Follow
In our series on the invisibly shepherded Church, two names necessarily stand out because of the weight of their historical testimony—Irenæus and Cyprian. We addressed Irenæus last week because Roman Catholicism misreads his testimony in Book III, chapter 3 of Against Heresies to mean that all churches everywhere must agree with Rome. In context, Irenæus had all churches everywhere guarding apostolic truth, and frequently meeting with Rome to correct her, not to submit to her. This week we will address Cyprian who again is the victim of Roman apologists who attempt to make his words carry much, much more than their context will allow.
Bryan Cross, of Called to Communion, relies heavily on Cyprian’s work, On the Unity of the Church, in order to establish the early primacy of Rome. He quotes Cyprian repeatedly in support, and concludes,
“St. Cyprian is very explicit that Christ made St. Peter the ground (or foundation or basis) of the unity of the Church. In giving to St. Peter a primacy, Christ gave to the Church a gift, a means by which to preserve her unity. Otherwise at the first schism there would be no objective way to determine where the Church is, for each faction would seemingly have equal claim to be the continuation of the Church.” (Cross, The Bishops of History and the Catholic Faith: A Reply To Brandon Addison)
To arrive at this conclusion, Cross cites Cyprian’s emphatic and repeated support for the throne of St. Peter:
“There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one Chair founded on the Rock [Peter] by the voice of the Lord. … (Epistle 39)
…although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?(Treatise on the Unity of the Catholic Church, 1st edition)
Moreover, Cornelius was made bishop by the judgment of God and of His Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the suffrage of the people who were then present, and by the assembly of ancient priests and good men, when no one had been made so before him, when the place of Fabian, that is, when the place of Peter and the degree of the sacerdotal throne was vacant; (Epistle 51)
With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal Church, in which sacerdotal unity has its source; nor did they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidy to have entrance. (Epistle 54)” (Bryan Cross, The Chair of St. Peter)
Cyprian actually has much, much more to say about the chair of St. Peter, and we can say that Cross has cited Cyprian accurately here. The question remains, however—”Did Cyprian define St. Peter’s Chair the same way that Cross does?” No, he did not.
What we will demonstrate here is that Cyprian believed that the chair of St. Peter could be found in any apostolic church in the world, and that he himself sat in it—as did every orthodox bishop on earth, occasionally to the exclusion of the bishop in Rome. In the same treatise on The Unity of the Church, Cyprian explained that the whole church was a single episcopate, and each individual bishopric “is held by each one for the whole“:
“And this unity we ought firmly to hold and assert, especially those of us that are bishops who preside in the Church, that we may also prove the episcopate itself to be one and undivided. Let no one deceive the brotherhood by a falsehood: let no one corrupt the truth of the faith by perfidious prevarication. The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole.” (Cyprian of Carthage, On the Unity of the Church, paragraph 5)
Cross’s conclusion on Cyprian is invalidated by Cyprian’s own conviction that the Church could be “one and undivided” as a single episcopate, even if the episcopate of Rome was the one corrupting the truth “by perfidious prevarication,” and thereby separating herself from the unity of the actual church. The truth of the Church would march on without Rome, if Rome had walked away from the faith, as Cyprian believed she had. Thus could Cyprian point out “pope” Stephen’s “error in endeavouring to maintain the cause of heretics against Christians” (Cyprian, Epistle 73, paragraph 1), and complain that “pope” Stephen was “forgetful of unity,” and had adopted “lies” and “contagion” instead (paragraph 2), and that “pope” Stephen had demonstrated “obstinacy” and “presumption” by preferring “human tradition to divine ordinance” (paragraph 3), and further that “pope” Stephen’s “blindness of soul” and “degradation of faith” had caused him “to refuse to recognize the unity” (paragraph 4), and that things would not go well for Stephen on the day of judgment because he “does not hold the unity and truth that arise from the divine law, but maintains heresies against the Church” (paragraph 8).
It is quite telling, is it not, that Cross thinks he has it on Cyprian’s authority that the pope is the “objective way to determine where the Church is” and to “preserve her unity,” and yet Cyprian is complaining that the “pope” himself is unwilling to recognize the “unity of the church” and unable to “preserve her unity”? “Pope” Stephen’s shame, Cyprian said, was to presume to excommunicate the bishops who possessed the unity, all the while maintaining heresies against the Church:
“Does he give glory to God, who, a friend of heretics and an enemy to Christians, thinks that the priests of God, who support the truth of Christ and the unity of the Church, are to be excommunicated?” (Cyprian, Epistle 73, paragraph 8)
Thus did Stephen act as Victor had before him, excommunicating those who disagreed with Rome, and thus did Cyprian respond as Polycrates had, utterly rebuking the one who had presumed to act as chief shepherd and to think that God had established Rome as a strong central episcopate.
If Rome’s wholesale compromise with error and heresy is how glory is given to God, Cyprian answers himself facetiously, then “let us cast away our arms” and join with “pope” Stephen! (paragraph 8). In other words, if error must be the price we pay for unity, let us cast aside our visible apostolicity in favor of a visible chief shepherd on earth! But it must not be so, he continued. Rather, we who guard the Spouse of Christ and maintain the faith must “keep the camp entrusted to us by God” even if the Roman episcopate is outside that camp:
“But if there be among us, most beloved brother, the fear of God, if the maintenance of the faith prevail, if we keep the precepts of Christ, if we guard the incorrupt and inviolate sanctity of His spouse, … let us keep the camp entrusted to us by God with faithful valour.” (Cyprian, Epistle 73, paragraph 8)
The “maintenance of the faith” required that our practices be “either prescribed in the Gospel, or contained in the epistles or Acts of the Apostles,” a precept from which Rome had departed (paragraph 2). Thus does Cyprian insist that the unity of the Catholic Church is with those who uphold it according to the Scriptures, and on occasion that unity must be upheld apart from its enemy, the bishop of Rome.
Firmilian, bishop of Caesarea, joined with Cyprian’s criticism of “pope” Stephen, thanking God that we occupy “together one and the self-same house” and rejoicing that the brethren “dwell together in unity” (Cyprian, Epistle 74, paragraph 1), even if Stephen, the Judas in Rome, was dwelling outside of it (paragraph 2) because of his audacity, pride and wickedness (paragraph 3). The unity of the Church was not being preserved by a chief shepherd in Rome, but by the Chief Shepherd in Heaven:
“For even as the Lord who dwells in us is one and the same, He everywhere joins and couples His own people in the bond of unity, whence their sound has gone out into the whole earth, who are sent by the Lord swiftly running in the spirit of unity; as, on the other hand, it is of no advantage that some are very near and joined together bodily, if in spirit and mind they differ, since souls cannot at all be united which divide themselves from God’s unity. ‘For, lo,’ it says, ‘they that are far from You shall perish.’ [Psalm 73:27] But such shall undergo the judgment of God according to their desert, as depart from His words who prays to the Father for unity, and says, ‘Father, grant that, as You and I are one, so they also may be one in us.’ [John 17:21]” (Cyprian, Epistle 74, paragraph 3)
Keep in mind that Firmilian is celebrating the unity of the Church in the same breath that he is claiming that “pope” Stephen had divided himself “from God’s unity”—all in response to the letters that Cyprian had written against Stephen. “[T]hey who are at Rome,” continued Firmilian, “do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles,” and “Stephen has now dared to make” a departure “from the peace and unity of the Catholic Church” (Cyprian, Epistle 74, paragraph 6). In conclusion, Firmilian says, tongue in cheek, that Stephen had certainly fulfilled Paul’s admonition in Ephesians 4:1-6, that we “keep the unity of the Spirit” by conducting ourselves in “lowliness and meekness”:
“For what is more lowly or meek than to have disagreed with so many bishops throughout the whole world, breaking peace with each one of them in various kinds of discord …. But as far as he is concerned, let us leave him;” (Cyprian, Epistle 74, paragraphs 25 & 26)
So much for Cross’s claim that Cyprian believed the pope in Rome was Christ’s gift of an “objective way to determine where the Church is” and the “means by which to preserve her unity.” Far from it. Cyprian—and the rest of the bishops with him—thought the apostolic truth of Scripture was the way to identify the Church and preserve its unity, even if it meant separating from the lies and contagion originating from the proud, obstinate, presumptuous and audacious episcopate of Rome.
To illustrate Cyprian’s dictum that each individual episcopate “is held by each one for the whole,” let us revisit Bryan Cross in his analysis of Clement, Bishop of Rome. As we have elsewhere noted, Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians was occasioned by the schism that originated there. Roman Catholics read an early papal monarchy into Clement’s admonition that the Corinthians resolve their differences at his behest. Pedro Rodriguez of Eternal Word Television Network draws just such a conclusion:
“From the time when St. Clement of Rome intervened in the affairs of the church of Corinth to reestablish peace in that troubled community … the Roman Pontiffs have been the instruments willed by Christ for maintaining unity among the bishops…” (Pedro Rodriguez, The Nature of Papal Primacy)
Bryan Cross relies on Clement’s epistle for the same reason, arriving at the same conclusion:
“Now with authority he calls on those who have participated in the sedition [in Corinth] to receive the counsel of the Church of Rome … . St. Clement is claiming that God is speaking through him and the Church at Rome, and thus that for the Corinthians to disobey the words he is speaking to them is to disobey God. … Finally, in conclusion he says, ‘Send back speedily to us in peace and with joy these our messengers to you: Claudius Ephebus and Valerius Bito, with Fortunatus; that they may the sooner announce to us the peace and harmony we so earnestly desire and long for [among you], and that we may the more quickly rejoice over the good order re-established among you.’ ([Clement of Rome, To the Corinthians,] c. 65) Here St. Clement urges the Corinthians to send back the Roman messengers with news of order having been re-established in the Church at Corinth.” (Cross, St. Clement of Rome: Soteriology and Ecclesiology)
Well then, says Cross, if Clement of Rome is weighing in on the affairs of the divided Corinthian church and advising the schismatics to return under the authority of their duly elected bishop, and asking for evidence and confirmation of their obedience, it simply must be proof that Rome was recognized as the strong central episcopate of the early church. To this we respond that Bryan Cross has just made Cyprian of Carthage the Pope of the Universal Church.
The Carthaginian congregation, as we discussed two weeks ago, was planted by and derived from the congregation in Rome. As such, the close relation between the two churches was alternately paternal, maternal, filial and fraternal, and these relationships were often expressed bilaterally.
Cyprian wrote letters prolifically, many of which were addressed to the Roman congregation and to Roman schismatics. By these letters Cyprian was encouraging them, correcting error and urging schismatics to return under the bishop of the church in Rome. To these letters, the Roman congregation responded with gratitude and obedience, not only receiving such instruction, but also acknowledging their own “crimes” and “degeneracy” and reporting back to Cyprian when his instructions to them, and their repentance, had been accomplished.
Upon receipt of one letter from Cyprian, the saints in Rome responded that “this chief consolation has reached us, that we have been uplifted by the receipt of your letter,” as they were “instructed and more vigorously animated” by it, and “sufficiently fed and strengthened” (Cyprian, Epistle 25, paragraph 1). They continued in the same to extol the glorious attributes of the letter received from Cyprian, recognizing that such encouragement to the confessors in prison in Rome was within “the duty of your [Cyprian’s] episcopate” (paragraph 6). At the same time, they rejoiced that Cyprian had “rebuked with fitting censure” some of the sinners among them in Rome (paragraph 6). The clergy in Rome then asked him to pray to the Lord on their behalf:
“Entreat therefore, beloved Cyprian, that of His mercy the Lord will every day more and more arm and adorn every one of us with greater abundance and readiness, and will confirm and strengthen us by the strength of His power” (Cyprian, Epistle 25, paragraph 1).
In the midst of the persecution, Rome found herself in troubling times, and troubling times called for correction and admonition from other bishops outside of Rome. Just as Clement had written to Corinth to remind them of how far they had fallen since the days of Paul’s epistles (Clement of Rome, to the Corinthians, paragraph 47), Cyprian wrote to remind Rome of how far they had fallen since the same apostle had written to them. To this, the Roman congregation fully agreed, confessing their own “crime” of degenerating since those halcyon days of apostolic instruction:
“Nor is it now but lately that this counsel has been considered by us, nor have these sudden appliances against the wicked but recently occurred to us; but this is read of among us as the ancient severity, the ancient faith, the ancient discipline, since the apostle would not have published such praise concerning us, when he said ‘that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world’ [Romans 1:8] unless already from thence that vigour had borrowed the roots of faith from those times; from which praise and glory it is a very great crime to have become degenerate. For it is less disgrace never to have attained to the heraldry of praise, than to have fallen from the height of praise; it is a smaller crime not to have been honoured with a good testimony, than to have lost the honour of good testimonies; it is less discredit to have lain without the announcement of virtues, ignoble without praise, than, disinherited of the faith, to have lost our proper praises;” (Cyprian, Epistle 30, paragraph 2)
Here, the Roman Congregation is confessing its “crimes” not merely to Cyprian, but to “Pope” Cyprian, for so they had addressed him in the salutation:
“To Father [Pope] Cyprian, the presbyters and deacons abiding at Rome, greeting.” (Cyprian, Epistle 30, paragraph 1)
Most notable is that the Roman Church called him Pope Cyprian in the absence of a Roman bishop. Bishop Fabian had died recently, but due to the pressing matters of the day, the congregation “had no bishop appointed as yet,” and in the absence of a bishop, Cyprian’s direction would suffice: “what you also have yourself declared in so important a matter, is satisfactory to us, that the peace of the Church must first be maintained” (Cyprian, Epistle 30, paragraph 5). No time for a Roman Pope, it seems, and no need for one—so long as Pope Cyprian was available to guide the universal church. Many counselors had advised the Roman congregation to deal with the vacancy in the episcopate (Cyprian, Epistle 20, paragraph 3), but the congregation did not see or understand the urgency. After all, Cyprian had given clear direction, and that was enough. The controversies would be addressed first, and then, when there was time for less important matters, a bishop could be appointed:
“Desiring to maintain the moderation of this middle course in these matters, we for a long time, and indeed many of us, and, moreover, with some of the bishops who are near to us and within reach, and some whom, placed afar off, the heat of the persecution had driven out from other provinces, have thought that nothing new was to be done before the appointment of a bishop; but we believe that the care of the lapsed must be moderately dealt with, so that, in the meantime, while the grant of a bishop is withheld from us by God, the cause of such as are able to bear the delays of postponement should be kept in suspense;” (Cyprian, Epistle 30, paragraph 5)
After thanking Pope Cyprian for his “chief consolation,” the grateful congregation in conclusion saluted him in terms befitting of a monarchical episcopate in Africa:
“We bid you, most blessed and glorious father, ever heartily farewell in the Lord; and have us in memory.” (Cyprian, Epistle 30, paragraph 8)
But Cyprian’s guidance of this foundering, faltering congregation was just getting started. It seems that when bishop Cornelius was finally appointed to replace Fabian, Cyprian took it upon himself to instruct this youngling in the ways of church administration. A good place to start, he said, would be for Cyprian’s letters to be read to the congregation at Rome “so that the brotherhood may be informed of all things by us”:
“But, so far as pertains to the cause of certain presbyters here, and of Felicissimus, that you may know what has been done here, our colleagues have sent you letters subscribed by their own hand, that you may learn, when you have heard the parties, from their letters what they have thought and what they have pronounced. But you will do better, brother, if you will also bid copies of the letters which I had sent lately by our colleagues Caldonius and Fortunatus to you, to be read for the common satisfaction, which I had written concerning the same Felicissimus and his presbytery to the clergy there, and also to the people, to be read to the brethren there; declaring your ordination, and the course of the whole transaction, that so as well there as here the brotherhood may be informed of all things by us. Moreover, I have here transmitted also copies of the same by Mettius the sub-deacon, sent by me, and by Nicephorus the acolyte.” (Cyprian, Epistle 41, paragraph 4)
Here Pope Cyprian, that “most blessed and glorious father” who delivers “chief consolations” to the congregation of Rome, sends letters to be read to the congregation there, presumes to instruct the new bishop so that the brotherhood in Rome “may be informed of all things by” Carthage, and he has not yet even hit his stride. He is about to arrive at his “Clementine” moment.
When Cornelius was appointed bishop of Rome, the congregation there stumbled into the same Corinthian error that provoked Clement’s letter so long ago. Novatian had set himself up as a separate bishop in Rome, and had secured for himself a following of some significance. Just as Cyprian had fulfilled the duty of his episcopate by confirming and strengthening the brethren in Rome, once again the triple tiara weighed heavily on the papal brow in Carthage, for duty had called once again:
“Cyprian to Cornelius his brother, greeting. I have though it both obligatory on me, and necessary for you, dearest brother, to write a short letter to the confessors who are there with you, and, seduced by the obstinacy and depravity of Novatian and Novatus, have departed from the Church; in which letter I might induce them, for the sake of our mutual affection, to return to their Mother, that is, to the Catholic Church.” (Cyprian, Epistle 42)
Then in his letter to the schismatics, Cyprian insists that they obey him by submitting to their lawfully appointed bishop, just as Clement had instructed the schismatics in Corinth: “acquiesce in these my letters” (Cyprian, Epistle 43). As if reporting to a superior, Cornelius then confirms to Cyprian that his instructions had been obeyed, and that peace had been restored (Cyprian, Epistle 45). The schismatics, too, wrote separately to Cyprian to inform him of their obedience as well (Cyprian, Epistle 49). Pope Cyprian then wrote back to both parties, congratulating each in turn (Cyprian, Epistle 46 to Cornelius; Epistle 50, to the returning Schismatics).
As heresy continued to disturb the church in Rome, Cyprian again saw fit to instruct Cornelius and his congregation. Cyprian was deeply offended that in a matter that had already been judged by Carthage, the schismatics decided to appeal to Rome as if “the authority of the bishops constituted in Africa seems to a few desperate and abandoned men to be too little.” Why would they appeal to Rome, if Pope Cyprian had already settled the matter in the courts of Africa?
“Already their case has been examined, already sentence concerning them has been pronounced; nor is it fitting for the dignity of priests to be blamed for the levity of a changeable and inconstant mind, when the Lord teaches and says, ‘Let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay.’ [Matthew 5:37]” (Cyprian, Epistle 54, paragraph 14).
Since Carthage had already spoken, Cyprian saw that their appeal to Rome was illegitimate, and so he directs Cornelius again to read this letter to the clergy in Rome so that they may be cleansed of all heresy:
“And although I know, dearest brother, from the mutual love which we owe and manifest one towards another, that you always read my letters to the very distinguished clergy who preside with you there, and to your very holy and large congregation, yet now I both warn and ask you to do by my request what at other times you do of your own accord and courtesy; that so, by the reading of this my letter, if any contagion of envenomed speech and of pestilent propagation has crept in there, it may be all purged out of the ears and of the hearts of the brethren, and the sound and sincere affection of the good may be cleansed anew from all the filth of heretical disparagement.” (Cyprian, Epistle 54, paragraph 20).
In the next sentence, Cyprian insists that the appeal of the heretics not be heard in Rome: “But for the rest, let our most beloved brethren firmly decline” because “one admonition” from Carthage was sufficient (Cyprian, Epistle 54, paragraph 21). Carthage had spoken—the case was closed.
What is more, when Florentius Pupianus had impugned Cyprian’s character, he responded indignantly at the intemperance, the audacity, the unmitigated gall by which Florentius had presumed to appoint himself as a “bishop of a bishop” and “judge of a judge” over Cyprian, the ruler of the Church! Florentius, by criticizing Cyprian, had violated the precepts of Scripture which forbid that the Lord’s high priest be assailed (John 18:22-23, Acts 23:4-5). And then, from the pen of Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, spewed forth a claim of such pre-eminent authority and papal prerogative that it alone could have settled the matter of Roman primacy once and for all … if only it had come from the pen of a Roman bishop! Cyprian, identifying himself as “the bishop who is one and rules over the Church,” ridiculed Florentius for thinking that he could stand in judgment of Cyprian’s decrees. If Cyprian required the approval of another, then, impossibly, for all these six years that he had awaited Pupianus’ approbation, Christ had had no representative on earth:
“For from this have arisen, and still arise, schisms and heresies, in that the bishop who is one and rules over the Church is contemned by the haughty presumption of some persons; and the man who is honoured by God’s condescension, is judged unworthy by men. For what swelling of pride is this, what arrogance of soul, what inflation of mind, to call prelates and priests to one’s own recognition, and unless I may be declared clear in your sight and absolved by your judgment, behold now for six years the brotherhood has neither had a bishop, nor the people a prelate, nor the flock a pastor, nor the Church a governor, nor Christ a representative, nor God a priest! Pupianus must come to the rescue, and give judgment, and declare the decision of God and Christ accepted, that so great a number of the faithful who have been summoned away, under my rule, may not appear to have departed without hope of salvation and of peace;” (Cyprian, Epistle 68, paragraph 5)
There is only one thing left to say of a bishopric of such monarchical and glorious paternal authority that its occupant could warn the bishop of Rome to do as he says, settle disputes across the sea with a stroke of his pen, insist that the decision of a court in Africa was final, that he was God’s high priest and Christ’s representative on earth:
All hail Carthage! The strong central episcopate of the early church!
Of course, we jest. We simply wish to highlight the folly of Bryan Cross who sees a strong central Roman episcopate because Clement wrote to the Corinthian schismatics insisting that they obey their bishop, but refuses to see that Cyprian did precisely the same thing to Rome from Carthage. Because of the assumptions he carries into the texts, Cross can see Clement asking Corinth to report to him of their obedience as evidence of papal primacy, but cannot see that both the bishop in Rome and the schismatics in Rome wrote separately to Pope Cyprian to inform him that peace had been restored according to his direction. Cross, as we stated elsewhere, did not find Roman primacy in the text. Rather he simply found the Roman primacy that he had carried into it before he had even read it.
What then are we to say of Cyprian’s insistence that the unity of the church is bound up in the chair of St. Peter? Was this Cyprian’s acknowledgment of Roman Primacy? Hardly. Cross appeals to Cyprian’s thoughts on the chair of St. Peter without actually understanding Cyprian’s thoughts on the Chair of St. Peter.
Next week we will evaluate Cyprian further and show how Cyprian can acknowledge, geographically, that Peter’s “cathedra” is in Rome, (just as Tertullian before him acknowledged, geographically, that the “cathedræ” of the other apostles were accessible as well), but at the same time, as shown above, that the bishop of Rome himself could be outside of the unity of St. Peter’s chair, and that Petrine unity could be sustained by other episcopates completely apart from Rome! Additionally, we will show that Cyprian’s view of the rock upon which Christ built His church was the “rock” of the faith of those who held to Peter’s profession (Matthew 16:16). We will show that Cyprian saw his apostolic authority flowing from Rome in the same way that Irenæaus saw his apostolic authority flowing from Smyrna, and further that the Roman congregation believed it was her duty to shepherd other churches, just as they acknowledged that it was Cyprian’s duty to do so, as well. For now, we will say that Bryan Cross has rushed into Cyprian, eager to find Roman Primacy, but unwilling to let historical and literary context define Cyprian’s rather nuanced position on “St. Peter’s Chair.”
TIM–
Maybe I am not reading it correctly because the language is tedious. I seem to read that Stephen, the Bishop of Rome, is against re-baptism and Cyprian is for re-baptism?
Yes, Cyprian did not believe the baptism of heretics to be valid.
Thanks,
Tim
Heretics baptizing others or heretics being baptized?
The reason I ask is that Cyprian seems to be in the wrong here and Stephen is right. If that is the case, then, Rome is right and Cyprian and the rest of the Church is wrong. That kind of sheds a bad light on your argument.
An illicit baptism is still valid whether the baptizer has fallen into heresy, or the baptized has fallen into heresy. That is why among Christians, Protestant or non-Protestant, baptism is recognized as valid and no one should be re-baptized.
I guess that depends on what you think Cyprian was teaching and what you think Roman Catholicism teaches:
Cyprian thought that people with a valid baptism did not need to be be re-baptized, but that people with an invalid baptism needed to be. There is an interesting story related by Firmilian, bishop of Caesarea. A demon-possessed woman had performed a Trinitarian baptism. Firmilian believed that the baptism she had administered was invalid, but that pope Stephen appeared to think that it was valid:
Do you think the baptism of a demoniac is valid, Bob? Does Rome today teach that the baptism of a demoniac is valid? Pretty interesting controversy in the early church.
That said, if Stephen was right and Cyprian and the rest of the church was wrong, does that prove that Cyprian agreed with the pope?
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
You stated:
“pope Stephen appeared to think that it was valid:
‘Do Stephen and they who agree with him approve of this also especially when neither the symbol of the Trinity nor the legitimate and ecclesiastical interrogatory were wanting to her?'”
Aye, there’s the rub. The answer from Stephen is lacking here. What “appears” to be so may not in fact be so. How did Stephen rule in this case?
And then you asked”Do you think the baptism of a demoniac is valid, Bob? Does Rome today teach that the baptism of a demoniac is valid? ”
Of a demoniac or by a demoniac? The nature of the sacrament must be taken into account–matter, form and intentions. A demoniac illicitly baptized by an authorized Christian is still valid although the moving of the Spirit is hindered by the disposition of the demoniac. An unbaptized demoniac has no spiritual authority to baptize anyone else, so it is invalid. An ordained priest, even though his personal disposition may not be right with God(mortal sin), still has the authority to baptize an individual (providing the rite of baptism is correct and complete in matter and form and intent) because the sacrament of Holy Orders cannot be reversed. That is also the nature of a sacrament, if it is valid in the first place, it cannot be reversed.
Is baptism of a demoniac valid? If all requirements are met, then yes. Does a demoniac have the correct intention for baptism? Good question. Did Jesus save demoniacs? You betcha. What was their intention or personal disposition? Did they want to be saved? Does any demoniac want to be saved?
You commented: “Pretty interesting controversy in the early church.”
Yes, it was. Doctrine and dogmas were still being formulated and defined.
Then you said: “That said, if Stephen was right and Cyprian and the rest of the church was wrong, does that prove that Cyprian agreed with the pope?”
I don’t quite understand the question. Cyprian is writing these letters while the Church is under severe persecution. He himself fled Carthage to avoid it. Also, he was really steadfast in his belief that those who had fallen away from the Church to avoid persecution should not be admitted back in unless there was some hard penance involved. He was looked at as a rigorist. This created schism with those in Carthage as well as Rome. The harshness of his words in the letters probably resulted from the tension caused by the controversy at hand. What appears to be conflict between Cyprian and Stephen may be the process of reasoning together to hash out definitions of heresy and eventually agree upon doctrine. What is missing here is Stephen’s response to Cyprian. Where are those documents if any?
Anyway, Wkipedia has this to say in a nutshell:
“Following the Decian persecution of 250–251, there was disagreement about how to treat those who had lapsed from the faith, and Stephen was urged by Faustinus, Bishop of Lyon, to take action against Marcian, Bishop of Arles, who denied penance and communion to the lapsed who repented, the position called Novatianism, after Novatian, later declared a heretic, who held for the strictest approach.
Stephen held that converts who had been baptized by splinter groups did not need re-baptism, while Cyprian and certain bishops of the Roman province of Africa held rebaptism necessary for admission to the Eucharist. Stephen’s view eventually won broad acceptance in the Latin Church. However, in the Eastern Churches this issue is still debated.
He is also mentioned as having insisted on the restoration of the bishops of León and Astorga, who had been deposed for unfaithfulness during the persecution but afterwards had repented.”
Personally, I am on the side of mercy.
Eph 4:32 Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you.
TIM–
You said: “Here, the Roman Congregation is confessing its “crimes” not merely to Cyprian, but to “Pope” Cyprian, for so they had addressed him in the salutation:
“To Father [Pope] Cyprian, the presbyters and deacons abiding at Rome, greeting.” (Cyprian, Epistle 30, paragraph 1)
Most notable is that the Roman Church called him Pope Cyprian in the absence of a Roman bishop.”
Are you saying that not all bishops were called “Father”?
The word pope derives from Greek πάππας meaning “Father”. This term was applied to all bishops and other presbyters at that time. It’s applied today as well to all ordained priests. They are not called “pope” but that is what the word means is “father”. The title of “POPE” became official later as referring only to the Bishop of Rome, so to differentiate from other “fathers”. But that was much later than Cyprian.
A prime example of Tim Kauffman spin.
Bob, you wrote,
You may have missed the facetiousness of the article. “Spin” is exactly how Called to Communion gets papal primacy out of the early data, and I sought to demonstrate (as I have with other patristic writers) that Rome must “spin” the data to get papal primacy that early. You may recall that Byran Cross alleged that Alexandria, Antioch and Rome were considered the three Petrine Sees “at that time,” that is to say, at the time of Ignatius—even though the earliest support for such an allegation was almost 300 years in the future. Is that “spin” or is it falsification?
As you yourself have consistently noted and conceded, there was no papal primacy this early in the church, for “Doctrine and dogmas were still being formulated and defined.” What then to you make of Bryan Cross’s and Sean Patrick’s claim for a monarchical Roman episcopate in the middle of the 2nd century? Is that “spin,” too, or is it just earnest Roman Catholic apologists trying to make what they can of the data? You may recall that I am not inventing pope Cyprian here. I am merely using Rome’s own epistemological methods to show the absurdity of their conclusions. In technical terms, reductio ad absurdam.
Do you agree with Byran Cross that there was a papal monarch at the time of Cyprian? Irenæus? Ignatius? What is your proof?
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
You said: “Do you agree with Byran Cross that there was a papal monarch at the time of Cyprian? Irenæus? Ignatius? What is your proof?”
It certainly appears to be so of some degree. When you read all the entire text of the citations of which you comment on just a portion of, it certainly becomes apparent. Especially when you take into account the history of the different heresies involved and how they were eventually dealt with.
The interesting thing is that these guys are writing to or travelling to Rome in the first place. Why is Rome so important that they write or travel to Rome from Antioch, or Smyrna, or Carthage? If, as you claim, the Chair of Peter is in Carthage, Smyrna, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Ephesus, etc,etc, as well as Rome, all with equal authority under the One Heavenly Shepherd, why is Rome so important that these guys are writing and travelling to Rome?
Is it because the heresy in the Roman Chair of Peter is worse than the other Chairs of Peter? Nope. Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Carthage, all had heresies just as bad or worse than Rome.
The Church saw the need for unity and for some reason it became Rome. You see “the Rise of Roman Catholicism”. It could have easily been “the Rise of Carthaginian Catholicism” or “the Rise of Alexandrian Catholicism” or “the Rise of etc,etc,etc, Catholicism”, they all eventually were unified in doctrine with Rome. Is it because Peter established the Chair of Peter in Rome? Cyprian certainly acknowledges it. It didn’t happen in Carthage, nor Alexandria, nor Antioch, nor Jerusalem. It happened in Rome–the strong central episcopate that all the Church appealed to for centuries.
Bob, you asked,
This is a great question that illustrates the foundational principle of Roman apologetics: assume first that all the data originates from the principle of Roman Primacy, and voila!, the data therefore proves the assumption upon which it is believed to be based. Consider the data.
Chrysostom said Ignatius traveled to Rome under arrest, but providentially nevertheless, because Rome “required more help.”
Irenæus said Polycarp traveled to Rome to help pope Anicetus deal with the error prospering under his administration.
Irenæus himself traveled to Rome to deal with the error flourishing under “pope” Eleutherus.
Hippoytus did not travel to Rome, since he was already there, and complained bitterly of the error propagating under a succession of heretical Roman bishops.
Origen traveled to Rome, as Eusebius points out, during the administration of “pope” Zephyrinus during whose reign “the truth had been corrupted.”
Tertullian testified that the bishop of Rome was writing letters in support of the Montanist heresy.
These men traveled to Rome (except in the case of Hippolytus, who was already there, and Tertullian who only wrote of it), therefore Rome must have been the center of ecclesiastical life and health, right? The syllogism is completely invalid, since these men were not traveling to Rome to learn the truth, but to discover the error being propagated there under the ostensibly watchful and infallible eye of the “pope” himself.
They were writing to Rome, too, but they were also writing to other places. Firmilian of Caesarea was writing to Carthage to complain about the fact that Rome’s aspostolicity had been compromised by its bishop, thanking Cyprian for writing to Caesarea about Stephen’s error. Cyprian also wrote to the church in Spain. When Cyprian wrote to Rome it was to instruct and correct them, and Rome wrote back to Carthage thank him for his work and confessing her “crimes” and “degeneracy.”
A Roman Apologist reads this and can see only Roman Primacy, completely ignoring the context of the journeys and the content of the letters, just as you have done.
Leo sends a letter to an Asian council, and the council agrees with his letter, and this proves Roman Primacy. Cyprian writes a letter to a Roman Council and the council agrees with his letter, proving that Cyprian was submitting to Roman Primacy. Clement corrects the schism in Corinth, and it is proof of Roman Primacy. Cyprian corrects the schism in Rome and it is proof that Cyprian was guarding the dignity of the chief episcopate. Rome sends a legate to Nicæa, and this proves Roman Primacy. Constantinople sends a legate to the council of Rome, and it proves Constantinopolitan submission to Rome. Rome declares the date of Easter, and it proves papal prerogative. The Asian Church rejects his overtures and he relents, proving papal charity and deference. Augustine says Rome has spoken, the case is closed, and it proves Roman primacy. Cyprian says Carthage has spoken, the case is closed, and the data is ignored. A heretic appeals an African judgment to a Roman council, and it proves Roman primacy. A heretic appeals the decision of a Roman Bishop to the Council of Arles, and it proves that Arles deferred to Rome.
All data is interpreted to support the assumption that Rome has the primacy. But as you have already acknowledged, there was no papal or Roman primacy for the first 300 years of Christianity. The only way to find a monarchical episcopate in the first 300 years is to ignore the data. Your statement that “[Rome] certainly appears to be [the monarchical episcopate]” must ignore the data in order arrive at such a conclusion.
You continued,
Yes. At the end of 4th century, it finally became Rome, “the strong central episcopate that all the [Roman Catholic] Church appealed to for centuries” after it arose, as prophesied. Roman Catholicism is the Antichrist of which we were warned, and for whose arrival the Early Church Fathers were bracing in cautious anticipation. He came right on schedule.
Your mistake, and that of Roman Catholicism, is to think that because Rome eventually became prime, that Roman Catholicism must have been the “true Church” all along. In reality, Rome simply has fulfilled the prophesies of the rise of Antichrist. For 300 years the Church of Jesus Christ successfully resisted Rome’s occasional fits of arrogance and proud, obstinate advances, and then when the time had come for her to rise, the Church fled to the wilderness, leaving Antichrist Rome unrestrained to have her way for 1,260 years.
Thanks,
Tim
“This is a great question that illustrates the foundational principle of Roman apologetics: assume first that all the data originates from the principle of Roman Primacy, and voila!, the data therefore proves the assumption upon which it is believed to be based.”
Thx for highlighting this form of argument Tim. It’s obvious once you point it out and it makes so much sense when I read Bob’s and some others replies here. Just this morning in watching a debate between a Moslem and a Christian Pastor, the similar error became obvious i.e. reading the Koran back into the OT and NT.
TIM–
You said: “Cross’s conclusion on Cyprian is invalidated by Cyprian’s own conviction that the Church could be “one and undivided” as a single episcopate, even if the episcopate of Rome was the one corrupting the truth “by perfidious prevarication,” and thereby separating herself from the unity of the actual church.”
Cyprian is talking about Novatian here and not the legitimate See of Rome. He supports Cornelius as “the actual church”.
Bob, I think you missed my point by citing a single sentence, as if I had claimed that Cyprian’s treatise on The Unity of the Catholic Church was written against Cornelius. In the treatise, Cyprian was writing about the fact that Novatian had separated himself from the unity of the Church, and in his other Epistles Cyprian claimed that Stephen, a legitimately elected bishop of Rome, had also separated himself from the unity of the Church. Thus Cyprian’s conviction was, as I stated, that the Church could be one and undivided as a single episcopate, even if Rome herself separated from the unity of the Church and was outside the camp. Stephen, as we know, was just as given to “perfidious prevarication” as Novatian was. That is why Firmilian, with Cyprian’s encouragement, said of Stephen, “let us leave him.”
Of whom was Cyprian writing, Bob, when he spoke of that “error in endeavouring to maintain the cause of heretics against Christians” (Cyprian, Epistle 73, paragraph 1), and complained that he was “forgetful of unity,” and had adopted “lies” and “contagion” instead (paragraph 2), and had demonstrated “obstinacy” and “presumption” by preferring “human tradition to divine ordinance” (paragraph 3), because of his “blindness of soul” and “degradation of faith” which had caused him “to refuse to recognize the unity” (paragraph 4), and that things would not go well for him on the day of judgment because he “does not hold the unity and truth that arise from the divine law, but maintains heresies against the Church” (paragraph 8).
Was Cyprian speaking of Novatian, here, as well? If not, of whom?
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
You keep saying: “But as you have already acknowledged, there was no papal or Roman primacy for the first 300 years of Christianity.”
And that is why the Church found a need for it, because heresy was cropping up everywhere at the time, not just in Rome. You say “the Rise of Roman Catholicism” was Satan stepping in and taking over. The fact is, it happened to combat heresy that Satan was causing. And the entire Church embraced that strong central episcopate for centuries. It is historical fact.
You said: “Chrysostom said Ignatius traveled to Rome under arrest, but providentially nevertheless, because Rome “required more help.”
That’s a good example of the teaching office of the Magisterium at work. CCC 85
“Irenæus said Polycarp traveled to Rome to help pope Anicetus deal with the error prospering under his administration.”
Again an example of the teaching office of the Magisterium at work. CCC 85
“Irenæus himself traveled to Rome to deal with the error flourishing under “pope” Eleutherus.”
Ditto. He was dealing with heresy in his capacity of the Magisterium.
“Hippoytus did not travel to Rome, since he was already there, and complained bitterly of the error propagating under a succession of heretical Roman bishops.”
And that is because he himself was in heresy, a precursor to the Novatianist schism. In fact, he taught Novatian. He came into conflict with the popes of his time and seems to have headed the schismatic group as a rival Bishop of Rome. For that reason he is sometimes considered the first antipope. He opposed the Roman bishops who softened the penitential system to accommodate the large number of new pagan converts.
As a presbyter of the church at Rome under Pope Zephyrinus
He accused Pope Zephyrinus of modalism, the heresy which held that the names Father and Son are simply different names for the same subject. Hippolytus championed the Logos doctrine of the Greek apologists, most notably Justin Martyr, which distinguished the Father from the Logos (“Word”). An ethical conservative, he was scandalized when Pope Callixtus I (217–222) extended absolution to Christians who had committed grave sins, such as adultery. At this time, he seems to have allowed himself to be elected as a rival Bishop of Rome, and continued to attack Pope Urban I and Pope Pontian. However, he was very probably reconciled to the Church when he died as a martyr.
“Origen traveled to Rome, as Eusebius points out, during the administration of “pope” Zephyrinus during whose reign “the truth had been corrupted.”
Again, Origen himself was in heresy. Unlike many church fathers, he was never canonized as a saint because some of his teachings directly contradicted the teachings attributed to the apostles, notably the Apostles Paul and John. His teachings on the pre-existence of souls, the final reconciliation of all creatures, including perhaps even the devil (the apokatastasis), and the subordination of the Son of God to God the Father, were extremely controversial. He was later declared a heretic:
“If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their impious writings, as also all other heretics already condemned and anathematized by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and by the aforesaid four Holy Synods and [if anyone does not equally anathematize] all those who have held and hold or who in their impiety persist in holding to the end the same opinion as those heretics just mentioned: let him be anathema. ” –Fifth Ecumenical Council, Constantinople II
And finally: “Tertullian testified that the bishop of Rome was writing letters in support of the Montanist heresy.”
Tertullian himself fell into Montanist heresy while Rome condemned it. Go figger. What is interesting is this:
“Though conservative, he did originate and advance new theology to the early Church. He is perhaps most famous for being the oldest extant Latin writer to use the term Trinity (Latin: Trinitas), and giving the oldest extant formulation of the Trinitarian terminology later adopted at the First Council of Nicaea. Other Latin formulations that first appear in his work are “three persons, one substance” as the Latin “tres personae, una substantia” (itself from the Koine Greek “treis hypostases, homoousios”). He wrote his trinitarian formula after becoming a Montanist. However, unlike many Church fathers, he was never recognized as a saint by the Church, as several of his later teachings directly contradicted the teachings of the Church.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian
And now you know………the rest of the story. Naturally, their writings would show animosity toward those who held them in schism.
TIM–
You asked: “Of whom was Cyprian writing, Bob, when he spoke of that “error in endeavouring to maintain the cause of heretics against Christians” (Cyprian, Epistle 73, paragraph 1)…Was Cyprian speaking of Novatian, here, as well? If not, of whom?
And what was Stephen’s final ruling on this matter? Did he “infallibly” define the Donatist heresy as doctrine to be believed by the whole Church? I don’t think so, Tim.
You also said: “For 300 years the Church of Jesus Christ successfully resisted Rome’s occasional fits of arrogance and proud, obstinate advances, and then when the time had come for her to rise, the Church fled to the wilderness, leaving Antichrist Rome unrestrained to have her way for 1,260 years.
Yeah, whatever. And how many were baptised E Nomini Patri, Et Filio, Et Spiritu Sancti by that “horrible” Church? How many were led to Christ by that “vicious” Church?
Mar 3:25 If a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand.
And yet the Roman Catholic Church still stands in spite of your discovery, Copernicus.
Bob, you wrote,
Well, as you yourself have noted, you don’t know the final outcome, do you?
In any case, your objection is a mere diversion. Byran Cross was not arguing that Cyprian was wrong and Stephen was right. Bryan Cross was arguing that Cyprian believed in a strong central episcopate from which Stephen presided. Cyprian clearly did not believe this.
Thus, the argument from Roman Catholics (and you, their apologist) must always devolve to this: “But Stephen was right!” To which I say, “But that was not the question.”
Here is the argument in sum:
To this, I respond (again), if Stephen was right and Cyprian and the rest of the church was wrong, does that prove that Cyprian agreed with and submitted to the pope?
No, it does not. The facts stand: Cyprian did not assign to Rome the strong central episcopacy that you think he did. In fact, he rejected the very thing you say he affirmed. In light of that, you respond, “But Stephen was right!” But what you cannot say, because you cannot support it, is “But Cyprian submitted to Rome as a strong central episcopate!”
Because Rome cannot prove that Cyprian supported Rome as the chief episcopate, Rome is reduced to answering a different question than the one being discussed.
A useful tactic, if distraction and diversion is your aim, but hardly an answer to the question at hand.
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
So you believe that Cyprian remained in schism with Rome?
Bob wrote:
“And that is why the Church found a need for it, because heresy was cropping up everywhere at the time, not just in Rome. You say “the Rise of Roman Catholicism” was Satan stepping in and taking over. The fact is, it happened to combat heresy that Satan was causing. And the entire Church embraced that strong central episcopate for centuries. It is historical fact.”
The only good thing Bob about reading your discussion with Tim on this blog as it just firmly establishes to the former Roman Catholic or the current Catholic how little you know about these subjects, and are so desperate to try to win even one argument.
Tim called you a Roman Catholic apologist, and it is very true, but I suspect that why most true Roman Catholic expert apologists (who have skilled credibility in these things) stay away is they have learned there is really no way to win an argument with Tim on historical facts.
Sure, I don’t agree with his historicist date setting over what other ministers have argued in eschatology, and I certainly don’t agree with his views as a professed reformed Presbyterian, but it is near impossible to dispute his ability to accurately reflect the opinions of the early church fathers using historical evidence from their own writings.
Your constant use of wikipedia and Roman Catholic secondary sources ignoring the primary sources of the actual writings of the early church fathers just demonstrates to the reader why you remain arguing as a Romish apologist and the real Romish apologists stay away from the primary sources and this blog.
I do look forward to the day when you do improve your skills to reference the primary sources, and avoid spin by Rome.
WALT–
You said: “Your constant use of wikipedia and Roman Catholic secondary sources ignoring the primary sources of the actual writings of the early church fathers just demonstrates to the reader why you remain arguing as a Romish apologist and the real Romish apologists stay away from the primary sources and this blog.
I do look forward to the day when you do improve your skills to reference the primary sources, and avoid spin by Rome.”
I simply use the history behind the writings to shed light on the writings. If gives perspective. Why read the writings and ignore the history behind them? Who would have thought by reading Tertullian’s writings against heresy, that he eventually joined the Montanist movement? Pretty hypocritical.
So, Walt, why do you not criticise Tim for using the Catholic encyclopedia and Wikipedia, hmmmmmmm? Oh that’s right. You agree with the way HE uses it. That makes all the difference. How transparent of you. You have my applause.
And I do look forward to the day when you do improve your skills to reference the primary sources, and avoid spin by Scotch Presbyterians.
Tim,
I was just watching “Vocation Boom!” on EWTN and they say that the Roman Catholic church is booming. They are now 1.4 billion Catholics worldwide, and from 1900 there were 2 million Catholics in Africa, but since 1980 the church there has grown from 50 million to now over 150 million Catholics in Africa.
Their vocation students there now are over 27,000 up from 7,000 in 1980.
It seems global Roman Catholic religion is growing faster than ever throughout the world. This is really very interesting in terms of eschatology from my own historicist views.
WALT–
You said: “It seems global Roman Catholic religion is growing faster than ever throughout the world. This is really very interesting in terms of eschatology from my own historicist views.”
Don’t limit yourself to just Catholics, Walt. Looky here:
More than 1/3 of Protestants and Evangelicals live in Sub-Saharan Africa (Pew study)
Sub-Saharan Africa has both the greatest concentration of evangelical Christians (13% of sub-Saharan Africa is evangelical) and the largest share of the world’s evangelicals (38%) (p. 68). [About one-in-three evangelicals live in the Americas (33%) and roughly one-in-five reside in the Asia-Pacific region (21%).]
The majority of Christians in sub-Saharan Africa are Protestant (57%), as broadly defined in this report; this includes members of African Independent Churches and Anglicans.12 About one-in-three Christians in the region (34%) are Catholic. Orthodox Christians account for about 8% of the region’s Christians, and other Christians make up the remaining 1% (p.54)
Nigeria is the 2nd largest Protestant nation (after USA). 3. China, 4. Brazil 5. South Africa 6. UK 7. DR Congo 8. Germany, 9. Kenya, 10. India (p. 27)
Kenya is the 9th “largest” Protestant nation in the world; 60% of the population is Protestant; Kenyans make up 3% of global Protestants. (Including Catholics, 85% of Kenyans claim to be Christians.)
73% of South Africans are Protestant.
Spotlight on Nigeria:
Nigeria’s large Christian community is diverse. It includes nearly 60 million Protestants (broadly defined),
about 20 million Catholics and more than 750,000 other Christians. All of Christianity’s major groups have
grown in Nigeria since the 1970s, but the growth of pentecostal churches has been especially dramatic in
recent decades.
Orthodox Christians make up 12% of the global population. Ethiopia is the second largest Orthodox country in the world (after Russia ahead of Ukraine) with 36 million (43.5% of their population; 14% of all Orthodox.) (Spotlight on Ethiopia p. 56).
“Other Christians“ includes groups that “self-identify as Christians” (pp. 35, 40), including American exports like Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, and Christian Science, but they make up only about 1% of the global total. Zambia leads African countries (#4 globally) with just over a million “other Christians”, 8.5% of its population, followed by Nigeria (#6) with 0.5 of its population, and Kenya (1.5 % of its population) at #9, just ahead of Germany (p. 35).
https://benbyerly.wordpress.com/2011/12/21/more-than-13-of-protestants-and-evangelicals-live-in-sub-saharan-africa-pew-study/
How does that fit into your eschatology?
Bob wrote:
“How does that fit into your eschatology?”
It fits in perfectly. Those groups are not Protestants by reformed definitions. They are really daughters of Rome, and perfectly fit into the “waterflood” of false doctrine we would see leading up to the close of the 1260 year period.
Thanks for the info. Bob…it shows the daughters of Rome are booming as is predicted to come to pass.
Whose prediction? 1260 years from what? You date setters are all alike. Give me something precise so that I may see if it is from God or just a gut feeling from peering into your hat.
Bob wrote:
“Whose prediction? 1260 years from what? You date setters are all alike. Give me something precise so that I may see if it is from God or just a gut feeling from peering into your hat.”
What does it matter to you Bob? You are not on this site to learn anything. You are here to debate sinfully and seek to cause as much confusion as possible.
Tim, have you heard of or read this book:
“Politicizing the Bible: The Roots of Historical Criticism and the Secularization of Scripture 1300-1700” (Herder & Herder Books) Hardcover – August 1, 2013
by Scott W. Hahn (Author), Benjamin Wiker (Author)
The basic breakdown of the book is as follows:
1) Roots of the Historical Critical Method – “Here we wish to make clear again that we are not condemning the historical-critical method, but attempting to bring to light why is has particular characteristic effects that undermine or radically transform religious belief and how these effects are related to the method itself” (page 9).
They aim to reveal the presuppositions of the H-C method.
2) Marsilius of Padua and William of Ockham
3) John Wycliffe
4) Machiavelli
5) Luther and the Reformation
6) England and Henry VIII
7) Descartes an the Secular Cosmos
8) Thomas Hobbes
9) Spinoza
10) Richard Simon
11) English Civil Wars, Moderate Radicals, and John Locke
12) Revolution, Radicals, Republicans and John Toland
13) Conclusion: “[Speaking of Descartes, Hobbess, and Spinoza] It soon became apparent that, since the universe was an entirely law-governed, self-contained, and self-sustaining machine, that an active, living, creating, and redeeming God of the Old and New Testament would either have to be redefined (by being subsumed into nature via pantheism), relieved of the power to control or sustain His creation (thereupon standing outside of nature as an entirely dispassionate and detached watchmaker), or simply rejected (by the more radical of the radical Enlightenment)…since miracles had been excised from nature, they had to be removed form the text.
Walt–
You said: “What does it matter to you Bob? You are not on this site to learn anything. You are here to debate sinfully and seek to cause as much confusion as possible.”
Yes, that is what this site is intended to do to Catholics. I am just reciprocating. And you are right. I didn’t come to this site to learn anything. I followed Kevin Failoni over here from CreedCodeCult–troll vs troll.
However, I must say I have learned quite a bit from this sight by reading Tim’s references to the quotes he cites. It has been extremely enlightening to research the history of the early Church and compare the Catholic approach as well as the Reformed approach to that history. I have been blessed by my participation whether you like it or not. It is, after all, quite entertaining.
Tim is very, very, good at what he does, and let me add, Walt,
that your triumphalism is second to none. Again, you have my applause.