. Knowledge, love, holiness, and peace shall reign through the abundant outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Arts, sciences, literature, and property shall be consecrated to the advancement of the kingdom of Christ. The social institutions of men shall be regulated by gospel principles, and the nations as such shall consecrate their strength to the Lord. Oppression and tyranny shall come to an end. The nations, instead of being distracted by wars, shall be united in peace. The inhabitants of the world shall be exceedingly multiplied, and pure and undefiled religion shall exert supreme dominion over their hearts and lives so that happiness shall abound. This blessed period shall be of long duration.” – The 1901 Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church.
“I shall not say much about the general character of Popery. It is, indeed, the masterpiece of Satan—his greatest and most successful scheme for frustrating the great designs of the Christian religion. This is the light in which it ought ever to be contemplated. This being, then, Satan’s great scheme for frustrating the Christian revelation, the right mode of dealing with it, and the maintenance of a right position in regard to it, must virtually form the chief duty of a Christian Church.” – William Cunningham.
“Along with Martin Luther, Knox finally concluded that the Papacy was ‘the very antichrist, and son of perdition, of whom Paul speaks'” – John Knox, The Zurich Letters, p. 199.
“Daniel and Paul had predicted that Antichrist would sit in the temple of God. The head of that cursed and abominable kingdom, in the Western Church, we affirm to be the Pope” – John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 2, pp. 314, 315, 1561 edition
Excellent article Tim. It is about time we get someone in this generation to correctly identify Antichrist. It is painful listening to everyone else teach what the Jesuits and Rome have taught all the modern day evangelical and protestant “minsters”.
Jim, if you are interested in hearing the gospel message today, I would encourage you to listen to this sermon…it is pretty convincing for those with an ear to hear.
Walt, I clicked on the link only to see it is Paul Washer. He is such an actor.
Walt, here is a Happy Easter gift for you.
Walt, great message by Washer. The one verse i always struggle with however is 1 john 1:12 ” to as many who receive him, he has given the right to be called children of God” Certainly walking and isle or the phrase ” asking Christ in to one’s heart” doesn’t describe saving faith. The evangelical church has cheapened the gospel as much as Rome has perverted it by requiring a virtue to be attached to faith to merit the acceptance of God. The Holy spirit does 2 things in scripture, convicts men of their sin and leads people in righteousness, the word. People who don’t confess sin or don’t want to grow in holiness, it is at least questionable if they are saved. Of course we aren’t the judge. But the Evangelical Pastors today, no matter what denomination, who do not preach the gospel will incur a stricter judgment. The whole of a christian life is repentance and continuing to believe. Paul does say that if we deny Him, he will deny us, but if we a faithless, He remains faithful. The times we shrink back in faith God remains faithful, for he cannot deny himself. K
Eric W, Mikel on the other site is Debbie again. I can tell by her phrases and sayings. She is alike an apparition. She appears under different names. K
Kevin,
Those who are truly justified with the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ, will be sanctified. You will know by their fruits of love for doctrine and the finer points of Scripture.
This is the difficult part. I disagree with Washer for example on the regulative principle of worship vs. the normative principle. I also disagree with him on form of church government, and infant baptism vs. believers only baptism.
Since he is a minister, and I am not, I cannot understand why he does not thunder on doctrine as he does on the Gospel making distinctions. After I left the RCC I migrated to the charismatic teachings, then to pentecostal (very briefly until I did not see Satan standing in the back of the church as the guest speaker who came to our church and said he was there), then to the baptist faith like Washer. Remember, as a former RCC adherent, I really wanted the Baptist church to be the final one for me. They quoted Scripture so often, and were really fond of reading Scripture all the time. They were Arminian in soteriology like me as former RCC, charismatic, pentecostal, etc. I knew nothing of Calvinism, and once i heard of it (with my Romish background) became very angry and disgusted with anyone who claimed God was choosing anyone for election. I was no puppet, and refused to accept it.
However, something in me desperately wanted to read the Bible cover-to-cover more than just quoting it. I knew all the key passages, and lots of catechism as a RCC, but I really needed to learn what it said first hand. I spent 1997 reading only quotes from it that were key to learn, but in 1998 I decided I was going to get through it cover-to-cover. That year everything changed.
I was floored when I learned what epistemology and presupposition was, and equally floored who was the Calvin so extremely hated by my Baptist minister. I buried myself in everything I was taught as a RCC and Baptist member to hate, which mostly was protestants as an RCC and Calvinists as a Baptist. As I read Scripture, I saw the arguments come alive in my mind between Rome/Baptist theology, and God’s Word.
Walker has adopted many Roman Catholic positions, and loves them as much as he loves anything as a minister. While he will deny infant baptism, he does not support anything to do with covenant theology that baptism is only a sign and seal. He wants it to be much more…only performed on believers at the time of the testimony he seems to dislike so much. For example, see what he says:
“And now it is the same today. What do we face? I will tell you what we face. It is not a sort of infant baptism necessarily most of the time. It is not a high church confirmation by an ecclesiastical authority. What we face is the sinners’ prayer. And I am here to tell you, if there is anything I have declared war on it is that.
You say. “Brother Paul…”
Yes, in the same way that infant baptism, in my opinion, was the golden calf of the Reformation, for the Baptists and the Evangelicals and everyone else who has followed them today, I will tell you, that sinners’ prayer has sent more people to hell than anything on the face of the earth.”
https://adidab.wordpress.com/2009/05/05/paul-washer-transcript-03-ten-indictments/
While we disagree on the subject of infant baptism, a Pastor of Paul Washer’s conviction should not just focus all his time and talent on the controversy of the Sinners prayer. Yes, it is a major issue, but the reformers have covered it exhaustively.
What people should read is the National Covenant of Scotland here:
http://reformationhistory.org/nationalcovenant_text.html
This will give them a shocker as to what Rome teaches, and be able to see if these teachings have indoctrinated their own tradition and their church tradition. Many are following Romish teachings, and have no earthly idea.
Their epistemology and presupposition is in Romish teaching, and Tim MAKES THE CASE FOR THIS ANTICHRIST who has daughters throughout the entire Protestant, Orthodox and Christian world.
We cannot be like Paul Washer and only focus on one main controversy in the Scripture during our generation. NO, we must study all doctrine, discipline, form of worship, form of government….the whole counsel of God. True Christians in heart, soul, mind and strength that Love the Lord and their neighbor will be true Bereans and follow the truth.
“These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” Acts.17:11
Tim, Of course I believe that the Roman Catholic’s faith is in the church which has collapsed the head into the body and substituted itself for the natural body of Christ. The incarnation being played out and finished thru the acts of the church in an over realized Ecclesiology and an under realized eschatology. Usurping the role of the Trinity and dispensing salvation thru secondary causes alone. Although the church is the witness and a means, its God that brings Christ to the heart of man thru the Spirit. The church is the recipient of God’s grace not the provider. It is the Spirit that brings all of Christ’s victory spoils to us. God has jurisdiction on the soul, not the church.
kevin,
“The church is the recipient of God’s grace not the provider.”
Provider? Maybe “Dispenser”.
To all, Jim provides a debate over sola scriptura between James White and Jerry Matatics where Matatics the Roman apologist says that White’s choice to follow the bible is a “fallible choice.” Need we say anymore about the claim of Rome to be a true church. Matataics is just fine with following a fallible church but chastens White’s choice to follow the God breathed word of God. ” Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men”
Jim, and everybody Happy Easter!
Kevin. Happy Easter to you and Leni.
Jim, now think about it, today you guys can untie Him from the cross and altar. He no longer can be your victim. He is Risen!!!!!!! for our justification. Paul says if he isn’t risen we are still in our sins 1 Cor. 15. But guess what He is! and we are no longer in our sins. When he was raised so were we and we are sealed in the Spirit and seated in the heaven lies with Him. He does not give people who can still be condemned a seat next to Him in heaven. Nor does He allow the saints to groan to put on their heavenly bodies if they don’t have them coming. John 5:24 we have passed out of judgement and death into life, transferred from the domain of darkness to the kingdom of light. The true believer God will keep to the end to put on glory as we now straddle the already/ not yet. We eagerly and patiently wait for it. This is the great news of to day. He is Risen.
Kevin,
I. ‘Christ has been sacrificed. Let us keep the feast”. The Passover Lamb was sacrificed on Passover night. Then the feast was continued for an octave with unleavened bread.
II. You are seated with Christ in heaven as long as you don’t get unseated by sin.
III. We can pass out of life back into death.
Jim, you wrote:
“Walt,
Please. As a Bible only Protestant, how can you judge Bill Craig or any other Bible only Protestant?
How can Craig judge you?”
I can do it because I am commanded to do it from Scripture:
“Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.” (1Jn.4:1)
“If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.” (Deut.13:1-3)
” Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers. For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake. One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, the Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth. Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.” (Tit.1:9-16)
“My son, if thou wilt receive my words, and hide my commandments with thee; So that thou incline thine ear unto wisdom, and apply thine heart to understanding; Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding;” (Prov.2:1-3)
” I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last to be more than the first. Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.” (Rev.2:19-21)
“But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.” (Tit.3:9-11)
Jim, you wrote:
“You don’t like Quakers, Socinians or Arians. Why should I be impressed with your Scottish Covenanters over them?
It is all just one Protestant’s opinion over another’s. Opinions are like belly buttons. Everybody has one.”
I am required by Scripture to withdraw from unfaithful churches and to avoid them. It is why I left Rome.
“I sat not in the assembly of the mockers, nor rejoiced; I sat alone because of thy hand: for thou hast filled me with indignation. Why is my pain perpetual, and my wound incurable, which refuseth to be healed? wilt thou be altogether unto me as a liar, and as waters that fail? Therefore thus saith the Lord, If thou return, then will I bring thee again, and thou shalt stand before me: and if thou take forth the precious from the vile, thou shalt be as my mouth: let them return unto thee; but return not thou unto them.” (Jer.15:17-19)
“Though thou, Israel, play the harlot, yet let not Judah offend; and come not ye unto Gilgal, neither go ye up to Bethaven, nor swear, The Lord liveth. For Israel slideth back as a backsliding heifer: now the Lord will feed them as a lamb in a large place. Ephraim is joined to idols: let him alone.” (Hos.4:15-17)
“Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand: Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.” (Matt.15:7-11)
“Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.” (2Tim.3:5-8)
“Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.” (Rom.16:17)
“Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.” (1Thes.3:6)
“If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.” (1Tim.6:3-5)
“Also, that the soul be without knowledge, it is not good; and he that hasteth with his feet sinneth. The foolishness of man perverteth his way: and his heart fretteth against the Lord.” (Prov.19:2-3)
“Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.” (Phi.3:2)
“And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.” (Rev.18:4-5)
Acts 15 is important…there are many more Jim, but I assume you will not be happy with Scripture proof texts as to why I would avoid those you listed above.
Jim,
While we do not believe human testimony is infallible, we do believe that church testimony and national governments can make statements that are inerrant (without error).
The National Covenant of Scotland as approved by the Church of Scotland General Assembly, and the Parliament of England, is without error.
http://reformationhistory.org/nationalcovenant_text.html
I suggest you read it, and refute it if you think it has error.
It is about time, and perhaps you will agree, that you show us some substance in your arguments for all the viewers out here watching you comments. I’m afraid that you don’t really stand for anything, and often take people so far out of context without any proof texts, or subordinate statements by RCC, or anything that is of substance. Unfortunately, it is very hard to find any RCC member or authority I’ve faced in the past 15 plus years that really has their positions straight.
The Church Testimony coming out of Scotland is the most powerful, succinct, historically accurate, biblically based and properly authoritatively testimony we have out side the Apostolic church and the Scriptures themselves.
It most certainly is not contained in the Jewish tradition, nor is it contained in the Romish tradition, nor in the Anabaptist tradition, nor in the Angelican tradition, nor in the tradition of Mohammad, nor anything out of Orthodox churches, nor out of Asia, nor secular atheist or agnostic testimony.
The Holy Scripture stands alone in a class by itself as proof and authority as revealed by God Himself through Christ and the Holy Spirit. The only true Holy Spirit of God wrote the Scripture, and the Canon is closed. It is infallible and without error. Men are no infallible…even your Popes who are born of Adam and at no time speak as the Holy Spirit of God. In fact, they speak as Antichrist with Satanic authority to silence the witnesses of Christ on earth. Just look at history the past 2,000 years…it is filled with bloodshed by Rome.
Look at the Killing Times in Scotland when men, women and children were hunted and gutted in the name of silencing the testimony of the witnesses. Be honest Jim, your self proclaimed church of Antichrist has her hands filled with the blood from the true saints. The Romish church has operated one of the most insane and evil murder campaigns ever seen in the history of religion…far exceeding what Islam has done or will do in the future.
If you don’t see it, open your eyes. Please…for your children, and for the cause of Christ.
Walt,
I woke up Norwegian and will go to bed Scottish on this happy day.
Tim
Walt, your post has sobered me to what is true, we must focus on the whole council of God. I have tried to do that. I will be reading and putting in my favorites bar the National covenant 1638.
Kevin,
While I do not want to get people nervous with the idea that Scottish Covenanters or Presbyterians believe church testimony is “infallible” or entirely “without error”. Our own testimony makes it clear that even the purest churches have error….and that is why the Presbyterians have a biblical form of church government to deal with error. The book Lex Rex written by Rutherford, a Covenanter, was one of the primary source documents used by the American founders to establish a judicial court system from Presbyterianism.
The Session (local church court)
The Presbytery (several local churches sit for appeals court)
The Synod (Elders make up regional appellate court)
The General Assembly (National Counsel of Elders who sit as that copied by our Supreme Court)
However, there are periods of purity, and some less so, as in our current Presbyterian backsliding that has mostly rejected the Attainments reached by purest churches of old.
The Westminster Confession shows us we have errors.
IV. This catholic Church has been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.
V. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to His will.
VI. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.
Here is some history to aide in your research to find the established set of doctrine, discipline, form of worship, form of church government that is most defined in Scripture, and revealed into our history. Rome is not the “true church” or the “most faithful”, but is only part of the visible church, and is that Antichrist…clearly defined in the National Covenant.
“William Hetherington, concerning the Solemn League and Covenant (the epitome of second Reformation attainments), also comments that no man who is able to understand its nature, and to feel and appreciate its spirit and its aim, will deny it to be the wisest, the sublimest, and the most sacred document ever framed by uninspired men” – History of the Westminster Assembly of Divines (1856), p. 134, as cited in Dr. Reg Barrow’s book, Saul In The Cave Of Adullam: A Testimony Against The Fashionable, Sub-Calvinism Of Doug Wilson (Editor Of Credenda/Agenda Magazine); And, For Classical Protestantism And The Attainments Of The Second Reformation.
“By the National Covenant our fathers laid Popery prostrate. By the Solemn League and Covenant they were successful in resisting prelatic encroachments and civil tyranny. By it they were enabled to achieve the Second Reformation… They were setting up landmarks by which the location and limits of the city of God will be known at the dawn of the millennial day… How can they be said to go forth by the footsteps of the flock, who have declined from the attainments, renounced the covenants and contradicted the testimony of “the cloud of witnesses”… All the Schisms (separations) that disfigure the body mystical of Christ… are the legitimate consequences of the abandonment of reformation attainments — the violation of covenant engagements.
This is sound doctrine and historical truth combined.
Again our author puts the important question, ‘Is it not unfaithfulness to reject the obligations of the covenants of former times?’ Yes, we think so, when their objects are not yet reached; and moreover, that ‘Confession of sin, and especially the sins of covenant breaking should always accompany the renewal of our obligations.’ This is well said. Was it thought of at Pittsburgh, 1871?
To good purpose he adds, ‘In the renewal of covenants there should be no abridgment of former obligations’ (All these excellent sentiments seemed to have been totally forgotten or wholly disregarded when the time came for their practical use and appropriate application. Some said, ‘We have all we want’ and we strongly suspect too many wanted none of the former obligations — ‘in this free country.’) And can this be denied?
Once more we quote, — ‘The opposition is not so much to covenanting, as it is to the covenants of our fathers, and to the permanence of their obligations.’
Then the author says emphatically and somewhat prophetically, ‘The church never will renew her covenants aright until she embraces in her obligations all the attainments sworn in the covenants, National and Solemn League. This was done in the renovation at Auchensaugh, in Scotland.'” – Reformed Presbytery, A Short Vindication of Our Covenanted Reformation, 1879, pp. 38-39.
Kevin,
I’m leaving out of town tomorrow at 4am, and will not be back until next Friday. I won’t have much time to comment this week.
However, if you really want to read how the true and faithful Presbyterian church fell apart in a relatively simple outline, this book will tell the story. There are things in here you will not fully understand, but just reading the history is helpful for anyone who wants to understand how a true and faithful testimony turned into schism and division from the Church of Scotland after her purest times.
http://www.truecovenanter.com/reformedpresbyterian/dow_john_remarks_on_letter_by_brown.html?doc_banner_show=false
Have a nice week my dear brother.
Walt, Thank you. This interest me greatly. I was taught in under the great teaching of John MacArthur. He is a big reader and fan of the scotch reformers. I have become Reformed and have actually started attending a Reformed Presbyterian Church. I believe the WCA is the greatest document that exists outside the scripture which is our infallible authority. When I hear a Catholic argue against the authority of scripture, and thats really what they are doing when they tell us we can only know it thru an infallible Church, it only confirms that Rome is apostate. What christian would undermine the complete sufficiency of Scripture. The same one that would reduce Christ to something less than he is. In fact Cults and false religions always do 2 things, they reduce christ to something less than he was and they are based on works in some way. When Rome says Christ’s one time sacrifice was not perfect and sufficient to put all sin away and when they smuggle their character into God’s work of grace, they qualify for the 2 things. Reducing Scripture to something less than it is does the same thing. Catholics worship a church and a man who makes a claim to be the trinity on earth. We worship Christ thru faith alone in Christ alone, and worship no man.
Jim, said” still waiting how sola scriptura was possible before people had bibles” Romans 5:17 ” Faith comes thru hearing and hearing thru the word of God.” People had to hear the infallible word to be saved. Sola scriptura means that the bible is the only inherent infallible authority. How does the bible being not as available take away from its authority. In fact we use scripture to interpret scripture. And the bible tells us the word is God breathed. So Protestants are correct about the infallibility of scripture because god only breathes infallibly. So the burden is on you to prove that’ we were left another equal infallible rule of faith. And this would be a greater act of faith. Because we see no passing on of the Apostolic office. In fact one could purport that much of what rome has come up with is opposed to the infallible word of God.
It is a myth that scriptures were not available from the day they were written. A whole bible may not have been available but the NT scriptures were circulated and copied extensively throughout the churches. There may have been no printing press but there were scribes and people could read and write – they would have copied paul’s letters and circulated them around the churches and read them out and copied them. The evidence of this is still there today in many manuscripts.
The OT would have been owned by all the jewish converts.
Christians in those days did not have distractions and would have copied the NT writings for themselves and preached them or passed them round.
Paul’ writings did not lie on a shelf for 400 years until the church canonised the scriptures. Christians already knew what scriptures were inspired like the Bereans for instance.
Kevin, on my way out the door. Have a nice week.
You said,
“Jim, said” still waiting how sola scriptura was possible before people had bibles” Romans 5:17 ” Faith comes thru hearing and hearing thru the word of God.”
The fact that the Roman Catholic Church did not exist before we had Bibles is telling. Jim is so worried that sola scriptura was not possible without bibles, but the fact that the RCC did not exist before Sola Scriptura and Bibles is telling.
Walt, Did A church exist before the New Testament? ( Paul persecuted the Church before his conversion/authorship. Peter added 3,000 souls to the Church on Pentecost.)
The Apostles were the hierarchy of the Church, Peter being the chief among them.
Continue reading midway through Acts to see multiple examples of Petrine authority.
At some point the book of Acts had to come to an end. Then the Church Fathers started writing.
Are you with me so far Walt?
At what point did that Church fall into Apostasy ? Give a date and a heretical doctrine that the Church that Christ promised to be with until the end started teaching. Tell me about the outcry from the faithful against the heresy being foisted on them by corrupt bishops and popes.
Thanks Walt for your opinion but once again, opinions are like elbows. Everyone has a couple.
Jim,
You wrote:
The Church of Jesus Christ never fell into apostasy, and never will. The Roman Catholic religion arose and started falsely claiming authority and succession from Christ and his apostles toward the end of the 4th Century, just as the Church had been warned. But the Church of Jesus Christ was preserved from error by His Spirit, who fed and nourished His bride, protecting her “from the face of the Serpent” (Revelation 12:14)
You may wish to consider the testimonies of Vigilantius and Jovanianus whose outcry against the false teachings of the new religion provides evidence that the Church of Jesus Christ was faithful to His commands and would not venerate relics and images, pray to saints, forbid marriage or food that was created to be enjoyed with thanksgiving.
Best regards,
Tim
Tim,
So silly. I abstained from meat on Good Friday and just today barbecued a lamb.
As for celibacy, no one is required to abstain from marriage. Only those who “would be perfect” follow the Evangelical counsels. St. Paul said to be selective about which women could join the widows class ( nuns?).
Relics were offensive to the pagan Romans. Julian the Apostate hated the Christian practice of venerating them.
Remember the bones of Eleazar and how a dead man was restored to life after coming into contact with them?
Could you give me some stronger evidence of the Great Apostasy than the two guys you mentioned?
As the false Romish Church took over, where did the real followers of Christ go? You know, the ones with KJV Bibles with 66 books, believing in Luther’s “My Gospel”, spurning Marian devotion, not praying for the dead or Baptizing babies, believing in TULIP, etc. etc.
Did the real believers meet in houses on the Lord’s day and here a Bible reading? Did they have signals, winks or handshakes to identify one another How did they preserve unity of doctrine? Did did they discipline heretics?
What happened to them? Why don’t we have their detailed testimonies?
Oh, I know why! Because the Catholics killed them and destroyed all record of them. Your wacky theory proves itself! How convenient.
Jim, you wrote,
All in good time, Jim. All in good time.
In the mean time, those who are interested in learning more about Vigilantius may obtain a free copy of Vigilantius and His Times by Stephen Gilly at GooglePlay here.
A tiny sampling of this excellent work which I found rather sublime:
Indeed, it would be uncharitable to judge Vigilantius solely through the court of Jerome’s opinions, without at least subjecting Jerome himself to a little scrutiny, as well.
Kind regards, and happy reading,
Tim
Saint Jerome, Tim. Saint Jerome. As for his abrasiveness, I think Paul, ( Saint Paul ) was as bad if not worse. He did say he wished Judaizer’s knives would slip, didn’t he?
Saints James and John were Boanerges. I remember a story of St. John coming across Cerinthus in a bath in Rome. He started yelling for people to flee as the Devil ( Cerinthus ) would bring down the building on everyone.
And let us not forget St. Peter’s words to Sapphira to go join her husband in death.
My challenge to you was to demonstrate the Church falling into Apostasy and you answered with the absurd theory from “Trail of Blood” or some equally as nonsensical work.
Tim, how can your Invisible Church guard unity of doctrine? How can someone be excommunicated from an invisible church? How can seekers find this Will o’ the Wisp? What was all the stuff about Peter put in the NT for?
Speaking of St. Jerome, though, here is a bit of trivia for you. Two of the three Jeronymite monasteries I know of , Pena Longa ( now a golf resort I sent Andrew B. pictures of ) and Our lady of the Thorn Bush ( now a 5 star resort for fat cats from America ) are used only for weddings. The third, the Jeronimos, between my house and Lisbon, is a major tourist attraction and is used more than the Cathedral for ordinations and stuff. But all 3 are full of history and art pertaining to Jerome. The trivia points are that atop the churches are, not crosses or roosters,but lions. Also, you know the charming story of how Jerome would beat himself with a rock until Mary appeared to him with some prayer beads and said to use them instead.
I love the guy. Especially for slapping down Helvidius.
Its aways interesting to me to listen to former Priests who have been liberated by God unto salvation speak about Roman Catholicism. Everyone of them to the tee speaks of reading the bible and realizing that God saved a man thru faith alone in Christ alone. They always talk about being strapped to a system doing man made sacraments and good works to salvation. The freedom and liberation experienced by these men always remind me of Romans 5:1 and the peace God offers thru simple faith. The assurance he gives as we look back on our baptism as a sign and seal of God’s grace and as we share in the Lord’s supper. The Scripture says apart form faith it is impossible to please him because the one who comes to Him must believe that He is and He is the rewarder of those who seek him. It never says without infused love or habit that it is impossible to please him. but faith. We know that true faith produces love and good works, but cooperation with infused medicine or doing sacraments to find increase in justice and grace will only find hell. Romans 9:32 but they didn’t find it because they pursued as if it were by works. They believed in God’s grace but tried to add their works and did not find salvation.
Jim, Your friend Debbie made this comment on the other site to Eric, ” Faith that is seeking understanding is only possible where tree is submission.” Yes indeed. And this begs the question, to whom one submits. To the only infallible authority (Word sola scriptura) or to a church who makes self claims to infallibility but whose life has been completely fallible. A person who lived a perfect life or a church that has lived an imperfect life. Sola Christus or Sola Eclessia. ” For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten church that whosoever believe in it……..
Kevin, The Church is indefectible. The Bible is inerrant. The Pope is infallible.
But is this was true how would the great apostasy come about and this is prophesied by catholic saints – ” that Rome will lose the faith”.
Hi, Charles, thanks for writing. Can you clarify the question for me? When you write, “But if this was true…”, to what are you referring?
Thanks,
Tim
I meant if the following were true :-
“Kevin, The Church is indefectible. The Bible is inerrant. The Pope is infallible.”
Meaning the church and presumably the leaders and the pope will be part of the great apostasy as predicted eg will Jesus find anyone with faith when He returns.
Oh, I see. Thanks for the clarification.
Tim
Jim,
You wrote,
You may find it interesting to know that “mainline Presbyterians” once recognized confessionally what I am saying here. Westminster Confession originally said:
You continued,
I mean food. The aescetics of the fourth century took fasting to extremes and judged as impious those who did not follow their examples.
Thanks for your comment,
Tim
Tim, it always amazed me Catholics have no problem eating the body and blood of one’s god, something foreign to Hebrew Law and teaching, but on the other hand abstaining form meats and foods.
Meats and foods Kevin?
Just meat.
You don’t seem to have a problem with the Jews and their dietary laws.
And on two days a year, Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.
As for eating God, you beef is with John 6.
Guys,
Who was the first Bishop of Rome or Pope to start bullying the other bishops? Victor over the date of Easter? Clement for butting in to a dispute in Corinth? Simon Peter at the Jerusalem Council?
I think it was Kephas, the new Kaiphas, who started throwing his weight around. We see him acting like he was boss on Pentecost.
He did, after all, swing open the doors of the Church to gentiles after having a vision of a great net full of non Kosher animals. He did not even consult James or John or Barnabus of even Paul before unilaterally allowing Cornelius to be Baptized. Who gave him the keys to open the doors of the Kingdom to the uncircumcised?
Kevin will say Peter was humble, not lording power over his brother bishops.
Kind of like Pope Francis who even shows respect to Kenneth Copeland, huh? According to Kevin’s logic, Francis is probably going to invite Copeland to be a cardinal!
Jesus said the greatest must serve the others. The Pope is the “servant of the servants of God”. But he wears the pants.
It has been that way from the beginning. No Great Apostasy here boys.
Jim, In no way can a man wear God’s pants. ” Let no one on earth be called father.” You call him Holy Father” a name reserved for God. Heck, their all called father. Sometimes i’m called Father as no small insult to me.” Of all the delusions that have ever deluded men and of all the blasphemies that have ever been uttered in all manner of mischief is that the Bishop of Rome could be head of the church on Earth. No, these Popes die, and how could the church live if it’s head were dead. But Christ forever lives as head of his church and the church forever lives in Him.”
Kevin, The Pope is the VISIBLE head. Once again, Christ is the foundation. The Apostles are the foundation. Peter is the Rock on which Christ builds.
Christ is the Good Shepherd. He tells Peter to feed His lambs.
Christ is crucified. We take up our crosses.
Christ saves. James tells us to save.
Why is everything an “either/or” for you?
Jim, point me in scripture to a visible head. The bible talks about one head of the church in Colossians, Christ. The man in the big hat can’t play. How can a church live if it’s head is dead? Cmon Jim, its easier to understand Popery as the “son of perdition” who has put himself up in the Temple as God. The Pope retains to himself all three names of the Trinity. And that is overstepping your bounds.
Kevin,
“Jim, point me in scripture to a visible head”
Over a week ago I buried you in 26 passgages of scripture demonstrating the Petrine office. 26 Kevin. Rebutt just 1 please.
You haven’t even tried to address that post. Neither has Tim nor Walt.
You can’t prove your position ( Sola Scriptura ) nor stand up to my proofs for the Papacy. You just make assertions about how evil the Church is, cornball quotes from Spurgeon, compliments to Tim, etc etc.
As for Tim, look at his silly dredging up stuff on Jerome to show there was a Great Apostasy. He doesn’t understand that if the Church failed, Christ failed to keep His promise.
Walt has some fanciful rewriting of history to justify his pathetic claims of the Church being evil too.
Prove SS! Disprove the Papacy! Quit waltzing around the issues.
Jim,
There must be a great falling away in order for Antichrist to rise. The since the Scripture cannot be broken, then there are two facts that are unavoidable: 1) the Church itself can not fall into apostasy (Matthew 16:18), and 2) when Antichrist rises, there will be “a great falling away” of people who were “apparently” in the church (2 Thessalonians 2:3). That is what happened at the end of the fourth century. Antichrist was so convincing that otherwise “professing” Christians followed her, thinking God had planned to build His church on the ashes of the Roman Empire. The Scripture prophesies no such thing.
When the voice from heaven in Revelation 18:4 says “Come out of her, my people…” it is because God’s people occasionally mistake the Antichrist for His church, and must learn the truth about him. Why would God’s people accidentally join Antichrist and have to be reminded to come out? Certainly it is not because Antichrist denies that it is the true church, is it?
You continue to ask when the Church fell into apostasy, but the church cannot. It did not. Roman Catholicism, as you define it, never fell into apostasy either. It was born “apostate” and did not need to “fall” in order to become so.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim, where is the true church today? Your place or Kevin’s? Or Walt’s?
Jim,
Perhaps it is in Antioch, where Eusebius said that Ignatius was the successor to St. Peter (Eusebius, Church History, III.36.2). After all, “The Church of Antioch has maintained a continuous succession in the Apostolic Faith” since Peter.
Well, not really. John the Baptist announced, and Jesus repeated, “The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand” (Matthew 3:2, 4:17), but Jesus also taught that “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). Therefore, you must understand that your request that we identify our church’s “location,” and our church’s leader on earth is evidence that you believe the Kingdom of God is of earth and must look, as Roman Catholicism does, like an earthly kingdom. In other words, “Your axiom is showing.” You believe that the Kingdom of God must be something you can see, as earthly kingdoms can be seen, with a Capitol Building and a visible leader. But Jesus described His Kingdom much differently:
That word, “within” means “in the midst of you.” The church is where Jesus’ followers are. It is not located in the Capital City of the former Roman Empire where a man sits on a royal seat. I do not believe Jesus’ followers are they who gather at St. Peter’s Square to watch for the white smoke and wait for another infallible pronouncement. That is not where “the true church” is.
Well does the Scripture say, when they “say to you, See here; or, see there: go not after them, nor follow them” (Luke 17:23).
Warm regards,
Tim
The thing I cant understand is that everyone knows that there were terrible Popes in CC history – I dont need to go into detail
about what they did. Now we know that Paul and Peter excommunicated christians who did not get anywhere near the sin levels of some popes and cardinals bishops priests etc so why were these popes not excommunicated eg the Borgias etc. since they brought great shame on the “way”.
Plus for about 300 years we had the independent churches in asia – 7 of them. Jesus wrote their report cards – a separate one to each church – showing they were all different in their error and good points – in other words independent in certain matters and works.
If there was only one church at Rome for this 300 years then only one letter to the Pope would have been necessary.
Tim,
Antioch, Alexandria,Rome, Jerusalem and later Contantinople all had Petrine significance. Alexandria because Peter’s secretary, Mark, founded the Church there. Contantinople because Andrew, Peter’s brother visited the area.
Just one more proof that Peter’s touch was felt in the great centers of the Faith.
Okay, Tim, the Kingdom is within . Each individual (by faith ) and collectively. So what? How does that take away from Peter?
You need a visible head for unity of doctrine. Explain the 26 passages I sent first Walt and later Kevin.
Jim, you wrote:
Your Axiom is showing.
Ok. Some of what is below is tongue in cheek; some is Scriptural exegesis, and some is reductio ad absurdum, so it should be taken as such. I show the error of your methodology by using it against you, Jim. Your arguments indicate a willingness to force every Scripture to fit your preconception. That is not how we are to use the Word of God.
It’s Aramaic, actually. This proves that Jesus changed Peter’s name. Nothing more, and nothing new. He did this with other Apostles, as well. James and John were named “Boanerges” (Mark 3:17), also Aramaic in origin.
It is clear from John 1:42 that Jesus renamed him Peter on their first meeting. But in Mark 1:29, 30, 36, after Peter had been with Jesus in Capernaum (1:21) and Jesus’ fame had spread throughout all of Galilee (1:28)—clearly some time after Jesus had already renamed him Peter—Mark kept on calling him Simon (Mark 1:29, 30, 36), and then mentioned in passing that Jesus had already renamed him Peter (3:16). Was Mark wrong to call him Simon all that time even though he knew full well that Jesus had already renamed him, and it was even past the point in the narrative that the renaming took place? It is clear that at least one Apostle called him Simon well after the renaming. But why draw the line arbitrarily at the Apostles? Long after Jesus’ and Peter’s first meeting, Luke continues calling him “Simon” (4:38, 5:3, 5:4, 5:5). When Luke finally calls him “Simon Peter” (Luke 5:8), two verses later he says James and John “were partners with Simon” (Luke 5:10), knowing full well that was not Peter’s name anymore. When Luke finally acknowledges that it is Jesus Who named him thus (6:14), he then has the men returning from Emmaus saying, “The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon” (Luke 24:34). I suppose they learned this from Jesus Himself, but why would He tell them about Peter, and forget to remind them to call him by his new name, because only Jesus was to continue calling him Simon? Perhaps it is because Luke just did not get the significance, but how could Luke miss this, after getting it so “right” with all the “Ark” imagery in Luke 3? Is it possible that you have been selective in your criteria to ensure that we arrive at the “proper” conclusion?
Yes, in Matthew 16:19, Jesus says to Peter, “And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Peter immediately applies it the way Roman Catholics interpret it, and attempts to bind something on earth by rebuking Jesus and binding Him from going to the cross (Matthew 16:22). That the keys were not to be interpreted as you have, Jim, is evidenced by the fact that you see it as establishing an earthly kingdom, but Jesus finds Peter’s application offensive, and says, “thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men” (Matthew 16:23). Then in Matthew 18:18-19, Jesus gives those keys promiscuously to all members of the body of Christ. Speaking to all the disciples, and says it twice for emphasis: “Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.”
Predictably, Peter then begins to argue with Jesus again (Matthew 18:21). But Jesus had just said to the disciples, “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them” (Mattthew 18:20). His presence with the sheep (lay people) is what gives the power to bind and loose. Since both Augustine and Chrysostom saw Jesus building His Church, not on Peter but on Peter’s confession (Saint Augustine, The Retractions; Chrysostom, In pentecosten) perhaps the binding and loosing (the keys themselves) are given to each member of the kingdom as part of their welcome package?
Jerome, as always, is very helpful here: “But you say, the Church was founded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the church depends upon them all alike, yet one among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there be no occasion for schism” (Jerome, Against Jovinianus, Book I.26). Thus, Jerome saw that all the Apostles had the keys. In the next sentence, he says, “Deference was paid to age…” Remarkably, Jerome is arguing here that John, a virgin, would have been a better choice, but deference was given to age, not papal primacy. So all apostles had the keys, but Peter was the eldest so he got to be in charge, solely on account of his age. This doesn’t sound like “Saint” Jerome thought the same way you do, Jim.
Well, I think this is obviously because Peter was not a virgin, and non-virgins are particularly susceptible to incontinence and infidelity, whereas virgins are not. The rest of the Apostles were virgins (Jerome, Against Jovinianus, book I.26) and Jesus obviously wasn’t worried about them. Jerome continues,
Because it is the duty of each apostle and disciple and prophet to “strengthen the brethren” (Paul (Romans 1:11); James (James 5:8); Timothy (1 Thessalonians 3:2); Peter (2 Peter 1:12); Judas and Silas (Acts 15:32)), and Peter, being married, was most likely to be unfaithful to this task, he is the only apostle singled out by the Lord to be in need of prayer. The rest were virgins, so they weren’t going to fail in this task. So sayeth “Saint” Jerome.
Of course, I jest, but if St. Jerome is right, then I fail to see how his concerns about the pitiful spiritual condition of Peter does not also apply … to Peter.
Since it is the duty of all shepherds to feed the sheep (1 Ti 3:2, “A bishop then must be … apt to teach”), we must conclude that among all the disciples, Peter was the only non-virgin, and therefore most in need of reminding that his duty was to teach and not go after his lusts and yield to his concupiscence. Again, I jest, but why not apply Jerome’s denigrating remarks about Peter … to Peter? Anyway, the word for sheep in John 21:16,17 is the same word Jesus uses to describe the multitude when He says, “But when he saw the multitudes, … as sheep having no shepherd” (Matthew 9:36). The word for lambs in John 21:15 is the same word He uses to describe Himself throughout the book of Revelation. In other words, the Roman Catholic attempt to make “sheep” in John 21:16 and 17 mean “clergy,” and “lambs” in John 21:15 refer to lay people is convenient, but arbitrary. (See also Matthew 10:6, 15:24, 18:12, 25:32; Mark 6:34; Luke 15:4, 15:6; John 10:2, 3,4,7,8,11,12,13,15,16,26, and 27 to see how Jesus uses “sheep” to refer to, or include, lay people.)
I don’t know, Jim. Maybe Peter was tall and was born in January with a big nose, and Judas was short and born in December with a small nose, and one list is based on height, and another list is based on birth date, and another based on nose size. Your use of the lists to prove primacy is called the logical fallacy of “asserting the consequent,” or “If q then p; p, therefore q.” It looks like this: “If Peter was the first Pope (q), then he would be listed first in every list (p); He is listed first in every list (p), therefore he must be the first pope (q).” It sounds great but is logically fallacious. I could make the same case that he was not the pope, but rather the eldest, as Jerome did, for Jesus said, “But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger…” (Luke 22:26). Therefore, Peter was the eldest, and Matthew listed them by age. It’s a logical fallacy, I know, but your methodology is equally fallacious.
Besides, Bethsaida is called “the city of Andrew and Peter” (John 1:44), not “the city of Peter and Andrew.” Why would Andrew be listed first when describing Bethsaida, which means “house of fish.” I mean, if Peter does not have primacy in “the house of fish,” can we honestly say he has primacy anywhere?
But every time Peter is listed, he is not first, as in John 1:44, “the city of Andrew and Peter.” Maybe Andrew was a virgin, and that’s why he had primacy in the house of fish. Also, in Mark 16:7, Magdalene is told to “tell his disciples and Peter,” not “Peter and the disciples.” Peter is mentioned last in both cases.
Except, of course, when he doesn’t. In Acts 6, all twelve apostles are present in Jerusalem (6:2), and yet it is Stephen, a deacon, who had the leaders of the synagogue tangled in knots: They were “disputing with Stephen. And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake” (6:9-10). Peter was there, and was supposed to be devoting himself to the ministry of the word (6:4). Why did he leave the preaching to Stephen, a mere deacon? Peter had been in Jerusalem the whole time (8:1,14), and yet Stephen went before the High Priest to make the case for the gospel. Wasn’t the gospel of the circumcision committed to Peter (Galatians 2:7)? And when an opportunity to preach the gospel to the High Priest comes up, it is Stephen, not Peter, who speaks for the Church. Yet Peter was in town at the time.
Well, it is true, but Luke only calls the boat “Simon’s” (Luke 5:3), not “Peter’s”, so since Jesus didn’t preach from a boat that would represent the Barque of the Church, it does not matter. Jim, in question #2, Luke’s testimony didn’t matter to you because he was not “an apostle.” Why does Luke’s testimony suddenly matter here? Perhaps because no apostles said Jesus preached from Peter’s boat? Don’t tell me “Luke said Jesus preached from Simon’s boat.” Tell me one of the apostles said Jesus preached from Peter’s boat.
It’s 153, not 151 (John 21:11). Well, as noted above, if Peter doesn’t have primacy in “the house of fish” (by your own reasoning, for Peter is not listed first among those who came from Bethsaida, “the house of fish”) does it honestly matter how many fish he hauled in? Andrew could easily haul in more, as he had the primacy over Peter in “the house of fish.” (see response to #6, above).
That is not true. Here is the testimony from Scripture about what Magdalene did or was told:
Matthew 28:7 “go quickly, and tell his disciples”
Matthew 28:10 “go tell my brethren”
Mark 16:7 “go your way, tell his disciples and Peter”
Luke 24:9 “and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest.”
John 20:17 “but go to my brethren”
She is never told to “go tell Peter.” The only time it mentions that she went to Peter was before she knew he was raised from the dead: “Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him” (John 20:2). You can find in a commentary on the Gospel of the Holy Twelve (Lection 95.8) the allegation that “to her alone He gave the commission, ‘Go tell Peter,'” but I do not believe you will find it in the Scriptures.
Well, all we know is that people thought his shadow might cure them (Acts 5:15). There is no testimony from Scripture that this actually worked. To heal with his shadow, Peter would have to be present, but Paul didn’t even need to be present for his miracles to work: “And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul: So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them” (Acts 19:11-12). Wow, the only other time someone is healed by touching someone’s garment is when the sick woman touched Jesus’ garment (Matthew 9:21). You may also recall that the greatest faith in Israel was the belief that Jesus could heal without being present (Matthew 8:8-10). Jesus and Paul could heal from a distance. But Peter, apparently, could not. He had to be there. Perhaps people believed in Paul more than they believed in Peter?
Actually, they lied to the apostles: “and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles’ feet” (Acts 5:2), not to Peter. By Peter’s own testimony, they had not “lied unto men” but to God (Acts 5:5). He did not say “thou hast not lied unto ME, but unto God.”
When Jesus wanted to confirm Philip’s faith, “he saith unto Philip, Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat? And this he said to prove him: for he himself knew what he would do” (John 6:5-6).
Peter asked a sign, “Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water” (Matthew 14:28). Jesus said “An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign” (Matthew 12:39), putting Peter in the same category as Thomas: “Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed” (John 20:29). Peter, you may recall, is the only apostle Jesus refers to as Satan (Matthew 16:23, Mark 8:33), which is the same language Jesus used to address Satan when He was being tempted (Luke 4:8).
Jesus had already opened the Church to Jewish converts. Nicodemus was “a ruler of the Jews” (John 3:1) and was one of the people who joined Mary Magdalene in bringing burial spices to Jesus’ tomb (John 19:39). Peter did not open it to Jewish converts.
Jesus had already opened the Church to Samaritan convert. The only leper who came back to glorify God was the Samaritan leper (Luke 17:12-19). Peter did not open it to Samaritan converts.
Jesus had already opened the Church to Gentile converts. It was a Roman Centurion who had faith greater than any Jesus had seen in all Israel (Matthew 8:10). Peter did not open it to Gentile converts.
I place these two together to show what liberty the Roman Catholic takes in exegeting any passage to make it comport with the initial assumption. In Acts 15:15, James is alleged to put his imprimatur on Peter’s words by saying Peter’s words are true because they accord with Scripture, and this somehow proves that Peter was superior to James because James was declaring Peter’s words to be true. Then in 2 Peter 3:16, Peter puts his imprimatur on Paul’s words, and this proves that Paul is inferior to Peter, because Peter declared that Paul’s words were true. If this is your manner of exegesis, Jim, even “Jesus wept” (John 11:35) must somehow mean that Peter was infallible. Do you not see, rather, that in both cases, it is the Scripture that is above them all?
Because there are three synoptic gospel accounts, but only one account of Acts, this method adds an artificial bias toward the original Twelve. Peter is mentioned about 30 times per synoptic gospel. Taking only John’s Gospel and one synoptic into account, (which means removing about 60 redundant references), Peter is mentioned about 140 times, and Paul is mentioned about 180 times. Besides, why count Luke at all, since he was not an Apostle (see questions #2 and #9, above). Plus, Paul wrote more new testament books than Peter. Also, did I mention that Paul can heal at a distance? (Acts 19:11-12).
This actually works against you, Jim. If Peter was functioning in a role similar to the High Priest, he would have cast the Urim and Thumim alone. Instead, the decision was made by the eleven together: “And they appointed two, … And they prayed, … And they gave forth their lots.” (Acts 1:23-26). This rather supports Jerome’s argument that “the strength of the church depends upon them all alike.”
But when Eutychus fell from a third story window (Acts 20:9-10) and was “taken up dead,” Paul immediately “went down, and fell on him,” the way Elijah fell on the widow’s son in 1 Kings 17:22, “And he stretched himself upon the child … and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived.” The same method was used when Elisha raised a widow’s son when he “stretched himself upon him” (2 Kings 4:35). Paul did not say “Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him” (Acts 20:10), until after he had laid on him just like Elijah and Elisha had, and just as Jesus Who said, “Why make ye this ado, and weep? the damsel is not dead, but sleepeth” (Mark 5:39), before He proceeded then to raise her from the dead. Thus did Paul follow in the footsteps of Elijah, Elisha and Jesus, all of whom raised people from the dead simply by their touch. But Peter, unable to raise people from the dead simply by touching them, had to resort to prayer, and did not touch Dorcas (Tabitha) until she was alive again (Acts 9:41-42).
It must not have been that important to him, since Paul waited three years before “consulting” with Peter (Galatians 1:18). It takes some real chutzpah, Jim, to take Paul’s story about “I neither received [the gospel] of man, neither was I taught it” (Galatians 1:12) and turn it into getting taught by Peter.
Yes, but it took Peter three times to get it (Acts 10:16), and even then “Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean” (Acts 10:17). But Paul knew a whole chapter earlier that he was “a chosen vessel unto Me, to bear my name before the Gentiles” (Acts 9:15), and Paul immediately “spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians” (Acts 9:29), indicating that it only took one vision for Paul to understand his mission to the Gentiles. For Peter it took three visions, and he still didn’t get it.
Or, maybe Jerome was right, and John could not risk that his virginal purity might be compromised by coming in contact with a dead body. But Peter, already unclean with the filthy impurity of marriage, could freely touch a dead body without further compromise to his already decrepit marital pollution. Remember, they did not run to the tomb believing Jesus was alive, but rather believing He was still dead. Virgins know better than to touch what is unclean. Unclean married people do not.
Jim, game over dude. You might want to take the head out from between the legs and crawl back to Jason. Tim, pretty much ate you alive. Take your ball and go home. Ha! Just kidding
Tim,
You said:
“You continue to ask when the Church fell into apostasy, but the church cannot. It did not. Roman Catholicism, as you define it, never fell into apostasy either. It was born “apostate” and did not need to “fall” in order to become so.”
I might suggest another definition that could explain it.
——————
Faithful terms of communion: preliminary distinctions
In order to the optimal success of our task, we must have some comprehension of the concept and importance of terms of communion, and we shall therefore briefly outline these before examining the history of the various bodies claiming the name, ‘Covenanter.’ To understand terms of communion, however, there are certain fundamental distinctions that must first be solidly grasped.
God the Father and the Son of God covenanted from all eternity, with the witness and agreement of the Spirit of God, that the Son would become a man and redeem from their sins a particular group of men whom the Father freely loved and gave to Him upon condition of this mediatorial obedience and suffering (Is. 53:4-12; John 6:37-39; 10:26-30; 17:2,6,9-11). This group of people, the elect, are all those throughout the history of mankind who have exercised, or will exercise, genuine saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and are known as the invisible church. (Note that they were not elected because God saw beforehand that they would exercise faith, but rather they were given faith as a free gift flowing from their election in Christ.) This term, ‘invisible,’ is applied to them because their true identity is not visible, or infallibly known, to the eyes of men. Their exact number and the identity of each individual member has been decreed from before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4), and once they pass from the state of condemnation to life in being born again and trusting in Christ, they will never lose the eternal life God has freely given them (John 5:24; 6:39). Excepting certain extraordinary instances (such as elect babies dying before birth, and others likewise incapable of exercising faith in the preached Word), there is one, and only one, way by which a man, woman, or child becomes a member of this invisible church, and this is through faith in Jesus Christ.
Obviously, though, those who come to faith in Christ will evidence this by their profession of faith in Him and by their changed lives (Rom. 10:10). They will profess and attempt to live out the true Christian religion, and it is by this simple, sincere profession that they become members of what is known as the ‘Visible Church’ (with their children becoming members by virtue of their parents profession of faith [1 Cor. 7:14]; this does not, however, render these children members of the Invisible Church). This term, ‘visible,’ analogously to the term, ‘invisible,’ is applied to this portion of mankind because their identity is indeed visible to the eyes of men. Much confusion exists concerning the biblical doctrine of the visible church, and it is therefore imperative to draw further Scriptural distinctions.
First, the sole requirements for entry into the visible church are visible (in contrast to the invisibility of faith, which alone makes one a member of the Invisible Church): sincere profession of the fundamentals of the faith, and a corresponding life that is free from known scandal (or being children of one so professing). Such doctrinal knowledge is not extensive, and this explains how the Philippian jailer, the thousands hearing the preaching of the apostles, and others became members of the visible church in very short order.
Second, because the means of entry into the visible church are external (profession and scandal-free life), it is possible for those not truly exercising faith nevertheless to become members thereof (Matt. 7:21-23; Acts 8:9-24). In other words, while those in the Invisible Church will always (excepting some extraordinary cases, as noted) become members of the Visible Church, not all members of the Visible Church belong to the Invisible Church.
Third, as seen in the case of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:27-39, one can become a member of the general visible church without actually becoming a member of any particular church.
Fourth, the two sacraments, or signs and seals of the covenant of grace, instituted by Christ in the visible church are baptism and the Lord’s Supper. They are distinct in their meaning, and the criteria for receiving each are different. These will be discussed in further detail below.
Fifth, it is evident that the visible church may be considered from two different angles: in an essential capacity, and in a more formal, organized capacity. Examples of the former are those scattered individuals or families upholding the true religion during the various periods of apostasy in the times of the Judges, and in the days of Elijah. Examples of the latter are the churches in the glorious reformations under Hezekiah and other kings, the times of the international synod in Acts 15, and at the height of the reformations in Europe and Britain. The distinction between these two comprises one of the fundamentals of historic Protestantism (e.g., Charles Hodge’s The Church and Its Polity, pp. 72-73; Calvin’s Institutes, “Prefatory address to King Francis,” pp. 24-27 of the Battles edition; Turretin’s Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 3, pp. 47-57), and yet is almost universally misunderstood by Protestants today. While different terminology has been used to describe them (e.g., Calvin’s Institutes, book 4:2.12), perhaps the most helpful is that of the London Presbyterian ministers at the time of the Westminster Assembly:
There are degrees of necessity; some things are absolutely necessary to the being of a church, as matter and form, viz., visible saints, and a due profession of faith, and obedience to Christ, according to the gospel. Thus it is possible that a church may be, and yet want [lack] both deacons, elders, and pastors too, yea, and word and sacraments for a time. Some things are only respectively necessary to the well-being of a church; thus officers are necessary, yet some more than others, without which the church is lame, defective, and miserably imperfect” (Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici [The Divine Right of Church Government], ed. by Thomas Henderson; 1844 edition, republished by Still Waters Revival Books, p. 121; emphases added, and one minor punctuation change made to modernize the language).
Sixth, while there can exist a visible church as to being or essence without any ministry or ordinances, Christ has given church officers and their officiations for the well-being of His church (Eph. 4:8,11-16). To use the words of the Westminster Confession of Faith: “unto this catholic [or universal] visible church Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, [un]to the end of the world: and doth by His own presence and Spirit, according to His promise, make them effectual thereunto” (Chapter 25:3). These gifts, as shown in passages like Ephesians 4, are only intended for the invisible church, but are nonetheless partaken of by both true Christians and hypocrites because in the nature of the case they are instituted in the visible church.
http://reformedpresbytery.org/books/rpcna/rpcna.htm
Faithful terms of communion: the preeminent criterion of a truly faithful ministry
With these scriptural distinctions and observations kept clearly in mind, we must now consider how it is that the ministry given to the visible church effectually promotes her well-being, and how in so doing, her true scriptural unity is secured. A brief look at the purpose and functions – the ‘job qualifications’ – of her officers will provide us with a concise definition of terms of communion, and will clearly demonstrate that upholding and applying faithful terms of communion is the preeminent criterion distinguishing faithful and unfaithful ministries (and thus faithful and unfaithful denominations).
Paul describes the church’s ministers as helpers of the joy of believers, not as lords of their faith (2 Cor. 1:24). They do this primarily by feeding the flock with the sound doctrine of the comprehensive system of faith (Matt. 28:20; Acts 20:27; Jude 3); administering the signs and seals of the covenant of grace (the sacraments; Matt. 28:18; 1 Cor. 11:23); and overseeing Christ’s flock and exercising the authority He has given them for their own protection and the expulsion of known hypocrites (John 20:23; Jer. 15:19; 2 Cor 10:8; 13:10). These and similar passages led to the familiar formulation of the ‘marks of a faithful church,’ as found in such creeds as the Scottish Confession of Faith of 1560, co-authored by John Knox:
The notes, therefore, of the true kirk [church] of God we believe, confess, and avow to be: first, the true preaching of the word of God, into the which God has revealed himself to us, as the writings of the prophets and apostles do declare; secondly, the right administration of the sacraments of Christ Jesus, which must be annexed unto the word and promise of God, to seal and confirm the same in our hearts; last, ecclesiastical discipline uprightly ministered, as God’s word prescribes, whereby vice is repressed, and virtue nourished.
The ministry of the faithful visible church has other functions as well, which pertain primarily to those outside of her ranks (whether they be outside the Visible Church altogether, or in unfaithful branches of the Visible Church). One is entreating the unconverted, as Christ’s ambassadors, to accept of the Lord’s authoritative offer of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:20). Another, more comprehensive and often more dangerous to her, is to testify publicly for the truth and against error in both Church and State (Hos. 2:2; 2 Thess. 3:14-15; Gal. 2:11; Ps. 2; 1 Kings 22:17-23; 2 Chr. 19:2). It is in this latter view in particular that she is said to be Christ’s ‘Witnessing Church’ (Is. 43:10-12; Rev. 2:13), a name historically claimed by the various Reformed Presbyterian Churches. It is interesting to note the etymology of the word ‘Protestant’ means literally, ‘those putting forth a witness, or testimony.’
From this brief examination of the predominant functions of the ministers of Christ, we may offer a concise definition of terms of communion. Terms of communion are the setting forth in plain, unequivocal language the meaning of Scripture, particularly in the areas of the biblical system of doctrine, proper modes of worship, and church government and discipline; and the faithful application of these to the faithful and unfaithful branches of the visible church, and to the rest of human society.
How, then, do faithful terms of communion promote and secure the unity of the church? They do so positively and negatively. Positively, by ensuring that Christ’s disciples “all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among them; but that they be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10). It is evident from the apostle’s instructions in 1 Cor. 11 and 14 concerning decorum and orderliness in the public assemblies of Christians, and from the international synodical council of Acts 15, that the biblical requirements for coming to the Lord’s Table are far more than simply the bare fundamentals necessary to constitute one a member of the Visible Church. This is because members certainly would have been excommunicated had they obstinately refused to submit to these injunctions concerning non-fundamental issues (such as temporarily forbearing to exercise Christian liberty, as in Acts 15).
http://reformedpresbytery.org/books/rpcna/rpcna.htm
Walt, that could be the most clear and concise description of Covenant election and Gospel I have read. good job. K
Yes, the authors did a great job in the book.
I really like the explanation of visible and invisible church as it is explained in the WCF but not as well done as above.
The being and well being (unfaithful vs. faithful) distinctions of the church are also excellent, and makes it clear why Terms of Communion and Subordinate Standards are so critical to the well being of the church.
While everyone who professes Jesus Christ is their Lord, and certainly the Roman Catholics and Mormans do this loudly and with great historical argument, the real question is to find the true church of Jesus Christ that is faithful and visible throughout the ages. We cannot find the true invisible church as only God knows that, but where can we find the true visible church in history, and in our current generation.
Rome claims she is the absolute true and faithful visible church, and the Pope is the vicar of Christ on earth. However, if she is only within the visible church, and is not true and faithful, but unfaithful and Antichrist in doctrine, discipline, worship and government, then where is the true and faithful visible church?
Mormans? Pentecostals? Baptists? Anglicans? Non-Denom? Presbyterians? Seventh day Adventists? Orthodox?
Hmmm, time to do some digging into Scripture and history.
About Daniel’s ten kings prophecy. The UN ten planned ten supernations appears to fit Daniel’s prophecy rather than the Europe only 10 kings of the past interpretations.
The UN “temple” room in NY with 11 seats – one for each king and the 11th for you know who also fits. OK these supernations may all be cubs of of Europe but since the antichrist rules the whole world the UN ten supernations and their ten kings would be needed .
There might be a way to go before this is set up but you can google a map of the world with the ten kingdoms of the world.
Tim,
Thanks for your good work. I’m not on board with your eschatology. But I am intrigued.
My own take is that Daniel’s fourth kingdom is Greece, not Rome. But I do think John adapts all four beasts from Daniel to describe Rome.
Everything Daniel talked about–the 10 horns, the little horn etc, is already fulfilled. But John uses these images as prototypes of an even greater (future) fulfillment.
That’s why I’m intrigued (but not on board) with your reading of the seals, trumpets, bowls, etc.
One could make the case that just as Daniel’s images corresponded to specific people, places, events, so too do the images in Revelation.
My point is that even dissenting from your particular framework, I think it is possible to draw many of the same conclusions you draw.
For example, I take the evidence for Greece as Daniel’s 4th beast to be rock solid. We can identify the four horns in Daniel 8 as the four generals who succeeded Alexander. We can identify the 10 horns of Daniel 7 as the ten independent states that emerged in the later part of the 3rd century B.C. That sets up Antiochus Epiphanes as being the little horn. And the numbers work out nicely with that correlation.
All of this was in Daniel’s future. It is a prediction. But all of it is in John’s past. Nevertheless, the images continue to be pressed into service, though the historical referents have all changed. But the new application of the symbols/images do have an organic relationship to Daniel’s original use.
So when John modifies Daniel’s beast, blending them all into one super beast, we know he has an empire in mind. Rome is the obvious candidate. We also know that just as Antiochus Epiphanes was the little horn, most likely someone else is going to play that roll. Nero is probably uppermost in mind.
But it is also entirely possible–especially if John sees apocalyptic images as having trans-temporal application–that John is seeing a more distant future.
That’s why I’m intrigued with your attempts to correlate Revelation to Roman Catholicism. I may have a completely different interpretive framework than you, but I think I end up drawing many of the same conclusions. (I’ll confess that I’m not sure I see the stigmata as a bowl judgment, but the idea that much of what John was predicting has been or is being fulfilled within Roman Catholicism today seems right on target.)
Thank you, Michael. I appreciate your kind words. Once we are finished with the Malachi 1:11 series, we’ll pick up in Daniel again, so you may find that of some interest. We’ll actually be touching on post-Alexandrian Hellenism in Asia Minor, in relation to Daniel 8, 9 and 11, so I’ll be interested to hear your thoughts.
Best regards,
Tim
@ Tim,
Thank you for the heads-up. I’ll keep an eye out for that.
@Kevin,
Lay the wood…..too funny. Except for this virus a couple of us are fighting (it just doesn’t go away), we’re good here. Bracing for another foot of snow on top of the two we just got a couple of days ago.
Blessings to you from Patriot land.
BTW, I take it you’re abstaining from CCC these days. (Tell me your not banned.)
Michael, as I told Tim, if you are ever in Scottsdale 80 degrees my wife and I would would take you and your family to dinner. Invitation always open. God bless K
Michael, ya bro, I got banned. I’ve been kicked off of 5 Catholic sites for petty stuff. But I always tell them Ive been kicked out of better places than this lol. Get kicked off I can deal with, but its the Roman reinstaement policies I have a problem with. They want me to see a Priest, do penance, and confess hot iron burns dogma in thecsacraments, and wear a scapular before I get the second plank. Im not cooperating enough. K
Hi, Michael Taylor, nhope you and your famil you are well. I have really benefitted from your post at CCC lately, reading them. Keep up the good work, laying the wood in love. Lol God bless brother. Glad you found Tim’s site, some great stuff. Kevin
HA!
If Kelvin had only known of Tim’s upcoming treachery. “Et tu Brute” eh Tim?
Notice that Kelvin is posting on C2C right now. Let’s see how long they suffer his inanities before dumping him. I say 3 more days. Any wagers?
PS,
I hope you are enjoying the TV coverage of the papal visit Tim. I am enjoying how nobody gives a tinker’s dam about your warnings.