Follow
Last week we demonstrated that the Seven Seals of Revelation spanned the time frame from 226 – 358 A.D., and that the Church of Jesus Christ was marked for preservation from the coming wrath in 358, between the Sixth and the Seventh Seals (Revelation 7). As we have opined elsewhere on this blog, Roman Catholicism as a religion attempted—and failed—to introduce its institutional idolatry to the Church, and as a religion, Roman Catholicism constituted the falling away that Paul prophesied in 2 Thessalonians 2:3. As such, we are not surprised to find that much of what Rome claims as the “deposit of faith” handed down to us from the apostles can only be traced to the latter half of the fourth century.
As a follow-on to the discussion on the Seals, we will proceed with our discussion on the Seven Trumpets next week. This week we will simply demonstrate what Christians throughout the centuries have long suspected: that Roman Catholicism is an institution of man, superintended by the Serpent from which it receives its authority (Revelation 13:2), and wholly invested in the propagation of doctrines of demons. The propagation was attempted earlier than this, for Paul warned that the mystery of iniquity was already at work (2 Thessalonians 2:7). But 358 A.D. was the tipping point.
As one reads the vast amount of literature on the development of Catholic doctrine, a very clear pattern emerges. Evidence of Roman Catholic doctrines is scarce until after 358 A.D., at which time evidence for the doctrines explodes, as they came upon the world like a flood.
The Perpetual Virginity of Mary
The Roman Catholic Diocese of Hexham and Newcastle, holds that the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity can only be traced to 358 A.D.:
“As early as AD 358 there existed writings attesting to the perpetual virginity of Jesus’ mother (St. Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria).”
The Roman Catholic cable channel, EWTN, supports the doctrine by appealing to the writings of Church Fathers from 373, 380, 397 A.D. Fr. Juniper Carol summarizes the late development of the doctrine for us:
“The next fifty years [after Nicea] unfolded the first phase of Marian theology, Our Lady’s perpetual virginity, and toward the year 400, this question was settled for all time in the West.”
The doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity clearly can only be traced to the latter half of the fourth century.
The Sinlessness of Mary
The first Church Fathers to expound Luke 2:35 understood that the sword that “shall pierce through thy own soul also” was the sword of doubt and unbelief. Origen (185 – 254 A.D.) is explicit on this point, citing Romans 3:23 as proof, and claiming that Mary had sinned in unbelief:
“If she did not suffer scandal at the Lord’s Passion, then Jesus did not die for her sins. But, if ‘all have sinned and lack God’s glory’ … then Mary too was scandalized at that time.” (Homilies on Luke, 17.6-7)
Origen was convinced that he had this on the authority of the apostles themselves (De Principiis, prol, ii). Yet Roman Catholic Encyclopedia boldly states that the Church Fathers, as early as Hippolytus (170 -235 A.D.) held Mary to be sinless, and described her as “the tabernacle exempt from defilement and corruption.” However, as one can see from Hippolytus’ own words, he was describing Jesus, not Mary:
“And moreover, the ark made of imperishable wood was the Savior Himself. For by this was signified the imperishable and incorruptible tabernacle of (the Lord) Himself, which gendered no corruption of sin.” (Hippolytus, Commentary on “The Lord is My Shepherd”)
The Catholic Encyclopedia remarkably cites Origen to support the Immaculate Conception, but as shown above, Origen believed Mary had sinned and that she needed Jesus to pay for her sins. It is not until Ephraem (c. 363 A.D.) and Ambrose (374 A.D.) that we find explicit statements of Mary’s alleged immaculacy:
“Most holy Lady, Mother of God, alone most pure in soul and body, … you are altogether immaculate.”” (Ephraem the Syrian, Precationes ad Deiparam)
“Receive me not from Sarah, but from the Mary; virgin without corruption, but virgin who by grace is without the blemish of sin.” (Sermon 22.30, On Psalm 119)
The doctrine of Mary’s sinlessness is clearly an innovation from the end of the fourth century.
Rome as an Apostolic See
Pope Damasus I (reigned from 366 – 384 A.D.) was the first pope to claim Rome as an Apostolic See, and first to assert the Primacy of Rome. The Encyclopedia Brittanica makes this abundantly clear:
“Damasus was the first pope to refer to Rome as the apostolic see, to distinguish it as that established by the apostle St. Peter, founder of the church. … Rome’s primacy was officially pronounced by a synod called in Rome in 382 by Damasus…”
Of course, we must add a caveat here. While it is true that Damasus was the first pope successfully to claim Rome as an Apostolic See, there were prior attempts, and they were soundly rejected. For example, in 256 A.D., Firmilian, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, wrote to Cyprian of Carthage thanking him “that you have settled this matter” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 74, chapters 6 and 17). The “matter” that Cyprian had “settled” was the controversy started by bishop Stephen of Rome who, as Firmilian relates, was quite erroneously claiming that he held the succession from Peter:
“[T]hey who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles … And in this respect I am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches;”
We know well enough what Roman Catholic apologists would do with this if Firmilian had written to Stephen thanking him for “settling the matter” of a bishop of Carthage. It would be taken as proof of Roman Primacy. But when Firmilian writes to Cyprian thanking him for settling a controversy regarding a bishop of Rome, it is simply dismissed as an anomaly. The fact is, long before Augustine was alleged to say “Roma locuta est, causa finita est,” Firmilian thanked Cyprian of Carthage for settling a controversy that had originated in Rome, for “they who are at Rome do not observe those things … handed down from the beginning.” We do not deny that Rome’s claim of Apostolic Succession originated earlier than 358 A.D. What we deny is that it was in any way taken seriously until Damasus I, in the latter half of the fourth century.
Peter as the First Bishop of Rome
The earliest explicit affirmation of Peter as the first Bishop of Rome did not come until 370 A.D. This from Optatus of Milevis (Adversus Parmenianum, Book II, Chapter II): “You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra.” Before this, the early church understood that Linus was the first Bishop of Rome. Irenaeus (d. 202 A.D.) and Eusebius (260 – 340 A.D.) both testify of this:
“The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. … To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric..” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, ch. III.3)
“After the martyrdom of Paul and of Peter, Linus was the first to obtain the episcopate of the church at Rome. … In the second year of his {Emperor Titus’] reign, Linus, who had been bishop of the church of Rome for twelve years, delivered his office to Anencletus. … At that time Clement still ruled the church of Rome, being also the third that held the episcopate there after Paul and Peter. Linus was the first, and after him came Anencletus.” (Eusebius, Church History, Book III, Chapters 2, 13, 21)
Where Eusebius says Clement was “the third that held the episcopate after Paul and Peter,” he obviously means, “after the apostles,” who clearly went from place to place to “ordain elders in every city” (Titus 1:5). Otherwise, this would be evidence of both Paul and Peter being bishops of Rome, which would make Linus third, Anencletus fourth, and Clement fifth. Irenaeus and Eusebius clearly understood Linus to be the first bishop of Rome, and the first claim of Peter as the first bishop of Rome only came late in the fourth century.
Bishop of Rome Called “Pontifex”
The office of Pontifex Maximus dates to pagan Rome and was occupied by “the high priest of the College of Pontiffs. … This was the most important position in the ancient Roman religion.” As the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia states, the title as it is assigned to the pope, bears with it a “further a reminiscence of the dignity attached to that title in pagan Rome.” Indeed, in 380 A.D., Emperor Theodosius I issued De Fide Catholica, claiming that Pope Damasus I was the new Pontifex of the state religion. Two years later, Emperor Gratian formally renounced the title Pontifex Maximus.
This is not to say that the title had not earlier been attached to the pope. It had been, in the most derogatory fashion. When Pope Callistus claimed that Peter’s power to forgive sins had descended to him particularly, Tertullian mocked him by calling him “pontifex maximus” in his epistle On Modesty in 220 A.D.:
“The Pontifex Maximus — that is, the bishop of bishops — issues an edict: … O edict, on which cannot be inscribed,
Good deed!… Far, far from Christ’s betrothed be such a proclamation!” (Tertullian, On Modesty, Ch. 1)
Of course, the irrepressible Roman Catholic religion must spin this in the most positive fashion. After Tertullian stands aghast at the very claim of Callistus’ ability to forgive sins and mockingly calls him Pontifex Maximus, Rome responds that this is evidence that both the title, and succession from Peter, had been commonly accepted at that time!
“Had the Roman Church been merely founded by Peter and not reckoned him as its first bishop, there could have been no ground for [Callistus’] contention. … Though [Tertullian’s] words are ironical, they probably indicate that Catholics already applied [Pontifex Maximus] to the pope.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, The Pope)
The fact is that Pontifex was used negatively before Damasus I to mock a bishop of Rome who attempted to assert more power than he really had. It was not applied to the bishop of Rome positively until 380 A.D., and then promptly abandoned by pagan Rome.
Mary, “Mother of the Church”
Ambrose became bishop of Milan in 374 A.D. and was the herald of a new era of Mariology. It is claimed that Hugo Rahner “rediscovered” that the title “Mother of the Church” originated with Ambrose. Even that is doubtful, but it shows that the origins of Mary’s role as “Mother of the Church” can be traced no earlier than the end of the fourth century.
The Dormition and Resurrection of Mary
This tradition of Mary’s “falling asleep” and her subsequent resurrection, the basis for the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary, developed only after the fourth century. It is plainly understood that “The first four Christian centuries are silent regarding the end of the Virgin Mary’s life … Up until the fifth century Church Fathers do not mention the Dormition of the Virgin.”
Use of Tapers, or Votive Candles, in worship
Early in the fourth century, the use of candles was rejected by the church. Lactantius (240 – 320 A.D.) mocked this pagan Roman practice.
“Therefore … they kindle lights to Him, as though He were in darkness. … [I]f they would contemplate that heavenly light which we call the sun, they will at once perceive how God has no need of their candles, who has Himself given so clear and bright a light for the use of man. … Is that man, therefore, to be thought in his senses, who presents the light of candles and torches as an offering to Him who is the Author and Giver of light? The light He requires from us is of another kind, and that indeed not accompanied by smoke … I mean the light of the mind” (Lactantius, Divine Institutes, Book VI. ch II, On the Worship of False Gods and the True God)
By the end of the fourth century, the use of tapers was introduced to the liturgy. Jerome wrote to Marcella in 385 A.D., thanking her for sending a gift of wax tapers, “which remind us … that we should look for the bridegroom’s coming with our lights burning.” (Jerome, Letter XLIV, To Marcella). He mentions this practice again in his letter to Eustochium in 404 A.D., describing the funeral of Paula, who had died earlier that year: “Other bishops meantime carried torches and tapers in the procession, and yet others led the singing of the choirs.” (Jerome, Letter CVIII, To Eustochium).
Vigilantius objected strenuously to this new practice, on the same grounds that Lactantius had. Jerome inveighed against him with a vengeance, but was unable to offer a coherent rationale for their use. He justified the use of tapers, first denying that they are used in the daytime, but rather to “cheer the darkness of night, and watch for the dawn.” Then in the same paragraph acknowledges that the tapers are used in the daylight, “not of course to scatter the darkness, but by way of evidencing our joy.” “All those who light these tapers,” he said, “have their reward according to their faith, as the Apostle says, ‘Let everyone abound in his own meaning'” (Jerome, Against Vigilantius, ch. 7). That Jerome has no intellectual justification for the use of candles is plainly evidenced by his incoherent rationale, for he essentially says that we only use them for light in the dark, but we do not use them to light up the dark, and besides, everyone has their own meaning assigned to the use of tapers. This is the language of a man who cannot justify the new practice, but finds that he must, because the practice had suddenly become so widespread at the end of the fourth century.
Intercession of Martyrs and Veneration of Relics
In an attempt to trace the veneration of relics to the Ante-Nicean era, Roman apologist, Fr. William Saunders, claims that “the tombs of saints were opened and the actual relics were venerated by the faithful” soon after Christianity was legalized in 312 A.D. However, the earliest known case of a martyr’s bones being disinterred and moved to another location for veneration, is the translation of the bones of St. Babylas of Antioch by Caesar Constantius Gallus in 354 A.D.. Fr. Saunders also draws from the Martyrdom of Polycarp in 156 A.D. to show that after his body was burned, his followers “took up his bones which are more valuable than precious stones and finer than refined gold, and laid them in a suitable place” (Martyrdom of Polycarp, 18:2-3), but this is the description of a burial, not an exhumation. So with the care given to the body of Stephen after his martyrdom (Acts 8:2).
The fact is that the practice of exhuming the bodies of saints and venerating them was first implemented by the Caesars in the latter half of the fourth century. After Gallus translated the bones of Babylas in 354 A.D., Emperor Constantius II translated the bones of Timothy in 356 A.D., and the bones of Andrew and Luke in 358 A.D. (David Woods actually places this in 359 A.D. (Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 45, No. 3 (Sep., 1991), pp. 286-292)).
One of the earliest references to the reservation of relics of Martyrs for personal use by Christians is a letter from Basil placed in 373 A.D.: “If you send the relics of the martyrs home you will do well” (Basil, Letter CLV). Jerome’s admonition to Eustochium, “if you wish to seek the aid of the martyrs, seek it in your own chamber” (Jerome, Letter XXII, to Eustochium, 17), is placed in 384 A.D. The practice of invoking the martyrs and venerating their relics proliferated under Pope Damasus I (reigned from 366 – 384 A.D.), who “did much to encourage the veneration of the Christian martyrs.” The “restoring and creating access to their tombs in the Catacombs of Rome and elsewhere,” took place under his administration. The practice is traced to late in the fourth century, and was first introduced by the Caesars, and then enthusiastically embraced by the religion of Roman Catholicism shortly thereafter.
Transubstantiation
That this doctrine was not held in the first few centuries of the church is plainly evident from the words of Pope Gelasius I (d. 496), who wrote that in the Lord’s supper, “the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease” (De duabus naturis in Christo, adversus Eutychen et Nestorium). Roman Catholics will cite Ignatius of Antioch (1st century), Justin Martyr (100 – 165 A.D.) and Augustine (354 – 430 A.D.) to show early belief in transubstantiation, but they appeal to them in vain.
Ignatius uses the terms “flesh” and “blood” as figures for many things, as when he says “Wherefore, clothing yourselves with meekness, be ye renewed in faith, that is the flesh of the Lord, and in love, that is the blood of Jesus Christ” (To the Trallians, ch. 8). When he says “I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ,” he goes on in the same sentence to explain what he means: “and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood which is incorruptible love and eternal life” (To the Romans, ch. 7). For Ignatius, “flesh” and “blood” are figurative, and he uses the terms liberally throughout his epistles merely as significations. Earlier in the same epistle, he wrote “I am the wheat of God, and let me be ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of Christ” (To the Romans, ch. 4). If he can be taken to mean transubstantiation by any of this, then he must also be taken to mean that Christians themselves, as well as their faith, their love, and their clothes are all transubstantiated into Jesus’ body, blood, soul and divinity.
As regards Justin Martyr it is true that he used the term “transmutation” when he spoke of the elements of the Lord’s supper, “from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished” (First Apology, Chapter LXVI, Of the Eucharist). The problem for Roman Catholics is that “transmutation,” even if taken in isolation, means entirely too much. By way of an ostensibly early example, while Ignatius’ epistle to the Philippians is spurious and likely of medieval origin, it nevertheless uses “transmute” to describe something that is not “transubstantiation.” I.e., Jesus “transmutes existing substances … the water which became wine” (Ignatius of Antioch, To the Philippians (Sp.), ch. 6). But Jesus did not change water into wine under the appearance of water. He changed it into wine under the appearance of wine. Transmutation means a complete change in both form and substance—the very thing Rome says does not happen in Transubstantiation:
“If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood—the species only of the bread and wine remaining—which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent, Canons on the Holy Eucharist, Canon II)
Taken in its actual context, Justin was using transmutation to refer to the change in the bread and wine as we digest it for our nourishment, and the attendant spiritual nourishment that the Lord’s Supper provides to them that believe, for in the previous chapter, he says that after the consecration, the communicants “partake of the bread and wine” (Justin Martyr, First Apology, Chapter LXV, Administration of the Sacraments). In his mind, after the consecration, what gets distributed to believers is still “bread and wine.”
In the same way that Justin said “too much,” we can show that Augustine said “too little.” As we have already shown in In Vain Do They Worship Me, at the very point where Roman Catholics claim that Augustine was teaching transubstantiation (see Paul VI, Mysterium Fidei, 55), Augustine was denying transubstantiation:
“Understand spiritually what I have said; you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth.” (Augustine, An Exposition of the Psalms, 99.8)
What is remarkable is that Paul VI used Augustine’s exposition on this Psalm to show that after the consecration of the Mass, the wine becomes “the true blood of Christ—which flowed from his side.” (Paul VI, Mysterium Fidei, 52), the very opposite of what Augustine said.
This of course is not an exhaustive review of Rome’s evidence for transubstantiation from the first four centuries of the church, but it is an illustrative sampling. It is simply impossible to reconcile Ignatius of Antioch, Augustine of Hippo, Justin Martyr and Pope Gelasius I into a coherent defense of Transubstantiation. Clearly, Transubstantiation was not taught, believed or practiced in the first four centuries.
Adoration of the Eucharist
Perhaps the most significant proof that the early church did not teach Transubstantiation is found in Rome’s defense of Eucharistic Adoration. If the bread and wine literally become the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, then the early church should be replete with examples of Eucharistic Adoration. There are none. Listen to Fr. John Hardon’s defense of Eucharistic Adoration, as he transitions from bishops sharing bread with other congregations, to Basil setting bread aside toward the end of the fourth century, and then a seven hundred year leap to all-out Eucharistic adoration in the eleventh century:
“Already in the second century, popes sent the Eucharist to other bishops as a pledge of unity of faith; and, on occasion, bishops would do the same for their priests. … It is interesting to note that one of the first unmistakable references to reserving the Blessed Sacrament is found in a life of St. Basil (who died in 379). … Toward the end of the eleventh century we enter on a new era in the history of Eucharistic adoration. … Suddenly a revolution hit the Church.”
If “reserving the Blessed Sacrament” is the basis for modern Eucharistic adoration, then the best Hardon can even imagine is that it began at the end of the fourth century. Hardon runs into the same problem with perpetual eucharistic adoration, the practice of worship of the eucharist around the clock. He acknowledges, “Some writers trace the first beginnings of perpetual adoration to the late fourth century.” We believe even this is doubtful, as the earliest attestation of perpetual adoration at that time is from an 1895 letter from Cardinal Vaughan to the Cardinal Primate of Spain (Joan Carrol Cruz, Eucharistic Miracles, p. 284). In any case, it is clear that eucharistic adoration has no adherents or defenders any earlier than the late fourth century, but in reality, we do not see it manifest until the eleventh.
The “Development of Doctrine” Doctrine
In view of the insurmountable doctrinal gap that exists between the late fourth century religion of Roman Catholicism and the early first century religion of Jesus Christ, it was inevitable that Rome would need to explain the more than three century gap. To do so, Roman Catholicism created what is called the “Development of Doctrine.” At its core, it is a material acknowledgment of the fact that it cannot trace its origins to the apostles, for it stipulates that early traces of Roman Catholicism may indeed be, and typically are, invisible:
“Apply this to the Catholic religion : if there are early traces of identity of belief, they may be invisible, except to the eye of a Catholic, but perfectly clear to him. For an immense number of minute expressions, observations, and practices prove to him, that the genius of his faith is what it always was. … What is intended is, not to assert that the present devotion to Mary existed in the early ages; that may be so or not: but that the principle on which it is based naturally led to it, and may be assumed to have been intended by God to lead to it.” (Jesus, the Son of Mary, by the Rev. John Brande Morris, M .A., 1851, pp. 25-33.)
Invisible indeed. Clearly when Emperor Theodosius I issued De Fide Catholica in 380 A.D., he was not proclaiming Christianity to be the official religion of the empire. He was proclaiming that the new state religion was the recently created religion of Roman Catholicism which is not Christianity at all.
Tim, The exposing continues. I pray may Roman catholics will take a hard look at the NT church and their church, which is a look at the Christian church versus the apostate false Roman religion and will give an honest look at the doctrinal divides that took place late 4th century. And I believe that as you have shown the Apostasy of the Roman religion from biblical Christianity we can see the continues divide widen with the passing of time. I believe when one makes the comparison, they are an antithesis in every way. This has only become clearer with the passing of time. We must pray that the veil be lifted on the eyes of all our Roman friends. Jesus said I am the way the truth and the life and no one comes to the father but thru me. One can only enter thru the narrow gate, Christ, one cannot enter thru the surrogate false Christ, Rome.
Tim, my wife asked me, of those who take the Roman Eucharist and receive the mark, can they repent, because she says receiving the mark is irreversible. John MacArthur believes its not. What is your position? And how do you view the thousand year millennium in light of the timeline your laying out? I’m assuming you, like I don’t hold to exact 1000 years? Thanks brother Kevin.
Kevin,
Since I myself used to worship the Eucharist, it hopefully is clear that I believe people can repent of it. As I mentioned previously, there are only three things in the Scripture that can yield a mark on the hand and forehead: the feast of unleavened bread, consecration of your children, and teaching scripture to your children:
The “mark” in Revelation 13 merely shows us that the image is the Eucharist—it is the only one of the three practices above that involves something made with human hands and therefore can be an image to be worshiped: bread. Repenting of worshiping the image of the beast is just repenting of idolatry, which the Scriptures everywhere instruct us to do.
More on the rest of your questions later.
Thanks,
Tim
Oh goodness gracious you’re ridiculous.
You break free of the catholics terrible hermeneutics and now you’re a prophet?
Don’t you understand how common this deception is. It’s experienced by so many that leave cults. So many who cannot just accept God’s promises. Haven’t you learned anything? This nonsense and these bold proclamations are secret Gnostic garbage.
You have no secrets to reveal to us. You, just like all with weak faith just cannot accept the simplicity of the Gospel. So you must spice it up. People use either pet doctrines (Calvinism, secret Rapture, kjv only, Works, special tongues, Mary, second baptism, Sabbath,etc) or Revelations to mark themselves off as special.
Just stop
Thank you, James. You wrote,
What have I prophesied?
You wrote:
Gnostics boasted of a secret knowledge apart from the Scriptures. There is nothing I have written that is not freely available to all.
You wrote:
That is true. It is not i, but the Scripture, that warns us of these things.
You wrote,
Accept the simplicity of the Scriptures.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim, that was a pretty spiced up rebuke from James. He says you marked yourself off as special, you are telling secrets, you are under a common deception, and you are a prophet. He called your attempt to interpret scripture nonsense and bold proclamations of secret gnostic garbage. So according to James you are to believe the simplicity of the gospel and immediately cease reading your bible. Got that. 1 John 2:26,27 ” these things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you, but as for you , the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you, but His anointing teaches you about all things, and it is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him” arent we glad that John encouraged his congregation to rely on the Spirit by and with the Word of God to understand scripture. K
Tim, I have a question if you have time. As you read John 2:26,27 do you read it as I do that John is telling his congregation that when it comes down to it for a believer that it is the anointing of the Spirit that teaches us that that we can have the confidence that it’s true? My view is, of course we listen to our pastors and leaders and confessions, but in the end we must rely on the Spirit with the Scripture for our faith? Thx K
Tim, thanks, thats what I thought and I will explain this to my wife. I will await future posts. I’ve changed my views of the millennium in the last year. I have learned so much here and reading your books. i think if more Christians were presented with this kind of biblical detail, we would have allot less dispensationalists, and Protestants would walk away from embracing the Roman religion in any way. I’m not sure anyone has layer it out with the historical clarity and biblical clarity that you have. It was sorely needed. Praise God.
Tim,
The mark of the beast is the Eucharist? Did you figure this out all by yourself? Such an unusual concept. Are there others who hold to this theory? Does Mr. Webster subscribe to this view? How long have you been working on this? Do the dudes over at the other white horse blog think you are on to something? Or are you a lone voice, crying in the wilderness?
Jim,
As I mentioned in If This Bread Could Talk, the Eucharist is the Image of the Beast. It is not the Mark of the Beast. The Mark is what one receives by partaking of it, as indicated by the Scriptures on the Feast of Unleavened Bread: “And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thine hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes” (Exodus 13:9). The partaking of the feast of unleavened bread is a mark on the hand and forehead. Worshiping the Eucharist, which the Papacy and the Apparitions have set up as an idol, is the means by which the Mark of the Beast is received. As regards your questions,
Yes.
I do not know of any.
I doubt it, but I do not know. I have never asked him.
Since 1993.
I have no idea. I am not affiliated with White Horse Inn, and have never communicated with them.
Almost certainly.
Thanks, as always, for writing. It’s great to hear from you.
Tim
Tim,
Whew! I wonder if the folks on this video of the Corpus Christie procession know they are involved with what you say they are?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9O4T_llBco8
Anyway, it seems you have gone beyond even Calvin and Zwingli. They missed what you have discovered, huh? Would you say this is a “development of dogma” on your part? It does have a foundation with the Father’s right?
I have been busy with some major feast days over here, St. Anthony is a major event in Lisbon. Corpus Christie Procession started here in Lisbon. Then we had the Sacred Heart and Immaculate Hearts on Friday and Saturday. Solemnity of Peter and Paul two days ago. Not to mention the Feast of the Birth of John the Baptist and the Guardian Angel of Portugal a couple/few weeks ago. I did find time to peek in on the Sacred Heart to see if you had posted a piece for Kevin to fawn over. I was gratified to see it had slipped past you unscathed.
Okay, enough small talk. How would you explain your insights about this stuff if the Big Boys hadn’t seen it? Would you say the Spirit is leading you? And your discovery is “private revelation”, right? Kevin is not bound to accept it, huh?Oh, I mean, he will, for sure. But it’s ‘caus he wants to and not because you are like the Pope or something.
Tim, now don’t take this the wrong way, but I gotta ask. You are not under any medication when you have your insights are you?
Okay, all the best. I think about your mom everyday. Hope all is well with her.
Thanks for writing, Jim.
I am sure that they are unaware of the peril of their current condition. That is why the Scripture says “But if they obey not … they shall die without knowledge” (Job 36:12).
Perhaps. But no further than the Scriptures.
Yes, they [the Reformers] did, due in no small part to the assumptions they carried with them into the Scriptures, and due to the fact that recorded history was in some senses unavailable to them. For example, the Laterculus Veronensis, which lists the 12 Dioceses of Diocletian’s divided empire, was freely available to the Reformers. But the Notitia Dignitatum, showing 13 Dioceses at the final division, was not. Therefore, it did not, and could not have occurred to them that the Roman Empire had been divided 13 ways by the close of the 4th Century. I’m guessing that you do not really believe that all eschatology should be discussed based only on the historical data that was available to the Fathers at the close of the fourth century. Long before I heard of the Notitia, I wondered why Revelation 12, 13 and 17 all referred to 10 horns, instead of 7. That is to say, I based my conclusions on the Scriptures, not on the historical record, or on what the Caesars proclaimed at the end of the fourth century.
When Paul informed the Jews that God’s promise to save Abraham’s descendants had been fulfilled in the gentiles (Romans 11:26), it was not “new information,” for the Lord Himself had said He would do that (Deuteronomy 32:21). Even when Jesus admonished Nicodemus, He chided Nicodemus for not being aware of old information (John 3:10-15). All that was needed was for someone to show them that their assumptions had been invalid. I am not introducing new revelation. I am challenging old assumptions. For example, try reading through Daniel 11 using a single, unchanging frame of reference for North, South, East and West from start to finish. If you feel you must constantly change the frame of reference to accommodate the historical fulfillment of the chapter, it may be that your assumptions need to be challenged. That’s sola scriptura, not doctrinalem progressum.
No, it has the Scripture as its foundation. Though if you stick around, you might be surprised. Jerome is considerably helpful, even if unwittingly.
Part of it is bad assumptions. Part of it is a bad translations. Many Fathers and Reformers were looking for someone “between the seas” as the fulfillment of Daniel 11:45. But “sea” in that verse is not plural. That makes a difference.
To the degree that He leads me through His Word, yes:
“I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers…” (2 Peter 3:1-3).
No. Private revelation is revelation to me. I do not have any private revelation. I do not appeal to dreams or visions, but to the Scriptures.
No more than you are bound to accept Jason Stellman.
Only coffee or whisky, depending on the time of day. To my knowledge, neither are hallucinogenic in moderation.
Thanks,
Tim
Whisky eh? I had you figured for a temperance man. Now, it all makes sense.
Well, at least you admit you have a drinking problem. That takes spunk.
Hi Tim,
Thankyou so much for giving an explanation of your method in the above. I thought Jim’s questioning of the method reasonable as I was wondering where you got this stuff also. But when you said it was from 21 years (1993-2014) of studying from the Scriptures it blew me away. Your site has been extremely helpful to both my wife and I as we study these things together. We really appreciate your knowledge of Scripture and how you tie it together in a systematic way, not in a “biblical Theology” way which more modern commentators have done. Relating doctrine to doctrine, as you do, makes sense to us.
Thanks, John,
Many others have studied a lot longer than I have, so I can’t claim any special abilities based on my study of the Scriptures. The main issue is challenging assumptions, or diving into unexplored areas in the Scriptures—e.g., why go into Daniel 11 assuming that the frames of reference are repeatedly changing when there is no indication from the text that Daniel’s frame of reference had changed and in fact it appears from the text that Daniel had established a singe frame of reference and then continued to write in that frame throughout; or why are there still 10 horns with antichrist at the very end (Revelation 17), if antichrist was supposed to have removed 3 of the 10 when he arose (Daniel 7)? These are questions that are valid and should be pursued, but what I find when I pursue them is that people tend to defend longstanding tradition. Tradition is a hard thing to overcome, but I believe it is one of our biggest obstacles when it comes to eschatology.
I’m glad you’re enjoying the material. I will probably pick back up on my series on the historical church later in 2018. I’ve been pretty busy this winter and have been unable to give it my attention.
Tim
“I’ve been pretty busy this winter and have been unable to give it my attention.”
Ha! Launching rockets again!! Successful one today!!
Jim, its kinda of funny, you continue to take shots at Tim and they have nothing to do with the substance of what he is writing. Read 1 John 2:27, it says we have no need for anyone to yeah us but the Spirit abides in us and teaches us all truth. It doesn’t mean we don’t listen to the men who teach us, but in the end it is the internal witness of the Spirit that teaches us and not the men with the words. You do this too, exercise your fallible opinion or judgment, since even though Rome screams infallibility, they can’t really tell you why it is that they teach that is infallible. Incidentally the Kevin fawns over Tim stuff is tired and old. I give weight to Protestants who have come out of the Beast, because they have seen his eyes, if you know what I’m saying. Jesus said I am the truth, the way and the life no one comes to God but thru me. You can’t get their thru a surrogate, Jim. It is thru the person of Christ by faith, not thru a church. It is a person that is offered, the person of Christ. And it is because we are incorporated in Him thru simple faith tha we receive all the benefits of salvation. It isn’t a person that is offered to you, but a soul substance called infused love, the special juju that helps you save yourself thru the acts of the church. I appreciate the reconciliation you offered this morning on Kenneth’s site, but in know way do I consider a Roman Catholic a brother in Christ, no more than I would consider a Mormon a brother. We believe different things Jim. You either get to heaven by grace thru faith, or thru a church that claims to be God’s sacrament who rewards merit with grace. They ain’t the same.
Don’t think I want to talk to you anymore Kev. I’ve been burnt by you too many times. Seems like we can be having an exchange on one topic and when you start losing, you hit me with a “Falloni haymaker”. ( A Falloni haymaker is always off topic and designed to hit below the belt. Since Protestants don’t have anything sacred to blaspheme, I am forced to make an ad hominem remark to retaliate and let you know how it feels. I have to get down to your level and I don’t care to do that any more than I have too. )
Have a nice life
Jim, I apologize, but your wearing out the Tim worship thing. I was a professional musician for many years and have played with and met many famous people. Trust me Jim anywhere your going I’ve been, ( he said humbly). Trust me, my respect for Tim is for the time he has put in studying scripture and how biblically sound I believe his conclusions are.
Tim says he drinks coffee and whisky. I assume he means together. IOW, he sneaks a shot into his morning joe. This could be one of the warning signs. Through cyberspace I can’t smell his breath to check on him but I am worried. The strain of obsessing over his Protestant version of the Da Vinci Code has been too much for him and now he’s hitting the sauce. Keep an eye on him.
Jim, I challenge you to get Tim’s book Graven Bread and read it. Then read Revelations 13. Read it with an open mind Jim. Don’t worry about the Whisky he puts in his coffee. Strongly consider his words on the Papacy, apparitions of Mary, and the worship of the Eucharist, as the three pronged fulfillment of Revelations 13. Its truly astounding. Its the best analysis I’ve heard yet, and I’ve considered many. Jim, I say this with all love in my heart for you. I’m going to guess you are in your 70’s. You are on this site for a reason. Consider Tim’s last words of this current article that Newman said the doctrines of the RC are invisible in Scripture, and only seen to the veiled eyed of Roman Catholics. I have been praying for you Jim, that God would take the veil off your eyes. You are a sincere guy Jim, but sincerely wrong. After reading Tim’s book, this thought crossed my mind. Catholic eyes and ears are fixated on the Pope, Mary, and the Roman Eucharist constantly. This is what satan wants you to do, so you don’t have to look out and up. Take your eyes off of them Jim and look out and up and you will see the gospel, the Word which the Spirit brings from outside us to inside us thru faith alone. The Pope, Mary, and Eucharist adoration can’t save you, only receiving Him by faith as Lord and Savior. Stop being distracted Jim seek the truth, and the truth shall set you free. God bless you.
Kevin,
“Jim, I say this with all love in my heart for you. ”
I am touched.
You phony skunk. Judas betrayed Christ with a kiss. You lead with language of Christian charity and then follow up with a “death wafer” kick to the crotch when my guard is down.
Keep your sweet talk for some other idiot.
Jim, so you are Jesus and I am Judas. Cmon man! ” The goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a sincere faith.” Thats all Jim.
Tim, It is interesting at the end of Rev 13 it says ” calculate the number of the beast, for the number is that of a man, and his number is 666. It sounds to me like it is telling us to make this calculation ( numerically of his name) and that “his number” IOW “his name” is 666. How can this be anything other than the name given to the Pope, Vicar of Christ, that adds up to 666.
Tim, I just witnessed on EWTN one half hour of selling Mary stuff. Immaculate heart paintings to powder boxes, statues, books, Immaculate heart and sacred heart paintings and cloths etc. I’ve never seen anything like it. And among the many books were one about 33 secret Marian things on a secret retreat with Mary. One on how o get to Jesu thru Mary. And one i couldnt believe. It was called Incorruptible saints. It is about all the saints who were os holy they did not decompose. I mean I watched for a half and hour and I was amazed.
Kevin,
I stop by EWTN for a look now and then, as well. The “incorruptible saints” is an interesting story. “Incorruptible” is a term used rather loosely, as you can see here: http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/not-quite-incorruptible-st-bernadette-lourdes
Tim
For anyone interested. I came across a site www. loaves and fishes .org. John MacArthur gives a message of John 9 called ” “The Hopelessness of the Stubbornly blind.” It is a great sermon for anyone who wants to understand what we are dealing with in our quest to reach our Catholic friends. It is a complete look at the gospel thru Jesus dealing with the blind man, and the blindness of religion. A must listen. K
Tim, amazing, cured, salted, and aged into incorruptibility. What a show. If you get a chance listen to the MacArthur message. Stubbornly blind.
Tim,
I have some theories about the up and coming final show down between the Woman and the Dragon too.
We are heading towards a total redefinition of marriage, man and woman, and humanity itself.
Let me give you some freaky examples. By harvesting the eggs and sperm of people while young and then sterilizing them, we can then do away with contraception and abortion. The young people are free to copulate and or sodomize with abandon. Later in life, when they feel ready to be parents, or the state deems them ready, pregnancy can be achieved using artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization and surrogacy.
It’s right around the corner Tim. It’s coming. According to a blogger over on Jason’s where we have been discussing contraception, the PCA allows for in vitro already.
Acceptance of artificial means of birth control is behind the Brave New World right around the corner. The Devil’s jealousy of mankind is manifest in the freaky attack on marriage and family today.
Only the Catholic Church opposes the world. Even “pro-life” Protestants endorse contraception. The Dragon has several heads. This is one of them. You guys are in step with the Dragon.
The Devil’s enslavement of mankind, soul and body, is being brought about by contraception.
And you are part of it.
Jim, you want to deal with contraception and abortion, preach the gospel. Its more important. Unbelievers can have all their sins forgiven thru the gospel.
Why don’t you preach against abortion and contraception? Because John MacArthur says this,
“Nevertheless, nothing in Scripture prohibits married couples from practicing birth control, either for a limited time to delay childbearing, or permanently when they have borne children and determine that their family is complete.”
R C Sproul says,
“Protestantism has allowed for various types of birth control…”
Your Gospel preaching is hollow as it says one can disregard the moral law and be saved.
The sexually impure will not enter heaven. The blood of Christ won’t be imputed to those who have lived lives of lust when they stand before God.
You make the Gospel a license for sin. Go away.
Kevin,You know that Sturgeon guy you like to quotes condemned birth control. Huh? Fancy that.
So did the Synod of Dort.
Hmmmmmmm? John MacArthur and Stugeon can’t agree. Hmmm?
The Bible condemns it but you don’t think it is important. Neither does Tim evidently. Tell me again how the only Church that is true to the Bible is apostate?
Kevin,
I am probably going to get one of your special “Falloni Uppercuts” to the gonads for this but I am saying it anyway.
You are incapable of discussing the topic of contraception. All you can ever say is” stop smuggling. Take Jesus off the altar. Not of yourselves. etc”.
You don’t know what else to say regardless of the issue being discussed.
Even if you did, you couldn’t answer how it is you Protestants used to condemn contraception and now you are all wearing a condom on your nose and calling it “Christian Liberty”.
Have you been lurking on Jason’s for the past week and seen Robert and Eric get slapped silly on this issue? Robert went so far as to admit he violates God’s command for spouses to be “two in one flesh” by using a barrier method. Eric says he is personally opposed to contraception but won’t give Robert a fraternal correction as he doesn’t see the Bible having an opinion on the issue despite God killing Onan for rendering the conjugal act infertile.
Robert who likes to say, “Well, look how bad you Catholics are so you can’t say anything ” or” What about Pelosi?” now has revealed his hypocrisy. He keeps trying to say NFP and contraception are the same! He refuses to see that God killed Onan for an evil action but did not kill Ruth’s kinsman who did not act but refrained and opted out of having sex with her.
As for Pelosi, she is at loggerheads with the Church over the contraception mandate. Robert uses and endorses contraception. He should be on Pelosi’s side, huh? Such a phony baloney.
Jesus said we must keep the commandments. You say Jesus is wrong. You say we are no longer under the law, any law including the natural moral one.
Robert treats his wife like a harlot. He either uses a condom like a gay does on the woman he entered into a holy covenant with or he makes her use a diaphragm. Didn’t Paul say a word or two about women giving up the natural use of their bodies? Heb 13:4 says to keep the marriage bed undefiled with adultery. Condoms and diaphragms were invented for adulterous men to use with women who work in brothels. ” Cast not your seed into the belly of a whore…”.
Preach the Gospel Kevin? The Gospel is the good news. You think it is carte blanche to live like a pagan.
Jim, if you cared about the gospel as much as you do contraception you would accomplish much more. God says be fruitful and multiply. When parents do the timing method like my Catholic friends do, and they are trying to avoid pregnancy, how is that different than using a barrier method. It still is a decision to not have kids. My wife and I have no children. Did we sin? with that decision. Jim, our gospel does not say you can disregard the moral law. Paul said he DIED to the Law and lives by the Spirit. He says in Romans 7, we have been released from the Law. Meaning the penalty. We are under gospel. But we are still to keep God’s commandments. Sproul and MacArthur would both say this. No uppercuts Jim, just love.
Kevin,
Focus. Genesis 38:10. All the big Protestants said it was a clear condemnation of something God found abominable. Anyone who condones it knows nothing of the Gospel. Including John MacArthur.
How is it different from NFP? WOW! You haven’t been lurking on Jason’s have you?
The difference is like the difference between holding your tongue and telling a lie.
No, it’s like taking money out of the bank. One guy does it by writing a check and one guy does it by by sticking it up.
Check out the kinsman of Ruth who didn’t want to impregnate her. He had to remove his sandal and be disgraced for failing to be a good kinsman. That’s all.
Now, check out Onan in Gen 38:10. He didn’t want to impregnate Tamar. He was free to opt out and be disgraced. Instead, he had relations with her but withdrew and ejaculated on the ground. He rendered the marital act infertile. He angered
God and was struck dead.
Guy #1 didn’t want to make a woman pregnant and abstained.
Guy#2 didn’t want to make a woman pregnant and acted.
I can’t be any clearer than the Bible.
Did you sin? No comment. I am not a priest. But it might have to do with how you acted. Like Guy#1 or Guy#2.
I am not going to repeat the dozen or so posts I sent to Robert. Nor the ones other Catholics sent him over the past week.
Suffice it to say, Tim is way off the mark. The world has been taken over by the sexual revolution. Marriage is obsolete. Gender has been made irrelevant. Governments all over the world are moving towards China’s tyrannical system. ( 40+ years ago the Pope predicted this if contraception was endorsed. ) Sperm donors and egg donors have children they don’t even know. Entire villages in India are supported by the surrogacy business. The economies of the developed countries are all going to collapse because of having gone gray. Euthanasia will have to be implemented for the elderly. First the Catholics and then the Protestants are going to be persecuted. Etc. etc.etc. I am just warming up. And it’s all made possible by contraception.
You and Tim stand by while the waters are rising and moan over the Whore of Babylon being the Catholic Church. ln reality, the harlot has been embraced by every denomination and almost every government in the world but the Catholics.
You and Tim are so deluded by the evil one it’s ridiculous.
Jim, so whats the answer to all that. To moralize unrepentant people, or for God to change their heart thru the gospel. Why do you never talk about the Gospel, Paul says in Romans 1 it is the power of God to those who believe. The answer is not to moralize unregenerate people, it is the gospel. K
Kevin,
I am talking about the Gospel. Loud and clear.
Ever hear of the Theology of the Body? Walt and Tim had a good yuck about it. Why don’t you know about man’s original state, his fall and Jesus’ restoration of our original holiness?
You remind me of the Amish or Jehovah’s Witnesses. You look the other way and preach your (non ) gospel. You opt out of doing your duty. Even monks don’t hide in their monasteries but actively pray and do penance for their fellow men. No martyrdom for you Kevin, I can see that now. You mind your own business and stay in your closet. Oh, for sure, safely from your computer keyboard you attack the one institution that stands head and shoulders above the world and speaks truth to power.
You aren’t your brother’s keeper. You have been de-fanged. You don’t even know enough of the Bible to know contraception is a sin.* You are a pussy cat. You have made your peace with the Prince of this World.
*Good works don’t have anything to do with getting into heaven for you, right? They are a proof you Protestants have already been saved.
HHHMMmmm? So, the fact you people are all using immoral contraception and your ministers counsel newlyweds to use it, proves you have been saved. ????????
Jim, I know about the original state of man, his fall. But we weren’t restored to the garden, we were redeemed, reconciled, and saved, given the gift of eternal life though the gospel, not thru contraceptive theology. Faith in Christ saves someone from their sins, not one’s view of contraception.
Jim, how do you square the scripture that says we are not to deprive one another in marriage unless for a time of prayer. Meaning if your wife wants relations during her fertile time, according to scripture you must please your wife? It overrules the Catholic NFP, huh?
Kevin,
Just between you and me, do you really think Christ cares all that much if we know our formulas about faith, works, merit, etc.? When Catholics and Protestants actually talk, a lot of of our disagreements can be ironed out. For instance, man’s inability without grace, what you guys call “total depravity” isn’t all that much of a hurdle. Even guys like Hank Hanegraaf who used to be a major anti-Catholic stopped accusing us of works righteousness about 20 years ago.
Contraception puts one in hell if they do it knowing its gravity ( Aren’t you people big on preaching Law to convict of sin in order to open a sinner up for the Gospel?).
Why is contraception so evil? Because , if marriage and it’s renewal in the conjugal act are an image of the union between Christ and His Church, contraceptors have it all wrong.
Count up all the guys who were struck dead in the Bible. 1. The guy who touched the Ark. 2. Moses was almost killed for not circumcising his sons. 3 Dathan and Kore got swallowed up. etc.
Onan was struck dead on the spot for his action. You sneeze his sin off as irrelevant.
Kevin, the gospel for you is about 5 verses of St. Paul. For me, the Gospel is indeed Paul, but more than that, it is the four Gospels and all the words of Christ. When asked about divorce, He spoke of the original state of our first parents. They were told to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. They were naked and looked upon each other without shame. Their bodies were the means they used to convey love and the mutual exchange of one to the other.
After the fall they hid from eachother’s nakedness and from God. Their body language was not the same.
Jesus put an end to polygamy and divorce. He restored marriage to its original state as it was “in the beginning”.
How does contraception fit in with that?
Chemical contraception sterilizes a woman like farmers sterilize cattle.
Barrier methods say it doesn’t matter where the man ejaculates. The couple become little more than mutual masturbaters.
The Gospels ( not your antinomian gospel of faith alone ) call us to holiness and to KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS.
Please, deal with Gen 38:10 before telling me how unimportant contraception is to God.
Jim, do I understand from your statement here that Adam and Eve consummated their marriage before the Fall? You wrote:
I want to make sure I understand that you believe that Adam and Eve had sex before the Fall, and that the Fall interfered with their “mutual exchange of one to another.” I’m not sure how you could mean anything else than sex by that, but Lumen Gentium (56) says Eve was a Virgin at the Fall:
In that light, I’m not sure I understand your reference to the purity of sex before the Fall, since, according to Roman Catholicism, there wasn’t any.
I actually agree with you on this one point—that Adam and Eve enjoyed sexual relations before the Fall. Indeed, that is why Jesus went all the way back before the Fall to Genesis 2:24 to argue against Divorce. Adam and Eve were one in the flesh in Genesis 2, and so are married couples to be.
That is why the notion of celibate marriage is so unnatural, as is the notion of the Virgin Mary loosening the knot tied by the Virgin Eve.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
I absolutely did not understand your point the whole time I was reading what you wrote about Adam and Eve. Then when you got to the part about Mary I realized you were setting up a situation to attack Mary. ??????????????
Gosh Tim, you don’t understand the Mary and Joseph being virginal after all the stuff I wrote months ago?
Anyway, what’s your take on Gn 38:10? Kevin says masturbaion and contraception are fine. Maybe sodomy too. Between man and wife I guess he feels it;s cool. I don’t know. I tried to talk to him about it but he got so flustered and started with his death wafer stuff to throw me off the scent. Fine.
Jim, I’m asking you if you believe Adam and Eve consummated their marriage before the Fall. That is all.
Did they, or did they not? This has nothing to do with Mary and Joseph.
Your initial answer appears to say that you believe Adam and Eve were not virgins at the Fall. And you used that assertion to condemn the Protestant view of contraceptives.
Do you believe they were virgins at the Fall?
Thanks,
Tim
Jim,
I don’t understand how you can say this:
…and not see that it is a condemnation of permanent marital celibacy for which some of the Fathers advocated, and which you have alleged of Mary and Joseph. Isn’t permanent marital celibacy a denial of the “image of the union between Christ and His Church?” Why is permanent marital celibacy so evil? “Because, if marriage and its renewal in the conjugal act are an image of the union between Christ and His Church, then adherents of celibate marriage have it all wrong.”
I don’t understand why contraception can be wrong because it denies the efficacy of the conjugal act, but permanent marital celibacy is fine even though it denies the conjugal act altogether. What it really comes down to is your assumption that the sole purpose of the conjugal act is to bring forth children. If that’s the case, married couples should only have sex during a time when the woman is fertile, and abstain during the time Natural Family Planning prescribes for sex. After all, according to your logic, to have sex when you know very well a woman is infertile is lying to your partner—saying you give yourself to her, knowing full well that if she were fertile, you would not. That’s lying, isn’t it? Isn’t that the work of the dragon? Isn’t the couple simply engaged in mutual gratification, knowing very well they would never feel so free to enjoy it if a child might result from the engagement?
You seem hung up on the deaths that were meted out to people in the Old Testament for reproductive offenses. Yes, it is true that Uzzah was struck dead, for violating the law (2 Samuel 6:7), and God smote Onan for refusing to perform his obligation to his sister-in-law (Genesis 38:10). You have equated those and elevated Onan’s reproductive offense to the highest possible sin there is. Yet seven of Saul’s sons were slain simply because he violated a mutual non-agression pact with the Gibeonites (2 Samuel 21:9). There are worse sins than “Onanism.”
The fact is, Onan was not put to death for spilling his seed. Spilling seed only makes a man unclean, but does not warrant the death penalty (Leviticus 15:32). Ceremonially, it is in the same category as menstruation (Leviticus 15:33) and childbirth (Leviticus 12:2) and sex (Leviticus 15:18). Onan was put to death for violating the law. The law was for him to raise up a male son for his brother, unless he elect to opt out of the obligation (Deuteronomy 25:6-10). He did not opt out according to the law, but opted out unlawfully. The penalty was death for opting out unlawfully. He could have spilled his seed for the rest of his life or had sex with his wife for the rest of his life, without ever fulfilling his Levirate obligations, and at worst would only be ceremonially unclean.
What you need in support of your argument is not Onan, who violated the law of Levirate Marriage, but a husband who violates the law to make his wife pregnant early and often, engaging in sex for that purpose alone, and is put to death for not doing so. Unfortunately for your argument, there is no such law. Rather, your argument is simply one of sophistry, in which you attempt to use the Scripture to support a position at which you had already arrived apart from the Scriptures.
Christian liberty says I may plow my field, or let it lie fallow. Christian liberty gives me the freedom to chop down a tree to build a home, or to let the tree stand and provide shade—whatever my preference may be. Christian liberty allows me to raise cattle or slaughter them for food. It is my choice, and in either case, I am subduing the earth. Christian liberty allows me to impregnate my wife or not, whatever my preference may be. Sex was made for spouses, and the sabbath was made for man. Like the Pharisees, you have turned God’s sabbath into labor, and would have man made for the sabbath, and spouses made solely for procreation.
The wife’s body belongs to the husband, and the husband’s body belongs to the wife—for their pleasure (1 Corinthians 7:3-4). According to this scripture, the husband owes benevolence to the wife, and the wive owes benevolence to the husband. If sex were solely for procreation, there would be no talk of benevolence here, but children instead, lest the husband and wife commit “Onanism” by not trying to get pregnant every single time they have sex.
Thanks,
Tim
Jim, Stop lying, i did not say masturbation is fine. It is sin. But you want to say that Christian men who struggle with it for years mightily are somehow not redeemed. And that is ridiculous.
Tim, that has been my point to Jim all along. He complains of contraception but gives whole hearty approval to forced celibacy. If his argument that non abortive contraceptives negate God’s intended purpose, the how did his church’s decision to prohibit sex and marriage to its clergy and whoever else not deny God’s purpose. Jim and his friend Mikel on Jason’s site need a pair of ingrown eyeballs. What is the difference of family planning at the point of sex or backed up into the decision to avoid fertile times. The intent is the same.
Jim, now that Tim spit you out like a red headed stepchild take the yoke you want to lay on Protestants who understand the freedom God has given married couples in 1 Corinthians 7 and lay it on already bogged down by rituals and rites compatriots. We are free in Christ to ” enjoy the wife of our youth.”
God did not give married couples permission to sin any more than anyone else. You are an antinomian.
Jim, enjoying your sex life with your wife is not sin. And Mary and Joseph enjoyed it like anyone else.
Enjoying sex in marriage is not a sin. Not unless ejaculation takes place orally, anally, in a condom or against a diaphragm or in a woman who has been sterilized like an animal. God intended seed to be deposited vaginally. By the husband. Not by a doctor at an in vitro clinic.
Marriage is sacred. Even among pagans. The one act married people do that is special and proper only to them, is sacred too.
Tim and Kevin, you guys should be lurking on that other blog. Some of the arguments being brought up by Protestants to defend contraception are truly amazing. One fellow keeps insisting that, since nocturnal emissions take place, it doesn’t matter where seed is deposited. Another guy says the Church has been wrong all along on this. !!!!!!!!!???????????!!!!!!!!!
Tim, you are stone blind. You cannot see the forest for the trees. Open your eyes and look around. Do you see contraception has taken over the world?
Jim said ” God intended for the seed to be deposited vaginally.” Then why did your wicked leaders prevent this when the prohibited and suppressed the God’s given function of the Bishop and Priest. Peter was an Apostle and married, yet your scoundrels prohibited God’s clergy to do their God given function. Your apostate church made them spill their seed on children and women outside of marriage. Don’t worry about Onan, worry about your infallible church who has thru history been infallible about one thing, being fallible. The Irony of your Priests lecturing us on contraception. The very men who FORBID marriage and who may be upward of 30 % homosexuals now in the Priesthood. Maybe you ought to worry about their seed and not married couples.
Kelvin,
You have not really addressed Gn 38: 10. Trying to knee me the gonads with a”Falloni Uppercut” about pedophilia just proves you are on the ropes.
You endorse contraception. You in principle therefore endorse very form of perversion ( among consenting adults anyway ).
To say, “but the Bible condemns sodomy” isn’t fooling anyone. An appeal to the authority of a book induces unbelievers to heap scorn on that book. They can see you don’t have a consistent argument against gay sex or masturbation.
You look like that redneck Obummer says clings to his guns and religion because he is to stupid to have a reasoned argument.
In the history of the church, this is one of the most important article/ documents ever written. I’m not afraid to say it.
The rise of Roman Catholicism is certainly one of the most important events, and is the least understood. Not sure this particular analysis of it rises to that level of praise, though!
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
I was recently talking with a friend who has studied church history for many years. He even teaches it. He said that he didn’t think it important to nail down the beginning date of Roman Catholicism. If it was 600 or 800AD it didn’t really matter.
But I thought afterwards, if a later date is admitted than late 4th century, then the errors of the late 4th and 5th centuries could legitimately be claimed as valid teachings of “the church”, since it could be argued that the church had just continued doing what she had always done and no serious opposition to her teachings had been received. i.e. it gives an air of historical legitimacy to the errors that arose in the late 4th century if nothing much was said against them, especially when viewed two or more centuries down the line. But if we can identify the beginning of the errant teachings, then we can start to examine more critically the ensuing Councils’ decisions, like Chalcedon, which are quite confusing.
Thus it is very important that the date for the rise of Roman Catholicism is established to be late 4th century, when the flood of errors began, so they can be identified as clearly departing from the Scriptures and thus are not the church which Christ would build and against which the gates of Hell would not prevail.
Is the above a reasonable conclusion? Thx
Yes, John. Generally speaking there is a tendency for all parties (Protestant, Roman Catholic, Orthodox) to assume that there was some degree of continuity from the apostolic age all well into the medieval era. Many such historians even attempt to view the 2nd and 3rd century through the lens of the late 4th century, and reinterpret the earlier centuries accordingly. That creates an artificial authenticity for Roman Catholic claims (they thus appear to be the true Church), and a bit of a dilemma for Protestant and Orthodox claims (they appear to have broken off from the true Church).
I have covered this a little in my various articles, but that Presumption of Apostolic Continuity (PAC) is the “strong delusion” of 2 Thessalonians 2:11, and is the cause of many turning from the truth to follow the lie. That is why I spend so much time overturning the PAC. Identify the flood of error from the late 4th century, and you can identify the Woman of Revelation 12 because you can find the people who did not fall for the errors that took over almost the entire world. Find the Woman and you have found the Church, as well as our apostolic lineage.
Thanks,
Tim
Hi Tim.
I just re-read “The Other Woman” and now have a fresh understanding of why the PAC is so important to understand and how the lineage of Christians goes back through the other woman in the wilderness, not the one decked with purple, scarlet and gold (Rev12 & 17). Thx so much for making the Scriptures clear.
“And in this respect I am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches;”
If I read this correctly, Firmilian is saying that Stephen was erecting a lot of new buildings and this is the opposite of what Stephen should be doing. I have often wondered why, at the Reformation, the Reformers didn’t ditch the corrupt idea of building more edifices. Certainly many woes engulf Protestant churches today because they are tied to property and upkeep of buildings.
John, the context is rather that Stephen had been entertaining fellowship with heretics and considering their baptisms equally valid—thus recognizing many rocks and and churches built upon those rocks. It is not reference to literal church buildings. See, for example, the preceding paragraph, which provides the context:
Thus, the context is that Stephen had been recognizing the baptism administered by heretics as valid, and thus recognizing more than one gospel, more than one church, etc…
Thanks,
Tim
Goodo. Thx for clearing that up Tim.
“By way of example from the Fathers, Ignatius used “transmute” to describe what Jesus did at the wedding at Cana, as in, He “transmutes existing substances … the water which became wine” (Ignatius of Antioch, To the Philippians, ch. 7)”
Where is that?
I cannot find it.
And Ignatius to the Philippians is not in the 7 authentic letters of Ignatius.
I also could not find it in the “pseudo- Ignatius” at new advent.
I found it it’s in Ignatius to the Philippians 6, not 7
But the epistle of Ignatius to the Philippians is in the spurious collection “Pseudo-Ignatius”
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0114.htm
The introductory Note on the Spurious Epistles of Ignatius provides some historical and scholarly consensus on them.
It seems that they are unknown from before the 6th century ( 500s AD)
Nevertheless, the quote you gave from to the Philippians 6, shows that the forger, if in the 600s – 1215, also does not hold to Transubstantiation.
The substance and form are changed by miracles of the Lord.
This of yours is excellent, and is significant:
“Jesus did not change water into wine under the appearance of water. He changed it into wine under the appearance of wine. Transmutation means a complete change in both form and substance—the very thing Rome says does not happen in Transubstantiation:”
Good stuff, Tim!
On the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, it seems that started with:
The Proto-Evangelium of James (baby Jesus just beams out of Mary)
The Ascension of Isaiah
and
The Odes of Solomon
They are 2nd Century documents, as James White says “Gnostic – tinged”
Logic of this author applied:
The canon of scripture wasnt complete before 4th century, then you should reject the canon of scripture as a late invention of catholocism (while in at the same time he uses the scripture that was compiled by a apostate church)