Follow
One of the most prominently signified figures in the realm of Christian eschatology is the emergence of ten entities from the remnants of the Roman empire. They are sometimes symbolized as toes, and sometimes as horns, but always numerically as ten.
In Daniel chapter 2, Nebuchadnezzer experiences a dream in which a statue signifies the rise and fall of four empires, Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Greek and Roman. Daniel interprets the dream for the king, and twice in his interpretation, he refers to toes (2:41, 42) as the last stage of the progression. Because time proceeds from top to bottom, and from precious materials to common, it is inferred from the toes on the statue that the final configuration of the fourth empire is a ten way division.
In Daniel chapter 7, the prophet experiences a vision of his own—of four beasts—again signifying the rise and fall of the same four empires. Again, as in chapter 2, there is a progression of empires—a Lion, a Bear, a Four-headed Leopard and “a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible” (7:4-7). The final empire appears to be divided ten ways at the conclusion of the vision, for the Fourth Beast “had ten horns” (7:7). At verse 8, Daniel “considered the horns” and noticed a rising antagonist among them, “another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots.” This little horn had “eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things,” and in Christian tradition is almost universally understood to be Antichrist.
This little horn piqued Daniel’s curiosity, and he desired to “know the truth of the fourth beast, … And of the ten horns … and of the other … before whom three fell.” (7:19-20). The angel thus explained:
“the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.” (7:24).
Thus it appears, and so the passage has been universally interpreted, that the Fourth Beast, at its division, started with 10 horns, lost 3 due to the emergence of the little horn, resulting in a total of 7 horns in subjection. This we have from the earliest interpretations of the Church Fathers.
Hippolytus (170–235 A.D.) was the first to write extensively on Daniel, and he had Antichrist subduing three of the ten horns:
“In those times, then, he shall arise and meet them. And when he has overmastered three horns out of the ten in the array of war … and has brought the remaining horns which will suffer into subjection…” (Hippolytus, Treatise on Christ and Antichrist, 52)
Jerome followed Hippolytus on this, and had the little horn subduing three of the ten:
“We should therefore concur with the traditional interpretation of all the commentators of the Christian Church, that … there shall be ten kings who will partition the Roman world amongst themselves. Then an insignificant eleventh king will arise, who will overcome three of the ten kings…” ((Jerome, Commentary on Daniel, trans. Gleason Archer, ©1958) p. 531)
Calvin agreed with them, at least on this, concluding that “Whatever was thus added to the little horn was taken from the ten horns” (Calvin, Commentary on Daniel, Lecture thirty-fourth). These three, Hippolytus, Jerome and Calvin, are just a few of many such examples.
What we will point out here, and will expound upon momentarily, is that Daniel never actually says what has been almost universally assumed—(a) that the three horns that are overcome are three of the ten, and (b) that the ten horns were the full complement of the “first horns.” Neither of these two assumptions is implicitly supported by the text, but both have been made almost universally in the history of Danielic interpretation. The reason this matters is that at no point in the Scriptures is any figure depicted with only seven horns (except the Lamb that was slain in Revelation 5:6).
The next time this figure of ten horns is used is in the Book of Revelation. Several beasts of different compositions are so configured. The Red Dragon in Revelation 12:3 is said to have seven heads and ten horns, each head with a crown. The First Beast of Revelation 13:1 has seven heads and ten horns, each horn with a crown. In Revelation 17:3, there is a Scarlet Beast with seven heads and ten horns, and no crowns.
We are particularly interested in what happens regarding the ten horns in Revelation 17. According to the angel in 17:12, the ten horns signify “ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet,” but according to Revelation 13:1, where they are figured with crowns, and Revelation 17:13-17, they do eventually receive a kingdom with the Beast.
The angel not only has all ten kings receiving a kingdom in the future, but also has all ten of them “[receiving] power as kings one hour with the beast.” Revelation 17:13 then says that all ten horns “have one mind,” and all ten “give their power and strength unto the beast.” Revelation 17:14 says that all ten “make war with the Lamb” and the Lamb overcomes all ten. Then Revelation 17:16 has all ten turning against the whore, all ten hating the whore, all ten making her “desolate and naked”, and all ten “eat[ing] her flesh, and burn[ing] her with fire.” Then Revelation 17:17 says that God had put into the hearts of all ten of the horns “to fulfil His will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.”
What we are highlighting here is that there is no mention of the three that were uprooted in Daniel 7:8, 20 & 24. There is no mention, say, of “seven horns” that receive a kingdom, “seven horns” that receive power as kings for one hour, “seven horns” that turn against the whore, and “seven horns” eating her flesh, and burning her with fire. It would almost seem as if the three had never been uprooted at all.
Thus either the representations in Revelation have too many horns—that is, ten—or the historical interpretation of Daniel 7 ends with too few—that is, seven. And that raises a very important question. If ten horns rise from the Roman empire, and three are removed to make room for the little horn (Daniel 7:8, 20 & 24), why does every representation of a hostile antagonist in Revelation still have ten horns? The explanation for this anomaly goes back to the assumptions Hippolytus made, and that almost all interpreters have made after him—namely, that “ten horns” were the full complement of “the first horns,” and that the antagonist removes “three horns out of the ten.” But Daniel never said either of these.
Note, as well, that each beast in Daniel 7 is depicted in its final configuration before the rise of the succeeding empire. The Lion is figured as being “lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon the feet as a man, and a man’s heart was given to it,” which is what we could call the final configuration of the Babylonian empire (Daniel 4:36-37) before Darius the Mede took over (Daniel 5:31). The Bear is depicted already raised up on one side and is commanded to “devour much flesh,” which depicts the period of Persian dominance, and the Persians “came up last” (Daniel 8:3), followed of course by the Greeks. The Leopard already has four heads, and is therefore is already configured in its final four way division after the death of Alexander. And the fourth beast of Daniel 7 has ten horns, which we take to refer to its final configuration, after three of “the first horns” had already been cut off at the roots to make room for the Little Horn to come up among the remaining ten.
For reference, here are Daniel’s words from Daniel 7:7,8, 20 and 24:
7,8: …and it had ten horns. I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.
20: And of the ten horns that were in his head, and of the other which came up, and before whom three fell; even of that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake very great things, whose look was more stout than his fellows.
24: And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.
At no point does Daniel specify what Hippolytus assumed: that three of the ten are removed, and that ten horns comprised the complete set of “the first horns.” These are two assumptions that have been made historically as a basis for interpreting the chapter. Both assumptions are unwarranted.
Because every configuration of the Roman empire (ostensibly ten toes in Daniel 2:41-42 (about which more here), ten horns in Daniel 7:7) shows Rome divided ten ways, and every relevant configuration of either serpent or beast in Revelation 12, 13 and 17 has ten horns, and the final battle in chapter 17 is between the Lamb and ten horns, we are driven to conclude that a ten-way division is not the initial configuration of the divided Roman Empire, but is its final configuration.
As such, we therefore conclude that Daniel was aware of and was speaking of a total of thirteen kings, or thirteen horns, all of which rose up out of the Roman Empire, but three of which were cut off at the roots as Antichrist came up among the remaining ten—the final configuration of the Divided Roman Empire.
What we find by way of historical fulfillment is that in 293 A. D., Emperor Diocletian began a reorganization of the Roman Empire, and divided it between four tetrarchs overseeing a total of twelve dioceses, each diocese ruled by its own vicarius and comprised of several provinces:
“Under Diocletian [293 A.D.], the empire was divided into twelve dioceses, each consisting of several provinces. A new position was created to head each diocese—the vicarius.” (Diocletian and the Tetrarchy, Roger Rees, Edinburgh University Press, Ltd, ©2004) p. 25
The tetrarchy “hardly survived one generation” (Rees, p. 89), but the diocesan divisions endured. In the last few decades of the fourth century, some dioceses had been combined, and others separated, resulting in a total of thirteen distinct geographic territories:
“Three changes in his diocesan arrangement were made in the course of the fourth century, and by 400 we find thirteen Dioceses. (a) Egypt, which was at first part of the Diocese of the East, was promoted to be a separate Diocese towards the end of the fourth century. (b) Diœcesis Moesiarum was broken up into Diœcesis Daciae and Diœcesis Macedoniae. (c) On the other hand, Diœcesis Galliarum and Diœcesis Viennensis were combined to form a single Diocese of Gaul.” (Gibbon, Edward, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol 2, Appendix 11 “Dioceses and Provinces”, (London: Methuen & Co., ©1901) 548)
It is the geographic distribution of power under this arrangement that we find most interesting:
- Diocese of the East (principal city: Antioch)
- Diocese of Egypt (principal city: Alexandria)
- Diocese of Italy (principal city: Rome)
- Diocese of Asia
- Diocese of Pontica
- Diocese of Thrace
- Diocese of Macedonia
- Diocese of Dacia
- Diocese of Pannonia (aka: Diocese of Illyricum)
- Diocese of Africa
- Diocese of Gaul (aka: Septem Provinciæ)
- Diocese of Spain
- Diocese of Britain
Thus, when the division of the empire was complete, thirteen distinct geographic territories, all under their respective vicarii, were in place. The attentive reader will note that of these thirteen dioceses, we have identified three metropoli of no small significance: Rome, Antioch and Alexandria. These three cities each had vicarii ruling over their respective dioceses—the Diocese of Italy, the Diocese of the East and the Diocese of Egypt—and more to our point, each claimed to be one of the three sees of St. Peter, or what are called “The Three Petrine Sees.”
Early in the history of the Roman Catholic Church, the three cities of Rome, Antioch and Alexandria, tussled with each other for primacy, as each one claimed succession from Peter—Alexandria, because Peter’s disciple, Mark, had settled there; Antioch, because Peter settled there first; and Rome, the city where Peter allegedly lived last. The council of Rome (382 A. D.) provides a description of the Three Sees of St. Peter:
“Therefore first is the seat at the Roman church of the apostle Peter ‘having no spot or wrinkle or any other [defect]’. However the second place was given in the name of blessed Peter to Mark his disciple and gospel-writer at Alexandria, and who himself wrote down the word of truth directed by Peter the apostle in Egypt and gloriously consummated [his life] in martyrdom. Indeed the third place is held at Antioch of the most blessed and honourable apostle Peter, who lived there before he came to Roma and where first the name of the new race of the Christians was heard.” (Council of Rome, III.3)
Pope Gregory the Great, who reigned from 590 to 604 A. D., described these three Petrine Sees as a single entity, claiming that they were in fact a See of One:
“Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See [Rome] in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See [Alexandria] to which he sent his disciple [Mark] as evangelist. He himself established the See [Antioch] in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself.” (Gregory the Great, Book VII, Epistle XL, To Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria)
In his book, Called to Communion, Pope Bendict XVI confirmed that Rome’s claims to a continuity of authentic apostolic succession is established upon the written record of these Three Petrine Sees:
“It was to be a written record of the continuity of apostolic succession, which was concentrated in the three Petrine sees—Rome, Antioch and Alexandria—among which Rome, as the site of Peter’s martyrdom, was in turn preeminent and truly normative.” (Benedict XVI, Called to Communion: Understanding the Church Today, II.2.b “The Petrine Succession in Rome”)
This little horn, this See of One which came up among the remaining ten, was more stout than its fellows, and for its size needed three of the thirteen dioceses of the divided Roman Empire for itself. We will have more to say about how this “See of One” subdued three horns, then colluded to supplant, overtake and finally administer the remnants of the Roman Empire, and then arrogantly claim that it had been God’s plan all along for the Church of Jesus Christ to do this. We will have more to say about how the remaining ten kings gave “their power and strength unto the beast” (Revelation 17:13) and eventually turned on the city of Rome to destroy her by fire (Revelation 17:16). But for now, we simply reiterate what we have said before in One Kingdom Too Late:
“The explanation for the vast difference between Roman Catholicism and the beliefs and practices of the early church is that Roman Catholicism as a religion had not yet arisen in the apostolic era, and when it did arise at the end of the Fourth Century, it was a new thing, something never before seen on earth. And of its rise we were duly admonished, for that of which the prophets warned by figure, the apostles warned by doctrine.”
We see at the division of the Roman Empire in the waning decades of the fourth century a fulfillment not only of Daniel’s vision—in which a little horn “whose look was more stout than his fellows” (Daniel 7:20) came up among ten, and before whom three fell, who had “eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things” (Daniel 7:8)—but also a fulfillment of Paul’s warning of the coming of he “who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God” (2 Thessalonians 2:4).
This man, the pope, who takes for himself the name of God, “Holy Father” (John 17:11), the role of the Son as head of the Church (Ephesians 4:15, 5:23), and the role of the Spirit as Christ’s Representative on earth (John 14:26), truly claims to sit within the church, the temple of God, and demands that he be acknowledged as Holy Father, Representative of Christ and Head of the Church—names and offices of God alone. His coming was according to the prophecies of Daniel and the warnings of the Apostles. So crafty was his disguise that even they who knew to look for his coming were fooled by his devices. We must not be.
“Come out of her, My people.” (Revelation 18:4)
This was just incredible information…thank you so much Tim. I cannot wait for the next post on this topic.
Some one will therefore ask me what counsel I would like to give to a believer who thus dwells in some Egypt or Babylon where he may not worship God purely, but is forced by the common practice to accommodate himself to bad things. The first advice would be to leave [i.e. relocate – GB] if he could… If someone has no way to depart, I would counsel him to consider whether it would be possible for him to abstain from all idolatry in order to preserve himself pure and spotless toward God in both body and soul. Then let him worship God in private (at home – ed.), praying him to restore his poor church to its right estate. – John Calvin, Come Out From Among Them, The Anti-Nicodemite Writings of John Calvin, Protestant Heritage Press
Even if the pagan associations of the past or the current association with Roman Catholicism in the present were absent, the very fact that the Bible does not teach the observance of Christmas or Easter should be enough for us to avoid it. In the Old Testament, when God told the people of Israel exactly how to worship him, including the special days they were to observe, he also said, “what thing soever I command you, observe to do it; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it”. (Deut. 12:32 cf Lev. 10:1-2)
In the New Testament Christ taught the same thing: “In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men” (Mark 7/7-8). The Apostle Paul also warns against “will worship” (Col. 2:22-23), that is worship that originates in what man wants to do rather than what God requires him to do. We may like to say to others, “you worship God your way, I’ll worship him mine”, but God actually requires us to worship him neither your way nor my way, but his way. The “church calendar” was never appointed by God. … This scriptural teaching that whatever Scripture does not warrant is to be excluded from worship is known as the “regulative principle”.
The exclusion of the church calendar, uninspired hymns, musical instruments, vestments and unscriptural ceremonies as well as more modern encroachments such as drama and dance, all stand on this same principle. Acceptance of this principle is a mark of a Reformed Church. – – David Silversides, Why No Christmas Or Easter?
Walt, is there no Christmas cheer at your house? No stockings full of candies and little gifts? No baby Jesus? No decorated windows? No carols?
I knew the Puritans outlawed Christmas. It’s why we won the Revolutionary War.
Yeah, when Washing crossed the Delaware on Xmas, he knew the Lutheran Hessians would be sleeping or drunk and therefore unfit for fighting. The Hessians, being Christians, couldn’t believe the Puritan pagans would not honor the Birth of the Savior. They were caught unaware and lost the battle and the war.
Hymns of human composition are used so commonly now in public worship by Presbyterian churches that it is difficult to believe that the practice is not a hundred years old, and that in some of the churches it is of very recent date. On the supposition that it is good and dutiful and wise to sing such hymns in worship, it is equally difficult to account for the neglect of the churches at the time of the Reformation, and for generations afterwards.
What could have so blinded the reformers as to make them reject hymns and sing the Psalms alone? How could the Westminster Divines, in framing their Confession of Faith and Directory for Worship, have been so unanimous in the blunder that the service of praise is to consist of the ‘singing of Psalms?’ And apart from the aspect of duty, how could the Presbyterian churches, for about a hundred and fifty or two hundred years after the Westminster Assembly, have been so insensible to the power of hymns as an attractive addition to their public services?
We cannot by any means understand how it was that, if it was dutiful to use hymns in worship, the reformers did not discover the Scriptural warrant for the duty, especially as hymns had been used for centuries by the Church of Rome.
Nor can we understand how they rejected the hymns and used the Psalms alone, unless on the supposition that they believed the use of hymns to be part of the will-worship of Rome.
If they were wrong on this point, then Rome and our modern Presbyterian churches are right.
In that case, the Puritans and Covenanters were fanatics, and Romanists were truly enlightened!
And most of our Presbyterian churches of the present day were fanatical too, and did not become truly enlightened and liberal till they got back to the Romish practice! – James Dick, Hymns and Hymn Books(1883)
Tim,
Gabriel appeared to Daniel and gave his prophecy of the 490 years.
Gabriel appeared to Zachary. 1. Gabriel announces John’s Birth to Zechariah
2. 6 months later Gabriel comes to Mary (Luke 1:26) (6 x 30 = 180)
3. Annunciation to Mary until Jesus’ birth = 270 days (9 x 30); 180 + 270 = 450 days
4. Mary is unclean for 7 days (cf. Lev 12:2)―457 day
5. Mary must purify herself for another 33 days (cf. Lev 12:3)
If Mary goes to the temple on the 33rd day we have something quite interesting: 33 + 457 = 490 days.
Hmmmmmmmm?
Jim,
Typical gestation in human females is 40 weeks (280 days), but may be as few as 37 weeks (259 days) or as many as 42 weeks (294 days). Such a prophecy, if literal days are in mind, would have to have a verifiable starting day and ending day. There is no record of the length of Mary’s gestation.
If you are attempting to draw an inference that the length of time from the announcement of John’s birth to Zechariah until the presentation of Jesus in the Temple, you have neither the correct a starting point (announcement of John’s birth) or the correct ending point (the completion of Mary’s purification). I don’t see how the 490 days you enumerated above are related to Daniel 9.
Can you enlighten me? Or did you only intend to point out a coincidence?
Thanks, as always,
Tim
Only intending to say St. Luke was up to something.
Tim, here is another interpretation on the seven heads AND THE TEN HORNS. It will be interesting where you take these ten horns to their conclusion in light of the following!
——-
“B. Here in Revelation 13, there is revealed in figurative language a monstrous Beast that arises from the sea (Revelation 13:1), that has seven heads and ten crowned horns (in Revelation 13:1), and that has the bestial features of a leopard, bear, and lion (in Revelation 13:2). I submit that we find similar features of this Beast revealed in figurative language likewise in another prophetic portion of Scripture: Daniel 7. Turn with me to Daniel chapter 7. Again we shall use the interpretive key—Scripture interprets Scripture—to unlock the meaning of the Beast of Revelation.
1. In Daniel 7, God gives Daniel a vision of “four great beasts” which come up “from the sea” (Daniel 7:3). Just as the Beast of Revelation 13 comes from the sea, so the Beasts of Daniel likewise come from the sea (i.e. from the tumult and revolutions of the Gentile nations of the world).
2. These Beasts in Daniel 7 are identified as four distinct kings (i.e. kingdoms or empires) that shall arise from Daniel’s time forward, one kingdom succeeding the previous kingdom (Daniel 7:17,23). These same four kingdoms (or empires) are revealed in different figurative language earlier in Daniel 2:31ff as various parts of an image (a head of gold, breast and arms of silver, belly and thighs of brass, legs and feet of iron, though the feet and toes are mixed with clay). Likewise, the Lord through Daniel interprets these four parts of the statue to be four successive kingdoms (or empires) that would arise at their appointed times in history (beginning with Babylon, the reigning empire in Daniel’s time, Daniel 2:38-43).
3. Now consider the description used of these Beasts in Daniel 7. The first Beast was like a lion (Daniel 7:4)—this is the political kingdom of Babylon (which corresponds to the head of gold in Daniel 2:38). The second beast was like a bear (Daniel 7:5)—this is the political kingdom of Medo-Persia, which succeeded Babylon as the next kingdom or empire (which corresponds to the arms of silver in Daniel 2:39). The third beast was like a leopard (Daniel 7:6)—this is the political kingdom of Greece, which succeeded Medo-Persia as the next kingdom or empire (and corresponds to the belly and thighs of brass in Daniel 2:39). Note that all three animal descriptions of these kingdoms are used with regard to the Beast we find in Revelation 13:2. This would seem to indicate the Beast of Revelation embodies all of the strength and power of these three ancient kingdoms or empires.
4. And when we come to Daniel’s fourth Beast, it is not given the characteristic of any particular animal, because as was just noted, it embodies the strength of all the kingdoms that preceded it. Daniel’s fourth kingdom or empire is said to be “dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly” (Daniel 7:7). What kingdom or empire that succeeded the empire of Greece would embody the strength of all the previous empires? Rome, the Roman Empire (which corresponds to the legs and feet of iron, though the feet and toes are mixed with clay in Daniel 2:40-43). The extent of Rome’s power and boundaries did in fact exceed that of the previous three empires.
5. Finally note that this fourth Beast of Daniel has ten horns (Daniel 7:7). This likewise parallels the Beast in Revelation 13:1, which also has ten horns. We’ll have more to say in the next sermon about the seven heads (and the one head that was healed) along with the ten horns on this Beast of Revelation.
C. We can now say with confidence that the Beast of Revelation whom Christ will destroy has a direct connection with the Roman Empire, for the likeness of the Beast of Revelation with that of the Beasts of Daniel 7 (and particularly the connection with the fourth Beast that has the ten horns) cannot be dismissed. In fact, the revelation of the Beast given to the Apostle John is a continuation of the revelation of the fourth Beast given to the Prophet Daniel. Thus, the Beast of Revelation 13 is not specifically a religious entity, but is rather a political and civil entity. Just as all four of the Beasts (i.e. kingdoms) in Daniel’s prophecy emphasized the civil aspects of these kingdoms, so likewise, the Beast of Revelation emphasizes the civil/political nature of some form of the Roman Empire that is prophesied to war against Christ and His faithful witnesses for 42 prophetic months (or 1,260 years). A particular feature of one of the heads of this Beast (that is healed from a deadly wound) and the ten horns upon this Beast (which wear crowns) actually give us important information as to a more particular identity of this Beast and its relationship to the Roman Empire, which we shall consider in upcoming sermons.
———
A. First, I submit that there ought to be a presumption from the very outset in favor of using the Day-Year Principle as we approach these prophetic time periods in the Book of Revelation (whether 1,260 prophetic days; 42 prophetic months; or a prophetic time, times, and half a time i.e. 3 1/2 prophetic years).
1. In other words, I do not believe that we ought to begin with either a blank piece of paper (as if God has said nothing about how to interpret prophetic time periods in highly symbolic books of the Bible), or that we ought to begin with an assumption that the prophetic periods of time given in the Book of Revelation are a literal 1,260 days, or a literal 42 months, or a literal time, times, and half a time (i.e. a literal 3 ½ years), as is done in Preterism and Futurism.
2. The prophetic Book of Revelation is very dependent upon the prophetic Books of Ezekiel and Daniel for the right interpretation of a number of the symbols and figurative language used in it. In fact, the Apostle John makes 403 allusions, or indirect quotes, from the canonized books of the Hebrew Bible (cf. “Index of Allusions and Verbal Parallels” found in UBS, pp. 891-901). The four Books of the Old Testament that are used most in the Book of Revelation are Isaiah (18% of those 403 allusions or indirect quotes), Psalms (17%), Ezekiel (14%), and Daniel (10%). In other words, nearly ¼ of the references to the Old Testament in the Book of Revelation come from the prophetic Books of Ezekiel and Daniel. Thus, as we approach the question as to how we are to compute and calculate the time periods found in the prophetic Book of Revelation (1,260 prophetic days, 42 prophetic months, and a prophetic time, times, and half a time i.e. a prophetic 3 ½ years), ought we not to presume that the same God who gave the inspired Day-Year Principle in order to interpret prophetic time periods in Ezekiel and Daniel would likewise expect us to use the same inspired Day-Year Principle to interpret prophetic time periods in the Book of Revelation, and especially since the prophetic Book of Revelation is so dependent upon the prophetic Books of Ezekiel and Daniel for the symbols, figurative language, and themes that we find in the Book of Revelation?
3. Such a presumption of continuity from the prophetic Book of Daniel to the prophetic Book of Revelation certainly ought to guide us in accurately interpreting the symbol of the Beast with the ten horns (in Revelation 13:1-2). As we approach this beast that is revealed in Revelation 13, should we assume absolute nothing about this Beast and come with a blank page and a completely empty mind, or should we assume a literal interpretation of a great and grotesque sea creature that will war against the faithful witnesses of Christ that literally has 7 heads and 10 horns? Or should we rather read what God has already revealed about this Beast in Daniel 7-8 (where we find a figurative representation of Daniel’s 4th beast to be one that also has 10 horns)? I dare say that most Christian interpreters would take the latter approach of presuming the symbol of the Beast with 10 horns in the prophetic Book of Daniel is the same Beast with the 10 horns in the prophetic Book of Revelation. And so they should. And that is precisely the same argument that I am using (and that Historicists use) when it comes to accurately interpreting the prophetic time periods of 1,260 days, 42 prophetic months, a prophetic time, times, and half a time i.e. 3 ½ prophetic years. I will be using the inspired Day-Year Principle to interpret these prophetic time periods in the prophetic Book of Revelation, just as God used the same inspired Day-Year Principle to interpret prophetic time periods in the prophetic Books of Ezekiel (Chapter 4:4-6) and Daniel (Chapter 9:24-25). That is not a blind leap of faith. That is simply allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture, and allowing Scripture to provide us with the interpretive key to unlocking these prophetic time periods God has revealed in His Word.
———-
I hope you don’t mind me pasting some of the key issues I see on this topic. Out of hundreds of pages of sermon text, I want to cut only the most important distinctions I feel relevant so I can enjoy your next post in the context I’ve been learning.
Thanks, Walt,
Your posts are both thoughtful and helpful. I appreciate your comments greatly.
Tim
Tim, this is my last post so you know (in part) how some view the ten horns in light of the above.
——–
l. The Identification of the Ten Horns (Revelation 17:12-14).
A. Just as the seven heads (and particularly the revived eighth head) of the Beast give us further clarification about the identity of the Beast of Revelation; so likewise as we proceed to interpret the ten horns, we arrive at the final piece of information which fills out our description of the identity of the Beast of Revelation. Not only is the Beast of Revelation a continuation of the Roman Empire that has been revived since the time of Charlemagne (in 800 a.d.), but now we will see the location of this Beast of Revelation (in the form of a revived Roman Empire) that wars against Christ and against His faithful witnesses. For the ten horns give us that location, as we shall see.
B. The ten horns are interpreted for us in Revelation 17:12 as being “ten kings”, or ten kingdoms (as we have noted in past sermons “kings” do in fact stand for “kingdoms” or “governments” by comparing Daniel 7:17 with Daniel 7:23).
1. But carefully note that these kings or kingdoms have not yet received a dominion or sovereignty to rule in the first century at the time that John pens the Book of Revelation (“which have received no kingdom as yet”). Thus, at the time that John receives these visions, the ten horns (or ten kingdoms) have not yet come to power; they are yet to receive dominion to rule in the future (from John’s perspective).
2. And when these ten horns or ten kingdoms do receive power and sovereignty to rule, they will rule “one hour” or at one period of time together with the Beast of Revelation (in the revived eighth head of the Roman Empire that began in 800 a.d.). For contextually, the description and interpretation of the ten horns (in Revelation 17:12) immediately follows the revived eighth head (in Revelation 17:11). Note that when the Beast of Revelation is warring against the faithful witnesses of Christ (in Revelation 13), there are ten crowns upon the ten horns of the Beast (Revelation 13:1), thus indicating that the Beast and the ten kingdoms are joined together in their war against Christ and His faithful witnesses.
3. This means that the Beast of Revelation cannot be Nero (as alleged by Preterists), because the ten kingdoms had not yet received power to rule at the time John penned the Revelation (which Preterists claim was at the time of Nero, not long before Nero’s death in 68 a.d). If the Beast is Nero, and if the ten kingdoms do not yet exist as dominions within the Roman Empire (as John says in Revelation 17:12), how is it that ten nonexistent kingdoms can form an alliance with Nero? Thus, I submit that both the Beast (in its eighth head, the revived Roman Empire under Emperors) and the ten kingdoms must come into existence after the first century (long after Nero’s death), which was precisely the case.
4. Thus, according to Revelation 17:12, we are looking for ten kingdoms in history after the first century that are associated with the Roman Empire (particularly associated with its revived eighth head of Emperors).
C. Before proceeding to identify these ten kingdoms, let us also turn to Daniel, where we find additional information about these ten kingdoms.
1. Daniel 2:40-43. The toes (of which there are ten) are associated with the Roman Empire (iron), and yet they divide the Roman Empire and are diverse from one another (as iron missed with clay).
2. Daniel 7:23-24. Three of the ten kingdoms are subdued before the presence of this “little horn”.
————
I won’t submit the rest of the sermon that answers in detail the questions you will be covering next in your post as well. I’ll save the answers for when you post next to see how both fit into the Scriptures and history.
Thank you for covering this subject so thoroughly!
Walt,
I can agree with a lot of this. For example, “Thus, I submit that both the Beast … and the ten kingdoms must come into existence after the first century (long after Nero’s death), which was precisely the case.”
I understand that there is some diversity of opinion within the historicist camp, but at least we agree that the fulfillment of the Beast was not in the first century, and neither is it relegated to some distant future. So I can agree with the portion cited above. In the ellipses, Pastor Price includes “(in the revived eighth head of the Roman Empire that began in 800 a.d.)”. I am not yet persuaded of that.
What it really comes down to is the identification of the mortal head wound, and I know there have been many candidates for it. I believe that the division of the empire and the rise of the the papal antichrist took place a lot sooner than most other historicists, and therefore that the mortal head wound from which the beast recovered must have predated even the proposed wound of the end of the empire in 476 A.D.
Since the mortal head wound is only introduced in a context in which the Beast carries the attributes of the Danielic empires, it would seem to me that the head wound is in reference to one of the Seven Heads of Daniel 7: the Lion’s head, the Bear’s head, one of the four Leopard heads, or the fourth beast’s head—so it seems to me, based on the angel’s words, “And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death” (13:3). More thoughts on the scriptural support for that later.
Nevertheless, I do these posts interesting valuable, so thanks for your contributions,
Tim
Tim,
The link that Jim provided on “Theology of the Body” has a lot of videos on marriage and sexual issues. I started watching, “Mr. Christopher West: Theology of the Body and Our Lady of Fatima”.
http://tobinternationalsymposia.com/?p=361
It is VERY VERY interesting. I would encourage you to watch the first 42 minutes if you have the time as West gets into the key importance of the number 13 in regard to the lady of Fatima, and Pope JPII day he was shot, and how their lady was critical in saving the Pope.
Further, West goes on to discuss at length what JPII teaches on Tobias and Sarah in the bible. I’ve read the bible over 50 times and could not for the life of me think where this was in the Scripture that JPII has written about. I searched it on google, and found the following:
“The Book of Tobit (Book of Tobias in the Vulgate; from the Greek: Τωβιθ, and Hebrew: טובי Tobi “my good”, also called the Book of Tobias from the Hebrew טוביה Tovya “God is good”) is a book of scripture that is part of the Catholic and Orthodox biblical canon, pronounced canonical by the Council of Carthage of 397 and confirmed for Roman Catholics by the Council of Trent (1546).
Meanwhile, in faraway Media, a young woman named Sarah had prayed for death in despair. She had lost seven husbands to the demon of lust, Asmodeus, ‘the worst of demons’, who abducted and killed every man she married, on their wedding night before the marriage could be consummated. God sent the angel Raphael, disguised as a human, to heal Tobit and to free Sarah from the demon.
The main narrative is dedicated to Tobit’s son, Tobiah or Tobiyah (Greek: Τωβίας/Tobias), who was sent by his father to collect a sum of money that the latter had deposited some time previously in the far off land of Media. Raphael represented himself as Tobit’s kinsman Azariah, and offered to aid and protect Tobias on his journey. Under the guidance of Raphael, Tobias made the journey to Media, accompanied by his dog, and over the objection of Tobit’s wife Hannah, who was already discouraged by Tobit’s nagging.
Along the way, while washing his feet in the river Tigris, he was attacked by a fish which tried to swallow his foot. By order of the angel he captured it. The heart, liver and gall bladder were removed to make medicines, by order of Raphael.[7]
Upon arriving in Media, Raphael told Tobias of the beautiful Sarah, whom Tobias had the right to marry, because he was her cousin and closest relative. He instructed the young man to burn the fish’s liver and heart to drive away the demon when he attacks on the wedding night.
The two were married, and the fumes of the burning organs drove the demon away to Upper Egypt, while Raphael followed him and bound him. Meanwhile, Sarah’s father had been digging a grave to secretly bury Tobias (who he assumed would be dead). Surprised to find his son-in-law alive and well, he ordered a double-length wedding feast and had the grave secretly filled. Since he could not leave because of the feast, Tobias sent Raphael to recover his father’s money.
After the feast, Tobias and Sarah returned to Nineveh. There, Raphael told the youth to use the fish’s gall to cure his father’s blindness. Raphael then revealed his true identity and returned to heaven and Tobit sang a hymn of praise.
Tobit told his son to leave Nineveh before God destroys it according to prophecy (cf. the Book of Jonah). After the prayer, Tobit died at an advanced age.[8] After burying his father and mother, Tobias returned to Media with his family.”
Therefore, if you are able to take in the whole 42 minutes (out of the 1 hour, 6 minutes) of the video, you will get to hear this story about Tobias and how JPII integrates it into his teaching.
The issue of the number 13 and the book of Tobias outside the Canon is really fascinating. It is really incredible how the whole world follows after these signs, wonders, dreams and miracles.
Everything is a miracle in Rome that I never ever considered to this degree as I’m seeing now. I never saw this growing up, but now masses follow blindly all these miracles, and I can see now why the Protestant churches are attracting millions (billions) to follow these similar miracles, healings, signs, wonders, etc.
It is almost unbelievable if you had not started to expose this more publicly with your blog. I find it incredible that your blog only has the attention of 3-4 people posting…which proves how many Catholics really have no interest in these subjects that they need to come out of her my people…
It brings tears to my eyes to see so many carried away with every wind of doctrine as their entire faith is based upon sight and proof of miracles, and so little interest in the Holy Word of Scripture revealed to the world by God Himself.
Thanks, Walt,
I did watch the video, and was equally fascinated by West’s occupation with May 13th. West makes a comment toward the end on the “chaste embrace” between Anne & Joakim regarding the immaculate conception—something I used for my next post, which is on Rome’s flawed view of the incarnation.
Yes, Jim does provide some good material.
Tim
Walt,
Your silly mockery of the video I so graciously gifted you reveals 1. A total ignorance of the canon of scripture and 2. A total ignorance of how your denomination,under Anthony Comstock ( Presbyterian minister and legislator) led the charge against contraception being sold in America. Now you guys are all running around with condoms on your noses. Were you right then and wrong now or wrong then and right now?
Jim,
I’m sorry you thought my rebuke and sadness in watching the video was considered a silly mockery. It was not my intention to make you feel I was mocking his research. In fact, I found the use of 13 in his observations very fascinating, and a real miracle as he suggested. I was not trying to belittle him, you or the Pope being shot in any way, as murder (or attempted murder) of the Pope is absolutely against what I believe by a lone gunman who has no authority to murder anyone. Only a lawful civil magistrate has been given that right, and there are no lawful magistrates I see in our generation, and certainly none I’m aware that could bring the Pope up on charges of blasphemy and heresy with sufficient power to lawfully take his life. It is a non-issue that would never happen by any magistrate as far out as my eye can see.
I don’t know anything about a minister called Anthony Comstock. He certainly is not a reformed Presbyterian if he promoted or implemented legislation to remove contraception from civil society. He should be excommunicated from the Presbyterian church if found guilty, and he does not repent. However, I suspect his use of the label Presbyterian would be the same as that used formerly by Scott Hahn…both being ignorant of what true reformed Presbyterians teach and demand of their minsters.
Walt. You are so out of it!
Tim, This is amazing stuff.
Jim, you wrote:
“2. A total ignorance of how your denomination,under Anthony Comstock ( Presbyterian minister and legislator) led the charge against contraception being sold in America.”
Can you send me a link to your source information on this as I have not been able to find anything that supports your position?
Thanks.
No Walt, I don’t care to. Quit playing games. If you were involved in any prolife work at all you would know this stuff. Google it yourself. Educate yourself on something other than Scottish shortbread and hagith.
It’s like this cornball article of Tim’s. You silly guys are accusing the Church of being the wicked Whore o’ Babylon. Hysteria! This keeps you from having to confront the dragon that is crouched and ready to spring.
I did google him and what I found was the total opposite on Wikipedia and elsewhere that you claim. OPPOSITE.
First, he was never a Presbyterian minister. His wife’s father was a Presbyterian minister.
Second, he did not encourage abortion or contraception, but he was involved in helping to pass legislation that forbid use of pornography which is still on the books today.
Your not helpful to yourself on this site making so many false claims.
The Council of Nicaea in Canon 6 plainly singled out Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch as the three principal Sees. And this was affirmed in many of the following Councils as well. So if this is a bad thing, then your problem is goes back to at least the early fourth century, rather than the late fourth century.
And from our last discussion, you seemed to have opened up a huge flaw in your approach to Truth seeking when you said the choice to be Catholic or the choice to be Protestant were based on the same fideistic leap of faith. This is important because Christianity is not an anti-intellectual religion, and so the historical record is not insignificant when deciding whether to be Catholic or Protestant. Since the Ecumenical Councils represent the visible Church, one must either go along with what the Ecumenical Councils taught or they must claim the Church went apostate. If a person cannot affirm those are the only two options, then they’re blinded by the truth and their heart is probably too hard for rational discussion.
As for implying the Pope is the anti-Christ, it is curious to note that most Protestants have abandoned this charge, including official revisions to the Westminster Confession dropping this claim.
And lastly, not that we have to talk about it here, but I’m still holding out my challenge that Reformed theology has no answer to my Romans 4:6-8 claims.
Hi, Nick,
Thanks for your comment. As regards your comment on the canons of Nicæa, there is a substantive difference between the Council of Nicæa (325) and the Council of Rome (382). At Nicæa, there is no appeal to Petrine Primacy at all, and the direction of the Council is for the metropolitan to govern according to the local preferences, and that bishops be elected by majority vote within their respective provinces. Alexandria, Rome and Antioch are identified, but they are not, as you say, “singled out” as is evidenced by… the fact that they are not singled out. Here is the language of Canon VI on Nicæa:
Don’t miss the inclusion of multiple provinces beyond those three: “and the other provinces.” Not only does this not appeal to the relation of each province to Peter, it also establishes the practice of letting the different provinces mind their own business without fear of intervention from those bishops who might think too highly of themselves and meddle in matters under the jurisdiction of another bishop. If these three had been “singled out,” there would be no mention of other provinces beside these. That these were influential there is no doubt—and the very reason for the Canon was to ensure that they not become more influential than they ought. At this point I will only invite your attention to the fact that Canons IV and V instructed that procedures for electing bishops were up to each province (IV) and that if there is a question about readmitting those who have been excommunicated, the matter should be settled by a provincial synod (V). In that light, since Canon VI, which merely re-iterates the autonomy enjoyed by each province, including those beyond Alexandria, Rome and Antioch, and Canon VII indicates that the See of Jerusalem is to be honored as well, even though Peter was never a Pope there, Canon VI can hardly be said to have “singled out” three Petrine Sees. There simply is no mention of a Petrine relationship at all. To find it, one must first read it into the council.
The Council of Rome, on the other hand, “singled out” Three Petrine Sees on the basis of their alleged relationship to Peter, the purpose of which was to highlight the Petrine Primacy of Rome, and thereby to overturn Canon VI of Nicæa. Here is what Canon IV.3 of the Council of Rome had to say:
I submit for your consideration the fact that the two statements, “let each province mind its own business,” and “let everyone do what the Bishop of Rome says because of the three Petrine Sees, his has the primacy,” convey two vastly different sentiments. You continued,
I agree that Christianity is not anti-intellectual. I merely opined, and affirm here again, that Sola Ecclesia and Sola Scriptura are epistemologically equivalent in that each one begins with an Axiom—its first unprovable assumption. The only difference between them is the object of your faith. The object of your faith is the Church. The object of mine is the Word of God. Faith in your church cannot save you. You may have convinced yourself that “the historical record is not insignificant when deciding whether to be Catholic or Protestant,” but in practice all you have shown is that the historical record must be reinterpreted so that it conforms to your Axiom.
That is why I frequently remind you that your Axiom is showing. Your analysis of Nicæa, both on Petrine Primacy and on a celibate priesthood, indicate to me that you think you are merely deferring to “the historical record,” while in fact you are deferring to your Axiom, and then analyzing “the historical record” through that lens. I do not deny that I believe “the historical record” is fallible, and therefore must be read through the lens of, and judged by, Scripture—not the other way around. The Donation Of Constantine is proof enough of that. For many years, it was “the historical record.” You have no way of proving that the Roman Catholic Religion is any less a fraud perpetrated on the world than the Donation of Constantine was. And yet, you believe it to be the true Church. That is Sola Ecclesia. A leap of faith.
I cannot prove to you that Scripture is the Word of God and you cannot prove to me that the Roman Catholic Church is the Church established by Jesus Christ. Each axiom must be taken on what you call a “leap of faith.” If faith is in what is not seen, I agree, that I have taken a leap of faith in believing that the Bible alone is the Word of God.
Then I invite you to join me in recognizing that the Church of Rome went apostate when Canon IV of its Provincial council of 382 overturned Canon VI of Nicæa’s Ecumenical Council in 325. Or are you going to re-interpret Nicæa Canon VI to mean the opposite of what it said, in deference to a provincial council which is not infallible? That is your Axiom showing. You continued,
I am not yet persuaded that you have adequately reduced my options down to the two mutually exclusive positions you identify. You continued,
I have nowhere on this blog implied that the Pope is the Antichrist. Rather, I have stated it emphatically.
It is true “that most Protestants have abandoned this charge,” but as you may have already inferred, on this matter I am willing to stand apart from most Protestants, alone if necessary.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
I know a few more than a few that will stand with you on that issue…and do it with historical reformed Presbyterian testimony and more importantly, biblical testimony, to back us up. I can only share this with you to support you:
O Lord, thou knowest; remember me, and visit me, and revenge me of my persecutors; take me not away in thy long-suffering; know that for thy sake I have suffered rebuke. Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart; for I am called by thy name, O Lord God of hosts. I sat not in the assembly of the mockers, nor rejoiced; I sat alone because of thy hand: for thou hast filled me with indignation. Why is my pain perpetual, and my wound incurable, which refuseth to be healed? Wilt thou be altogether unto me as a liar, and as waters that fail?
Therefore saith the Lord, If thou return, then will I bring thee again, and thou shalt stand before me: and if thou take forth the precious from the vile, thou shalt be as my mouth: let them return unto thee; but return not thou unto them. And I will make thee unto this people a fenced brazen wall: and they shall fight against thee, but they shall not prevail against thee: for I am with thee to save thee and to deliver thee, saith the Lord. And I will deliver thee out of the hand of the wicked, and I will redeem thee out of the hand of the terrible. (Jer.15:15-21)
Object. 3. Do you the Dissenters think you are in the Right, and all the great and learned Ministers in this present Church in the Wrong? Sure we have both the greatest Men, and the greatest Number on our Side; you have only a few, and these of the weakest Sort, and your People are ignorant, &c.
Answ. 1. Though I would hope few should lay any Weight on this Objection; and it were enough to desire such who do lay Weight thereon to consider, John 7:47,48,49. with Mr Hutcheson’s Notes on that Chap. Yet I shall only say, That an impartial Observer will find that for most Part, in all Periods, God hath made Use of Nothings, not only to break the Ice to others, but to bear Testimony for Him: He hides from the Wise and Prudent, and reveals unto Babes: He makes the foolish Things of this World to confound the Wise, &c. Holy is our Sovereign, who doth what he will.
2. I own this Church hath the greatest Men, and the greatest Number on her Side; and so had the Jews in the Apostles Time; and so had the Papists at the Reformation, Revel. 13:3. The whole World wondered after the Beast and so have the Prelatists at this Day in Britain and Ireland. I wonder not to hear the old Cry, Have any of the Rulers, or of the Pharisees believed on him? What if they do not? Will it follow, that Dissenters must not believe? Little did the Chief Priests, Scribes and Pharisees, with the body of the Jewish Nation, think, that a few Men, Dissenters from the National Worship, were in the Right, and all they in the Wrong: They were so far from that Thought, that they counted them Ignorant, Deluded and Cursed; This People that know not the Law are cursed. If Christ’s Disciples were to go in the Way that the most or the greatest go, they might have no Cross to take up, which his Followers are sure to meet with.
3. When the Spirit of God would shew us how few they are that bear Witness to the Truths of Christ, he calls them two Witnesses, Rev. 11:3. to teach us not to choose our Religion by Multitudes, or reject Doctrines and precious Truths, because few believe and practice them; for that may be the right Way which few find, Matth. 7:14. and fewer care to walk in, when they know it.
4. I think they have little Reason to boast of their Multitudes, but rather to blush for their vain Conversation, and promiscuous Admission to Sealing Ordinances; for Multitudes of graceless Professors do but disgrace any Profession, and keep ferious Christians out of their Communion. (Andrew Clarkson, Plain Reasons for Presbyterians Dissenting from the Revolution Church of Scotland. Also, Their Principles Concerning Civil Government, and the Difference Betwixt the Reformation and Revolution Principles, 1731, page 185, emphasis added)
Walt,
I’m asking you the same question I asked Kevin about identifying the Pope with the Antichrist as per 2 Thessalonians 2.
(1) Why is the text speaking of a time shortly before the Second Coming of Christ, and yet the Pope has been around for 1500 years, including 500 years after the Reformation?
(2) Why does the text say the Antichrist “takes his seat in the temple of God” if the Roman Catholic Church was never a true Church?
(3) Why do you identify the “man of sin” as the “antichrist” when the term “antichrist” only appears in 1st & 2nd John?
(4) Why do you say the “man of sin” is a continuous succession of over 100 Popes or even abstract office when the text suggests this is a *single* specific individual?
(5) When does the Pope claim to be God in an unequivocal manner and why does the Pope recite the Nicene Creed every Sunday if the “man of sin” is supposed to be blatantly sinister? Surely the Antichrist would be espousing a Trinitarian heresy first and foremost?
Nick,
Let me try to take a shot at your questions. See below. I’m quoting from some sermons as this study has recently been completed…your timing is perfect.
———————
Walt,
I’m asking you the same question I asked Kevin about identifying the Pope with the Antichrist as per 2 Thessalonians 2.
(1) Why is the text speaking of a time shortly before the Second Coming of Christ, and yet the Pope has been around for 1500 years, including 500 years after the Reformation?
When is the Second Coming of Christ in your opinion? Here is the historicist view:
B. However, not only is there no mention of a resurrection in Revelation 19:11-21, but the resurrection of the dead (both Christians and non-Christians) is revealed to occur (not BEFORE the millennium) but rather AFTER the millennium just before the Final Judgment (Revelation 20:11-15). Since the bodily resurrection of the dead occurs at the same time as the bodily Second Coming of Christ (as we just noted in 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17), and since the Final Judgment also occurs at the same time as the bodily Second Coming of Christ (as we see in Matthew 25:31ff.), we must necessarily infer that the bodily Second Coming of Christ is revealed AFTER the millennium (i.e. Postmillennial) rather than BEFORE the millennium (i.e. Premillennial). I would also infer Christ’s bodily Second Coming from the words that are found in Revelation 20:9b-10 (for Christ’s bodily Second Coming is said in other places to be associated with fire or lightning, as we see in Matthew 24:27; 2 Thessalonians 2:7-10; 2 Peter 3:10-12).
—————
(2) Why does the text say the Antichrist “takes his seat in the temple of God” if the Roman Catholic Church was never a true Church?
“So that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God” 2 Thessalonians 2:4b.
How precise is the fulfillment of Paul’s prophecy in the Papal Antichrist, for the Pope claims to teach infallibly in matters of faith and morals when he speaks from his chair (ex cathedra) of supreme authority over all Christians. That is exactly what Paul states concerning the Son of Perdition as well—once again an unmistakable match between the Son of Perdition and the Papal Antichrist. The following declaration comes from Vatican l (which opened December 8, 1869, and adjourned October 20, 1870).
We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra [i.e. from the chair—GLP], that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable [i.e. they cannot be reformed—GLP] (Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesia Christi, c. iv). [Emphases added in bold—GLP]
———–
(3) Why do you identify the “man of sin” as the “antichrist” when the term “antichrist” only appears in 1st & 2nd John?
The Westminster Confession of Faith reads:
There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God.
The American Revision (adopted by the OPC, PCA) reads:
There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof.
The Apostle Paul has taken a photo (if you will) of the Antichrist and has posted in this inspired letter of
2 Thessalonians Chapter 2 a verbal description of Antichrist. I believe many sincere professing Christians have made a similar error in regard to Paul’s description of Antichrist. Many have taken Paul’s descriptive “photo” of Antichrist and have said, “This is Nero from the first century.” Others have identified Paul’s descriptive “photo” of Antichrist as a future Islamic Mahdi, or as a future worldwide political leader (whether Jewish or Gentile). But, I submit, that all of these are as clearly a case of culpable mistaken identity as was that of the news network which wrongly associated the young man with the terrorist viewed from the security cams. For none of these aforementioned characters look like the descriptive “photo” of Antichrist given to us by Paul (in 2 Thessalonians 2). Consider the descriptive “photo” thus far given to us by Paul.
Description #1: Antichrist will be revealed BEFORE the gathering of the Church to Christ at His bodily Second Coming of Christ, and not revealed AFTER that glorious event (“for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition” 2 Thessalonians 2:3). This biblical description of Antichrist demonstrates that the Futurist’s view of a future Antichrist (whether an Islamic Mahdi or a global world leader of Jewish or Gentile origin) who will be manifested AFTER the Rapture of the Church to be in error.
Description #2: Antichrist will proceed out of a Great Apostasy (i.e. a Great Falling Away from biblical faithfulness) from WITHIN the Visible Church (“except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition” 2 Thessalonians 2:3). Neither a Nero of the Preterists, nor an Islamic Mahdi or a global political leader of the Futurists, will have their respective “Antichrists” proceeding out of a Great Falling Away from soundness of doctrine, from purity of worship, and from rightly administered Church government from WITHIN the Visible Church.
Description #3: Antichrist will be like Judas (both of whom are called “the Son of Perdition”—Judas in John 17:12 and Antichrist in 2 Thessalonians 2:3) in claiming apostolic authority from WITHIN the Visible Church, in claiming to follow and represent Christ, in claiming to teach and preach Christ, and will (like Judas) betray Christ with a kiss of friendship. This is not true of a past Nero, or a future Islamic Mahdi, or a future global political leader (who is a Jew or a Gentile).
Description #4: Antichrist will claim to sit as visible head of the Church upon earth from WITHIN the Visible Church, usurping the titles, offices, and prerogatives of Christ, as Mediator and God (“so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God [i.e. Church of God—GLP], showing himself that he is God” 2 Thessalonians 2:4). Daniel and John add that Antichrist will rule for 1,260 years (Daniel 7:25; Revelation 11:1-2), which time period has been addressed in previous sermons. This is not true of Nero, nor will it be true of a future Mahdi or a future global political leader (whether a Jew or a Gentile).
——————
(4) Why do you say the “man of sin” is a continuous succession of over 100 Popes or even abstract office when the text suggests this is a *single* specific individual?
The Westminster Confession of Faith reads:
There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God.
The American Revision (adopted by the OPC, PCA) reads:
There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof.
—————-
(5) When does the Pope claim to be God in an unequivocal manner and why does the Pope recite the Nicene Creed every Sunday if the “man of sin” is supposed to be blatantly sinister? Surely the Antichrist would be espousing a Trinitarian heresy first and foremost?
The following excerpt occurs on the official Vatican website, under a description of the Coat of Arms for the present Pope, Benedict XVI.
On the other hand, there is also a completely new symbol in the arms [i.e. the coat of arms—GLP] of Pope Benedict XVI: the “pallium”. It is not part of the tradition, at least in recent years, for the Supreme Pontiffs to include it in their arms.
Yet the pallium is the typical liturgical insignia of the Supreme Pontiff and frequently appears in ancient portrayals of Popes. It stands for the Pope’s responsibility as Pastor of the flock entrusted to him by Christ.
In early centuries the Popes used a real lambskin draped over their shoulders. This was later replaced by a stole of white wool woven with the pure wool of lambs reared specially for the purpose. It was decorated with several crosses that were generally black in the early centuries, or occasionally red. Already by the fourth century the pallium had become a liturgical symbol proper to and characteristic of the Pope.
The Pope’s conferral of the pallium upon Metropolitan Archbishops began in the sixth century. Their obligation to postulate [i.e. to claim—GLP] the pallium after their appointment is attested as far back as the
ninth century.
In the famous long iconographic series of medallions in St Paul’s Basilica that portrays all the Popes of history (the earliest portrayals are idealized), many Supreme Pontiffs are shown wearing the pallium, especially those between the fifth and 14th centuries.
The pallium is therefore not only the symbol of Papal jurisdiction, but also the explicit and brotherly sign of sharing this jurisdiction with the Metropolitan Archbishops, and through them, with their suffragan [i.e auxiliary—GLP] Bishops.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/elezione/stemma-benedict-xvi_en.html
Tim,
“The object of your faith is the Church. ”
So you don’t recite the Creed then? I thought you guys did.
Has Bill Webster been kibbitzing you on this stuff Tim? I smell the sulphur of his “scholarship” here.
Nick, Incidentally, I am one who stands with Tim and many others who believe that the Pope is antichrist. As a 17t century theologian once said those that do not see this have a strong delusion over them. The night that Pope Eugenius II made it a law to kiss the feet of the Pope should be all the proof one needs. A man who puts himself up in the church as God, the very person described in Thessalonians as the son of perdition. A mere sinner as ourselves us usurping the titles of the Trinity.. Spurrgeon said ” Of all the dreams that have ever deluded men, and off all the blasphemies that have ever been uttered in all manner of mischief, is that the bishop of rome could be the head of the church on earth. No, these Popes die, and how could the church live if its head were dead.” Nick, and you have no answer to Ephesians 2:8 and Romans 4:5. How can you get around “not that of yourselves” and not a result of works”. So I can’t wait till we have the discussion to see you try to smuggle your character into God’s work of grace. Hope you are well Nick.
Kevin,
If you’re really wanting to make a Biblical case, explain how 2 Thessalonians 2 is referring to the Pope is the Antichrist given the following details:
(1) Why is the text speaking of a time shortly before the Second Coming of Christ, and yet the Pope has been around for 1500 years, including 500 years after the Reformation?
(2) Why does the text say the Antichrist “takes his seat in the temple of God” if the Roman Catholic Church was never a true Church?
(3) Why do you identify the “man of sin” as the “antichrist” when the term “antichrist” only appears in 1st & 2nd John?
(4) Why do you say the “man of sin” is a continuous succession of over 100 Popes or even abstract office when the text suggests this is a *single* specific individual?
(5) When does the Pope claim to be God in an unequivocal manner and why does the Pope recite the Nicene Creed every Sunday if the “man of sin” is supposed to be blatantly sinister? Surely the Antichrist would be espousing a Trinitarian heresy first and foremost?
Tim,
The Primacy of Rome is evident in Canon 6 if you look at it properly (see below), but Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch are most certainly singled out in this Canon by the very fact they are named while “the others” are merely left generic. It’s not an insignificant detail, and it fits quite nicely with the other claims (e.g. of Gregory) that Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch are the Big 3.
Nothing in the wording of Canon 6 suggests all Bishops are on the same level. In fact, by C6 saying a Metropolitan has authority over who can even be made bishop within his jurisdiction, this signifies a Metropolitan holds authority above that of a standard bishop.
The “other provinces” were in reference to much smaller areas where special arrangements had been customary. This is what happened for Canon 7 when Aelia was raised to a special place of honor, since that was formerly the site of Jerusalem before it was sacked by the Romans. And that’s the key to reading the canon: established customs were in place for which Bishops governed what jurisdictions, be they big or small.
Here are some proofs that Canon 6 of Nicaea is speaking of Roman Primacy:
(1) The wording of the Canon does not confine Roman jurisdiction to any specific tracts of land, as it does for Alexandria. The Canon does not confine the Bishop of Rome to any territory.
(2) The Canon says let the Bishop of Alexandria rule over Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis as per *ancient custom*, and this ancient custom comes from the Bishop of Rome. In other words ‘because it is customary for the Bishop of Rome to grant the Bishop of Alexandria this jurisdiction, let that ancient custom remain’. What you and others are doing is reading Canon 6 as if it were saying “Let the Bishop of Alexandria rule over Egypt, *because* the Bishop of Rome is also a Patriarch.” Or even “Let the Bishop of Alexandria rule over Egypt, *because* the Bishop of Rome rules over Italy.” That’s a wrong way to read the canon, most especially because it’s a fallacious non-sequitor argument. Just because Rome rules over X says nothing about why Alexandria should rule over Y and/or Z.
(3) The Second Ecumenical Council, held 50 years after Nicaea, says in Canon 2 that”Because it is new Rome, the bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy the privileges of honour after the bishop of Rome.” This indicates that Rome was seen as the Top Dog and would make no sense if Rome was just one of many nor if equal to Alex/Antioch.
(4) Further, the Second Ecumenical Council says in Canon 3 that:
Notice that Alexandria’s jurisdiction is named, and Antioch’s jurisdiction is named, along with the jurisdictions of “other provinces”. But what is conspicuously absent is any reference to The Bishop of Rome and his jurisdictions. That’s significant, and the reason why is because it was understood that the Bishop of Rome wasn’t confined to Italy.
Given your misreading of Canon 6, the other objections you made about Catholicism being in conflict with this Canon are effectively moot.
============================
You responded by saying “I agree that Christianity is not anti-intellectual,” and yet you (again) reduce the issue down to an “unprovable assumption”. This is absurd and plainly anti-intellectual, as you’re not providing a principled basis by which you even go with Scripture Alone to begin with. Without an *intellectual* (i.e. Rational, Principled) basis by which to accept Scripture *in the first place*, then your starting position is by definition anti-intellectual.
There is nothing wrong with reading a historic document or Scripture through a given lens, and in fact such is required. The question of WHICH lens is not a mere leap of faith. (I did misread the Nicene Canon on celibate priesthood, that was a mistake on my part regarding the term subintroducta, but not the fault of my lens.)
The very fact you say “I cannot prove to you that Scripture is the Word of God” shows that the real problem between us is much more severe that what you’re making it out to be. Logically speaking, you could just as well have said: “I cannot prove that the Book of Mormon is the Word of God “but I take a leap of faith and accept it as the word of God.” The problem is that you’re blindly following a book claiming to be inspired, which is outrageous and intellectual by definition. It’s dangerous Tim, and I’d hope you don’t really mean what you’re saying, even though you’ve repeated this in two separate threads.
As for the Ecumenical Councils, I’m making a straightforward logical argument: either they taught heresy or they taught orthodoxy. If heresy, then the visible church as per the historical record was apostate. If orthodoxy, then the visible Church per the available historical record is the same Church you also embrace.
============================
As for the Pope being the Anti-Christ, I agree that this is an “essential” Protestant teaching, and I’m glad you’re brave enough to stand by such convictions, because without the Anti-Christ charge the Reformation loses its credibility. But given that Pope-as-Antichrist a minority position in conservative Protestantism does pose a problem, especially if you’re Confessional. If most conservative Protestants don’t see Pope-as-Antichrist clearly in Scripture, then that’s not a negligible detail when it comes to your claim of clearly seeing it in Scripture. And if the White Horse Inn embraces the modified Westminster Confession, then you’re in direct conflict with major WHI leaders.
Exegetically speaking, for you to identify the Pope as the Antichrist is not an easy task, for the following reasons.
First, the Antichrist is supposed to come shortly before the Second Coming of Christ. And yet you would have us believe the Antichrist has been on the scene (at least) 1000 years before Luther and 500 years after Luther. So this doesn’t align with Antichrist as an Apocalyptic figure. The original Protestants thought the End of the Word was at hand, but as the centuries went by many of them had to abandon the Pope-as-Antichrist to save face.
Secondly, the Antichrist is to arise from *within* the true Church, which is impossible if Rome never was a true Church (and even more embarrassing if the true Church has been under his control for 1500 years).
Thirdly, to my knowledge the term “Antichrist” only appears a few times, all in 1st John and 2nd John, not in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 or anywhere else. So it’s somewhat sloppy (if not invalid) to not quote those texts and show how they tie into 2 Thessalonians when linking the Papacy with the “Antichrist”, because then you’re making an identification that the Bible is not making.
Fourthly, the Antichrist (Man of Sin) seems to be a *single* person, not an office, not a succession of people over 1500 years (75% of Christian history).
Fifthly, there doesn’t appear to be any substantial historical testimony from 400 till 1500 of people calling the Pope the Antichrist, which either means the whole church was deceived or that there is an undocumented underground true Church.
Hi, Nick, thanks.
Your argument on the Primacy of Rome from Canon VI of Nicæa fails for the simple reason that even Pope Gregory understood that “ancient customs” could not possibly originate “from the Bishop of Rome.” As he plainly acknowledges, Antioch and Alexandria were established first and Rome was established last. The more “ancient” the custom, the more it excludes Roman origination. Your reading of Canon VI is incorrect. Your next point was that,
I don’t deny that Rome was claiming primacy by the end of the Fourth Century—the very point of this blog post. However, I will only invite you to revisit the history of this council. This (Canon III) was one of the Canons of Constantinople of which the Pope of Rome was not aware, and when he heard of it, he did not acknowledge its authority. You can read more about that here. It is a difficult proposition to make that Constantinople I was truly Ecumenical when Pope Leo I at Chalcedon objected because he was not aware of several of the canons that had been approved there. You continued,
Again, I invite your attention to the history of this council. It was an Eastern Council, and was not declared Ecumenical until Chalcedon in 451. In other words, even those attending were not aware that it was an ecumenical council. They were addressing Eastern Provinces only: Alexandria, Antioch, Asia, Pontus and Thrace are all Eastern provinces. Using the fact that Constantinople I only addresses Eastern provinces as proof that Rome’s bishopric was universal is to divorce Constantinople I from its context and history, which as I mentioned before, is evidence of your Axiom. On another point, you wrote,
I mean exactly what I said, Nick. The problem you have is that “you are blindly following a church claiming to be established by Christ,” and don’t even realize that that is equally “outrageous,” by your own standard. The Westminster confession states of the Scripture, and I agree, that “We may be moved … [by] the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole …, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof,” etc., etc., etc., “yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts” (I.V). In other words, we take The Scriptures to be Axiomatic.
Try as one may to prove that it is the Word of God, the actual reason we believe is not because any proof is sufficient, but because the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness with the Word divinely implanted in our hearts. That Mormons trust the Book of Mormon and Roman Catholics trust the Church is not proof that my position is illogical. Rather it is evidence of the sovereignty of God as plainly revealed in the Scriptures, which God opens the hearts of those whom He is pleased to redeem (Acts 16:14), and sends a strong delusion upon the rest (2 Thessalonians 2:11).
What you don’t realize is that the attributes that elicit the cries of “outrageous” and “anti-intelectual” about my position are actually the very attributes of your own epistemology. That is why I insist, and maintain now, that, epistemologically speaking, Sola Scriptura and Sola Ecclesia are equivalent. The ONLY DIFFERENCE is the object of your faith. The object of your faith is a Church that calls the eastern council of Constantinople I “ecumenical” 70 years after the fact, and then uses it as proof of Rome’s primacy because the “ecumenical” council did not specify the boundaries of a western province. The same church that used the Donation of Constantine to justify its claims on the Western Roman Empire. That is the object of your faith.
There is more to be said bout your other arguments on Antichrist, and I’ll try to address them tomorrow.
Best regards,
Tim
Tim,
The claim that Alex/Antioch were established first doesn’t mean their jurisdiction was not confirmed at their founding by Peter or confirmed some time afterwards by Peter or by a later Pope. The Canon merely says the Bishop of Rome confirms this ancient custom, saying nothing specifically about when it began or whether Peter or a Successor first laid out the precise jurisdictions. So your reasoning here is weak and fallacious.
Again, the wording and logic of the canon does not mean/read “Let Alexandria rule Egypt because the Bishop of Rome is also a Patriarch.” That’s neither in the grammar nor a logical statement.
I agree that the Council of Constantinople 1 was not immediately recognized as Ecumenical until many decades later (so it was only seen as a Regional Council at first), but the point remains that it was a historical event taking place 50 years after Nicaea, and so we can see how they received Nicaea’s teachings and understood them. And two things they understood were (1) Rome was Top Dog, and (2) Canon 6 laid out jurisdictions for Alexandria, Antioch, and ‘other provices’, but nothing about Rome. So yes, while Rome did not come to accept certain Canons of Constantinople 1, that’s irrelevant to my point. (Rome didn’t accept certain canons because the canons sought to elevate Constantinople to a status not authorized, since Constantinople wasn’t an Apostolic See as Rome/Alex/Antioch were.)
And to say the Council was addressing Eastern Provinces only is begging the question, since they already spoke of Rome being Top Dog and reference Canon 6 which does mention Rome. Plus, Alexandria isn’t technically East (as even the canon 3 suggests, distinguishing Egypt from East, as well as talking about ‘barbarian’ regions). The broad distinction of East-West only came about much later, and even then it was not accurate because the Coptic and Syriac churches that split at Chalcedon are not supposed to be lumped in the with the Greek-speaking churches.
So you have not at all proved a non-Papist reading of Canon 6, as both the language of the Canon and future interpretations (both Papal and Conciliar) is against you. But even if you want to deny Roman Primacy, the fact remains Canon 6 testifies that Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch were key Patriarchates prior to AD325, which means you have to move your “late 4th century” date at least a century prior, if not further.
=============================
Regarding your Presuppositionalist position of blindly accepting the Scriptures, you are *not* making a rational or fair argument if you’re going to say ‘well, Catholics are also blindly following something’. Just because you think Catholics jump off an intellectual cliff does not warrant you to jump off an intellectual cliff as well. That’s just insane. That’s a purely reactionary/negative approach to truth.
Tim, if I am blindly following the Church, then your job is to point out that such is a stupid thing for a Catholic to do and say nobody should blindly follow anything. Your job isn’t to make blindly following an acceptable starting point that you can also apply to yourself.
When you say “We [Protestants] take The Scriptures to be Axiomatic,” you’re really just espousing is Fideism, which is irrational by definition. And it’s worse than that, because what you’re even saying is that you take not just the Scriptures, but specifically Sola Scriptura as an Axiom, which is a direct violation of Sola Scriptura. The fact is, taking “The Scriptures” as “axiomatic” fails by the very fact “The Scriptures,” namely ‘These 66 Books,’ didn’t always exist, meaning that your Axiom wasn’t even valid during the Apostolic Age. How outrageous to think an Axiom that didn’t apply to the Apostles somehow now applies to future Christians.
Your claim that God opens the hearts of the elect and closes the hearts of the rest sounds good on the surface, but when it comes to ‘the elect’ coming to a consensus on what God’s Word means, suddenly there’s not the clarity originally assumed. And really, since your Presuppositional position is by definition Irrational, a Mormon could have said exactly what you said, namely that God enlightened his heart and closed yours, and that’s all there is to Religion.
The fact all you can say is that epistemologically speaking SS and SE are equivalent isn’t positive proof for your position at all. At it says it that proof is irrelevant for you, or at least that the only proof is a supernatural enlightening that not everyone receives. At that point, it’s astonishing that the Holy Spirit would single you out as special but leave you hanging with so many exegetical problems.
How can you even stoop down to making fun (a caricature in fact) of the Donation of Constantine and Constantinople 1 on *historical grounds* when your *entire position* is that FACTS DON’T MATTER (SS and SE are both Presuppositions), and only the special illumination of the Holy Spirit matters? I don’t get it. If facts matter, in this case historical facts, then YOU are in fact saying you reject SE at least partly because it contradicts historical facts. In other words, you used Reason to reject the Catholic source, and yet you are also saying Reason plays no part in the matter (since it’s Axiomatic). Logically speaking, you cannot have it both ways.
===========================
I await your response to the above issues as well as your forthcoming response on your logical/exegetical problems of linking the Papacy to the Man of Sin.
Thanks, Nick,
The ecclesiastical jurisdictions fell within the boundaries of the civil dioceses set up by Diocletian. The Diocese of the East originally included Egypt and its principal city, Alexandria. Thus, Alexandria was originally “eastern.” The decision to separate it into two (Diocese of the East, and Diocese of Egypt) was of uncertain date, but around 381 A.D., nearly or roughly contemporaneous with the Council of Constantinople. So Alexandria was not only “technically East” at the time, it was formally East as well.
There is much more to be said, but I wish to point out that you originally claimed, “The Canon says let the Bishop of Alexandria rule over Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis as per *ancient custom*, and this ancient custom comes from the Bishop of Rome.” Now you’re saying, “The Canon merely says the Bishop of Rome confirms this ancient custom, saying nothing specifically about when it began or whether Peter or a Successor first laid out the precise jurisdictions.”
I hope you (and our readers) can appreciate with me the subtle shift in your position. First the Canon says “the ancient custom comes form the Bishop of Rome,” and now it says nothing about whether the ancient custom comes from the Bishop of Rome. It is hard to hit a moving target, and your arguments are in full motion.
By the way, I have never said “facts don’t matter.” Facts do matter. The ones that matter most, and the ones that are truly infallible, are the facts stated or implied in Scripture.
But when you argue as you do—shifting from one untenable claim to another (i.e., Alexandria wasn’t eastern, the canon says the custom comes from the Bishop of Rome, the Canon says the custom does not come from the Bishop of Rome)—it is clear to me that the only “fact” that matters to you is “the Church,” and no matter how many ways you have to shift and turn in your arguments, that is, and must be, the only fact left standing.
Best regards,
Tim
Tim,
What you’re calling a “subtle shift” in my position is nothing substantial, just something requiring more careful wording on my part. I would hope you’re more concerned about the plausibility/merits of a position rather than scoring points on technicalities.
Again, you reading the Canon 6 as saying something along the lines of “Let the Bishop of Alexandria rule over Egypt since it is customary for the Bishop of Rome to be a Patriarch” is nonsense grammatically and logically. Why should who rules Egypt be based upon the Bishop of Rome being a Patriarch? Where’s the logic?
There was an ancient custom stating that the Bishop of Alexandria rule over those three lands. Now what does the inclusion of “since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also” refer to? The “customary” with respect to the Bishop of Rome must logically refer to the Bishop of Rome either affirming or granting that same or an similar custom. No need to get caught up in word games or technicalities. Please realize the substance of what I’m saying. And please realize that an interpretation along the lines of “since the Bishop of Rome is also a Patriarch” is a non-sequitor in regards to who rules what territories elsewhere.
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make about Alexandria originally being part of the East if you’re also going to say that it was formally separated at the time of Constantinople 1, since at that point you must logically say that Constantinople1 Canon 3 was not focusing strictly on the East by it’s inclusion of (no longer Eastern) Alexandria.
=========================
Now in regards to my charge that “facts don’t matter,” I’ve been trying to make it clear that is what you are *effectively* saying (whether you realize it or not), at least when it comes to your choice of SS versus SE. Otherwise you need to stop using the language of ‘leap of faith’ and stop saying Catholics are also making an unprincipled Axiomatic leap so that you’re free to do so also.
What you’re espousing is basically Reformed Presuppositionalism (which not all Reformed embrace, e.g. RC Sproul does not). The way you’re saying that Sola Scriptura is Axiomatic is fideistic, and thus devoid of Reason by definition. So for logical consistency sake, stop trying to tear down Sola Ecclesia by appealing to historical facts only to turn around and say Sola Ecclesia is embraced Axiomatically. For something to be Axiomatic it means it must be actually true and thus *logically* everything else must conform to it. Two contradictory Axioms cannot both be true at the same time, and instead at least ONE of them is NOT an axiom at all, but an error.
You cannot say there are two conflicting Axioms on the table, SE and SS. That’s not possible, logically speaking. At least one of them is not an Axiom at all.
And Sola Scriptura cannot be an Axiom without violating the very definition of Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura teaches ‘all essential doctrines are plainly taught in Scripture’, which would require the Bible somewhere to state in one way or another ‘all essential doctrines are plainly taught in Scripture’. What you are saying is that the claim ‘all essential doctrines are taught in Scripture’ is not something taught in Scripture but rather presumed to be true (i.e. Axiomatic).
Nick, you responded,
A matter of perspective, I suppose. When I highlighted the fact that Canon VI says everyone needs to mind their own business within their jurisdiction, you responded that I had misread it because Canon VI was appealing to the ancient custom derived from the Bishop of Rome. When I pointed out that it is Rome’s own position that “ancient customs” on intra-diocesan matters cannot possibly be in deference to an “ancient custom” from Rome because the Sees of Antioch and Alexandria were more ancient than Rome, you suddenly decided that what Canon VI meant is that Rome has the primacy, irrespective of antiquity. That’s pretty substantial, Nick. What it comes down to is, irrespective of any facts that are brought to the table, they simply need to be re-interpreted in light of your Axiom. I get that. Someday you will, too. What is ironic is that you believe you have arrived at your conclusions on the Church based on your objective analysis of the historical record (facts), but the reality is that you have arrived at your conclusions on the historical record based on your assumption that the Roman Church is the true Church—that is, your leap of faith. Your faith is in the Church. I get that. Someday you will, too.
I do not approach the Canon with your Axiom. That’s the logic. Your Axiom demands that you read into Canon VI a Nicæan (early Church) deference to the Primacy of Rome. If that were historically valid, there would be no reason for Rome (either through the Council in 382 A.D., or through Gregory, or through Benedict XVI), to argue for Petrine primacy of Rome by paying homage to Alexandria and Antioch. It shouldn’t even be necessary. But historical facts have to be reinterpreted through the Lens of Roman Primacy, and some facts are inescapable—not the least of which is that the Roman Calendar has had a Feast of the Chair of St. Peter at Antioch since the 500s, but the Feast of the Chair of St. Peter at Rome came 1000 years later. I have no doubt that if the Feast of Peter’s chair in Rome predated that of Antioch, it would be “evidence” of Roman Primacy. But since it was 1,000 years later, it is evidence that Roman Primacy was assumed all that time.
If the purpose is for everyone to do as Rome does, why would the Canon begin, “Let the customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail…” Shouldn’t it say, rather, “Let the customs in Rome prevail … “? Well, a lot of ink has been spilled on this, and not because the Canon so clearly confers authority on Rome. Ink has been spilled because that is not clear at all. You continued,
I did not say that at all. I said the division of the two Diocese was contemporaneous (not simultaneous), that is, circa 381, the same year as the Council. My point was that at the time of the Council, people in the Roman (civil) government were busy on another continent thinking through the implications and benefits of redistricting, and splitting Diocese of the East into two Dioceses. Lacking e-mail and telephones, I seriously doubt Constantinople shifted on a dime and said, “We just received a telegraph from Rome that Egypt is a Western Diocese.” Going into the Council, Alexandria was probably still stinging from the incursion, earlier that century, of some Bishops from Asia Minor who had entered their province and ordained bishops illegally. So when the Canon begins with, “Diocesan bishops are not to intrude in churches beyond their own boundaries nor are they to confuse the churches: but in accordance with the canons, the bishop of Alexandria is to administer affairs in Egypt only…,” it can be safely read that the Canon was intended to preserve the integrity of the authority of the Alexandrian bishop, because, “Unless invited, bishops are not to go outside their diocese to perform an ordination or any other ecclesiastical business.” There is no need to read Roman Primacy into this Canon, as you have. You continued,
I am not saying that at all, and I have never said that. Only one of us is saying his position is epistemologically superior: Nick. I am not saying Rome has made an unprincipled Axiomatic leap, and therefore Sola Scriptura is acceptable. What I am saying, and what I have said all along, is that Sola Ecclesia is no epistemologically superior as you claim. If it were, you would be able to tell me whether Humanæ Vitæ was infallible. But you cannot. You do understand the difference, don’t you, between saying, “Sola Scriptura is not epistemologically inferior to Sola Ecclsia,” and “Sola Scriptura is epistemologically superior to Sola Ecclesia”? Surely you understand those are not equivalent statements.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
I found a very interesting admission from the Second-In-Command at White Horse Inn, Kim Riddlebarger. In his 2006 book “The Man of Sin: Uncovering the Truth about the Antichrist,” he covers this very issue on pages 171-172 (available as preview online) under the section that deals with 2 Thessalonians 2 and the heading is “The Man of Lawlessness. Is He the Pope?“:
Riddlebarger does go onto say that there are ‘elements of antichrist’ in the Papacy, but that’s a far cry from a direct equating of the two.
Nick,
This is an interesting objection from someone who takes Christ’s words (Matthew 16:17-18) to mean that He established His Church upon Peter—a single individual human being—and then extrapolates it to mean that Jesus built His Church upon a series of individual human beings who claim to be his successors.
Why do you object to the Man of Sin being a series of individual men occupying a specific office, but have no problem understanding the man upon whom Christ was alleged to build His church to be a series of individual men occupying a specific office?
Your objection is noted, as is your inconsistency.
I have no affiliation with White Horse Inn. The fact that many Protestants are walking away from the historical understanding that Rome is the Antichrist is one reason I started this blog. I am quite aware of the fact.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
There’s nothing that automatically rules out that succession is possible, it all depends on the situation/context/etc. In the Peter situation, the Church has a succession of leadership and a passing on of the keys. It’s not really controversial to say that all pastors, even Protestant ones, claim some type of continuity from the pastoral office of the Apostles. You may not agree with that or have a different interpretation, but that’s not really the point here.
In this case, the Man of Sin seems to be someone who appears shortly before the Second Coming and acts as the ultimate sinister opponent, so there’s little reason to assume it’s a succession of false teachers in a specific false office for the last 1500 years. And more interestingly, the world has always hated the Pope and Catholics, as even today we see Catholics persecuted more than Protestants, so the idea that the Man of Sin is the Papacy seems a huge stretch. The Catholic Church teaches a morality that’s totally opposed to the world, so again, it’s ironic that the Man of Lawlessness as Pope actually has too many moral laws rather than too few.
I’m *not* ruling out that you could make a case, but I’m not automatically granting it (just as you don’t automatically grant Petrine succession). So there is nothing inconsistent about what I said. I hope you’re not committing the fallacy of ‘succession in one situation demands succession in every situation’.
I do await your full response to the problematic exegetecal and logical problems you face in identifying the Pope with the Man of Sin of 2 Thess 2. It’s one of those things that, in my experience, starts to unravel pretty quickly once you scratch the surface (which is why most conservative Protestants, even the most anti-Catholic ones, have distanced themselves from equating Pope with Man of Sin.)
Nick, thanks for your response. I will take your points one by one. 1. If you continue on it says that ” the mystery of this lawlessness is already at work” Paul was warning them that it was already at work in the young church. It is being restrained by God’s power. The revealing hasn’t happened yet, but he is at work now. I John backs this up telling us to test the spirits for the spirit of antichrist is now at work. 2. The Roman catholic church is not the catholic church for this very reason that the Pope has put himself up in the church as God. I think you have read Tim’s posts which has defined this. He has usurped the offices of the Trinity.He is the man of sin because he is an adversary of Christ concocting doctrines which oppose the gospel.He opposes god’s law. 2 Timothy 4:1 describes this falling away from sound doctrine. 3. It is understood in theological exegesis that the antichrist and “man of sin” and” little horn” ” the prince who is to come” ” the beast” etc. a real person in future times. 4. I think I answered this in number one. He is being restrained and has not yet been fully revealed. So the Reformers believed that Popery was antichrist and it had already taken place in the church but not the final antichrist. Actually the Papal succession fills this very well. 5. Your assertion that the man of sin has to be sinister ins sorrily mistaken. Since the person takes his place in the Temple as God. This man will look religious and be supportive of religion so that God and Christ will not appear his enemies until the final apostasy. Tim does a great piece here on how the early fathers were in fact worried that it would come from from within and they wouldn’t see it. Nick, my personal view is Roman Catholics are under the strong delusion that scripture talks about, the people who are under his power. The veil which has not been removed. The scripture says Satan makes good look evil and evil look good. This is RC. I am thankful to the early church for the truths which they gave us, but Roman Catholicism is the antithesis in very way. For instance, scripture says no works in justification, Rome says works, Scripture says one mediator, Rome other mediators, Scripture says you can know that you have eternal life 1 John 5:13, Rome says no. Scripture says Mary was a humble bond salve who called God her savior and had children, Rome says she is sinless, queen of heaven, co mediatrix, eternal virgin. Scripture teaches a plurality of Bishops, Rome one supreme leader. Scripture says one sacrifice, once , perfected, sufficient to put all sin away, Rome say continual sacrifice, not finished, ongoing, Scripture says Christ’s atonement is full received by faith, Rome says sacramental efficacy put up in the place of the atonement. And on and on. God bless you Nick.
Nick, I have a Chinese saying tattooed on my leg from my youth.
“Man who mounts tiger finds it difficult to dismount”.
You are dealing with wild eyed hysteria here. You will rue the day you ever gave Kelvin the time of day! Good luck dude! You won’t win. Many men have tried, as many men have died.
I see the “Falloni blitzkrieg” he hit you with above. No one has ever been able to untangle a Falloni Blitz to date. Your head is probably reeling wondering which absurd proposition to start unraveling. I’ve been there and lived to talk about it, sadder but wiser. You will too.
Nick, quoting Riddlebarger isn’t going to change Tim’s mind on this, nor mine or anyone else who believes 2 Thess is talking about the Pope. Paul says even NOW the apostasy is working in the church and he is being restrained. God has him under restraint as Satan has armed him with signs and wonders and strange doctrines. Anybody who does not see the Pope of Rome is under a strong delusion.
Jim, the creed says I believe holy catholic church not in holy catholic church.
Tell me again Kelvin, how it is you weren’t Baptized Catholic as a baby. You have told me that despite all the ear markings as shown by Tim, Walt, Bob, Bill Maher, you were never raised as such. Was/is your Italian father a freemason? No aunts that are nuns, no….
I am trying to get a fix on just what makes you tick. John MacArthur didn’t single handedly turn you. Calvary Chapel? What? Something about you just doesn’t ring true.
Fellows,
You are all wrong. Ellen G. White says the Pope became anti-Christ when he changed the Sabbath to Sunday. If you worship on Sunday, you are bowing before the man of Perdition now.
Jim,
You don’t know much of history outside Portugal it seems. The pope was identified as that man of sin, son of perdition and antichrist far FAR earlier than Ellen G. White had her “visions”.
The reformers had no visions, signs and wonders to justify their position on who was antichrist. The visions and wonders movement seem to have originated with Roman Catholics, and Ellen G. White only used their visions to have her own visions.
Tim is opening all our eyes on this signs and wonders movement with Rome that I never knew existed. I can see why my parents kept it away from me as a child as if I saw all these signs and wonders coming out of Rome I would have left sooner.
Walt, You are priceless!
Jim, I was raised 1 block from the Catholic church in my little town. I played all my sandlot wiffleball and football games in the Catholic church yard. We used to go visit the Priest in the church house all the time. He was a fast talker. It was rumored he had something going on with the lady who worked in the house for years. My extended family as well as all the Italian people in my town were regular attenders. You know many were rabble-rousers and showed up for the magic wafer on Sunday. Many of my Aunts had little relics statues. I smelled allot of incense in my youth. I was a professional trumpet player, and played in many Catholic churches. All I can say is God protected me. My immediate family were heathens, albeit respectful. My parents weren’t believers, although my 91 year old mother I believe is now a believer. I lived a carnal live in LA as a quasi musician. My twin brother hit on this girl in a store in LA and she invited him to MacArthur’s church. He became a Christian and they got married. They drug me to church and that morning MacArthur was preaching on Mathew 7 and I went down hit my knees, put all my drugs away, called my girlfriend in SF who’s husband was looking for me, and told her I couldn’t live this way anymore. God completely changed my life thru hearing his word one time. K
Twin brother? Twin? You mean, there are two of you? Then you have us surrounded.
I bet you were Baptized as a baby. You are a lapsed Catholic!
Speaking of that wafer, you have no life in you if you aren’t partaking. As your father was a Catholic and didn’t raise his son up in the faith, this is bad. Really bad. I hope he makes it to a priest before his time. He probably won’t have sufficient contrition even if he does and since he is elderly, that temporal punishment has to be addressed some where. As he didn’t raise you in the faith, you won’t be praying for him or getting indulgences for him. I bet he will be wishing he had left a son behind to have the Mass offered for him. He may have some guilt to account for every time you say “death wafer”.
Well, God is merciful. Let’s try not to think about it.
Thanks.
As for your brother, he was Baptized as a baby too along with you. Since he is a Catholic without a dispensation from form, his marriage is invalid. And neither is yours! WOW! I can’t think about this.
Two Catholics, not receiving Communion, living in adulterous unions. tell me no more.
Jim, you wrote: “Well, God is merciful. Let’s try not to think about it.”
I could not help but laugh (almost out loud) knowing that it how you are living your life in Romish doctrine…trying not to think about the end game! 🙂
Ouch…the pit is going to be so hot and everlastingly nasty.
I can only hope the Lord knows you off that Jack—- you are riding (I did not want to use her other name) and knocks you to the ground so you see the light as he did to Saul.
“Romish” Walt? Why not say Thee and thou too?
Ye olden Bible doth saith not thy word “Romish”. Why forsooth dost thou my good knave?
St. Paul’s letter to the Romish, eh Walt? KJV only Walt?
Jim, my dad has been dead for 10 years. He died when he was 89. Neither of my parents were baptized. I was baptized when I put my faith in Christ as my lord and savior. The believer doesn’t keep one eye on Him for justification and the other eye on his works, but looks to christ for both. since we are already justified by Christ’s perfect righteousness we are free to pursue holiness, however imperfect. Being far from it we need to make advances each day. Christ’s Spirit does not perfect us at once but our renovation is throughout life. Justification is a declaration and a verdict, therefore it cannot be based on infused righteousness. It is not partial, or on installments, but complete. It is not enabling but saving. It is not the goal of the Christian life like the RC, but the source of it. Hopes this helps you Jim get saved. K
It is written, “Whose sins you forgive are forgiven, and whose sins you retain are retained.”
Jim, Catholics strive for God’s approval, Christians is outworking on an approval we already have. You do and the Spirit works, the Spirit works and we do. Get it.
Jim, just so you know I take communion every time I’m in church. But I am saved by faith alone in Christ alone.
Nick, If I can interject. Reason apart from the Holy Spirit is the flesh, dead in one’s trespasses. 1 John 1:27 ” As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have NO need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things; and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him” It is God the Spirit that teaches us all things. Not that we don’t listen to the church, but its not the men with the words that teach us , but God the Spirit leads us in all truth as our inner witness to the infallible Word. For you to say that an Axiom needs to be true. Well thats a given. But you are determining that axiom thru your fallible judgment aided by the Spirit. And your Axiom is Rome is the infallible church. You are trusting that axiom are you not? We put the same trust in an infallible Word and Spirit informed reason tells us Rome is not an infallible church or the church of Jesus Christ. The church can lead us to Christ, but it is theSpirit who brings fiducia to the heart. God has jurisdiction on the conscience, not the church. The church is the recipient of God’s grace, not the provider. The Spirit delivers all the victory spoils of Christ, not the church. And this includes the ability to understand the gospel and scripture, and understand false teaching when we see it. We are trusting the Word, and you are trusting your church.
Kevin,
You said: “Reason apart from the Holy Spirit is the flesh, dead in one’s trespasses.”
Yes, that is what Protestants typically believe, especially those who hold to Total Depravity, as the Reformed do. But there are a few serious problems with it.
First of all, you’re conflating nature (Reason) and grace (Holy Spirit), which is Pelagian. The faculty of Reason is an essential part of human nature, and so without it we’d not be human, where as the Holy Spirit is an added gift to our natures. But if you espouse Total Depravity, it’s plain (Reasonable, lol) to see that Reason is cast out and thus why you’re forced to embrace a Presuppositionalist approach to life.
Secondly, Reason is what allows us to add 2+2=4, to design things, to choose whether or not to commit a crime, and to have discussions like this one. If you agree that X is not Y, you’ve just used the faculty of Reason to conclude that. Think of Reason simply as “using your brain” and you’ll see the problem in denying we have proper ability to Reason.
If you don’t qualify the statement “God the Spirit that teaches us all things” to refer to divine revelation, then you’re forced to say we cannot know 2+2=4 without the Spirit. Surely you don’t think that? If you agree we don’t need the Holy Spirit to know a lot of things, then you’ve just admitted (a) that Reason doesn’t pertain to the realm of grace, and (b) that Reason is still functional in man (even if not everyone uses it to the same degree).
I do not start with an Axiom (in the Presuppositionalist sense) in my quest for truth, since such a starting point forces one to embrace circular logic, throwing out the need/use of Reason. So I do not embrace Rome ‘axiomatically’; I embrace Rome after both examining the evidence (Reason) and praying for God to guide me (Holy Spirit). I do not blindly go with Rome just because it sounds cool or just because I’m completely blind to any an all facts. I go with Rome because I see good reasons to go with Rome. Even Protestants, whether they admit or recognize it, go with Protestantism because they see good reasons to go with Protestantism.
Nick,
You said:
“The fact is, taking “The Scriptures” as “axiomatic” fails by the very fact “The Scriptures,” namely ‘These 66 Books,’ didn’t always exist, meaning that your Axiom wasn’t even valid during the Apostolic Age. How outrageous to think an Axiom that didn’t apply to the Apostles somehow now applies to future Christians.”
Are you familiar with the distinctions between Godly inspired biblical testimony and uninspired historical testimony?
Do you believe that the Christian church has reached various levels of Attainments since the closing of the Canon?
For example, I assume you firmly disagree with the following historical testimony:
“I. The Church of the Second Reformation accepted and contended for the Supremacy of the Word of God. The Word of God was the measuring line by which the Reformers would have all measures and methods in Church and State tested and regulated.
Under the growth and weight of superstitious rites, dogmas of Popes, and decrees of Papal Councils, fix mediaeval times, the Church had been smothered and well-nigh crushed to death. The iron fetters of their captivity were almost too heavy for her to bear. But the time of her emancipation came. An eye from heaven saw her affliction, and an arm from heaven moved for her deliverance. “Thus saith the Lord: Let my people go that they may serve Me.”
The Reformation was a great mental and moral upheaval. Mind and conscience united in a magnificent rebellion. The Reformers announced in trumpet tones the inspiring doctrine embalmed in the Westminster Confession: “God alone is Lord of the conscience; and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men.”
The Reformation was a rebellion accompanied by a submission. The conscience withdrew from obedience to the will of man and came into obedience to the will of God. The Church achieved her emancipation by achieving her submission. Her mind accepted the thoughts of the First Mind in the universe—God in His Word is now her sole Judge in appeal.
By that Word the Reformers moved Scotland, and brought the Church and kingdom to the feet of Christ—yea, exalted them to the right hand of God.
The present assailants of the infallibility of the Scriptures are being thrown back in confusion. While the higher critics cry “Bibliolatry” at those who accept the inspiration and plead for the infallible authority of the Bible, they are putting forward, theories which, if accurate, must infer the rejection of the Old Testament Scriptures as a mass of myths, invalidate the authority as teachers of the writers of the New Testament, and tear the crown of infallibility from the head of the Lord Jesus as the “faithful and true Witness.”
If the Word of God be a book of myths, then banish it from our homes and schools, and arrest its circulation among the heathen at home and abroad. But the phalanxes of these “higher critics,” armed with the weapons of infidelity, stolen from their graves in the past centuries, are wavering all along the line. Their theories, which they deemed impregnable, are being battered into brushwood by bricks from Babylon. In their chagrin and despair, they axe flinging their tomahawks at one another; and may their self-extermination come speedily. Their theories will soon be like men at their best—”All flesh is as grass; and all the glory thereof as the flower of grass: the grass withereth and the flower fadeth, but the Word of the Lord endureth for ever.”
By this Word of the Lord the pious and learned Knox, Melville, Gillespie, Henderson, and Rutherford introduced and established the Reformation in Scotland, and by that Word alone can true Reform in Church and State be directed and maintained in any land.”
There was nothing pious about the Reformation. The will of God is that all Christians be one body, not many. Schism, even while abiding in sound doctrine, is always and everywhere a sin.
Andrew, wrong. It is absolutely the responsibility of every believer we are taught to test the spirits and call out false doctrine. God sent the Reformers to rescue the Apostles and the early church from the hair splitting academics who perverted the gospel. Luther did exactly what he was supposed to do. If I saw a church selling Christ’s merits (indulgences) and the merits of the saints, I would have done the same thing. The semi pelagian gospel raised its ugly head with the medieval Catholic theologians. They forgot they got bit by the snake.
Tim,
The issue was never that “Rome has the primacy, irrespective of antiquity.” That’s a straw man. The issue was that the “customary” in reference to the Bishop of Rome either refers to (a) the same “ancient custom” already mentioned, (b) a ratification of the “ancient custom,” or (c) an equivalent custom to the “ancient custom”. None of these three options is so different as to make any significant difference in my point.
You keep dodging my repeated claim that reading Canon 6 to say “Let the Bishop of Alexandria rule Egypt since it is customary for the Bishop of Rome to be a Patriarch” is grammatically wrong and illogical. You keep searching for less important things and technicalities to not address the incoherence of your default interpretation. I’m not interested in hyping up technicalities. I’m interested in a coherent and plausible interpretation.
Regardless, I don’t see how Canon 6 comes anywhere close to a Protestant sounding canon under even the most anti-Papacy interpretation. I’ll bet unbiased reader would say Canon 6 sounds a lot closer to Catholic or Orthodox than it does Protestant. Be honest with yourself and with me: Does Nicaea as a whole sound more like a Protestant Council, a Catholic Council, an Eastern Orthodox Council, all three, or neither? Those are the type of questions you need to be asking about your own position and not just mine, and being able to give a straight answer.
You said:
A Western Diocese? Who said that? The options are not East or West. There’s a third option, Egypt. Canon 3 plainly distinguishes between Egypt, East, Asia Minor, Greece, and Barbarian lands. That’s not a simplified East-West delineation. And I was not reading Roman Primacy into the Canon, but rather using Canon 3, along with Canon 2, as an interpretive guide for how the Bishops at Constantinople1 understood Canon 6. Just like the principle of “Scripture interprets Scripture” which Protestants trumpet (but don’t actually apply on key matters), it’s valid to see how one Council interprets another Council.
The fact is, Canon 2 shows Constantinople saw Rome as top dog. Period. You can either say a radical shift happened over the 50 years since Nicaea, or you can say the same understanding of Rome remained over those 50 years. I side with the latter, especially because I see a continuity in the Ecumenical Councils. You would side with the former, despite the fact it forces you to say the Visible Church after Nicaea (if not before) was effectively apostate.
You can sit an tear down the Catholic side all day, but if you cannot turn around and show the Visible Church was Protestant before and after Nicaea, then you’re embracing an Apostate-Visible-Church position as well as an ahistorical position for your own denomination (whatever it may be). Logically speaking, refuting Catholicism on historical grounds doesn’t automatically make Protestantism true. Protestantism must still have a positive case presented for it to be a valid position, otherwise you’re embracing a double standard where your position is beyond critique.
========================
You have said repeatedly affirmed: “ I merely opined, and affirm here again, that Sola Ecclesia and Sola Scriptura are epistemologically equivalent in that each one begins with an Axiom—its first unprovable assumption. “.
I have repeatedly denied that claim BECAUSE of it is an illogical claim on multiple grounds, such as:
(1) It’s illogical (fideist) to build one’s faith on a foundational unprovable assumption. I don’t do that. You might think I do. You might even see me actually doing that (and thus I’d be deceived). But it’s not my intention to build my faith on a foundational unprovable assumption. What you’re doing is the Pressupositional Apologetics approach, but it’s invalid. In my choice to be Catholic I look at Scripture as a whole and History as a whole and see whether the Catholic position has a credible case. What you are *effectively* saying is that neither of us can nor should look at Scripture as a whole *and* History as a whole and make a credible case for either Catholicism or Protestantism. It’s precisely why you run away from making a *positive* case for Protestantism every time I challenge you. Instead, all you can do is seek to show where Catholicism is wrong, which leads to my next point.
(2) You are attempting to use the historical record, or at least a portion of it, to disprove the Catholic position. But you are being logically inconsistent because you’re first saying that we must build from a foundational unprovable assumption and then turning around (ad hoc) and saying ‘now lets look at the facts, and notice how the facts disprove your unprovable assumption’. Why look at the facts only after an unprovable assumption is made? And how can an unprovable assumption be disproved?
(3) Sola Scriptura, by definition, cannot be an assumption in any sense, much less a foundational unprovable assumption. You cannot *assume* all essential teaching is taught in Scripture, for that’s a Tradition of Men by definition. Sola Scriptura must be taught somewhere in the 66 books, otherwise it’s a self-refuting doctrine. Please don’t tell me that I understand Sola Scriptura better than you. Your only option is to be logically incoherent and say all essential doctrines must be taught in Scripture, except the doctrine of SS, which doesn’t have to be taught in Scripture.
=======================
I will hold off responding any further to these above two issues until you’ve addressed my comments regarding the problematic exegetical identification of the Pope as the Man of Sin in 2 Thessalonians 2.
Nick, to your point on Canon VI of Nicæa,
The custom in view is that the metropolitan bishop of his own diocese retains the sole right to confirm bishops. As it says, “likewise in Antioch … let the churches retain their privileges.” The “privileges” of the Metropolitan are the “ancient custom.” Thus Canon VI clearly means “The bishop of Alexandria has the sole right to approve Bishops, just as the bishop of Rome and the Bishop of Antioch and the Bishop of the other provinces have the sole right to approve bishops in their own provinces.” I don’t know how you can read a Canon that says the Bishop of Rome does not have authority to confirm bishops outside of his own diocese as evidence that the Bishop of Rome held primacy, or was top dog. No such thing was mentioned at Nicæa.
I encourage you to familiarize yourself with Hesychius, Pachomius, Theodorus, and Phileas, four bishops from Alexandria who complained to Miletius, Bishop of Lycopolis, for the offense of ordaining bishops outside his own province. Note well that they defer to the “laws of our fathers and forefathers,” not to the bishop of Rome. They do not complain that Miletius’ violated “the ancient custom of the Bishop of Rome.” Rather they refer to a plurality of Fathers who settled it long ago:
In this context, it is quite clear that Nicæa simply reaffirmed an ancient custom established by a plurality of fathers that every metropolitan had to tend to the affairs of his own diocese and stop meddling outside of his diocese. I know you are looking for a deference to the Bishop of Rome here, but it is simply not to be found. The “ancient customs” you think were blessed, developed, established or ratified by the Pope at Rome—at least in the minds of the Alexandrian bishops so scandalized by Miletius’ behavior—simply does not exist. They simply did not defer to the Pope at Rome, and in fact invoked a plurality of fathers and forefathers. You continued,
Nick, a radical shift happened over the 50 years since Nicæa. That is what I have been saying since What the Fathers Feared Most. It does not force me to say the Visible Church shortly after Nicæa was effectively apostate. I say it willingly. Do you honestly believe that I would affirm that the Man of Sin came in accordance with 2 Thessalonians 2, without there being a great falling away first (2 Thessalonians 2:3)?
What you are trying to get me to say is that the visible church before Nicæa was effectively apostate, and that I will not affirm. In the latter half of the fourth century, there was a dramatic shift—new “ancient customs” were introduced: clerical celibacy, veneration of saints and martyrs, adoration of the eucharist, Roman primacy, images in worship, intercession of saints, visions and lying wonders, etc… It is of no small interest to me that Jovinianus and his cohorts were excommunicated, the Diocese of the East was split in two to make a total of 13 Dioceses, and the Council of Rome identified three of those dioceses as the three Petrine Sees, all within about 3 years of each other. This was right on schedule, according to Daniel and the Apostles. And what the world has for 16 centuries identified in Rome as the religion established by Jesus Christ, is quite simply a diabolical fraud (Revelation 13:4). I am not ashamed to say it. Yes indeed, a very radical shift occurred between the Council of Nicæa (325) and the Council of Rome (382).
I leave you this sobering piece of information for consideration while I work on my response to your questions:
This is from the excellent book, The Church in The Catacombs, by Charles Maitland, p. 376. Recommended reading. What happened in the latter half of fourth century, Nick? Why was the church no longer known for worshiping Christ, but was known for worshiping martyrs, tombs, clergy, etc…?
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
Please, your snappy comeback to Pope Clement meddling in the affairs of Corinth or Pope Victor threatening action against the East over the date of Easter?
And remember, no Constantine stuff. Kevin thinks he made Catholicism the official religion of the Empire. Not so.
And what did you do with Bob? He was going to tell me about his happy home life growing up Catholic but never came back.
Nick,
Having addressed the historical context of Nicæa Canon VI, let’s now consider the historical context of Constantinople Canons II and III. If you assume Alexandria was in its own Diocese, it may look to you as if the Council was addressing both Eastern and, ok, non-Eastern Dioceses, and because Canon II describes the boundaries of many dioceses, but not that of Rome, then Rome must be taken to be in some ways boundless in authority (by which I mean, not subject to the geographic limits of the other Dioceses). But that assumption is not warranted. Considering that Alexandria had been in the Eastern Diocese since the Diocese was established in 293 AD, re-read the opening line and see if you can understand why Alexandria is singled out here:
Clearly, “the bishops of the East are to manage the East alone” is referring to the Diocese of the East, because the Canon proceeds to list the rest of the Dioceses by name as well: Diocese of Asia, Diocese of Pontus, Diocese of Thrace. But because Alexandria and Antioch were both listed in Canon VI of Nicæa, yet were both geographically within the boundaries of a single diocese, the Diocese of the East, the Canon necessarily includes a caveat: bishops can only manage the affairs within their own Diocese, with the understanding of course, that Alexandria and Antioch, being in the same Diocese, tend to their own affairs within their own parts of the Diocese, such that Alexandrian bishops cannot manage the affairs of Antioch, and Antiochian bishops cannot manage the affairs of Alexandria, thus respecting the intent of Canon VI of Nicæa. This caveat would not be necessary if Antioch and Alexandria were in separate dioceses. (I confess, I misread that at first).
That said, Canon II was clearly addressing the affairs of only four Dioceses: the Diocese of the East, the Diocese of Thrace, the Diocese of Asia and the Diocese of Pontus. Thus your first objection is overturned, for you wrote,
The wording of the Canon, rather, indicates that it was addressing only four of the Dioceses in the empire, which is a perfectly good reason for Rome’s boundaries not to be enumerated.
To that end, it would be worthwhile to consider the letter of the bishops at Constantinople to those of Rome:
They are thankful for the invite, but the bishops who attended Constantinople were so busy they could only commit to one Synod and therefore would not be attending the one in Rome, so they are only sending a delegation of four. Do you believe the Rome is “top dog” if the bishops in Constantinople were free to turn down his invitation? But they go on and confirm the historical context of both Nicæa Canon VI and Constantinople Canon II, and again, not deferring to an ancient custom from Rome, but rather an ancient custom to which even Rome must submit:
Finally, note their words about who is “top dog”:
Clearly, nobody is to be “top dog”. This overturns your interpretation of Canon III as meaning that Rome was top dog in the eyes of the bishops of Constantinople.
Thanks, as always, for your participation,
Tim
Nick, reason isn’t cast out, its corrupted by sin. It did not survive pristine according to scripture. Ephesians says we were dead in sins until the Spirit makes us alive. Apart from the Spirit we are dead in sin and unable to come to the knowledge of the truth. Paul says in 1 Corinthians that man is unable to come to the knowledge of the truth thru human wisdom. Rome located sin in an alleged weakness of human nature itself. According to this view men are related to God by virtue of their “higher self” the mind and soul, but are related to animals by virtue of their “lower appetites” those of the body. This idea influenced by Plato gave rise to the idea of concupiscence, a weakness in human nature or defect as created by God. . It itself as you know isn’t sin until acted on. Aquinas followed augustine and called it kindling wood, however this inclination is not itself sinful, and free will though weakened is still able to cooperate with grace toward its healing. But as Calvin pointed out rightly the problem with this is that it attributes sin to human nature as God created it. Those Roman Schoolmen who dare write God’s name on their faults, they perversely seek out God’s handiwork in their own pollution, when they ought to sought it out in that unimpaired and uncorrupted nature of Adam. Not God, Nick, but we are guilty simply because we degenerated from our original condition. Our mortal wound comes not from nature itself , but from its corruption thru the fall. The depravity of human nature did not flow from nature. Thus vanishes the foolishness of the gnostics when they imagined wickedness in the substance of man., assigning the cause and beginning of evil to God. In this matter Lombard betrayed his complete ignorance. For in seeking out his seat, he says that it lies in the flesh, as Paul testifies, yet not intrinsically, but because it appears more in the flesh. as if Paul were indicating that only part of the soul , and not the entire nature is opposed to supernatural grace. Paul teaches the whole person is created in God’s image and in the same wholeness is fallen as well as redeemed. We reject the body dualism that tends to identify sin with the former. The image of God pertains no less to the body than the soul, and it consists primarily of true righteousness and holiness. Grace isn’t opposed to nature, but sin.
Kevin,
You don’t know what you are talking about with this nonsense, “Rome located sin in an alleged weakness of human nature itself.” I swear Kevin, like the kids on the old Art Linkletter show, you says the darnedest things. Sources please.
Kevin, tell me if you agree with this;
1 God creates each human soul when sperm meets egg.
2 God loves himself first and foremost from all eternity. He cannot not love Himself.
3 God creates to give creatures a share in loving Him.
4 God cannot make a square circle. God cannot do anything that implies contradiction.
5 God cannot make a creature that, by nature, does not love God.
So far, so good? If “Yes”, then;
God cannot create a depraved soul bent on hating God. He can make a soul and not infuse certain graces into it as those graces are not part of the nature of that soul. But that is not creating a depraved soul. It’s creating a soul deprived of what belonged to it by nature in the first place.
God cannot will anyone to go to hell. To will the end is to will the means to that end. The means to hell is sin. God cannot will sin as that would mean that He wills hatred for Himself. ( So Calvin and Luther are both wrong ).
Tim, Wow, I have learned so much. You have made such a great case for when the exact apostasy could have took place. Its compelling. Please don’t stop. I have told everyone I know about this site. Especially, many Catholics. Thanks again Tim.
“Could have taken place” my boy. When you say “could have took place” you sound silly. And we all know you are anything but a silly man.
Nick wrote:
“You would side with the former, despite the fact it forces you to say the Visible Church after Nicaea (if not before) was effectively apostate.”
“And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.”
Tim wrote:
“What you are trying to get me to say is that the visible church before Nicæa was effectively apostate, and that I will not affirm. In the latter half of the fourth century, there was a dramatic shift—new “ancient customs” were introduced: clerical celibacy, veneration of saints and martyrs, adoration of the eucharist, Roman primacy, images in worship, intercession of saints, visions and lying wonders, etc…”
Rev. James Kerr wrote:
“So successful had the efforts of the Church of the First Reformation been that, in 1560, the first Confession of Faith was ratified and approved by Parliament, and the first Book of Discipline was approved by the Privy Council of Scotland; and, in 1569, the Parliament recognized, by specific Act, the Reformed Church of Scotland “as the only true and holy Kirk of Jesus Christ within this realm.”
The Church was now Reformed from Popery, had adopted the Calvinistic system of theology—now designated Calvinistic—and had entered into several Covenants, and was in that character established. “At this time,” writes D‘Aubigne, “the Reformed Church was recognized and established by the State—a triumph similar to that of Christianity when, under Constantine, the religion of the Crucified One ascended the throne of the Caesars.”
In commending the achievements of the Reformers of the Second Reformation in erecting an established Church, Dr. Symington says: “But above all these, to the Christian, to the lover of the Saviour and His Church, this period is pregnant with instruction and with promise, the brightest day of Scotland’s Church—a day in which millennial glory seems to dawn.
A Church, holding directly after her Head in heaven, with doctrines, and institutions, and polity based immediately on the Holy Scriptures; with standards so excellent; with ministers so pious and faithful; with people so enlightened and devoted; allied to a Christian reformed State, without any encroachment upon its independence or compromise of her own; with schools for Scriptural education and seats of learning consecrated by sound religion; and banded together in holy Covenant; and standing fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made her free, and resolutely prosecuting her proper purposes, presents, an object commanding admiration. This is the Church of Scotland with, which we aspire to the honour of being identified.”
Jim, did you even read my post. Read it carefully because it exposes the flaw with the Roman invented system ,view of nature and sin and man. Its all there for you bro. Take your time. Your response indicates you didn’t understand.
Jim, Jacob I loved and Esau I hated before they had yet done anything right or wrong. Deal with it bro.
Kevin, This does not mean heaven or hell.
Besides, one could say God knew Esau would sell his birthright before Esau actually sold it. No cigar Kev.
Besides, the brothers represent nations.
Plus, God did not hate Esau.
Jim, Rome has made an savior out of merit and inherent grace. Without this all their superstitions would fall. Jim, please listen very closely. God is not crediting something intrinsic to us or properly earned by us or reflective of us to be our righteousness, but God counts us righteous even though we are UNGODLY by crediting faith as righteousness. By virtue of all his obedience Christ was vindicated and his people are saved. Having fulfilled the conditions to which God attached the reward. Since Abraham had righteousness counted to him, he cannot have done works, but must have been the recipient of grace. Jim Revelations 18:4 “My people come out from her” Jim, because I love you in Christ, I’m asking you to come out from earning your salvation, and polytheism, and receive the only Word who can save you by faith alone. Communion will then be an incredible remembrance and thanksgiving for all he gave us because he first loved us. ” To the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness.” For if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart God raised him from the dead you WILL be saved. Come out from her Jim!
Kevin,
You have told me your spiels about 50 times. Maybe more. It’s Calvinist Systematic Theology 101.
It’s not Revelation though. Men are able to reject or accept the Gospel ( regardless of one’s view on grace ). Practically every paragraph of the Bible says so.
“Dead” means without the supernatural elevation to participation in the Divine nature that is wrought in us by the Holy Spirit.
As Nick says, our human nature remains intact. We come into the world totally deprived, not totally depraved.
Again Kelvin, God can no more create a nature bent towards hating Him than He can make a rock to heavy for Him to lift.
GOD REALLY DOES WANT ALL ( 100%) SAVED. But in His sovereign decree, He is willing to let men go to hell if they reject His overtures. He is not frustrated or blocked. He is still in charge.
Calvinism, is an attack on human nature and the divine nature both. Is is actually a form of insanity if you ask me.
No one, including Calvinists, actually live out Calvinism. You actually live as if men have free will. It’s just a crazy philosophy.
Jim, Tell Jonathan to take a seminary class, he is getting worked by Robert and Brandon. Saying Augustine was wrong on his final conclusions on predestination. Of course the alternative is he was more Protestant.
A Protestant who believed in merit, Mary, Pope, purgatory, saints, Mass, Charity justifying, etc.
Some Protestant, eh Kev?
Walt, are you of Scottish descent?
On my dad’s side we are Jewish from Germany converted to Roman Catholicism, and on my mom’s side Hamilton from Scotland converted to Roman Catholicism. Born and bred Roman Catholic growing up…
The key I can tell you Jim is to FORCE all Catholics to burn their bibles or forbid them to read them (as used to be your policy) and keep us blind to worship the Pope and Eucharist blindly…and that will keep your grips on the cash flow.
If you let people think for themselves, and study for themselves, you will loose a lot of Catholics to Scotland and true biblical Christianity.
Can you show many any other Nation in the history of the World that has been more faithful than Scotland? Come on…don’t say Rome as even the Vatican does not believe that.
What are you talking about? The Catholic Church grants an indulgence of three years for fifteen minutes of devotional reading of the Scriptures. In other words, fifteen minutes in the Scriptures is equal to three years in sackcloth and ashes according to Rome.
Andrew, do you not know that the Reformation partly was ignited because Rome was selling forgiveness to build the basilica. Wake up.
Jim, are you saying that the fall had no real affect on the mind and the will and the soul and the whole of man?
Walt said ” The key I can tell you Jim is to force all catholics to burn their bibles or forbid them to use them like they used to do” Your dead right Walt. This should tell us all we need to know. Keeping the Word from the people for the sake of the Pope and his religion. In the reign of Queen Mary in England when Roman Catholicism was reinstated, the first thing the Pope did was have all bibles removed from the churches. In the long war on the truth, the most relentless and deceptive enemy has been Roman Catholicism.
Kevin,
I think Rome’s position historically to forbid their followers to read the bible themselves is #1 most effective for them. The second I think is the Jesuits plan to plant Arminianism in the hearts and minds of everyone to destroy the growth of Calvinism, and the excellent decisions reached by the Synod of Dort. Arminianism has sent more people to hell than any doctrine except the bulk doctrines outlined in the National Covenant of Scotland about Rome. Arminianism is really the key doctrine for the Jesuits as it has totally infiltrated the Protestants…where many other things like uninspired hymns, instruments/organs/rock bands, etc. have come in second.
Rome has destroyed the true gospel first and foremost, then they have gone after destroying the true worship of God in ‘spirit and truth’. Those two keys are the keys to destroying the Protestants and they have done it near perfectly.
If Calvinism were true, then you accuse us of the impossible.
Walt. I whole heartily agree.
Walt,
The Jesuits don’t plant Arminianism. Arminians look to the Jesuit Molina. You really should know about history outside of Scotland.
Also, the Church does allow private Bible readings by Catholics. We get an indulgence for doing it.
Are you sure your were ever a Catholic?
( Kevin says his dad wasn’t but I don’t know if I buy it. )
Jim,
Actually, the source document that I reference in the Jesuits using Arminianism to battle the Protestants was our of England, not out of Scotland. I’ve been to England many times.
I travel all over the world and am not limiting my education to Scotland by any means. I’m in the Middle East next month as well as off to Asia. I’m not sure if you have studied anything outside Roman Catholicism, but from what I read it is certainly clear you are near entirely brain washed with Roman theology, and have closed your mind to anything that does not pay your bills working for the church…if my guess is correct.
Jim,
Interesting information.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Molina
Anything with more details?
Walt.
Kevin,
I was wondering if this has some bearing on your hate for the Mass.
http://robinphillips.blogspot.pt/2012/06/james-jordan-on-lords-supper.html
By the way, do you pray? If yes, why? Isn’t it a work to make God respond?
Jim, the difference is you are striving or God’s approval and we are outworking an approval we already have. Redemption HAS BEEN accomplished and applied. Hebrews 1;3 ” When he had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the father.” We HAVE BEEN justified by faith and by his blood. You are working for your final justification and you will find what your cohorts the judaizers found in Romans 9:30, hell.
Kelvin, I will take that as a NO. You don’t pray. Calvinism is atheism ( I would love to elaborate if asked ).
Nick, thanks for your patience. It has been a busy week for me. To your questions and observations,
There are a lot of things that are clear in scripture but are misunderstood for a variety reasons. Jesus corrected Nicodemus for not understanding the Scriptures, even though he was “a master of Israel” (John 3:10). When Jesus rebuked the two men on the road to Emmaus, He said, “O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken” (Luke 24:25). In both cases (and there are many more), the problem was not the clarity of Scripture, but the way they were reading it. There were certain assumptions that Nicodemus and the two men had carried into the text, and those assumptions were invalid. Because the Scriptures are clear does not mean that humans do not often bring assumptions with them into the text. I am not attempting to make the Scripture more clear here. The Scripture is sufficiently clear on its own. What I am doing here is questioning the assumptions that are frequently carried into the text, both by Protestants and by Roman Catholics. Your next objection…
What is the basis for this conviction? Antichrist is also supposed to arise with the division of the Roman empire. As I will show below, arising with the division of the Roman Empire and being destroyed by the breath of His mouth and the brightness of His coming (2 Thessalonians 2:8) are not mutually exclusive. They merely require that we understand the “Man of Sin” to occupy a perpetual office. Your next objection…
Rather, it does not align with your assumptions, but your assumptions are invalid. You may need to reconsider your definition of Apocalyptic. Apocalypse means to uncover or reveal. It does not mean “end of the world,” though it is often taken to be. The prophecies of the Apocalypse “must shortly come to pass,” as John said (Revelation 1:1). Since there is a whole millennium included in what must shortly come to pass (Revelation 20:2), and “come to pass” is literally, “ginomai” or “become,” we may safely understand that the prophecies of Revelation must shortly begin. I assure you, they did. This is what I mean when I say that “recorded history” must bow to Scriptures. If John says they must shortly begin, he is not talking about things that will begin 2000 years in the future.
Now regarding your comment on 1500 years of Antichrist: If you read Daniel 7, the vision starts at the reign of Nubuchadnezzar in 7th century BC. The Medo-Persian empire followed in the mid-6th century, and lasted well into the 4th century BC, more than 200 years. The Greek empire, if we can indicate it with the rise of Alexander the Great in 335 BC, lasted at least until Pompey’s excursions into the region in 88 B.C., and the Egypt didn’t really capitulate until after Actium in 31 B.C., so Alexandrian Hellenism lasted more than 300 years. Rome lasted more than 500. Thus, when ten horns rise out of that Empire and a little horn comes up among those ten, and the saints are given into his hand for “time and times and the dividing of time” (Daniel 7:25), it makes little sense to interpret that as a 3 1/2 year reign of antichrist. There is a continuity in the succession of beasts, and that continuity does not lend itself to a swift and sudden change in the chronological progression. This time period of the Antichrist’s reign is described as forty-two months (see Revelation 13:5) and the Church (the Woman of Revelation 12) is protected from the face of the Serpent, from whom Antichrist receives his power (Revelation 13:4) for a period of 1,260 days (Revelation 12:6), or “for a time, and times, and half a time” (Revelation 12:14). The progression of Daniel 7 does not lend itself to the interpretation that this is a reference to a literal 3 1/2 year reign. In fact, as I noted above, expecting to see a 3 1/2 year reign of Antichrist and the end of the world is why many missed the rise of Antichrist. Your next objection…
Many Church Fathers and Popes also thought the end of the world was at hand, that is true. You are right that if Scripture does not appear to be fulfilled, it is possible that we need to change our assumptions. But we must change the right ones. One assumption that cannot be compromised is that the Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35). That is why “recorded history” must bow to the Scripture. The respected commentarian, E. J. Young, on Daniel 11:45 (“…and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships…”) made a great mistake when he wrote, “…it is not necessary to press too literally the words chariots and horsemen and ships” (p. 252). This is because he could not find in recorded history a fulfillment of the verse—yet Daniel clearly had ships, horsemen and chariots in mind. Young’s approach makes Scripture bow to recorded history, but the reverse must be the case. It is by such assumptions as that of E. J. Young that the Scripture is nullified. To your point, one could as easily make the objection that Roman Catholicism had to re-interpret the Apocalypse as futurist or preterist “to save face.” But we are not to interpret Scripture in such a way as to save face. The purpose of the Apocalypse is to reveal, not to cover up. If we understand that Apocalypse does not mean “end of the world,” we can maintain or observation that Rome is Antichrist, without losing face at all. Your next objection…
Paul said explicitly that “of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them,” (Acts 20:30), and John said of Antichrist, “Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us” (1 John 2:18-19).
In these verses, Paul says deceivers come both from within and without the church, and John says the antichrists he has in mind were inside the church, but were not “of us.” Thus, you must change your assumption, Nick. You wrote, that “Antichrist is to arise from *within* the true Church, which is impossible if Rome never was a true Church.” But if the True Church was never Roman Catholic, and Roman Catholicism was never the true Church (for it arose late in the Fourth Century), your objection goes away. Your axiom is showing, for you are reasoning as follows:
“Nick’s Axiom: Roman Catholicism is the True Church. Reasoning therefrom: Antichrist is to arise from within the True Church. Based on my Axiom, this may be restated as ‘Antichrist is to arise from within Roman Catholicism.’ Therefore it is impossible for Roman Catholicism to be identified with Antichrist, for it is impossible either for Antichrist to arise from within Antichrist, or for Roman Catholicism to arise from within Roman Catholicism. Therefore Roman Catholicism cannot be Antichrist.”
Lose the Axiom and the reasoning changes dramatically:
“Antichrist is to arise within the True Church. In the first century, the mystery of iniquity was already at work (2 Thessalonians 2:7) and the spirit of antichrist was already in the world (1 John 4:3). Therefore the apostles warned us about false doctrines that would arise from within and among our own ranks, and by our ability to discern truth from error, Antichrist will go out from us ‘that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.’ The way we discern the spirit of truth and the spirit of error is by sound doctrines (1 John 4:6-10), and good doctrines (1 Timothy 4:6). It is a sound doctrine that God “sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 4:10) yet Rome teaches an unsound doctrine that God did not make Himself propitious toward us by the sacrifice of His Son on the Cross—in fact the “sacrifice of the mass” just makes Him angrier and angrier, as the apparitions teach; and Rome teaches further that it is possible for us to propitiate His wrath by our good works of reparation. It is a good doctrine that ministers of the gospel may marry (1 Timothy 3:2) and be allowed to marry (1 Corinthians 9:5), but Rome teaches a bad doctrine of mandatory clerical celibacy. It is a good doctrine that Christians may eat that which God created to enjoy with thanksgiving (1 Timothy 4:4) without troubling our conscience, for the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof (1 Corinthians 10:28). Rome teaches the bad doctrine that God is more pleased by fasting than by our enjoyment of good foods. All these Roman errors began to be introduced to the Church in the latter half of the fourth century, and when Rome excommunicated Jovinianus and many other bishops for teaching the truth. Rome ‘went out from us’ and therefore ‘made manifest that they were not all of us’ for Roman Catholicism is the very Antichrist, and bears none but a geographic relationship to the Roman Church that suffered and testified of Christ from the catacombs.”
It all comes down to your Axiom, Nick. Your next objection….
I don’t base my interpretation of Scripture on the Fathers, and as you know I am comfortable dismissing with many of their teachings if I have to choose between them and Scripture. So I do not offer these examples as definitive proof, but only as examples of how frequently the Fathers make the identification that you consider invalid:
• Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, Ch VII.2 “in the Second to the Thessalonians, speaking of Antichrist … but the coming of the Wicked one, whom we call Antichrist”(cf. V.XXV.1-3)
• Tertullian, Book V.VI Ch 24 “What obstacle is there but the Roman State, the falling away of which,by being scattered into ten kingdoms, shall introduce Antichrist … ‘And then shall be revealed the wicked one…”
• Origen, Against Celsus, Book VI, ch XLV “But since Celsus rejects the statements concerning Antichrist, as it is termed, having neither read what is said of him in the book of Daniel nor the writings of Paul… Paul indeed speaks of him who is called Antichrist…”
• Victorinus Commentary on the Apocalypse of the Blessed John, “From the 1st Chapter” 16, had Paul “speaking of Antichrist to the Thessalonians.”
And that’s just some of the ante-Nicene fathers. Here are some Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers:
• Augustine, City of God, Book XX, Chapter 12, “when He shall kill Antichrist with the breath of His mouth” (a referenced to 2 Thessalonians 2:8)
• Chrysostom, On Matthew 24, Homily LXXVI.2, “…and here He is speaking of Antichrist … Of him Paul too speaks on this wise, having called him ‘man of sin,’ and ‘son of perdition’…”
• Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus, Letter CXLVI, To John the Œconomus, “And a little further on when predicting the destruction of antichrist he adds, ‘Whom the Lord shall consume with the breath of his mouth…’ ” citing 2 Thessalonians 2:8.
• Jerome, Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed, Section 34, “And soon afterwards, ‘The shall that wicked one be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus shall slay with the breath of his mouth …’ For this reason lest anyone should mistake the Antichrist for the coming of Christ.”
• Cyril of Jerusalem, Lecture XV, on Daniel 7:9-14, “Jesus, the true Christ, who shall slay antichrist with the breath of his mouth…”
There are many more, but I hope you see my point—I don’t believe I have been sloppy. As other men before me have demonstrated, the link between 2 Thessalonians and 1 John does not have to be explicit. It may be logically implicit. But so you may know my reasoning:
If John says “this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world” (1 John 4:3) and Paul says, “Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? … For the mystery of iniquity doth already work:… And then shall that Wicked be revealed” (2 Thessalonians 2:5-8), it is clear they are both talking about the same antagonist.
If in the same context John says “speak they of the world, and the world heareth them” (1 John 4:5) and Paul says “they received not the love of the truth … and for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie” (2 Thessalonians 2:10-11), it is clear they are talking of the same phenomenon of the world following after the same antagonist.
If Paul says “the Lord shall consume [the Wicked one] with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming” (2 Thessalonians 2:8) and John says “And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: … And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army” (Revelation 19:15,19), it is clear they are both talking about the same antagonist.
If Paul says, “Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders” (2 Thessalonians 2:9) and “in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils” (1 Timothy 4:1), and John says, “And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs … For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world” (Revelation 16:13-14) and “And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast” (Revelation 13:14), it is clear that they both have the same antagonist in mind.
Clearly, Paul’s “Man of Sin” and “Wicked one” are to be identified with the Little Horn of Daniel 7 and the Beast of Revelation 13 and John’s “Antichrist.” One thing you have mentioned is the issue of acknowledging the incarnation—that is, Rome recites the Nicæan Creed and therefore can’t be Antichrist—and I will deal with that in more detail in next week’s post. Your next objection…
From Daniel 7, the Antichrist is to arise with the division of the Roman Empire, since there is a continuity of empires in succession from Babylon through Rome and beyond. This must be true, for the Scriptures declare it to be so. There is nothing in the text to suggest that there is a halt in the progression and the horns and antichrist are to come up after a 2000+ year gap in the progression. The “little horn” that arises at the end of the vision comes up before the total collapse of the Roman empire and outlives it (“I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed.”(Daniel 7:11)) The beast in this verse is the Roman empire, from which the little horn came up, for the beast of Daniel 7 is the fourth empire (Daniel 7:7). We know that the little horn is the Beast of Revelation 13 because Daniel notices that the other beasts had their dominions taken away, too, “yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time” (Daniel 7:13). Their lives were prolonged in the life of the little horn, for that little horn is depicted in Revelation 13 as a Beast having attributes of the the other three beasts: the Lion, the Leopard and the Bear (Revelation 13:1), as well as all the heads and all the horns of all four beasts as well. [We will have more to say about this later, but it is a compelling link between the little horn of Daniel 7 and the Beast of Revelation 13.] Note also that both the “little horn” of Daniel 7 and the Beast of Revelation 13 have a mouth speaking great things against God (Daniel 7:8,20,25; Revelation 13:5), make war with the saints and prevail against them (Daniel 7:25, Revelation 13) and appear to be allowed to prevail unhindered for the same time frame of “time, times and half a time” (Daniel 7:25) and “forty and two months” (Revelation 13:5). Christ makes war against the Beast and the ten horns (Revelation 17:14) and the Beast makes war against Christ at His coming, and Christ prevails (Revelation 19:19). All that is to say that if the “Man of Sin” arises out of the Roman Empire, and is still around fighting against the Lamb and the saints until the brightness of His coming, this is not something an individual man can do. However the papal office is the office of a man, and is for only one man at a time. The papacy is the antichrist, the man of sin, the Beast of Revelation 13, and had his 1,260 years of prevailing and now is as blasphemous, arrogant and deceptive as ever, but without the power and authority he used to enjoy. Your next objection…
And THAT, Nick, is the right question.
More on that in a future post.
Best regards,
Tim
Tim,
“Anti-Christ is supposed to arise in Roman Empire”? Or crazier, the E.U.?
Tim, is this an example of Sola Scriptura? Even the Witnesses are careful what they say after having egg on their face so many times.
What if I said we are living in the Age of Mary? Fr. Gobbi said so. We are winding down to the final battle. And you are one the wrong side. You wouldn’t accept it as it is private revelation/opinion. Only Kelvin and Waltzer are impressed by you.
Thanks, Jim,
The fourth beast of Daniel is the Roman Empire. The ten horns arise from the fourth beast. The little horn before whom three fell comes up among those ten. That little horn is antichrist. Therefore Antichrist is supposed to arise with the division of the Roman empire. All this is based on what was revealed to Daniel and written down for our instruction. I’m not sure where I have violated Sola Scriptura.
Fr. Dominic Domenico, O.P. said the first millennium was the millennium of Christ. The second millennium (now past) was the millennium of Mary. We have now, apparently, entered the millennium of Joseph. At least he confirmed that to me by phone. Why should I accept your private revelation over his when I have the Scriptures?
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
You asked what was the basis for my claim that the Antichrist is supposed to come shortly before the Second Coming. The context of 2 Thessalonians 2 is that of “the coming of Our Lord” and “the Day of the Lord” and how this “Day” will not come about until a rebellion/apostasy comes first. The implication here is that while ‘now’ there is a time of relative calm, there will come a time of unimaginable horror, and this will be a sign that the end is near. Otherwise, if Paul is simply saying that any day now a massive persecution/apostasy will become the ‘norm’ for Christian life, then it’s not really a sign or mark that Christ is coming soon. Paul even uses language of how the Antichrist is being restrained, which wouldn’t make much sense if ‘restrained’ simply meant restrained for only the first 20% of Church history. It’s a ‘credibility’ thing for Christ and the Gospel. His Second Coming won’t really be marked with the majesty and awe, since everyone will be completely used to massive persecution/apostasy already and wont have that ‘please make it stop’ urgency.
The only alternative I can see is that you’d have to say that while the Antichrist has been a fixture in the Church all these centuries is that the Antichrist will really step up his evil to maximum towards the end of time, but for now the Antichrist is keeping evil at a small/moderate level. The problem with that claim is that how can things get much worse, at least in terms of his false teaching? The Antichrist has already uttered the worst heresy of all time, denial of Sola Fide. What more does he have to do? The Pope has been affirming the Trinity this whole time, with no real sign he plans to change his position, and the same thing goes for moral teaching as well, having kept it pretty consistent this whole time. So I don’t think you can have it both ways: saying the Antichrist is plainly here because he denies Sola Fide, but yet the whole time the Antichrist has shown to be the utmost defender of the Trinity and Christian morality. Those two factors have actually alienated the Papacy from the world and much of Christendom for a long time, which is the exact opposite trend we’d expect the Promoter of Sin to be doing.
I am not seeing a solid case for how you’re coming up with the date/sign of “the division of the Roman Empire” in AD293/400. I take the Book of Revelation to have been written prior to AD70. I can see much of what was said to apply to the Sack of Jerusalem in AD70, with Revelation 17:10 mentioning ‘seven kings’, which clearly seems to align with the first century Roman Emperors. But 17:12 suggests ‘ten kings are yet to come’, indicating something carries on beyond AD70. But to make the jump hundreds of years from AD70 to 293/400 doesn’t seem plausible, since you’ve now created a multi-generational gap wherein persecutions did happen to Christians between AD70 and AD300. And you’ve reinterpreted these ‘kings’ to be less than Emperors, more like regional governors, along with a list of thirteen names, none of which is perspicuous knowledge.
And what do these ten governors do? Turn over their power to the little horn Pope? For such a hugely significant event, that doesn’t fit any history I’m aware of. The Roman Emperors continued to rule for centuries, with a mixed bag record in their treatment of Christians. And the Papacy has continued on with these ‘ten governors’ long wiped out.
And when did they collectively even make war with the Lamb and the Lamb conquered them? Again, it seems that you’re forced to make a multi-century gap in the story, for if the Lamb didn’t prevail early on, then the Lamb still hasn’t prevailed because the Pope is still here 1,500 years later. But if the Lamb did prevail early on, then it fits with the idea that the Pope heads a kingdom that will outlast all secular powers. The Stone cut from the mountain by God’s hand is understood to be the Church, which comes and wipes out all those other Empires (Dan 2:44). And yet you seem to be saying this new kingdom that God established was not able to overcome, but had to go completely off the radar. If you ask me, the fact the Papacy has outlived the Roman Empire is a far better fit to Daniel 2:44 and the Lamb overcoming the pagan Empires. When an ordinary person looks at the historical record they see this insignificant sect called Christians suddenly rise to unimaginable power and dominate the greatest Empire of the time, that’s an unimaginable feat that truly testifies to Christ’s power. But you would have it be just the opposite, with everything going downhill after Pentecost, even going underground and off the historical record.
When James and Paul spoke of antichrists and wolves, they were speaking of the Visible Church continuing on in spite of the scandals. But if there’s no Visible Church on record after AD325, with a clear offshoot of Rome, then James and Paul’s warnings make no sense, for there was no Visible Body to distinguish from the offshoot heretical body.
Next, it seems pretty convenient for you to say that ‘history must bow to Scripture’, which I think is fine, but yet after demanding a literal number 13 (a number not even clearly stated in the text), you then turn and demand a figurative 3.5 years (42 months, 1260 days). Revelation 11:1-2 seems to clearly indicate that Jerusalem will be trampled upon for 42 months, which does correspond to how Jerusalem was sieged and sacked in about that length of time. It seems like a literal number.
But for the sake of argument, assuming the 1,260 refers to years, I see no plausible start-stop of this period that fits with your scheme. The Papacy arose many centuries prior to the year AD1260, and the Papacy has survived longer than this. Starting the clock at AD400 gives a stop date of AD1660, a period in which the Papacy was still alive and kicking. Maybe you want to say that this corresponds to the Reformation, but even that has problems. I don’t even see how you fit Luther and Calvin into your story, for Luther and Calvin were products not of some underground Baptist resistance movement, but rather Luther and Calvin sprung right out of the loins of Roman Catholicism. Jesus didn’t show up and wipe out the Beast at that time. So taking 1,260 as years doesn’t pan out. And the fact that Eastern Orthodoxy denies the Papacy proves another problematic detail for your thesis, for the Eastern Orthodox have historical presence during this timeframe, and yet they are far theologically closer to Catholicism than Protestantism.
As for the link between Antichrist and Man of Sin, I have no problem linking the two as long as the link is shown. In other words, to just make the identification for the sake of an emotional appeal, which is quite common, is not fair. But with an exegetical link made, then I see nothing wrong. And the exegetical link would indicate that the two primary distinguishing features of the Man of Sin are thus shown to be: (1) promoting sin, particularly sexual immorality, and (b) blatant denial of the Trinity, specifically the denial that the Son became Incarnate. Two distinguishing features of which Rome cannot be easily accused of, and in fact has formally upheld for centuries. In fairness, I even admit it’s not even easy to say conservative Protestantism has been guilty of either of those things, so identifying Protestantism as the Beast isn’t plausible from the Catholic perspective.
It seems your best proofs that Rome is the Beast are the Mass, clerical celibacy, and rules about fasting and eating meat. If that’s the best you have, then that seems pretty desperate to me. Nothing about this blatantly says anti-Trinity, and nothing about this says sexual immorality. Rome teaches orthodox Trinitarianism, Rome teaches infallibly that Jesus “merited for us justification by His most holy passion on the wood of the cross and made satisfaction for us to God the Father.” That’s a far cry from an outright denial that Jesus died for our sins, which is really what John is getting at. So at most the Mass is an inconsistency or misunderstanding of what is plainly affirmed in our Creed: “for us men and for our salvation…for our sake He was crucified…” That leaves only celibacy, fasting, and meat as the other monstrous heresies, but even the gravity of these can be attenuated by the fact Rome has a higher sexual ethic than Protestantism, Rome allows married priests, and that in the Bible in both the OT and NT (e.g. Acts 15:28-29) that the visible body has put food restrictions on the faithful. So your case against Rome ‘plainly violating the Bible’ is really quite weak. Contrast that with the idea that the Beast is understood as a figure that positively preaches anti-Trinitarianism and positively endorses immorality.
The idea that the world worships the Pope is so contrary to reality it’s just silly. The world hates the Pope and all that he stands for. And the idea that the Apostolic Fathers were closer to Protestantism than they were to Catholicism is not true at all, so even your attempt to build the impression that there was as VISIBLE ‘protestant’ Church from the time of John to Nicaea is not a credible story.
To conclude, the only option I see you can take is that the true Church went underground and no historical record is available of it. At which point I ask, how does “recorded history bow to Scripture” when recorded history doesn’t even exist in your case?
Thanks, Nick,
All good questions. I asked about your understanding that the Man of Sin must come immediately before Christ’s coming because 2 Thessalonians does not teach that—I just wasn’t sure where you were finding that. 2 Thessalonians merely says that people must not deceived into thinking that “the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means” (2 Thessalonians 2:1-2).
2 Thessalonians must be read in the context of 1 Thessalonians in which Paul encouraged the Thessalonians because they were an example to others because they had turned from idols “to serve the living and true God; And to wait for his Son from heaven” (1 Thessalonians 1:9-10), and rejoiced that they would all be in the presence of Christ together at His coming (1 Thessalonians 2:10) and encouraged them that God Himself would establish them “unblameable in holiness” at the coming of our Lord (1 Thessalonians 3:13), and that they should not despair for the dead because “the dead in Christ shall rise first” at His coming (1 Thessalonians 4:!6-17), and admonished them to live godly because “the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night” (1 Thessalonians 5:2), and prayed that God would sanctify them fully “unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thessalonians 5:23).
You can imagine that an unscrupulous deceiver might enter in among the sheep and use these words of Paul to tell his young sheep that the day of the Lord certainly must be at hand. So Paul writes a second letter reaffirming his exhortations, but providing additional comfort that though they are troubled, “who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels … When he shall come to be glorified in his saints” (2 Thessalonians 1:9-10). But here Paul adds a clarifying remark because some had entered in an were spreading error, presumably based on Paul’s own letter, for he warns, “be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means” (2 Thessalonians 2:2-3). The presumed deception would be to lead people to believe that because the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, that maybe it’s already at hand, and Paul merely explains why that is a misrepresentation, for the Man of Sin must first be revealed, and there must first be a falling away. In fact Paul had already told them this and was writing to remind them: “Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?” (2 Thessalonians 2:5). In the end, yes, the Man of Sin would come, and yes, the Man of Sin would be consumed in the brightness of His coming (2 Thessalonians 2:8), but all these things are in the hands of God “that he might be revealed in his time” (2 Thessalonians 2:6).
All Paul is saying is that the Thessalonians must live godly and rejoice that they will be preserved by God, but not be deceived into thinking that Christ would come immediately or indeed had already come—as some deceivers were apparently teaching—for there is a lot that has to happen in the meantime. What is missing in all of this is any statement that “the Man of Sin” must with immediacy, precede the coming of Christ. It is one thing to say that “then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth” and quite another to say “then shall that Wicked be revealed, after which the Lord shall immediately follow and consume with the spirit of his mouth.” I think you are taking the latter reading, but it is not in the text, for the Man of Sin must do a lot of things, all of which will be done “in his time.” The “in his time” is the one thing Paul didn’t elaborate on in the letter.
Just to be clear, I do not believe “Antichrist has been a fixture in the Church all these centuries,” though many have mistaken him to be, myself included. Roman Catholicism is not the true church. Also to be clear, I do not believe “Roman Catholicism” is an accurate description of the Ante-Nicene church, either. Roman Catholicism arose late in the 4th Century, claiming to be the true church and took a great many followers with it. That was the great falling away. It may be of some interest to you, or if not, at least to the readers here, that the title “Pontifex Maximus” was last used by a Roman Emperor under Gratian, who formally renounced the title in 382 AD. That is the same time period that Jovinianus and other bishops were excommunicated for their “heretical beliefs,” when the Eastern Dioceses was split in two to make a total of 13 Dioceses, when the Council of Rome for the first time, claimed the primacy of the three Petrine sees (Nicæa had made no mention of Petrine succession), and when Gratian’s co-Augustus, Theodosius I, issued his decreed “de Fidei Catholica” naming the western bishop, Damasus, Pontifex of the new state religion. Within 50 years, Pope Leo I took Pontifex Maximus as his title. In 386 A.D. Pope Siricius held a synod at Rome and excommunicated “Jovinian, Auxentius, Genialis, Germinator, Felix, Prontinus, Martianus, Januarius, and Ingeniosus, who were discovered to be the promoters of the new heresy.” That ‘new heresy’ was that ministers of the gospel may be lawfully married and engage in sexual relations with their wives, and that fasting is not meritorious before the Lord, since He gave us food to be enjoyed with thanksgiving. Pope Siricius sums this up superstitiously as a general rule for all of Chrisitian life, saying that Satan is “punished by abstinence, [and] hates fasts” etc… We encourage our readers to read the sentence of excommunication, above, as well as Jerome’s famous letter Against Jovinianus, Book I and Book II, in which he quotes Jovinianus’ arguments exhaustively. What you will see is godly men opposing the new errors introduced to the Church of Christ by the new religion called Roman Catholicism, against which Jovinianus and his followers fought valiantly using the Scriptures. We do not see in Jovinianus a man of profligate sexual deviancy and a man given to gluttony, but rather a man who was deeply concerned for his sheep who were being taught that God loved them less if they married, God loved them less if they were not ascetics, that their reward in Heaven would be less if they married and engaged in sexual relations with their spouses, that their salvation was not eternally secure . Jerome in response gave the position of the new religion: “a wife is classed with the greatest evils…. her love is compared to the grave” (Against Jovinianus, Book I.28). Had they not been warned of just such error by Paul? Indeed they had (1 Timothy 4:1-4). Readers may see the rest of Jovinianus’ arguments in Jerome’s response, and decide who was being level-headed and who was the madman, overcome by these new teachings of Rome. Vigilantius followed in Jovinianus’ footsteps, and we encourage our readers to evaluate Vigilantius on the same basis, based on the only evidence we have of his positions, in Jerome’s letter, Against Vigilantius. In that letter, Vigilantius argues valiantly from the Scripture that we are not to venerate relics or pray to the saints. When he wrote against veneration of “the mysterious something or other which you carry about in a little vessel and worship?” … “a bit of powder wrapped up in a costly cloth in a tiny vessel,” Vigilantius was rejecting this new form of worship only recently foisted upon the church. Emperor Constantius II thought he was doing the church a favor in 359 AD when he transferred the alleged bones of Andrew, Timothy and Luke to Constantinople, and Emperor Arcadius did the same with the alleged bones of Samuel in 406 A.D. This new practice of adoring the martyrs, praying to saints and bowing to their relics was unconscionable to Vigilantius, and Jerome ridiculed him for his convictions. Thus was veneration of relics introduced to the church in the latter half of the fourth century, and thus did even pagans notice (as I have mentioned elsewhere within these comments) that the object of the church’s worship, to their eyes, appeared to shift from Christ (before AD 350) to many dead men and martyrs thereafter. And thus did Roman Catholicism arise from within the true Church and succeeded in drawing many after it to worship idols, forbid marriage and food that God created to be enjoyed with thanksgiving, just as the Apostles had warned, and just as Daniel had foreseen.
Thus, your objection that Roman Catholicism has historically been a bastion of moral purity and a guardian or moral excellence falls flat, for idol worship—relics, martyrs, saints, eucharist, images—and forbidding of marriage and good foods to God’s children, are morally reprehensible on their own. Being anti-abortion and anti-birth control doth not cover a multitude of sins, and in fact merely serves as a cloak for perpetrating the other vices upon the world as if they were the heart and soul of Christianity.
As regards times, time and half a time, 42 months, 1,260 days, etc… being interpreted prophetically to refer to “years,” it is not unscriptural to do so, for Daniel’s vision of the 70 Sevens have were taken as years and not seventy literal weeks, and the Prophet Ezekiel was appointed a “day for a year” to demonstrate the evils that the people of God had done (Ezekiel 4). This is not my full argument on 1,260 years, but just an example of a year being signified by a day is not foreign to the Scriptures. Also note that having authority for 1,260 years and then having that authority taken away, is not the same as saying the Lord destroys the beast with the brightness of his coming at the moment the 1,260 years are up.
Regarding the 13 Dioceses, you objected that they are “less than emperors” and not true kingdoms, but as I noted above, each had the full power of an individual kingdom (Gibbons words, not mine) under the tetrarchy, and the tetrarchy ended up going away within a generation, leaving and the Beast with his three horns and the remaining ten to came up together. I have not yet addressed what happened after that, I only addressed the 13, 3 being removed, and the beast coming up after the other 10. That the 13 Dioceses are not perspicuous knowledge to you does not make them insignificant. The four-way division of Alexander’s empire was not even expounded by the Church until Hippolytus (c. 200), a full 500 years after the division of Alexander’s empire, and not even the books of the Maccabees (written at the tail end of the divided Greek empire) can settle on whether there was even a four-way division—only that Alexanders’ successors followed after him and reigned as kings (1 Maccabees 1:1-9). That it was not immediately perspicuous to those who lived under it, doesn’t make the four-way division insignificant. The reason the 13 way division was not and is not currently perspicuous knowledge is because its significance was not understood at the time the division was taking place—as the whole world was looking not for 13 horns, but 10, which was the wrong thing to look for.
As regards, your last comment,
That’s just my point. If the Lord provided a place in the wilderness for His church for “time and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent” (Revelation 12:14), it should not shock you that Jovinianus and Vigilantius were considered Protestants twelve centuries ahead of their time, and that in the Reformation there emerged a group of people saying the same things Jovinianus and Vigilantius had been saying. But more importantly, Nick, there is a recorded history of a continual rejection of Rome as a false religion throughout that time. It was frequently oppressed, frequently in hiding, but never out from under the protection of Her Lord Who preserved her in the wilderness from the face of the serpent. Do you really believe that if the Lord had hidden the church from the face of the Serpent, that Her whereabouts would be plainly known to the Beast to whom the Serpent had given his seat and authority? (Revelation 13:2) About which, more later.
Don’t be fooled by your interpretation of recorded history that tells you, falsely, that Rome must be Christ’s true church just because it claims, and to the unaided eye seems to be, Christ’s true church. It is not. Recorded history must bow to the Scriptures, and the Scriptures have given you sufficient information to recognize the beast that emerged from the divided Roman empire.
Thanks, as always for your thoughts. I have not addressed everything yet, but will in time.
Best,
Tim
Tim,
To hopefully get caught up with your responses, I’ll only touch upon the main points:
(1) I’m still not convinced that the Man of Sin is supposed to be installed for 75%+ of Church history. The notion that he comes shortly before Christ’s Second Coming is not just my opinion, but the view of most others (including Protestants). Now it’s clear that Rome’s significance all these centuries means one of two things, that Rome is either from the Devil or from God. There’s no middle ground. And considering that Protestantism as a whole have embraced to some significant extent Rome’s claims, e.g. by reciting the full Nicene Creed (i.e. with the post AD325 additions) as Rome teaches it, then Protestantism as a whole has been carried off to apostasy just as Catholics have.
(2) As for Jovinianius, from what I’ve read, Catholics have agreed that Jerome was too harsh/extreme in what Jerome said. Augustine, who is considered a hero for both Lutherans and Calvinists, was more balanced and yet still didn’t support Jovinianus’ claims. But I have not read enough of either Jovinianus or Vigilantius to say much more.
Looking at the issue of veneration of relics, saints, images, objectively, I would say nothing about these screams idolatry. It’s understandable that a certain level of respect is given towards heroes of the past. The Martyrdom of Polycarp, written in the mid-100s, clearly shows the Christians gathering his bones and considering them precious, making him a grave, and honoring him on the day of his martyrdom. Even Peter in Acts 2:29 shows how David’s Tomb was available to visit.
So all you have left is that the clergy cannot marry, which isn’t even a universal prohibition nor does it touch upon the majority of Christian lives, and forbidding meat and fasting during certain seasons for the sake of mortification. The Didache, one of the earliest Christian documents, talks about required fasts on Wednesdays and Fridays. Again, you’re free to say these teaching are not biblical, but to say that these scream immorality is simply outrageous.
(3) I showed that 3.5 times is understood as three and a half years in Revelation 11, with regard to the span of time that Jerusalem was being trampled upon. You are not free to simply apply year-for-a-day whenever you please. When Ezikiel talked about a day-for-a-year, this was not the same as a year-for-a-day. Instead, he was simply saying that for the sake of meting out a punishment, it would be one day of suffering for each actual year of disobedience.
And more importantly, I don’t see where you have shown any plausible historical event that corresponds to your 1,260 years. The Pope is still here and he’s still preaching the same stuff that you claim is blasphemy.
(4) Regarding the perspicuity of the 13 Dioceses, I’m not just speaking of myself, but pretty much everyone who accepts the Bible. I’ve heard a lot of things over the years, but this is the first time I’ve ever heard of the 13 Diocese theory. I’ve not heard of any Church Fathers or Protestants espouse this. The idea that the Early Church was on guard for the rise of the Beast but that they failed to see it is a dangerous position to take, because it basically reduces down to saying that even though they had the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit failed them in this important matter.
(5) I see no way that Luther and Calvin can fit into your overall system, unless you’re saying it was 1,260 years after AD350. But this theory, if that’s your theory, faces serious problems, starting with the fact Luther (Augustinian) and Calvin were originally Catholic, not part of some underground. And a lot of Luther’s claims and lifestyle were not commendable nor accepted by Protestants. The Pope continued on rather than vanishing. And Protestantism, if it is God’s bright light, turned out to be a massive failure as divisions arose early on. So how were things ‘fixed’ in any significant way? Where is God’s hand in all that, especially as you look out today and see most of Protestantism isn’t on the right path? If anything, you’d have to say that God saved the Church after 1,260 years only to let things fall into equally bad disarray shortly thereafter.
As for the straight up math, I don’t see how it works.
If the 1,260 days starts in AD325, then that yields the year AD1585, yet Luther died in 1545 and Calvin in 1564. So if this number corresponds to the rise of the Reformers, it’s easily 20 years off if not longer. So what are the true bookends, the start and stop date of 1,260 years? If that’s not answered, then your theory has no merit.
I’m not just assuming Rome is the one true Church, but after looking out at the whole landscape of contenders, there really aren’t any plausible options.
Opps, I missed this one.
This is what Iranaeus said about the Eucharist and the Incarnation:
“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?”
Tim, Kelvin and Waltzer,
Revelation? That’s ( mostly ) history. Done.
Andy way,
I swiped this from an Arminian site. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did:
1. Calvinism says that God decreed all sin when the Bible says sin breaks the heart of God and wills holiness and obedience from His subjects.
2. Calvinism says that men are under the wrath of God for the sin of Adam when the Bible says that the son does not bear the iniquity of the father and we will all give an account for our own deeds.
3. Calvinism says that man’s free will was lost by Adam’s original sin when the Bible never says this but instead continues to appeal to man’s free moral agency after Adam’s fall.
4. Calvinism says that all men inherit a sinful nature from Adam when the Bible never even says that Adam’s nature was sinful but instead asserts that God forms our nature in the womb.
5. Calvinism says that all events are the eternal will of God when the Bible represents God as grieved, disappointed, and surprised over many events that have occurred.
6. Calvinism says that God has irresistibly decreed all events from eternity past, when the Bible says that God has canceled and reversed some of His own prophecies and teaches that the future is not yet entirely fixed and settled.
7. Calvinism says that God has given man a moral law which He is incapable of keeping when the Bible says that God is just, never allows us to be tempted above our ability, and only obligates us to love Him with all of our ability.
8. Calvinism says that Jesus Christ came and took our punishment when the Bible says that our punishment is eternal hell.
9. Calvinism says that Jesus Christ came and paid our debt when the Bible says that God forgives us our debt.
10. Calvinism says that Jesus Christ took the punishment of our sins when the Bible says that God forgives us our sins.
11. Calvinism says that Jesus Christ came and took the wrath of God when the Bible says that God still has wrath after the atonement, that sinners are not saved from God’s wrath until conversion, that the atonement was instead a justification of His mercy, and that believers who return to their sins return to the wrath of God.
12. Calvinism says that Jesus Christ became sinful and guilty on the cross when the Bible says He died the just for the unjust and offered Himself without spot or blemish to God.
13. Calvinism says that those for whom Christ died can never perish when the Bible warns that those for whom Christ died can perish.
14. Calvinism says that Christ only died for a few elect when the Bible says that Jesus died for the world and all men.
15. Calvinism says that God wants most sinners to remain in their sins and die and go to hell, to somehow glorify His justice, when the Bible says God wants all men to repent and be saved.
16. Calvinism says that men cannot repent and believe when the Bible commands men to repent and believe and blames them if they do not.
17. Calvinism says that men cannot repent and believe because they are born spiritually dead because of Adam when the Bible says that men are dead or alienated from God because of their own trespasses and sins and says the prodigal son was able to return to the father even though he was dead to the father.
18. Calvinism says that God predestined individuals for heaven or hell when the Bible says that God has chosen to offer salvation to the Jews and the Gentiles, grafting in some and cutting off others based upon their faith or unbelief.
19. Calvinism says that God predestined some for Heaven and most for hell according to the pleasure of His will, when the Bible says that God sent Jesus to die for all, commands all men to repent and believe, is drawing all men unto Himself, is not willing that any should perish, and takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked.
20. Calvinism says that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to believers when the Bible says that our faith is imputed as righteousness.
21. Calvinism says that God doesn’t see believers if they sin, but see’s imputed righteousness instead, when the Bible says God is omniscient and nothing is hide from His eyes.
22. Calvinism says that true believers will persevere unto the end when the Bible exhorts believers to persevere, warns of damnation if they do not, and speaks of some who have departed from the faith.
My list can go on and on but these are just some of the major points
Jim, Isaiah 53 says God laid the iniquity of the world on Him. Thats imputation dude!
Jim, Romans 5:19 ” thru one man’s disobedience the many were constituted sinners, even so thru the obedience of the One the many will be constituted righteous. This has to be transfer. ” One act of righteousness there resulted justification of life for all men.” Imputation!
Tim,
I am going to bite and make a comment of this.
Whatever the Fathers erroneously believed is not the point.
I like the reading that says Revelation took place before the destruction of the Temple. The red Dragon are the 7 Herods. The 10 horns the tens Caesars to that point ; Julius, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Galba, Ortho, Vitellius, Vespasian, ( I can rattle them off from memory Tim!)
The Harlot is Jerusalem.
As for the Daniel stuff, I don’t know but I think most people think it had to do with the Maccabees.
The Woman of Rev 12 is, yup, Mary. The Church escaped to Pella in the desert and Jerusalem was given over to the army of Titus.
It has been 25 years since I studied this and I bet I know it better than you.
All of this stuff was fulfilled prior to 70 A.D.
Jim, wow that was coherent, not!
Jim, you better hope Tim is wrong, because if he is right your going to be like Ricky Riccardo and have allot of spalinin to do.
Nick, narrow is the gate and few are there who enter by it. Mathew 7
Tim, God has preserved his people throughout history. Mathew 7 says narrow is the gate and few are there who find it. Rome is a false church and the true church has always know this and separated themselves from it.
Kelvin,
How many times on this blog and the other one, have you pointed to, “…and not of ourselves…”?
I have asked you questions, Nick has, Mateo, James, Kenneth, etc.
You have a standard come back that you feel is so iron clad. Actually, no rational person could believe it.
” God rewards those who seek Him” a sane person will say to you.
Like a dog chasing his tail, you will snap back that only those whom God has already fore loved and drawn through regeneration, will seek Him. It’s all so nice and neat.
Again, why didn’t God create us in heaven or hell since we “of ourselves” have nothing to add to the mix? Again, my analogy of the ventriloquist talking to his puppet.
You guys on this blog are a minority even among Protestants.
By effectively making God the author of evil ( please, don’t feed me your lame denial ) and good both, you become like the Deists that said, ” All that is, should be”. Ever read any Unitarian stuff? They have devolved into full blown pantheists. You really should ponder the ramifications of your view of God. In attempting to God Him from “ourselves”, you actually make Him disappear into the eternal pantheistic decrees.
You are an atheist.
Kelvin, A Presbyterian name David Chilton wrote a book called Days of Vengeance ( I think )on the fall of Jerusalem years ago that will set you boys straight, The Book of Revelation HAD to be completed before 70 A.D.
You see, Kelvin, an event 10 times greater than the bombing of the Trade Towers took place in 70.
Imagine someone writing a history of America since 2000 and forgot to mention the terrorists.
No a peep in the N.T. about the Temple being a past event in the Bible. ( Here is where Walt can jump in with his Jesuit conspiracy theory about how Protestants were duped into this view in the 17th century. )
Since you have never read Maccabees Kelvin, you shouldn’t venture an opinion on Daniel.
This whole theory of Tim’s is so bizarre that you and Walt are his only lap dogs. Why don’t you run it past some other Protestants?
Stick with repeating your “not of ourselves” mantra.
Revelation doesn’t mention the destruction of the Temple because Revelation is prophecy, not history. Jesus commanded John to write, “The things which are and those that are to take place after this.” Obediently, he did not mention what was past, but rather what was present and future.
Kelvin,
One day I would really enjoy hearing your conversion story of how John MacArthur saved you.
Were you moved when he said, “Kelvin, Jesus died for some and you just may be one of them”?
Or did you weep tears of relief when Johnny whispered to you how God was not willing some should be lost and was long suffering in waiting for them to repent?
Did the weight of your sins fall from your shoulders when he proclaimed that you never were lost, that from all eternity you had been chosen by lot for glory?
Or did John have to beat you with the Good Person Test?
( Have you ever told a lie? Have you ever stolen a cookie out of the cookie jar? What does that make you? A thief right ).
Please Kelvin,drop the reformed sinner act. You are a hate filled weirdo. You have none of Christ in you. Like the Islamic terrorists, you have hi-jacked God’s name as a bludgeon to bully, insult and angers. You are grateful to MacArthur for arming you and giving you a self righteous view of your mission to insult and offend.
Jim said ” you are a hate filled weirdo” Is this an example of the mission of insult and offending you blame me for. You can’t resist the urge to smuggle your character into God’s work of grace. ” “Not of yourselves” You got an answer to that. Silence is golden!
Kelvin, Weirdo pales in comparison to death wafer so don’t ever play the victim card with me. I am still preening and purring for getting you dumped off the other blog. If I accomplished anything, it was sticking a sock in your foul moth over there. Here, on the demon’s blog, say what you will ” unto your own condemnation”.
PS Earwax tried defending your memory about a week ago and I lambasted him.
But let’s move on.
Here is a link to a Calvinist book that will show you how much Timothy is missing ( be sure to read the pages he has on Rev 12 ). http://archive.org/stream/DaysOfVengeance-
DavidChilton/Days_of_Vengeance_David_Chilton_djvu.txt
Jim, Can you do me a favor. And tell Mateo on the other site to quit being an idiot saying because Protestants believe in JBFA we don’t think we are to obey the Law. He is an idiot. Is he on another planet. You catholics don’t merit initial justification, but you better believe you merit your continuance in it. False gospel. We live by faith and trust in Christ’s righteousness and not ours for salvation. But all who are justified will be sanctified, yet not perfectly. John 5:24 says by believing we pass out of judgment from death to life. Our faith embraces the righteousness of Cgrist which justifies us. God did not come to give us the possibility for salvation, he came to save us. We have been justified by His blood, and redeemed by his blood. He didn’t come to make us redeemable, He came to redeem us. Tell Mateo Paul got charged with antinomianism to and answered his critics. Mateo is acting like and idiot by saying Protestants don’t care about obeying God.
Kevin,
“You catholics don’t merit initial justification, but you better believe you merit your continuance in it.”
Of course. And if we take it for granted, and stop doing good works we will probably do bad works and merit hell,
Kevin, do you believe Christ was a divine person with a human nature?
Christ had two wills, If you doubt it, you are a heretic. The human will was not subsumed into the divine. No monergism Kevin.
Christ was true God and true man. ( But not A true man ).
You Calvinists deny that we cooperate with God. Did Christ cooperate? With Himself? Did Christ have a free human will?
Synergism or monergism in Christ Kevin?
You better be careful with your anti synergism. I already sent you a link how some Calvinists don’t even pray.
You see, Kelvin, your anti-Marianism has led you to a false Christology.
Was Mary the mother of a nature or a person? On Calvary, did a nature or a person die? Did a nature or s person save us? If you say a nature, which one? Did Christ’s human nature include a human will?
See son, your trashing Mary has not made you pleasing to her Son. It has led you into not even being able to articulate who Christ is. NO MARY, NO JESUS. KNOW MARY,KNOW JESUS”.
Kelvin,
Did you read that link I sent?
Do you say grace before you eat? If yes, why? Does God bless your food? Is saying grace any different from your minister saying the words of institution over Presbyterian Eucharist? ( death wafer? ) Nothing actually happens when the minister says the words right?
Does prayer change things? If it does, then God is our puppet, huh?
Since Faith doesn’t save but rather, the saved exercise Faith, it’s all a big game right? We are back to the ventriloquist talking to his dummy.
If Faith saved, it would be a work, huh ( although Paul says it isn’t a work ).
Kelvin, if God didn’t love some people more than others, no one would be saved. It’s all of God.
Yet, God never demands the impossible. It’s all of man.
You have to hold both ideas at once or you deny the Bible. I can’t explain it. You can’t either so you deny one of the two propositions. You say God is a ventriloquist. How and why would a dummy pray to a ventriloquist?
Jim, ” Who will bring a charge against God’s elect” Its God who justifies” For those he foreknew , He also PREDESTINED, to be conformed to the image of his Son, and those He PREDESTINED, He also called, and those He called, He also justified, and these who He justified , He also glorified.” The Golden chain of Salvation JimMary. All monergism. All past tense. Puts your synergism to bed. It can’t be about you JimMary. “Not of yourselves”
Jim, Calvinist don’t believe that we don’t cooperate with God. We are simply working out what god is working in. We are justified, sanctified, and glorified by faith alone in Christ alone. Your cooperation is earning your salvation. Its no longer grace. if God gave grace as a response to an act or an ability it would no longer be grace but a reward. Grace is free. Romans 5:1 says we stand in God’s grace. John 1:16 says we receive grace upon grace. You merit increases of grace and according to Romans 11:6 its no longer grace.
“Free will” is represented by “Arminianism teaches” below.
Arminianism teaches: ‘… and as many as believed were ordained to eternal life.’
THE BIBLE TEACHES: ‘AND AS MANY AS WERE ORDAINED TO ETERNAL LIFE BELIEVED.’ (Acts 13:48)
Arminianism teaches: “For many are called, but few choose.”
THE BIBLE TEACHES: ‘FOR MANY ARE CALLED, BUT FEW ARE CHOSEN.’ (Matt. 22:14)
Arminianism teaches: “Make your decision for Christ.”
THE BIBLE TEACHES: ‘All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.’ (Matt. 11:27)
Arminianism teaches: “I accepted Jesus as my personal saviour.”
THE BIBLE TEACHES: ‘Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you (John 15:16). Also: But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me.’ (Paul’s testimony in Galatians 1:15,16)
Arminianism teaches: “God can’t save you unless you let him, it is your choice.”
THE BIBLE TEACHES: ‘So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy…Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.’ (Romans 9:16, 18).
Arminianism teaches: “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life.”
THE BIBLE TEACHES: ‘(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth:) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved but Esau have I hated.’ (Rom. 9:11-13).
Arminianism teaches: “God wants everyone to be saved.”
THE BIBLE TEACHES: ‘And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand…'(Mark 4:11,12).
Walt, show in the Bible where someone is saved BEFORE having Faith,
Jim,
You asked where in the bible is anyone saved before having faith, and I will be happy to deal with that, but first I would like to deal with your presupposition. Your RC epistemology to salvation is what I want to deal with first. You see, if you don’t believe regeneration happens before faith, than you will see every verse in Scripture I share with you that it is impossible to be regenerated before faith.
The differences between Calvinism and Arminianism and Roman Catholicism is based on how each believe what is the “order of salvation”, or Ordo Salutis.
Here is a link where you can see the large gap between what is taught by various denominations in ordo salutis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordo_salutis
Now, once you learn these distinctions, you will have a much better presupposition when you read Scripture on how the Lord effectually calls, draws and saves a dead person who is not just “sick” but actually dead in trespass and sin.
“Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” (John1:13).
“Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures” (Jam.1:18).
“And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul” (Acts.16:14).
“The king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will” (Prov.21:1).
“For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy” (Rom.9:15-16).
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will” (Eph.1:3-6, 9).
“… and I will go as far as Martin Luther, in that strong assertion of his, where he says, ‘If any man doth ascribe of salvation, even the very least, to the free will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright.’ It may seem a harsh sentiment; but he who in his soul believes that man does of his own free will turn to God, cannot have been taught of God, for that is one of the first principles taught us when God begins with us, that we have neither will nor power, but that He gives both; that He is ‘Alpha and Omega’ in the salvation of men.” (Charles H. Spurgeon from the sermon ‘Free Will A Slave’ (1855) referring to Luther’s book The Bondage of the Will).
Kelvin and Tim ( Walt probably isn’t interested as it doesn’t mention Scotland ),
Here is a link to a story on why Calvin thought Catholics had apostatized.
http://orthodoxyandheterodoxy.org/2014/02/10/the-great-apostasy-john-calvin-and-the-fall-of-the-church/
Jim,
I think Walt will find it most interesting, since in 396 AD, Vigilantius departed from Jerome in disgust and his last known whereabouts were the Cottian Alps. And at about the same time, 397 AD, Scottish missionary Ninian established his ministry in Scotland, and established the “Magnum Monasterium” on the shores of Galloway where Columba studied the Scriptures.
I read the link you sent on Calvin’s view of the fall of the church, and this paragraph jumped out at me:
All three questions will be answered here.
Thanks for the link,
Tim
Tim wrote:
“I think Walt will find it most interesting, since in 396 AD, Vigilantius departed from Jerome in disgust and his last known whereabouts were the Cottian Alps. And at about the same time, 397 AD, Scottish missionary Ninian established his ministry in Scotland, and established the “Magnum Monasterium” on the shores of Galloway where Columba studied the Scriptures.”
Tim, this is THE KEY thread that very few people know about, and is CRITICAL to understanding how the Scripture was preserved by the errors of Jerome and Erasmus.
See below a bit of history to connect the Scriptures through Scotland.
—————
“Hebrew has one thing in common with English: they are both “picture languages”. Their words form a clear picture in your mind. As evidence of this; the first man to ever print the scriptures in English, William Tyndale, once commented that Hebrew was ten times easier to translate into English than any other language. Tyndale would certainly be qualified to make such a statement, as he was so fluent in eight languages, that it was said you would have thought any one of them to be his native tongue.
By approximately 500 BC, the 39 Books that make up the Old Testament were completed, and continued to be preserved in Hebrew on scrolls. As we approach the last few centuries before Christ, the Jewish historical books known as the “Apocrypha” were completed, yet they were recorded in Greek rather than Hebrew. By the end of the First Century AD, the New Testament had been completed. It was preserved in Greek on Papyrus, a thin paper-like material made from crushed and flattened stalks of a reed-like plant. The word “Bible” comes from the same Greek root word as “papyrus”. The papyrus sheets were bound, or tied together in a configuration much more similar to modern books than to an elongated scroll.
These groupings of papyrus were called a “codex” (plural: “codices”). The oldest copies of the New Testament known to exist today are: The Codex Alexandrius and the Codex Sinaiticus in the British Museum Library in London, and the Codex Vaticanus in the Vatican. They date back to approximately the 300’s AD. In 315 AD, Athenasius, the Bishop of Alexandria, identified the 27 Books which we recognize today as the canon of New Testament scripture.
In 382 AD, the early church father Jerome translated the New Testament from its original Greek into Latin. This translation became known as the “Latin Vulgate”, (“Vulgate” meaning “vulgar” or “common”). He put a note next to the Apocrypha Books, stating that he did not know whether or not they were inspired scripture, or just Jewish historical writings which accompanied the Old Testament.
The Apocrypha was kept as part of virtually every Bible scribed or printed from these early days until just 120 years ago, in the mid-1880’s, when it was removed from Protestant Bibles. Up until the 1880’s, however, every Christian… Protestant or otherwise… embraced the Apocrypha as part of the Bible, though debate continued as to whether or not the Apocrypha was inspired. There is no truth to the popular myth that there is something “Roman Catholic” about the Apocrypha, which stemmed from the fact that the Roman Catholics kept 12 of the 14 Apocrypha Books in their Bible, as the Protestants removed all of them. No real justification was ever given for the removal of these ancient Jewish writings from before the time of Christ, which had remained untouched and part of every Bible for nearly two thousand years.
By 500 AD the Bible had been translated into over 500 languages. Just one century later, by 600 AD, it has been restricted to only one language: the Latin Vulgate! The only organized and recognized church at that time in history was the Catholic Church of Rome, and they refused to allow the scripture to be available in any language other than Latin. Those in possession of non-Latin scriptures would be executed! This was because only the priests were educated to understand Latin, and this gave the church ultimate power… a power to rule without question… a power to deceive… a power to extort money from the masses. Nobody could question their “Biblical” teachings, because few people other than priests could read Latin. The church capitalized on this forced-ignorance through the 1,000 year period from 400 AD to 1,400 AD knows as the “Dark and Middle Ages”.
Pope Leo the Tenth established a practice called the “selling of indulgences” as a way to extort money from the people. He offered forgiveness of sins for a fairly small amount of money. For a little bit more money, you would be allowed to indulge in a continuous lifestyle of sin, such as keeping a mistress. Also, through the invention of “Purgatory”, you could purchase the salvation of your loved-one’s souls. The church taught the ignorant masses, “As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the troubled soul from Purgatory springs!” Pope Leo the Tenth showed his true feelings when he said, “The fable of Christ has been quite profitable to us!”
Editorial Note: Let us state at this point, that it is not our intent to offend or “bash” Roman Catholics. It is unavoidable that every historical account has its “good guys” and its “bad guys”. Just as it is impossible to accurately tell the story of World War Two without offending the Germans and the Italians who were undeniably the enemies of world peace at that time… it is equally impossible to accurately tell the story of the English Bible without unintentionally offending those who continue to revere the Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches.
Where was the true church of God during these Dark Ages?
On the Scottish Island of Iona, in 563 AD, a man named Columba started a Bible College. For the next 700 years, this was the source of much of the non-Catholic, evangelical Bible teaching through those centuries of the Dark and Middle Ages. The students of this college were called “Culdees”, which means “certain stranger”. The Culdees were a secret society, and the remnant of the true Christian faith was kept alive by these men during the many centuries that led up to the Protestant Reformation.
In fact, the first man to be called a “Culdee” was Joseph of Aremethia. The Bible tells us that Joseph of Aremethia gave up his tomb for Jesus. Tradition tells us that he was actually the Uncle of the Virgin Mary, and therefore the Great-Uncle (or “half-Uncle” at least) of Jesus. It is also believed that Joseph of Aremethia traveled to the British Isles shortly after the resurrection of Christ, and built the first Christian Church above ground there. Tradition also tells us that Jesus may have spent much of his young adult life (between 13 and 30) traveling the world with his Great Uncle Joseph… though the Bible is silent on these years in the life of Jesus.
In the late 1300’s, the secret society of Culdees chose John Wycliffe to lead the world out of the Dark Ages. Wycliffe has been called the “Morning Star of the Reformation”. That Protestant Reformation was about one thing: getting the Word of God back into the hands of the masses in their own native language, so that the corrupt church would be exposed and the message of salvation in Christ alone, by scripture alone, through faith alone would be proclaimed again.
This concludes our overview of the Pre-Reformation history of the Bible. You should now click here to return to the main English Bible History Page, to pick up this story with John Wycliffe in the 14th Century, and continue on to the 21st Century.
—————
http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/pre-reformation.html
Jim,
The article says the following:
“. . . “BOBO” theory—that the Christian faith somehow “Blinked Out” after the Apostles and “Blinked On” again in our time, or whenever our modern “prophets” arose, be they Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Joseph Smith, Ellen White or John Wimber. The result of this kind of BOBO approach is that you have “early” saints and “latter-day” saints, but no saints in the middle.”
I totally believe in this issue…however, I disagree that Evangelicals or “Protestants” have jumped from the Apostles to the reformation…or the 1500’s to learn church history.
I’ve never met ANY and I mean ANY Evangelicals that know ANYTHING about the first and second reformations. I’ve been on many blogs reading what evangelicals teach, seen many of their programming on TV ministries, and have been part of many face-to face discussions all over the world with various groups of Christians and they have NO IDEA what happened in the reformation.
Rather, they are only familiar with generally the last 100 years of their church history, and while they have heard the name Luther, Calvin, etc. they have never read anything they wrote, nor did they really study any history outside the last 30-50 years of their family history. When I speak to the typical Evangelical, indeed they argue that they only follow Scripture and the Apostles, and jump to the 1960’s where they and their family has learned doctrine.
The idea that Evangelicals jump with the BOBO theory from Apostles to the Reformation is not true.
The same with the Roman Catholics. They jump from Apostles with total ignorance of the Reformation, and end up at Vatican II doctrine, and that is where they sit. They are BOBO theory like Evangelicals from Apostles to Vatican II.
Jim,
Rev. Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick, made this statement after quoting several statements by Calvin:
“The problem with this statement is that it is unbiblical. It contradicts Matthew 5:17 where Christ taught that he did not come to abolish (abrogate) the Law but to fulfill it. With the New Covenant came a new priesthood based on Christ’s priesthood and a new form of worship based on Christ’s sacrificial death on the Cross. Here It seems is the root cause of Calvin’s mistake – he tragically transposed the Protestants’ controversy with Roman Catholicism onto the early Church.”
First, if you read Part I of the good “fathers” essay, it is clear he contradicts himself several times. Again, why?
He does so because he is not teaching history to the reader, but he makes it clear he is going to prove his opinion by using his select presupposition to history. Does he prove his opinion?
Not in my own opinion. He first explains the BOBO theory, and then states he can prove Calvin uses BOBO theory because Calvin made this statement:
“We maintain to start with that, when God raised up Luther and others, who held forth a torch to light us into the way of salvation, and on whose ministry our churches are founded and built, those heads of doctrine in which the truth of our religion, those in which the pure and legitimate worship of God, and those in which the salvation of men are comprehended, were in a great measure obsolete. (“Necessity” pp. 185-186; emphasis added)”
Your “father” says, “Therefore, from the evidences above it is clear that Calvin did in fact hold to the BOBO theory of church history. ”
Not true. Calvin was first a bible student, and second a historian. He did not believe that somehow (like Evangelicals) that church history jumped from the Apostles to Benny Hinn Ministries as the high water mark in history. Calvin did not believe that church history jumped from faith, to unfaithful to faithful with Luther without biblical and historical evidence.
While your “father” states the Luther quote is evidence Calvin used BOBO theory, it is interesting your “father” contradicts himself when he later writes:
“Orthodox theologians and historians can in many ways agree with Calvin about the Roman Church’s decline. However, where many Orthodox view Rome’s decline as having occurred after the Great Schism of 1054, Calvin viewed the “Fall of the Church” as having occurred during the time of the Ecumenical Councils when Rome was in communion with the other patriarchates. This is something Orthodox Christians would find problematic. Orthodoxy believes that it has faithfully kept and preserved Apostolic Tradition for the past two thousand years and because it never suffered a “Fall” is the same Church as the early Church.”
What? Did your “father” just admit there was a RCC decline and that Calvin believed the decline came during the Ecumenical Counsels?
I thought your “father” said that Calvin applied the BOBO theory and jumped from the Apostles to Luther? Now, he said that the decline argued by Calvin (and agreed by the father) came from the Ecumenical councils (325-787)?
First Council of Nicaea (325) repudiated Arianism, declared that Christ is “homoousios with the Father” (of the same substance as the Father), and adopted the original Nicene Creed, fixed Easter date; recognised primacy of the sees of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch and granted the See of Jerusalem a position of honor.
First Council of Constantinople (381) repudiated Arianism and Macedonianism, declared that Christ is “born of the Father before all time”, revised the Nicene Creed in regard to the Holy Spirit.
Council of Ephesus (431) repudiated Nestorianism, proclaimed the Virgin Mary as the Theotokos (“Birth-giver to God”, “God-bearer”, “Mother of God”), repudiated Pelagianism, and reaffirmed the Nicene Creed.
This and all the following councils in this list are not recognised by all of the Church of the East.
Second Council of Ephesus (449) declared Eutyches orthodox and attacked his opponents.
Though originally convened as an ecumenical council, this council is not recognised as ecumenical and denounced as a Robber Council by the Chalcedonians (Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestants).
Council of Chalcedon (451) repudiated the Eutychian doctrine of monophysitism, adopted the Chalcedonian Creed, which described the hypostatic union of the two natures of Christ, human and divine. Reinstated those deposed in 449 and deposed Dioscorus of Alexandria. Elevation of the bishoprics of Constantinople and Jerusalem to the status of patriarchates. This is also the last council explicitly recognised by the Anglican Communion.
This and all the following councils in this list are rejected by Oriental Orthodox churches.
Second Council of Constantinople (553) repudiated the Three Chapters as Nestorian, condemned Origen of Alexandria, decreed the Theopaschite Formula.
Third Council of Constantinople (680–681) repudiated Monothelitism and Monoenergism.
Quinisext Council, also called Council in Trullo[18] (692) addressed matters of discipline (in amendment to the 5th and 6th councils).
The Ecumenical status of this council was repudiated by the western churches.
Second Council of Nicaea (787) restored the veneration of icons (condemned at the Council of Hieria, 754) and repudiated iconoclasm.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical_Council
Your “father” is a bit confusing if he believes that the BOBO theory teaches that someone like Calvin is applying the theory without walking through history as Calvin does on showing the decline, and factually showing the bright light in Luther to protest (95 thesis) against the Romish decline. The BOBO theory jumps, as your “father” references:
“The result of this kind of BOBO approach is that you have “early” saints and “latter-day” saints, but no saints in the middle.”
Calvin is not doing that…your “father” is twisting history to suit his own presupposition.
Finally, regarding your “father” who teaches that Calvin was a dispensationalist (using 21st century definition) he is again in error. Calvin does not teach (as do dispensationalists) that there were TWO CHURCHES…one in the old and one in the new testament dispensations.
Calvin correctly teaches that in the two dispensations, the old testament CEREMONIAL LAW was done away is it was used as types and shadows pointing to Jesus Christ. Christ DID fulfill the law of ceremonies….but he did not do away with the MORAL LAW. The 10 commandments and the moral equity of the Judicial law still is binding, but the ceremonial law is finished. That is what you learn reading the Bible cover to cover, over and over again. It is so obvious that one would have to be a RCC Priest or a Jewish Rabbi not to see that fact.
The alter, the incense, the mitre, the garments, the use of blood (by changing wine into blood), the use of meat sacrifice (changing wafer into actual meat as Tim shows), etc. are all done away with in the new testament dispensation.
Calvin teaches that Christ’s church is ONE throughout the old and new, but that the CEREMONIAL law is finished. This is not dispensationalism as your good “father” claims.
Tim, No, thank you sir!
And here is another link for you. You don’t actually pray for your kids do you?
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2013/11/can-a-calvinist-pray-for-his-child-to-be-elect/
Tim, you said:
“I think Walt will find it most interesting, since in 396 AD, Vigilantius departed from Jerome in disgust and his last known whereabouts were the Cottian Alps.”
I know you mentioned some of this in the comments to Nick, but I would like to learn more on this if you happen to cover it in one of your articles.
Tim wrote:
“Thus was veneration of relics introduced to the church in the latter half of the fourth century, and thus did even pagans notice (as I have mentioned elsewhere within these comments) that the object of the church’s worship, to their eyes, appeared to shift from Christ (before AD 350) to many dead men and martyrs thereafter. And thus did Roman Catholicism arise from within the true Church and succeeded in drawing many after it to worship idols, forbid marriage and food that God created to be enjoyed with thanksgiving, just as the Apostles had warned, and just as Daniel had foreseen.”
Those excommunications by Rome are interesting indeed. It seems the “real great schism” between the true witnessing church of Christ and the great “falling away” is here.
It seems that Calvin was looking “beyond” 350AD for the falling away in the ecumenical councils? Wikipedia says:
“First Council of Nicaea (325) repudiated Arianism, declared that Christ is “homoousios with the Father” (of the same substance as the Father), and adopted the original Nicene Creed, fixed Easter date; recognised primacy of the sees of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch and granted the See of Jerusalem a position of honor.”
But you write:
“That was the great falling away. It may be of some interest to you, or if not, at least to the readers here, that the title “Pontifex Maximus” was last used by a Roman Emperor under Gratian, who formally renounced the title in 382 AD. That is the same time period that Jovinianus and other bishops were excommunicated for their “heretical beliefs,” when the Eastern Dioceses was split in two to make a total of 13 Dioceses, when the Council of Rome for the first time, claimed the primacy of the three Petrine sees ***(Nicæa had made no mention of Petrine succession),*** and when Gratian’s co-Augustus, Theodosius I, issued his decreed “de Fidei Catholica” naming the western bishop, Damasus, Pontifex of the new state religion.”
and you said:
“At Nicæa, there is no appeal to Petrine Primacy at all, and the direction of the Council is for the metropolitan to govern according to the local preferences, and that bishops be elected by majority vote within their respective provinces. Alexandria, Rome and Antioch are identified, but they are not, as you say, “singled out” as is evidenced by… the fact that they are not singled out.”
So while Nicaea mentioned the “recognised primacy of the sees of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch and granted the See of Jerusalem a position of honor” it does not mention that this was based upon Peter’s succession?
Is that right?
I’m very interested in this falling away prior to, and around 350AD period in more detail, and where did the true church go as it was “excommunicated” from Rome?
Thanks, Walt,
It is definitely an interesting time period. It’s interesting to see precisely what happened in 370s and 380s A.D., in view of Nicæa.
At Nicæae, in Canon VI, in response to the recent controversy of Hesychius, Pachomius, Theodorus, and Phileas, four bishops from Alexandria who complained to Miletius, Bishop of Lycopolis, for the offense of ordaining bishops outside his own province. In their letter they claim that Miletius had dishonored our beloved Peter—not Peter the Apostle, but Peter, the then-reigning bishop of Alexandria. It was wrong, based on established (not Roman or Petrine) custom to cross boundaries and ordain bishops in other provinces.
Canon VI at Nicaea addresses that and says when it comes to ordaining bishops, everyone needs to mind their own business within their own province. There is no appeal to Roman Primacy or Petrine succession.
At Constantinople I, much the same issue is addressed in Canon II, and only four Diocese are addressed: Thrace, Asia, Pontus and the Diocese of the East. At the time (381), the Eastern Diocese had not been split in two, so it was true that everyone needed to mind their own business within their province, but because Alexandria and Antioch were both within the Diocese of the East, there had to be a caveat saying that Antioch manages its own part of the Diocese and Alexandria manages its part.
Then the controversial Canon III said basically Constantinople has the same rank as Rome, as the letter to Rome indicated, saying, don’t be offended by Canon III, because “according to the word of the apostle, we should reign along with you.” This is an appeal to Paul (1 Corinthians 4:8), not to Peter. So at Constantinople and at Nicæae, no appeal to Peter has been made.
But Constantinople I was the last straw for Rome. At the Council of Rome (382) Pope Damasus I set them straight, and for the first time made Petrine Primacy the basis for elevating Alexandria, Antioch and Rome above all others:
That’s the first formal appeal to Petrine Primacy, an appeal that was necessary to counter Constantinople’s appeal to be equal among the rest. About that time, the Diocese of the East split into the Diocese of Egypt and the Diocese of the East. Thus Rome claimed three Dioceses for the succession of Peter.
By 384 Jerome had written “De custodia virginitatis” which laid the groundwork for clerical celibacy
By 385 Pope Siricius had issued a decretal on Priestly Celibacy, declaring that bishops should stop co-habiting with their wives, because he has heard “that many priests and deacons of Christ, long after their ordination, have produced offspring … from their own wives … and defend their sin with this excuse, that it is read in the Old Testament that the opportunity to procreate was given to priests and ministers.”
By 386 Rome had convened a Synod and confirmed clerical celibacy
By 389 Siricius had excommunicated several bishops, including Jovinanus, who had been teaching that clerical celibacy was not taught in the Scriptures, and that God does not love virgins and ascetics more than the rest of His sheep.
Jovinianus knew who they were dealing with, for Jerome’s refutation of him had to respond to his use of 1 Timothy 4:1-4.
More on this later. It would be worthwhile to have a post just on the latter half of the 4th Century. So much happened, in both the civil and ecclesiastical realms.
Thanks so much,
Tim
Tim, in the book “Roman State Christian Church, a collection of Legal Document to A.D. 535” by P.R. Coleman-Norton it says:
Mandate of Honorius and Theodosius II on Exile of Jovinian, (?) 412 (CT 15.5.53)
It is tempting to associated this ordinance with that Jovinian who was an outspoken opponent of Christian celibacy and was condemned as a heretic in 390 and in 391. The only objections are the date and the addressee, but editorial conjecture changes the date to 398, which fits into the data of Jovinian’s life as well as solves the difficulty about the addressee, Felix, urban perfect of Rome, who from another ordinance (CT6.2.21) is known to have held that office in that year and not in 312, unless the present document is correct(1).
Our information about Jovinian comes from St. Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, Siricius—all contemporaries: the first three being three of the four Doctors of the Western Church(2) and the fourth a pope. Probably through lack of sympathy with Jovinian’s protestations against asceticism these saints have ruined his reputation, but at least they have reproduced his arguments(3)—and those in his ipissima verba—though in fragments and only for criticism.
It appears that Joivinian, originally a monk and then converted to a less austere, if not to a luxurious, life, taught that: (1) virginity is not superior to matrimony, (2) abstinence from meat is no better than partaking there with thanksgiving(4), (3) one baptized with the Spirit as well as with water cannot sin, (4) absolute equality exits between virtues and between vices(5), (5) in the future life there is only one grade of reward and of punishment, (6) the Blessed Virgin Mary was not perpetually a virgin.
———-
The same Augusti(6) to Felix, urban prefect(7).
The bishops’ complaint deplores that Jovinian conducts sacrilegious gatherings outside the most sacred city’s(8) walls.
Wherefore we command that the aforesaid person should be arrested and, after having been beaten with a leaden scourge, should be cconfined by exile with all the rest of his adherents and attendants; moreover that he himself, as the machinator, should be expelled with swift speed to the isel of Bua(9) and that the rest—just as it shall have been pleasing(10), provided that the band of superstitious conspirators shall be dissolved by the separation of exile itself—should be deported in perpetuity to solitary islands situated at a great distance from one another.
Moreover, if anyone by pertinacious improbity shall have repeated such prohibited condemned things, he should know that he will suffer a severer sentence.
Given on 6 March at Milan, Honorius Augustus for the ninth time and Theodosius Augustus for the fifth time being consuls(11).
———–
I did not type up all the footnotes above, but if you want any footnote let me know and I will type it.
The section on Council of Niceae is extensive covering all the laws passed out of that event. If you not bought the 3 vol set, you might consider getting the set.
Walt, great posts. Much stuff I did not know. And what did they do with William Tyndale, hunted him down and killed him for the crime of translating the bible into English. In the long war on the truth, the most relentless, deceptive, and destructive enemy has been Roman Catholicism. The true church has always known this and separated itself from them.
Tim, you wrote:
“What you are trying to get me to say is that the visible church before Nicæa was effectively apostate, and that I will not affirm. In the latter half of the fourth century, there was a dramatic shift—new “ancient customs” were introduced: clerical celibacy, veneration of saints and martyrs, adoration of the eucharist, Roman primacy, images in worship, intercession of saints, visions and lying wonders, etc… It is of no small interest to me that Jovinianus and his cohorts were excommunicated, the Diocese of the East was split in two to make a total of 13 Dioceses, and the Council of Rome identified three of those dioceses as the three Petrine Sees, all within about 3 years of each other. This was right on schedule, according to Daniel and the Apostles. And what the world has for 16 centuries identified in Rome as the religion established by Jesus Christ, is quite simply a diabolical fraud (Revelation 13:4). I am not ashamed to say it. Yes indeed, a very radical shift occurred between the Council of Nicæa (325) and the Council of Rome (382).”
Yes, I do hope you dig into this period in more detail to show where the beginning of the falling away takes place.
I am far more interested in who were these men who were excommunicated and on what basis. Any details on this schism in the visible church around this period could be a major help to me to see where the early church saw this apostate religion being formed in the Scriptures.
While the falling away is far earlier as you appear to be demonstrating, I do hold still with Pastor Price that the date for the healing of the 6th head (the restoration of Emperors of Rome under Charlemagne) at 800 a.d. is start the 1260 year period.
We have lots of detail (see below) on Protestantism, but we are in need of more details where the true church (well-being) separated from the visible church (being).
WYLIE, J.A.
The History of Protestantism (3 volumes, 1878)
Walk about Zion, and go round about her: tell the towers thereof. Mark ye well her bulwarks, consider her palaces; that ye may tell it to the generation following” (Ps. 48:12-13).
In direct opposition to the command cited above in Psalm 48:12-13, when The History of Protestantism was first published, Rome banned this book, buying up and burning all the copies that they could lay their hands on. It was more hated and denounced by Papists than any other book of its time. History is a powerful weapon and all tyrants seek to either revise or bury the history of God’s marvelous works.
Rome is no exception. Rome twists history for its own wicked purposes, whereas Protestants use history (as commanded in Scripture) to build one another up in our most holy faith (Ps. 78:1-8).
“Wylie’s… is the best history extant. I welcome its republishing. Read it. Study it. Circulate it and by so doing you will help to dispel the dark cloud of priestly superstition, popish idolatry and papal tyranny encircling our land” writes Ian Paisley. He continues, “The Reformation of the 16th century was the greatest revival of New Testament Christianity since the days of Pentecost. Then once more the gospel in its purity was preached with apostolic power and with apostolic results.”
This massive three-volume set contains nearly 2000 (8.5″ X 11″) pages, more than 500 illustrations and a 21 page general index. It chronicles Protestantism in its progress from the first century to the late 17th century — though the focus is clearly on the 16th and 17th centuries. After dealing with the early church, other early “Protestant” witnesses, the erection of the inquisition, Wycliffe, Huss and the Hussite wars, Wylie begins to chronicle Protestant history primarily as it grew in various nations.
The Netherlands, Scotland, Germany, England, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, France, Poland, Bohemia, Hungary, Transylvania and various other locales, all receive prominent and detailed notice. Geneva and the Protestantism of the Waldensian valleys are also spotlighted.
A whole section is devoted to the Jesuits, exposing their demonic cruelty and aspirations in overthrowing Reformation truth, persecuting the Reformers and unsettling the civil systems of all the lands that they were allowed to enter. All major (Westminster Assembly, the Solemn League and Covenant, the Synod of Dort, etc.) and many minor Protestant victories are covered in the amazing accounts documented by Wylie. James Arminius (Arminianism), Bloody (Queen) Mary, Charles II, and other notorious figures are also covered in this comprehensive chronicle. Whether recounting Luther’s burning of the Papal Bull “excommunicating” him or Calvin’s refusing of the Lord’s supper (close communion) to the Libertines of Geneva (who said they would kill him for doing so), the pages of this book provide soul-stirring testimony to the international life and death struggle for the gospel of Christ that became known as the Protestant Reformation.
As an added bonus the pictures in these books are excellent for introducing children to major historical events relating to the struggle, sacrifice and victory of Christ’s church on earth.
The pictures (in conjunction with the historical accounts) of Protestant martyrs giving their lives for Christ have often made a permanent and godly impression upon both young and old alike. Moreover, this history can be used as a reference work (to gain an overview of the great controversy between the true church of Christ and the false, Harlot church of Rome) or read in greater detail to see the hand of God moving through His people and church throughout the centuries (winning over and/or testifying against various nations, tongues and kings, as we behold Christ’s two witnesses prophesying in the midst of the 1260 years of the great apostasy [Rev. 10:8-17]).
In our day, when the Papal antichrist addresses the United Nations, is often the subject of major news reports, and regularly meets with national civil leaders (and when professing Protestants are defecting to “the whore of Babylon,” and signing “peace” treaties with this great enemy of Christ [to fight cultural battles]), these books are needed more than ever. William Cunningham’s words, though written many years ago, should be heeded by all faithful Christians today, for he said, “[i]t is quite evident, from the signs of the times, that the Popish controversy must be fought over again… It is incumbent upon ministers of the gospel to prepare themselves for the contest.” Wylie’s History of Protestantism will do much to prepare all faithful Christians to once again apply the sword of the Spirit to the Romish “MOTHER OF HARLOTS” who sits on seven mountains (Rev. 17:9) and is “drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus” (Rev. 17:6).
Many who have forgotten this history have already become easy prey for the ecclesiatical beast of Revelation. Don’t let ignorance of history cause you to be torn by the claws of our adversary. “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour” (1 Pet. 5:8).
Thanks, Walt. To your observations:
Thanks, that’s the plan.
Yes, and you’re right to understand that we cannot trust the testimony of they who sought to cast them in the most unfavorable light. Jerome was an ascetic, so three square meals a day would appear extravagant and gluttonous to him. Remember that Jerome told Eustochium that fleeing marriage is like “fleeing from Sodom” (To Eustochium, chapter 2), so a modest diet of suitable nourishment was, to him, like the worst gourmandizing of Rome. Also, in Against Jovinianus Book II, chapter I, he accused Jovinianus of teaching that “the baptized in Christ cannot be tempted by the devil,” but that was not a direct quote of Jovinianus. But in Against Jovinianus, Book I, chapter three, when he is quoting Jovinianus directly, and he puts it somewhat differently: “He endeavours to show that ‘they who with full assurance of faith have been born again in baptism, cannot be overthrown by the devil.'” It seems that Jovinianus’ offense was to teach that they who are in Christ cannot lose their salvation. It does not appear that he was teaching that Christians cannot sin.
Respectfully acknowledged. Pastor Price has more years on him than I do. I do not agree at this point, but I’m certainly open to it.
Yes, that is my aim here. Thanks for the additional information.
Tim
Walt, this is all so cool! It’s like the Da Vinci Code. Too bad you can’t get the word out. Only 5 people are on this blog.
Tim, do you or don’t you pray for your kids?
Walt, do you wear a kilt. Around the house? Do you wear a tam o’ shanter and check yourself out in a mirror for hours at a time? It’s all about Scottyness for you, right?
Jim,
I do pray for my children. And I pray for my wife. And I pray for myself. I also pray for you.
Thanks, and I’m glad you’re here.
Tim
No, Jim. If the reformation would have started in China I would be focused on reading those reformers from China. I don’t focus on Scotland for any other reason except that it has been God’s light on bringing faithful church testimony in Covenant to the world…knowing that the Papacy is antichrist.
You are totally infatuated with the Vatican Jim, but what do you see with Rome that is meaningful to support Scripture? My best friend and partner before he passed was from Rome, and I love many things about Rome and Italy. I spent time there with him and learned a lot about his being raised inside the RCC there in Italy. He and I traveled to Edinburgh once to do our own research before the internet was so filled with docs that now it does not require a plane ticket to learn.
I am focused on learning the unfaithful antichrist religion, and also the faithful Christian religion. To this end, the former takes me to Vatican city, and the latter takes me to Scotland, England and Ireland during the second reformation.
Jim, Portugal is not anywhere on my list…unless one is looking to visit you and get his reputation destroyed. I’m not at all concerned about Jerome’s scathing report of his contemporaries because Jerome was an enemy of Scripture truths, and so any attacks are standard RCC tactics…as you know. Nothing to do with working out Scripture, but rather to attack the reputation of the opponent (which is what you are now focused on doing with me and Scotland).
As we learned above, “Probably through lack of sympathy with Jovinian’s protestations ***against asceticism these saints have ruined his reputation***, but at least they have reproduced his arguments(3)—and those in his ipissima verba—though in fragments and only for criticism.”
They ordered: “***Wherefore we command that the aforesaid person should be arrested and, after having been beaten with a leaden scourge, should be confined by exile with all the rest of his adherents and attendants; moreover that he himself, as the machinator, should be expelled with swift speed to the isel of Bua(9)*** and that the rest—just as it shall have been pleasing(10), provided that the ***band of superstitious conspirators shall be dissolved by the separation of exile itself—should be deported in perpetuity to solitary islands situated at a great distance from one another.***”
Walt, you, Tim and kelvin are the only 3 protestants who really know all this secret club stuff. The vatican might send out assassins to destroy you before you three bring the whole babylonish system down.
Do you three have a secret handshake, password and secret code names?
I will ask this question in a new post since it’s critical to your claims:
When did the 1,260 years begin and end?
If the 1,260 days starts in AD325, then that yields the year AD1585, yet Luther died in 1545 and Calvin in 1564. So if this number corresponds to the rise of the Reformers, it’s easily 20 years off if not longer (since the Reformation began in AD1521).
Hi, Nick,
Thanks for your note. The Thirteen Dioceses were not finalized until the 380s A.D., and Rome did not claim the three Dioceses of Egypt, Italy and the East (capital cities of Alexandria, Rome and Antioch, respectively) on the basis of Petrine Primacy until 382 A.D. at the Council of Rome. Whatever you may think of my position, I have been consistent in my claim that Roman Catholicism, the “11th Horn,” did not exist until the latter half of the 4th Century, and I have never claimed that the 11th horn received authority before it existed. As such, why would I start the 1,260 at 325 AD, before the “11th horn” even arose? To your comment on another thread under this post,
I have not heard any Church Fathers or Protestants espouse this, either. Certainly not any Catholics. I make no apology for that.
That is your axiom showing, Nick. Because you consider the “historical record” of the Roman Catholic Church to be a reliable historical record. Thus, through the lens of your axiom, you cannot understand my statements to mean anything else than that the Church Jesus established, and to whom He sent the Holy Spirit as a Paraclete, is itself the Antichrist. I have not, and will not ever make any such claim. Jesus’ church would not, and did not do, what Rome did in the latter half of the fourth century. It was a different religion entirely, which is why Christ’s faithful did not follow it, and did not stumble into it, for the Holy Spirit protected her from this new religion. The Early Church was indeed on guard, as many of the Fathers indicate. The Lord provided a place for His Church, and for this reason, “the woman fled into the wilderness” (Revelation 12:6). She certainly did not flee to Rome, but very many clearly did.
Paul said “And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie” (2 Thessalonians 2:11), and he spoke quite accurately on that. When people believe a strong delusion, it is not because they know and think it is a lie. It is because in their delusion they believe they have arrived at the truth of God.
It is no coincidence that the ascetism and mandatory celibacy that Paul warned of in 1 Timothy 4:1-4, and the idolatry (eucharistic adoration, veneration of relics, etc) of which John warned in 1 John, arrived precisely at the time when Roman Empire was dividing into 13 Dioceses and Rome was claiming three of them under the prerogative of Petrine Primacy, and then came up among the remaining 10 Dioceses, each of which, as Gibbon notes, had the authority of kingdoms.
As I have mentioned elsewhere and repeat here, that of which Daniel warned by figure (Daniel 7), the apostles warned by doctrine (2 Thess, 1 John).
The falling away was massive because the whole world must wonder after the beast, and it is the Church that John describes as “the remnant” (Revelation 12:17). John’s prophecy in Revelation 13 was not that “all the world would have wondered after the beast, if it had not been for the rise of Roman Catholicism, which for its size and reach was able to prevent these prophecies from taking place.” Daniel’s prophecy was not that “there would have come up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots, except that Roman Catholicism rose to the occasion and prevented it from happening.”
No Nick, there is no escaping it. Roman Catholicism came upon schedule, and did what by its very nature it must do, for its authority comes from the Serpent (Revelation 13:2).
Thanks for your note.
Tim
Tim,
I attempted to do the ‘math’ starting at AD325 because that’s still within a time span you consider ‘safe’ for the Church, before it had to go underground. What I was showing is that a date that early still bypasses the lives of the Reformers, which means some other significant event 1,260 years later is when Jesus rescues the world from Rome. Since you appear to be saying the start date is at least AD382, then the end date of the 1,260 years becomes AD1642. So the question then is, what happened of any significance here? The Reformation was already 100 years old, so you overshoot the crucial period of Restoration by 100 years. Unless you’re saying that the Reformers/Reformation was *not* part of God’s rescue plan?
It’s not my axiom showing if I’m appealing to a common source, namely the Ante-Nicene Fathers, whom you accept. It is the A-N Fathers who you have (apparently) said were on guard but somehow missed the boat on identifying the Beast when it suddenly overtook the Nicene Church. So I wouldn’t even call what you’re espousing a “Remnant,” because “remnant” implies at least single digits in terms of percentages who remain, where as you’re saying you’re one of the few chosen individuals in history who saw the light, putting your definition of “remnant” at less than 1%.
Still waiting to see when the 1,260 years ended and what took place that year of significance for the bringing down of the Beast.
Tim,
As you know, I’m starting to see this “falling away” very early in the Christian church and see no reason why the falling away could not happen generations before the start of the 1260, 1290 and 1335 year periods. Here is a summary of what is more consistent with Scripture as we look for the 1260 beginning.
“(1) First, the word “kings” (“And there are [or they are—GLP] seven kings” in Revelation 17:10) does not always mean individual kings in prophetic Scripture. Note that in Daniel 7:17 the four political kingdoms of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome are called “four kings”; whereas in Daniel 7:23 these four kings are referred to as “kingdoms”. Why is that significant? It demonstrates that the word “king” does not have to refer to a single, individual king, but may actually stand for a government that includes many successive kings or rulers within it.
(2) Thus, when Revelation 17:10 says that the seven heads are seven kings, we likewise understand there to be a succession of seven forms of government that bear rule over the political kingdom of Rome. The following six stages of successive forms of government in political Rome have been identified by ancient Roman historians: Livy (who lived from 59 b.c.—circa 17 a.d.) and Tacitus (who lived from 56 a.d.—circa 118), both of whom identify the first six forms of government that reigned over political Rome as the following: (1) The rule of Kings; (2) The rule of Consuls; (3) The rule of the Council of Ten; (4) The rule of Military Tribunes; (5) The rule of Dictators; and (6) The rule of Emperors (cf. Tacitus, Annals, p.1; Livy, Book 1:60, Book 3:33, Book 4:7) .
(3) These were well-known and well-recognized successive stages of rule or government in ancient Rome. Thus, when the angel states in Revelation 17:10 that five of these kings (or forms of government over the political kingdom of Rome) are fallen at the time in which John pens the Book of Revelation, we should identify those five kings or stages of government that had fallen as: (1) The Kings of Rome; (2) The Consuls of Rome; (3) The Council of Ten of Rome; (4) The Military Tribunes of Rome; and (5) The Dictators of Rome.
(4) When the angel explains that one king (or form of government) is presently ruling (“five are fallen, and one is” Revelation 17:10), that would be the sixth head or form of government over the political kingdom of Rome, namely, The Emperors of Rome (which was the form of government in power at the time that John wrote the Book of Revelation, under Emperor Domitian). The sixth head of the Roman Beast (that of The Emperors of Rome) continued from Caesar Augustus (27 b.c., who was the emperor reigning at the time of Christ’s birth) until Romulus Augustus was forced to abdicate the throne of the Western Roman Empire in 476 a.d., which I submit was the point in time in which the sixth head of the Roman Beast received its deadly wound (as indicated in Revelation 13:3), and the point in time in which the Beast “was not” (Revelation 17:10).
(5) This deadly wound to the Emperors of the Western Roman Empire left the divided Western Roman Empire and particularly Rome under continuous upheaval with various barbarian rulers and the Emperor of the Eastern Empire vying for power for over two hundred and fifty years.
(6) Then the seventh head of the Roman Beast appeared in 753 a.d. when Pope Stephen II conferred upon Pepin III the title of “Patrician of the Romans” (i.e. Father or Defender of the Romans). This seventh head of Rome continued for “a short space”, about 47 years (Revelation 17:10). But it was not until the sixth head of Rome (i.e. of the Emperors) is healed in the eighth head that the rule of Emperors is revived to the Western Roman Empire, which occurs in 800 a.d.”
Walt,
Sorry buddy, but you’re under the same “strong delusion” as Catholics, because apparently you don’t have the Holy Spirit to tell you plainly the dates/times/events that Tim has been privileged to be enlightened about.
You’ve got to realize that Tim cannot have it both ways. Either he’s right and you’re swept away in the delusion along with Catholics, or else you’re right and Tim’s the equivalent of a false prophet. So what will it be?
Nick,
Actually, this is what is most incredibly amazing about the Westminster Assembly period. Our of the more than 115 ministers in attendance, after extensive biblical discussion on the subordinate standards that were agreed, approved and published, they agreed on one final topic. That their generation was not given “unity and uniformity” on the subject of eschatology and prophetical interpretation.
The Divines agreed that future generations would be better suited to come up with the final “unified” biblical position as a church court (e.g., general assembly).
However, many Ministers wrote individual private interpretations including Calvin, Knox, etc. in commentaries and even in the most amazing Annotations published at Westminster. The 1599 Geneva Bible has marginal references inserted on prophetical passages as well. Many wrote about these issues, and in fact near all the Great reformers were unified in what was called the Historical Post Millennial position on Scripture. A few were historical Pre Millennial, but only the Jesuits were Futurist Pre Mill, and Preterist (full and partial).
The thing about Tim and myself are that we are firmly historical post mill, and we are working through a few disagreements sharpening iron with the Word, and digging into historical tidbits that help to frame what Scripture is saying to us. The issue is simple. We must figure out what Scripture says using Scripture, and we must apply the “literal sense” or “intended meaning” of the text to each other so to understand what the author (the Lord God) is teaching us. We cannot use history to define Scripture, but must use Scripture to uncover history that fits nicely into God’s revealed Holy Will.
While Tim might disagree with me/our small flock on when the 1260 year period begins, I can almost (getting close) firmly say that I think Tim has uncovered for me when the falling away took place that is a critical early date that I’ve been trying to find. It is possible that early date in the 4th century could be a schism that started to uncover the Antichrist, and show the early Church Fathers what they warned about. They were looking for a falling away and Antichrist. Tim could have uncovered this for me.
Even if we disagree when the 1260, 1290 and 1335 year periods begin and end (the two witnesses are descriptive of the church during the 1260 year period and beyond). As an Elder I know states:
“Rev 12 walks you through events previous to the 1260 years period, through the 1260 years period (the war in heaven which describes the events of the second reformation), and ***the events subsequent to the second reformation (the waterflood).*** (Walt emphasis***)
Thus we get a sort of big picture view of the 1260 period– God’s description has put as it were book marks around the war in heaven–he tells us what happens before it–the main event within it–and what happens just after it. This information is extremely important in seeing the bigger picture.
Revelation 11 focuses mainly on the 1260 year period and events especially around “the end” of that period– it’s focus is upon the career of the two witnesses– their character, their faithfulness, and their death (the killing of the witnesses)–the fall of 1/10 part of Babylon– and even events just subsequent to the 1260 year period–(the resurrection of the witnesses).
Thus –events described in Rev 12:1-5 are in fact happening prior to the 1260 year period described in Rev 11– notice that the great red dragon cast the stars of heaven down and prepares to devour the man child–and the man child is born prior to the beginning of the wilderness period–the 1260 years)”
Therefore, we might differ with Tim on this period, but certainly we are both Historical Post Mill, and as the reformers see the Papacy and the Papal system as Antichrist. Very few in the world hold this view….as you know.
Tim, this is a compelling argument and has crystalized many things for me.
Kevin,
One interesting matter is the cause of the division of the empire, as Daniel relates in chapter 2, is the contributing factor on the division of the empire::
380 A.D. was the first time foreign troops were allowed in the Roman Legion. In 389 A.D., there was an edict requiring landowners “to yield 1/3 of their fields to the ‘barbarians’ who have been settled in the Roman Empire.”
A very interesting period in the Roman Empire, indeed.
Tim
Nick, said because” remnant implies at least single digits” Nick how do you know what remnant implies exactly. Would that be your fallible interpretation aided by the Holy Spirit? Or does Rome speak infallibly on that verse? K
Tim,
Have you read these two books before?
Notes on the Apocalypse by David Steele
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14485/14485-h/14485-h.htm
Lectures upon the Principal Prophecies of the Revelation by Alexander M’Leod.
http://archive.org/stream/lecturesuponprin00mcle/lecturesuponprin00mcle_djvu.txt
Tim,
An excellent point. By the time of the council of Rome (382 AD) when Rome first made the claim that the See of Peter subsisted in three locations — Rome, Alexandria and Antioch — Milan had already been subordinated to Rome via a council in 378 AD. See The Fourteenth Diocese:
The title of that entry is ironic in that Rome with its urban surroundings was definitively un-diocesan, and was not technically part of the Diocese of Italy and was not itself a diocese (otherwise Daniel would have foreseen an initial division into 14 horns rather than the original 13). In fact the early writers distinguished between “the parts of Rome” and “the parts of Italy.” The fourteenth horn, according to prophecy, has to be a “not diocese.” As such, it would not be geographically accurate to state that “the little horn arose … out of the diocese of Italy”. It had to be independent from it. So, while there were three horns uprooted (Italy, Egypt and Oriens (“the East”)), the “kings” of those three diocese existed in Milan, Alexandria and Antioch, and thus those “three kings” were subdued (fulfilling Daniel 7:24) in order that “three horns” be uprooted (fulfilling Daniel 7:8).
A very good question indeed.
The point being, of course that by the time the council of Rome made the claim in 382 A.D., Rome was in fact the principal city of the diocese of Italy, but at the time the 13 horns arose, Milan was the principal city of Italy.
Tim,
As I was doing the research for my recent series on the Eucharist, I noted this insightful comment by the Encyclopedia Britannica:
As we know, Antioch had the best claim to the primacy, but Rome assigned it to third place. I no longer believe this was merely an historical anachronism designed to put its biggest threat in the lowest position.
No, I think Britannica is right: Constantinople was the biggest threat. “New Rome” was going to be the head of the church and Damasus in Rome didn’t like it. So he bribed Alexandria and Antioch with the promise of shared power.
Since the split of the East into the East and Egypt, Alexandria had risen in power. Alexandria was given second place by Damasus payment for its political support. Antioch was given third. It was all under the supposed authority of the three Petrine Seats, but it was really a quid-pro-quo.
With Damasus bribing Alexandria and Antioch with more political power over all the other bishops, Constantinople didn’t have the political clout to take the Primacy.
I’ve always read “the holy Roman church is given first place by the rest of the churches without a synodical decision” to be a unilateral declaration by Damasus, but now I see it as a bribe offer: “You join me, and I’ll see to it that you share in my power.”
Peace,
DR