Follow
We are now in our third and last week of analyzing the Trumpets of Revelation (Revelation 8-9). Last week, we analyzed the Fifth Trumpet, which was the “Crusading Spirit,” by which men were driven to invade the Holy Land by the sound of the locusts’ wings. The Crusading Spirit—with its obligatory vows, and promises of full remission of sins and the martyr’s crown—is the means by which men were tormented five prophetic months or 150 years (Revelation 9:5,10). After the first four Trumpets, an angel interjects with a “woe” (Revelation 8:13, 9:12) to warn John and the people of the earth of the coming calamities. With the Fifth Trumpet, or the First Woe behind us, we proceed to the Sixth Trumpet, or the Second Woe.
The Sixth Trumpet: World Wars I & II (1914 – 1945 A.D.)
“And the sixth angel sounded. … And the number of the army of the horsemen were two hundred thousand thousand: and I heard the number of them.” (Revelation 9:13-16)
We will begin the analysis of the Sixth Trumpet by considering the “number of the army of horsemen.” This implausibly large army has been the matter of speculation for millennia. Ministries like End Times Research have been trying to understand how such an army of two hundred million men could possibly be assembled. John did, after all, say “and I heard the number of them” (Revelation 9:16), so End Times Research believes there must be a single army of exactly two hundred million men. Our Historicist brethren, on the other hand, have seen the Trumpet fulfilled in the Turks who seemed to be innumerable on the battlefield. The former approach misses the biblical terminology and then substitutes modern mathematics for John’s message, while the latter misses the specificity of his prophecy.
In the Scriptures, “ten thousand times ten thousand” does not mean one hundred million. It simply means a single group of an extremely large number. These Scripture verses use “ten thousand times ten thousand” in just this way:
• “In the mean time, when there were gathered together an innumerable multitude of people, insomuch that they trode one upon another…” (Luke 12:1)
• “But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels” (Hebrews 12:22)
• “And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands;” Revelation 5:11)
Jesus was not surrounded by one hundred million people in Luke 12:1. Nor are there one hundred million angels depicted in Hebrews 12:22 and Revelation 5:11. In each case, the same term is used, “ten thousand times ten thousand,” and in each case it refers to a single and innumerably large group of people or angels. John had seen not one, but two innumerable multitudes, and was so surprised to see two such multitudes that he repeated it for emphasis: “and I heard the number of them.” Two. It is for very good reason, therefore, that Young’s Literal Translation renders Revelation 9:16 as
“and the number of the forces of the horsemen is two myriads of myriads, and I heard the number of them.”
John’s surprise was not that there would be a single group comprised of “two hundred million horsemen.” An innumerable company of 200,000,000 is just as “innumerable” as 100,000,000 from the perspective of an observer who hardly has the ability to count them. Either would comprise an innumerable host, or “a myriad.” What surprised John was that there would be two myriads.
The devastation of this Trumpet would be accomplished by two separate myriads of horsemen. We believe, and shall demonstrate, that John was referring to the Two World Wars that ravaged Roman Catholic Europe during the 20th Century, and engrossed the entirety of the former Roman Empire in two of the most devastating military engagements in the history of the world.
• “…and I heard a voice from the four horns of the golden altar which is before God, Saying to the sixth angel which had the trumpet, Loose the four angels which are bound in the great river Euphrates.” (Revelation 9:13b-14)
We find in Scripture that “four angels” usually signifies “four winds” and their purpose is to gather men (see for example Matthew 24:31, Mark 13:27 and Revelation 7:1). John’s reference to the Euphrates river draws our attention to Jeremiah who is alone among all the prophets in his repeated references to that river (Jeremiah 13, 46 & 51). Notably, in Jeremiah 51, the Lord promises to raise up a “destroying wind” by gathering the nations in the land of Babylon. We note as we proceed through Jeremiah 51 how rich the imagery is that John borrowed from him. By way of comparison we provide several parallel verses showing just how much John relied on Jeremiah 51 to paint this picture for us:
• “Babylon hath been a golden cup in the LORD’S hand, that made all the earth drunken: the nations have drunken of her wine; therefore the nations are mad.” (Jeremiah 51:7)
• “[Mystery Babylon] With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.” (Revelation 17:2)
• “O thou that dwellest upon many waters, abundant in treasures, thine end is come, and the measure of thy covetousness.” (Jeremiah 51:13)
• “I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:”(Revelation 17:1b)
Clearly, John relied heavily on Jeremiah. What we note particularly in chapter 51 is that he speaks of two myriads descending upon Babylon. He twice warns God’s people to come out of Babylon…
“Flee out of the midst of Babylon, and deliver every man his soul: be not cut off in her iniquity…” (Jeremiah 51:6a)
“My people, go ye out of the midst of her, and deliver ye every man his soul from the fierce anger of the LORD.” (Jeremiah 51:45)
… and warns of two coming myriads…
“The LORD of hosts hath sworn by himself, saying, Surely I will fill thee with men, as with caterpillers; and they shall lift up a shout against thee.” (Jeremiah 51:14)
“…appoint a captain against her; cause the horses to come up as the rough caterpillers. “Jeremiah 51:27b)
…and warns that two rumors would be heard in two separate years about the coming violence in the land…
“And lest your heart faint, and ye fear for the rumour that shall be heard in the land; a rumour shall both come one year, and after that in another year shall come a rumour, and violence in the land, ruler against ruler. (Jeremiah 51:46)
…and twice warns that He will punish Babylon for her idolatries…
“Therefore, behold, the days come, that I will do judgment upon the graven images of Babylon: and her whole land shall be confounded, and all her slain shall fall in the midst of her.” (Jeremiah 51:47)
“Wherefore, behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will do judgment upon her graven images: and through all her land the wounded shall groan.” (Jeremiah 51:52)
We note as well that the violence would come because the Lord would “prepare the nations against her” (Jeremiah 51:27-28), which is what the Lord does in Revelation 9 for the same offense of idolatry (Revelation 9:20). The imagery John draws upon to explain the number of the myriads that would come upon Roman Catholic Europe speaks of two separate invasions in which the nations of the earth are gathered to fill the land with soldiers and horsemen like grasshoppers, during which times the people of God are warned to flee, lest they be cut off in her iniquity. There would be two separate myriads—”and I heard the number of them”—each constituting what historians would one day call the Two World Wars.
• “…and the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions; … For their power is in their mouth, and in their tails: for their tails were like unto serpents, and had heads, and with them they do hurt.” (Revelation 9:17-19)
We note in these verses that the horses had heads of lions, and their tails were like serpents with heads by which they inflict death. Notably, the imagery is also from Jeremiah 51 in which the Lord says the violence done by Babylon will be turned back upon her (v. 35) in the form of dragons and roaring lions, “And Babylon shall become heaps, a dwellingplace for dragons, … They shall roar together like lions: they shall yell as lions’ whelps” (Jeremiah 51:37-38). Out of the mouths of the lions’ heads and out of the tails of the serpents heads comes the fire, smoke and brimstone that kills. These are the means by which dragons and lions descend upon Babylon for her punishment.
• “And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: … and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone.” (Revelation 9:17)
According to this verse, the offensive weapons are fire, smoke and brimstone (literally, sulphur), and the defensive armor—the breastplate—is “fire, … jacinth and brimstone.” We notice here that the description of the breastplate is very much like the description of the weapons themselves. Some translations render the colors of the breastplate as red, sapphire, and yellow, but the breastplate—the defensive armor—appears to correspond to the offensive weaponry coming out of the lions’ heads and tails.
Until this point in the narrative of the Seals and Trumpets, defensive and offensive weaponry have been clearly delineated. The First Horseman of the apocalypse rides forth with “a bow” (Revelation 6:2). The Second Horseman rides forth with a “great sword” (Revelation 6:4). The Fourth Horseman is given power “to kill with sword” (Revelation 6:8). These all describe offensive weaponry. The locusts on the other hand wear “breastplates of iron” (Revelation 9:9), a reference to defensive armor. Offensive and defensive weaponry is very clearly differentiated.
However, in the Sixth Trumpet the offensive and defensive weaponry appear to be the same. That is, the fire, smoke and brimstone are used both to kill and to defend. Notably, by the beginning of the 20th century, defensive body armor was not nearly as common as it had been before the introduction of gunpowder to European warfare. When a projectile (bullet or artillery) could be propelled at great speed, across a great distance and with considerable accuracy, the days of hand-to-hand combat came to an end, as did the practicality of body armor. A new defensive tactic was developed, and its first use was in World War I.
It was in this war that the term “covering fire” or “suppressing fire” was developed to describe the dual functionality of gun and cannon, both to kill the enemy and to shield the troops as they advanced. The history of suppressive fire identifies the Two World Wars as the “step change” when the defensive tactic of suppressing fire was first developed:
“World War I marked a step change because of the development of artillery techniques… They … developed artillery techniques to suppress the enemy in trenches to allow their infantry to approach them and to suppress the enemy artillery at critical stages to protect attacking infantry…. Suppressive fire was used against enemy artillery that attacked the assaulting troops with indirect fire … and suppression became a key element in ‘winning the fire fight’. … In World War II amphibious assaults, ‘naval warships would open fire with their main armaments … to suppress enemy fire from these positions which could be directed against the landing troops’. … In World War I a moving barrage was the normal method, shrapnel shells were fired to place their bullet cone ahead of the advancing infantry with their aimpoints moved 100 yard further forward every few minutes on a front of several kilometres to support an attack by several divisions or corps. High Explosive (HE) barrages were also used in World War II, including to cover the advance of tanks by suppressing anti-tank gunners.”
This was a new tactic, never before seen in battle. Because the breastplates in Revelation 9:17 bear such a common description with the means of destruction, we propose that John was not only seeing a future event during which gunpowder was in common use in the theater of war. He was also seeing the future of warfare when hand-to-hand combat would be far less common, and weaponry would be used both to kill the enemy and to provide tactical cover to shield the troops as they advanced. Gunpowder is sulphurous, yields black smoke, and generates fire when used, for which reasons its use in weapons is called “gunfire”. This is the fire, smoke and brimstone that John saw—both that which proceeded from their “mouths” and “tails,” and which functioned as a “breastplate” as well.
• “For their power is in their mouth, and in their tails: for their tails were like unto serpents, and had heads, and with them they do hurt.” (Revelation 9:19)
When John describes the fire, smoke and brimstone coming out of the lions’ mouths and the horses’ tails, he was simply referring to the forward fire of a rifle, tank or cannon, as well as the typical configuration of a horse- or truck-drawn limber and caisson, with rear-facing cannon in tow. We have illustrated this week’s blog entry with two images, above—the first from World War I, and the second from World War II—to show what John likely saw in his vision. As can be seen in the photographs, the horses appear to have tails. It was tanks, rifles, machine guns, artillery, as well as the limbers and caissons that John was seeing when the two separate myriads descended upon Europe, “For their power is … in their tails … and with them they do hurt.”
• “And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year…” (Revelation 9:15)
The reference to the hour, day, month and year has been interpreted in various ways to suggest a prophetic period lasting “391 years, and the portion of a year indicated by an hour.” Various other interpretations by our historicist brethren assign it values of 390, 395, 396, or 397 years. That is, some take this verse to mean that the “year” is a prophetic year of 360 years, the “month” is a prophetic month of thirty years, the “day” is a prophetic day of one year, and the “hour” is a prophetic hour signifying various years or portions of years to arrive at the correct dates. However, there is no evidence in Scripture to support a specific interpretation of a “prophetic hour” as a portion ( (either 1/12th or 1/24th) of a year. The term “hour” is never used in that sense in Scripture.
The same point must be made of the term “year,” as the term is never used in Scripture prophetically to signify 360 years. Daniel speaks of a prophetic “week” to signify seven years (Daniel 9:24-27), and uses “time, times and the dividing of time” to signify 1,260 years (Daniel 7:25). (The term he uses in Daniel 7:25 is “time” (id-dawn’ (Aramaic)) and not “year” (shen-aw’ (Aramaic)).) To signify the ten-year Diocletianic persecution from 303-313 A.D., Jesus refers to a prophetic “ten days” (Revelation 2:10). To signify the locusts’ 150 year reign of torment, John uses a prophetic “five months” (Revelation 9:5,10). To signify 1,260 years of the reign of Antichrist, he uses 1,260 days (Revelation 12:6), “time, times and half a time” (Revelation 12:14), and forty-two months (Revelation 13:5). Thus can be found in Scripture evidence for a prophetic day (1 year), a prophetic week (7 years), a prophetic month (30 years) and a prophetic “time, times and the dividing of time” (1,260 years) but not a prophetic “year” of 360 years. “Year” simply means a literal “year” and means “year” every time it is used.
What then of Revelation 9:15? There is a simpler explanation.
It is typical in Scripture to identify both a starting point and a duration when speaking of a prophecy. For example, Daniel 12:11, “And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.” There is a starting point, and a duration. The same can be seen in Daniel 9:25. Additionally, it is typical in Scripture to indicate some meaningful future point in time using the term “day and hour,” as in Matthew 24:36, 50, 25:13; Mark 13:32; Luke 12:46. In the case of Revelation 9:15, the angels were loosed on a specific hour and day to accomplish their purpose, and the duration of their mission would be a month and year. How long, then, is “a month and a year”?
Because “month” typically means a prophetic month of 30 years as we saw in Revelation 9:5,10, and 13:5, and “year” means a literal year, “a month and a year” in Revelation 9:15 therefore refers to a period of one prophetic month of 30 years, plus 1 literal year, for a total of 31 years. The angels had been prepared for a day and an hour (the starting point) and a month and a year (the duration) to slay “the third part of men.” We note therefore that World War I started in July of 1914, and V-E Day concluded hostilities in the European theater of World War II in May of 1945. The four angels of Revelation 9:15 were loosed at a specified hour and day to gather two myriads of nations against Babylon, and were given 31 years, a prophetic month and a literal year, to do it.
• “And the four angels were loosed, … to slay the third part of men. By these three was the third part of men killed, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of their mouths.” (Revelation 9:15,18)
Over the course of Two World wars within a 31-year period, Europe was ravaged and lost millions of young men in battle. Jeremiah equates “young men” with “men of war” (Jeremiah 49:26, 50:30), and as he indicates in chapter 51, the “young men” are the target of the four angels’ wrath: “and spare ye not her young men” (Jeremiah 51:3). In John’s first epistle, he divided men into three categories: children, fathers and young men (1 John 2:12-14), which is a typical division of men in Scripture (see for example Psalms 148:12 and Proverbs 17:6). Young men constitute one third of them.
Because the exchange of the fire, brimstone and smoke was between soldiers, and the deaths described in this trumpet are limited to the use of fire, brimstone and smoke, we simply note that soldiers are young men (Jeremiah 49:26, 50:30), and young men were the objects of the angels’ wrath, and “young men” were one of the three categories of men identified by John in his first epistle.
In the course of Two World Wars within the span of a single generation, Europe was left with a dearth of young men, and the total military death toll in Europe between the Two World Wars was about 28 million men in the European theater alone (see the effects of World War I and of World War II, by country). As evidence of the toll these wars took on the flower of Europe’s youth, we provide a mortality graph for England during this time frame.
Such a graph could be produced for many European nations showing a similar effect. The “young men,” which is to say, “the third part of men,” bore the brunt of the fire, the smoke and the brimstone in the Sixth Trumpet.
• “And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk: Neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts.” (Revelation 9:20-21)
This last passage on the Sixth Trumpet displays the lamentable condition of the people who watched as two myriads of horsemen overran their land within 31 years, who saw their young men die in their streets, and yet would not repent of their idolatry, and murders, adultery, theft and sorcery. In this passage, John is again drawing from Jeremiah in what are practically verbatim quotes from chapters 7, 10 and 44. We note particularly that in spite of the punishments, the people refuse to repent:
“Will ye steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and burn incense unto Baal, and walk after other gods whom ye know not; … Behold, mine anger and my fury shall be poured out upon this place … Therefore thou shalt speak all these words unto them; but they will not hearken to thee: thou shalt also call unto them; but they will not answer thee.” (Jeremiah 7:9, 20, 27))
“Every man is brutish in his knowledge: every founder is confounded by the graven image: for his molten image is falsehood, and there is no breath in them” (Jeremiah 10:14).
As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the LORD, we will not hearken unto thee” (Jeremiah 44:16).
John records for us the same condition that caused Jeremiah to lament in his day. The people were immersed in false doctrine, worshiped idols, were engaged in sorcery and would not repent of the evil they had done, in spite of the wrath God would pour out on them. In particular, Jeremiah highlights in these chapters one particularly offensive practice of the day—that of making bread and wine offerings to the “queen of heaven”:
“The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.” (Jeremiah 7:18)
“But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her…” (Jeremiah 44:17)
Lamentable indeed is the fact that in the 20th century, there was one European religion that was worshiping idols like the Eucharist, burning incense to the Queen of Heaven, and baking bread and pouring out drink offerings to her, and that religion is Roman Catholicism. In fact in 1917 the apparition of Mary at Fatima had been instructing Roman Catholics explicitly that sacrifices must be made “in reparation for all the sins committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary.” This teaching has been affirmed by many popes since then. Meanwhile, the religion of Rome continues to “come and stand before Me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, ‘We are delivered to do all these abominations’ ” (Jeremiah 7:10), as if Christ’s religion was one of idolatry, Mary worship, and unending sacrifices.
Jesus established no such religion on earth, and Roman Catholicism, through its idolatries and priestly sorcery brought upon itself—and all of Europe with it—two of the most destructive wars in the history of mankind and cost Europe the flower of her youth, and “yet repented not” of her sorceries and idolatries.
Scarcely had the second myriad departed from Europe that Rome felt compelled to proclaim “infallibly” that Mary had been assumed body and soul into heaven, and to reaffirm the doctrine of transubstantiation and Eucharistic adoration. It was in the proclamation of the Assumption of Mary (1950) that Pope Pius XII reaffirmed Rome’s devotion to its own “heavenly queen” (Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus, 26,33,40). Shortly thereafter (1953) he rejoiced that “We see that devotion to the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar is increasing day by day” (Pius XII, Apostolic Constitution Christus Dominus). Rome had not learned from the Sixth Trumpet, and doubled down on its errors.
To conclude our dissertation on the Trumpets, we here list our progress thus far in this and our two previous posts, The Trumpets, Part 1 and The Trumpets, Part 2:
Trumpet 1: Eden Burning (359 A.D.)
Trumpet 2: The Egyptian Tsunami (365 A.D.)
Trumpet 3: The Latin Vulgate (382-404 A.D.)
Trumpet 4: The Mysterious Fog over Europe (536 A.D.)
Trumpet 5: The “Holy Land Crusading Spirit” (1095-1245 A.D.)
Trumpet 6: World Wars I & II (1914-1945 A.D.)
This concludes our analysis of the trumpets, as we believe that the Seventh Trumpet is yet future.
“Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.” (Revelation 18:4).
2 Corinthians 4:4 ” The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so they cannot see the light of the gospel, that displays the Glory of God, who is the image of God.” If you want to see blindness, go on Jason’s site and see the pounding I take in 3 days defending JBFA. All because I’m defending salvation thru faith alone in Christ alone and how Paul allows for nothing coming from ourselves being meritorious in salvation. All for saying our works are our spiritual service of worship. Sometime you feel like a desert Island standing all alone. I get so much strength for what your doing Tim, it gives confidence because the fight ain’t easy. All the Reformed have abandoned me probably because I’ve got allot of rough edges and make allot of mistakes. I have given them encouragement and support, but they have left me hanging. Reputations to uphold I guess. Anyway, another great job Tim and stuff i never knew. You really never waver with the message. This site is such a light and beacon for the Gospel of Christ and the antichrist that works against it. Where do we go from here Tim? Look forward to the step.
Kevin, This is priceless. Do you mind if I send this over to Jason and Nick. They will give your post a “fair read” and then die laughing. ( I love the way you see yourself as a martyr, all abandoned by the cowardly Reformed more interested in their reputations than in the gospel).
TIM–
You said: “The devastation of this Trumpet would be accomplished by two separate myriads of horsemen. We believe, and shall demonstrate, that John was referring to the Two World Wars that ravaged Roman Catholic Europe during the 20th Century, and engrossed the entirety of the former Roman Empire in two of the most devastating military engagements in the history of the world.”
Devastation engrossing the entirety of the former Roman Empire EXCEPT for Switzerland (jot), Turkey (tittle), and extremely Roman Catholic Spain and Portugal (jot and tittle). I wonder why God passed over them? So maybe “entirety” wasn’t such a good word to use here.
And isn’t it interesting that Fatima is in Portugal?
Jots and tittles.
Bob,
Can you remind me of where I said, “Devastation engrossing the entirety of the former Roman Empire”? I don’t remember saying that the devastation engrossed the entirety of the former Roman Empire. I do remember saying that “Two World Wars … ravaged Roman Catholic Europe … and engrossed the entirety of the former Roman Empire in two of the most devastating military engagements in the history of the world.” But I do not remember saying “devastation engrossing the entirety of the former Roman Empire.” By rearranging the order of my words and then imputing them to me, you appear to be attempting to add confusion to the discussion. Surely not!
In any case, by highlighting the neutrality of Switzerland, Turkey, Portugal and Spain, did you intend to convey that they did not participate in the war? Or perhaps you only intended to show that because Switzerland, Turkey, Portugal and Spain were neutral, WWII was not a devastating military engagement? I’m trying to understand your words. Can you help?
Thanks for reading, and thanks for any clarification you can provide.
Tim
TIM–
When you put words together in sequence, they mean something. Notice the paragraph of yours that I cited above. You say that the “devastation” of this Trumpet would be accomplished by two separate myriads of horsemen. And then you attribute the two World Wars to the horsemen of that “devastating” Trumpet.
ERGO, the Trumpet’s “devastation” engrossed the entirety of the former Roman Empire in the two World Wars that ravaged Roman Catholic Europe in two of the most “devastating” military engagements in the history of the world.
You are the one who said these words. I just came to a short conclusion following your logic. Did you mean it differently?
Since Turkey, Switzerland, Spain, and Portugal, (all parts of the former Roman Empire) were spared the “devastation” of the Trumpet by being neutral in the most “devastating” military engagements in the history of the world, maybe you should have not used the word “entirety” when clearly it was not. I also find it quite ironic that Fatima, being in Portugal, was spared the “devastation” of the Trumpet. Spain and Portugal are extremely Roman Catholic. Can you explain why they were not included in your “entirety”?
According to your opinion on the idolatry of Romanism and especially with Mary of Fatima, they should have been judged harshly but were not.
Your theory has holes in it where these jots and tittles should have been.
I find it really incredible that as more of these articles are written and read by some of the Roman Catholics visiting this site how hard there hearts must be to ignore these issues. When I was a Roman Catholic, I could never have ignored the past 6-7 articles and simply wrote it off to just another Protestant attack.
To the contrary, as a Roman Catholic I was never attacked growing up by Protestants. All my friends were either Roman Catholic, atheist or Protestants. There were no attacks.
However, as I started to look deeper into my Roman Catholic religion, I started to see some real inconsistencies with basic Bible texts…even though I had to read Scripture in morning mass 3 days a week before our congregation. I could not simply read it and ignore it, but to have seen the articles on the blog I would have been in utter shock that this could be true.
Yet, from every Roman Catholic we have seen visit this site we have seen nothing but a hard heart and a blindness that I never knew could exist by one who called themselves a Christian. Jim is by far the worse, but he is likely paid money to visit these sites on the web and seek to disrupt them as a Jesuit. Secret societies are among the worse in history and dangerous.
Kevin, what is the website of this Jason you refer to as I would like to read some of their anti-gospel positions?
Walt, I am paid by the Jesuits.
Whether paid in cash or accolades, I figured so.
Tim wrote:
“Thus can be found in Scripture evidence for a prophetic day (1 year), a prophetic week (7 years), a prophetic month (30 years) and a prophetic “time, times and the dividing of time” (1,260 years) but not a prophetic “year” of 360 years. “Year” simply means a literal “year” and means “year” every time it is used.”
This is interesting. Do you know any other reformers that took the same position on the definition of “year” being literal rather than figurative?
You did a great job in the paragraph above properly using scripture to interpret scripture; but sometimes we have to make an necessary inference where things might be more clear.
“IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture, is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it may be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.”
If you are right that no place in scripture do we find year used figuratively, and only literally, it may indeed mean 1 year at face value. The key is whether the literal meaning is the literal sense or intended meaning of scripture using scripture.
If you have support from other ministers on it, and no contradiction from great ministers, I think you have something.
Tim wrote:
“Jesus established no such religion on earth, and Roman Catholicism, through its idolatries and priestly sorcery brought upon itself—and all of Europe with it—two of the most destructive wars in the history of mankind and cost Europe the flower of her youth, and “yet repented not” of her sorceries and idolatries.”
Is it not fascinating that Jim sits in Portugal spewing forth hatred for the true gospel and aggressively testifies against the truth coming from the shores of America against him and his Romish harlot?
And yet, America is being taken over by Romish doctrines, and Rome has really taken over most all of America.
Now, think about the Vial Judgements yet to come to America and the world! Ouch…what is the lesson?
Follow Rome in her doctrine and idolatry and be prepared to be hammered in bloodshed that follows.
This is a great point Walt.
Walt, Its called code. creed, cult. And it was started and run by Jason Stellman a former Reformed minister turned RC 2 years ago. Tim has mentioned him in his article on Romans 2 I think. The level of arrogance and obstinacy is staggering on that site. Nick who comes on this site and has his own catholic blog is one of the guys running that site while Jason is writing a book. Jim has got me kicked off twice, but they have been nice enough to let me back on. But it will give you a taste of what goes on. Jim ran rough shot until they finally cooled his jets. I’m on my best behavior over there because I think its important to dialogue. Tim has posted some awesome stuff there. I wish many of them would come here. But Catholics have that whole we are the church of Jesus Christ 2000 year attitude going on. And from my experience salvation is definitely all of the Lord. Because they defend their church and that doctrine vociferously. I get pasted over their, allot by a former Catholic friend of mine who came here for awhile, Debbie. Hope your well.
Tim,
The two world wars were in the 20th century, not the 19th. Maybe fix that before you confuse Kevin and Walt who know zero about history,( Walt knows a bit about Scotland ).
Tim, you said we Catholics burn incense to Mary? I will keep an eye open for that as the Bible shows incense burning is a priestly sacrificial act only due God. I will contact the Bishop and report this if I see it.
Baking bread and pouring out libation to Mary? WOW, Tim, where have I been? You are really on the ball. I have never seen this but I am sure going to keep my eyes peeled for it now that you’ve pulled my coat to it.
Yes, we should make sacrifices,( but not liturgical formal sacrifices ) to make reparation for the outrages against the Immaculate Heart of Mary done on your blog. Tonight, Monday, is my weekly Holy Hour. I will say some prayers for you.
Tim, where to now? Your life’s work is complete. You have blown the whistle on the romish harlotry. But we have to get the word out. Kevin muscled his way back on Jason Stellman’s Creed, Code, Cult. He will work undercover over there. Walt will tell the lads at the Scotty’s Bar and Grill. What can I do to help?
Seriously Tim, I am so sorry you have wasted your intellect and energy over these past 24 years. You could have been doing great things. What a waste.
Do you think anybody but Kevin is impressed by your life’s work? Your poor mom.
By the way, I am going to be in Portland Or. all through August. This weekend my wife and I are will swing by Fatima and stock up on el cheapo rosaries and stuff to hand out to the folks at church and to my wife’s pro-life pals at the abortion center on MLK. My offer to send a rosary to your mom still stands. E-mail me her mailing address.
Thanks, Jim. I have updated the entry. You wrote,
Look no further. Here is a photo of John Paul II doing the very thing you deny. You continued,
In Amos 5:25-26, the Lord criticizes the Israelites for their sacrifices, saying,
We know well enough what “tabernacle” and images Roman Catholics carry around, to which idols Roman Catholicism burns incense. As this web page makes clear, your position that you do not offer sacrifices “to Mary” is highly nuanced:
As John Paul II said, “It is not by chance that the Eastern Anaphoras and the Latin Eucharistic Prayers honour Mary….” (John Paul II, Ecclesia de Euchristia, 19)
Best regards,
Tim
Tim, its statements like this from JPII that one must listen for. J.C. Ryle once said false teaching doesn’t just jump on you. It is guised and surrounded by things that sound truthful. But if you listen long and hard enough you finally hear it. We must be vigilant in all we hear from the Harlot in Rome. Ratzinger once said we can all agree with Luther that we re justified by faith ( then one must listen on) as its is formed in love. Faith doesn’t have a virtue attached to it that merits the acceptance of God.
Tim! You crazy mixed up kid! remember when you were last at mass and the altar boy incensed the people? He wasn’t burning incense to them for petes’ sake! JPII is not burning incense to Mary.
Jim, how could Tim be doing anything more important than outing the false gospel of Galatians 1:9. Tim I trust will hear this from God some say, well done good and faithful servant. His reward I trust is great in heaven. If we can snatch a few out of the fire, glory be to God. Why do we hate your doctrine so, because it wounds Christ, and will not permit men to be saved. You see Christ is not Lord and Savior in Rome, you won’t let Him off the cross. He hasn’t regenerated anyone. In fact they never really get regenerated do they Jim. They receive the special juju and they must go to the sacraments and beg for more regeneration. God saved and regenerated us Jim. He isn’t on the cross anymore. He is Risen. And the whole church sings the amen. It’s called Good News. We are saved, redeemed, reconciled, justified, adopted, an heir, sealed in the Spirit. We are at his heavenly altar with him giving Him spiritual sacrifices and prayers.. You are at an earthly altar Jim, immolating Him again and again with your OT sacrificial system. You do it over and over and it still never regenerates you. So Christ is really no better than the animal sacrifice of the OT is he. You have him strapped to the altar. Let Him off Jim, He is risen! The church ( Priest) pulls Jesus down and sacrifices Him again ( Rome anathematizes anyone who says it isn’t a real sacrifice). Thats some power in the Priests hand. He said no one takes His life from Him, He lays it down on His own accord. But no, the Priest has the power to sacrifice him again as a piece of bread for the sins of all. Forget that the scripture says there is no forgiveness of sins without the shedding of blood, your wicked leaders have the gaul to re break the body of our Lord. God have mercy on you.
Jim,
Tim wrote:
“We believe, and shall demonstrate, that John was referring to the two World Wars that ravaged Roman Catholic Europe during the 20th Century, and engrossed the entirety of the former Roman Empire in two of the most devastating military engagements in the history of the world.”
As an FYI. I’ll leave the rest to Tim.
Thanks. Jim was right—in one of my references to the two world wars, I assigned them to the 19th century. This has been corrected.
Tim
Tim.
Why Calvinism? When you were choosing an alternate religion from the true one, why did you light on Calvinism with its scarey decrees and Jesus who dies only for a few? Why not Arminianism? Or Lutheranism? Or Mormonism even? They all oppose your mom’s religion. Calvinism? It is so unbiblical, illogical and mean.
Jim,
When I was saved out of Roman Catholicism, I was very much like the blind man who had been healed and said of Jesus, “Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see” (John 9:25). I trusted Christ and believed in what He had said and what He had done for me on the cross—to pay completely for my sins, past, present and future, but I had much yet to learn.
I was struck at first at the appearance that I had made the right choice. But over time as I studied the Word I saw that salvation was described as a “heart transplant” not a decision: a heart of stone is replaced by a heart of flesh (Ezekiel 36:26), and we are no longer condemned by words written on tablets of stone, but we are comforted by the indwelling Spirit and Word of God written on tables of the heart (2 Corinthians 3:3).
Because a “heart of stone”—the heart signifying not the emotions but the seat of intellect—is inherently rebellious, unbelieving and dead, I realized that I could not possibly have “reached out to God” for help, or “allowed Him to enter my heart,” or “accepted Him into my life,” or “trusted Him to bring me to life,” or “believed unto rebirth.” Reaching out, accepting, trusting, believing—these are all the actions of the living, and a heart of stone is dead. A heart of stone can do none of these.
I turned to the Scriptures to find out what had happened: “And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses.” (Col 2:13).
Jesus had raised me from the dead, having forgiven my trespasses. He had done what He said in Ezekiel 36:26, “A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.” I did not “believe unto rebirth.” Rather, I was reborn unto belief. As the Scripture said of Lydia, so it was with me—the Lord had opened my heart that I might attend to the Word of God (Acts 16:14), and faith comes by hearing it (Romans 10:17). I was dead. He gave me rebirth, ears to hear and eyes to see. I was able to hear the Word, and I believed unto justification.
If I had been saved by the sincerity of my faith, or the earnestness of my seeking, or the zeal of my trust, then my salvation would ebb and flow like a man’s emotions do. One day mostly saved, another mostly lost, and yet another stuck in the middle. But I was not saved by my sincerity, earnestness and zeal. Rather, as Paul says, I was saved by the “good pleasure of His will”:
Since that which is carnal cannot receive the things of the Spirit, it is clear that I could not have been saved unless He first raised me from the dead according to the good pleasure of His will, just He had raised Himself up from the tomb. And since the Gospel “is the power of God unto salvation” (Romans 1:16), and not the power of me unto salvation, the security of my salvation rests not on the power of man, or on the power of any church, but on God Himself. I may never fall away by my own devices, nor by the devices of any man or devil:
You call this “scary Calvinism.” I call it the the power and sovereignty of God to save whom He will, not for my sake, and certainly not for the uprightness of my heart, but for His Righteousness’ and His Holy Name’s sake:
There is no greater comfort known to the children of Adam than to know that their salvation is “incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven” (1 Peter 1:4), and rests in God’s hands, and not their own.
To answer your question, I did not “light on Calvinism,” for I was not even seeking it. Rather, as Isaiah 65:1 says, “I am sought of them that asked not for Me; I am found of them that sought Me not.”
I was found by Christ when I was not even seeking Him. That’s grace.
Thanks for writing, and thanks for asking such a great question.
Tim
Tim, incredible testimony. And how does a professional musician living a carnal life in LA, having an affair with a married woman get saved. He accepts an invite from a friend once to go to church. Grace community church in LA. That day MacArthur is preaching on narrow is the gate into heaven…….I heard the gospel that day and was shaking during the whole sermon. Went down hit my knees repented and believed. Went home called the girl and ended the relationship and completely changed my life. All the hand of God. The next morningI had peace I had never had in my life. For it is the power of God unto salvation to all who believe.
Hey Tim,
No fair! That heart stuff is ours, not yours.
Must make your mom happy to hear that no matter how much she tried to raise you knowing Jesus, none of it sunk in. Someone like Kelvin “led you to Christ”. Such a lousy son.
Jim,
There is something my mother did for me. She read the Bible to me every night before bed time. That’s what sunk in.
Thanks,
Tim
And you repay her by telling her grandchildren she is a crazy idolater.
“Honor thy father and mother”.
Jim, as Jesus said, “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:26). I am not required to give credence to idols in order to “honor my mother.” Nor am I required to teach my children that idolatry is the necessary price of peaceful family relations. I have never taught that my mother is crazy.
Thanks, as always,
Tim
Tim,
Great job on teaching the doctrine of true salvation in this “time of the gospel” in which we live, and showing Jim how it is finished in Christ. The “time of the law” that Jim and other Roman Catholics seek to live under is not required for faith, belief nor salvation. The law teaches us that we are sinners, incapable to save ourselves. It is time for Jim to hear the good news by admitting he alone is incapable to hear it through anything he can do himself.
We all must, today, beg and plead that the Lord will forgive us and effectually call us unto a saving knowledge of Christ, if we have not done so. Those who are truly born again do not need to continue pleading, but can be fully guaranteed their justification is fulfilled and their sanctification begins.
In the comments section of this thread i have read several times that “scripture interprets scripture”. I wonder where you all got that from? Where in the bible does it teach us that “scripture interprets scripture”? Maybe a silly question but i am genuinely not sure of the answer. Who invented this hermenuitic and where does it come from
Kenneth,
Thanks for your note. The principle of “Scripture Interprets Scripture” is the logical implication of our Axiom, which is “The Scripture Alone is the Word of God.” Because the Scripture is not “by the will of man: but … by the Holy Ghost” (1 Peter 1:21), and because God’s Word is true, and not simultaneously “yea and nay” (which is to say, it is not logically inconsistent and cannot be contradictory) (2 Corinthians 1:18-19), then the logical conclusion is that the Word of God is to be interpreted by the Word of God.
An example of this can be found in Paul as he argues with the Jews. The Jews took the Scriptures to mean that all physical descendants of Abraham would be saved (Romans 3:1-3). But Paul uses Scripture to show that God’s promise to save Israel can only be understood if Israel is counted as those who are children of Abraham according to faith, both Jews and Gentiles: “Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all, (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations…” (Romans 4:16-17).
Thus, Paul concludes that “blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel [believing Jews and believing Gentiles] shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob” (Romans 11:25-26).
As it is written, as it is written, as it is written… Scripture interprets Scripture.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
At the Jerusalem Council, the Apostles sure seemed to know they had authority to bind and loose with no appeal to the scriptures.
Tim, I made my wife a promise that I’m going to encourage you about this site. We are praying that God will broaden your ministry. I want to reflect something Walt once told you, The stuff here is so well written and exegeted that it surprised Him not more Catholics would read. But I think many are lurking here. And we are telling many about Out of His mouth. keep up the good fight. K
Thanks, Kevin, I appreciate the prayers and encouragement very much.
Tim
Yeah? And where is THAT in the Bible Kevin? Nobody is lurking. If it wasn’t for me coming over here and spicing things up every now and then, moss would grow in Tim’s life work.
PS Still waiting for to to do more than just impute that pasta dish to my account. It’s all a lie like your imputed righteousness too, huh?
Kenneth,
Glad to see you slumming on Kevin’s other site. I though about you over the weekend. I was at a music festival at a medieval walled city taken back from the moors in the 1300s. Portugal and Spain have lots of such places. All of the folks were amazed at how tough people were in those days and how impressive those fortifications were. Nothing like on TV.
For 700 years the Catholics fought a war for the Faith. They killed a lot of unbelievers in the process. And without apology. The Moors fought to the death because they hated Catholicism just as Kevin and Tim do.
Kenneth, there are lots of sites for the veneration of saints, martyrs and pilgrims over here. But the castles witness to the fact that the Faith is not only to die for, but to fight for,
You need to readjust your witness.
Kenneth,
The WCF states with proof texts:
“IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.[23]”
[23] 2PE 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man; but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. ACT 15:15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, 16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up. [24] MATT. 22:29,31. Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying. EPH. 2:20. And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone. With ACTS 28:25. And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Isaiah the prophet unto our fathers.
————–
Here is a way that I looked at it as a simple explanation for me. We know the Scripture are written by the presupposition of God Himself, and that while we are double minded creators and bring our own interpretations, only the Lord can properly interpret all the words of His revealed will.
However, when interpreting Scripture, we must not take the alone “literal” face value interpretation of each word or passage, nor must we take the alone “figurative” meaning. What we are naturally taught in Scripture is to take the “literal sense” or the “intended meaning” of each word and passage of Scripture. This “intended meaning” of God forces us to examine His words alone to define his words and principles contained within Scripture. While in some cases the context might require the literal interpretation or in other cases the figurative interpretation, we must achieve these decisions which best to use by using the Scriptures to interpret Scripture. For example,
“VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.[12] Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word:[13] and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.[14]
VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all:[15] yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.[16]”
Hopefully this might also help a little. While some take the extreme and translate near everything on the “literal” or “face value” method, there is also the extreme by the Catholics who ignore the “literal sense” methanol or “intended meaning” of what God means by what he says, and rather they adhere to “sacred tradition” as the alone method of interpreting scripture. This is where they are defined in Scripture as anti-Christ which Tim has described using Scripture, and even the Catholics own tradition which supports they to be anti-Christ.
Walt: “While some take the extreme and translate near everything on the “literal” or “face value” method, there is also the extreme by the Catholics who ignore the “literal sense” methanol or “intended meaning” of what God means by what he says, and rather they adhere to “sacred tradition” as the alone method of interpreting scripture. This is where they are defined in Scripture as anti-Christ which Tim has described using Scripture, and even the Catholics own tradition which supports they to be anti-Christ.”
And it is only in the “Protestant sense” that Scripture is interpreted to mean that Catholics are anti-Christ. Scripture never speaks of itself being the final authority. You won’t find a single chapter and verse that states it. Many have tried and all have failed. The Word of God specifically gives authority to men to promulgate His Word. That power was never given to a book full of printed ink. Scripture only testifies to the pillar and bulwark of the truth–the Church. Scripture is useful for training in righteousness so that the man of God can be complete. It is not sufficient nor perspicuous. If is was, everyone would be in agreement to what Scripture says.
Scripture must be taught by men of authority. Any one who just reads Scripture without the proper teaching is doomed to twist the words to their own destruction.
You want proof of that? Notice that all those who believe in Sola Scriptura are not all Lutheran. They are not all Calvinists. They are not all Branch Davidians of the Seventh Day Adventists. Why? I shouldn’t even have to ask that question. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura can’t even prove itself. Instead, it proves that Sola Scriptura exists only because someone outside of Scripture says it does.
Sola Scriptura is the prime pillar of Protestantism. Every other doctrine based upon it crumbles with it.
Matthew,
I understand what you are saying, but I don’t understand why Roman Catholicism is the solution. Anyone who reads Scripture, the Catechism, the Magisterium and tradition “without the proper teaching” is also “doomed to twist the words to their own destruction.” Just consider the example of Scott who just yesterday denied that Mary is the Mother of all Creation because that would make her mother of everyone including Moses and Abraham. When I showed him that Mary is considered the mother of everyone going all the way back to Moses, Adam and all the prophets, and the mixed multitude who came out of Egypt, he reconsidered and said he’d have to think about it. If he sticks by his original opinion, it’s his opinion. If he switches to my opinion, he has merely changed one fallible opinion for another.
What is needed is an infallible teacher, but as I pointed out in If the Light that is in Thee be Darkness, there are as many opinions on the number of infallible papal statements as there are Roman Catholics who believe the pope speaks infallibly. I provided evidence from Roman Catholics who believe the pope has spoken ex cathedra 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 30 and 40 times. Which opinion is correct? How can I know infallibly? Why are there so many opinions from people who believe they have been taught by “by men of authority.” As you say, “I shouldn’t even have to ask that question.”
What it really comes down to is that you don’t know, so you place your trust in the Church and hope its right. But that’s still just your opinion. Right?
Thanks,
Tim
Incidentally, I didn’t say I denied that Mary was the mother of all creation. I said I would have difficulty with the concept, since I had not come across that statement and I (being fallible) didn’t understand how it might be true.
Then, you showed me statements where Fr. Calloway (an unquestionably orthodox priest) and St. Peter Chrysologus (a Doctor of the Church) had said that very thing. To which I responded that, if that was the case, I would need to reconsider and take a closer look at what those two had said.
This is not changing my fallible opinion for yours. This is submitting my imperfect understanding to the teaching of the Church, and consenting to see with its eyes rather than my own. That hardly puts the authority of the Church in some sort of peril. It’s the very point of it.
Scott said ” Incidentally I didn’t say I didn’t believe Mary was the mother of all creation, I said I had difficulty with the concept.” You tried to wiggle out with me too I told you merit in section 2006 in the Catechism was ” recompense owed” and you said ” its no talking about what God owes us but what we owe God” To which I responded Scripture clearly teaches salvation is a free Gift and we don’t owe God anything. He paid the bill, all of it. To which you responded” well owe doesn’t really mean owe ……. “Your scuffling Scotty. Beam yourself up and take a stand. It reminds me of a catholic ex catholic friend who once told me ” well yes grace is free but you really, really got to work hard for it. Here is what scripture says ” Romans 6:23 “for the wages of sin is death, but the FREE GIFT of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. ” We can’t earn it, and we don’t deserve it. We believe the promise and we are righteous. He doesn’t count our sins against us, thats all. Romans 4:5 says God justifies the ungodly by faith, apart from ALL works, by crediting the active and passive obedience of Christ to our account. We live a life of faith and pursue holiness, not to merit final justification, but to further the mission of God. ” Works that seek justification will be soundly rejected. Scripture could not be anymore perspicuous on that. God bless.
You need to go back and reread what I actually wrote. I know reading comprehension is difficult for you, but you need to try.
Scott, you wrote,
But here is what I said to you:
Notice that I had all three in there: mother of all people, mother of creation, and mother of angels.
Here are your responses:
In other words, your rejection of Mary as Mother of All Creation was based on your conviction that she could not possibly be mother of all humans, since that would include all people since the beginning of time, “say, Abraham and Moses.” And since Abraham and Moses were before the Redemption, Mary could not possibly be their mother. That is a denial of Mary as “Mother of All Creation.”
Thus, based on your own reading of four “infallible” Popes who had explicitly stated that her Motherhood extended to all humans, you nonetheless rejected their “infallible” teachings in order to retain your own opinion. As you said, “I would read the statements of Leo XIII onward to say that …”. Or put another way, “I would read the statements of Leo XIII onward in a manner consistent with my own personal opinion.” Yet here is what the “infallible” popes said:
But now, having re-interpreted four “infallible” popes to suit your personal opinion, you now defer to a priest and a “saint,” neither of whom are “infallible,” and yet you believe you have now “submitt[ed] [your] imperfect understanding to the teaching of the Church,” which you have not done at all. You have submitted your understanding to a “saint” and a priest, after not submitting your understanding to the popes.
The irony here is that at the beginning of the conversation you said that I must not do what you have ended up doing:
Haven’t you now confused the words of Fr. Calloway and “St.” Chrysologus with “official Church teaching”? In the face of “official” church teaching from the popes, you weren’t convinced until you heard it from “non-infallible” people.
Well, since John Hardon, S.J. is “an unquestionably orthodox priest,” as Fr. Calloway is, would you hold therefore that Mary is Mother of Angels now? I believe you denied that explicitly, too: “”Mother of angels? Not so much.”
Thanks,
Tim
Tim: “Rejection” is a word you are imposing upon this. I said I needed to look more carefully at the passages you quoted to me in order to clarify any misunderstandings I had from the outset. It means no more than that, regardless of your attempts to co-opt my incomplete knowledge to reach a pre-determined moral of your own. That’s not dialogue; that’s manipulation. It’s a courtroom tactic.
Scott, relegating my inquiry to a “courtroom tactic” is the language of propaganda. You implied by your words that you believe effective communication requires that we abide by the law of non-contradiction. Here is the definition of the law, with an example:
And here is your statement that took another participant here to task for violating this law:
Based on the law of noncontradiction, Mary cannot be “Mother of All Creation” and “Mother of Not All Creation” at the same time in the same context. “New Creation Only” is “Not All Creation.” Now back to our conversation:
I asked you would agree if Mary is the Mother of All Creation, and you responded by saying at most she is Mother of the New Creation, which is to say you agree that she is Mother of Not All Creation. My categorization of your rejection is a classical application of the law of noncontradiction that you yourself were advocating just a couple days ago. Saying Mary is the Mother of Not All Creation, is not saying “I am open to her being mother of all creation.” It is saying that you reject the title—which was my question. Now it appears that using the law of noncontradiction is a “courtroom tactic,” and it does not apply to you. Nonsense. I asked you if you agreed that Mary is Mother of All Creation, and you rejected it out of hand. To say she is Mother of New Creation is to say that she is not Mother of All Creation.
Notable to our conversation is that Matthew was criticizing Walt for his appeal to Sola Scriptura, and Matthew offered what is essentially Sola Ecclesia as the solution. Yet on the testimony of four infallible popes, you still could not be moved from your position, resting instead on your own fallible opinion, i.e., “I would read the statements of Leo XIII onward as…”. That is exactly what Matthew thought was wrong with Sola Scriptura: “Scripture must be taught by men of authority. Any one who just reads Scripture without the proper teaching is doomed to twist the words to their own destruction.”
Well, anyone who just reads Papal statements, and the words of fallible saints and fallible priests without proper teaching is doomed to twist the words to their own destruction, right? Yet here you are, trying to understand what your own church is teaching you and not knowing what that might be. You wrote,
It would not put the authority of the Church in peril if you could know with certainty what the Roman Catholic Church was teaching you. As it stands, the very point of having an infallible teaching magisterium, as Matthew was pointing out to Walt, is to prevent this very situation—a situation in which you are left to your own devices to sort out which teachings of the church are true, and which teachings are false. And you can’t figure it out. As Matthew said, the Scripture “is not sufficient nor perspicuous. If it was, everyone would be in agreement to what Scripture says. Scripture must be taught by men of authority.”
Ah, and there’s the rub. It’s not just that Scripture must be taught by men of authority. To be superior to Sola Scriptura, Scripture would have to be taught by men of authority who teach with perspicuity. And yet here we are, and you don’t actually know if the church has taught, or if you believe, that Mary is the Mother of All Creation, or of all Humans, or just of the New Creation. You have to sift through the words of “Saints,” Priests, and Popes, not knowing with any certainty if what they said was true, and ultimately you have to rest on your own opinion. To borrow Matthew’s phrase, “If Rome’s teaching was perspicuous, everyone would be in agreement to what Rome says.” But they are not, are they?
Thanks,
Tim
Okay, well, I think I’m the best judge of what I meant by what I said, so I’ll leave it to others to determine that between us. If a Catholic has incomplete understanding or knowledge about something, that does not mean that the Protestant critique of Catholicism is true. Treating it as though it does, and using in the service of a proselytizing point, is the real “propaganda technique.”
Scott, you wrote,
Did I imply that it was? Have I ever claimed this?
Did I ever treat your “incomplete understanding or knowledge about something” as if it meant that “the Protestant critique of Catholicism is true”? Did I use it “in the service of a proselytizing point”? If so, when?
It is a point of some interest to me that whenever a Roman Catholic comes to this blog and seeks to overturn Sola Scriptura, I never respond with the merits of Sola Scriptura, but merely respond by asking whether the alleged merits of Sola Ecclesia are verifiable. When I demonstrate that the “cure” to Sola Scriptura is worse than the “disease,” Catholics respond as if it were I, not they, who had arrived here claiming a superior epistemology.
I grant to you that Sola Ecclesia and Sola Scriptura, as axiomatic starting points, are epistemologically equivalent. All that remains is to determine the objects of our respective faith. My faith is in the Word of God. Yours is in a Church. All this is demonstrated without me once claiming to have a superior epistemology. Yet the consistent Roman Catholic response when their own epistemology collapses is to accuse me of claiming that my epistemology is superior because theirs fails its own standard. I have never claimed this. I have merely pointed out that you are bereft of the certain knowledge of truth, even while claiming to have it. You simply do not know with certainty which papal statements, priests’ statements, or saints’ statements are true and which ones are false.
Well, you may have the last word, Scott. You’re always welcome here.
Tim
As I saw it, you were using my incomplete knowledge as a proselytizing weapon in the original comment I responded to, in order to make a point about fallibility vs. infallibility. That’s why I issued the clarification I did. If I misread your intent, then I apologize, but that’s how I saw it. Bottom line is, I certainly don’t have exhaustive knowledge of everything that has been said about Mary, or any other subject, over the 2000 year history of the Church. Where I bump up against that truth, I certainly want to look more deeply into the question, in submission to the Church—the same way I’m sure you would do if you found you were mistaken about something the Bible teaches. I don’t think this means these things can’t be known, as you want to claim; it only means that I don’t presently know them and that learning them exhaustively takes time.
Like others here, I can be very passionate in the defense of my beliefs, so I appreciate you taking them in that spirit rather than as a sign of rancor. Thank you for your hospitality.
Scott, welcome to being a sinful human being like the rest of us. . I mean reading your posts is like watching a Politician at work. I was for it before I was against it. Luther said he got saved from a church full of saints. You know why there is disunity and error all about, SIN! Not because God’s word isn’t infallible and able to bring salvation to the heart. K
Kevin, first of all, you don’t have a clue what infallibility means. It has nothing to do with being sinful. Go and read Pastor Aeternus, where the doctrine is defined. It says nothing about lack of sin.
Second of all, I don’t recall claiming to be without sin. Since the Catholic Church requires its members to go to Confession at least once a year, that would be an odd claim to make anyway.
Third, being mistaken about something, or having incomplete knowledge, is not sin in the first place.
Fourth, this is not a conversation between you and me anyway.
**should have added to third point**: I don’t recall claiming anywhere that I’m omniscient, either.
” A book full of printed ink” You mean the word of God breathed, that is sharper than a two edged sword. That book full of printed ink. No wonder you wound up with scapulars, indulgences, and grace being a tool to merit salvation. ” To the Law and to the Testimony!
Matthew wrote:
“Scripture only testifies to the pillar and bulwark of the truth–the Church….If is was, everyone would be in agreement to what Scripture says. Scripture must be taught by men of authority. ”
It is interesting that you believe this statement about that Scripture only testifies about the Church. I’ve never heard this view before. Is this something Roman teaches you?
In my more than 50 readings of Scripture cover-to-cover, I find that Scriptures teaches about civil government, form of church government, form of worship, doctrine, discipline, covenanting (both social and personal), and prophecy which predicts God’s revealed will before, during and after the closing of the canon of Scripture. It seems to me your views that Scripture only reveals the true Church is an error.
Can you show me in Scripture where you find biblical warrant for this opinion you have? I would be happy to examine it.
However, I am delighted to see that you have used Scripture to claim that its fundamental message, and authority, is to grant all authority to the Church (e.g., I assume you mean the Romish Church) on earth. While I again disagree with this position, again I am certainly happy you do argue that your views are based upon the Scripture as your authority for such a view.
Your other error is your position that if Scripture was true and the “sole” (e.g., sola) authority than all people would believe and be unified in agreement as to what Scripture means.
Actual, this view is contrary to what is taught in Scripture.
” For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.” (1Cor.11:18-19)
“But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.” (2Pet.2:1-2)
There are plenty more, but according to God’s revealed holy will in the Scriptures, He says there will not be unity within the Church (e.g., the visible church).
Perhaps you believe that there is unity within the Romish Church on what the Bible teaches, but in my growing up in the Romish church I did not find much unity. Even in watching the EWTN station on TV there appears to be a lot of controversy. Raymond Arroyo just interviewed a Catholic historian who has written on your new Pope, and I was surprised at how many people WITHIN the Romish Church are growing discontented with this Pope reaching out in agreement to support all religions…no matter how evil or wicked they are.
If the Church is the TRUTH (rather than the Scriptures) would you not expect everyone (using your logic) to be in agreement within your Church?
I’ll not address your other points. However, let me make my position clear on the Church’s authority. I believe that like you that the Church is responsible to preach and teach the Gospel of Jesus Christ without error, but not infallibly. This teaching of the Gospel of Christ is best articulated in Calvinism, not Roman Catholicism or any subset of her doctrines.
The Church is also broken into two bodies, the visible (being) and the invisible (well-being) nature throughout history. Within the visible church exists all these Protestant, Orthodox and Romish heresies as well as truths proclaimed. There is no TRUE unity nor uniformity within this visible church.
Within the invisible and well-being nature of the Church are the elect and to certain degrees the faithful. They are not perfect in unity nor uniformity visibly, but we can trace in history this path of those who have endeavored to separate themselves from the unfaithful heresies, and developed a set of SUBORDINATE STANDARDS in history which are founded upon the Scriptures and in agreement with the Scriptures. They are not perfect, and many of these Church standards have error, and some are so false that they are not even Christian but rather fundamentally synagogues of Satan.
There is a lot more finer distinctions, but the whole counsel of God (within Scripture and that historical testimony outside Scripture) are those historical ATTAINMENTS being developed by the faithful elect, and in time will more be more fully defined into one new man, through the unity and uniformity defined in the Scriptures. This will become more visible during the future millennium before the second BODILY return of Jesus Christ.
Walt said ” if the church is the truth other than the scriptures would you not expect everyone ( using your logic) to be in agreement in your church” this statement belongs in a theology book. Bingo Walt! The whole post was great.
” Sola Scriptura is the prime pillar of Protestantism” Every doctrine based on it crumbles with it” I know those darn Protestants base their salvation of the Word being infallible. Every doctrine from the Word of God crumbles with scripture. Now is that faith in the Word, or unbelief?
Walt: “While some take the extreme and translate near everything on the “literal” or “face value” method, there is also the extreme by the Catholics who ignore the “literal sense” methanol or “intended meaning” of what God means by what he says, and rather they adhere to “sacred tradition” as the alone method of interpreting scripture. ”
By your own words is the example of the undoing of Sola Scriptura. “While some take the extreme…there is also the extreme….” Literal sense vs. face value. Literal sense vs. intended meaning. And it’s all because you subject your paradigm into the interpretation of Scripture.
Scripture is only a static snapshot of the dynamics of salvation history. Sacred Tradition is the living breathing dynamic of salvation history in motion. Scripture has ended. It ended with the last apostle. The canon is closed. You cannot open the bible and read about the history of the Church between the first century and the twenty-first. It doesn’t say anything about the Council of Nicaea, the Decision of Chalcedon, the Crusades, the Eastern Schism, the Western Schism, the Reformation, the Renaissance, the Council of Trent, the Magna Carta, the Constitution of the United States, the Great Awakening, the second Reformation, the first and second Vatican Councils, the industrial revolution, the World Wars, Vietnam, September 11, 2001 and on and on and on.
Oh, people have tried to say that bible prophecy speaks volumes on these things. But that is only after they subject their opinions onto the texts and try to make Scripture say what it really doesn’t say. And in your arrogant “wisdom”, you say bigoted things about others who don’t see things quite the way you do and smugly quote the Bible as proof.
Walt, Tim, Kevin–
The news is that you don’t have a monopoly on interpreting Scripture. John Calvin didn’t either. I guarantee you, for every “proof text” you give for your interpretation, there will be someone out there that can give you a “dis-proof text” right back to you. People are going to leave the Catholic Church and join the Protestants and people are going to leave the Protestant Church and join the Catholics. And it won’t have anything to do with what you say here on this blog. They will have their own completely different reasons.
Matthew wrote:
Scripture is only a static snapshot of the dynamics of salvation history.
Papal documents are only static snapshots of the dynamics of Antichristic reprobate history.
Matthew wrote to Walt:
Oh, people have tried to say that bible prophecy speaks volumes on these things. But that is only after they subject their opinions onto the texts and try to make Scripture say what it really doesn’t say. And in your arrogant “wisdom”, you say bigoted things about others who don’t see things quite the way you do and smugly quote the Bible as proof.
Response:
Oh, people have tried to say that interpreted writings speaks volumes on these things (theological things). But that is only after Matthew subjects his opinions onto the Walt’s writings and try to make Walt’s writings say what they really don’t say. And in Matthew’s arrogant “wisdom”, he says bigoted things about others who don’t see things quite the way
Matthew does and Matthew smugly quotes Walt’s writings as proof.
Matthew, stop interpreting because you don’t have a monopoly on interpreting anything.
Amen!
Oh look everybody! It’s Eric W. the mocking jay!
How original.
Sheesh.
BOB,
I give holy mockery to those who launch words like arrogant, bigoted, and smugly.
ERIC W.–
I couldn’t expect anything less from you.
Matthew wrote:
People are going to leave the Catholic Church and join the Protestants and people are going to leave the Protestant Church and join the Catholics. And it won’t have anything to do with what you say here on this blog. They will have their own completely different reasons.
Response:
Let the proud be ashamed; for they dealt perversely with me without a cause: but I will meditate in thy precepts. -Psalm 119:78
You have such a foolish view of the world. You never account for those who have no reasons. I guess “without a cause” is their own very very very completely different reason.
1John 2:27: 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 annointing teaches you all things , and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him. ” Yes we listen to our teachers, but in the end it is the Spirit that teaches usall things with and by the word. Otherwise how could we Ientify false teaching as we are Istructed.
” scripture is only a staic snapshot” on the contrary, the scripture says we have all things pertaining to life and Godliness. Scripture is not only the only infalible rule, it is sufficient for salvation. The sufficiency of scripture. If we are warned against apostasy in the church, and th ed fathers wondered if it would come and they wouldnt see it, the we better trust the Word.
1 John 5:4 ” For whatever is born of God has overcome the world; and this is the victory that has overcome the world- our faith. Who is the one who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus Christ is the son of God. Mathew those of us trusting in the Word have overcome the world. The church can lead us to faith but it cannot save us, it is the Spirit that brings justification to our heart thru the Word. You give your implicit trust into a church whose savior is not yet risen. Can that save you? No God bless.
Mathew, as I re read your post to us I realized something. Catholics are bothered understandibly that those of us that have so much certainty through our understanding of scripture seems like aorogace to them. Actually I think it upsets Catholics because they have been taught from youth they must go to the church for understanding. The focus of perspicuity of Scripture came out of the Reformation reaction to the Roman Catholic church who elevated their tradition so high it had made scripture unrecognizable. What Catholics dont realize about Rome is that for the last 800 years or so it was disperse, disorganized, steeped in ceremony, mystycism, idolatry. The Priesthood was was ignorant of scripture, some Priests and Cardinals not even being able to name the Apostles or a few of the ten comandments. The laity had no assurance of salvation, often being kept from hearing the word. It was in this hodge podge that the Reformation appeared, it was necessary. The Reformed confessions to follow were uniform, focused on Scripture bringing assurance and the Word back to the people. What looks like aoragance to you are Christians who have learned the lesson to never leave the word, for in it are the words of eternal life. A child can understand John 3: 16. God has always made things clear to his people. He comunicates thru language. By and with the word of God the Spirit helps us know truth from error, and lead us to salvation. I actually think Catholics envy and resent the assurance that Protestants take from scripture, often callingbus lone ranger. But when Christians do the hard work of what scripture tells us to do, meditate on it morning, noon, and night, it becomes more clear. Walt said he has read the bible all the way thru like 50 times. He is a wise man. Same with Tim, or Eric W. Mathew, what I am saying is the more one searches scripture, the more one assurance we have that Roman Catholicism isnt the early church. Yes I know others come to different conclussions. But just like medicine, we must get all the information possible and make a decision. We go to God’s word for that info because it tells us we can trst it and be saved. K
kevin– “Catholics are bothered understandibly that those of us that have so much certainty through our understanding of scripture seems like aorogace to them.”
No, Kevin, it’s your snappy little comments that makes me think you are arrogant. It’s your undue inferences of Catholics that makes me think you are bigoted. And it’s your misunderstanding of Scripture that makes me think you are ignorant. And it’s your misspelling that makes me think you are a bad typist.
MATTHEW–
Amen!
Mathew, you can impute to me any motive you want, I believe the nothing like the Roman Catholic church exists in scripture. A NT Pristhood with an ongoing sacrifice is nowhere in Scripture. Cyprian being a major culprit in added revealrion of sacerdotal salvation. The word for Priest is hierus, it appears 400 times in the OT, it never appears in the NT. I can understand why Catholics have called me every name from ignorant to ape, because I,m at war with their church and its doctrines. I however l I ve and pray for their people. God bless
Matthew, you wrote:
“Scripture is only a static snapshot of the dynamics of salvation history. Sacred Tradition is the living breathing dynamic of salvation history in motion. Scripture has ended. It ended with the last apostle. The canon is closed. You cannot open the bible and read about the history of the Church between the first century and the twenty-first.”
This is a very interesting statement. It tells me that you believe that the Bible, in your opinion, only discusses historical events and has nothing to do with future revelation.
I’ve never really heard anyone believe what you said above, but if your position is true, then you need to leave Rome immediately and get your tail feathers into the Bible, and read it without your Romish dogma glasses on.
Tim’s entire blog is directly focused on linking Scripture fulfillment since the close of the Canon with your Romish church. If you really think the Bible has nothing to say about the future events unfolding … I’m not sure we will be able to continue any sort of dialogue.
And by the way, I’m NOT comparing “literal sense” with “intended meaning”. I’m saying that the “literal sense” method of interpretation IS THE INTENDED MEANING method of God Himself.
The author intends for you to know what He is writing to you throughout Scripture, and since that requires taking the “literal” or “face value” meaning of the texts, OR the “figurative” meaning of the texts (two simple methods of several ways), it is not so easy for most people. That is why the Lord has given us Ministers and Elders to interpret, and those make up church courts, to rule on the “intended meaning” of the author by taking the “literal sense” method.
Please understand. I AM NOT A BAPTISTS who like their Anabaptist forefathers who claim “No Creed Except The Bible”. This “Protestant” statement by Baptists and many Evangelical / Pentecostal sects have nothing to do with me. I was once a Baptist and heard that Creed that said “No Creed Except The Bible”…sola Scriptura.
It is foolishness. That is why I became a reformed Presbyterian because they have it right. They do not say, “No Creed Except The Bible” and “Sacred Tradition is Equal To Scripture.” No, they say correctly, Bible is the primary standard and Church Testimony is the Secondary Standard.
BIG DIFFERENCE between all three positions.
Walt, Baptist have no Confessions, they are not creedal. Thats a flat out lie. You know Walt you have brothers on this site that attend bible churches and Baptist churches, it would be nice to hear brother once in awhile. I get you got an axe against the Baptist church because of a bad experience, but you throwing bible church goers and Reformed Baptists in with Catholics tradition, saying we arent creedal, or dont have confessions is wrong. You arevgoing to be seated with many of those bible church and Baptist people someday at the banquet feast. Maybe then you will have something nicer to say. God bless you.
Walt–“No, they say correctly, Bible is the primary standard and Church Testimony is the Secondary Standard.”
You’ve got the cart before the horse. Scripture didn’t write itself. The Bible owes it’s existence to Church Testimony. The New Testament could not have been written without the testimony of the apostles. The Old Testament could not have been written without the testimony of Moses and the prophets.
From what you said, the story about the people in the Bible is more important than the people who actually lived it.
The Catholic Church teaches that Scripture is on equal footing with the living, breathing tradition of the people of the Kingdom of God. Sacred Tradition includes Scripture. Scripture testifies of Sacred Tradition.
Scripture testifies of sacred tradition” wow, I thought it testified to the story of Redemption. Yourcso far in the bosom of the Synagog You belleve the scripture testifies to the Rman Catholic tradition? Last time I checked its called His-story! Not Its-story. Oh thats right the Roman church is Jesus Christ in the flesh, we forgot. Church worship.
” The Catholic church teaches that Scripture is on equal footing with the living breathing tradition of the kingdom of the people of God.” Hey, thank the Catholic church for us that they were able to get the scripture on equal footing with the word of God. You guys are great t getting things backwards. Like being sanctified before being justified. The church wrote the bible, huh. We were under the understanding that the Word was in the beggining and He established His church.
Kevin–
You would never have known the Bible was the inspired word of God if someone in the Church had not told you it was.
” and in your aorogant wisdom you say bigoted things about others.” 1 Corinthians 1: 30 says He became to us wisdon, righteouness, sanctification and redemption. Not the church, He became to us wisdom. The Word. We know you dont like we warn Catholics thatcfollowing the guy in the big hat wont save them. But we are snatching the out of the fire.
Mathew, Romans 1 says that men suppress the truth in all unrighteouness. Paul goes on to say there are none righteouss, none who understand, none who seek for good. So we see outside the men who were appointed by God to speak and write his infalible word until the once delivered faith saw this end, men’ s judgment and understanding is affected by sin. The Pope is a mere sinner like ourselves and in no way can claim infalliblity. Thats why there is error in theology and the church, sinful men suppress the truth.
Questions for you:
1. Was Paul a sinner?
2. Are his epistles infallible?
3. If the answer to the first question is “yes,” how can the answer to the second question also be yes?
4. If the answer to questions 1 and 2 are “yes,” and that is not inconsistent, then how is it inconsistent for the pope’s words to be infallible under the conditions set forth in Pastor Aeternus?
In other words, if infallibility is false, isn’t it false for some different reason than the fact that the pope is a sinner?
TIM–
So from 1095-1245 AD, who were the non-Catholic Christians? Are they recorded in history as being separate from Rome? I would love to study their history.
Bob wrote:
“TIM–
So from 1095-1245 AD, who were the non-Catholic Christians? Are they recorded in history as being separate from Rome? I would love to study their history.”
That is the million dollar question. One day I hope I can map that out for you in detail. Unfortunately, I’m traveling outside the country the next 3 weeks so don’t stay up waiting!
Walt thinks he knows, but does Tim know?
Bob, do you really want to study their history? Just find a history of all the Christian groups that your church killed, thats a good start. Hugenots, waldensians, Reformed, etc. The true church has always separated itself from that system and they died for it. The Papacy has hunted down and killed more Christians than anyone in history. If Christ would comd back now they would crucify Him again for not submitting to the Pope. God bless
KEVIN–
Reformed–separated 1525 AD
Hugeunots–separated 1550 AD
Waldensians–separated 1184 AD
The Waldensians are the earliest I can find. I cannot find anyone from 1184 AD back. The Eastern Orthodox was separated from Rome in 1057 with mutual excommunication, but I really don’t count them because their doctrine is identical to Rome’s except for the Papacy, and some minor differences like the location of the epiclesis in the sequence of the Mass and the Fililoque in the Creed.
I am trying to find out about non-Catholic Christians between 1057 AD back to 450 AD.
Tim seems to know Roman Catholic history during this time. Does Tim know the history of non-Catholics during this period?
Matthew,
There are four main methods to interpret the Bible.
—————
Introduction to Bible interpretation
Method 1. Interpreting passages of the Bible literally as the Word of God
Method 2. Interpreting passages of the Bible as a historical document.
Method 3. Interpreting passages of the Bible as midrash.
Method 4. Interpreting passages of the Bible as folklore.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_inte.htm
—————-
Is it fair to say you adhere to #2 or #4?
Walt.
Walt–“There are four main methods to interpret the Bible.”
But that’s just your interpretation.
Here is what the Catholic Church teaches from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
III. The Holy Spirit, Interpreter of Scripture
109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.
110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking, and narrating then current. “For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression.”
111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. “Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written.”
The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.
112 1. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture.” Different as the books which comprise it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.
The phrase “heart of Christ” can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.
113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church.” According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (“according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church”)–Origen, Hom. in Lev. 5, 5: PG 12, 454D.
114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith. By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.
The senses of Scripture
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral, and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.
116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.”–St. Thomas Aquinas, STh I, 1, 10, ad 1.
117 The spiritual sense.
Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.
The allegorical sense.
We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.
The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction.”
The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”).
We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.
118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:
The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.
119 “It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, toward a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgment. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgment of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God.”
“But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.”–St. Augustine, Contra epistolam Manichaei, 5, 6: PL 42, 176.
Mathew said to Walt ” but thats just your interpretation” You continue to say this over and over. What you printed above is the “just the interpretation” of the Romish church. And why is that interpretation superior? And you will say but the RC is the church that Jesus built and its infallible. And we will say how do you know? And you will say because they told me so. And we will say how can you trust a Priesthood of Pedophiles to tell you anything? And you will say that doesn’t matter they cannot err when it comes to interpreting scripture. And we will say Popes and Councils have erred greatly. etc. Listen Mathew, the soul can do without everything except the Word of God. We understand that Roman Catholics give their mindless submission to a guy in the big hat who says he is Christ representative on earth. We understand that Catholics are taught Jesus Christ and the church are the same thing. But having the Pope in you heart, or the church in your heart can’t save you. The pope didn’t come from heaven to earth to pour out his life on the cross. He is a mere sinner like you and me. He isn’t infallible, nor does he speak infallibly. In fact the vote on infallibility was a split vote in 1856 lol. Its true! Like Luther said unless we are convinced by scripture or my conscience ….. So go back and tell your Magisterium thats ” just their interpretation.”
What Kevin is really saying here is that no one can know anything, except that the Bible is infallible, but no one can be certain that any interpretation of it is correct, because all interpretations are fallible. So he is really a postmodernist. But that’s just my interpretation.
No, Kevin believes God gave us his infalible word, not the church. And if it couldnt be understood he wouldnt have given it to us. The Holy Spirit teaches us by and with the word. Its perspicuous. Not all of it is easy to understand, nevertheless it is perspicuous. A child could read John 3:16 and understand it. 1 John 2:27 tells me I dont need a teacher, the Spirit teaches me everthing and its true. It doesnt mean I do not submit to the teaching of my church, but in the end I trust the Word. And yes, outside of The Word, Apostles, , Prophets, those who God spoke his ifallible word, we suppress the truth in unrighteouness, thats what Romans 1 tells us. Popes and councils have eered. The WCF says reformed and always being reformed. As Tim has shown estutely in his articles Rome’s many errors, the worst of which is a gospel of faith plus works that cannot justify them. The men who went to Trent didnt think they were anathematizing the gospel, but they did, and are now under the anathema of Galatians 1:9. We have a responsibility to tell Catholics that we dont consider them brothers and sisters in Christ, because we believe a different gospel. A gospel that many died for at the hands of Romanism.
Oh, that’s good to know, because you confused me with all this “tell them that’s just their interpretation” business. It’s a bad argument when Catholics use it, and it’s a bad argument in reverse. Of course, the idea that “God’s infallible word” just dropped out of the sky somehow, and the church did not precede it, is equally silly and ahistorical.
Really or is it silly to believe that the church existed before the Word. Scripture says in the beginning was the Word. Sorry God’s word was with Him in the beginning. The word was God, John says. Is the church God ? Was the church in the begining? The church is just a metaphor in scripture for the body of Christ. The Word was first. But hey you guyscget everything backwards, justification and sanctification, Mary and Jesus, merit and grace, grace being a tool to merit salvation instead of demerited favor, the word Nd the church. But thats what antichrist does.
Well, yes, that’s true, if by the Word you mean Christ. Duh. But you meant the Bible, right? The Bible didn’t exist in the beginning with God.
The Church does not precede Christ, but the Church does precede the Bible—at least, the Bible as we have it today, Old Testament plus New Testament
“God gave us his infalible word, not the church. And if it couldnt be understood he wouldnt have given it to us. The Holy Spirit teaches us by and with the word. Its perspicuous.”
That is very clear. Thx so much Kevin.
And really, it’s the Church’s opinion that the Bible is infallible.
You just have to take it on faith that it is.
Which church? The true church believes the Word established the church. You will have to take it on faith that He did. He created the heavens and earth by His Word, Let there be light…. Let the earth bring forth…. He called Abraham out of a moon worshiping family by his Word, Lazarus out of the grave by His Word, established his church by His Word, and He is calling you out of the bosom of antichrist by His Word. ” Rev. 18:4 : ” come out from her my people”
Every time someone tries to pin you down on something specific, you just wander off into the rhetorical clouds.
Scott, we have different views. A church will never bevmore importan to me than the word of God. Protestants see what happens when tradition is elevated over the word of God. Things that you accept from your church we see as clear idolatry, destruction of the 2 sacraments of God, a false gospel, and all that Rome has piled on the cross through so called development thru tradition. Calvin said Jesus was left half burried in the church. Cyprian and Origen and Jerome contributing mightly. All I know is the ex Catholics on this site looked at the word of God and walked from Rome. The truth will set younfree Scott. I hope you will separate from that system where grace is a tool to merit eternal life and place your trust in the Word.
More seriously, Kevin, I think we can agree that the church preceded the Bible, even if we disagree about which church that is. And if that is true, then “God’s infallible word”–by which I mean the Bible–grows out of the church (whichever church that is) rather than the other way around.
Oh, wait: I think when you asked “Which church?” you were responding to Bob and not to me. My bad. I misread the thread.
We have different views? Gasp.
Bob, Scott, CK, saying the church created the bible is like saying thd courts created the constitution. The church is the offspring of God’s word, it can only stand under it and pass it on, it cant add its words to it. I hope you will read this article by Michael Horton ” Sufficient for Faith and Practice, Covenant and Cannon. Maybe if Tim reads this he can provide the link, since I am a computer challenge.
So the full Bible existed in 33 A.D.? When Paul wrote to “the church in Corinth,” the Bible was already complete? Do you have trouble with the space-time continuum? Should you have a talk with Dr. Emmett Brown, McFly?
KEVIN–
By your word, you equate Jesus “The Word” with His Word spoken in Scripture. Scripture = Jesus. Since the Bible established the Church, you must worship the Bible. That’s idolatry!
Is Jesus ths Word of God? Absolutely. Can we refer to the bible as the Word of God, of course. Jesus told us to. 1 Thesalonians 2. God has spoken to us thru His Son.
Jesus is the same Word that spoke the world into existence, long before the church. In the begining was the Word, and the Word as with God, and thd Word was God. 1 Thesalonians 2:13 ” for this reason we also constantly thank God that when you receive the word of God which you heard from us , you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe. Hopefully now you see the connection. God from eternity past spoke the world into existence by his word. And then He spoke to us thru His Son, logos, the incarnate Word in who we believe. Now you can believe as the Reformed do the Word existed before the church.
Bob, the church has to be the offspring of the Word and Spirit, otherwise it would be its own mother. Im sure you can see this. The word of God does not belong to the individual nor thde community, but to God. God bless. It contains all we need for salvation and worship. The church can do no more than to pass it on. I hope this helps. K
KEVIN–
You said: ” A child could read John 3:16 and understand it. 1 John 2:27 tells me I dont need a teacher, the Spirit teaches me everthing and its true.”
A child could read Revelation 9 and understand it. But I guarantee you he will not know what it really means. There are intelligent adults who don’t know what it means. And if the Spirit has taught you everything, why do you rely on Tim to tell you what Revelation 9 means? Did not the Spirit tell you to be pre-millennial? What changed?
Reformed are Bible worshippers. Catholics are bread worshippers. No wonder they don’t see eye to eye. Bibles are made from trees and bread is made from wheat. I suppose their is some room for ecumenism–trees and wheat are both plants.
Can’t we all just get along?
I’m not talking about going beyond what is written, I’m not talking about law vs grace, I’m not talking about adding to the words of Scripture. I’m simply saying that Christ’s church existed before the Bible was finished and before its canon was determined. Perhaps when you read my comments here, you should not go “beyond what is written.” You’re 7,000 steps ahead of where I am.
Scott, 1 Corinthians 4:6 ” Now these things , brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that you may learn to not go beyond WHAT IS WRITTEN, so that none of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other. Peter calls what Paul wrote scripture in 1 Peter 2. The cannon ended with the Apostles. The early church fathers never appealed to church tradition, but scripture. Like I said McFly, God poke the world into existence by His Word. Remember the Christmas hymn Oh come all ye faithful ” the word now in flesh appearing” God’s written word testified to the incarnate Word. Again Scotty, its time to beam up, the courts didnt create the constitution, and the church didn’t create the Word of God. It can only stand under it, receive it, and pass it on. It can’t add its words to it. And that was Rome’s downfall. Rome has elevated its tradition above the word of God and added its words. Resulting in what Tim covers in ” The Rise of Roman Catholicism” Have you read it yet Scotty? The Writer of Hebrews warns what happens when you turn back to the old covenant, mixing the law with grace” like the judaizers did, you deny Faith. The Old covenant is obsolete Hebrews 8:13, you would do well to come out of a church who has turned back to the old covenant and multiple sacrifices to be justified. I call your attention to Galatians 4:21-31. If you can understand what Paul says there you will understand the tragedy of mixing law and gospel. K
So the Bible just popped into existence in 33 AD and anything written after 33 AD should not be in the Bible? Or is your argument that Paul’s letters existed before he wrote them?
Not sure what your point is. Rome tries to tell us we need its Maisterium to interpret scripture for us. It appeals to an oral apostolic tradition passed on. But the cannon ended with the Apostles, Jude 1 ” once and for all deliverd faith” When Paul speaks of the traditions we receieved and passed on, it was past tense and never differed from the written word. The early church fathers referred to scripture. Protestants rightly believe that we have everything in Scripture for Salvation and worship. God brings salvation when He meets us in the gospel thru the agency of thd Spirit. All the church does is stand under the word and pass it on. The church can lead us to Christ, but the Spirit delivers fiducia to the heart, and all of His victory spoils. The church isnt the same as Jesus in the world. Ive said thisvbefore, churches dont connect us to God. No church owns God. Jesus meets us in the gospel how and where the Spirit wills. The church just preaches the Gospel thruword and sacrament. It cant substitute itself for Christ and his incarnation. Thx.
My point is that the completed Bible did not pre-exist the New Testament church. The New Testament church began ca. 33 A.D. The last book of the New Testament was written just before 100 A.D. So for the first two generations of the church, there was no Bible as we have it today. There was the Old Testament, and there was an incomplete set of New Testament texts that circulated around, whose canonicity was still to be determined. I’m not making a theological point. I’m making an historical point.
Canons arent dtermined, they are. Your trying to tell me that the courts made the constitution what it is. No. The prophets didnt canonize, the apostles neve canonized. The canon is God breathed word. It is. There was a working NT canon long before thd church put it in a binder. I cited you a passage in 1 cor where Paul warns them not to go beyong what is written. You refuse to acknowledge the reason for the Reformation was Popes and antipopes and doctrines foreign to scriptre. One after another. Lets look at the inventions of the Roman Catholic church. Turning 2 sacraments into 7 and making them work ex opere operato. Transubstantiation, foreign to the early church, probition of marriage with Bishops, elevation of Mary above Christ and God, penace, justification of faith plus works, treasury of merit, sacrifice of the Mass etc. All this didnt exist in the early church, an honest look at history.
You’re leaping 1000 miles beyond my point again. But a canon is a list of books. That’s the definition of the word. There is no such thing as a Bible that “just is.” The Bible came into existence at a particular point in history, and someone had to make a decision about which texts would go in it, and there was a church around for many years before that. These are just historical facts that there is no point in disputing. It doesn’t mean you’re Catholic to say that any more than it means you’re Christian to say that there was a person named Jesus who lived at a particular point in history. All it means is you accept history for what it is. The Bible is the end result of a process that occurred in historical time; it didn’t just show up one day.
KEVIN–
You said: “Jesus is the same Word that spoke the world into existence, long before the church. In the begining was the Word, and the Word as with God, and thd Word was God. Hopefully now you see the connection. God 1 Thesalonians 2:13 ” for this reason we also constantly thank God that when you receive the word of God which you heard from us , you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.from eternity past spoke the world into existence by his word. And then He spoke to us thru His Son, logos, the incarnate Word in who we believe. Now you can believe as the Reformed do the Word existed before the church.”
What you are not grasping is that we believe WHO the Word of God is. And we know WHAT the Word of God is. We are differentiating in the spoken Word of God and the written Word of God. The written Word of God did not exist before any one wrote it down. Believing in anything else is just silly.
And notice what you quoted above:
1 Thessalonians 2:13 ” for this reason we also constantly thank God that when you receive the word of God which you HEARD FROM US , you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.”
That is exactly what we believe, too. And what we HEARD from them is taught by word of mouth and by letter–spoken word and written word.
The written word is silent. Someone has to read it before it becomes heard. The important part of all this is the “someone”.
What good is the Word of God if there is no one to speak it or hear it?
There is a saying in Protestantism, God said it, I believe it, that settles it. Faith comes from hearing God speak His Word of Salvation in His Son. This is not something that bubles up inside the holy church but as word that comes to us. Gospel sola grazia, sola Christa, sola fide. Gospel of Christ alone by grace alone thru faith alone. The bible is not a product os spiritual sages that help us find God. The church is the servant, not the Lord of the covenant of grace. These 66 books provide everything that is sufficient for revealing law and gospel. Gospel comes thru scripture. Gospel is revelation of God that seeks and saves the lost who are running from God. It comes from God and not as a result of human cooperation. We cant assimilate the gospel to our own efforts. Listen to Horton ” Popes boast extravagantly of the Spirit and in so doing burry the Word of God under their own falsehoods. Separating the Spirit from the Word by advocating the living voice of God with inner speech of the church. The bible has an important place but its the ” letter” that must be made relevant and effective in the world by Spirit led Popes. This enthusiasm undermines the sufficiency of scripture. Rome has consistently insisted that the letter of scripture requires the living presence of the Spirit speaking thru its magisterium. But the Reformation connected the sufficiency of Scripture to the sufficiency of the gospel. The bible isnt the individuals or the community’s, it is God’s Word, and God has jurisdiction on the conscience of man. All the church can do is stand under it, pass it on as a messenger. It cannot add its words to it. Those who were called to write scripture were in the presence of the Lord’s council. The bible claims for itself to be the very God breathed words. Now the faith has been delivered once and for all. Hope this helps.
Not talking about the spiritual source of scripture. I am talking about the time in history it was written relative to the time in history the church began. This is a point of chronology.
Bob, Scott. CK, Duet. 4:2 is clear that His word was to have final say in all matters. Bob, Jesus dealt harshly with the Magisterium of his day, the Judaizers. Listen to what He tells them in Mark. ” The people honor me with their lips, but their heart is far away from me.” ” But in vain glory do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.” Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to your tradition.” You nicely set aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition” You are in a church that has elevated itself and its tradition above the Word of God teaching as doctrines the commandments of men. The church is the offspring of the Word of God. Jesus points men to scripture telling them in it is eternal life. Again we don’t say the constitution was given to us by the courts. The church can only receive the gospel and pass it on.
Bob, the grave error in Roman Catholicism is that scripture is written in the heart of the church and not the words of scripture. So the church replaces the scripture as the living voice of what it means. As Eric w pointed out in the Rahner quote when God speaks man comes to be. God has spoken to us thru His Son by the agency of the Spirit. The church cannot insert itself between the Word and the Spirit. I can only be the messenger and pass on the gospel of Christ.
I am trying to make this easy for you. I am not talking about the authority of scripture. I am talking about when it was written. I am not talking about Judaizers or Pharisees or the Corban Rule or tradition or. O am making what I should think is a very simple and limited point. The Church came into existence ca. 33AD. The earliest guesses place the writing of the first book of the New Testament around the late 50sAD. What I am saying — all I am saying — is that 33AD came before 60AD. This is only complicated if your name happens to be Kevin Failoni.
And forget whether that church was the Catholic Church or not. That does not matter to my point. There was a church on earth before there was a completed New Testament on earth. This has nothing to do with anything other than chronology. This is not a point that in dispute. No one, anywhere, denies this. If this is not true, then what on earth did Paul mean when he addressed his letter “to the church in Corinth”? If Paul is addressing the church in Corinth, that means that there is a church in Corinth. It also means there’s no book of Corinthians yet, otherwise why is Paul writing it?
As for Rahner (who was Catholic), he was talking about the creation of Adam, not the relationship between the church and scripture.
BOB wrote:
What good is the Word of God if there is no one to speak it or hear it?
…when God speaks, man comes to be….Karl Rahner
You can have Rahner back. Take Deut. 31. The written word was a witness (not silent) against the people when evil came upon them. No one had to speak it, nor hear it, for the written word to be a witness. I repeat…when the evils, written in the Law, came upon the people, then the written word functioned as a witness. A witness is not silent. BOB is dead, dead, very dead wrong.
KEVIN–
This discussion is getting redundant. We all agree about the Who and what the Word of God is. And we agree on how the Word of God is conveyed. We just have different ideas on what the Word says and what it means to us personally.
Bob, have you ever heard of Michael Vorris? One lost dude. He said the Catholic church is in big trouble, many problems and the Pope said its never been better. Do you have a fallible opinion on if either is speaking infallibly? Have you heard of him? He has a thing on Protestantism where he says Protestnants dont believe in God’ s essentials. He literraly says we will enter into heaven based on how well we do the essentials. Wow, one pelagian dude? Have you heard of him Bob? K
I have now. Thanks for the heads up.
Scott Eric Alt–
You said: “Okay, well, I think I’m the best judge of what I meant by what I said, so I’ll leave it to others to determine that between us. If a Catholic has incomplete understanding or knowledge about something, that does not mean that the Protestant critique of Catholicism is true. Treating it as though it does, and using in the service of a proselytizing point, is the real “propaganda technique.”
Of course it is. Tim denies it here, but read the mission statement of this blog:
“Revelation 19:11-16 describes a white horse whose Rider is “called Faithful and True,” and whose “name is called The Word of God.” Out of His Mouth “goeth a sharp sword.” That sword is the Word of God. Out of His Mouth is a blog written by a former Roman Catholic, Timothy F. Kauffman, with a passion for wielding the sword of truth in defense of the faith, and refuting the errors in which he himself was once enslaved. Mr. Kauffman lives in Huntsville, Alabama with his wife, Jennifer and their four children…I am currently a member at Southwood Presbyterian Church (PCA).”
Tim is most definitely proselytizing by trying to show Roman Catholics their previously unknown “errors” and leading them to the “truth” of the Reformed Church. It’s the whole purpose of this blog.
Scott, you are missing the point of Tim’s site. Its about the doctrines not found in scripture or thecearly church supposedly pssed down from the Apostles to the Roman Catholic church. The issue isnt chronology. Its about false doctrine that deviates greatly from sacred scripture and the practice of the early church. Its about .the rise of the apostasy in the 4th century with false doctrines foreign to scripture and a the early church. Your hung up on the wrong thing.
Wow. I don’t even know where to start. You are an absolute embarrassment. It’s like trying to have a conversation with someone who’s had a full frontal lobotomy, only much worse.
This whole conversation started when you made the claim that God gave us the Bible, not the church. I pointed out that God gave us both, and that the church came first. After 24 hours or more of trying to explain to you that by “the church came first” I only meant that that the church existed before the NT did, you then say it’s not the point of the site anyway. That’s how this conversation has gone. I could have a more rational discussion with a penguin.
Why is it so important for Kevin to get the chronology ? It is only Providential co-existence of the “church”with the actually written books. The authors of the NT books are necessary to the written books by a “supposition of God’s will.” You want to wrench a chronological admission from Kevin to build an argument for church authority. It doesn’t work with Kevin. Kevin knows that the bible is authoritative because it’s inspired by the HOLY SPIRIT. The HOLY SPIRIT is free to inspire in any historical context.
Because if you can’t get the historical facts right, there’s no point in having a further discussion. He made a statement that was historically false. I pointed it out. If you don’t have your facts right, error will follow.
Incidentally, if Kevin can’t make the chronological admission, which is merely an acknowledgment of undeniable fact, then that suggests to me that Kevin is willing to deny truth for the sake of holding on to some belief of his. Even if his belief is true, he’s not going to be able to defend it all that well if he’s turning a blind eye to facts he thinks might be inconvenient. It tends to convey the idea that Kevin knows, deep down, that his beliefs are wrong, and is therefore unwilling to concede those very points that will rip the foundation from under the edifice. But if Reformed theology is true, 1st century chronology won’t change that truth. So why deny it?
It’s not a serious as you make it out to be. I think you guys are passing ships on the word Canon.
A canon, epistemologically, has authority.
A canon, definitionally, is a list of books.
A canon, historically, comes into being at a particular point in time, and over the course of time.
And I know that the Bible is authoritative because it was inspired by the Holy Spirit. I’m not denying that. What I am saying, however, is that the Holy Spirit inspired the Bible through the process of history, and that the process occurred within the New Testament church. You don’t have to accept that this church was the Catholic church in order to admit that. You do, however, have to admit that the New Testament does not just show up fully-formed from the Holy Spirit, anterior to the church that Christ founded, as if it were Athena popping out of the head of Zeus.
Kevin, Do you admit the following ?
Scott wrote:
You do, however, have to admit that the New Testament does not just show up fully-formed from the Holy Spirit, anterior to the church that Christ founded, as if it were Athena popping out of the head of Zeus.
Scott, what Eric W said here, I couldnt say any better. Why dont you just come out and make your argument how you believe the Roman church has the infalible authority to not only interpret scripture but to mitigate salvation for its people thru the acts of the church. And while your there describe to us why you think the Roman church can put itself between the Word and the Spirit in bringing salvation to man. Iow , why secondary causes is the decider in the eternal life of a person, instead of the Holy Spirit who the scripture tells us blows where and how HE wills. Explain to us how infant baptism thru thd Priestcraft of ex opere operato produces faith in a baby. We are all ears? Because as my dear friend Eric W estutely told you, you reason for church Chronology is to build a case for how your human institution built on a man that Jesus once called Satan can usurp God in delivering salvation to the heart of man. Tell us how that works, when the Priest calls the Spirit out of a sacrament and says heel. K
Because I wasn’t trying to argue the authority of the Catholic Church. I was trying to correct a factual error on your part. If you can’t admit to facts, you can’t reason.
Kevin, what on earth does the fact that there was a church around for 25 years before the first NT book was written have to do with ex opere operato and the spirit blowing where it wills? This has to do with 33 AD coming before 60 AD. Do you deny the historical record, Kevin? It’s as simple as that. You don’t have to admit to any Catholic doctrine in admitting that 33 AD comes before 60 AD. You only have to admit to the calendar.
PS…“the church came first”…Here it is ! You want Kevin to grant the first cause. The grant will help you show how every “effect” shares in the cause, i.e, authority to write, authority to interpret, authority to decide…did I miss anything ?
You wrote:
You are an absolute embarrassment. It’s like trying to have a conversation with someone who’s had a full frontal lobotomy,
only much worse.
…I could have a more rational discussion with a penguin.
———————-
Out of the heart the mouth speaks. Your heart worships this first cause idol and the demons want to hear insults….did I miss anything ?
As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly. So sorry for calling vomit, vomit.
Ok, Kevin, please accept my apology for all that. It came out of frustration and being tired, nothing more. If I didn’t actually like you somewhere underneath all our heated disagreements, maybe I would have been less frustrated. Sounds counterintuitive and paradoxical, I know. Nevertheless, I am sorry.
I forgive you.
Thank you.
The canon of scripture is no more a product of the church then the constitution is a product of its courts. Reformed always hold the Word of God precedes scripture and community. It doesnt say in the beginning was the community, it says in the beginning is the Word. Covenant is canon. The church cannot amend or revise the constitution, it can only interpret it and pass it on. Its position is ministerial not magisterial. God redeems His people thru hearing His word. The church can preach the gospel. Yes I grant that Scott wrote that.
Kevin, you have this backward. You can’t use constitution and courts as an analogy for the simple fact that the Constitution was completed before the first court came into session. It is the exact opposite with the Bible and the church. The church came into existence on Pentecost ca. 33 AD. The first book of the NT would not be written for at least another 25 years. Nor does saying that the church came first mean that th church can change the Bible. It simply does not follow. Kevin, you are trying to deny what no one denies. No Catholic, no Protestant, no atheist, no one who knows any history at all denies that there was a Christian church on earth before there was a New Testament. You might as well deny the sun.
” You might as well deny the sun” I dont deny the Son. You do by using chronology to support inserting the church between the Spirit and The Word. Covenat is canno, get that. That the NT church precedes the finish of the canon in no way is material to the Word of God precedes all, and the plan of redemption thru the covenant of grace inscrpurated in the canon is heard by men thru the agency of the Spirit saves. The canon ended with the Apostles, and the church ministerial mission is to stand under it and pass it on. Hebrews 1″ God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the Prophets in many portions and many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His son, whom He appointed heir of all things, thru who He also made the world.” Thats why we say the church is the offspring of the Word of God. So can you please make your broader point?
I think you’re trying to read more into what I said than is there. I said that the church exists before the New Testament exists. I didn’t say that the church has authority over God’s word; I said that there is a church before there is a New Testament. I didn’t say the New Testament is not covenantal; I said there is a church before there is a New Testament. I didn’t say the New Testament was a product of human doings; I said there is a church before there is a New Testament. I didn’t say that somehow the canon is still open; I said there is a church before there is a New Testament. This is not complicated.
I agree that “the church is the offspring of the Word of God,” if by “Word of God” you mean Christ. But if by “Word of God” you mean a completed Bible, Old Testament and New, with its canon determined, no, the church comes first. That doesn’t mean that the church has authority over the Bible. It means that if you were Doc Brown and set your DeLorean to arrive in the Holy Land on October 1, 40 A.D, you would find a church, you would find apostles, you would find Christians, but you would not find a single book of the New Testament anywhere, simply because it had not been written yet.
And your point is? At some point your going to have to make your point.
I’ve made my point 100 times, Kevin. And 100 times you’ve made the assumption that my point is larger than it is, and whipped yourself into a frenzy to deny something more than I argued.
The point is this: The church existed on earth before the New Testament existed on earth.
My point is not larger than that.
The church existed on earth before the New Testament existed on earth.
Therefore, the church existed on earth beefore the New Testament existed on earth.
As a result of that, he church existed on earth beefore the New Testament existed on earth.
Moreover, the church existed on earth beefore the New Testament existed on earth.
In conclusion, the church existed on earth before the New Testament existed on earth.
The church existed on earth beefore the New Testament existed on earth.
And for some reason, I kept getting an additional “e” in “before.”
Scott, you wrote:
The church existed on earth beefore the New Testament existed on earth.
What does a RC do with this fact ?
The first thing a RC does with this fact is admit it.
I will join you and admit it. Now what ?
Now nothing. No threat lurking anywhere. Not hiding something in the other hand. Can’t figure out what Kevin seems so scared to death of it. You’d think that to admit that there was a church before there was a New Testament means that you’d be praying to Mary and calling Francis “Holy Father” tomorrow.
Kevin–“The canon ended with the Apostles,”
Who taught you that? If the Word of God taught you that, please quote chapter and verse so that I may read it as well.
Jude 1:3 ” Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt it necessary to write you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the Saints.” The bible told me.
Was Jude the last book of the New Testament to be written?
This resource (http://m.biblestudytools.com/resources/guide-to-bible-study/order-books-new-testament.html) tells me that NT books continued to be written for about 30 years after Jude. So if Jude 1:3 means the canon was closed, why are you accepting all these other books that were written after Jude was?
Or do you have reliable information that the chronology I linked to is wrong? I mean, I am fully aware that you don’t know the most basic history of the first century, but you must try if you want to do more than sputter when Catholics show up to challenge you and your strange ideas.
Scott, well what does once and for all mean? Would that be like one mediator means 5. And one finished sacrifice means over and over. You Catholics have problems with word meaning. Last time I checked once and for all delivered faith means finito. Its irrelevant where the book of Jude falls on the last book wheel. Just like its irrelevant when the church was established. Paul says ” don’t go beyond what is written” Maybe somebody hasn’t told you there isn’t an oral tradition that continued outside the once for all delivered faith. K
You’re leaping again 1000 miles beyond my point. Is Jude the last book of the NT written? If not, then what’s your evidence that this verse is telling us that the canon is closed?
Let me ask you the question another way.
You point out, rightly, that the verb here is “once for all delivered.”
What is the subject of the verb? Is it “canon”?
Scott said ” the first thing an RC does with that is admit it” Who told you that?
Historical evidence.
Scott, thats not what I asked you. Who told you thats all the Roman church does with that evidence? Cmon you can give us the springboard theology Rome has tried to assert. Here is a hint. Eric W laid it out in a previous Post. You are trying to establish Roman church authority as the living voice of scripture. But your in the wrong place to establish that. Because this ex Catholic has proven the Reformed position that Rome is antichrist. And he does it as well as anyone I have seen.
No one told me that’s “all” “Rome” does with it. Nor did I say that’s “all” that “Rome” does with it. What I said, if you can read words, is that it is the “first” thing to be done.
Second, I am not trying—for the 3 billionth time—to establish any Catholic doctrine by pointing out that there was a church before there was a New Testament. I am trying—for the 3 billionth time—to establish that there was a church before there was a New Testament. My point begins there, and my point ends there.
Why would our ideas be strange. Are you not in agreement with Calvin, that if we weighed up all the evidence of the early church fathers it would fall heavily on our side ( Reformed)? Or do you believe the first 1500 years of the church was Roman Catholic? I’m not sure what your chronology has to do with the fact that the church is the offspring of the Word of God. I mean when God said ” let there be light,,,,,” there was no church, right? The Word created the church, as I have been saying all along. Church worship can’t save you Scotty. And I’m fully aware that you don’t know that you don’t know the history of the first century. Tim has documented well the early church and refuted all Rome’s claims. Welcome to the site where Roman Catholics can learn the truth and get set free. But its going to cost you Scotty to be able to be beamed up. You will have to give up the sacrifice of the Mass and trust in your own merits to come in faith alone in Christ alone. You will have to admit that transubstantiation and keeping Christ on the cross can’t save you. You have to let Him be Lord and Savior. But you came to the right place. God bless
You’re 1000 miles beyond what I’m saying. Again.
Half the battle of trying to have a discussion with you is trying to corral you.
Scott said ” can’t figure out why Kevin is so scared of it” I’m not. I have told you the Reformed position from the beginning that the Word of God preceded the church. But you continue to assert the church came first.
We must define our terms. By “word of God” do you mean Christ or the Bible? Because if you mean “word of God,” then you are right. If you mean Bible, then you are wrong, and not only wrong, but culpably and ignorantly wrong.
Sorry, mistyped. If by “word of God,” you mean “Christ,” then you are correct.
If by “word of God,” you mean “Bible,” then you are wrong.
I am talking about the Bible.
Scott maybe no one has told you. The bible is the inscripurated Word of God. Its God breathed. As I continue to tell you God said let there be light before any church. Therefore Reformed are right in saying that the church creation of the Word of God. The Word of God precedes the church. Incidentally, you took me to task because I cited Romans 1 that men suppress the truth in unrighteounes and that sin affects reason and every aspect of man. The reason for doctrinal error is sin. ” There are none righteous, none who understand, none who seeks for God. The only thing the Pope is infallible about is being fallible. Thx
Kevin:
Duh. I am not disputing any of that. What I am saying—ALL I am saying—is that the church began in 33 AD on the day of Pentecost (Acts chapter 2) and that the last book of the NEW TESTAMENT was not finished until around 95 AD. Therefore, there was a church on earth before there was a BIBLE. My point is no larger than that. I cannot fathom why this is so difficult for you to understand. I have come to the conclusion that, if you cannot understand or cannot concede that simple and limited and indisputable point, there is no point in talking to you. I’m not talking about who inspired the Bible. I’m not talking about the infallibility of the pope, or lack thereof. I’m talking about one thing: the year 33 AD, when the church began, came before the year 95 AD, when the last book of the New Testament was written. I am not saying anything other than that. I am not trying to get you to agree to anything other than that. If that merits a 2 day discussion, then talking to you is an absolutely pointless endeavor.
Bullinger ” SCRIPTURE IS THE WORD OF GOD” Horton ” In every work of the Godhead, the Father speaks of the Son and by the perfecting work of the Spirit. The bible is the Word of God because in all Law, the narratives, the Psalm, prophets, Gospels, and Epistles we hear the Father testifying to the Son.” John 5:39 by way of the Spirit” 2 Peter 1:21. Mat 10:20, Luke 10:16, John 13:20. Again, the church is the offspring of the Word of God. When the New Testament was finished does not change that the WORD created the church, not vice versa. The 66 books of our bible are tom the mouth of God, and we live by it. We don’t deny that God gave us the church, but its the fallible interpreter of and infallible Word, and its ministerial, not magisterial. Got it. K
Sigh. Yes. I know. I’m not talking about what Scripture IS. I’m talking about when, in history, Scripture was WRITTEN. I suggest NOTHING else by what I said than, well, what I said. I think you understand perfectly well what I said, and even agree with it, but I also suspect you’ve been spending two days disputing a larger point that I did NOT make but that you THOUGHT that I was implying.
I also don’t dispute that the Word created the church, if by “Word” you mean Christ. But if by “the Word created the Church” you mean the Bible created the Church, you’re nuts.
Think about what I said, you’ll get it figured out. K
Proverbs 1:7b.
Scott Eric Alt–
Kevin said: “Because this ex Catholic has proven the Reformed position that Rome is antichrist. And he does it as well as anyone I have seen.”
“Welcome to the site where Roman Catholics can learn the truth and get set free.”
On the contrary, this site is about as bogus as it gets. Here is how I know and you do, too:
1John 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God;
3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.
You know that the Catholic Church confesses the Incarnation, probably more so than any one else. It permeates all of our doctrine.
And here’s what is relevant to the current discussion–notice 1 John was written before the last apostle died and he wrote that the spirit of anti-christ was now already in the world. That was 300 years before Tim says the rise of Roman Catholicism occurred and the canon was finalized.
Tim has built his whole elaborate scheme on an obvious false premise. Don’t be fooled for one second that you are not on the right side of the Tiber.
You are frustrated with Kevin’s arguments and for good reason. He comes across as being inept. And a trait of ineptness is that they don’t recognize they are inept–unless he is doing it on purpose. Then the bigot shoe fits. I think it is the latter. Here’s proof: Kevin says this “how can you trust a Priesthood of Pedophiles to tell you anything? ”
Scott, with a comment like that, he has already prejudged you as being wrong. “Roman Catholic” is a pejorative term on this sight.
“You, know that the Catholic church confesses the incarnation” So what, the Reformed confess that Christ came in the flesh. But the Catholic church sees itself as the continuation of the incarnation and atonement of Christ, usurping His unique finished work. The scripture never speaks of a church being a continuation of the incarnation. The church is a metaphor for the body of Christ. He incorporates us into His body thru the Spirit, not the church.
Mathew said ” this site is as bogus as it gets” If this site was bogus, you wouldn’t be here. K Take advantage of it. Its a great blessing. God bless
Matthew, you wrote,
Of course, just as it is possible to honor God with one’s lips, but deny Him in practice (Isaiah 29:13), it is also possible to affirm the incarnation with the lips, but deny it in practice. See “Removing Jesus” to see how Rome denies the incarnation. You continued,
Are you saying the canon of Scripture was finalized in the 4th century?
Thanks,
Tim
Matthew says:
Well, yes. I’m beginning to notice that chronology is not a strong point here.
Scott,
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says,
How is it possible that the “mystery of iniquity” will be unveiled in the future, if it was already present in the first century?
Of course the mystery of iniquity was already at work in the first century. But it kept on getting hammered back down until the late 4th century, as I noted in The Rise of Roman Catholicism:
As Paul said in 2 Thessalonians, “the mystery of iniquity doth already work” (v. 7), but he also said, “Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.” (v. 3).
Do you find something inherently contradictory in Paul’s chronology? Or perhaps in the Catechism‘s?
Thanks,
Tim
No. You’re trying to manipulate my words again, and it’s not going to work this time. From Matthew’s post, I understood your position to be that there was no antichrist until the 4th century, which would be contradictory to Paul. But that is not your position. Your position is that it was there, but was beaten back for several hundred years. So perhaps Matthew misstated it. But what the position of the Catechism is on all this is irrelevant. This is simply, Tim, a question of clarifying the misunderstanding, and not playing a game of trapping someone.
It is funny if the Roman Catholic Church teaches that Antichrist (according to John) was in the first century. Again, the error of interpreting Scripture using the literal method rather than the “literal sense” or “intended meaning” method of Scripture. The Geneva Bible notes are very helpful.
“1 John 2:22 He showeth now plainly the false doctrine of the Antichrists, to wit, that either they fight against the person of Christ, or his office or both together, and at once. And they that do so do in vain boast and brag of God, for that in denying the Son the Father also is denied.”
In context, John wrote:
18 [ab][ac]Little children, [ad]it is the last time, [ae]and as ye have heard that Antichrist shall come, even now there are many Antichrists: whereby we know that it is the last time.
19 [af]They went out from us, but they were not of us: for if they had been of us, [ag]they should have continued with us. [ah]But this cometh to pass, that it might appear, that they are not all of us.
20 [ai]But ye have an [aj]ointment from that [ak]Holy one, and know all things.
21 [al]I have not written unto you, because ye know not the truth: but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.
22 [am]Who is a liar, but he that denieth that Jesus is [an]that Christ? the same is that Antichrist that denieth the Father and the Son.
23 [ao]Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father.
1 John 2:18 Now he turneth himself to little children, which notwithstanding are well instructed in the sum of religion, and willeth them by divers reasons to shake off slothfulness, which is too too familiar with that age.
1 John 2:18 He useth this word (little) not because he speaketh to children, but to allure them the more by using such sweet words.
1 John 2:18 First, because the last time is at hand, so that the matter suffereth no delay.
1 John 2:18 Secondly because Antichrists, that is, such as fall from God, are already come, even as they heard that they should come. And it was very requisite to warn that unheedy and wariless age of that danger.
1 John 2:19 A digression against certain offenses and stumbling blocks, whereat that rude age especially might stumble and be shaken. Therefore that they should not be terrified with the soul falling back of certain, first he maketh plain unto them, that although such as fall from God and his religion, had place in the Church, yet they were never of the Church, because the Church is the company of the elect which cannot perish, and therefore cannot fall from Christ.
1 John 2:19 So then the elect can never fall from grace.
1 John 2:19 Secondly, he showeth that these things fall out to the profit of the Church, that hypocrites may be plainly known.
1 John 2:20 Thirdly, he comforteth them to make them stand fast, insomuch as they are anointed by the holy Ghost with the true knowledge of salvation.
1 John 2:20 The grace of the holy Ghost, and this is a borrowed kind of speech taken from the anointings used in the Law.
1 John 2:20 From Christ who is peculiarly called holy.
1 John 2:21 The taking away of an objection. He wrote not these things as to men which are ignorant of religion, but rather as to them which do well know the truth, yet so far forth that they are able to discern truth from falsehood.
1 John 2:22 He showeth now plainly the false doctrine of the Antichrists, to wit, that either they fight against the person of Christ, or his office or both together, and at once. And they that do so do in vain boast and brag of God, for that in denying the Son the Father also is denied.
1 John 2:22 Is the true Messiah.
1 John 2:23 They then are deceived themselves, and also do deceive others, which say that the Turks and other infidels worship the same God that we do.
1 John 2:24 The whole preaching of the Prophets and Apostles is contrary to that doctrine: Therefore it is utterly to be cast away and this wholly to be holden and kept, which leadeth us to seek eternal life in the free promise, that is to say, in Christ alone, who is given to us of the Father.
Scott Eric Alt–“You’re trying to manipulate my words again, and it’s not going to work this time. From Matthew’s post, I understood your position to be that there was no antichrist until the 4th century, which would be contradictory to Paul. But that is not your position. Your position is that it was there, but was beaten back for several hundred years. So perhaps Matthew misstated it.”
John is contrasting those who proclaim Christ coming in the flesh (Christian) and those who don’t (anti-christ). Tim is claiming that Roman Catholics are anti Christ.
Scott, you know that Catholics proclaim Jesus is God in the flesh. So you can see that Tim’s whole argument is based on a false premise. He has built this house on sand. Any thing he says afterward is just pejorative against you. Oh, he says he loves Catholics and wants to see them come out from under the Romist anti-christ system for their own salvation. It is all bogus lip service. You have already been subjected to Kevin’s deception. Tim is just better at it.
Thank you. I see that. The sense of my remarks was that, assuming Tim’s position merely to have been misstated (independent of whether it was or not), all that is required on his part is a clarification, not a cross-examination or attempt to “trap him in his words.”
Incidentally, I remember having this very discussion with the Lutheran pastor of the LCMS church I attended just before I entered RCIA. Of course, his main concern was justification, but the discussion of antichrist did come up, and I mentioned John’s words about the Incarnation.
Tim’s “deception,” in this case, is to somehow say that, while Catholics do affirm the Incarnation, they nevertheless deny the Incarnation. It certainly does require being “better at it” to make that one fly.
Scott, you deny the incarnation, because you deny the gospel of Christ. Rome is modern day judaism. Your works are filthy rags to God because you won’t come in faith alone, but you must smuggle your character into the work of God’s grace. And you deny the sufficiency of His substitutionary one time sacrifice, continue His incarnation and atonement on in the acts of the church. You deny Christ and are therefore incarnation.
Stop lying.
This is not a statement about something you disagree with in Catholicism. It’s an accusation against me. I deny the Incarnation; I deny the Gospel; I smuggle works; I deny the sufficiency of Christ; I deny Christ. This is not a discussion; this is a list of accusations. It takes no intelligence to make a list of accusations against someone personally. Is that easier for you?
Scott, these are your words ” Tim’s deception in this case, is to somehow say that, while Catholics do affirm the incarnation, they nevertheless deny the incarnation.” Stop lying! No, Tim says that Catholics SAY they affirm the incarnation but actually deny it by their doctrines. Get it. And i am not lying, if you defend Roman doctrine then you are guilty of the things I stated are a denial of the incarnation. God bless
” You can see that Tim’s whole premise is built on a false premise” Is this your fallible opinion, or do you have this as a infallible statement for your synagog? You continued ” he has built his house on sand” No, he has built his house on the ” Word of God” it shall stand. You,however, have built your house on merits, Mary, eating the physical body of Christ to earn you way. You are on the pay as you go system. Maybe thats what Paul meant in Ephesians 2 when he said ” not of yourselves” not of works” He really meant fully of yourselves, fully of your works, right? K
Mathew said ” Tim is trying to say Roman Catholics are antichrist” No, Tim is saying that the Papacy, Roman religion is antichrist. Tim has shown love and respect for Catholics themselves, although he has reiterated as many Protestants here that we don’t consider Catholics our brother and sister in Christ. They believe a false gospel, not all of them. There are many bad Catholics trusting i Christ alone for their salvation and not in their works, Mary, the church, Sacrifice of the Mass, and the 1000 other things they pile on the cross of Christ.
Matthew wrote:
“John is contrasting those who proclaim Christ coming in the flesh (Christian) and those who don’t (anti-christ). Tim is claiming that Roman Catholics are anti Christ.”
Matthew can you please provide me the link where Tim uses John 1:10-11 as the source text to prove that “Roman Catholics are anti Christ”?
Why do you lie and deceive people into believing that Tim is saying and teaching people that he does not say, nor teach?
If you choose not to read Tim’s writings, but rather lie about him, and you choose to lie about what Scripture teaches as well, is there anything that we can believe about anything you say on this blog? Your credibility is getting sorely damaged.
Your comments remind me a lot of Jim’s who did the same thing coming here. Lots of wild claims that were unsubstantiated, but at least Jim admitted he does not read the posts Tim makes here on the blog, but just enjoys (as most Catholics do) to disrupt the blog hoping no matter how wild the claims that we will all return to Rome.
I get the feeling a lot of you guys have some sort of financial or commission agreement with the Vatican or EWTN so money is transferred if you can get a convert to Rome. Is there any truth to the idea that Rome is paying people to get converts? I know they are severely down in both Priests and Nuns, and desperately offering any sort of money to get more soon.
” I get a feeling that allot of you have some financial agreement or commission agreement with the Vatican or EWTN, so money is transferred if you can’t get converts to Rome” This is funny. I needed a good laugh today. There is allot of truth in this.
Walt said ” your comments remind me allot of Jim” Yeah, makes you wonder.
What’s in a name ?
Walt:
God bless you for your love, intelligence, and great charity.
It was a question. While it does sound a bit silly, I have studied a bit of the history of the Jesuits and those who will do anything (good or evil) to defend the Pope and the Romish church. In learning these tactics and secret societies that they create, and seeing how at least one EWTN program spends all its time on interviewing people who claim to have been protestant, but gone back to Rome, it makes one wonder if there is money involved.
IT would not be the first time you see Rome paying people to convert, or forcing them to convert at pain of death.
You’re relying on myth. I know they’re out there, but they are centuries-old anti-Catholic propaganda that, originally, was politically motivated.
One man’s myth is another man’s truth.
Take the so-called “Jesuit oath.” There is no such oath. Many people have quoted it from the Congressional Record, but the only reason it was read into the Congressional Record in the first place was as an example of malicious anti-Catholic propaganda that was occurring in an election.
Walt said ” it would not be the first time we see Rome paying someone to convert” ” Indulge”nce” us if you have any knowledge of the church either paying or collecting money to mitigate salvation in any way? lol
All of these falsehoods are based on ignorance and fear.
Scott, you consistently call people ignorant and then you come back and apologize blaming it on being tired. I forgave you the other day when you called me vomit and ignorant and asked for my forgiveness, then you come back and start calling Walt ignorant. Can you leave the personal insults out and just discuss. Thanks Kevin.
Um….”ignorant” is a value-neutral word (it does NOT mean “stupid”), and anyway, I was using it to describe the state of mind that gave rise to these kinds of rumors centuries ago, not Walt himself. Unless you want to tell me that Walt is hundreds of years old—in which case, the real problem might not be ignorance but senility.
Walt–“Matthew can you please provide me the link where Tim uses John 1:10-11 as the source text to prove that “Roman Catholics are anti Christ”?
No. I can’t because he didn’t use it. That is my argument against him.
“Why do you lie and deceive people into believing that Tim is saying and teaching people that he does not say, nor teach?”
He teaches that Roman Catholicism is anti-christ. He says it, he teaches it, and I say he says it and teaches it. That is not a lie. I have deceived no one. Quote Tim Kauffman:
“Roman Catholics worship the elements of the Lord’s Supper, and because the bread of the Lord’s supper remains bread throughout, we do not hesitate to call our Roman Catholic acquaintances—and yes, even this writer’s own Roman Catholic family members—”bread worshipers.” This term is considered offensive to Roman Catholics but we do not shy away from it.”
“If you choose not to read Tim’s writings, but rather lie about him, and you choose to lie about what Scripture teaches as well, is there anything that we can believe about anything you say on this blog? Your credibility is getting sorely damaged.”
And your gullibility is sorely showing.
“Your comments remind me a lot of Jim’s who did the same thing coming here. Lots of wild claims that were unsubstantiated, but at least Jim admitted he does not read the posts Tim makes here on the blog, but just enjoys (as most Catholics do) to disrupt the blog hoping no matter how wild the claims that we will all return to Rome.”
I guess you can say that about Jim if he doesn’t read the blogs. I have been reading the blogs and the responses. You say you were Catholic and now you are not. Big woop. People have been swimming the Tiber both ways for 500 years. And both sides claim it was because they started reading Scripture. I guess that proves that the Word of God is a two-edged sword.
“I get the feeling a lot of you guys have some sort of financial or commission agreement with the Vatican or EWTN so money is transferred if you can get a convert to Rome.”
And I’ll bet you believe that the Roman Catholic Church was behind the Kennedy assasination, too.
“Is there any truth to the idea that Rome is paying people to get converts? I know they are severely down in both Priests and Nuns, and desperately offering any sort of money to get more soon.”
Sure. I’ve got the fundraising tickets in my pocket. Ten dollars a piece on a chance at a new 2015 Ford Mustang GT. And haven’t you seen the jars on the store checkout counters for donations toward the Pennies for Papists Fund? Also the Cathedral has installed coin slots in the confessionals for the Invest in Indulgences campaign…………………..NOT!
Matthew,
Why shouldn’t the RCC have been behind the Kennedy assassination? After all, it is well known that the Jesuits were behind the Lincoln assassination. John Wilkes Booth was a well-known papist who had taken a blood oath to perform whatever evil machinations Pius IX had planned for overthrowing the United States through his minion Andrew Johnson. Fortunately, President Johnson was impeached just in the nick of time and was too busy defending himself to overthrow the United States to popery.
Matthew,
I was really hoping you would provide evidence for a change.
Dang! I’m all out of evidence today. Maybe one day I’ll have some for you.
Matthew said:
“Dang! I’m all out of evidence today. Maybe one day I’ll have some for you.”
This is a serious problem as Tim is proving in this weeks article, and many over and over. Catholics make these entirely wild claims over and over, but never provide any evidence to prove their claims. Even the challenge they make publicly gets reubuked as a foolish challenge, and yet you will never find any Catholic that I can find truthful and factual about history.
This is why anyone who is a student of history could never be able to stay in the Catholic church, and more importantly, anyone who actually reads the Scripture would have to leave the Catholic church and honor God’s command, “Come out of her my people”.
Agree!
I’m currently watching “ETR Theology Roundtable” on ETWN covering “Ecumenism in Perspective” and these are suppose to be the best Catholic Apologists the Romish church has to offer in theology.
It is just incredible how many of these men sit and claim that from Peter all these doctrines were passed to the early church, but NOT ONE PROVES anything they claim with evidence.
After I started reading Tim’s extensive evidence based blog, it has become so easy now to listen to these guys on ETWN and like Matthew and Scott on this blog, to really see how much they deceive the audience about history. I don’t think they really know what they are talking about, but they speak with such authority to make you believe they are authoritative.
It really is sad watching these 3 guys on this round table.
I’m weeping all the way to the bank. 😉
Timothy, i am in awe. This all seems to line up too neatly to be true. The only thing that is preventing my belief is that, why Catholics? There are all sorts of idolaters and spirits, Muslims , Buddhist, Hindu . Why are they not punished, and the Catholic Church is? Is their idolatry not worse? There are Catholics that genuinely seem born again and don’t try to earn their way to heaven. Are Muslims not worse? They acknowledge Christ as the messiah yet claim he’s not God.
because this is the biggest Religion in the wolrd, still today. And what about from the 4th century up until the 15th century? The roman catholic chruch was THE Power in the world.
and this for 1000 years! and still today it is so big.
and as if it were not enough, they are doing all that what they are doing and especcially what they did IN THE NAME OF CHRIST.
It is important to add the fact that Daniel and Revelation are limited to what is geographically relevant. Sarah asked,
But consider that same question in the context of the other “beasts” of Daniel and Revelation. Could you not ask “why Babylon” when there were other contemporaneous idolaters? Or, “Why Medo-Persia” when there were other contemporaneous idolaters? Or “Why Greece” when there were other contemporaneous idolaters? Or, “Why the Roman Empire” when there were other contemporaneous idolaters?
Daniel and John (in Revelation) limit their discussion of the eschaton to the series of world empires from the Babylonian Captivity until the end. They are, in order, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome, Roman Catholicism. Throughout history there have been plenty of antagonists, but only these empires on the world stage, in the chronological sequence, agitating against the people of God from that platform, so Daniel’s and John’s foresight is limited to those world empires. Roman Catholicism, for her part, still enjoys some limited earthly dominion, and remains in view until Christ returns. And thus, the focus until the end is on Roman Catholicism—even though there have been bad actors, agitators and antagonists throughout the entire history from Nebuchadnezzar until today.
Hi brother Tim, do you know when the next semperreformanda podcast will take place about the seals? (or the next one i dont know if it is the seals)?