Follow
In the last few weeks we have highlighted the significance of the Treaty of Apamea in 188 B.C., by which Rome imposed terms of peace upon Antiochus III after his devastating loss at Magnesia in 190 B.C.. As we noted in “When North was North…“, Asia Minor with Thrace comprised the Northern Kingdom under Lysimachus when Alexander’s empire was divided “toward the four winds of heaven” (Daniel 11:4). The North-South narrative only begins after the Seleucids have already taken the North from Lysimachus, and the Seleucids are then called “King of the North” by Daniel so long as they hold that territory. At Apamea, Rome evicted the Seleucids “from Europe and from all Asia on this side [of the] Taurus” (Polybius, The Histories, Book 21.17.3), dispossessing them of the Northern territory. Magnesia and the subsequent treaty at Apamea are depicted in Daniel 11:18, and from Daniel 11:19-39 the Seleucids remain in view, but are never again called “King of the North.” This gives rise to two important conclusions: first, Syria is not the Northern Kingdom at 11:6, and second, the title “King of the North” does not attach to the particular dynasty, but rather to whomever happens to be ruling the particular geography. When the Seleucids possess Asia Minor and Thrace, they are “King of the North.” When they are evicted, they are no longer “King of the North.”
In our follow up article, “…and South was South“, we spent some time discussing relevant epigraphic evidence uncovered only in the last century. The evidence shows that the Southern territory after the division of Alexander’s empire included most of the land in Asia Minor south of the Taurus, including the slender crescent of land called Pamphylia. The implications of this are significant. We highlighted one example of its significance in regard to the traditional interpretation of Daniel 11:15, in which “the King of the North shall come, and cast up a mount” and take the stronghold of the King of the South. The commentaries almost universally identify Daniel 11:15 with Antiochus III’s siege of Sidon, missing the fact that Antiochus III besieged Ptolemy’s Pamphylian stronghold of Coracesium in the same campaign. In a Judæan Frame of Reference, as we discussed in “The Shifting Frame,” a siege at Coracesium escapes the notice of the eschatologist. But when a single Alexandrian Frame prevails in Daniel 11 from start to finish, and when Ptolemy I’s post-Alexandrian holdings in Asia Minor are clearly understood, a siege of Coracesium clearly becomes quite significant. The siege of Coracesium fulfills Daniel 11:15 not because it was a battle taking place between Syria and Egypt but because it was a siege in which the King ruling the Northern territory besieged a stronghold located in the Southern territory.
When we left off last week, we stated that the Single Frame approach to Daniel 11 sheds considerable light on the text and in fact brings the last six verses into crystal clear focus. To put it briefly, the Single Frame completely eliminates the cardinal discontinuities that have compelled the commentaries to introduce a Judæan Frame at 11:5, and eliminates the historical discontinuities that have compelled them to introduce an Eschatological Frame at the end of the chapter. Set aside those extrascriptural frames of reference, and the discontinuities disappear as well. As we shall demonstrate, the North-South conflict depicted in Daniel 11:40-45 was completely fulfilled to the letter between 67 and 48 B.C. in one of the greatest military engagements in history, and it was fulfilled between the only two military powers remaining in the Mediterranean basin—the “King” of Asia Minor north of the Taurus, and the “King” of Pamphylia, south of the Taurus.
To set the stage, we return now to Rome’s victory over Antiochus III at Magnesia in 190 B.C.. Remarkably, from the start Rome’s only interest in Asia Minor had been defensive, and the rising Republic maintained that posture even in victory. As they had claimed before Magnesia, they simply wanted Antiochus III to live peaceably within Asia Minor and to stay out of Europe. When Antiochus refused, Rome met him on the field and by force of arms removed the territory from him. The Senate did not take Asia Minor for Rome, but after some deliberation assigned it to Eumenes of Pergamum who had fought with them against Antiochus:
“Eumenes fought on the side of the Romans against Antiochus [III] the Great and against Perseus, and he received from the Romans all the country this side the Taurus that had been subject to Antiochus.” (Strabo, Geography, Book 13.4.2)
Eumenes reigned there for many years and then left his empire to his young son, Attalus Philometer, under the guardianship of his brother, Attalus Philadelphus. Philadelphus administered the empire and even ventured successfully into Thrace, subjugating King Diegylis of the Caeni tribe (Justin, Epitome of Pompeius Trogus, Book 36). The Thracian stronghold of Lysimachaea belonged to him (Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, Book 33.14.2). When Philadelphus died, he left the kingdom to Philometer, who then died in 133 B.C.. Having no sons, Attalus “left the Romans his heirs” (Strabo, Geography, Book 13.4.2). Rome’s original plan for Asia Minor was for it to serve simply as a buffer against hostile distant nations, denying them direct access to Europe. The Senate had no original designs on taking the territory. Nevertheless, at the death of Attalus Philometer, the territory was ceded to Rome, and it was at that time that the “Romans proclaimed the country a province, calling it Asia” (Strabo, Geography, Book 13.4.2).
Over the succeeding decades, Rome would repeatedly beat Thrace into submission from the Hellespont to the Danube. General Sulla “crushed the Thracians in many battles” (Livius, The Periochae, Book 83.3), General Curio conquered Thrace “as far as the Danube” (Eutropius, Abridgement of Roman History, Book 6.3), and Cicero recalled the triumph of General Lucullus after his triumph in “that province” as well (Cicero, Against Piso, 19.44). By the 70s B.C., the combined region of Asia Minor and Thrace was for all practical purposes administered by the army and the Senate of Rome. From an Alexandrian Frame of Reference, that made the Roman Republic the “King of the North.”
Their new territory brought with it a whole host of problems. Instead of having a buffer kingdom fighting proxy wars to keep the Roman territories safe, Rome would have to engage its enemies directly. This new reality was felt most deeply when Mithridates invaded Asia, recruited the native population, and issued orders to murder the Roman and Italian civilians in their midst. The ensuing slaughter came to be known as the Asiatic Vespers. In his History, Appian summarizes in bloody detail the atrocities committed by the Asiatics against the citizens of Rome (Appian, History of Rome, Mithridatic Wars, 22-23). Memnon places the number of dead at 80,000 (Memnon, History of Heraclea, 22.9). Plutarch puts the death toll at 150,000 (Plutarch, Life of Sulla, 24.4). This, the price Rome paid for serving as its own buffer against foreign kingdoms in Asia Minor.
Rome had no option but to engage Mithridates directly, leading to a series of Mithridatic Wars that would keep them occupied for the next 25 years. Part of Mithridates’ naval strategy in the first war was to “[send] out pirates” to disrupt any Roman counterattack by sea (Appian, History of Rome, Mithridatic Wars, 92). The problem with having pirates in one’s employ, however, is that they are pirates. Plunder is their creed, pillage is their commerce and terror is their primary export. After his defeat in the First Mithridatic War, Mithridates “made peace, and retired,” but his pirate navy went rogue, enamored of the prospects of wildly profitable, autonomous operations. They grew into a formidable seafaring empire (Appian, History of Rome, Mithridatic Wars, 92).
The history of this seafaring pirate nation is remarkable to hear. They started with nothing but a few skiffs, schooners and sloops. When pirates do their jobs well—and they did—the result is enormous wealth, and with that wealth the pirates of the Mediterranean were able to capitalize a dramatic expansion. Capital investment is followed by infrastructure which in turn leads to more growth. Soon they were “sailing in squadrons under pirate chiefs.” Before long, the pirates of the Mediterranean had become both a military and an economic power to be reckoned with, for in a few short years they had come to rule the sea. In their own eyes, and in the eyes of the world, they had graduated from mere robbers and had become a full-fledged kingdom:
“In the beginning they prowled around with a few small boats worrying the inhabitants like robbers. As the war lengthened they became more numerous and navigated larger ships. Relishing their large gains, they did not desist when Mithridates was defeated, made peace, and retired. Having lost both livelihood and country by reason of the [Mithridatic] war and fallen into extreme destitution, they harvested the sea instead of the land, at first with pinnaces and hemiolii, then with two-bank and three-bank ships, sailing in squadrons under pirate chiefs, who were like generals of an army. They fell upon unfortified towns. They undermined or battered down the walls of others, or captured them by regular siege and plundered them. They carried off the wealthier citizens to their haven of refuge and held them for ransom. They scorned the name of robbers and called their takings the prize of warfare. They had artisans chained to their tasks and were continually bringing in materials of timber, brass, and iron.” (Appian, History of Rome, Mithridatic Wars 92)
Bolstered by these success, “in a very short time, they increased in number to tens of thousands. They dominated now not only the eastern waters, but the whole Mediterranean to the Pillars of Hercules” (Appian, History of Rome, Mithridatic Wars, 93). Even some Jews from Israel had joined in the piracy (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 14.3.2; see also Livius.org, Jewish Pirates). With a thousand ships and four hundred ports of call, they were the dominant power of the sea, and as anyone with eyes could plainly see, they were rich beyond imagination:
“[Their fleets] were not merely furnished for their peculiar work with sturdy crews, skilful pilots, and light and speedy ships; nay, more annoying than the fear which they inspired was the odious extravagance of their equipment, with their gilded sails, and purple awnings, and silvered oars, as if they rioted in their iniquity and plumed themselves upon it. … the ships of the pirates numbered more than a thousand, and the cities captured by them four hundred.” (Plutarch, Life of Pompey, 24.2-4)
Basking in their remarkable fortunes, there was really only one decision left for them to make. A seafaring empire cannot long endure without a capital city, a home port, a safe harbor where ships could be built, a central location from which their operations could be administered and to which all their accumulated wealth could be delivered. It was not a hard decision to make. Ideally situated with wide bay providing easy access to the sea, with the Taurus mountains themselves serving as their rearguard, and a tiny but fertile plain that could sustain their ground operations, the pirates chose to make their home at the fortress of Coracesium, in what Appian calls “the Crags in Cilicia”:
“Being elated by their gains and determined not to change their mode of life yet, they likened themselves to kings, tyrants, and great armies, and thought that if they should all come together in the same place they would be invincible. They built ships and made all kinds of arms. Their chief seat was at a place called the Crags in Cilicia, which they had chosen as their common anchorage and encampment.” (Appian, History of Rome, Mithridatic Wars, 92)
This is the same Pamphylian stronghold of Coracesium that was in the hands of the Ptolemies when the successors of Alexander had finally been reduced to four. It is the same fortress that Ptolemy’s troops less than a century before had compelled Antiochus III to besiege. At the division of Alexander’s empire, Asia Minor north of the Taurus had gone to Lysimachus; Syria east of the Taurus had gone to the Seleucids; and Pamphylia, south of the Taurus had gone to Ptolemy. It is from Coracesium—located at the boundary between Pamphylia and Cilicia—that the pirates of Pamphylia waged a war against fortified and unfortified cities throughout the Mediterranean.
The Ptolemaic dynasty in Egypt in the mean time, was now on its 11th Ptolemy, and was on the verge of implosion. Torn apart by internal strife and mismanagement, it had in essence become a Roman protectorate since the 150s B.C. when Ptolemy VIII bequeathed “the kingship which belongs to me to the Romans” (Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum (SEG) IX 7). By 80 B.C., Sulla, Consul and Dictator of Rome, was was invoking Ptolemy VIII’s will to install Ptolemy XI—who had been raised in Cos— as the next king because the family was “destitute of a sovereign in the male line” (Appian, Civil Wars, Book I.102). The Ptolemies spent the waning days of their dynasty entangled in family strife, one Ptolemy after another turning to Rome to settle their petty disputes. How far they had fallen since the days of Ptolemy I. If they were still “kings” it was in name alone, and then only at the pleasure of Rome, for theirs was hardly a kingdom in comparison to that of the Pirates of Pamphylia.
In reality, there was only one sovereign, independent autocracy left that could legitimately be called “King of the South,” and that sovereign power was currently terrorizing the high seas from its home base in the former Ptolemaic stronghold of Coracesium. The pirate nation of Pamphylia had become the “King of the South.”
This of course set Rome and the pirates on trajectories that would converge in an apocalyptic battle for control of the Mediterranean. Rome needed Egypt’s precious wheat for sustenance, and the pirates needed Egypt’s ships for their burgeoning navy. To discover who had the upper hand, we need look no further than the gilded sails, purple awnings, and silvered oars of the pirates who, between raids, were enjoying “drinking bouts along every coast” (Plutarch, Life of Pompey, 24.2-5). The pirates, of course, feasted on their spoils while Italy was starving, “threatened with famine by pirates on the sea.” And “the city of Rome felt this evil most keenly, her subjects being distressed and herself suffering grievously from hunger” (Appian, History of Rome, Mithridatic Wars, 91, 93). Someone was winning the war, and it was not Rome.
The Roman navy, unable to muster a defense, was helpless against the pirates. Wheat production failed as the ground lay fallow; the harvest could not make it to market, and there was no need to harvest what could not be sold, no need to plant what could not be harvested. The pirates maintained their stranglehold on the shipping lanes, their fleets taunting Rome even “before the mouth of the Tiber” (Cicero, On the Command of Pompey, 12.33). They were now winning naval engagements against the Roman fleets in plain view of the Italian mainland:
“They vanquished some of the Roman praetors in naval engagements, and among others the praetor of Sicily on the Sicilian coast itself. No sea could be navigated in safety, and land remained untilled for want of commercial intercourse.” (Appian, History of Rome, Mithridatic Wars 91)
“This power extended its operations over the whole of our Mediterranean Sea, making it unnavigable and closed to all commerce.” (Plutarch, Life of Pompey, 25.1)
The Roman republic was being assaulted in an unconventional war that “caused perplexity and fear on all sides” (Appian, History of Rome, Mithridatic Wars, 93). Perhaps this situation would have continued, had the Pirates not had the temerity to make landfall on the Italian peninsula, kidnapping Italian women and Roman government officials, even assaulting a municipio of the city of Rome itself:
“And now the pirates contemptuously assailed the coasts of Italy, around Brundusium and Etruria, and seized and carried off some women of noble families who were traveling, and also two praetors with their very insignia of office.” (Appian, History of Rome, Mithridatic Wars, 93)
“Need I mention, how Cnidus, and Colophon, and Samos, most noble cities, and others too in countless numbers, were taken by them, when you know that your own harbours, and those harbours too from which you derive, as it were, your very life and breath, were in the power of the pirates? Are you ignorant that the harbour of Caieta, that illustrious harbour, when full of ships, was plundered by the pirates under the very eyes of the praetor? and that from Misenum, the children of the very man who had before that waged war against the pirates in that place, were carried off by the pirates? For why should I complain of the disaster of Ostia [Rome], and of that stain and blot on the republic, when almost under your very eyes, that fleet which was under the command of a Roman consul was taken and destroyed by the pirates?” (Cicero, On the Command of Pompey, 12.33)
It was the last straw, and Rome had had enough. Unable to secure their wheat from Egypt, and now not even safe on the Italian mainland itself, it was time to strike back. But how does a conventional army fight back against a menace from the sea? How does a conventional navy conquer a nation of brigands who “had castles and towers and desert islands and retreats everywhere” (Appian, History of Rome, Mithridatic Wars, 92)? Indeed, it is a “great and difficult task to destroy so large a force of seafaring men scattered everywhither on land and sea” (Appian, History of Rome, Mithridatic Wars, 93). What could be done?
There was only one thing to do: send in the Marines. The Roman response to the invasion of their homeland was one of the most remarkable feats of logistics in the history of warfare—ancient or modern. To face an enemy that was nimble under sail, and equally able to flee inland to its innumerable hiding places throughout the Mediterranean, would require a fleet especially equipped to prosecute battles both on land and on sea. A law was passed, the Lex Gabinia, giving General Pompey authority over all the treasury of the empire and over all of the sea from Gibraltar to Palestine, and all land and territories as far as 75 km inland from the coast in every direction—even over “the greatest nations and most powerful kings” who occupied those territories:
“For the law gave him dominion over the sea this side of the pillars of Hercules, over all the mainland to the distance of four hundred furlongs [75 km] from the sea. These limits included almost all places in the Roman world, and the greatest nations and most powerful kings were comprised within them. Besides this, he was empowered to choose fifteen legates from the senate for the several principalities, and to take from the public treasuries and the tax-collectors as much money as he wished, and to have two hundred ships, with full power over the number and levying of soldiers and oarsmen.” (Plutarch, Life of Pompey, 25.2-3)
As Appian describes it, such absolute authority was granted to Pompey as was never before granted to a single man in the history of the Republic. So desperate was Rome to have the grain of Egypt restored to her, and so high was the price the Republic was willing to pay to be liberated from the pirate menace:
“They sent letters to all kings, rulers, peoples, and cities, that they should aid Pompey in all ways. They gave him power to raise troops and to collect money from the provinces, and they furnished a large army from their own enrollment, and all the ships they had, and money to the amount of 6,000 Attic talents – so great and difficult did they consider the task of overcoming such great forces, dispersed over so wide a sea, hiding easily in so many nooks, retreating quickly and darting out again unexpectedly. Never did any man before Pompey set forth with so great authority conferred upon him by the Romans. Presently he had an army of 120,000 foot and 4,000 horse, and 270 ships, including hemiolii. He had twenty-five assistants of senatorial rank, whom they call lieutenant-generals, among whom he divided the sea, giving ships, cavalry, and infantry to each, and investing them with the insignia of praetors, in order that each one might have absolute authority over the part entrusted to him, while he, Pompey, like a king of kings, should course among them to see that they remained where they were stationed, lest, while he was pursuing the pirates in one place, he should be drawn to something else before his work was finished, and so that there might be forces to encounter them everywhere and to prevent them from forming junctions with each other.” (Appian, History of Rome, Mithridatic Wars, 93, 94)
Pompey made short work of the pirates, setting sail in the spring, and wrapping up the war by the middle of summer (Cicero, On the Command of Pompey, 12.35). Once he had cleared the remotest regions of the sea, Pompey led his entire armada to Coracesium to deliver the final blow in Pamphylia. The pirates had put all of their treasures and families in the fortresses at the foot of the mountains and awaited Pompey’s arrival. At Coracesium, they made their last stand:
“But the most numerous and powerful had bestowed their families and treasures and useless folk in forts and strong citadels near the Taurus mountains, while they themselves manned their ships and awaited Pompey’s attack near the promontory of Coracesium in Cilicia; here they were defeated in a battle and then besieged. At last, however, they sent suppliant messages and surrendered themselves, together with the cities and islands of which they were in control” (Plutarch, Life of Pompey, 28.1)
Pompey “completely routed them” (Velleius Paterculus, Roman History, Book II.32.4). In his war for control of the sea, there was not a stretch of coastline in the Mediterranean that he had not touched, and after the final confrontation at Coracesium, there was left “not one ship belonging to the pirates on this side of the Atlantic” (Cicero, On the Command of Pompey, 12.33).
No sooner had Pompey wrapped up his operations in Pamphylia than he received news that Roman territories in Asia Minor were about to be invaded by the twin threats of Tigranes of Armenia and Mithridates of Pontus. Mithridates had spent his days rebuilding his army and was now advanced into Cappadocia. We join Cicero in mid-speach as he argues now in favor of a new law, the Lex Manilia, granting Pompey the authority to respond to the new threats emerging from both North and East:
“[A]n important war, and one perilous to your revenues and to your allies, is being waged against you by two most powerful kings, Mithridates and Tigranes. One of these having been left to himself, and the other having been attacked, thinks that an opportunity offers itself to him to occupy all Asia. … The kind of war is such as ought above all others to excite and inflame your minds to a determination to persevere in it. It is a war in which the glory of the Roman people is at stake; … The most certain and the largest revenues of the Roman people are at stake; … [Mithridates] is not content to hide himself in Pontus, or in the recesses of Cappadocia, but he seeks to emerge from his hereditary kingdom, and to range among your revenues, in the broad light of Asia.” (Cicero, On the Command of Pompey, chapter 2.4–2.6)
Mithridates was determined to force Rome to engage two enemies simultaneously, and now, “two kings are threatening all Asia” (Cicero, On the Command of Pompey, 5.12). Those “two kings” were Mithridates threatening from within the Taurus mountains, allied with Tigranes, east of the Taurus mountains occupying the former dominions of the Seleucid dynasty. This double threat had Rome on edge, and in view of Pompey’s recent victories against the pirates, Cicero insisted that the Senate “entrust everything to him alone” (Cicero, On the Command of Pompey, 23.68). The law was passed, and Pompey was commissioned to eliminate the double threat.
Pompey “carried on a notable campaign against Mithridates … . The king was defeated and routed, and after losing all his forces sought refuge in Armenia with his son-in‑law Tigranes, the most powerful king of his day … . Pompey accordingly entered Armenia in pursuit of both kings at once” (Velleius Paterculus, Roman History, Book II, chapter 37.1-3). The result was a series of decisive victories for Rome, and an end to the threat from the North and the East. The rest is recorded in the history of the Third Mithridatic War.
Tigranes more than a decade earlier had conquered Syria, but with his forces engaged elsewhere, the last of the Seleucid line, now on its 13th Antiochus, had lately made a play to take back Syria without a fight. Both Antiochus and Tigranes appealed to Pompey for their right to the throne. Pompey rather expelled them both because “it was unseemly for the Seleucids, whom Tigranes had dethroned, to govern Syria, rather than the Romans who had conquered Tigranes” (Appian, History of Rome, the Syrian Wars, 49).
From his vantage point in Syria, Pompey then turned his attention to the “king of the Arabians … as far as the Red Sea. … Pompey accordingly marched against him and his neighbours, and, overcoming them without effort, left them in charge of a garrison” (Cassius Dio, A History of Rome, Book 37.15.1-2) “In this way the Romans, without fighting, came into possession of Cilicia and both inland Syria and Coele-Syria, Phoenicia, Palestine, and all the other countries bearing the Syrian name from the Euphrates to Egypt and the sea” (Appian, History of Rome, Syrian Wars, 50).
But just when Pompey was about to march against the Nabataeans in the land formerly known as Edom and Moab, the two brothers Aristobulus and Hyrcanus were arguing over who should govern Judæa (Cassius Dio, A History of Rome, Book 37.15.2-3). They appealed to Pompey for arbitration, Hyrcanus going so far as to accuse Arsitobulus of involving Judæa in “the piracies that had been at sea” (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 14.3.2). He instructed them to stand down and promised that “he would settle all their affairs, after he had first taken a view of the affairs of the Nabateans.” But Aristobulus ignored him and promptly marched on Judæa. This of course incited Pompey to anger “and taking with him that army which he was leading against the Nabateans” he turned back to Judæa to engage Aristobulus, arrested him, and then proceeded to Jerusalem (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 14.3.2-4). Thus, the Nabataeans escaped from Pompey’s hand, and with them, the lands of Edom and Moab.
When Pompey arrived in Jerusalem, the party of Aristobulus had shut themselves within the Temple walls and prepared for siege. Hyrcanus’ party assisted Pompey, granting him access to the city, and in order to effect a siege, “Pompey pitched his camp within [the city wall], on the north part of the temple, where it was most practicable” (Josephus, Antiquities, Book 14.4.2). If Julius Caesar’s recollection is accurate, it would have been a royal palace of a tent, indeed, for such was Pompey’s custom (Julius Cæsar, Civil Wars, Book 3.96). Thus did Pompey, in his final campaign under the authority granted to him under Lex Gabinia and Lex Manilia, pitch his royal tent at the Temple mount in Jerusalem, a city, we hasten to note, that abides between two seas (Zecharaiah 14:8).
In retribution for the Jewish resistance, “Pompey clipped off some of the territory that had been forcibly appropriated by the Judaeans” (Strabo, Geography, Book 16.2.46), a reference to his reorganization of what would be come known as the Decapolis, including mountainous Philadelphia, formerly Rabbah, capital of Ammon. Pompey left forthwith for Rome to celebrate his triumph (Josephus, Jewish War, Book I.157), leaving the choicest, most fertile parts, the valleys of Ammon to the east (Jeremiah 49:1-4) untouched.
When Pompey returned to Rome, he received a triumphal entry such as no general of Rome had ever enjoyed before. Plutarch’s recounting of the triumph is worthy of a full citation:
“His triumph had such a magnitude that, although it was distributed over two days, still the time would not suffice, but much of what had been prepared could not find a place in the spectacle, enough to dignify and adorn another triumphal procession. Inscriptions borne in advance of the procession indicated the nations over which he triumphed. These were: Pontus, Armenia, Cappadocia, Paphlagonia, Media, Colchis, Iberia, Albania, Syria, Cilicia, Mesopotamia, Phoenicia and Palestine, Judaea, Arabia, and all the power of the pirates by sea and land which had been overthrown. Among these peoples no less than a thousand strongholds had been captured, according to the inscriptions, and cities not much under nine hundred in number, besides eight hundred piratical ships, while thirty-nine cities had been founded. In addition to all this the inscriptions set forth that whereas the public revenues from taxes had been fifty million drachmas, they were receiving from the additions which Pompey had made to the city’s power eighty-five million, and that he was bringing into the public treasury in coined money and vessels of gold and silver twenty thousand talents, apart from the money which had been given to his soldiers, of whom the one whose share was the smallest had received fifteen hundred drachmas. The captives led in triumph, besides the chief pirates, were the son of Tigranes the Armenian with his wife and daughter, Zosime, a wife of King Tigranes himself, Aristobulus, king of the Jews, a sister and five children of Mithridates, Scythian women, and hostages given by the Iberians, by the Albanians, and by the king of Commagene; there were also very many trophies, equal in number to all the battles in which Pompey had been victorious either in person or in the persons of his lieutenants. But that which most enhanced his glory and had never been the lot of any Roman before, was that he celebrated his third triumph over the third continent. For others before him had celebrated three triumphs; but he celebrated his first over Libya, his second over Europe, and this his last over Asia, so that he seemed in a way to have included the whole world in his three triumphs.” (Plutarch, Life of Pompey, 45)
Pompey had conquered the whole known world. Except, of course, for Edom, Moab and the choicest parts of Ammon.
Remarkably, a man of his stature and accomplishment should have lived a long life of ease and luxury, but within a few years he was assassinated by a man who had once served under his command. This man, Pompey, who had held the most authority of any man in the history of the Roman Republic, who had conquered the world, had mastered the seas, and had triumphed over three continents, and had led kings captive in his train, was slain “in a little boat” by a trusted friend, Septimus, who had served under him in the pirate war (Julius Caesar, Civil Wars, Book 3.104).
Let us now summarize these final years of Pompey in a single paragraph:
The Roman republic had taken possession of Asia Minor and Thrace, which had been the Northern Kingdom after the division of Alexander’s empire. The Pirate Kingdom based in Pamphylia—which had been part of the Southern Kingdom—ruled the whole sea, and almost brought the republic of Rome to her knees by terrorizing her citizens, intercepting their precious grain shipments from Egypt, and even making assaults on the Italian mainland, including a suburb of Rome herself. In response, the Roman Senate gave Pompey power over all the treasury of the Republic, equipped him with many ships equipped for both naval and land engagements, and granted authority to sail anywhere and march inland as far as 75 km throughout the Mediterranean, even as far as Judæa where some of the pirates had originated. In a remarkably rapid campaign, he cleared the pirate threat in just a few months, and conquered not a few nations in the process. The pirates made their final stand at the Pamphylian stronghold of Coracesium. The precious grain shipments of Egypt were now back in within his control. No sooner had Pompey conquered the pirates at Coracesium and restored grain shipments from Eygpt than he received news that two kings—to the North in Asia Minor within the Taurus and to the East beyond the Taurus in Seleucus’ former domains—were threatening Rome’s interests. He was entrusted again by the Senate to engage those two kings, and conquered them just as readily as he had handled the pirates. Thence he conquered every territory from Syria to the Red sea, except Edom, Moab and the choicest parts of Ammon. In his final conquest before returning to Rome in triumph, he even pitched his royal tent at the Temple Mount between two seas when the Jews made their last stand against him in Jerusalem. But alas, such a great man who had conquered most of the world was assassinated without a fight.
The reader who is even passingly familiar with Daniel 11:40-45 will recognize that we have just recounted its fulfillment, which took place between 67 and 48 B.C.. Here is Daniel’s prophecy:
“And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over. He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown: but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon. He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape. But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt: and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps. But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him: therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many. And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.” (Daniel 11:40-45)
Attentive readers and history buffs will of course note that Pompey never even ventured into Ethiopia and certainly never conquered it in the campaign against the pirates. But “Ethiopia,” here is just an unhelpful contribution from the Septuagint. The original Hebrew text refers to “the Cushites“, and as this helpful study shows, the Land of Cush was situated between Egypt and the Philistine holdings on Israel’s southern coasts. Pompey would have touched the land of Cush in the pirate war, and the last conquest before turning to Judæa was against “the Arabians … as far as the Red Sea” (Cassius Dio, A History of Rome, Book 37.15), which is in fact, the Land of Cush. Pompey died in the civil wars, but not before giving the Roman Republic a foretaste of empire and unlimited power. The first Cæsar would “take the purple” only four years later. The Iron period of Daniel’s vision—the Roman Empire—was about to begin.
The entirety of Daniel 11—including the last six verses, as we have shown—is ancient history. Daniel 11 was never intended to be the patchwork of truncated narratives in multiple, shifting frames of reference that the commentaries have made of it. It was certainly never intended to forecast the arrival of a distant future antichrist. It is simply a continuous narrative that showcases the major events of the Bronze period in a single Alexandrian Frame of Reference, as the angelic narrators had been insisting since Daniel 8:8, and restated in 11:4. “The time of the end” (Daniel 11:40) was simply a reference to the end of the Bronze, or Greek, period that had served as the backdrop of the entire prophecy since 11:4. Those last six verses detail the events of the end of the Greek period, and the narrative ends just four years shy of the first Cæsar.
But the fulfillment of those last six verses is left concealed in the shadows of history unless we forfeit the Judæan and Eschatological Frames of Reference that have hidden it from our view for nearly two millennia. Thus, as we have suggested, The Shifting Frame must be abandoned, and we must return to the Alexandrian Frame that Daniel’s narrator clearly imposes on the chapter from 11:4 to 11:45.
Excellent conclusion of Daniel 11. It has been interesting to see how Historcists and Futurists interpret all of Daniel 11, and shift the frame to future events leading to Antichrist.
I think I’m starting to see these distinctions more clearly now and while still confused over why both Historcists and Futurists (and perhaps Preterists) do not see this possible fulfillment of Daniel 11 in history, it is fascinating to see another view that “appears” to fulfill it to every word & paragraph without shifting frames of reference.
Without Daniel describing a future Antichrist, it will be interesting to see where Daniel goes in chapter 12 after Chapter 11 closes out the end of the Greek period of history!
WALT–
You said: ” it is fascinating to see another view that “appears” to fulfill it to every word & paragraph”.
I couldn’t agree with you more. Tim works hard to keep up appearances. Yes, fascinating.
To all my buddies out there who have been following this, please go back and now read everything written in “The Shifting Frame”, including my comments.
http://www.whitehorseblog.com/2015/10/25/the-shifting-frame/
This has just helped me significantly as it walked me through all the background that when I originally read it, and not knowing really how it compared to Historicist interpretation, now makes far more sense in the whole context of today’s conclusion of Daniel 11.
I’m still not understanding how Daniel 12 and closing out the prophetical book of Daniel relates, as I’ve searched on Tim’s site for Daniel 12 references, but am still not understanding his references.
Tim, have you given a play by play breakdown of Daniel 12 anywhere on the site like you gave on Daniel 11 at “The Shifting Frame”? If so, please provide the link so I can read (or reread) please.
Mithra? Finally, Tim, we are getting somewhere. It will probably be in the next 6 or 7 articles that you get around to connecting Mithra to the Catholic Mass, yes?
Jim, I know it is rather anticlimactic for you, but when Daniel 11 is read in a single Alexandrian Frame, it essentially exonerates Rome (or any Antichrist candidate) of the charge of being “King of the North.” The papacy is not “King of the North,” and we need not bide our time waiting for Papal Rome (or any Antichrist candidate) to invade Egypt with many ships and overflow many nations, or wondering when Papal Rome (or any Antichrist candidate) will hear news from the North and the East that causes him to go forth and slay many. Daniel 11:40-45 just isn’t a prophecy of Antichrist.
Thanks,
Tim
I know this is not the topic here, but I just happened to come across this from Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, Prologue, paragraph 2. Sound like another quote you could use for the Baptismal Regeneration issue. He sounds a lot like your take on Justin Martyr.
“Even Simon Magus once came to the Laver: he was baptized, but was not enlightened; and though he dipped his body in water, he enlightened not his heart with the Spirit: his body went down and came up, but his soul was not buried with Christ, nor raised with Him. Now I mention the statements of (men’s) falls, that thou mayest not fall: for these things happened to them by way of example, and they are written for the admonition of those who to this day draw near. Let none of you be found tempting His grace, lest any root of bitterness spring up and trouble you. Let none of you enter saying, Let us see what the faithful are doing: let me go in and see, that I may learn what is being done. Dost thou expect to see, and not expect to be seen? And thinkest thou, that whilst thou art searching out what is going on, God is not searching thy heart?”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf207.ii.iv.html
Thanks, Ken. I appreciate the additional reference. That’s a good one.
Tim
Even if Simon was indeed a hypocrite and accepted Baptism with his fingers crossed behind his back for political or financial reasons, his case only addresses the fact that sacraments can be received unworthily. But even then, he would not have been re-baptized later even if he repented. ( Tradition says he didn’t but that is irrelevant. )
Ever read the story of Bugsy Siegel’s Baptism? Who’s to say?
St. Cyril kinda puts a dent in the old once saved always saved theory, doesn’t he?
It shows Simon Magus’ (Acts 8:13) “belief” was not real belief. Same for what the text says in John 2:23-25 and 8:31 – it was not justifying faith.
He is like Matthew 7:21-23 and 1 John 2:19; he was never a true believer.
Perseverance of the saints is a better explanation that the common understanding of “once saved, always saved” in decision-ism and altar-call – pray the sinner’s prayer type of modern Evangelism.
Perseverance of the saints is a better explanation THAN the common understanding of “once saved, always saved” in decision-ism and altar-call – pray the sinner’s prayer type of modern Evangelism.
Ken,
I am sorry but the text does not say Simon Magus did not ever truly believe. You are just trying to shoe horn Protestantism into the text.
Your assertion is merely an opinion. What we do know is he did not remain true to the faith he had once professed.
( By the way, didn’t we discuss this once on your blog about Peter and the Papacy? )
Jim,
Cyril agrees with me – his soul and heart were not enlightened or changed or regenerated, therefore it was not true or real faith.
TIM–
Now that you have finished Daniel 11, here is the Catholic commentary. It’s not much, just the footnotes listed for the particular verses, but it’s enough to see that they are in agreement with you.
1 and in the first year of Darius the Mede I stood to strengthen him and be his refuge.
The Hellenistic Age.
2“Now I shall tell you the truth.
“Three kings of Persia* are yet to appear; and a fourth shall acquire the greatest riches of all. Strengthened by his riches, he shall stir up all kingdoms, even that of Greece.
3But a powerful king* shall appear and rule with great might, doing as he wills.
4No sooner shall he appear than his kingdom shall be broken and divided in four directions under heaven; but not among his descendants or in keeping with his mighty rule, for his kingdom shall be torn to pieces and belong to others.
5* “The king of the south shall grow strong, but one of his princes shall grow stronger still and govern a domain greater than his.
6* After some years they shall become allies: the daughter of the king of the south shall come to the king of the north to carry out the alliance. But she shall not retain power: and his offspring shall not survive, and she shall be given up, together with those who brought her, her son, and her supporter in due time.
7A descendant of her line shall succeed to his place, and shall come against the army, enter the stronghold of the king of the north, attack and conquer them.
8Even their gods, with their molten images and their precious vessels of silver and gold, he shall carry away as spoils of war into Egypt. For years he shall have nothing to do with the king of the north.
9Then the latter shall invade the land of the king of the south, and return to his own country.
10“But his sons shall be aroused and assemble a great armed host, which shall pass through like a flood and again surge around the stronghold.
11* The king of the south, enraged, shall go out to fight against the king of the north, who shall field a great host, but the host shall be given into his hand.
12When the host is carried off, in the pride of his heart he shall bring down tens of thousands, but he shall not triumph.
13* For the king of the north shall raise another army, greater than before; after some years he shall attack with this large army and great resources.
14In those times many shall resist the king of the south, and violent ones among your people shall rise up in fulfillment of vision, but they shall stumble.
15* When the king of the north comes, he shall set up siegeworks and take the fortified city by storm. The forces of the south shall not withstand him, and not even his picked troops shall have the strength to withstand.
16The invader shall do as he wills, with no one to withstand him. He shall stop in the glorious land, and it shall all be in his power.
17* He shall resolve to come with the entire strength of his kingdom. He shall make an alliance with him and give him a daughter in marriage in order to destroy him, but this shall not stand.
18* He shall turn to the coastland and take many prisoners, but a commander shall put an end to his shameful conduct, so that he cannot retaliate.
19He shall turn to the strongholds of his own land, but shall stumble and fall, to be found no more.
20* In his stead one shall arise who will send a collector of tribute through the glorious kingdom, but he shall soon be destroyed, though not in conflict or in battle.
21* “There shall arise in his place a despicable person, to whom the royal insignia shall not be given. He shall enter by stealth and seize the kingdom by fraud.
22Armed forces shall be completely overwhelmed by him and crushed, even the prince of the covenant.*
23After making alliances, he shall treacherously rise to power with only a few supporters.
24By stealth he shall enter prosperous provinces and do that which his fathers or grandfathers never did; he shall distribute spoil, plunder, and riches among them and devise plots against their strongholds.
25He shall rouse his strength and courage to meet the king of the south with a great army; the king of the south shall go into battle with a very large and strong army, but he shall not stand because of the plots devised against him.
26Even his table companions shall seek to destroy him, his army shall be overwhelmed, and many shall be struck down.
27The two kings, resolved on evil, shall sit at table together and exchange lies, but they shall have no success, because the appointed end is not yet.
28“He* shall turn back toward his land with great riches, his mind set against the holy covenant; he shall take action and return to his land.
29At the time appointed he shall come again to the south, but this time it shall not be as before.
30When ships of the Kittim* confront him, he shall lose heart and retreat. Then he shall rage against the holy covenant and take action; he shall again favor those who forsake the holy covenant.
31Armed forces shall rise at his command and defile the sanctuary stronghold, abolishing the daily sacrifice and setting up the desolating abomination.
32By his deceit he shall make some who were disloyal forsake the covenant; but those who remain loyal to their God shall take strong action.
33Those with insight among the people shall instruct the many; though for a time the sword, flames, exile, and plunder will cause them to stumble.
34When they stumble, they will be helped,* but only a little; many shall join them, but out of treachery.
35Some of those with insight shall stumble so that they may be tested, refined, and purified, until the end time which is still appointed to come.
36“The king shall do as he wills, exalting himself and making himself greater than any god; he shall utter dreadful blasphemies against the God of gods. He shall prosper only till the wrath is finished, for what is determined must take place.
37He shall have no regard for the gods of his ancestors or for the one in whom women delight;* for no god shall he have regard, because he shall make himself greater than all.
38Instead, he shall give glory to the god of strongholds;* a god unknown to his ancestors he shall glorify with gold, silver, precious stones, and other treasures.
39He shall act for those who fortify strongholds, a people of a foreign god, whom he has recognized. He shall greatly honor them; he shall make them rule over the many and distribute the land as a reward.
40* “At the end time the king of the south shall engage him in battle but the king of the north shall overwhelm him with chariots and horsemen and a great fleet, passing through the lands like a flood.
41He shall enter the glorious land and many shall fall, except Edom, Moab, and the chief part of Ammon, which shall escape his power.
42He shall extend his power over the land, and not even Egypt shall escape.
43He shall control the riches of gold and silver and all the treasures of Egypt; Libya and Ethiopia shall be in his entourage.
44When reports from the east and the north disturb him, he shall set out with great fury to destroy many, putting them under the ban.
45He shall pitch the tents of his royal pavilion between the sea and the glorious holy mountain, but he shall come to his end with none to help him.
FOOTNOTES
* [11:2] Three kings of Persia: it is unclear which kings are intended because there were more than three Persian kings between Cyrus and the dissolution of the kingdom. The fourth is Xerxes I (486–465 B.C.), the great campaigner against Greece.
* [11:3] A powerful king: Alexander the Great, who broke Persian dominance by his victory at Issus in 333 B.C.
* [11:5–45] These verses describe the dynastic histories of the Ptolemies in Egypt (the king of the south) and the Seleucids in Syria (the king of the north), the two divisions of the Hellenistic empire that were of interest to the author (v. 6). Verses 10–20 describe the struggle between the two kingdoms for the control of Palestine; the Seleucids were eventually victorious.
* [11:6] The marriage of Antiochus II Theos and Berenice of Egypt about 250 B.C., which ended in tragedy.
* [11:11] The battle of Raphia (217 B.C.), in which Egypt defeated Syria.
* [11:13] Syria defeated Egypt at the battle of Paneas in 200 B.C. Judea then passed under Syrian rule.
* [11:15] The siege of Sidon after the battle of Paneas.
* [11:17] Antiochus III, the Great, betrothed his daughter to Ptolemy Epiphanes in 197 B.C.
* [11:18] The Roman general Scipio defeated Antiochus at Magnesia in 190 B.C.
* [11:20] Seleucus IV, who sent Heliodorus to Jerusalem (cf. 2 Mc 3).
* [11:21] Here begins the career of Antiochus IV Epiphanes.
* [11:22] The prince of the covenant: the high priest Onias III, who was murdered.
* [11:28] He: the king of the north, probably Antiochus IV.
* [11:30] Kittim: originally this word meant Cypriots or other westerners. It is sometimes used for the Greeks (1 Mc 1:1). Here it refers to the Romans, who forced Antiochus to withdraw from Egypt during his second campaign there.
* [11:34] Helped: this may be a reference to the Maccabean revolt. The apocalyptic author expects deliverance from God and has little regard for human efforts. In fact, the Maccabees routed the Syrian troops, recaptured Jerusalem, purified and rededicated the Temple, and brought to an end the Syrian persecution.
* [11:37] The one in whom women delight: Tammuz. Antiochus favored the cult of Zeus. Daniel takes this to imply the neglect of all other gods, although this does not appear to have been the case.
* [11:38] The god of strongholds: the god worshiped in the fortress Akra, which Antiochus established in Jerusalem.
* [11:40–45] In these concluding verses, the events described no longer correspond to the history of the Maccabean period. Daniel imagines the death of Antiochus on the model of Gog in Ez 38–39. Antiochus actually died in Persia.
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
Thanks, Bob,
Since the USCCB adopts a Judæan Frame of reference at 11:5 (I do not), sees all of 11:4-45 as a reference to the Seleucid-Ptolemaic wars (I do not), identifies Syria as the Northern Kingdom at 11:5 (I do not), identifies the Siege of Sidon as the fulfillment of at 11:15 (I do not), identifies Antiochus IV as “king of the north” (I do not), says “Daniel imagines the death of Antiochus” to be described in 11:40-45 (I do not), and that Daniel got his prophecy wrong at 11:45 (I do not), I don’t understand what you mean when you say, the USCCB is “in agreement” with me.
Thanks,
Tim
No future fulfilment.
Ken,
Yes, Cyril says Simon did not receive any sanctifying grace. No problem there. However, do you think Cyril would demand Simon be rebaptized? I don’t.
Baptism, Confirmation and Ordination can indeed be received unworthily. All the Sacraments can be but these three do more than give grace. Same with marriage. People can marry in a state of mortal sin. They not only don’t receive grace but actually commit a grave sin in so doing. To be restored to grace they need to repent. But they need not undergo getting married again. The initial marriage still made them husband and wife.
Back to Cyril. I bet he would agree with me. But what difference does a Church father’s opinion make to a Sola Scriptura Protestant? The Bible says zero about whether or not Simon’s baptism was valid or invalid or whether it gave him grace.
Ken,
Simon was a Christian. A bad Christian. A heretic or schismatic. But he did receive Baptism with the intention of entering the Church and getting some of its benefits. Acts 8:13 says he was a believer. He had faith. The text says so. Faith is the prerequisite for adult Baptism. Regardless of what Cyril opined, the Bible says Simon erred on Confirmation, not Baptism. Furthermore, verse 24 seems to say he repented and sake Peter’s intercession. ( Yes, I am aware of the legend about him falling from the sky when flying ).
oops. Simon “asked” Peter’s intercession.
He never repented so he showed he was not a true believer. A true believer, when confronted with their sin, will repent.
Ken,
Why aren’t you accusing Cyril, who lived 3 centuries after the incident, of ignoring the plain words of scripture in lieu of Catholic tradition and spurious tales of the fathers? Please open your Bible to the book of Acts and show us where Simon Magus did not believe, a.k.a. have faith.
The text actually states the contrary. Faith Alone justifies, right? Before any good works, perseverance, charity, obedience, law keeping, Baptism, sanctification, etc. etc. yes?
Why are you letting a Catholic Bishop of the 4th century nullify the plain words of scripture?
Jim,
Your comments show that you understand Cyril to be expressing something closer to the Calvinist position of “true faith does not stay alone” and “the perseverance of the saints”.
So, I have found more “seeds” (though I don’t agree with the way Newman and RC explain seeds of thought) of our doctrine in the early church. Feels good to find this example.
Thoughts and doctrines are not like organic seeds; therefore Newman’s theory was wrong and the RC added mutations and deformities into the ancient tradition and Scripture.
By the way Ken, according to Calvinism, Simon could not have come to faith unless he had previously been regenerated. The Bible says he believed. No qualifiers like “truly” added to the verb “believed”. Simon believed. Period.
So Cyril really does not come down on your side in this debate, now does he?
regeneration is secret – no one can see it; and in Acts, which is historical narrative (not didactic teaching section or like the epistles), Acts 8 is describing someone who seemed to believe, but after a time it was obvious that he was never regenerated in the first place.
As in John 2:23-25 – it says that “they believed, beholding His signs” (the focus of their “faith” was on Jesus’ miracles, apparently not for Who He is and seeing their own sinfulness and having true heart repentance and faith. Because verse 24 says that Jesus was not entrusting Himself to these people who believed, because He knew what was in man; that is Jesus knows the heart and He knows they are not truly regenerated. Their “faith” is not true faith. Same for John 8:31-32 – later they wanted to murder Jesus (8:44-59)
Ken,
No, their faith was true faith. Don’t add to the scripture. It was not accompanied by obedience and charity though.
JIM–
It is truly fascinating how people can twist the plain text of the bible to read something else. Here is Simon’s story in full:
Act 8:9ff
Now there was a man named Simon, who formerly was practicing magic in the city and astonishing the people of Samaria, claiming to be someone great; and they all, from smallest to greatest, were giving attention to him, saying,
“This man is what is called the Great Power of God.”
And they were giving him attention because he had for a long time astonished them with his magic arts. But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike.
Even Simon himself believed; and after being baptized, he continued on with Philip, and as he observed signs and great miracles taking place, he was constantly amazed.
Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they began laying their hands on them, and they were receiving the Holy Spirit.
Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was bestowed through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money, saying,
“Give this authority to me as well, so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.”
But Peter said to him,
“May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money! You have no part or portion in this matter, for your heart is not right before God. Therefore repent of this wickedness of yours, and pray the Lord that, if possible, the intention of your heart may be forgiven you. For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bondage of iniquity.”
Simon answered and said,
“Pray to the Lord for me yourselves, so that nothing of what you have said may come upon me.”
I see what you mean. Simon believed and was baptised (justification by faith), and yet he did not receive the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands (confirmation) because his heart was not right. His actions did not reverse his baptism.
And yet Peter left the door open to him by urging Simon to repent and pray for forgiveness. And Simon had the faith to seek intercession from Peter and John.
But did he actually repent? There is no biblical evidence for it. The Fathers seem to indicate that he did not, and that he became a heretic and apostate. And yet, that is no reason to think there was a problem with the sacraments. The fault lies solely on Simon himself–“through his fault, through his fault, though his most grievous fault”.
It reminds me of the parable of the sower. Simon may not have been the most fertile ground. I don’t think he was considered rocky ground, because the bible does say he first believed. Maybe the weeds overcame him.
Tim,
Sorry the subject of your post is going to another subject.
Thank, Ken. No worries. Glad to hear from you.
Tim
Tim,
Don’t blame me. Ken started it. Yell at him.
Bob,
See my answer to Jim above.
KEN–
You said: ” Because verse 24 says that Jesus was not entrusting Himself to these people who believed, because He knew what was in man; that is Jesus knows the heart and He knows they are not truly regenerated. Their “faith” is not true faith.”
Exactly! James says it best:
Jas 2:14ff What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?
If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.
But someone may well say, “You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.” You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.
But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS,” and he was called the friend of God.
You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?
For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.
Simon believed but did not follow through with that belief. Instead he fell back into his old ways. Faith alone is dead faith which cannot save.
no, Simon Magus did not really believe in the Lord Jesus as Savior from sin and LORD of his life. It is obvious.
james 2:24 means, “proved to be justified” or “vindicated” or “confirmed” or “proven” or “demonstrated”
as in Luke 7:35, Matthew 11:19 and 1 Tim. 3:16 – vindicated, proven, demonstrated, confirmed
KEN–
You said : “no, Simon Magus did not really believe in the Lord Jesus as Savior from sin and LORD of his life. It is obvious.”
And you got that from reading between the lines of Acts, that is what is obvious. Because the plain text says that Simon believed.
Notice what James says: “You believe that God is one.YOU DO WELL; the demons also believe, and shudder.”
You also said: “james 2:24 means, ‘proved to be justified’ or ‘vindicated’ or ‘confirmed’ or ‘proven’ or ‘demonstrated'”
Yes, it certainly does. “You see that a man is justified by works and NOT by faith alone.
“as in Luke 7:35, Matthew 11:19 and 1 Tim. 3:16 – vindicated, proven, demonstrated, confirmed”
Which all express living faith and not dead faith. Now, does Simon asking Peter to pray for him express living faith? Let’s look earlier in the book of Acts and see:
Act 3:1ff
Now Peter and John were going up to the temple at the ninth hour, the hour of prayer. And a man who had been lame from his mother’s womb was being carried along, whom they used to set down every day at the gate of the temple which is called Beautiful, in order to beg alms of those who were entering the temple. When he saw Peter and John about to go into the temple, he began asking to receive alms. But Peter, along with John, fixed his gaze on him and said, “Look at us!” And he began to give them his attention, expecting to receive something from them.
But Peter said, “I do not possess silver and gold, but what I do have I give to you: In the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene—walk!”
And seizing him by the right hand, he raised him up; and immediately his feet and his ankles were strengthened.
With a leap he stood upright and began to walk; and he entered the temple with them, walking and leaping and praising God.
And all the people saw him walking and praising God.
Let me read between the lines as well. The word got around that Peter and John could do these wonderful things. Don’t you think that Simon, after hearing and seeing their works would believe that Peter’s and John’s intercessions would be quite powerful, too?
Did Simon Magus finally repent? The Sola Scriptura is silent about that. But Catholic Holy Tradition holds that Simon was a heretic and died apostate. What does your tradition say?
Peter says his heart is not right and he is full of bitterness and wickedness and in the bondage of iniquity. Acts 8:22-23
In verse 24, there is no indication of repentance, rather Simon Magus says, “Pray to the Lord for me yourselves, so that nothing of what you say may come upon me.”
This is not repentance. it is fear of the consequences of getting caught in sin, but not true repentance. He wanted blessings but the not the Blessed One.
Bob,
The text does not say Simon received the laying on of hands. Only that he witnessed Peter administering the Sacrament of Confirmation. Had Peter laid hands on him, he would indeed have received the sacramental seal. If he was not properly disposed, he would not have received the grace and gift of the Holy Spirit though.
KEN–
You said: “Peter says his heart is not right and he is full of bitterness and wickedness and in the bondage of iniquity. Acts 8:22-23
Ken, when you sin, isn’t your heart full of bitterness and wickedness and in the bondage of iniquity?
You also said: “In verse 24, there is no indication of repentance, rather Simon Magus says, “Pray to the Lord for me yourselves, so that nothing of what you say may come upon me.”
Ken, do you not ask others to pray for you, that you may not fall into wickedness? Isn’t that a step in the right direction of repentance?
Bob,
I agree with you that it sure appears Simon heeded Peter’s warning and immediately repented. But “once repentant” does not assure on of being “always repentant”. Tradition says he fell back into final impenitence.
“a step in the right direction” is not good enough. He wanted safety not Christ.
When a person is converted, it is full repentance and faith in Christ, not “trying” or “working” or “pulling yourself by your own bootstraps”
KEN–
You said: “a step in the right direction” is not good enough. He wanted safety not Christ.”
Where did you read that? I can’t find that in Acts.
“You also said: “When a person is converted, it is full repentance and faith in Christ, not “trying” or “working” or “pulling yourself by your own bootstraps”.
So after your conversion, did you fully repent and not sin any more? Did you fully understand all doctrine, forsaking all heresy? Did you fully understand the Trinity and the hypostatic union? Do you hold to pre-millennial dispensationalism? Are you pre-trib, mid-trib, or post-trib?
Are you futurist, historicist, or preterist? Only one of these is correct, yet all can be explained from the Word of God. Even the Arian heresy can be defended by using the Bible. Tertullian, one of the greatest writers of the Early Church Fathers died a heretic. So did Origen. Do you not think that they had full repentance and faith in Christ? I wonder why they did not persevere till the end. I guess they shouldn’t have been called Christian, either. Well, at least they didn’t have a heresy named after them like Simon Magus did.
I did not say “never sin anymore” – rather a full conversion means that a born again by the Spirit of God and they don’t do what Simon Magus did, because he tried to buy the power of the Holy Spirit.
When the drawing/internal calling happens, it draws you all the way to repentance and faith in Christ (John 6:44) so that it is a coming to Him (no one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him) – not sinless perfection, but a repentance and lifelong sanctification that results in “and I will raise him up on the last day.” John 6:44; and “cause you to walk in my statues” – Ezekiel 36:26-27
Ken,
Simon tried to buy the power of the Holy Spirit days, weeks, or months AFTER becoming a Christian. Christians not only sin, they are capable of falling away. Read Galatians.
As for Cyril, I will counter with Augustine. He spoke of two men, both baptized and regenerated. One makes it to heaven one doesn’t.
Think of Luther, Calvin and Zwingli. All baptized. All Confirmed. Two of them ordained. Yet all three fell away and joined Simon Magus in the ranks of heresiarchs.
“. . . those who are justified are also glorified” Romans 8:30
For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;
and these whom He predestined, He also called [or drew, as in John 6:44]; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.
Romans 8:29-30
This teaching section makes clear that historical narrative about Simon Magus in Acts 8 means that Simon did not truly believe.
KEN–
You said: “Romans 8:29-30
This teaching section makes clear that historical narrative about Simon Magus in Acts 8 means that Simon did not truly believe.”
Not so fast, Ken. Jesus taught this:
Mar 4:14ff
“The sower sows the word.
These are the ones who are beside the road where the word is sown; and when they hear, immediately Satan comes and takes away the word which has been sown in them.
In a similar way these are the ones on whom seed was sown on the rocky places, who, when they hear the word, immediately receive it with joy; and they have no firm root in themselves, but are only temporary; then, when affliction or persecution arises because of the word, immediately they fall away.
And others are the ones on whom seed was sown among the thorns; these are the ones who have heard the word,
but the worries of the world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the desires for other things enter in and choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful.
And those are the ones on whom seed was sown on the good soil; and they hear the word and accept it and bear fruit, thirty, sixty, and a hundredfold.”
This teaching implies that Simon could have truly believed at first, but that any number of things could have hindered his ultimate glorification.
The “bystander” scenario would indeed mean that Simon was not a true believer in the first place. But his action after Peter rebuked him suggests that he was contrite after leaning that offering money to buy the power of the Holy Spirit was wrong.
Remember, Simon was a newborn Christian. He may not have fully understood the rules yet. Any of the other scenarios that Christ gave could have fit. But tradition shows that Simon was not considered fertile ground, of course. Just reading the book of Acts alone, without any commentary from other sources, suggests that Simon may have repented. Unfortunately, the story of Simon stops there. If you want to learn any more, you have to appeal to tradition.
Bob,
Of the four soils in that parable, to which one would you assign Simon Magus?
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
Like I said above: “Any of the other scenarios that Christ gave could have fit. But tradition shows that Simon was not considered fertile ground, of course.”
If you read about Simon only in the book of Acts, there is no conclusion. Simon’s story is not unlike Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5. But the difference is there was definitely a conclusion to their story. Ananias and Sapphira both died in their sin without evidence of contriteness.
Concluding from tradition, their is no way of knowing for sure. My guess would be rocky soil or weedy soil. Either one ends up with the same result. Like Jim said, “once repentant” does not assure one of being “always repentant”.
Thanks, Bob. “Rebirth” is the gift of a new heart, and with a new heart comes the indwelt Spirit Who brings about obedience:
Jesus’ Parable of the Soils is actually a “Parable of the Hearts” because the the soil in each case is the heart of four different kinds of people. In the rendering of the parable, bad soil is a heart in which the seed of the Word does not take root and bear fruit. In only one case (the 4th soil) is the heart itself “good ground” (Mark 4:20), or “an honest and good heart” (Luke 8:15) bearing fruit.
I agree that one of the earlier soils “believes” (Luke 8:13), but that particular “soil” is actually a heart of stone, having do depth of earth, and further, what was “believed” was not the truth of the Word for it is the “Word of God” that actually offends that heart of stone (i.e., “when affliction or persecution ariseth for the word’s sake, immediately they are offended.” (Mark 4:17); “when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.” (Matthew 13:31)). It is clearly possible for a stony heart to “believe” something, but if it is the Word of God itself that offends “the believer” it is clear that the truth of the Word of God is not what he “believed.”
I mention this because you said “Simon was a newborn Christian,” and that he “could have truly believed at first,” which would require that Simon have a brand new heart, a good, honest, fertile heart, and that the Word took root and bore fruit. The story in Acts does not indicate this at all.
Additionally, before Philip, Simon loved “giving out that himself was some great one; To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God” (Acts 8:9-10), and it is clear from the narrative that even after he “believed” and continued with Philip, he wanted to continue broadcasting to the world that “This man is the great power of God,” for he wanted the same thing after he “believed” as before: “Give me also this power” (Acts 8:19).
No change in heart, no rebirth, no repentance, no change in affections, no root in himself, and Peter sums up his condition nicely:
We may safely place Simon Magus in the 2nd category: “And some fell upon a rock; and as soon as it was sprung up, it withered away, because it lacked moisture. … They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.” (Luke 8:6,13).
To say that Simon was “newborn” or that he “truly believed” would necessarily put him in the 4th soil, which would be inconsistent with the narrative of Acts 8. Since he “believed” and there is only one unregenerate soil that does (the 2nd soil), that is where we must place Simon—possessing a heart of stone—still “in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity” (Acts 8:23), and his faith is not the “true belief” of the regenerate soil. Clearly, there had been no “new heart” of Ezekiel 36, and the Lord had not “take[n] away the stony heart out of your flesh”.
To Ken’s point, at the time of Simon’s baptism, he had a heart of stone. It remained stone, even in baptism, which was Cyril’s point, and Ken’s as well.
Is it your position that Cyril believed Simon Magus was regenerated in the laver of baptism?
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
You asked: “Is it your position that Cyril believed Simon Magus was regenerated in the laver of baptism?”
It is interesting that you used Ezekiel 36:26-27 to help make your point. But I notice you left out the verse immediately before those–verse 25:
“Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols.” That is a direct reference to baptism as the conduit of that regeneration. Why did you leave that out?
You also said: “We may safely place Simon Magus in the 2nd category: “And some fell upon a rock; and as soon as it was sprung up, it withered away, because it lacked moisture. … They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.” (Luke 8:6,13).
I find it interesting that you used that reference when the text clearly stated belief. Are you saying that Simon believed for a while and then fell away? Because if that is the case, then that is what I have said all along. One must first believe before one becomes apostate.
I seem to remember something to this affect in an earlier discussion about heresies that sprung up about re-baptism during and after the Diocletian persecution– should baptized Christians be re-baptized after falling away so that they may be reunited with the flock?
The Church said no. Why? Because baptism is a sacrament that is forever and cannot be reversed. It is a work of the Holy Spirit plain and simple.
Tim, do you believe as the Ana-baptists do, that baptism is only a symbol?
Bob, you wrote,
Is it? How so?
You continued,
Because I was referring to regeneration as the replacement of a heart of stone, which is directly relevant to the parable of the soils, for the soils refer to the heart, and the second soil is “stone.” Simon Magus’ “belief” was not the kind that emanates from the “good ground,” a heart of flesh, that has a root within itself, that bears fruit a hundred-, sixty- and thirtyfold. No, Simon’s “belief” is that which emanates from a heart of stone, that has no root, as the parable clearly states, and the fruit of such faith is that the bearer of it is offended by the word of God. As I wrote in my comment,
You continued,
Yes, you will find if you re-read my comment that I clearly stated that the stony heart clearly “believes” as the text clearly says. In fact the reference to “belief” is the reason I cited that particular text. It fits Simon Magus to a tee. What is the object of that “belief”? Clearly not the word of God, since the Word of God is what causes that soil to be offended and to stumble at a time of temptation. The seed might spring up, but it is the soil, not the seed, that represents the heart. So Simon’s belief is the belief that emanates from a heart of stone that is offended at the word of God. The seed springs up, but the soil does not. Therefore, that soil is unregenerate. I am not sure I am following your point, but it seems to me that you are saying that Simon was truly reborn, and truly believed. And yet the best soil that can describe Simon’s “belief” is such a faith as that which emanates from an unregenerate heart of stone that has no root in itself and is offended at the Word of God. I do not consider that to be “regeneration.”
You continued,
Yes, but the mistake you are making is to assume that the only possible faith that exists is the faith of a regenerate newborn believer who truly believes what God’s Word says to be true. Yet it is clear from the parable of the soils that there is another kind of faith indeed, a faith that emanates from an unregenerate heart. James calls that the faith of devils (James 2:19). There are clearly at least two kinds of faith, but you are reading Acts 8 as if there was only one.
In any case, is it your position that Cyril believed Simon Magus was regenerated in the laver of baptism?
Thanks,
Tim
What about Vatican 2 ?
Are not Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin “separated brethren”?
KEN–
You asked: What about Vatican 2 ?
Are not Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin “separated brethren”?
What does Vatican II say makes them “separated”?
Ken,
No. Lutherans, Calvinists and Zwinglians are separated brethren. Luther, Calvin and Zwingli are heretics.
Tim,
Why not “Bats in the Belfry”?
Tim,
To which of the 4 types of soil do you assign yourself? How about Ken?
TIM–
You responded: “Bob, you wrote, “Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols.” That is a direct reference to baptism as the conduit of that regeneration.”
And then you asked “Is it? How so?”
By the word “moreover” which begins verse 26, tying verse 25 with verses 26 and 27. Verse 25 says this:“Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols.
The Didache says this in Chapter 7:
“And concerning baptism, baptize this way … pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.”
It is a clear reference to Christian baptism as early as the first century.
You also said: “Yet it is clear from the parable of the soils that there is another kind of faith indeed, a faith that emanates from an unregenerate heart. James calls that the faith of devils (James 2:19).”
You seem to indicate that there is “another kind of faith”that James speaks of in chapter 2. The context clearly shows faith alone without works is that kind of faith. I don’t express a position on Cyril, but I believe Simon’s heart may have been regenerated at first, having received the Word of God with joy instead of being offended by it. Then later on, by his own fault, he fell into apostasy and was then offended by it.
Why do you believe that one cannot, once regenerated, fall from grace? Did you not reject your own Roman Catholic baptism, whom you claim to be non-Christian, or do you think it is still valid? If not, don’t you think it would be best if you were re-baptized Presbyterian?
Thanks–
Bob
Guys,
Let’s say Cyril is right and Simon Magus was 100% insincere at the time of his Baptism. Let’s say he was faking it, that he actually had his fingers crossed during the rite. Let’s say he was not regenerated.
Okay. So that applies to Simon and Simon only. It does not address the issue of Baptism being the conduit of regeneration for sincere people. Cyril was speaking only of Simon, nobody else.
By the way, the demons James spoke of did not have faith. They had/have certitude because they are in hell. He was using hyperbole.
Hebrews 11:1 says,
“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
There are some things we cannot deny such as cause and effect, the whole being greater than one of its parts, one’s own existence, what we experience through the external senses, etc. Faith is not required to have certitude about these things.
Despite the evidence, when it comes to religion, people can always choose not to believe though. Faith is an act of the intellect moved by the will. Demons cannot deny they are in hell. They do not choose to believe it. They do not choose to believe in God. They have already stood before him and been damned by him.
James 2:19 says,
“You believe that God is one; you do well. The demons also believe–and they shudder”.
Notice what is missing from this partial quote of the Shema.
“And you must love the Lord with all your heart and soul”.
Demons don’t love God.
Jesus ratchets it up with, “AND YOUR NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF”.
So we see that love of God and neighbor is necessary to be justified on judgement day. James speaks of corporal works of charity. He also speaks of one of the 7 spiritual works of charity, ( admonishing the sinner ) of calling a fellow Christian, a “brother”, who lapses back to repentance and saving his soul.
James point is not so much about faith as it is about charity.
TIM–
I found these articles on Reformed baptism:
Why Presbyterians Baptize Only Once
What Baptism Signifies
The first reason that baptism should only be performed once is because of what baptism signifies. According to the Word of God, baptism and its OT counterpart, circumcision, both signify several aspects of the Holy Spirit’s saving work in people’s lives. The most obvious of these are cleansing (Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Acts 22:16; Titus 3:5-7), regeneration (Romans 2:28, 29; Titus 3:5,6), union with Christ (Romans 6:1-7), justification by faith (Romans 4:11-12; Col. 2:11-14), and initiation into the Covenant community and Body of Christ (Gen. 17:4-11; Matt. 28:19; Acts 2:38-39; 8:12-13; Gal. 3:21-29; Eph. 4:5). What is significant about all these aspects of salvation is that they are once in a lifetime works of God. We do not lose them, fall away from them, or get them taken away from us. We therefore do not need to get them again a second time. Inasmuch as baptism signifies these things, it also does not need to be done a second time. –adoniram.netArticles and Essays by Dennis E. Bills
And this:
Robert Shaw, a 19th Century Presbyterian pastor, explained it like this:
“Baptism is not to be administered to any person oftener than once. This is plain from the nature of the ordinance. It is a solemn admission of the person baptized as a member of the visible Church; and though those that ‘walk disorderly’ are to be cast out, yet there is no hint in Scripture, that, when re-admitted, they are to be baptized again. The thing signified by baptism cannot be repeated, and the engagements come under can never be disannulled” (Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith, p. 370).
Of course, we should always be prepared to profess our faith before God’s people (Ps. 22:22) and we should continually repent of our sins (Ps 51), but we don’t need to be baptized more than once because it is God’s covenant sign and seal of the covenant of grace. Because his covenant promises never change and because he is faithful, baptism is something Christians only need to undergo once. (If baptism depended on my faith, I’d have to be baptized several times a year since my faith waxes and wanes!) –Why Reformed Churches Don’t Rebaptize Jun14 by Reformed Reader
Tim, in light of these articles and the text of Acts chapter 8, Simon Magnus was a Christian. And tradition maintains that Simon later became apostate.
Despite what Cyril believed, the text of Acts 8 and the Westminster Confession indicate otherwise. I concur.
Do you?
I think you have lost me, again, Bob. Where does the Westminster Confession say that Simon Magus was regenerated in baptism?
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
You sure get lost a lot. Where did I say the Westminster Confession said that, o self proclaimed obtuse one?
Westminster Confession Chapter 28
Baptism
1. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ.1 By baptism a person
is solemnly admitted into the visible church.2 Baptism is also a sign and seal of the covenant of
grace,3 of the believer’s engrafting into Christ,4 of rebirth,5 of remission of sins,6 and of the believer’s yielding to God through Jesus Christ to walk in newness of life.7 By Christ’s own direction this sacrament is to be continued in his church until the end of the world.8
1. Mt 28.19, Mk 16.16.
2. 1 Cor 12.13, Gal 3.27-28, Acts 2.41, 10.47.
3. Rom 4.11, Col 2.11-12, Gal 3.29.
4. Gal 3.27, Rom 6.3-5.
5. Ti 3.5.
6. Mk 1.4, Acts 2.38, 22.16.
7. Rom 6.3-4.
8. Mt 28.19-20.
Now, I am aware of this from the Confession:
5. Although it is a great sin to condemn or neglect this sacrament,14 baptism is not inseparably connected with God’s grace and salvation. One can be saved and reborn without baptism,15 and,on the other hand, everyone who is baptized is not therefore unquestionably reborn.16
14. Lk 7.30, Ex 4.24-26, Gn 17.14, Dt 28.9.
15. Rom 4.11, Acts 10.2, 4, 22, 31, 45-47, Lk 23.40-43.
16. Acts 8.13,23.
However, notice that the reference to verse 24 is left out of that footnote. Verse 24 is Simon’s apparent act of contrition at Peter’s call for repentance. The fact that the Confession states that the sign and seal of baptism includes rebirth, and that the full text of Acts 8 indicate contrition on Simon’s part make the conclusion of his un-regeneration questionable as well.
Notice in Acts 8:13(Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.) the word “believed” is:
pisteuō
I.to think to be true, to be persuaded of, to credit, place confidence in
A.of the thing believed
i.to credit, have confidence
B.in a moral or religious reference
i.used in the NT of the conviction and trust to which a man is impelled by a certain inner and higher prerogative and law of soul
ii.to trust in Jesus or God as able to aid either in obtaining or in doing something: saving faith
iii.mere acknowledgment of some fact or event: intellectual faith
II.to entrust a thing to one, i.e. his fidelity
A.to be intrusted with a thing
And verse 13 is in reference to baptism and in context with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Taken from the text of the infallible Word of God and from the fallible Westminster Confession, it is possible to conclude that Simon could have been reborn. The infallible Word of God simply does not give us a conclusion one way or the other. The only way to find out if Simon Magus was apostate is extra-biblical tradition, which is considered by most to be fallible.
Tim, are you saying that is not a logical conclusion?
I’m sorry, Bob. I am not understanding you at all. You said,
Then you said,
You said you concur with something that the Westminster Confession “indicates,” but you have been unable to specify what it is that the Westminster Confession indicates.
What is it that the Westminster Confession “indicates,” and with which you concur?
Thanks for your patience,
Tim
TIM–
You asked: “What is it that the Westminster Confession “indicates,” and with which you concur?”
The fact that the Confession says this “on the other hand, everyone who is baptized is not therefore unquestionably reborn” tells me that it can be called into question. Which also tells me that Simon “could have been” reborn or he “could have been” un-regenerate. The indefinite terminology used is what I concur with in the Confession. That leads me to go to the only infallible source for the story on Simon–Acts 8. And even that is inconclusive in itself.
Cyril (tradition) says that Simon was not regenerated in baptism. If he got that only from the book of Acts, then he jumped to a conclusion that was questionable. He must have used some other source to base his conclusion. It couldn’t have been the Westminster Confession or the Catholic Catechism. Where did Cyril get his information to conclude without a doubt that Simon never was regenerated in the first place instead of being reborn and then later falling into apostasy? Who knows? Cyril was 4th century. He could not have been an eyewitness. So he had to rely on tradition as well. What tradition did he feel was infallible enough to rely on? Holy Tradition from Apostolic succession? Hmmmmm—–
That would open up a whole new can of worms, now, wouldn’t it?
Bob, What proof does the Confession offer to support the statement that “everyone who is baptized is not therefore unquestionably reborn”?
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
You asked: “Bob, What proof does the Confession offer to support the statement that ‘everyone who is baptized is not therefore unquestionably reborn’?”
It doesn’t. But it does cite Acts 8 as I mentioned before. You might want to re-read that.
Just to keep things straight, it is indeed possible Simon’s Baptism was invalid due to defect of proper intent. Validity does not require minister or recipient to have a perfect understanding but it does require an intent to ” do what the Church does”.
Contrary to the accusation, Catholics do not believe in magic.
Boys,
Let’s cut to the chase and stop with all the waltzing around about Cyril, Baptism or Simon’s disposition at the moment he was dunked or sprinkled.
Simon never fell back into sin because he was never out of sin. You see, according to to Tim’s religion, God, from eternity past,before any merits or demerits, elected Simon unto damnation. Then, Adam was elected to fall. The fall put all of Adam’s sons into damnation. Christ came to die for some but definitely not Simon. ( Why waste the merits of Christ’s death on some one damned already? ) No graces were won for Simon on Calvary. Since no graces were won for him, none were offered whether before, during or after the water ritual called Baptism. His disposition was always to hate God and spurn regeneration. No preveniant graces were ever supplied to lead him toward conversion. Without those graces, Simon was free to do only what his malicious nature allowed,or to be more precise, demanded; sin.
He was created for hell, passed over at the cross, born a reprobate and justly damned for the condition Adam’s sin had put him in.
If Tim objects that he is not supralapsarian, fine. A little tweeking of what I said above will render the same conclusion; Simon is in hell because God wanted him there. Pure and simple.
Sweet, eh?
Bob, do not be like Job’s friends and dare to question this awesome and “holy” decree. Do not cry out that it goes against the scriptures, tradition or just plain common sense. If you “choose” to do so, you will only prove you are numbered among the goats.
Now, bow your head and whisper a hushed “Amen”.
JIM–
You said: “Simon is in hell because God wanted him there. Pure and simple.”
That must be why Tim does not understand my reasoning. I think people mistake predestination for predetermination.
And you also said: “Bob, do not be like Job’s friends and dare to question this awesome and ‘holy’ decree. Do not cry out that it goes against the scriptures, tradition or just plain common sense. If you ‘choose’ to do so, you will only prove you are numbered among the goats.
Now, bow your head and whisper a hushed ‘Amen’.”
Shhhhhhhhhh……………..quiet. And in the stillness is heard a barely audible……………”amen” as a piano softly plays a final arpeggio.
Lights fade to black as the curtain is drawn closed.
The crowd is on their feet roaring with applause.
Thanks for watching the Texaco Star Theater.
“You can trust your car to the man who wears the star.”
“You can trust your car to the man who wears the star”?
I haven’t heard that in years!
Although I can still sing the Ipana toothpaste jingle, the theme songs from Zorro ( most of it ) and Have Gun Will Travel and can name all the WB TV westerns, ( Cheyene, Sugarfoot, Colt 45, Bronco Lane, etc., ) I had completely spaced on the Texaco jingle.
Remember 20 Mule Team Borax and the Old Ranger? The Maytag commercial? Robert Stack as Elliot Ness? Robert (?) in Trackdown? Steve McQueen in Wanted Dead or Alive? Dick Powell’s Zane Gray Theatre? Ozzie and Harriet? ( You do know Ricky became a Catholic shortly before dying in a plane crash )
Hey, how about Tennessee Ernie singing 16 Tons?
I can’t remember what I walked into the next room for but I do recall as if yesterday TV’s Golden Age.