Follow
This week we conclude our series on the invisibly shepherded church. When we left off last week, we showed that Cyprian believed that to be truly “one,” the Church must be united with the chair of St. Peter. If we were to back-load that statement with all the trappings of modern papal claims, it would appear that Cyprian held to Roman, Petrine and papal primacy. In reality, Cyprian believed that every bishop possessed the “keys” and sat in “the chair” of St. Peter, and Cyprian actually invoked that Petrine prerogative as the basis for separating from the bishop of Rome. The “rock” upon which Christ had built His Church was the rock of the confessing church, and Cyprian believed that “pope” Stephen had wavered in that confession. If Cyprian believed that the bishop of Rome could be cut off in order to preserve the Petrine unity of the Church and to preserve the integrity of its foundation, we can be confident that Cyprian did not refer to “the chair of St. Peter” or “the rock” of Matthew 16:18 in the same way that Rome and her apologists do today.
Of particular interest to us this week is Cyprian’s response to the African heretics who sailed to Rome to lodge an appeal against a decision of his court. Cyprian considered the appeal unlawful, because the decision of an African court was final: “Already their case has been examined, already sentence concerning them has been pronounced” (Cyprian, Epistle 54, paragraph 14). After all, “one admonition” from Carthage was sufficient grounds to cease fellowship with a heretic (Cyprian, Epistle 54, paragraph 21). We find this observation of Cyprian particularly poignant in light of Rome’s perpetual reliance on Augustine’s deference to Rome. “Rome has spoken, the case is closed,” say the Romanists, summarizing Augustine’s language in Sermon 81:
“For already have two councils on this question been sent to the Apostolic see; and rescripts also have come from thence. The question has been brought to an issue;” (Augustine, Sermon 81 on the New Testament, paragraph 10)
If Augustine’s language here supports Roman primacy, we fail to see how Cyprian’s language does not support Carthaginian primacy. Listen to Cyprian again to see that he was making the same point about Carthage as Augustine was about Rome:
“Already their case has been examined, already sentence concerning them has been pronounced” (Cyprian, Epistle 54, paragraph 14).
Cyprian goes on to warn Rome, insisting that she “firmly decline” the appeal and refuse to hear it (Cyprian, Epistle 54, paragraph 21). Carthage had spoken, the case was closed.
We return to this for two main reasons, the first of which is to demonstrate that Cyprian vehemently objected to the appeal of an African decision to a Roman bishop. This demonstrates that in the eyes of Cyprian, Rome did not enjoy the primacy that her apologists have retroactively thrust upon her. The second reason is that the Ante-Nicene church, by way of a very striking contrast, had absolutely no objection to the appeal of the judgment of a Roman bishop to higher court.
The occasion for this observation is the Council of Rome in 313 A.D. in which “the case [was] tried by Melchiades, who was then Bishop of Rome” (Augustine, Letter 43, chapter 2.4). Under a monarchical episcopate, that would have been the end of the matter, would it not? Rome had spoken, and the case should have been closed—slammed shut, in fact—and the rest of the church should have humbled itself in abject submission to the infallible decision of “pope” Melchiades, whose triple tiara and priestly throne were indefectible. What happened next demonstrates in what low esteem the Roman bishop’s opinion was actually held in the early church.
Not satisfied with the judgment of an infallible, monarchical, Roman chief shepherd, bishop of bishops, and alleged Vicar of Christ on earth, etc., etc., the plaintiffs appealed to the Emperor who “took pains to have the matter again more carefully examined and settled at Arles” (Augustine, Letter 43, chapter 2.4). Yes, of course! The most obvious response to the infallible, irreformable decree of a monarchical, infallible Roman bishop is to get a second opinion! We must, thought the emperor and the whole church with him, “take pains” to examine the judgment of the bishop of Rome “more carefully.”
Augustine provides a helpful summary of the purpose of the council at Arles in 314 A.D.. If a mistake had been made at Rome, “there still remained” a higher court than the “pope”—an ecumenical council:
“Well, let us suppose that those bishops who decided the case at Rome were not good judges; there still remained a plenary Council of the universal Church, in which these judges themselves might be put on their defence; so that, if they were convicted of mistake, their decisions might be reversed.” (Augustine, Letter 43, chapter 7.19)
It does not matter whether Augustine is reasoning hypothetically here. The fact is that “there still remained” a higher court, even after Rome had “spoken,” at which court a Roman decision could be “reversed” if the bishops there were “convicted of mistake.” Augustine goes on, explaining that the Emperor “granted them the second trial at Arles, before other bishops” but did not intend by this “to make himself the judge of the decision pronounced by the bishops who had sat at Rome.” That was a job for the “other bishops” (Augustine, Letter 43, chapter 7.20). Compare this to the Vatican I definition of Papal Infallibility, which declared that “such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church” (Vatican I, Pastor Æternus, chapter IV). In Constantine’s day, the most obvious implementation of this teaching was to “take pains” to examine an irreformable decision “more carefully” and to seek the consent of the Church.
Such was the condition of the Roman episcopate after two hundred years of “universal shepherding”: an ecumenical council was convened so that a matter upon which a Roman bishop had ruled could be “settled” (Augustine, Letter 43, chapter 2.4), just as Cyprian had “settled” the matter of “pope” Stephen’s decision:
“But let these things which were done by Stephen be passed by for the present, lest, while we remember his audacity and pride, we bring a more lasting sadness on ourselves from the things that he has wickedly done. And knowing, concerning you, that you have settled this matter…” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 74, paragraph 3, From Firmilian to Cyprian)
If this is what early Roman “primacy” looks like to Roman Catholic apologists, then they are defending a phantom, nothing more. If early Roman “primacy” was such that Firmilian of Cæsarea could look to Cyprian of Carthage to “settle” a controversy by condemning a “papal encyclical” from Stephen of Rome, and plaintiffs could appeal to Arles in France to “settle” a dispute about the ruling of a Roman council under the presidency of a Roman bishop, then early “Roman primacy” has no meaning at all. It simply did not exist.
Next, after the 4th century had only just dawned, we find Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, sending a letter to Alexander of Constantinople in 320 A.D., warning him of the errors of Arius. The heretic had thought to attack the church in Alexandria, and the bishop there saw fit to warn the bishop in Constantinople, especially because “[t]he ambitious and avaricious will of wicked men is always wont to lay snares against those churches which seem greater” (Alexander of Alexandria, To Alexander, Bishop of the City of Constantinople, paragraph 1). For some reason, the letter was sent to Constantinople, which “seem[ed] greater,” but it was not addressed to Rome. To this epistle was attached the Deposition of Arius, which included a statement that portrays the early church as a collegial fraternity of bishops around the world, each relying on each other for encouragement and support. This letter was not addressed to Rome, but to “the Catholic Church in every place,” and again, no mention is made of Rome:
“To our beloved and most reverend fellow-ministers of the Catholic Church in every place, Alexander sends greeting in the Lord: Since the body of the Catholic Church is one, and it is commanded in Holy Scripture that we should keep the bond of unanimity and peace, it follows that we should write and signify to one another the things which are done by each of us; that whether one member suffer or rejoice we may all either suffer or rejoice with one another.” (The Deposition of Arius, Greeting and paragraph 1)
Note the alignment of Alexandria’s ecclesiology with that of Cyprian, who wrote that “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). Curiously, Alexandria presumed to “keep the bond of unanimity and peace” by writing a letter to the “the Catholic Church in every place,” and the only mention of churches which “seem great” is that made of Arius’ assault on Alexandria and his likely assault on Constantinople. Rome is not even mentioned by name in a letter intended to guard the doctrinal purity and the catholicity of the church. Compare this with modern Rome’s thinking. The church at Alexandria thought that because churches “in every place” are “commanded” to “keep the bond of unanimity,” therefore “it follows that we should write and signify to one another.” Modern Rome arrives at a different conclusion: “Because the Church is commanded to be one, it therefore follows that somebody has to be in charge, and it might as well be Rome.” Such thinking was clearly foreign to the early church, and Alexandria was blindly unaware of any strong central episcopate that executed the duty of keeping the bond of unanimity.
We pause here, by way of reminder, to recall that Polycrates of Ephesus had rebuffed “pope” Victor for attempting to foist upon the Asians the liturgical Easter practice of Rome, saying, “I … am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said ‘We ought to obey God rather than man.’ [Acts 5:29]” (Eusebius, Church History, Book V, chapter 24, paragraph 7). Firmilian, bishop of Cæsarea, had responded similarly when “pope” Stephen did the same thing:
“[C]oncerning the celebration of Easter, and concerning many other sacraments of divine matters, he may see that there are some diversities among them, and that all things are not observed among them alike, which are observed at Jerusalem, just as in very many other provinces also many things are varied because of the difference of the places and names. And yet on this account there is no departure at all from the peace and unity of the Catholic Church, such as Stephen has now dared to make.” (Cyprian of Carthage, Letter 74, (from Firmilian), paragraph 6)
Like Victor before him, Stephen was attempting to meddle in the provincial affairs of other bishops, and the other bishops had had enough. Firmilian sums it up quite succinctly—Stephen was too big for his britches, and was making a nuisance of himself, and causing a great deal of collateral damage in the process:
“[He has] disagreed with so many bishops throughout the whole world, breaking peace with each one of them in various kinds of discord: at one time with the eastern churches, as we are sure you know; at another time with yon who are in the south, … [Now speaking ironically:] This is to have kept the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, to cut himself off from the unity of love, and to make himself a stranger in all respects from his brethren, and to rebel against the sacrament and the faith with the madness of contumacious discord!” (Cyprian of Carthage, Letter 74, (from Firmilian), paragraph 26)
But Firmilian was not even close to being finished as he excoriated the galactic failure of Stephen to conduct himself in a manner becoming of a bishop in Christ’s church. In his response to Cyprian, Stephen of Rome had called him a false Christ, a false apostle and a worker of deceit, and Firmilian had had the temerity to turn those appellations right back on “pope” Stephen himself:
“And yet Stephen is not ashamed to afford patronage to such in opposition to the Church, and for the sake of maintaining heretics to divide the brotherhood and in addition, to call Cyprian ‘a false Christ and a false apostle, and a deceitful worker.’ And he, conscious that all these characters are in himself, has been in advance of you, by falsely objecting to another those things which he himself ought deservedly to hear.” (Cyprian of Carthage, Letter 74, (from Firmilian), paragraph 27)
That Firmilian was hardly outside the bounds of apostolicity to aver such things of “the chief shepherd of the universal church” is evidenced by the fact that by 374 A.D., Basil was still referring to “our Firmilian” as an “ancient authority” (Basil, De Spiritu Sancto, chapter 29, paragraph 74). Apparently Basil was not aware of early papal primacy, either.
We highlight this for two reasons. First, to show that the bishops of the world were frankly tired of the line of bishops in Rome who were constantly maintaining heretics (as Eleutherus had), meddling in the affairs of other episcopates (as Victor had), and attempting to impose their will on their neighbors (as Stephen had). The second is to show that this propensity for bishops—including Rome’s—to assail the peace and unity of the Church by meddling in other provinces, is what led the Council of Nicæa to prohibit the interference of any bishop in the affairs of another bishop’s province. Enough was enough, and each province was to manage its own affairs. Note that this is how the Council of Constantinople (380 A.D.) understood Nicæa:
“Diocesan bishops are not to intrude in churches beyond their own boundaries nor are they to confuse the churches: … Unless invited bishops are not to go outside their diocese to perform an ordination or any other ecclesiastical business. If the letter of the canon about dioceses is kept, it is clear that the provincial synod will manage affairs in each province, as was decreed at Nicaea.” (Council of Constantinople, Canon 2)
This language of Constantinople was Cyprianic to the core. Compare this with two of Cyprian’s letters to “popes” Cornelius and Stephen:
“[A] portion of the flock has been assigned to each individual pastor, which he is to rule and govern, having to give account of his doing to the Lord” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 54, paragraph 14, to Cornelius, bishop of Rome)
“[E]ach prelate has in the administration of the Church the exercise of his will free, as he shall give an account of his conduct to the Lord.” (Cyprian of Carthage, epistle 71, paragraph 3, to Stephen, bishop or Rome)
If each bishop or prelate manages the affairs within his own province, portion or diocese—undisturbed by the opinions and meddling of bishops beyond his jurisdiction—and answers to the Lord, not to Rome, for ordinations and “any other ecclesiastical business,” it does not leave a lot of room for Roman primacy to interpose.
Rome, of course, in its perpetual flight of revisionist fancy, claims that Nicæa’s canon 6 imposed a Roman primacy upon all dioceses by the statement that “the bishop of Alexandria has authority” over “Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis” because “a similar custom exists with reference to the bishop of Rome” (see, for example, Fr. James F. Loughlin, The Sixth Nicene Canon and the Papacy). As we shall demonstrate in a future article, that reference to Rome in the 6th canon of the Council of Nicæa was actually a diminutive reference to the limited scope of Rome’s comparatively small jurisdiction. But that is for another day. What we can say for now is that the Council of Constantinople, the next ecumenical council after Nicæa, did not see the 6th canon of Nicæa the way Rome currently does.
As we proceed through the 4th century beyond Nicæa, we find Aphrahat the Persian Sage insisting in 337 A.D., that the “rock” upon which the Church was built was Christ, as well as Peter’s confession of faith in Him:
“Be aware, my friend, that stones are laid as foundations for the building, and then on these stones the whole building rises up until it is finished. In the same way, the foundation of our whole faith is the true stone, our Lord Jesus Christ. Faith is placed on the stone, and because of faith the whole building rises up until it is completed. For the foundation is the beginning of the whole building. When a person draws near to faith, he sets himself on the stone, which is our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Aphrahat, Demonstration 1, On Faith, paragraph 2)
“Furthermore, our Life-giver would say to each person who was approaching him to be healed, ‘It will happen to you according to your faith.’ … Furthermore, it was because of his faith that Simon, called ‘the rock’ [or ‘Peter’], was called ‘the true rock’.” (Aphrahat, Demonstration 1, On Faith, paragraph 17)
If Aphrahat believed that by Matthew 16:18 Jesus had bestowed a hierarchical primacy on the metropolis of Rome, or an ecclesiastical primacy upon the occupant of its episcopal chair, he certainly did not leave any record of it. His Demonstration on Faith is no friend of Rome’s argument for early papal primacy.
His Demonstration on Shepherds is no friendlier. Like Ignatius of Antioch, and the Church at Smyrna, and the Shepherd of Hermas, and Mathetes, Aphrahat believed that each local shepherd had as his Chief Shepherd Jesus in Heaven:
“But when the Great Shepherd comes, [this] Chief of the Shepherds will call and inspect his sheep and review [the condition of] his flock. He will summon those shepherds and settle accounts with them” (Aphrahat, Demonstration on Shepherds, paragraph 3).
Like Cyprian, Aphrahat saw that every bishop on earth enjoyed Petrine privileges and was himself a successor to Peter: “You shepherds! … Simon tended his sheep, and when his time was fulfilled he delivered the flock to you and departed. You also ought to tend and lead [them] well” (Aphrahat, Demonstration on Shepherds, paragraph 4). In all this—whether he is discussing Peter’s faith, or Peter’s office—the object of his oration is the faith of the believer or the care of the shepherds, but he never manages to mention Rome at all, and certainly knew of no “pope” there, and refers to “our brothers in the west” only in passing (Aphrahat, Demonstration on Persecution, paragraph 23). Clearly Aphrahat was unaware of any “chief shepherd” in Rome.
Moving onward toward the latter part of the 4th century, we find a most interesting elegy from Gregory Nazianzen, shortly after the death of Athanasius in 373 A.D.. In Oration 21, Gregory spoke of Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, as a “chief cornerstone,” who had been raised up to protect the church from heresy, and was practically invested with infallibility in order to keep the church from error. Not only this, but at a time of great trial, Athanasius had received “the charge of the whole world,” was “entrusted with the chief rule,” and took “direction of the mighty body of Christ”:
“Thus brought up and trained, as even now those should be who are to preside over the people, and take the direction of the mighty body of Christ, according to the will and foreknowledge of God, which lays long before the foundations of great deeds, he was invested with this important ministry… entrusted with the chief rule over the people, in other words, the charge of the whole world… Therefore, when we were cast down, a horn of salvation was raised up for us [Luke 1:69], and a chief corner stone, knitting us to itself and to one another, was laid in due season, or a fire to purify our base and evil matter, or a farmer’s fan to winnow the light from the weighty in doctrine, or a sword to cut out the roots of wickedness; and so the Word finds him as his own ally, and the Spirit takes possession of one who will breathe on His behalf.” (Gregory of Nazianzen, On the Great Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, Oration 21, paragraph 7 (372 A.D.))
Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, was the “chief cornerstone,” “weighty in doctrine,” who takes direction of “the mighty body of Christ” and is “entrusted with the chief rule over the people”? Gregory was apparently unaware of a strong central episcopate in Rome, or that the bishop of Rome had been imbued with the charism of infallibility to “take direction of the mighty body of Christ,” and the one of whom the Spirit had taken possession to “breathe on His behalf.”
What then is there left to say of an episcopate that presumes to address letters to the whole “Catholic Church in every place” in order to keep the bond of unanimity (as Alexander had done in 320 A.D.) and whose occupant takes “charge of the whole world” and takes “direction of the mighty body of Christ” (as Athanasius had done) to preserve the Church from error because Christ (“the Word”) “finds him as his own ally, and the Spirit takes possession” of him to “breathe on his behalf”? There is, of course, only one thing left to say:
“All hail Alexandria, the strong central episcopate of the Early Church!”
Again, we jest. But it hardly strains our imagination to wonder how Roman Catholicism would have used the Deposition of Arius, had it originated from Rome, or Nazianzen’s Oration 21 had it treated of a Roman bishop.
And now we finally arrive at the Council of Constantinople in 380 A.D.. The setting is a period of some recent unpleasantness in the east—”persecutions, afflictions, imperial threats, cruelty from officials”—but now that the several emperors of the empire are in agreement, we can get on with the business of running the church together,
“so that whereas in the past we were condemned to suffer alone, you should not now reign in isolation from us, given the complete agreement of the emperors in matters of religion. Rather, according to the word of the apostle, we should reign along with you’.” (Synodical Letter of the Council Constantinople)
In order to bring Rome up to speed, the letter also directs their attention to some recent advances that have taken place in Jerusalem, Antioch and Constantinople. Perhaps the bishops in Italy ought “to consult the tome that was issued in Antioch by the synod which met there as well as the one issued last year in Constantinople.” They are also informed that Nectarius has been ordained bishop of Constantinople, Flavius has been ordained bishop of Antioch, and Cyril has been ordained bishop of Jerusalem, “the mother of all churches.” In all this, Rome is simply exhorted “to join us in rejoicing at what we have legally and canonically enacted.” There is not so much as a hint that Constantinople is seeking Rome’s ratification of any of this.
What is more, the letter also acknowledges that Rome has invited the entire assembled council of Constantinople to attend another council in Rome the next year. Constantinople’s response? ‘Thanks, but no thanks. We are awfully busy running the church over here and just can’t find the time to join you. But we managed to convince a couple legates to come’:
“[I]t is completely out of the question … the tightness of the schedule proposed allowed no opportunity … these considerations, and many more besides, prevented most of us from coming … [but] we have managed to convince our most venerable and reverend brethren and fellow-ministers, Bishops Cyriacus, Eusebius and Priscian to be willing to undertake the wearisome journey to you.”
‘<Yawn.> Have nice synod. Keep us posted on your progress.’ That is how the early church responded to an invitation from an “infallible chief shepherd, bishop of bishops, and alleged Vicar of Christ on earth sitting in the chief monarchical metropolis of the universal church.” ‘We’re busy.’
The Synodical letter then closes with a request that Rome put away any notion of one see being more important than any other, and to set the interest of the church ahead of the carnal ambitions of any one episcopate:
“Let spiritual love link us together, and let the fear of the Lord suppress all human prejudice and put the building up of the churches before individual attachment or favour. In this way, with the account of the faith agreed between us and with christian love established among us, we shall cease to declare what was condemned by the apostles, ‘I belong to Paul, I to Apollo, I to Cephas’ [1 Corinthians 1:12]; but we shall all be seen to belong to Christ, who has not been divided up among us; and with God’s good favour, we shall keep the body of the church undivided, and shall come before the judgment-seat of the Lord with confidence.” (Synodical Letter of the Council Constantinople)
To this was appended a list of canons, the third of which cordially acknowledged that any stature that Rome may have thought to enjoy in the past was due solely to its location in the capital of the empire. But times were changing, and Constantinople was the “new Rome,” the new capital of the empire:
“Because it is new Rome, the bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy the privileges of honour after the bishop of Rome.” (Council of Constantinople, canon 3)
Constantinople is the “New Rome,” and “should reign along with you”? ‘Not on your life,’ responded Rome. At a council in 382 A.D., Rome responded by inventing the theory of the three Petrine Sees, as we explained in A See of One, claiming that “although the universal catholic church … is the single bride of Christ, however the holy Roman church is given first place by the rest of the churches without [the need for] a synodical decision” (Council of Rome, III.1).
We are aghast at the historical revisionism of the council. Pope Damasus’ statement was and is wholly irreconcilable with the facts of history. The apostolic churches had witnessed pride, arrogance, obstinacy, wickedness, madness, “contumacious discord,” presumptuousness, error and a conspicuously inflated and false sense of importance flow out of Rome for three hundred years, and for three hundred years, Rome had been kept in check by the surrounding churches. There had never been a time when the Churches had given “first place” to Rome.
But these days of the latter part of the 4th century were fraught with eschatological significance, and Rome would finally have her way. The Empire had been by now divided into fragments by Diocletian, as Daniel had foreseen (Daniel chapters 2 and 7), and the time had come for Antichrist to rise up from among them. Along with a visible chief shepherd came a departure from the visible apostolicity of the Church, as we showed in The Rise of Roman Catholicism.
Over the course of the next decades, the other churches would step back and yield to Rome. Emperor Theodosius I had issued De Fide Catholica in 380 A.D., claiming that Pope Damasus I was the new Pontifex of the state religion. Two years later, Emperor Gratian formally renounced the title, and Roman Catholicism, the Fifth Empire of Daniel’s visions, took over the governance of the known world. Until then, there had been no “strong central episcopate,” and when it arose, it was a novelty of eschatological proportions. With that novelty came the great “falling away” of which Paul had warned (2 Thessalonians 2:3), for the Little Horn of Daniel’s vision had finally arisen.
To see just how novel this idea was—this idea of a strong central episcopate occupied by a visible chief shepherd to rule the church—we need only revisit the collected data from the preceding three hundred years. Let us catalog the thoughts of the early church on papal and Roman primacy and revisit the discourse of the preceding seven weeks.
As we showed in Week 1, Roman Catholic apologists love to highlight the fact that in the first century Clement of Rome had sent a Letter to the Corinthians, imploring them to reunify under their lawfully elected bishop, and Ignatius of Antioch in the early years of the second had sent a Letter to the Romans, ostensibly adopting a “different tone” to show deference to Rome. From these letters a nascent papal and Roman primacy is alleged, along with a belief that unity and purity could only be established among the apostolic churches by attaching to a strong central episcopate. But in these letters they were not asking each other to submit to Rome but rather to the apostles and their epistles. The consistent theme was that each church had a bishop as its shepherd, and each bishop had as his Chief Shepherd the Son of God in Heaven, not a bishop in Rome, and that the shepherds and the sheep had the words of the apostles to guide them. What is more, as Chrysostom reminded us, Ignatius was sent to Rome because Rome “required more help” on account of the “great impiety there.” Ignatius had not gone to Rome to be shepherded, but to shepherd.
As we showed in Week 2, the churches were all writing letters to each other back then (something we see consistently in the second, third and fourth centuries, as well), not only asking that their letters be read in the local congregations and duplicated to be sent on to the outer churches of the empire, but also requesting that other churches write back to them and send emissaries to inquire after their well being and celebrate their recovery from persecution. Using Roman Catholic reasoning (in order to demonstrate its own absurdity), we demonstrated that Smyrna, Tralles, Ephesus, Philadelphia, Antioch and Magnesia could all have qualified for the title of the “strong central episcopate of the early church.” Such reasoning is folly, but that has not kept Rome from using it to advance their belief that Rome owned that title from the outset. In reality, evidence for a strong central episcopate simply cannot be found in the letters of Ignatius, Polycarp, Smyrna or Clement.
In Week 3, we demonstrated that the Shepherd of Hermas marveled at the unity of the wide-spread churches, concluding that it must be Michael, the archangel in heaven, “who has authority over this people, and governs them … [and] accordingly superintends them.” Mathetes also understood that the peculiar adherents to this new religion had no “cities of their own,” and owed their unity not to an earthly ruler “as one might have imagined,” but to a heavenly one, for their mode of living was clearly visible to all, but its cause was “invisible.” The very idea of one of them rising to rule over his neighbors or “seeking to hold the supremacy” over another was altogether inconsistent with the Lord’s kingdom, Mathetes warned.
In Week 4, we showed that Tertullian marveled that the faith once deposited “among many is found to be one and the same” throughout the world, and concluded that the cause of this unity must be because of the apostles’ “own authentic writings.” Those scriptures themselves were uttered by the “Vicar of Christ,” by Whom Tertullian did not mean a visible bishop of Rome, but the Holy Spirit, the invisible cause and guarantor of the unity of the visibly apostolic Church. We also saw Origen objecting to the base carnality of the Jews for thinking that the kingdom of God would be expressed in the form of a chief metropolis, for “there is another Israel which is not according to the flesh” and the Churches of Christ “have the heavenly Jerusalem as their metropolis.” So far from acknowledging a strong central episcopate were these two men that Tertullian testifies that the bishop of Rome was writing letters in support of heresy, and insists that papal “proclamations” from a “Pontifex Maximus” or “bishop of bishops” must never be heard or received in the church. Origen, Eusebius tells us, visited Rome briefly during the administration of “pope” Zephyrinus during whose reign “the truth had been corrupted.” While in Rome, Origen encountered Hippolytus who was at that time preaching boldly against “these heretics,” bishops Zephyrinus and Callistus of Rome, whom he had frequently opposed and corrected and “forced them reluctantly to acknowledge the truth.” No, Tertullian, Origen and Hippolytus were unaware of a strong central episcopate in Rome, occupied by an infallible Vicar of Christ on earth, Pontifex Maximus or bishop of bishops.
In Week 5 we covered Irenæus, whose Book III of Against Heresies is conscripted by Roman Catholics to support a strong central episcopate in the capital of the empire. In that work, Irenæaus seems to acknowledge that all churches must “agree” with Rome because Rome is alleged to guard the purity of the church. As we noted, Rome’s case for this interpretation is based on an English mistranslation of a “barbaric” Latin translation of a lost Greek original of Irenæus’ work. But we are not left to our own devices (and thankfully Rome is not left to hers), to understand Irenæus’ meaning. Irenæus’ word (at least in Latin) was “convenir” which means “to convene” not “to agree.” In context, that is precisely why the surrounding bishops were called upon to travel to Rome so frequently. Polycarp had traveled to Rome to help put down heresy during the administration of “pope” Anicetus, Irenæus reminds them, and now here was Irenæus traveling to Rome to help put down an error that was being advanced by “pope” Eleutherus. Not only this, but Irenæus is found later strongly rebuking “pope” Victor in Rome for his arrogance in excommunicating all the Asian bishops. To that arrogance Polycrates responded with Lutheran defiance, telling Victor exactly what he could do with his “papal” encyclical. On a good day, the surrounding churches would “meet” with Rome to help, to correct and to rebuke her; on a bad day, they would simply turn up their noses at her arrogance and respond with Petrine indignation: “We ought to obey God rather than man” (Acts 5:29). In context, and better translated, Irenæus has the purity of the Church guarded not by Rome, but by all the apostolic churches that surrounded her.
In Week 6 and Week 7, we evaluated Cyprian of Carthage, finding that he and Firmilian of Cæsarea, played “Polycrates” to “pope” Stephen’s “Victor,” and essentially told Stephen what he could do with his epistle after he tried to excommunicate all the bishops of Asia and Africa. Roman Catholic apologists love to cite Cyprian’s treatise, The Unity of the Catholic Church as evidence for a need to unite with Rome in order the adhere to a Petrine unity, ignoring the fact that Cyprian had used that very treatise to justify separating from Rome and from Stephen her bishop. To Cyprian, Petrine unity was in the visible apostolicity of a church, not in the visibility of a chief shepherd in Rome, and every lawfully elected bishop enjoyed it, whether he was united to Rome or not. Peter, after all, had never had the presumptuous arrogance “to say that he held the primacy.” The error of Roman apologists is to back-load Cyprian’s praise of Petrine unity with the following centuries of Roman primacy in order to get Cyprian to hold to a strong central episcopate under the guidance of a pope seated in St. Peter’s chair. What we found in Cyprian rather was that every bishop in the world sat in St. Peter’s chair, and Petrine unity sometimes demanded that a bishop separate his flock from Rome.
Here in Week 8, we have noted that Cyprian refused to allow an African decision to be appealed to Rome in the third century, but later the judgment of 313 A.D. council in Rome was appealed to an ecumenical council in Arles without objection. The purpose of the Council of Arles was to weigh more carefully the judgment of a bishop of Rome, and determine if perhaps he had been mistaken in his judgment—a complete rejection of the modern notion of the irreformability of the decision of a Roman pope. Next we saw Alexander of Alexandria presuming to guard the unity of the Church by sending letters to the Catholic Church “in every place,” and insisting that all the churches write letters to each other for this purpose, unaware of any strong central episcopate that had been established to do so. Next we saw Nicæa, a council assembled not by a Roman bishop, but by an emperor in Constantinople, which council was understood even as late as 380 A.D., to insist that bishops are not to interfere in other dioceses “unless invited.” Next we saw Aphrahat in 337 A.D. insisting not only that the Rock upon which Christ had built His church was Himself and Peter’s profession of faith, but also insisting that each bishop was himself a successor to Peter and had as his Chief Shepherd Christ in Heaven, to whom each must finally give an account. By 373 A.D. we have Gregory Nazianzen singing the praises of Athanasias because he had been “entrusted with the chief rule over the people” and had “taken direction of the mighty body of Christ.” By 374 A.D., we have Basil still singing the praises of “our Firmilian” who had so obstinately refused to submit to Stephen’s overreach. By 380 A.D., we have Constantinople insisting that she rules the church “along with” Rome, and insisting that Rome set aside her carnal episcopal ambitions in the interest of the Church.
Then in 382 A.D., pope Damasus I bafflingly concludes from all these data that “the holy Roman church is given first place by the rest of the churches.” As non sequiturs go, that’s one for the ages.
What left is there to say of an episcopate that had for three hundred years irritated the surrounding churches with her obstinacy and impudence, arrogance and pride, that had propagated error, rashly excommunicated her brethren without cause, and was in frequent need of support, correction, instruction and rebuke? What left is there to say of a bishopric whose primacy was unknown to the early church, to whom appeals from other courts’ decisions were invalid, but whose decisions could be appealed to a higher authority? What can be said of an episcopate that had so polarized the early church as to be a cause of factiousness and schism instead of a guardian of unity and peace between the brethren—in spite of whom, not because of whom, the rest of the churches managed to maintain unity? What can be said of an earthly city for which the early church saw no pressing need, and rather saw a desire for such a chief earthly metropolis more suited to the base carnality of the Jews than to the heavenly ambition of Christ’s church? What more can be said of an episcopate whose invitations to council would be considered, schedule permitting? Well, we are told, there is only one thing more that can be said.
“All hail Rome, the strong central episcopate of the Early Church!”
<wink, wink>
Terms of Communion
In order both to define our boundaries of fellowship and to make clear the conditions upon which we will unite with others, we desire to be explicit and forthright about our beliefs. These beliefs, otherwise known as our “terms of communion”, are as follows:
1. An acknowledgment of the Old and New Testament to be the Word of God, and the alone infallible rule of faith and practice.
2. That the whole doctrine of the Westminster Confession of Faith, and the Catechisms, Larger and Shorter, are agreeable unto, and founded upon the Scriptures.
3. That Presbyterial Church Government and manner of worship are alone of divine right and unalterable; and that the most perfect model of these as yet attained, is exhibited in the Form of Government and Directory for Worship, adopted by the Church of Scotland in the Second Reformation.
4. That public, social covenanting is an ordinance of God, obligatory on churches and nations under the New Testament; that the National Covenant and the Solemn League are an exemplification of this divine institution; and that these Deeds are of continued obligation upon the moral person; and in consistency with this, that the Renovation of these Covenants at Auchensaugh, Scotland, 1712 was agreeable to the word of God.
5. An approbation of the faithful contending of the martyrs of Jesus, especially in Scotland, against Paganism, Popery, Prelacy, Malignancy and Sectarianism; immoral civil governments; Erastian tolerations and persecutions which flow from them; and of the Judicial Testimony emitted by the Reformed Presbytery in North Britain, 1761 with supplements from the Reformed Presbyterian Church; as containing a noble example to be followed, in contending for all divine truth, and in testifying against all corruptions embodied in the constitutions of either churches or states.
6. Practically adorning the doctrine of God our Saviour by walking in all His commandments and ordinances blamelessly.
Just an FYI reminder if you have time as I know you are super busy, and debating with Bob’s incredible blindness must be exhausting. I know it is painful for me to just read his comments and foolishness so often stated on the record. The spirit of antichrist has gripped his mind, heart and soul for certain, so I figured I would drop back in to see if you might point me to some of the research below that I feel could get to the heart of the issue why these early church fathers were so infants in the doctrines of God…and why Rome loves them so much being able to manipulate their positions so easily.
Tim wrote:
“I am interested in this, too, for similar reasons. I will let you know if I come across any data on this. I have not pursued this line of evidence, so I have nothing at the moment.”
Thank you. It would be interesting if any researcher has examined this issue…as much will help me to avoid this “oral tradition” preached by Rome that put in place her wicked system that is literally taking millions of soul to everlasting torment and destruction.
You said:
“That’s an interesting question. Since the early church was Greek and not Latin, and the Old Testament was originally in Hebrew, not Greek, it would have to come down to a Greek writer who had access to the New Testament and the Septuagint translation. Although the Septuagint was cited authoritatively in by New Testament writers, there are parts of it (not cited in the New Testament) that took translational liberties—some of which I will get into later. Wouldn’t you be more interested in a Greek-speaking early Church Father with a working knowledge of Hebrew, rather than one who had all the works in his native tongue? I don’t know which early church father had access to all the old & new testament books in his own native language, but it’s certainly something worth looking into.”
Yes, it would be great to learn of any early church father that was fluent in Hebrew and Greek, but I assumed most of them were either fluent in Greek or Latin. I do believe that t he Greek Septuagint was a relatively acceptable translation as I believe the various “King James” translations of the received texts are generally a good english translation.
Would you be able to put a list together sometime of all the early church fathers (so defined) in their chronological order of dates they were ministers and whether or not Rome has used (or does use) their writings as a basis for their theological foundation?
Would you say that Rome uses every single early church father and their writings as a basis for their essential existence and doctrines?
I’ve not bought the books by Scott Hahn and his co-workers that have written claiming that “all” the early church fathers writings support the existence of Rome as the universal church. I just watched this morning on EWTN an apologist for Rome who went through claiming that Rome’s existence is fully supported by “all” the early church fathers, and that the reformation period was a huge problem for the church in keeping unity from 1300 to 1700 AD. I could not believe what I was hearing as people are so completely ignorant on what happened during the reformation. Like a child, I was taught so many lies about it and people must just sit in front of the TV watching EWTN listening to these fools selling lies.
Do you know of the list (you might have posted it in the past) which lists all the early church fathers and Rome’s claim that they do in fact all support her positions?
In Hitler’s psychological profile by the OSS, they said, “… people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.”
I believe that this is extracted from a longer text from “Mein Kamph”, but it is interesting how true the basic principle seems to hold.
Tim wrote:
To this was appended a list of canons, the third of which cordially acknowledged that any stature that Rome may have thought to enjoy in the past was due solely to its location in the capital of the empire. But times were changing, and Constantinople was the “new Rome,” the new capital of the empire:
“Because it is new Rome, the bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy the privileges of honour after the bishop of Rome.” (Council of Constantinople, canon 3)
Constantinople is the “New Rome,” and “should reign along with you”? ‘Not on your life,’ responded Rome. At a council in 382 A.D., Rome responded by inventing the theory of the three Petrine Sees, as we explained in A See of One, claiming that “although the universal catholic church … is the single bride of Christ, however the holy Roman church is given first place by the rest of the churches without [the need for] a synodical decision” (Council of Rome, III.1).
We are aghast at the historical revisionism of the council. Pope Damasus’ statement that was and is wholly irreconcilable with the facts of history. The apostolic churches had witnessed pride, arrogance, obstinacy, presumptuousness, error and a conspicuously inflated sense of importance flow out of Rome for three hundred years, and for three hundred years, Rome had been kept in check by the surrounding churches. There had never been a time when the Churches had given “first place” to Rome.
——–
Wow, this is very interesting. You can see the foundation established leading to the “great schism” and I would never have guessed it was foundational so early in history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Schism
This really is incredible.
I also like the way you are demonstrating more clearly the national churches and national synods proving form of Presbyterian government was starting to form in practice, and the idea of a central Papal government clearly is rising to show who is indeed the great antichrist. This rise of antichrist now is really showing herself begging to be the central universal authority while clearly National churches are forming in various parts of the world as Presbyterianism describes.
Thanks, Walt.
You wrote,
Yes, that is part of the significance of the period. When Victor tried to impose a certain date for celebrating the Resurrection, and the Asian churches rejected his authority, even Irenæus (who agreed with Victor’s dating) insisted that bishops of various regions were responsible for governing their own flocks where they were, and should not be cut off on matters of practice—such diversity was common and acceptable, and no barrier to unity. Firmilian insisted on the same thing. Here are two critical citations from the two periods, about 100 years apart:
Individual regions and provinces (there were no dioceses yet) were accustomed to establishing practices for themselves—this is why the early church marveled at the unity that was sustained without a central episcopate to guide them. As Eusebius related, and as Polycarp insisted as well, different churches had different practices, yet they freely exchanged tokens of unity with one another—much as you would expect to happen between national churches, as it were, under presbyterian rule.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
I wrote this question to you.
“Do you know of the list (you might have posted it in the past) which lists all the early church fathers and Rome’s claim that they do in fact all support her positions?”
In today’s summary above, where you summarize Week 1 to Week 8, there is much to be said in answering my question of last week. While it is a great summary where one can see these claims of Rome, and how their apologists (like Bob) do everything in desperation to show this central claim of Rome, the questions you ask in the end give me some answers.
You wrote, in part.
“What left is there to say of an episcopate that had for three hundred years irritated the surrounding churches with her obstinacy and impudence, arrogance and pride, that had propagated error, rashly excommunicated her brethren without cause, and was in frequent need of support, correction, instruction and rebuke? What left is there to say of a bishopric whose primacy was unknown to the early church, to whom appeals from other courts’ decisions were invalid, but whose decisions could be appealed to a higher authority?”
That summary should at some point be made a full blog post with more dates and details so people can get a good picture of what happened like you did in The Rise of Roman Catholicism. I would title it, “Presbyterian Government Begins to Show Her Biblical Roots in the Early Church That Debunks and Rejects The Rise of Roman Catholicism”
Tim,
You once mentioned that out of the Six Terms of Ministerial Communion that you only agreed and supported the first two and one half of them. Thus, term 3 says:
“3. That Presbyterial Church Government and manner of worship are alone of divine right and unalterable; and that the most perfect model of these as yet attained, is exhibited in the Form of Government and Directory for Worship, adopted by the Church of Scotland in the Second Reformation.”
While today, at least for me, I believe I see the formation by great Early Church fathers establishing national church governments in opposition to Rome by calling and supporting national synods. As with the early reformation period, great reformers like Knox, Calvin, Luther, etc. rose up in various countries testifying against Rome alleged supremacy to build national churches of teaching and ruling elders upon foundational local congregations. Today I seem to see the same thing happening in your summary above with Ministers (e.g., Bishops) who rose up to reject the central authority of Rome and begin establishing national and local congregations where they had the most influence…as a mirror to what the reformers had to do in “coming out of her my people” as priests and bishops of Rome.
Thus, if you reject the third term entirely as you stated previously, I would ask your clarification on what you disagree with specifically in the term? Is it your rejection of Presbyterian government is not biblical, or you reject how the Public Worship of God is to be practiced by Presbyterianism?
I assume you are opposed to (in the 3rd term), if I were to guess, exclusive psalmody, no instrumental music and the directory’s rejection of Roman Catholic “holy days” in the public worship of God?
Walt,
To your question, “Is it your rejection of Presbyterian government is not biblical, or you reject how the Public Worship of God is to be practiced by Presbyterianism?”
I do believe that the Presbyterian form of government is Biblical.
I am not prepared to say, however, “that the most perfect model of these as yet attained, is exhibited in the Form of Government and Directory for Worship, adopted by the Church of Scotland in the Second Reformation.” I would need to spend some time studying that more thoroughly. As I have mentioned before, I have a great deal of respect for the Scots.
I should add that I have no problem with the 6th term, “Practically adorning the doctrine of God our Saviour by walking in all His commandments and ordinances blamelessly.”
Thanks,
Tim
WALT__
You said: “Bob’s incredible blindness must be exhausting. I know it is painful for me to just read his comments and foolishness so often stated on the record. The spirit of antichrist has gripped his mind, heart and soul for certain, so I figured I would drop back in to see if you might point me to some of the research below that I feel could get to the heart of the issue why these early church fathers were so infants in the doctrines of God…and why Rome loves them so much being able to manipulate their positions so easily….but as we have learned from the details outlined in Scripture…
What is making it so painful and so hard for you to understand is that there is one glaring piece of evidence missing from your position that you refuse to deal with–and that is the biblical evidence that Satan does everything in his power to defeat himself.
So now it’s time to put your money where your mouth is.
Show me in Holy Scripture where Satan and his anti-Christ:
1) Teach people to reject Satan and all his works and all his attractions and all his empty promises.
2) Teach people to praise, the Father almighty, Creator of heaven and earth and to thank Him for Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord, who was born into this world and suffered for us to destroy death and give them everlasting life with Him in glory.
3) Baptise people in the Name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Ghost for the remission of sins.
4) Teach people to love Jesus with all their mind, heart, soul, and strength. And to love Him is to obey His commandments and to love one another as He loves us.
Show me, Walt, that you know the Scripture that you so boldly claim that you do. Where does the Bible teach that Satan and his anti-christ do these things afore mentioned–book, chapter, verse, please?
Bob said:
“Show me, Walt, that you know the Scripture that you so boldly claim that you do. Where does the Bible teach that Satan and his anti-christ do these things afore mentioned–book, chapter, verse, please?”
Revelation 2:14-16;
Psalm 9:17;
Revelation 16:14;
Revelation 19:11-21;
Fortunately, for those who are currently blinded, Satan is bound for a figurative thousand years here:
Revelation 20:1-3
Until finished here:
Revelation 20:7-10
If you do not think you are deceived by Satan and his Antichrist you need to spend more time in Scripture, and avoid your “common sense” and “happy tradition” about Rome.
WALT–
I asked you:Where does the Bible teach that Satan and his anti-christ do these things afore mentioned–book, chapter, verse, please?”
The “afore mentioned” are these:
Show me in Holy Scripture where Satan and his anti-Christ:
1) Teach people to reject Satan and all his works and all his attractions and all his empty promises.
2) Teach people to praise, the Father almighty, Creator of heaven and earth and to thank Him for Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord, who was born into this world and suffered for us to destroy death and give them everlasting life with Him in glory.
3) Baptise people in the Name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Ghost for the remission of sins.
4) Teach people to love Jesus with all their mind, heart, soul, and strength. And to love Him is to obey His commandments and to love one another as He loves us.
And you gave these verses:
Revelation 2:14-16;‘But I have a few things against you, because you have there some who hold the teaching of Balaam, who kept teaching Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit acts of immorality. ‘So you also have some who in the same way hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans. ‘Therefore repent; or else I am coming to you quickly, and I will make war against them with the sword of My mouth.
Psalm 9:17 The wicked will return to Sheol,
Even all the nations who forget God.
Revelation 16:14 for they are spirits of demons, performing signs, which go out to the kings of the whole world, to gather them together for the war of the great day of God, the Almighty.
Revelation 19:11-21 And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war. His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems; and He has a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself. He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following Him on white horses. From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty. And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, “KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.” Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and he cried out with a loud voice, saying to all the birds which fly in midheaven, “Come, assemble for the great supper of God, so that you may eat the flesh of kings and the flesh of commanders and the flesh of mighty men and the flesh of horses and of those who sit on them and the flesh of all men, both free men and slaves, and small and great.”And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies assembled to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army. And the beast was seized, and with him the false prophet who performed the signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image; these two were thrown alive into the lake of fire which burns with brimstone. And the rest were killed with the sword which came from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse, and all the birds were filled with their flesh.
And then you said: “Fortunately, for those who are currently blinded, Satan is bound for a figurative thousand years here:
Revelation 20:1-3 Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; and he threw him into the abyss, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he would not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were completed; after these things he must be released for a short time.
Until finished here:
Revelation 20:7-10 When the thousand years are completed, Satan will be released from his prison, and will come out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together for the war; the number of them is like the sand of the seashore. And they came up on the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, and fire came down from heaven and devoured them. And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. ”
See? I knew it. Absolutely none of these scriptures has anything to do with what I asked. So since you or Tim or anybody else for that matter can come up with actual Scriptural proof, then I must conclude that you made it all up.
You also accuse me of “Romish spin desperate to disprove every post he(Tim) makes…not out of a love for the truth…but out of your passion to deal with a self addiction to sinfully debate and create as much controversy as possible….day after day…week after week.”
The very nature of Tim’s websight is to create as much controversy as possible….day after day…week after week by using his sinful anti-Romish debate. And he welcomes me to come onto his sight anytime and challenge him. I’m playing by Tim’s rules, not yours, Walt. If you think this debate is sinful, then take it up with Tim.
Thank you for this series, Tim,
Maria
Bob wrote:
“See? I knew it. Absolutely none of these scriptures has anything to do with what I asked. So since you or Tim or anybody else for that matter can come up with actual Scriptural proof, then I must conclude that you made it all up.”
You don’t see any link between those verses and Rome?
How about these?
“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.” (1TIm.4:1-3)
That’s all you got,Walt? You can’t show where the bible says that Satan and his anti-christ teach people to reject Satan and all his works and all his attractions and all his empty promises?
Because that’s what the Romish church teaches.
Come on, Walt. Look harder. Maybe it will be easier to find where Satan and his anti-christ teach people to praise the Father almighty, Creator of heaven and earth and to thank Him for Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord, who was born into this world and suffered for us to destroy death and give them everlasting life with Him in glory. Because that’s what the Romish church teaches. And if it’s Romish, it must be Satanic. So it has to be in the Holy Scriptures somewhere, right?
After all, you have read the Bible cover to cover many times. Surely you have come across where Satan and his anti-christ
baptise people in the Name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Ghost for the remission of sins, right? Because that is what the Romish Church does. Even your Scotch church recognizes Catholic baptism as valid. So it must be in the bible somewhere.
At least you can show me the book, chapter, and verse where Satan and his anti-christ teach people to love Jesus with all their mind, heart, soul, and strength. And to love Him is to obey His commandments and to love one another as He loves us. Because that is what that satanic antichrist Romish church does. I have actually seen it in their liturgy, and heard Catholics say that is what the Romish church teaches. So it must be in the bible somewhere, right?
Book, chapter, and verse, please.
Come on Bob, if Tim is right in any of what he has posted, you have to admit that the RCC does not teach people to reject Satan’s works. If the Romish church (or any church) teaches things that are contrary to revealed Scripture, then they are calling God a liar. Just like the serpent did in Genesis.
Matthew 7:15-27 is a most enlightening passage that applies well to the subject at hand. I won’t quote the entire thing here for length, but it is easy enough to find. Verses 21-23, however, are most pertinent to your current line of argument. “21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” Ouch.
You said that the Roman church does the following: “1) Teach people to reject Satan and all his works and all his attractions and all his empty promises.
“2) Teach people to praise, the Father almighty, Creator of heaven and earth and to thank Him for Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord, who was born into this world and suffered for us to destroy death and give them everlasting life with Him in glory.
“3) Baptise people in the Name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Ghost for the remission of sins.
“4) Teach people to love Jesus with all their mind, heart, soul, and strength. And to love Him is to obey His commandments and to love one another as He loves us.”
I would posit that it does so in neither its actions nor teachings, and I think that has been born out in many of Tim’s posts here. At the very least, when it comes to the church fathers and church history, Tim has done an excellent job of showing that the Rome is a habitual liar. And let me guess, that is a way of rejecting Satan right? No? Forgive my little stray into sarcasm there, but the Scripture clearly teaches otherwise. John 8:44 says, “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.”
Unfortunately I am out of time for this morning, but I do hope to revisit this this evening.
DAN–
You said: “I would posit that it does so in neither its actions nor teachings, and I think that has been born out in many of Tim’s posts here.”
You see, that is where Tim has misled you and everybody that believes his stuff. Nowhere in Holy Scripture does it say that the pope is the anti-Christ, nor does it say that the Eucharist is his image. That is just a private conclusion that Tim has drawn. And so he does his best to read into Scripture to that end.
On the contrary, I can demonstrate to you where the Roman Catholic Church teaches those very things that I have described. And not only do they “say Lord, Lord” but they actually do the will of the Father.
But if you don’t have to believe me. All you have to do is sit in on a Sunday mass sometime when they are celebrating the rite of baptism and watch and listen. You don’t have to participate, but pay close attention from the opening hymn to the ending hymn and understand what you are witnessing.
Bob –
You said, “Nowhere in Holy Scripture does it say that the pope is the anti-Christ, nor does it say that the Eucharist is his image.”
Technically I would have to agree with you there, as I am more inclined to believe that the pope is merely the image of the beast, and not the beast itself. Though that probably isn’t what you were looking for. I tend to disagree with a number of the nuances of what Tim writes concerning eschatology proper, though I think he is looking in the right general direction. No, where I think that Tim is strongest, and why I keep coming back here, is church history. He is taking early church fathers in context, and showing that many, many times they meant 180 degrees opposite what the RCC tries to make them out to be saying. If you are the true Church, why all the lies?
“And not only do they “say Lord, Lord” but they actually do the will of the Father.”
Ah, now we can have a discussion. I must strongly disagree there. Indeed, Tim has shown time and again how Rome is full of lately introduced, pagan superstitions, by the words of the very church fathers that she tries to claim as authorities. More importantly, it can also, I believe, be readily deduced from Scripture.
“All you have to do is sit in on a Sunday mass sometime when they are celebrating the rite of baptism and watch and listen.”
Unfortunately, I won’t attend because I believe that giving my silent presence there would be de facto giving my consent to all that goes on. Thanks for the offer, but I must refuse. I am willing, however, to discuss this with any priest/prelate that may take an interest in my soul. Do know, however, that I have been told by a Catholic friend of mine that there is no possible way that I can be considered to be “invincibly ignorant”.
“… pay close attention from the opening hymn to the ending hymn and understand what you are witnessing.”
Evidence of the very thing that I am talking about. “Lord, Lord”. What do I mean? Regulative Principle of Worship. It basically says, “That which God has not ordained in worship, is forbidden.” On the other hand, you have the Normative Principle which says, “That which God has not forbidden in worship, is allowed”. I think that even a cursory examination demonstrates that the Normative Principle must be false. Now, find me authorization for your hymns in Scripture. Before you go off on a rabbit trail about your magisterium authorizing it, remember 2 Timothy 3:16-17 which says, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” If by the Scriptures I may be “perfect,” and “thoroughly furnished unto all good works,” then the proper mode of worshiping God should be able to be clearly deduced from it.
But, I suppose this is all meaningless, seeing that peons like you, I, and everyone else here, cannot be trusted to read, let alone understand, what the Bible is saying. Let’s all just go to the tavern, get drunk, then ask the priest for a couple extra Hail Marys to patch things up in the morning.
Bob,
You said,
The will of His Father is revealed to us in His Word, and His Word prohibits kneeling and bowing before images to serve them (Exodous 20:1-5). Roman Catholicism is a rejection of this command, and many others.
To see this for yourself, as you have noted, “All you have to do is sit in on a Sunday mass sometime …”
Thanks,
Tim
Bob,
You wrote,
That is true. It is also true that at the time of Alexander the Great there was nothing in Scripture that said Alexander the Great was the “prominent horn” of Daniel 8:5. The Scripture says, “And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king” (Daniel 8:21), but nowhere in Scripture is Alexander identified as the first king. In fact, there were many greek kings before him—like Perdiccas I of Macedon, who was king of the Greeks before Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon was ever born. Yet we can be certain that the angel revealing matters to Daniel is not speaking of the birth of kingdoms, but the rise of kingdoms to “global” prominence, as one kingdom succeeded another. We can also be certain that the “first king” that mattered was Alexander the Great, for it under his reign that the kings of the Medes and Persians were overthrown. The next is Rome, which replaced the Greeks. Who replaced Rome? Roman Catholicism’s apologists are only too eager to tell us. That’s your next empire, and that next empire is the empire of Antichrist—something that Daniel and Revelation make quite clear.
Thanks,
Tim
Bob wrote:
“At least you can show me the book, chapter, and verse where Satan and his anti-christ teach people to love Jesus with all their mind, heart, soul, and strength. And to love Him is to obey His commandments and to love one another as He loves us. Because that is what that satanic antichrist Romish church does. I have actually seen it in their liturgy, and heard Catholics say that is what the Romish church teaches. So it must be in the bible somewhere, right?
Book, chapter, and verse, please.”
Bob, I am afraid you don’t know how to interpret scripture. What you want is typical of the modern movement where you find a verse that says “Roman Catholics Worship Satan” (verse, 3, passage 1).
What this demonstrates Bob is your incredible ignorance of not only Scripture, but basic hermeneutical and exegetical common sense of interpretation.
You are not going to find any passage that says, “The Mormon Religion is a Cult” (Chapter 6, verse 1). The same holds for finding a verse that says the Roman Catholics Pope Worships Satan. Your demand for this sort of request just proves to the average reader here that you sorely lack any degree of discernment of Scripture. You are a literalist and it is very common among the most weak students of Scripture. They need to either believe every passage as literal, or they need to find something literal that tells them what to do.
Even Rome herself does not interpret all Scripture literally as you have demanded the Lord to reveal to you in Holy Writ.
Until you wise up a little bit, and are open to hundreds of references that by good and necessary inference document or authorized examples that Rome is Antichrist, you will continue to live in your ignorance and your since.
Bob wrote:
“But if you don’t have to believe me. All you have to do is sit in on a Sunday mass sometime when they are celebrating the rite of baptism and watch and listen. You don’t have to participate, but pay close attention from the opening hymn to the ending hymn and understand what you are witnessing.”
Yes, we are listening carefully to what they say. I’ve been in this setting hundreds of times in my life. It is all heresy according to the Scriptures to sit in a mass, worship idols, practice idolatry, sing uninspired hymns in Worship, ring the bells as I did many times waking people upon to the wicked claim that bread and wine is actually be converted into real body and blood of Christ, etc. etc. The list is endless the incredible anti-Christian doctrine and worship that takes place in the mass.
You Bob are so heavily blinded by your blind loyalty to Rome, and your unfortunate ignorance of Scripture, that anyone who protests against this Romish heretical teaching is labeled an “anti-Catholic”! Nothing new under the sun!
WALT–
And you Walt are so heavily blinded by your blind loyalty to your Scotch, and your unfortunate arrogance of Scripture, that anyone who defends this Roman Church teaching is labeled an idolater and anti-Christ. Imagine that! Nothing new under the sun!
Here is a perfect summary (taking specific command and necessary inference drawn from Biblical warrant) showing Rome’s antichristian religion revealed testifying against her doctrine, worship, government and discipline.
Any reader can go down this list for themselves, and see these are all factual statements that Rome promotes, and each of these points are an offense to the Scriptures.
Bob is looking for a specific verse in Scripture that says, “The Pope Is Antichrist” which does not exist, and conveniently ignores all the factual statements below REVEALING that Rome and the Popish system is Antichrist in Prophecy.
—————
And therefore we abhor and detest all contrary religion and doctrine;
but chiefly all kind of Papistry in general and particular heads, even as they are now damned and confuted by the word of God and Kirk of Scotland.
But, in special, we detest and refuse the usurped authority of that Roman Antichrist upon the scriptures of God, upon the kirk, the civil magistrate, and consciences of men;
all his tyrannous laws made upon indifferent things against our Christian liberty;
his erroneous doctrine against the sufficiency of the written word, the perfection of the law, the office of Christ, and his blessed evangel;
his corrupted doctrine concerning original sin, our natural inability and rebellion to God’s law, our justification by faith only, our imperfect sanctification and obedience to the law;
the nature, number, and use of the holy sacraments;
his five bastard sacraments, with all his rites, ceremonies, and false doctrine, added to the ministration of the true sacraments without the word of God;
his cruel judgment against infants departing without the sacrament;
his absolute necessity of baptism;
his blasphemous opinion of transubstantiation, or real presence of Christ’s body in the elements, and receiving of the same by the wicked, or bodies of men;
his dispensations with solemn oaths, perjuries, and degrees of marriage forbidden in the word;
his cruelty against the innocent divorced;
his devilish mass;
his blasphemous priesthood;
his profane sacrifice for sins of the dead and the quick;
his canonization of men;
calling upon angels or saints departed, worshipping of imagery, relicks, and crosses; dedicating of kirks, altars, days;
vows to creatures; his purgatory, prayers for the dead;
praying or speaking in a strange language, with his processions, and blasphemous litany, and multitude of advocates or mediators;
his manifold orders, auricular confession; his desperate and uncertain repentance;
his general and doubtsome faith;
his satisfaction of men for their sins;
his justification by works, opus operatum, works of supererogation, merits, pardons, peregrinations, and stations;
his holy water, baptizing of bells, conjuring of spirits, crossing, sayning, anointing, conjuring, hallowing of God’s good creatures, with the superstitious opinion joined therewith;
his worldly monarchy, and wicked hierarchy;
his three solemn vows, with all his shavelings of sundry sorts;
his erroneous and bloody decrees made at Trent, with all the subscribers or approvers of that cruel and bloody band, conjured against the kirk of God.
And finally, we detest all his vain allegories, rites, signs, and traditions brought in the kirk, without or against the word of God, and doctrine of this true reformed kirk;
to the which we join ourselves willingly, in doctrine, faith, religion, discipline, and use of the holy sacraments, as lively members of the same in Christ our head:
promising and swearing, by the great name of the LORD our GOD, that we shall continue in the obedience of the doctrine and discipline of this kirk, and shall defend the same, according to our vocation and power, all the days of our lives;
under the pains contained in the law, and danger both of body and soul in the day of God’s fearful judgment.
WALT–
So did you cut and paste from:
1) Scots Confession of 1560
2) Book of Discipline
3) Book of Common Order ….?
They don’t look like quotes from Scripture to me. Why do you quote from secondary sources, Walt, when you’re always griping at me for not quoting Scripture?
WALT–
You said: “You are not going to find any passage that says, “The Mormon Religion is a Cult” (Chapter 6, verse 1). The same holds for finding a verse that says the Roman Catholics Pope Worships Satan. Your demand for this sort of request just proves to the average reader here that you sorely lack any degree of discernment of Scripture.”
And that is exactly why I didn’t ask the question that you say I asked. I didn’t ask you if the Bible says that Roman Catholics Pope worships Satan, because I know it doesn’t. I asked if Satan and his anti-Christ taught people those things I mentioned. Because if he does, then scripture would mention it somewhere directly or indirectly, right?
If the Pope is the anti-Christ, then why would he teach people to reject Satan and all his works and all his attractions and all his empty promises when Scripture quotes Jesus saying that Satan would NOT do that?
And I have a book, chapter and verses that says that very thing:
Mar 3:23 And He called them to Himself and began speaking to them in parables, “How can Satan cast out Satan?
Mar 3:24 “If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.
Mar 3:25 “If a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand.
Mar 3:26 “If Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but he is finished!”
Where are your verses to prove otherwise?
DAN–
You said: “Unfortunately, I won’t attend because I believe that giving my silent presence there would be de facto giving my consent to all that goes on.”
Is that for any place you give your presence, or just church?
Bob –
Church, weddings, funerals, baptisms, etc. Pretty much anything involving elements of worship. I mean, technically I could attend, but I would need to make sure that all there knew that I did not recognize the authority of the pastor/priest in charge, etc. Easier to just not attend in most situations.
Although, I do believe that this principle generally holds true for many situations. After all, are you going to grace an abortion clinic with your presence and say nothing?
Now that your curiosity is satisfied on that score, how about answering the rest of my post? Thanks!
DAN–
You asked: “If you are the true Church, why all the lies?”
Why do you think the Roman Church is lying–because Tim told you they were? I beg to differ. That is why I am calling him to task on it. Tim is very good at what he does. And the ones who know the difference can see what he is doing.
Now that being said…..
You said: “Church, weddings, funerals, baptisms, etc. Pretty much anything involving elements of worship. I mean, technically I could attend, but I would need to make sure that all there knew that I did not recognize the authority of the pastor/priest in charge, etc. Easier to just not attend in most situations.”
Let’s put the shoe on the other foot. How would you like it if someone used that excuse against your side of the issue? Let’s say you wanted a Catholic to come visit your church because you think he is following a false church and you have the true Church. He says “I would need to make sure that all there knew that I did not recognize the authority of the pastor/priest in charge, etc. It will be easier to just not attend in this situation. Thanks but no thanks.”
Bob wrote:
“WALT–
And you Walt are so heavily blinded by your blind loyalty to your Scotch, and your unfortunate arrogance of Scripture, that anyone who defends this Roman Church teaching is labeled an idolater and anti-Christ. Imagine that! Nothing new under the sun!”
Actually my focus is on the Westminster Assembly secondary standards as you have seen from our terms of communion, plus we do consider the Acts of General Assembly from the Church of Scotland.
In case you don’t know (opps, of course you don’t know), there were only 4 Scotch Commissioners who sat in the Westminster Assembly representing the Church of Scotland out of the 115 or so Elders and Ministers who sat in the Westminster Assembly.
Thus, you are again in error saying all this is based upon Scotland. In fact, the Assembly had a broad group of Ministers and Elders who came into unity to approve the Westminster Standards that I uphold as subordinate standards.
In case you don’t know what Westminster Abby is located, it is in London, England….not Scotland.
Bob wrote:
“WALT–
So did you cut and paste from:
1) Scots Confession of 1560
2) Book of Discipline
3) Book of Common Order ….?
They don’t look like quotes from Scripture to me. Why do you quote from secondary sources, Walt, when you’re always griping at me for not quoting Scripture?”
No, it came out of the National Covenant of Scotland and as I made clear to you, the proof texts are found in Scripture.
What you are asking for is a “literal” statement that says “The Pope is Anti-Christ” in the Bible, and that does not exist. Many Catholics are looking for literal statements to prove this or that, and I posted proof texts which show that many will become deceived in the later days by forbidding men to marry (I was refused to be allowed to marry if I became a Priest) and refusing to eat meats (I could not eat meat on Friday’s as a Catholic).
That is all I need to see in demonstrating the evil of Rome!
WALT–
You said: “No, it came out of the National Covenant of Scotland and as I made clear to you, the proof texts are found in Scripture.”
What a coincidence! I quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and those proof texts are found in Scripture, too.
WALT–
You said: “many will become deceived in the later days by forbidding men to marry (I was refused to be allowed to marry if I became a Priest) and refusing to eat meats (I could not eat meat on Friday’s as a Catholic).”
Do you really believe that is what that scripture passage applies to? Catholics do not forbid men to marry. How do you think Catholic families got so many kids. Was your father forbidden to marry your mother? Forbidding priests to be married is a discipline enacted from advice of St. Paul. Did you know that the Roman Catholic Church allows married clergy to remain married when they convert to become priests?
And since when did the Catholic Church forbid anyone to eat any kind of meat when Grace was said over it? Did you know eating of fish is allowed on Fridays of Lent? I consider that meat. Don’t you? For being a Catholic in your youth, you didn’t learn that much, did you.
Bob wrote:
“And that is exactly why I didn’t ask the question that you say I asked. I didn’t ask you if the Bible says that Roman Catholics Pope worships Satan, because I know it doesn’t. I asked if Satan and his anti-Christ taught people those things I mentioned. Because if he does, then scripture would mention it somewhere directly or indirectly, right?
If the Pope is the anti-Christ, then why would he teach people to reject Satan and all his works and all his attractions and all his empty promises when Scripture quotes Jesus saying that Satan would NOT do that?”
Interesting. So applying your logic, all sinful actions committed by man by every hypocrite calling himself a Christian is not possible because Satan does not effect any who claim to be a Christian.
Bob, come on please. Drop the logic, just apply common sense. Satan has effected many who claim to be Christian, and he also effects many who are Christian.
And he even effects you. And yet nobody is calling you anti-Christ are they?
For those who want the rest of the story–
Here is the history of St. Cyprian. In the document, which comes from the same source as Tim’s quotations of the Fathers, you will find the back and forth between Cyprian and Stephen and the aftermath. There’s always two sides to the story.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04583b.htm
Thanks, Bob,
An interesting side note from the link you provided:
Here is Cyprian’s description of the faction of Felicissimus in Carthage:
Here is Cyprian’s description of the faction of Novatian in Rome:
These are two different schisms. One (Novatian in Rome) thinking the church’s moderate position on the lapsed too light, and the other (Felicissimus) thinking the church’s moderate position on the lapsed too severe. But the Catholic Encyclopedia conflates the two errors as one, and then criticizes the schism for being of so little rigor that it can maintain two opposite positions in two different cities. Thus the Catholic Encylopedia marvels at “the curious result of” the schism in Rome “destroying the opposition to Cyprian at Carthage”. It is only “curious” if the two schisms are conflated as one.
It does not take much thinking to realize the benefit of the conflation. If it is one schism, Cyprian’s argument that the schism in Carthage is an attack upon the rock, the chair of St. Peter, must be seen as a reference to the chair of St. Peter in Rome. But if they are two different schisms, then Cyprian’s correction of the one that was unique to Carthage has him defending the chair of St. Peter in Carthage:
When the two schisms are seen in their own light, it is more plainly seen that Cyprian saw the attack on his episcopate as an attack on the chair of St. Peter, which is wholly consistent with Cyprianic Theory.
So do you go with the Catholic Encyclopedia and conflate the two schisms? Or do you go with the data?
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
You said: “So do you go with the Catholic Encyclopedia and conflate the two schisms? Or do you go with the data?”
I go with the data and conclude that:
It’s actually one schism with two different heresies trying to solve one problem.
One schism = Carthage vs. Rome
One problem = how to deal with the lapsed.
Two heresies = Donatism on one extreme and Novtianism on the other.
The Cyprianic Theory is a moderate view with a Novatianist hue–rather rigorist. The Augustinian Theory is an amended view of the Cyprianic Theory–basically defining that the effectiveness of the baptism or administration of the Lord’s supper does not cease to be effective if the moral character of the minister is in question or even demonstrated to be faulty. Rather, the sacraments are powerful because of what they are–visible representations of spiritual realities. God is the one who works in and through them; and He is not restricted by the moral state of the administrant.
It is interesting to note that this particular issue has been a thorn for the Church to this day. The Western Church adheres to the Augustinian Theory and the Eastern Church adheres to the Cyprianic Theory. The Methodists are Augustinian. Are the Presbyterians Cyprianic?
You also said: “It does not take much thinking to realize the benefit of the conflation. If it is one schism, Cyprian’s argument that the schism in Carthage is an attack upon the rock, the chair of St. Peter, must be seen as a reference to the chair of St. Peter in Rome. But if they are two different schisms, then Cyprian’s correction of the one that was unique to Carthage has him defending the chair of St. Peter in Carthage.”
And you add to this your sarcasm:
Roman Catholics: The Bishop of Rome was the final arbiter of all matters in the early church.
Protestants: But the Council of Arles was convened to judge the decision of a Roman Council, at which “pope” Melchiades had presided.
Roman Catholics: But Melchiades was right!”
So in your opinion in this particular issue at hand, Tim, where does the Chair of Peter reside, with the one who is right or the one who is wrong?
Bob wrote:
“Do you really believe that is what that scripture passage applies to? Catholics do not forbid men to marry. How do you think Catholic families got so many kids. Was your father forbidden to marry your mother? Forbidding priests to be married is a discipline enacted from advice of St. Paul. Did you know that the Roman Catholic Church allows married clergy to remain married when they convert to become priests?”
Well it is just obvious. There is no other religion in the world that forbids men to marry except for the Roman Catholic church. They also forbid women to marry. Both of these evil and wicked vows have caused terrible destruction to millions of children and teenagers around the world who have been abused by these single men and women called Priests, Bishops and Nuns.
Yes, I know they may remained married as Rome is desperate to get anyone to come to her as a minster…so they would never force men to divorce their wives as they do not permit divorce…another evil doctrine.
Bob, anything you find with Rome that is supporting your mind and heart is in Scripture sinful.
WALT–
You said: “Well it is just obvious. There is no other religion in the world that forbids men to marry except for the Roman Catholic church. They also forbid women to marry. ”
Zat so? Pardon my copy and paste, but it’s just quicker:
“MANICHAEISM is a complex mythology. Whatever its details, the essential theme of this mythology remains constant: the soul is fallen, entangled with evil matter, and then liberated by the spirit or nous. The myth unfolds in three stages: a past period in which there was a separation of the two radically opposed substances—Spirit and Matter, Good and Evil, Light and Darkness; a middle period (corresponding to the present) during which the two substances are mixed; and a future period in which the original duality will be reestablished. At death the soul of the righteous person returns to Paradise. The soul of the person who persisted in things of the flesh—fornication, procreation, possessions, cultivation, harvesting, eating of meat, drinking of wine—is condemned to rebirth in a succession of bodies.”
To the Manichaens, you couldn’t go to heaven if you marry and have kids.
ALBIGENSIANS The name is taken from Albi, Department of Tarn, France. It refers to several small groups of heretics in the Languedoc region of France, Catharists and sometimes waldensians among them, who played an important role in the religion and politics of the region from the mid-twelfth to the late fourteenth century. The cathari were eastern heretics with roots in Gnosticism who had made inroads in Western Europe around the middle of the twelfth century. Another principal group were the bogomils from Bulgaria, but there were probably multiple sources.
What characterized these groups was their dualistic belief, either absolute or limited, which maintained that God was responsible only for the spiritual world while Satan ruled the material world. In its absolute form, God created only the spiritual world, Jesus had no real human form, matter having been created by the devil. There were no positive values to marriage nor were there any material goods. These ideas were not new—they had been present in Manichaeism in the fourth century, when St. Augustine had at first joined them for nine years and later argued against them after his conversion.
To the Albigensians, it was Satanic to marry and have kids.
These are descendants from the gnostics, the ones mentioned by Paul in his letter to Timothy. You may say, “But those are ancient heresies. I’m talking about today.” And so now we have:
SHAKERS The United Society of Believers in Christ’s Second Appearing is a religious sect, also known as the Shakers, founded in the 18th century in England, having branched off from a Quaker community. They were known as “Shaking Quakers” because of their ecstatic behavior during worship services. In 1747 women assumed leadership roles within the sect, notably Jane Wardley and Mother Ann Lee. Shakers settled in colonial America, with initial settlements in New Lebanon, New York (called Mount Lebanon after 1861) and what is now Watervliet.
Shakers today are mostly known for their celibate and communal lifestyle, pacifism, and their model of equality of the sexes, which they institutionalized in their society in the 1780s. They are also known for their simple living, architecture and furniture.
During the mid 19th century, an Era of Manifestations resulted in a period of dances, gift drawings and gift songs inspired by spiritual revelations. At its peak in the mid 19th century, there were 6,000 Shaker believers. By 1920, there were only 12 Shaker communities remaining in the United States. There is only one active Shaker village, Sabbathday Lake Shaker Village, which is located in Maine. Their celibacy resulted in the thinning of the Shaker community, and consequently many of the other Shaker settlements are now village museums, like Hancock Shaker Village in Massachusetts.Shakers were celibate; procreation was forbidden after they joined the society (except for women who were already pregnant at admission). Children were added to their communities through indenture, adoption, or conversion. Occasionally a foundling was anonymously left on a Shaker doorstep.They welcomed all, often taking in orphans and the homeless. For children, Shaker life was structured, safe, and predictable, with no shortage of adults who cared about their young charges. When Shaker youngsters, girls and boys, reached the age of 21, they were free to leave or to remain with the Shakers. Unwilling to remain celibate, many chose to leave; today there are thousands of descendants of Shaker-raised seceders.
Shaker religion valued women and men equally in religious leadership. The church was hierarchical, and at each level women and men shared authority. This was reflective of the Shaker belief that God was both female and male. They believed men and women were equal in the sight of God, and should be treated equally on earth, too. Thus two Elders and two Eldresses formed the Ministry at the top of the administrative structure. Two lower-ranking Elders and two Eldresses led each family, women overseeing women and men overseeing men.
In their temporal labor, Shakers followed traditional gender work-related roles. Their homes were segregated by sex, as were women and men’s work areas. Women worked indoors spinning, weaving, cooking, sewing, cleaning, washing, and making or packaging goods for sale. In good weather, groups of Shaker women were outdoors, gardening and gathering wild herbs for sale or home consumption. Men worked in the fields doing farm work and in their shops at crafts and trades. Shakers thus simultaneously valued women’s status in society and realized the importance and difficulty of women’s work, not following traditional prejudices that would consider women a “weaker sex” simply to elevate the male, as it was unnecessary in their egalitarian social structure to do so. This also allowed the continuation of church leadership when there was a shortage of men.”
You also said: “Bob, anything you find with Rome that is supporting your mind and heart is in Scripture sinful.”
I have no idea what that means.
Bob,
Those are all from Roman Catholic heretical dictionaries. They are all lies about the ALBIGENSIANS as claiming they were from gnostics is laughable.
I’m surprised Rome did not say all Protestants were heretics for translating, reading and teaching the Bible.
Your quote is the perfect example of what Antichrist has done throughout history. Murder, torture and do everything in history to lie about faithful Christians who threatened Rome with the Scriptures and Sword of the Spirit of God.
Thanks for the quote. It is so good to see the lies of Rome.
WALT–
This is from a source that Tim also uses:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharism
Let’s get to the truth that Protestants teach about Rome!!!
WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH
VI. There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ.
[13] Nor can the pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof.
[14] but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.
Col. 1:18; Eph. 1:2214. Matt. 23:8-10; I Peter 5:2-4
Who Did the Reformers Say Is Antichrist?
Take a look at these quotes from the great Protestant reformers showing who they believed the Bible antichrist was.
Nicolaus Von Amsdorf (1483 – 1565)
“He (the antichrist) will be revealed and come to naught before the last day, so that every man shall comprehend and recognize that the pope is the real, true antichrist and not the vicar of Christ … Therefore those who consider the pope and his bishops as Christian shepherds and bishops are deeply in error, but even more are those who believe the the Turk (ISLAM) is the antichrist. Because the Turk (ISLAM) rules outside of the church and does not sit in the holy place, nor does he seek to bear the name of Christ, but is an open antagonist of Christ and His church. This does not need to be revealed, but it is clear and evident because he persecutes Christians openly and not as the pope does, secretly under the form of Godliness.” (Nicolaus Von Amsdorf, Furnemliche und gewisse Zeichen, sig.A2r.,v.)
Martin Luther (1483 – 1546)
“nothing else than the kingdom of Babylon and of very Antichrist. For who is the man of sin and the son of perdition, but he who by his teaching and his ordinances increases the sin and perdition of souls in the church; while he yet sits in the church as if he were God? All these conditions have now for many ages been fulfilled by the papal tyranny.” (Martin Luther, First Principles, pp. 196-197)
Flacius (1570)
“The sixth and last reason for our separation from the pope and his followers be this; By many writings of our church, by the Divinely inspired Word, by prophecies concerning the future and by the special characteristics of the Papacy, it has been profusely and thoroughly proved that the pope with his prelates and clergy is the real true great antichrist, that his kingdom is the real Babylon, a never ceasing fountain and a mother of all abominable idolatry.” (Flacius, Etliche Hochwichtige Ursachen und Grunde, warum das siche alle Christen von dem Antichrist … absondern sollen)
Georg Nigrinus (1530 – 1602)
“The Jesuits claim to be sorely offended and have taken my declarations as an insult and blasphemy in branding the Papacy as the antichrist of which Daniel, Paul, Peter, John and even Christ prophesied. But this is as true as it is that Jesus is the Messiah, and I am prepared to show it even by their own definition of the word ‘antichrist’.” (Translated from “Nigrinus, Antichrists Grundliche Offenbarung” fol. 6v.)
“This Jesuit further contends that the Papacy cannot be antichrist because the Papacy has lasted for centuries, but that the antichrist is supposed to reign only for 3 1/2 years … But no one doubts today that Daniel spoke of YEAR-DAYS, not literal days … The prophetic time-periods of forty-two months, 1260 days, 1, 2, 1/2 times are prophetic, and according to Ezekiel 4, a day must be taken for a year.” (Translated from “Nigrinus, Antichrists Grundliche Offenbarung” fols.28v. 29r.)
John Calvin (1509 – 1564)
“Though it be admitted that Rome was once the mother of all Churches, yet from the time when it began to be the seat of Antichrist it has ceased to be what it was before. Some persons think us too severe and censorious when we call the Roman Pontiff Antichrist. But those who are of this opinion do not consider that they bring the same charge of presumption against Paul himself, after whom we speak and whose language we adopt .. I shall briefly show that (Paul’s words in II Thess. 2) are not capable of any other interpretation than that which applies them to the Papacy.” (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol.3, p.149)
John Knox (1505 – 1572)
Yea, to speak it in plain words; lest that we submit ourselves to Satan, thinking that we submit ourselves to Jesus Christ, for, as for your Roman kirk, as it is now corrupted, and the authority thereof, whereon stands the hope of your victory, I no more doubt but that it is the synagogue of Satan, and the head thereof, called the pope, to be that man of sin, of whom the apostle speaks.” (John Knox, The History of the Reformation of Religion in Scotland, p.65)
Thomas Cranmer (1489 – 1556)
“Whereof it followeth Rome to be the seat of Antichrist, and the pope to be very antichrist himself. I could prove the same by many other scriptures, old writers, and strong reasons.” (Works by Cranmer, vol.1, pp.6-7)
Roger Williams (1603 – 1683)
Pastor Williams spoke of the Pope as “the pretended Vicar of Christ on earth, who sits as God over the Temple of God, exalting himself not only above all that is called God, but over the souls and consciences of all his vassals, yea over the Spirit of Christ, over the Holy Spirit, yea, and God himself…speaking against the God of heaven, thinking to change times and laws; but he is the son of perdition.” (The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers by Froom, Vol. 3, pg. 52)
The Baptist Confession of Faith (1689)
“The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order or government of the church, is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner; neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ.” (1689 Baptist Confession of Faith)
The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646)
“There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalts himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God.” (1646 Westminster Confession of Faith)
John Wesley (1703 – 1791)
“… In many respects, the Pope has an indisputable claim to those titles. He is, in an emphatical sense, the man of sin, as he increases all manner of sin above measure. And he is, too, properly styled, the son of perdition, as he has caused the death of numberless multitudes, both of his opposers and followers, destroyed innumerable souls, and will himself perish everlastingly. He it is that opposeth himself to the emperor, once his rightful sovereign; and that exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped – Commanding angels, and putting kings under his feet, both of whom are called gods in scripture; claiming the highest power, the highest honour; suffering himself, not once only, to be styled God or vice-God. Indeed no less is implied in his ordinary title, “Most Holy Lord,” or, “Most Holy Father.” So that he sitteth – Enthroned. In the temple of God – Mentioned Rev. xi, 1. Declaring himself that he is God – Claiming the prerogatives which belong to God alone.” (John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon The New Testament, p.216)
Charles Spurgeon (1834 – 1892)
“It is the bounden duty of every Christian to pray against Antichrist, and as to what Antichrist is no sane man ought to raise a question. If it be not the popery in the Church of Rome there is nothing in the world that can be called by that name. If there were to be issued a hue and cry for Antichrist, we should certainly take up this church on suspicion, and it would certainly not be let loose again, for it so exactly answers the description.”
“Popery is contrary to Christ’s Gospel, and is the Antichrist, and we ought to pray against it. It should be the daily prayer of every believer that Antichrist might be hurled like a millstone into the flood and for Christ, because it wounds Christ, because it robs Christ of His glory, because it puts sacramental efficacy in the place of His atonement, and lifts a piece of bread into the place of the Saviour, and a few drops of water into the place of the Holy Ghost, and puts a mere fallible man like ourselves up as the vicar of Christ on earth; if we pray against it, because it is against Him, we shall love the persons though we hate their errors: we shall love their souls though we loath and detest their dogmas, and so the breath of our prayers will be sweetened, because we turn our faces towards Christ when we pray.” (Michael de Semlyen, All Roads Lead to Rome)
Rev. J.A.Wylie (1808 – 1890)
“The same line of proof which establishes that Christ is the promised Messiah, conversely applied, establishes that the Roman system is the predicted Apostacy. In the life of Christ we behold the converse of what the Antichrist must be; and in the prophecy of the Antichrist we are shown the converse of what Christ must be, and was. And when we place the Papacy between the two, and compare it with each, we find, on the one hand, that it is the perfect converse of Christ as seen in his life; and on the other, that it is the perfect image of the Antichrist, as shown in the prophecy of him. We conclude, therefore, that if Jesus of Nazareth be the Christ, the Roman Papacy is the Antichrist.” (J.A.Wylie, Preface to “The Papacy is the Antichrist, A Demonstration”).
WALT–
All these impeccable references. Thank you, Walt.
Duly noted. I’ll take them under advisement and get back to you.
Bob said:
“WALT–
All these impeccable references. Thank you, Walt.
Duly noted. I’ll take them under advisement and get back to you.”
Bob, please provide me even ONE individual who is Roman Catholic that compares in excellence and quality to any of the men listed above! Please show me who this Pope is that has developed the high level of biblical commentaries, writings, works, etc. that many of the men listed above have produced.
Who is this Roman Catholic that you know to be of equal or greater Scriptural knowledge and capability to interpret than the men listed above?
There are non in your basket of Romish men. In fact, we have seen nothing in history and in our generation we have seen millions of children, teenagers, families torn apart by Priests, Bishops and Cardinals of Rome. That is what you have in your “giants of men” … most have lived homosexual lives in secret, targeted children and teenagers and left a history of damage and murder in Rome’s history the past almost 2,000 years.
It is very sad when you study this reality.
WALT–
You said: “That is what you have in your “giants of men” … most have lived homosexual lives in secret,”
There is a division in the Church of Scotland on how the issues surrounding homosexuality should be addressed. While the church has traditionally adopted a “hate the sin but love the sinner” approach, in recent years some within the church have pushed for actual homosexual behaviour to be accepted as not sinful. This division of approach is illustrated by widespread opposition to an attempt to install as minister an openly homosexual man who intends to live with his partner once appointed to his post. In a landmark decision, the General Assembly voted on 23 May 2009 by 326 to 267 to ratify the appointment of the Reverend Scott Rennie, the Kirk’s first openly “practicing” homosexual minister. The decision was reached on the basis the Presbytery had followed the correct procedure. Rennie had won the overwhelming support of his prospective church members at Queen’s Cross, Aberdeen, but his appointment was in some doubt until extensive debate and this vote by the Commissioners to the Assembly. The General Assembly later agreed upon a moratorium on the appointment of further “practising” homosexuals until after a special commission has reported on the matter. (See: Ordination of homosexuals) As a result of these developments, a new grouping of congregations within the Church was begun “to declare their clear commitment to historic Christian orthodoxy”, known as the Fellowship of Confessing Churches. In May 2011, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland voted to appoint a theological commission, with a view to fully investigating the matter, reporting to the General Assembly of 2013. Meanwhile, openly homosexual ministers ordained before 2009 would be allowed to keep their posts without fear of sanction. On 20 May 2013, the General Assembly voted in favour of allowing gay ministers. By May 2014 several large congregations had left the denomination over this issue, and it was reported in Pink News and The Scotsman that three significant Edinburgh congregations: Holyrood Abbey Church, St Catherine’s Argyle and New Restalrig in Willowbrae were to follow; the latter two congregations move depriving the Kirk of £315,000 in congregational giving. It was reported that seceding congregations had a combined annual income of £1 million. The Church opposed proposals for gay marriage, stating that “The government’s proposal fundamentally changes marriage as it is understood in our country and our culture – that it is a relationship between one man and one woman”.
What did Jesus say about casting stones?
Bob, please provide me even ONE individual who is Roman Catholic that compares in excellence and quality to any of the men listed above!
G. K. Chesterton
Bob wrote:
“G. K. Chesterton”
You must be kidding. I watch his special often on EWTN and clearly this man is in hell right now as we speak. He was so far removed from the Scriptures.
You need to find someone who could compare to Calvin, Knox, Luther, Beza, etc. Just these former Catholics.
I have not even started to list for you the greatest of all Ministers in the history of the church that shined in the second reformations. Men who were incredibly gifted at very young ages that were highly skilled in Scripture.
I was just giving you the first reformation reformers.
Forget CK Chesterton. He is in pre-school compared to the first reformation greats. Even Bellarmine was considered a great in many arguments by the reformers, but he was still left wanting in every subject as was pointed out by the second reformation greats.
So what do you have against R J Rushdoony?
TIM–
You said: “It does not matter whether Augustine is reasoning hypothetically here. The fact is that “there still remained” a higher court, even after Rome had “spoken,” at which court a Roman decision could be “reversed” if the bishops there were “convicted of mistake.” Augustine goes on, explaining that the Emperor “granted them the second trial at Arles, before other bishops” but did not intend by this “to make himself the judge of the decision pronounced by the bishops who had sat at Rome.” That was a job for the “other bishops” (Augustine, Letter 43, chapter 7.20). Compare this to the Vatican I definition of Papal Infallibility, which declared that “such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church” (Vatican I, Pastor Æternus, chapter IV). In Constantine’s day, the most obvious implementation of this teaching was to “take pains” to examine an irreformable decision “more carefully” and to seek the consent of the Church.”
Like I have said in the past, I personally think the Vatican shot themselves in the foot by declaring Papal Infallibility. However there is plenty of evidence of the primacy of the Roman See. Look at Letter 43, chapter 7.20 in it’s entirety:
“20. What they actually did afterwards, however, is sufficiently shown in the letter of the Emperor. For it was not before other bishops, but at the bar of the Emperor, that they dared to bring the charge of wrong judgment against ecclesiastical judges of so high authority as the bishops by whose sentence the innocence of Cæcilianus and their own guilt had been declared.”
So instead of taking it to a “higher” church authority, they took it to the Emperor in Arles, the highest secular authority, to get him to override Church authority.
“He granted them the second trial at Aries, before other bishops; not because this was due to them, but only as a concession to their stubbornness, and from a desire by all means to restrain so great effrontery.”
He did it to placate them, not because it was due them.
” For this Christian Emperor did not presume so to grant their unruly and groundless complaints as to make himself the judge of the decision pronounced by the bishops who had sat at Rome; but he appointed, as I have said, other bishops, from whom, however, they preferred again to appeal to the Emperor himself; and you have heard the terms in which he disapproved of this.”
The Emperor himself appointed the bishops for the trial at Arles, and still not satisfied and against his wishes, they appealed to the Emperor himself–the highest SECULAR authority.
” Would that even then they had desisted from their most insane contentions, and had yielded at last to the truth,(which was the decision at Rome) as he yielded to them when (intending afterwards to apologize for this course to the reverend prelates) he consented to try their case after the bishops, on condition that, if they did not submit to his decision, for which they had themselves appealed, they should thenceforward be silent! For he ordered that both parties should meet him at Rome to argue the case. ”
Believing that they would then acquiesce, he was intending to apologize to Rome for usurping their authority. But since they would not be placated, the Emperor agreed to try the case himself on the condition that his decision be final and that the trial to be held in Rome, not Arles.
“When Cæcilianus, for some reason, failed to compear there, he, at their request, ordered all to follow him to Milan. Then some of their party began to withdraw, perhaps offended that Constantine did not follow their example, and condemn Cæcilianus in his absence at once and summarily. When the prudent Emperor was aware of this, he compelled the rest to come to Milan in charge of his guards. Cæcilianus having come there, he brought him forward in person, as he has written; and having examined the matter with the diligence, caution, and prudence which his letters on the subject indicate, he pronounced Cæcilianus perfectly innocent, and them most criminal.”
Trying to have Constantine override the decision at Rome with his secular authority, they failed. Constantine upheld the Roman See’s decision. This was no appeal to a “higher ecclesiastical authority” , but a secular one, and Constantine respected Rome’s authority by his decision.
Thanks, Bob. Yes, Constantine appointed bishops in order for those bishops to judge the matters decided at Rome. None of those bishops were deputized by Constantine as secular judges to evaluate the matter of the Roman council. It was a church council that sat in judgment of a church council. As I showed in this week’s post (5/17/15), this happened again at Sardica, where the bishops of Sardica judged the matter as it had been decided at a council under “pope” Julius. The fact that the emperor appointed the council of Arles hardly matters. Were all the bishops of Arles in error for daring to stand in judgment of Rome? Not at all. Even Julius knew that one council (including his own) must always be ready to be judged by another.
The substance of your argument boils down to this (as it always must with Rome’s apologists):
Roman Catholics: The Bishop of Rome was the final arbiter of all matters in the early church.
Protestants: But the Council of Arles was convened to judge the decision of a Roman Council, at which “pope” Melchiades had presided.
Roman Catholics: But Melchiades was right!
Thus, your entire argument only serves to change the subject from Roman primacy, to the matter of Roman correctness. An effective tool, as I have elsewhere noted, but a non sequitur, nonetheless.
An ecclesiastical council at Rome had spoken. The matter was then more carefully examined at an ecclesiastical council at Arles. Then the matter was taken to the secular imperial court. None of this can obviate the fact that a Roman Council was subjected to the judgment of a higher ecclesiastical court—at Arles. It is, however, consistent with the appellate judicial reforms of Constantine, as I noted in this week’s post.
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
You said: “Constantine appointed bishops in order for those bishops to judge the matters decided at Rome. None of those bishops were deputized by Constantine as secular judges to evaluate the matter of the Roman council. It was a church council that sat in judgment of a church council.”
I disagree. Tim, you read right over the details in this instance that makes all the difference. They wanted Constantine to override the decision at Rome but:
“He granted them the second trial at Aries, before other bishops; not because this was due to them, but only as a concession to their stubbornness, and from a desire by all means to restrain so great effrontery.”
They were not due and appeal from Rome’s decision! Constantine only did it to placate them and he was going to apologize to Rome for usurping their authority:
“(intending afterwards to apologize for this course to the reverend prelates)”.
And even then, they still rejected the bishops council and insisted Constantine override the ecclesiastical court and have Constantine himself make the decision. All of the actions after the ecclesiastical council at Rome had spoken, were ecclesiastically illicit.
Constantine could see the handwriting on the wall. The Church was growing ever more divided on how it was handling heresy and it was fracturing the Church–each side claiming that they had the truth of God. That was the purpose of the 1st Council of Nicaea–so the church worldwide would unite and define doctrine against heresy and not split into factions.
That should read:
“They were not due an appeal from Rome’s decision!”
Bob, you wrote:
“By May 2014 several large congregations had left the denomination over this issue, and it was reported in Pink News and The Scotsman that three significant Edinburgh congregations: Holyrood Abbey Church, St Catherine’s Argyle and New Restalrig in Willowbrae were to follow; the latter two congregations move depriving the Kirk of £315,000 in congregational giving. It was reported that seceding congregations had a combined annual income of £1 million. The Church opposed proposals for gay marriage, stating that “The government’s proposal fundamentally changes marriage as it is understood in our country and our culture – that it is a relationship between one man and one woman”.”
Here is a major difference between you and me Bob. I have ZERO loyalty to any church just because of their name. The Church of Scotland means nothing to me except in their period of faithfulness. From 1650 they have declined to what I today view as a daughter of Rome. They have not only rejected the faithful Terms of Communion (that Tim also rejects publicly), but they have butchered all their attainments they reached in the first and second reformations. I would never submit to the Church of Scotland courts today even if they threatened to burn me alive. They could take me in chains (and perhaps they will one day with Rome at their side) for beheading due to my unwillingness to submit to their idolatry.
In your case, you will never care even what period Rome was faithful or unfaithful. You adhere to all here foolishness, evil and wickedness because you are what I used to call in my days playing sports as a spineless weasel. This was back in the days where guys were only along for the ride…they never pushed themselves to excellence or anything beyond just being part of the group to be involved. They had no intention to fight for what was right and honorable…like you Bob, they were along to be part of the glory.
You have clearly chosen to be with the majority of the wicked and that is where you are comfortable. Anything that takes any sort of skill, commitment, hard work or dedication to the truth that is out of the question. That is what separates those like Luther (former Catholic), Knox (former Catholic), Calvin (former Catholic), Tyndale (former Catholic), Beza (former Catholic), etc. etc. from the “spineless weasels”. Here is a modern day list of our hero’s. They deserve to be heard:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2015/02/former-roman-catholic-priests-and-nuns.html
Read one of the greatest books ever written on our heros:
http://www.greatsite.com/facsimile-reproductions/foxe-1684.html
Yes, I know, sticks and stones will break your bones but words will never hurt you Bob. Wake up and smarten up. Wise up.
Everyone…do NOT be deceived by Bob as he is a totally blinded and committed to your deception. Read the facts here:
“This most important of all Christian books has been essentially unavailable (except in ridiculously abridged form, or costly original form) for over three hundred years. We are proud to be the ones who made it available again to the world, and we cannot over-emphasize the importance of having this resource as part of the Christian’s home library. What ultimately happened to each of the twelve apostles… and those who defied the Caesars of Rome, and later defied the Popes of Rome? The Bible does not tell us… but this book does. This huge reference work is a “must-have” for anyone with an interest in church history.
While the genuine original printings of Foxe’s Martyrs are available in the Silver Room of our Ancient Rare Books & Bibles section; their price of around $25,000 or more is beyond the budget of many of our customers. The suggested retail price on this facsimile reproduction masterpiece is listed at $885 (which is $295 per volume). We are pleased to offer it for considerably less that that amount. ”
http://www.greatsite.com/facsimile-reproductions/foxe-1684.html
Hmmmm….I wonder why it’s not offered for free to spineless weasels like me? Oh well. So much for riding on the coattails to glory.
Bob,
Here you go. You might have seen this before, but I have not. Here is the alleged early church fathers who the Roman Catholic Answers say debunk the idea that the Papacy is Antichrist.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-antichrist
Notice they don’t use Scripture, nor any Protestant reformers to argue their position. They only use the early church fathers to counter the reformers claim that the Papacy is Antichrist.
WALT–
Again, what do you have against Rushdoony? I think his stuff is really good.
WALT–
You said: “Notice they don’t use Scripture, nor any Protestant reformers to argue their position. They only use the early church fathers to counter the reformers claim that the Papacy is Antichrist.”
The Scripture references are in the quotes from the Fathers. And, naturally they wouldn’t use Protestant Reformers to argue their position. That would be silly. It is an interesting read, though. The article does make a point that I haven’t considered. The anti-Christ is supposed to set himself up in the Temple of God as the Christ. If the Reformers do not consider the Vatican to be the Temple of God, then to what Temple of God are they referring?
You’re comment is visible, Tim.
Bob wrote:
“WALT–
Again, what do you have against Rushdoony? I think his stuff is really good.”
Rushdoony is what I call a first generation Presbyterian. He spent a tremendous time learning pre- and first reformation materials and then largely ignored the second reformation documents as they were largely unpublished. Of course he did some good technical materials on history, but much of the second reformation he skimmed over except for the more common Westminster Standards.
I used to be a very big proponent of Rushdoony. I sourced all of his audio tape programs back in 1997 and used to go over them all day long. I took off largely all of 1997 to do nothing but study, research and investigate a great deal of his works which led me to second reformation materials that he mostly ignorned. His errors are in his application of judicial laws, his support for unlawful civil government to “reform” it from within, his refusal to adhere to the principles of the National Covenant and the Solemn League and Covenant, his promotion of dominionism, his rejection as most Presbyterians in our generation that the Papacy is Antichrist, and his adoption of partial Preterism.
Other than these main issues with me, he does a great job on world and american history, biblical law and adhering to the fact that Presbyterianism is ordained by God as a divine right as biblical church government revealed in the Scriptures.
Bob wrote:
“The Scripture references are in the quotes from the Fathers. And, naturally they wouldn’t use Protestant Reformers to argue their position. That would be silly. It is an interesting read, though. The article does make a point that I haven’t considered. The anti-Christ is supposed to set himself up in the Temple of God as the Christ. If the Reformers do not consider the Vatican to be the Temple of God, then to what Temple of God are they referring?”
They are referring to the Church as the Temple of God. The Vatican is simply an incorporated civil government. Certainly the reformers, nor any Presbyterian who is orthodox, would consider the Vatican as the Christian church. It is a nation state.
The problem with Catholic Answers using the early Church fathers to counter the reformers arguments is really silly. Tim uses the early Church fathers to try to argue that they began to see Rome surfacing as “the” possible antichirst, but I cannot accept this until I know for certain what Scriptures were made available to each of them individually, and collectively.
It all boils down to the presupposition and epistemology of the author of any human testimony. Tim does a fantastic job of comparing each early church father with their own works so that the reader gets a much more accurate revelation of their presupposition to what they mean by what they write. Catholic Answers and Roman Catholic Scholars (as Tim shows) do not care about what the author actually mean by what they write, but rather that their interpretation of specific quotes justify the Romish tradition that she is the one true and only faithful visible church on earth. The early church fathers never intended to ignore Scripture to set-up a central authority in Rome to be the head of the Christian Church, but Roman scholars work tirelessly throughout the ages to try to document this teaching for its followers. Tim seeks to show what the early church father author really means by what he writes.
Thus, I have no idea what Scriptures the early church fathers possessed when they wrote their individual works. At best they might have had all the canon later declared to be the Holy Bible, but at worst they could have only had a handful of manuscripts from the New Testament and all of the Old Testament. Certainly they had oral traditions that passed down from the Apostolic church, but these are only effective to utilize if they agree with, and are founded upon, the Holy Scriptures as later to be revealed to mankind.
You take what Rome says on blind faith, and this is great for those who love tradition over Scripture. What Catholic Answers should have done is evaluated what the Reformers really taught and documents in history to show that indeed the Papacy is “the” antichrist. Then used their own counter reformers to disprove via Scripture. They should have used the Jesuits own writings to try to disprove it…not the early church fathers. They could have gone to these sites here:
http://aloha.net/~mikesch/antichrist.htm
http://amazingdiscoveries.org/RT_encyclopedia_Futurism_Preterism_Catholic
You can find on the internet a load of “pro-preterist” papers saying that the Jesuits did not “invent” the doctrine, and they will source early church fathers as their primary sources. That is common among Rushdoony followers as most are preterists.
Bob,
Please watch this video called “A Lamp In The Dark” as it will give you a detailed overview on the history of the bible as well as the specific periods where Rome started to be revealed in history as Antichrist. You are not going to find that in the early church fathers writings as Tim notes they only started to see this start, but this film will demonstrate detailed information that came to really show that the Papacy was antichrist.
WALT–
You said: “They are referring to the Church as the Temple of God. The Vatican is simply an incorporated civil government. Certainly the reformers, nor any Presbyterian who is orthodox, would consider the Vatican as the Christian church. It is a nation state.”
If the Roman Catholic Church (symbolized as the Vatican) is not the True Church, and the Pope has set himself up in the Vatican as head of the organization that Protestants say is not a true church nor even Christian, then how does the Pope set himself up in the Temple of God (the True Church) when he has seated himself in the Vatican (which according to you is not the True Church, ie. the Temple of God)?
1) Anti-Christ sets himself up in the Roman Catholic Church as God.
2) The Roman Catholic Church was never the True Church.
3) The Reformed Church is the True Church–the Temple of God.
ERGO:
The Anti-Christ has not set himself up as God in the Temple of God because the Pope has never claimed to be God in the Reformed Church.
OR, by yours and Tim’s logic, the Bible can only be true if:
Pope = Anti-Christ.
Reformed Church = Temple of God
ERGO:
If the Roman Church was never the Temple of God, the Pope must set himself up as God in the Reformed Church.
Bob said:
“The Anti-Christ has not set himself up as God in the Temple of God because the Pope has never claimed to be God in the Reformed Church.”
Bob, your logic is wanting. You should get a course on the subject and spend a bit more time studying the principles of logic.
Your error in logic is that you don’t know the difference between the visible church in being (all those who profess the Christian faith…including the Romish antichrist) and the visible church in well-being (the elect). Further, the invisible church are those elect of God through all ages since time began. Whether one is talking about the reformed or the Papal Vatican/church (as you call her), they are part of the visible church in being..including all the heretics, wicked, backslidden, false worshippers, unsaved who claim to be Christian, antichrist, etc.
The temple of God is the visible Christian church in being and in well-being. It is not the “true church” being romish or reformed. The elect exist in MANY MANY churches, and are called to come out of them to be separate.
“There is an important distinction to be made between the being (esse) of a church and its well-being (bene esse). Dear reader please, always keep this distinction in mind, or you will fail to understand both the Scriptures and the reformers (and the men of the PRCE) on this vital matter. What is necessary to the “being” of a true church is something considerably different from what is necessary to its “well-being.” Since the term “true church” can be applied to both its “being” and “well-being” it is ABSOLUTELY IMPERATIVE to qualify which “true church” one is referring to, especially when making public charges. Speaking of a “true church” as being essentially true tells us that a church is Christian as opposed to Pagan; while speaking of a “true church” relative to its “well-being” tells us whether a particular Christian church is being faithful to God’s Word. While the former distinguishes between the Church and the world, the latter distinguishes between the faithful and the unfaithful churches among those bodies which profess Christianity.”
http://www.reformedpresbytery.org/books/covrefdf/frames/foreword.html
WALT–
You said: “Your error in logic is that you don’t know the difference between the visible church in being (all those who profess the Christian faith…including the Romish antichrist) and the visible church in well-being (the elect). ”
And then you said:
“The temple of God is the visible Christian church in being and in well-being. It is not the “true church” being romish or reformed.”
By what you just said:
Church in being = all those who profess the Christian faith.
Church in well-being = the elect
Temple of God (established by God and recognized by Him as His)= visible Christian Church in being and in well-being.
Pope = Anti-Christ
ERGO:
The Pope has set himself up as God in the Romish Church andthe Church of the Elect.
I am pretty sure, Walt, that you believe the elect cannot be part of the Satanic Roman Catholic Church and bend the knee in idolatry. The elect simply will not do that. So, the elect will not recognize the Satanic Roman Catholic Church as the Temple established by God. Therefore, the Pope must set himself up in the Church of the Elect.
When has that ever happened?
Bob said:
“Therefore, the Pope must set himself up in the Church of the Elect.
When has that ever happened?”
Watch the video on the history of the Scriptures above and it will give you specific dates and quotes and claims by Roman Pontiffs. I cannot possible post all those many quotes here. It is a 2.5 hour video in specific detail. You have to research this stuff yourself as I had to do it.
You are always looking for just one specific sign where a Pope declares he is antichrist or the bible says Pope such and such is the antichrist, etc.. You are not going to find that and it is illogical to look for that in Scripture. It is not how Scripture is interpreted. The video gives you all the proof texts and the quotes by the heathen Pope’s claiming themselves they are Jesus Christ in the flesh on earth. You don’t need any more evidence than their own quotes…but you are not going to find these pagan heath Popes saying they are antichrist. They claim they are Jesus Christ in the flesh…that should be enough for anyone who is neutral in their logic or thinking.
WALT–
You said: “It is not how Scripture is interpreted.”
Ok. Interpret this:
Act 9:1ff Meanwhile, Saul was uttering threats with every breath and was eager to kill the Lord’s followers. So he went to the high priest. He requested letters addressed to the synagogues in Damascus, asking for their cooperation in the arrest of any followers of the Way he found there. He wanted to bring them—both men and women—back to Jerusalem in chains. As he was approaching Damascus on this mission, a light from heaven suddenly shone down around him.
He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul! Saul! Why are you persecuting me?”
“Who are you, lord?” Saul asked.
And the voice replied, “I am Jesus, the one you are persecuting!”
Why did Jesus say Saul was persecuting Him when it was obvious from the text that Saul was persecuting just Jesus’ followers?
Bob said:
“Why did Jesus say Saul was persecuting Him when it was obvious from the text that Saul was persecuting just Jesus’ followers?”
Bob, it really is a waste of time trying to teach you any Scripture or principles of Scripture. I sort of knew this day was coming as I have read your responses to Tim and after several dozen I could tell you have a really hard time grasping basic fundamental principles of logic and principles of common sense. One only really needs to look equally at both sides of the argument, and read a few books, watch a few videos and sit in a Romish mass 2-3 (or watch it on EWTN on Sundays and during various week days) and the idolatry, heresy and evil shows itself pretty clearly. Dozens of verses have been interpreted and referenced for you on this site, and especially in Tim’s blogs, and it just really goes over your head. It has been so helpful for me to see you and other Catholics here defend your religion as it has really opened my eyes to the blindness that exists within the cult nature of the Romish church. All the pomp, power, wealth, website supporters, etc. really makes 1 billion plus followers gitty over its false religion.
It is the same way with the baptists (I used to be one) on refusing infant baptism. They are so blinded by their own presupposition and tradition it is near impossible to see anything except what they have been taught and believe. I know as I used to be one…I could easily see no Scripture proof text would change my mind until I had to totally bring a neutral presupposition to both old and new testaments. I had to move away from being a new testament focused believer, to an entire bible believer. Leaving Rome’s tradition to become a new testament believer was a major step, but leaving the baptist church to become a full bible believer was even harder.
Logic and common sense helped me move out of my Romish past with a few glaring passages (like all the Reformers read and then exited Rome), but logic and common sense does not bring you out of the baptist church sect. That takes a lot more bible study and understanding one’s presupposition to the texts.
I hope one day, as with the Apostle Paul, you will stop persecuting Jesus Christ on this blog and terrorizing those who are desperately looking for answers. Until the Lord removes the scales from your eyes and regenerates your heart and renews your mind to see these things…you will only die in your sin and unbelief. Now that is really sad but persecution of Christ’s church by you, Rome and your followers has been ongoing for 2,000+ years (starting before they crucified Christ on a cross) and will continue through the slaying of the witnesses, and until both the antichrist and Satan himself our bound for a figurative 1,000 years. Until then, we just have to deal with it coming out of Rome and her followers day after day.
WALT–
Why must you resort to personal attacks when all I asked of you was:
“Why did Jesus say Saul was persecuting Him when it was obvious from the text that Saul was persecuting just Jesus’ followers?”
You said: “The video gives you all the proof texts and the quotes by the heathen Pope’s claiming themselves they are Jesus Christ in the flesh on earth.”
I know that Rome believes they are the vicars, viceroys, representatives, agents, etc,etc. of Christ. And they use Acts 9:1ff as useful to make their case. So I quoted it.
And you also said: “You are always looking for just one specific sign where a Pope declares he is antichrist or the bible says Pope such and such is the antichrist, etc.. You are not going to find that and it is illogical to look for that in Scripture. It is not how Scripture is interpreted.
So, show me ,Walt, how do you interpret this:
Act 9:1ff Meanwhile, Saul was uttering threats with every breath and was eager to kill the Lord’s followers. So he went to the high priest. He requested letters addressed to the synagogues in Damascus, asking for their cooperation in the arrest of any followers of the Way he found there. He wanted to bring them—both men and women—back to Jerusalem in chains. As he was approaching Damascus on this mission, a light from heaven suddenly shone down around him.
He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul! Saul! Why are you persecuting me?”
“Who are you, lord?” Saul asked.
And the voice replied, “I am Jesus, the one you are persecuting!”
Why did Jesus say Saul was persecuting Him when it was obvious from the text that Saul was persecuting just Jesus’ followers?
Tim wrote:
“Walt,
To your question, “Is it your rejection of Presbyterian government is not biblical, or you reject how the Public Worship of God is to be practiced by Presbyterianism?”
I do believe that the Presbyterian form of government is Biblical.
I am not prepared to say, however, “that the most perfect model of these as yet attained, is exhibited in the Form of Government and Directory for Worship, adopted by the Church of Scotland in the Second Reformation.” I would need to spend some time studying that more thoroughly. As I have mentioned before, I have a great deal of respect for the Scots.
I should add that I have no problem with the 6th term, “Practically adorning the doctrine of God our Saviour by walking in all His commandments and ordinances blamelessly.”
Thanks,
Tim”
Fair enough. You might find that in your study of church history, as I have found, that there is no time in history outside the second reformation where Presbyterian government and worship were more refined and operating in more unity.
This is why the Parliament of England and churches in Ireland supported the Solemn League and Covenant which said, in summary:
———-
The Solemn League and Covenant is divided into 6 sections, as well as the initial prologue.
The first section commits those who swear it to the preservation of the reformed religion in Scotland in worship, discipline and government and to seek the reformation of the church in England and Ireland. ***They were also to seek the uniformity of the churches in England, Scotland and Ireland in confession of faith, form of government, directory for worship and catechising.***
In the second section they commit themselves to seek the overthrow of of all false religion and it mentions the extirpation of popery and prelacy. It does not say the extirpation of papists and prelatists simply because of their private views, but envisages the use of all lawful means to extirpate popery and prelacy. So whatever power God had given to either church or state was to be used to that end.
Section three commits those who swear it in their various callings to uphold the rights of the monarch, the parliaments and the citizens, especially loyalty to the monarch in his preserving and defending of the true religion.
Section four indicates a commitment to opposition to all who oppose the reformation of church and state and all seeking to ferment division contrary to the Covenant. So that they commit themselves to oppose all who oppose the true religion in church and state and all who seek to divide the covenanted people.
Section five commits the swearers to seeking to maintain the union of England, Scotland and Ireland.
The last section commits all those who have taken the Covenant to mutual support in pursuit of its aims.
Then, at the end, there is confession of sin and humiliation before God, profession of sincere desire for and seeking of the blessing of God and the expression of a desire to see other nations come into this Covenant or like covenant.
http://www.loughbrickland.org/articles/slc.shtml
————
They saw Scotland as having properly defined biblical form of church government and worship, and covenanted to bring their churches into unity…thus, this is the reason they continued to development the Westminster Assembly documents to create subordinate standards.
I don’t know if you have read the Grand Debate book yet that you received, but you will see in there the final debate on this difficult question of church government between the Independents who were in the Assembly, and the Presbyterians. That document, before it was nicely type set and bound, was a real game changer for me after reading it. Hopefully it will give you similar background information as to why many churches in the first and second reformation saw Presbyterianism in the Scriptures, and ultimately while when studying the acts of General Assembly in the Church of Scotland there was without question (in the minds of those who signed the SLC at the time) the Church of Scotland had the best example to follow.
I do not believe from 1650 to our generation that any other Presbyterian General Assembly has exceeded the period of 1638-1649, but rather has degenerated and rejected those attainments as we see in Scripture so often happened to the Jewish church when men turned their backs on God in favor of more human sects, tradition and false religions.
I suspect it boils down to our belief in when the 1260 year period begins and ends. We see from the time of the reformation a growing waterflood of false doctrine, and massive growth of Christian sects and denominationalism that is sinful from that high water mark of reformed Christian unity. I assume you don’t see this period as a backsliding period leading up to the close of the 1260 year period, and perhaps don’t see the Reformation as an “example” of what we will see during the non-bodily millennial reign of Christ due to your early dates for closing out that period.
In any event, I do hope you enjoy the Grand Debate. It might give you a sense as to what the Presbyterians (not just Scots) argued to work toward church unity in worship and government.
A Roman Catholic response would be, Cyprian was mistaken or speaking in ignorance because Stephen didn’t hold to de fide on the matter of baptism of heretics and you’re allowed to question matters that aren’t de fide.