Follow
The statue of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, as depicted in Daniel chapter 2, has been the object of considerable study and speculation since Daniel first understood and revealed the dream. The statue represents four kingdoms that will come upon the earth, beginning with, and including, Nebuchadnezzar’s (Daniel 2:37-40). The “head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass, His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay” (Daniel 2:22-32). These represented the current and coming world empires—Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. As Daniel explains, the fourth kingdom starts with the strength of iron, but its Feet and Toes are part iron and part clay, which is to signify that the once strong kingdom “shall be divided” but with “the strength of the iron” (Daniel 2:41). In this vision, a stone carved without hands “smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay” (Daniel 2:34) and “it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold” (Daniel 2:45). As Daniel explains, the meaning of the stone is that “in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed” (Daniel 2:44).
Does the Stone Refer to His First or His Second Advent?
Interpretations vary in the Early Church Fathers about whether the Stone carved without hands refers to Christ’s first advent, or His second. None of their opinions are determinative, but a few examples will nonetheless serve to illustrate the diversity of opinions among them.
Justin Martyr, responding to Trypho in an exchange on Daniel, has the prophecy of the Stone fulfilled in Christ’s first advent (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, chapters 34 & 36). It is at His first coming, and His ascension, that He crushes the preceding empires:
“I will mention to you other words also spoken by the blessed David, from which you will perceive that the Lord is called the Christ by the Holy Spirit of prophecy; and that the Lord, the Father of all, has brought Him again from the earth, setting Him at His own right hand, until He makes His enemies His footstool; which indeed happens from the time that our Lord Jesus Christ ascended to heaven, after He rose again from the dead, … The words, then, which were spoken by David, are these:
‘The Lord is at Your right hand: He has crushed kings in the day of His wrath…’ [Psalms 110:5]” (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 32).
To Justin, the Stone had already arrived, and crushed the preceding empires.
Irenæus understood that the Stone referred to Christ’s first advent, but that He had not yet destroyed the temporal kingdoms—that would take place at His second advent, for “Christ is the stone which is cut out without hands, who shall destroy temporal kingdoms, and introduce an eternal one, which is the resurrection of the just” (Irenæus, Against Heresies, Book V, Chapter 26, paragraph 2).
Hippolytus, on the other hand, saw the Stone fulfilled in Christ’s second advent, and that only after the rise of Antichrist:
“And after him [Antichrist] it remains that
the stoneshall come from heaven whichsmote the imageand shivered it, and subverted all the kingdoms, and gave the kingdom to the saints of the Most High. Thisbecame a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.” (Hippolytus, Fragments, On Daniel, Second Fragment, paragraph 2)
There was no consensus, therefore, in the Early Church Fathers on whether the Stone of Daniel 2 had already struck the statue of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, or if it would come later. Even among those who believed the Stone had already come, there was no consensus on whether it had yet crushed and subdued the preceding empires, or if the complete dissolution of the pagan empires was yet future. Upon examination of Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 together, the reason for the Early Church’s divergent opinions will become clear. That confusion has allowed Rome to step in and claim to be the fulfillment of the Stone of Daniel 2.
Harmonizing Daniel 2 and Daniel 7
At least part of the cause of the diversity of opinions among the Fathers is how they harmonized Daniel 2 with Daniel 7. In Daniel chapter 7, the prophet experiences a vision of his own, and instead of a statue, he sees four beasts, again signifying the rise and fall of the same four empires. As in chapter 2, there is a progression—a Lion, a Bear, a Four-headed Leopard and “a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible” (Daniel 7:4-7). The Fourth Beast, like the Iron and Clay of Daniel 2, signifies the Roman empire. Like the Iron and Clay feet of the Statue, the fourth empire also appears to be fragmented in ten ways at the conclusion of the first phase, for the Fourth Beast “had ten horns” (Daniel 7:7). At verse 8, Daniel “considered the horns” coming out the Fourth Beast and noticed a rising antagonist among them, “another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots.” This Little Horn had “eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things,” and in Christian tradition is almost universally understood to be Antichrist.
Justin Martyr attempted to harmonize chapters 2 and 7 by having them refer to the First and Second advents, respectively. “[I]f so great a power is shown to have followed and to be still following the dispensation of His suffering, how great shall that be which shall follow His glorious advent!” If Jesus displayed such power when He came as a Stone in Daniel 2, how much more ought Trypho fear when “He shall come on the clouds as the Son of man” in Daniel 7 (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 31).
Hippolytus, on the other hand, saw both chapters 2 and 7 referring to His second advent. He equated the ten “toes” of chapter 2 with the “ten horns” of chapter 7, and understood them to refer to the nations that would arise due to the final breakup of the Roman Empire. From among those ten nations would emerge the Antichrist, and the Stone cut without hands would crush him along with all preceding empires:
“As these things, then, are destined to come to pass, and as the toes of the image turn out to be democracies, and the ten horns of the beast are distributed among ten kings, let us look at what is before us more carefully, … The ‘toes of clay and iron’ are the ‘ten horns’ which are to be. The ‘one other little horn springing up in their midst’ is the ‘antichrist.’ The stone that ‘smites the image and breaks it in pieces, and that filled the whole earth, is Christ, who comes from heaven and brings judgment on the world.” (Hippolytus, Fragments, On Daniel, Second Fragment, paragraph 3)
Thus, Hippolytus harmonizes the two chapters by having the Stone strike the Toes of the feet, after the Roman empire had already fragmented into ten democracies, corresponding to Jesus’ second advent when He will take away the dominion of the Little Horn (Daniel 7:26). In any case, different Church Fathers harmonized the two chapters differently, and they certainly shared no unanimity on the timing of the Stone’s arrival.
What also makes the prophecies difficult to understand is that Daniel places a rather significant judgment scene immediately after his description of the rise of Antichrist. After verse 8 when he sees “little horn” with “eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things,” he then describes thrones that are set up, and a judgment scene unfolds before him (Daniel 7:9-10). The Fourth Beast is slain, his body is destroyed and given to the flames (Daniel 7:11), and dominion is given to “one like the Son of man” Who “came with the clouds of heaven” (Daniel 7:13-14). At first glance, it appears to be a vision of the final judgment of Revelation 19 when the beast is cast into the fire (Revelation 19:20) and the Lord comes and claims His dominion over the nations. If the Stone strikes the Statue during the Roman Empire, but Christ had not yet returned on the clouds, we can understand why Justin saw Daniel 2 referring to the first advent, and Daniel 7 referring to the second. But if the Horns and the Toes correspond, then we can also understand why Hippolytus saw them both yet to be fulfilled in the second advent of Christ.
In any case, both Justin and Hippolytus understood Daniel 7 to describe a single swift act of judgment administered simultaneously against both the Fourth Beast and the Little Horn that arises out of it. Respected commentarian E. J. Young interprets it this way as well—namely, that the Fourth Beast and the Little Horn are destroyed together:
“By mention of the body being destroyed, the utter destruction of the beast is intended. It will exercise no further power in any sense, since it is to be completely done away. … with the destruction of the little horn, the power of the fourth beast disappears entirely.” (Young, The Prophecy of Daniel, Eerdman’s 1949, (153), emphasis in original)
It is this perception of Daniel 7:9-14 as a single judicial event that allows Roman Catholicism to see herself as the recipient of the kingdom as depicted by Daniel’s interpreter in chapter 7, and as the fulfillment of the Stone in Daniel 2. Christ arrives during the Roman empire, destroys the preceding empires and sets up Roman Catholicism as the everlasting kingdom of God—so they say.
We addressed this tangentially in One Kingdom Too Late, in which our focus was Taylor Marshall’s recent book, The Eternal City. The purpose of his book is to explain why Christianity is necessarily Roman, and he draws this conclusion based on Daniel 7. “The Church,” Marshall wrote in view of Daniel 7, “receives the Roman empire” from its previous custodians:
“Daniel states that the Fourth Kingdom of Rome will ‘persecute the saints’ (Daniel 7:25), and history testifies that Rome certainly persecuted not only Christ but also the early Church. Next, Daniel explains:
[The Fourth Beast’s] dominion shall be taken away, to be consumed and destroyed to the end. And the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the people and the saints of the Most High; their kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey them (Daniel 7:26-27).
The kingdom is taken away from the Fourth Beast and given to whom? The last four lines leap off the page. Read them over and over again. Who receives the kingdom? The people of the saints of the Most High!” (Marshall, The Eternal City, ch. 1, “Daniel Foretells the Roman Church”)
We notice in Daniel 7:26, however, that it is not the dominion of the Fourth Beast that is taken away, but rather the dominion of the Little Horn that is taken away and consumed. Like Young, Marshall essentially has collapsed the judgment against the Fourth Beast and the judgment against the Little Horn, into a single swift judicial act. Because of this Marshall thinks the Fourth Beast’s dominion is taken away and given to the Bride of Christ, which in his mind is the Roman Catholic Church.
He does the same with the Stone in chapter 2. Citing Daniel 2:44, Marshall has the Stone strike the statue, “break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end.” Then harmonizing this with Daniel 7:13-14 (“and to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom”), Marshall concludes that “[i]t is during the time of the Fourth Kingdom that the Messiah shall receive His own Kingdom—the Kingdom of God” (Marshall, The Eternal City, ch. 1, “Daniel Foretells the Roman Church”). Thus, when Roman Catholicism arises as the clear successor to the Roman Empire, Daniel’s prophecies appear to have been fulfilled—Jesus receives His dominion and His kingdom, gives it to “the saints of the Most High” in the person of Peter, and the rest of the story is born out in the history of the Roman church.
Based on that interpretation, Marshall flies from his Protestant upbringing, and leaps into the arms of Rome, thinking that it is Daniel who instructed him to do so:
“If Daniel is inspired by God (and he is), then the true Church of Jesus Christ on earth must be Roman. This fact compelled me to recognize the Roman Catholic Church as the true Church instituted by Our Lord Jesus Christ. Daniel’s prophecy about the Fourth Kingdom and the Son of Man must be true. Moreover, history confirms it. However, imperial Rome did not last forever. The Roman Empire expired, but the Roman Church lived on.” (Marshall, The Eternal City, ch. 9, “Constantine as Caesar Rendered unto God,” emphasis in original)
It is that last sentence, we think, that may well haunt Marshall in eternity.
One significant problem with how Marshall harmonizes Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 is the inconsistency he introduces to the Scriptural accounts about Jesus’ dominion over the kingdoms of the earth. If Daniel 7 is describing Jesus’ first advent, in what way can it be said that currently “all people, nations, and languages … serve Him” (Daniel 7:14)? Hebrews tells us “we see not yet all things put under him” (Hebrews 2:8), and Paul tells us that “he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power … at his [second] coming” (1 Corinthians 15:23-24). What Marshall has occurring at Christ’s first advent, the Scriptures have occurring at His second. To resolve this, Marshall ends up maintaining two positions on the identity of Antichrist—one of Nero as the Antichrist that was prophesied, and another of Nero as a type of an Antichrist yet to come.
There can be no doubt, Marshall writes, “that Nero is the Satanic Antichrist of the Roman Beast.” But at the same time, he writes in the next paragraph, the “Catholic tradition of identifying Nero as the primordial foreshadowing of the future antichrist is well documented” (Eternal City, ch. 8, “Rome Destroys Jerusalem”). In Marshall’s mind, Jesus both does, and does not yet, have all things in subjection to him, and Nero is both the prophesied Antichrist, and the foreshadowing of the prophesied Antichrist. The inconvenient paradox is swept under Marshall’s partial preterist rug so Catholics can get on with the business of rejoicing that Roman Catholicism is the fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy of the establishment of Christ’s Kingdom on earth.
But Marshall’s analysis is based on the assumption that Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 are describing a single judicial act against the succession of empires—destroying the preceding empires and the Fourth Beast and the Little Horn with it. As we shall see, that assumption is invalid, and that invalid assumption is why Marshall has unknowingly leapt into the arms of Antichrist, thinking he has run into the arms of Christ’s bride.
Because Marshall makes the mistake of seeing one judicial movement where the Scripture has two, he is then forced into a confusing partial preterist interpretation in which there are two Antichrists where Daniel’s prophecy has only one. And that one Antichrist is Roman Catholicism who Marshall in his blindness has embraced as if it was the establishment of Christ’s everlasting kingdom. In reality, Daniel did indeed see Roman Catholicism in his vision of chapter 7, but what he saw was simply the next pagan empire—the Fifth Empire—in a series of pagan world empires. And that Fifth Empire of the Little Horn is “whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming” (2 Thessalonians 2:8), and it is with that Fifth Empire that Marshall has aligned himself.
To Marshall’s inevitable surprise, he will some day find not that “The kingdom is taken away from the Fourth Beast and given to … the saints of the Most High,” but rather that the Fourth Beast’s kingdom was taken away and given to the Little Horn. Marshall is quite correct when he says, “The Roman Empire expired, but the Roman Church lived on.” Indeed it did. The Roman empire expired, but the Little Horn lived on, that Little Horn is the Roman Catholic Church. It is the Little Horn that receives the Roman Empire, and it is for this reason that the Fifth Empire is necessarily Roman.
As we noted above, Marshall’s error, and indeed Young’s error, and the cause of the Early Church Fathers’ confusion, was to see Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 both to represent one single judicial act against the succession of empires. But there are two.
The Two Judicial Movements of Daniel 2 and Daniel 7
Did Nebuchadnezzar see a single swift destruction of the succession of empires? At first glance, his dream appears to have the Stone striking the statue and demolishing it in one blow. But the text and the context are indicative of a repetition of blows occurring over an extended period of time. Albert Barnes notices this in his commentary on the dream. An enduring, or “a continued or prolonged smiting,” is what is implied by the text in Daniel 2:34:
“The word here used (מחא mechâ’) means, to ‘strike,’ to ‘smite,’ without reference to the question whether it is a single blow, or whether the blow is often repeated. The Hebrew word (מחא mâchâ’) is uniformly used as refering to ‘the clapping of the hands;’ that is, smiting them together, Psa 98:8; Isa 55:12; Eze 25:6. The Chaldee word is used only here and in Dan 2:35, referring to the smiting of the image, and in Dan 4:35, where it is rendered ‘stay’ – ‘none can stay his hand.’ The connection here, and the whole statement, would seem to demand the sense of a continued or prolonged smiting, or of repeated blows, rather than a single concussion. The great image was not only thrown down, but there was a subsequent process of ‘comminution,’ independent of what would have been produced by the fall. A fall would only have broken it into large blocks or fragments; but this continued smiting reduced it to powder. This would imply, therefore, not only a single shock, or violent blow, but some cause continuing to operate until what had been overthrown was effectually destroyed, like a vast image reduced to impalpable powder. The ‘first concussion’ on the feet made it certain that the colossal frame would fall; but there was a longer process necessary before the whole effect should be accomplished.” (Notes on the Bible, by Albert Barnes, (1834), Daniel chapter 2)
Upon a closer reading, therefore, Daniel does not have the whole Statue destroyed in a single blow. Instead, in both chapters, he describes two separate judicial sessions, or what we will call two “judicial movements,” during which the statue and the beasts are gradually dismantled and destroyed over time, starting with the first sequence of blows directed squarely at the unfragmented Roman Empire.
The two separate judicial acts emerge in the harmony of the two chapters. The succession of empires depicted in Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 is easily correlated—metal-to-beast-to-empire and phase-to-phase—as depicted in Figure 1, below:
There are, however, some differences between the two dream sequences. The Statue of Daniel 2 represents a chronology in which we can say that as we lower our gaze from head to foot, we are moving forward in time. The four beasts of Daniel 7, on the other hand, represent four snapshots in chronological order. Daniel is privy to the chronology related to each beast (i.e., “I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked, and it was lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon the feet as a man, and a man’s heart was given to it” (Daniel 7:4), but when he describes each one for us, he only describes its final configuration. We do not see, for example, Nebuchadnezzar before he was humbled, the reign of the Medes, or Alexander in his ascendancy. We only see Nebuchadnezzar restored, the Persians in charge (for they “came up last” (Daniel 8:3)), and the Greek empire already divided four ways. And, importantly, we see the Fourth Beast already with ten horns. Whereas Daniel 2 is a continuous chronology, Daniel 7 is four snapshots in chronological order, and each empire is only seen in its final configuration.
To the degree that the two visions describe the same succession of empires, what is said of one empire or phase in Daniel 2 may be said of its counterpart in Daniel 7, and vice versa. Thus, the Bronze corresponds to the Leopard, the Iron Legs and Iron and Clay Feet together correspond to the Body of the Fourth Beast, and the Iron and Clay Toes correspond to its Horns. It is in this correlation that the two judicial movements emerge.
Significantly, in Daniel 7, after the body of the Fourth Beast is destroyed, the preceding three empires are allowed to live on beyond the initial judgment, as their lives are “prolonged for a season and time” (Daniel 7:12). Clearly the preceding empires are not initially and totally reduced to dust. Yet those preceding empires are utterly and completely destroyed by the end of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, such that “no place was found for them” (Daniel 2:35). If they are allowed to continue on after the judgment scene in Daniel 7:9-11, but “no place was found for them” at the end of the judgment in Daniel 2:35, then Daniel was clearly seeing two, distinct judicial movements, and he saw both of these movements in each chapter.
In both chapters the initial target of wrath is neither the Toes, nor the Fourth Beast’s Horns, nor the whole Statue, nor all the beasts at once, but only the Iron and Clay Feet which are broken to pieces (Daniel 2:34), and the Fourth Beast’s Body which is cast upon the fire (Daniel 7:11). Whether they show a continuous chronology or four snapshots in chronological order, the two visions consistently represent an unfragmented Roman Empire as the first object of judgment.
What we shall demonstrate in Daniel 2 is that the Toes of the statue are the result of the first judicial movement when the feet are broken to pieces (Daniel 2:34), during which judgment the other empires are allowed to continue for a time and then later are finally and completely destroyed together with the fragments of the Roman Empire in a second judicial movement (Daniel 2:35). What we shall demonstrate in Daniel 7 is that that while Daniel describes for us the Fourth Beast with its horns already grown, the object of the first judicial movement is the body of the Fourth Beast (Daniel 7:11), while the horns and the other beasts are allowed to live on (Daniel 7:12), and are finally and completely destroyed in a second judicial movement (Daniel 7:26).
What we shall also demonstrate is that what Daniel conveyed only briefly in Daniel 2:34-35, then in more detail in Daniel 7:9-14 and 7:22-27, is nothing other than the the two distinct judicial movements of Revelation—one beginning in Revelation 4-9 with the breaking of the Seals and the following judgments, and one beginning in Revelation 17 when the Antichrist and the Horns make war against the Lamb (Revelation 17:14), and the Lamb will “smite the nations: and He shall rule them with a rod of iron” (Revelation 19:15).
Between these two judicial movements lies the Fifth Empire, the empire of the Antichrist, during which he is allowed to make war with the saints and wear them out (Daniel 7:21, 25). As long as these two judicial movements of Daniel remain collapsed into one—as is typically done—the Antichrist is allowed to hide comfortably between them, masquerading as the Bride of Christ, pointing to an “antichrist” in the distant past, and warning of another in the distant future.
We will continue with our discussion of the two judicial movements in Daniel 2 and 7 in much more detail next week.
Fascinating, cant wait for part 2. This statement most revealing ” as long as these 2 judicial movements of Daniel are collapsed into one, as is typically done, the antichrist is allowed to hide comfortably between them, masquerading as the Bride of Christ.” Most interesting. Nice Job Tim. K
For those readers of Tim’s interpretation of Daniel and Revelation, there is something you should know.
“The Western Roman Empire collapsed in the late 5th century. Romulus Augustulus is often considered to be the last emperor of the west after his forced abdication in 476, although Julius Nepos maintained a claim to the title until his death in 480. Meanwhile, in the east, emperors continued to rule from Constantinople (“New Rome”); these are referred to in modern scholarship as “Byzantine emperor” but they used no such title and called themselves “Roman Emperor” (βασιλεύς Ῥωμαίων). Constantine XI was the last Byzantine Roman emperor in Constantinople, dying in the Fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans in 1453.
Due to the cultural rupture of the Turkish conquest, most western historians treat Constantine XI as the last meaningful claimant to the title Roman Emperor, although from this date Ottoman rulers were titled “Caesar of Rome” (Turkish: Kayser-i Rum) until the Ottoman Empire ended in 1922. A Byzantine group of claimant Roman Emperors existed in the Empire of Trebizond until its conquest by the Ottomans in 1461. In western Europe the title of Roman Emperor was revived by Germanic rulers, the “Holy Roman Emperors”, in 800, and was used until 1806.”
Tim’s historist view of the Fourth Beast in Daniel does not match what actually happened in history. History is clear that the Roman Empire did not end with the fall of Rome.
TIM–
You said: “Yes, Roman Catholics worship the Eucharist. They think it becomes Christ. I believe the Eucharist remains bread. Therefore I believe they worship bread, which is idolatry. There is no misrepresentation of Roman Catholic doctrine in that. Are you resting your entire case of “misrepresentation” on the bare and obvious fact that I disagree with Rome?”
You are not only disagreeing with Rome, but you are labelling the Roman Catholic doctrine as bread worship which is misrepresenting it and misrepresenting Catholics as a bunch of idolaters. Idolaters worship gods other than the Triune God of the Bible. Catholics worship (latria) only the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They do not worship Diana, Ishtar, Moloch, Baal, Osiris, Orion, Jupiter, Saturn, Mars, the Moon or the Sun.
They worship the Eucharist as they believe, not as you believe. So that does not make them idolaters–idolaters do not worship Christ. It doesn’t make them the church of Satan–Satan does not worship Christ. The Pope is not the Anti-Christ–the Anti-Christ does not worship Christ. And the Eucharist is not the mark of the Beast–the Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ.
You say you disagree with Catholic doctrine and believe them to be idolaters. I say I disagree with your conclusion and believe you to misrepresent them.
Bob,
You wrote,
All of this is based on your assumption that transubstantiation is true, and you have acknowledged that you cannot possibly prove or know that it is. That means there is a possibility that it is false. Yet if it is false, your accusation that I misrepresent Roman Catholic doctrine is itself a misrepresentation. I agree with you when you say that you believe that I misrepresent Roman Catholics. Such an accusation must be based on faith, for you are unable to substantiate it with facts. You continued,
That is a true statement. You continued,
But if it isn’t then Rome worships that which is not Christ, which is idolatry. And you yourself have acknowledged that you cannot possibly know for certain that the Eucharist really is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ, which means you cannot possibly know for certain that I am wrong.
What this comes down to is an attempt by you to characterize a disagreement as a misrepresentation. And in so doing, you have tacitly acknowledged that your characterization of me is itself a misrepresentation.
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
So far you have not disproven transubstantiation. You have only disagreed with it. Your disagreement does not make Catholics idolaters so you misrepresent them by labelling them as such.
Bob, so far you have not proven transubstantiation. You have only agreed with it. Your agreement does not make them Christ-worshipers so you misrepresent me when you say I am wrong to call them idolaters…. etc…, etc…, etc…
Bob, your claim was that I misrepresent Catholic doctrine. Don’t try to get out of it by saying that I misrepresent Catholics by disagreeing with them. Prove that I have misrepresented Catholic doctrine by showing that I have misrepresented Catholic doctrine. To see how tautological your argument is, consider the following conversation:
TIM said:
“And the Eucharist is not the mark of the Beast …”
That is a true statement. ”
Excuse me. My mistake. You claim it is the image of the beast which it is not. You single out the unleavened bread from the celebration of Passover from Exodus and say:
Of the three activities in Scripture which involve a mark on the hand and forehead, the unleavened bread is the only one that involves an object that is made by human hands and therefore can be worshiped as an idol. And this is the image that the Apparitions of Mary have in mind when they say “to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast” (Revelation 13:14). And this is the image that has been coming to life and speaking for hundreds of years—since before the Papal Inquisition. Yes, it is the very image, the Image of the Beast, that Roman Catholics worship every week throughout the world, when they kneel to worship the bread, by which they receive the Mark of the Beast.”
I notice here you are not just disagreeing to the doctrine by saying “I believe this is” or I believe it is”. You say “this is” and “it is”. And the whole time doing so, you relabel it to something else on pure speculation of what you think it is.
Blatant misrepresentation.
You subject your spin to the bible and come up with your conclusion. Like I said, I’ll take it with a grain of salt.
Bob, you said,
In other words, You subject your spin to the bible and come up with your conclusion.
Why is it misrepresentation when I do it, but informed opinion when you do it?
Why not just concede the point that I disagree with an accurately stated Roman Catholic doctrine instead of insisting that I misrepresent it by stating it accurately and then disagreeing with it?
So the Eucharist as the Image of the Beast is disputable. So, too, is Transubstantiation. Does it really come down to a vote? I insist that the Roman Catholic Eucharist is the Image of the Beast as strenuously as Rome insists on Transubstantiation. Two strong opinions. Why is mine a “misrepresentation” of Roman Catholic doctrine? Based on your logic, shouldn’t Rome say, “The Eucharist might be Transubstantiated, and Transubstantiation might be true”? Otherwise they are misrepresenting my position. (Right?)
You wrote,
You subject your spin to the bible and come up with your conclusion. You’re not actually saying it’s true, are you?
Thanks,
Tim
TIM says:
“…the Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ.”
You subject your spin to the bible and come up with your conclusion. You’re not actually saying it’s true, are you?
I believe the Church when it says the Bible is the inspired Word of God. And the Bible says that Jesus broke the bread and gave it to His disciples saying “This is My Body” and taking the cup and giving it to His disciples saying “This is the cup of My Blood.”
Are you saying that is not true?
Bob, you wrote,
Which Church would that be?
Thanks,
Tim
The Church I am a member of.
TIM–
You said: “Bob, so far you have not proven transubstantiation. You have only agreed with it.”
I have not stated that I agree with it. I state that I understand it. I don’t know what to call it. It is a mystery to me. Is Christ’s Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, in the Eucharist? I believe it is. Is it transubstantiation that puts Him there? I do not know for sure. Is it consubstantiation? Maybe, I can’t say for sure. Is He there spiritually? I believe He is because He said so. Does that spiritual presence include the substance of Christ (as defined by transubstantiation) the organic tissue of Jesus, the Son of Man? The accidents are measurable. The substance is not. Does the bread and the wine retain their substance with the substance of Christ? I can’t measure substance, only the accidents. Does Christ’s substance take the place of the substance of bread and wine completely leaving only His substance? Again, I can’t measure that.
Do you have a spirit, Tim? How much does it weigh? What is its mass? How do I know that you now house the Holy Spirit of God in “temple” of your body. How much more do you weigh now that the Holy Spirit is within you? Can you prove it?
What I am saying is that transubstantiation is a purely spiritual concept that must be revealed to the spirit. You say it is false. You can’t prove it any more than the Catholic Church can prove it’s true. It’s your word against theirs. Disagreement.
But you take it a step further and misrepresent Catholics as being idolaters by your unsubstantiated belief.
TIM says: “Why is it misrepresentation when I do it, but informed opinion when you do it?”
I’m not the one slandering Catholics, you are.
Bob,
It’s your word against mine. Disagreement.
But you take it a step further by saying that I am misrepresenting their doctrines.
You said, “I believe He is because He said so.” What you mean is that He said “this is My body,” and by that you think He meant his Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity are present there. Very well. Your personal opinion. My personal opinion is that the Body Blood Soul and Divinity are not present because He did not mean what you think He meant.
Your belief against my belief. Your personal opinion against my personal opinion. But when you act on your personal interpretation of Scripture and conclude that I am bearing false witness against Roman Catholics, it is based on your personal reading of the Scripture, and therefore it is not “slander.”
But when I act on my personal interpretation of Scripture and conclude that Roman Catholics are idolaters, it is “slander” because it is contrary to what you believe to be true.
But what Roman Catholics do is contrary to what I believe to be true. Why is it slander for me to say out loud that Roman Catholics are idolaters, but it is not slander for you to say that Tim is bearing false witness? That’s an awful tortuous path to avoid acknowledging that all I have done is disagree with an accurately stated Roman Catholic doctrine.
Well, enough on that. The Roman Catholic Eucharist is the Image of the Beast. You ought not, and Roman Catholics ought not, worship it.
I am fine with you thinking that I am slandering Roman Catholics to say so. But in the process, you have tacitly accused God of slander because He criticizes a man for worshiping a tree, knowing full well that the man believed in his heart that he was worshiping his god.
Roman Catholics are no different than the man of Isaiah 44 who “falleth down unto it, and worshippeth it, and prayeth unto it, and saith, Deliver me; for thou art my god … for [God] hath shut their eyes, that they cannot see; and their hearts, that they cannot understand. … a deceived heart hath turned him aside, that he cannot deliver his soul, nor say, Is there not a lie in my right hand?” (Isaiah 44:17-20).
The Eucharist is not Jesus. It is the Image of the Beast.
Thanks,
Tim
TIM says: Why is it slander for me to say out loud that Roman Catholics are idolaters, but it is not slander for you to say that Tim is bearing false witness?
Because you can’t know 100% sure that Catholics are idolaters. You may believe it to be so, but you certainly can’t know it. Only God can search the heart. I can say that you slander because of the words you say against people you don’t even know. You have even posted them on the internet for everyone to see. That’s what slander is–making false and damaging statements about (someone). And if not just someone but a generalization of a people on the whole. That’s called bigotry.
Have you met the Pope, Tim? Do you know him personally? And yet you accuse Him of being anti-Christ.
You also said: “The Eucharist is not Jesus. It is the Image of the Beast.”
And Tim Kauffman is trying as hard as he can to prove that based on a disagreement about a doctrine he can’t possibly disprove.
Bob, you wrote,
That means that you cannot know 100% sure that Catholics are not idolaters. You may believe it to be so, but you certainly can’t know it. Only God can search the heart. Therefore, any statement by you that I have “misrepresented them” as idolaters is itself slander—because you cannot possibly know for sure that I am wrong. Right?
You continued,
I know Bob. It is hard to imagine, 2,000 years after Christ established His Church, that the organization that has claimed the title of “the true Bride of Christ” for almost 1,700 of those years is actually an imposter, and has fooled the world for countless generations, yet had not even come into existence until the end of the 4th century. It is hard to believe that the 1-billion or so current Roman Catholics who think they love God, think they adore His Son and think they honor Christ’s mother, have actually believed a lie, and love an unscriptural and idolatrous perception of God, adore an abominable image of His Son, and honor a demon masquerading as Mary. Unless they repent of their idolatries, they will share the fate of the billions of Roman Catholics before them—Roman Catholics who were in fact worshiping the image of the beast, following the false prophet and following the dictates of the Little Horn of Daniel 7.
I know how hard it is for you even to consider the possibility that the whole world could be wrong on this point, and a few “bigots,” “slanderers” and “emotionally unstable” throwbacks to the sixteenth century could possibly be right when they say that Roman Catholicism is the Antichrist that was prophesied, and that the “Tradition” she teaches is not the “faith once delivered to the saints” but rather the errors of which the apostles and prophets warned us emphatically to avoid.
Yes, I know how hard that is for you. And that’s ok. I did not begin to say the above things publicly without first counting the cost. I understood that what I say will be rejected for the galactic absurdity of it all. That is why I am willing to stipulate that I am but a fool for what I do. In the end, I have no other expectation than this: what I say will be considered bigotry and slander and a “misrepresentation” of a religion that, in your mind, cannot possibly be the antichrist, because that would mean that the whole world had been deceived by her.
Well, it has, as it was prophesied to do. “And all the world wondered after the beast” (Revelation 13:3). It could not have been otherwise.
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
You said: “I understood that what I say will be rejected for the galactic absurdity of it all. That is why I am willing to stipulate that I am but a fool for what I do.”
A fool says there is no God. No, not in the Eucharist.
“In the end, I have no other expectation than this: what I say will be considered bigotry and slander and a “misrepresentation” of a religion that, in your mind, cannot possibly be the antichrist, because that would mean that the whole world had been deceived by her.
The whole world? Well let’s see now, what has been the percentage of the world’s population in the last 1700 years has actually believed in the Real Presence? Care to guess?
How many of those were Roman Catholic? Care to guess at that one, too? Oh but let’s just see how many went through the motions of adoring the Eucharist:
Jews? no.
Muslems? no.
Hindu? no.
Pagan? no.
Buddists? no.
Norse? no.
Hmmmmmm……all of the non-Christian in Africa, Asia, Europe.
Inca? no.
Aztec? no.
Aleut? no.
Anasazi? no.
Any native North American tribes at all? no.
Oh well maybe some, those that were converted to Christianity by the French and Spanish after 1492 but certainly not before.
Australian aboriganie? no.
Tribes of any of the Pacific Islands? no.
And you finally said: “Well, it has, as it was prophesied to do. “And all the world wondered after the beast” (Revelation 13:3). It could not have been otherwise.”
I don’t think so, Tim.
Mat 10:32ff Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 12:31ff Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.
Tim, by your words I believe you have denied Christ before men, for it is His Body and His Blood in the Eucharist. By your words, I believe you have blasphemed the Holy Ghost, for the consecration of the Eucharist is accomplished by the Holy Ghost.
Unforgiven is an awful thing, Tim. Repent and believe in Jesus Christ Incarnate, Crucified, Risen, and dwelling among us in His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity–just as He promised. “Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” –Matthew 28:20
Thanks, Bob. Interesting points.
When I said that Roman Catholicism has been an imposter for 1,700 years, I was not referring to the fact that she has erected the Eucharist for worship for the last 1,700 years (she has not). I was referring to the fact that she has been an imposter for 1,700 years. My point in saying that Rome had deceived the world was that she had convinced the world—for 1,700 years—that she owns the title, Christianity. If you were to go through your list of people groups, you would find that by and large, they all think Roman Catholicism is Christianity, and to that degree they have been fooled by her, she has deceived the world:
And to the degree that “everyone,” thinks that Roman Catholicism is Christianity, the “world has wondered” after the Beast, for she is in fact an imposter.
There are some more precise, eschatological usages of “the whole world” when it comes to John’s appropriation of Danielic imagery in Revelation 13, and I’ll address those at a later time.
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
You have painted yourself into a corner.
You said: “My point in saying that Rome had deceived the world was that she had convinced the world—for 1,700 years—that she owns the title, Christianity.”
So I ask you again, where was the real Church during this time? If not Roman Catholic, then who? Who really owned the title Christianity? Show me the unbroken line of succession of the True Church.
Bob,
You asked,
Your question is why it is so important to study Daniel and Revelation. You are studying History, and assuming by the Testimony of History that you have embraced the Church. Study Daniel and Revelation and you will see that you have instead embraced Antichrist. History cannot be your guide, because (as I shall demonstrate shortly, Lord willing) “recorded history” can be wrong—terribly and catastrophically wrong. The Scriptures must be your guide, and the Scriptures warn of exactly what has happened to you, and what has happened to you is exactly what the Church Fathers feared the most: that the Wicked One would arise and fool the world into thinking that he was the representative of Christ on earth (2 Thessalonians 2). The Wicked One arose right on schedule and did exactly what he was prophesied to do.
There is an irony in your question, and I am quite sure that you are unaware of it. The irony is this: You think that unless Roman Catholicism is the True Church, then Christ’s promise to preserve His Church has been broken, and therefore, Roman Catholicism must be the True Church. To that I say, If the “True Church” grew up and took over the known world precisely when Antichrist was supposed to do that, then Christ’s, and Paul’s, and Daniel’s and John’s warning of a tyrannical antagonist whose seat and power are from the pit of hell has failed. Antichrist never arrived, and the Scripture has failed.
Proponents of Roman Catholicism are comfortable with the latter promise being broken, and so take comfort in the former not being broken. But I can take no such comfort. Both promises must be true, and both promises must be fulfilled.
Examine Daniel 7 closely and you’ll find that the saints take possession of the kingdom after the Fourth Empire, but the Antichrist takes dominion, and uses that dominion to wear out the saints who possess the kingdom. It is not until Christ’s second advent that the saints take both possession and dominion, and then only after dominion has been taken away from the Antichrist. Now with the Scriptures to guide you, look back at history and tell me who had dominion after the Fall of the Roman Empire. Taylor Marshall says it is Roman Catholicism, and I agree. There’s your Antichrist.
Now look at who Roman Catholicism has persecuted since she arose, and you’ll find the church of Jesus Christ.
Patience, Bob.
Tim
That is a very helpful reply in explaining this Scripture. Thx Tim.
Tim wrote:
“I know Bob. It is hard to imagine, 2,000 years after Christ established His Church, that the organization that has claimed the title of “the true Bride of Christ” for almost 1,700 of those years is actually an imposter, and has fooled the world for countless generations, yet had not even come into existence until the end of the 4th century. It is hard to believe that the 1-billion or so current Roman Catholics who think they love God, think they adore His Son and think they honor Christ’s mother, have actually believed a lie, and love an unscriptural and idolatrous perception of God, adore an abominable image of His Son, and honor a demon masquerading as Mary. Unless they repent of their idolatries, they will share the fate of the billions of Roman Catholics before them—Roman Catholics who were in fact worshiping the image of the beast, following the false prophet and following the dictates of the Little Horn of Daniel 7.”
Yes, this is a significant fact and very disturbing issue. People claim that Hindus, Muslims, Atheists, Satanists, etc. are all worshiping a false god and idol, but is it not ironic how the Roman Catholic does not think they are worshiping false idols. They point the finger at others, yet refuse to even CONSIDER how far away from true biblical Christianity they have drifted into Romish idolatry.
Just visit sometime with the average Roman Catholic in person on the topic of the Christian religion, and they are really lacking any serious understanding of Scripture. Yes, they know the typical bible stories, but what they are taught largely is a totally different religion around Mary and the Real Presence in the Eucharist as key and critical issues to their religion. Neither of these have anything to do with the true biblical Christian religion as central issues, but besides their promotion of signs, wonders and miracles this is what they focus on in the Romish religion.
It is very very sad.
Tim said – Now look at who Roman Catholicism has persecuted since she arose, and you’ll find the church of Jesus Christ.
Me – so everyone persecuted by Roman Catholocism after the fall of Rome is the Church of Jesus Christ or just the ones you agree with.
The antichrist will not proclaim that Jesus died for our sins or that He is God. The Catholic Church proclaims Jesus is the Son of Man and worships one God (Trinity). The fact that you have to misrepresent what we believe and use partial quotes (BOB has shown this to you) to try to to convince people tells me you have to rely on confusion and sleight of hand to sell your poison. Coincedently those are the same tactics satan uses. Jesus didn’t use these tactics because He was speaking truth (well He is truth, but you get my drift). If you are speaking truth you don’t need them either.
CK,
You said,
That’s a pretty interesting question because the last time I asked you about epistemology I asked you almost the very same question and you did not answer it. Here is what I asked you on January 26, 2015, and it was not the first time I asked you:
If I have missed your answer, I’m sorry. Please let me know when you answered it. Do you have any thoughts on how you determine which regional councils convey the truth of the Roman Religion and which do not? Maybe just the ones you agree with? Seems like a reasonable question since you believe the fallible council of Rome (382 A.D.) delivered the canon of the Bible, but the fallible council of Carthage (258 A.D.) incorrectly gave you regeneration only by the sacrament of baptism plus the sacrament of laying on of hands. Why choose one council over the other? Well, I suppose it may be because you read them both, determine which ones agree with your personal interpretation of truth, and then stick with those. Right? Let me know if I’ve got that wrong. So we would measure the data against some set standard and arrive and some conclusion that is consistent with that. I don’t understand why you cast your eye upon me in judgment when it is clear that what you do is exactly what you criticize. In any case, I did not say “everyone persecuted by Roman Catholicism … is the Church of Jesus Christ.” I said, “Now look at who Roman Catholicism has persecuted since she arose, and you’ll find the church of Jesus Christ.” That is where you will find her. It does not mean that everyone who Rome persecuted was a Christian.
Now, about the as-of-yet unsubstantiated charge of misrepresenting Rome. You wrote,
Bob has shown that he believes one misrepresents Rome simply by disagreeing with her, which is what I have done—I have simply disagreed with Rome. (See my hypothetical conversation with a Roman Catholic, above, to see my point). Bob’s is an overly-broad, and terribly confusing, definition of “misrepresent,” don’t you think? Would you please tell me where “Bob has shown to me” that I “misrepresent what you believe” with “partial quotes”? Bob has disagreed with my interpretations of various sources, but he has never been able to prove that I was misrepresenting Rome. Perhaps you would like to try?
If I said Roman Catholics do not offer hyperdulia to Mary, that would be a misrepresentation. They clearly do. But if I say that in my opinion, hyperdulia and latria are indistinguishable—even to a Roman Catholic—and therefore Roman Catholics offer latria to Mary, thinking that they are offering hyperdulia—well that’s me disagreeing with Rome, but it is not a misrepresentation of Rome.
But let’s get back to partial quotes. Remember our conversation about Benedict? We were discussing kneeling on the Lord’s Day:
You responded by agreeing that Benedict had been deceptive if I was representing him accurately from his book. I provided source data so you could validate this. But what I cited from Benedict was accurate. He was arguing that kneeling on the Lord’s day ought to be more widely practiced, and then he cited a portion of Nicæa, leaving out the critical portion of Canon XX which says that kneeling on the Lord’s Day is forbidden. Now that is what I call a partial quote and sleight of hand. But since you agree with Benedict, may I assume that you believe that “tactics of the devil” are acceptable as long as they advance Rome’s agenda, but unacceptable if they do not?
I do not believe in using partial quotes and sleight of hand, and find the whole matter abhorrent and distasteful. That is why I am only too eager to correct errors here when they are found. Bob, quite admirably and correctly, showed me that I was misreading one of Origen’s sermons. Fair enough. I corrected my position on Origen’s sermon.
But Benedict used partial quotes and sleight of hand, and you stick with him. And you’re ok with that?
Well, the floor is yours.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim wrote to CK:
“That’s a pretty interesting question because the last time I asked you about epistemology I asked you almost the very same question and you did not answer it….If I have missed your answer, I’m sorry. Please let me know when you answered it. Do you have any thoughts on how you determine which regional councils convey the truth of the Roman Religion and which do not? Maybe just the ones you agree with? Seems like a reasonable question since you believe the fallible council of Rome (382 A.D.) delivered the canon of the Bible, but the fallible council of Carthage (258 A.D.) incorrectly gave you regeneration only by the sacrament of baptism plus the sacrament of laying on of hands.”
Tim, I honestly believe these guys are not interested in any of these answers. They tend to believe only in their childhood upbringing and in blind faith of Rome’s teaching. When you see those who leave Rome it is always the thinking person who really challenges their own teaching and digs into the Word of God. Roman Catholics are not taught to challenge their teaching as the Bereans were taught in Scripture, but as Romish you are taught to submit to everything the church teaches as gospel truth.
There is a major different between having passion for the truth of Scripture and history, and another in just going about day-by-day submission through blind faith in what you are taught.
Tim wrote to CK:
“You responded by agreeing that Benedict had been deceptive if I was representing him accurately from his book. I provided source data so you could validate this. But what I cited from Benedict was accurate. He was arguing that kneeling on the Lord’s day ought to be more widely practiced, and then he cited a portion of Nicæa, leaving out the critical portion of Canon XX which says that kneeling on the Lord’s Day is forbidden. Now that is what I call a partial quote and sleight of hand.”
Exactly. This is called good scholarship, and Tim has tried to provide context to these arguments that people can go dig up for themselves. He provides links to the source material for others to further research if they desire.
The typical Roman Catholic, like CK and Bob and Jim, spend all their time focused on the hope for sinful debate and try to run into the theater yelling fire, fire, fire so everyone will run out to accomplish their disruption when no fire exists.
There should have been a very strong rebuttal by CK to the facts above correcting Tim for his source document error, but what you get is silence. Then it is next to wait till the next time to yell fire, fire, fire…disrupt everything, and run away until the next false alarm.
CK wrote:
“The fact that you have to misrepresent what we believe and use partial quotes (BOB has shown this to you) to try to to convince people tells me you have to rely on confusion and sleight of hand to sell your poison.”
Are you blind CK? Have you read the comments from Bob? They are so weak, distorted and filled with his own admission that he is not here to faithfully demonstrate any errors in Tim’s historical scholarship…but he is here to argue with Kevin as he is addicted (by admission) to Kevin.
To suggest Bob is here to do anything except for to fulfill his own lusts to debate and argue is really disingenuous. Bob admits he has no interest in the truth of Scripture, nor to ever leave his own Methodist church due to her errors. He is interested only in the sinfulness of the debate and staying right where his family is in the backsliding Methodist/Romish sect that was a creation of John Wesley, who some believe was a major heretic and promoter of Arminianism.
TIM–
You said: “History cannot be your guide, because (as I shall demonstrate shortly, Lord willing) “recorded history” can be wrong—terribly and catastrophically wrong.”
Very convenient disclaimer there, Tim. Take recorded history with a grain of salt because it can be wrong.
Josephus? Nope, he could be wrong. Eusebius? Nope. He could be wrong, too. Secular writings? Nope. They could be wrong. The writings of the Early church Fathers? Nope. They could be wrong. So even “What the Church Fathers feared the most” cannot be trusted because it is based on the uninspired writings(“recorded history”) of the Church Fathers. And for goodness sake, don’t ever trust anything the Roman Church recorded.
If one cannot verify from history, then one is just gonna have to take your word for it.
Hmmmmm………..sounds like the Roman Magisterium.
You not only painted yourself into a corner, you painted yourself a fake door on the wall to escape through. Pure genius! Bugs Bunny couldn’t have done a better job.
But, like you said, patience…….
Bob, you quoted me,
And here’s what I said:
It is true, when the topic is eschatology, history cannot be your guide. Scripture must be. Do you disagree?
For hundreds of years, “The Donation of Constantine” was recorded history, and it was not uncovered as a fraud until the 15th century. Many arguments in support of Roman Primacy were based on the Donation of Constantine, and after the fraud was uncovered, Roman Primacy remained.
For hundreds of years, the “Notitia Dignitatum” lay preserved under the ruins of Rome, and many an argument was made for Papal Primacy in the absence of such data. The Notitia Dignitatum has been corroborated as an authentic document and serves us well to understand what we can of the fragmentation of the Roman Empire at the end of the 4th century, and it actually contains within it evidence that militates against Papal Primacy.
Nobody has made an argument for Tim alone to be trusted, and all historical documents to be disregarded. The fact remains that when History is studied, especially the history that bears on eschatology, Scripture must guide your understanding of history, rather than history guiding your understanding of Scripture. If you start with the Donation of Constantine and read Scripture through that lens, you are going to have an erroneous interpretation of Scripture—and of history.
Everything, including this blog, must be read through the lens of Scripture. I have never advised otherwise.
Well, I suppose I could correct you for misrepresenting me with a partial quote, but I guess CK may well take you to task for doing so. 🙂
Thanks,
Tim
Bob said about Tim:
” If one cannot verify from history, then one is just gonna have to take your word for it.
Hmmmmm………..sounds like the Roman Magisterium.
You not only painted yourself into a corner, you painted yourself a fake door on the wall to escape through. Pure genius! Bugs Bunny couldn’t have done a better job.”
The typical Bob/Jim remarks that have absolutely no bearing on what Tim said or was making a point upon. Let me be clear to those who take what Bob/Jim say as being truthful.
First, the point Tim was making is that written history is fallible and contains errors. In this there is no doubt, even agreed by the common man who is ignorant. He knows that all things that are written by man may contain errors in documenting the truth. No man is infallible…including popes.
The Westminster Confession says:
“III. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.[8]
and:
V. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error;[10] and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan.[11] Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to His will.[12]”
While written history by man (eg, by church or state or any human writings) can be inerrant (eg., without error) much of history contains errors. Man cannot be infallible, only the Scriptures written by God are infallible as the reformers taught starting with Westminster as a SUBORDINATE STANDARD to the PRIMARY STANDARD of Scripture itself.
“The Westminster Confession of Faith, penned in 1646, would ground the authority of the Bible in God, “who is truth itself” (1:4). The Confession would state unambiguously that Scripture is the “Word of God,”(1:4) because God had “immediately inspired” (1:8) both the Old and New Testament texts; it was, therefore, worthy of full acceptance and obedience. Furthermore, the Confession described Scripture as “infallible truth” (1:5) in which no contradictions could be found. (1:9).”
http://derekjamesbrown.com/2014/12/01/inerrancy-and-church-history-the-post-reformation-and-modern-period/
Westminster declares the truth of what the Scripture teaches about only God in the Scriptures are infallible. This is an inerrant statement by Westminster.
The statements by Rome in her dogmas, decrees, confessions, catechisms, canon laws, statements, treaties, are built and founded upon the religion of antichrist, and are therefore in error and false from her beginnings.
TIM–
You said: “It is true, when the topic is eschatology, history cannot be your guide. Scripture must be. Do you disagree?”
So when I read Daniel 7, I read only 4 empires and all of them are worldly empires (secular governments). The little horn is still part of the fourth empire and the fourth empire was destroyed completely while the other empires before it still lived but only for a short time. Ten emperors rule, an eleventh one comes up and defeats three of those emperors. That leaves nine ruling emperors until the beast is finally destroyed.
And all within the Fourth empire.
I just don’t read it the way you do.
Sorry, my math is wrong–10 + 1 – 3 = 8 rulers.
Or if the little horn took the place of one of the three kings and defeated the other two–one taking the place of three. That is still only nine instead of ten. Notice that the three that were defeated were of the first ten:
Daniel 7:7… It was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns. I was considering the horns, and there was another horn, a little one, coming up among them, before whom three of the first horns were plucked out by the roots.”
Thanks, Bob, you wrote,
Certainly a good point, and one which has been product of interpreters’ assumptions for millennia. You cited Daniel 7:7 in support:
Fair enough. But the problem is that Daniel never says “three of the ten” were plucked up, and he never says “the first horns” were ten in number. Both of those have to be assumed by the reader. He does say the Beast had Ten horns, but as I mentioned in A See of One, every beast is seen in its final configuration. Nebuchadnezzar is back on his feet, the Persians are already in charge (as the Bear is lifted up on one side), and the Greek Empire is already split four ways. Thus, the Fourth Beast, too, is in its final configuration and has Ten Horns, for three have been removed to make room for the Little Horn who is seen coming up among 10. If three had been removed “before” (literally before, in front of) the Little Horn, then the Fourth Beast should have Ten remaining, and the Little Horn should come up among Ten. And everywhere the empire is described, including in the final battle against Christ at His return, there are always 10 horns or (I assume) 10 toes. Daniel 2, Daniel 7, Revelation 12, Revelation 13 and Revelation 17. If Antichrist removes Three of the Ten, how is it possible that all Ten “receive power as kings one hour with the beast” (Revelation 17:12), “give their power and strength to the Beast” (Revelation 17:13), and “make war with the Lamb” (Revelation 17:14)? There must have been 13 to start.
Daniel said the Fourth Beast “had ten horns. I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots” (Daniel 7:7-8).
This is a picture of the Roman Empire, in its final fragmented from in which there had been 13 dioceses, three of which were claimed by the pope as the Three Petrine Sees, or as it came to be known later, A See of One.
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
You said: “If three had been removed “before” (literally before, in front of) the Little Horn, then the Fourth Beast should have Ten remaining, and the Little Horn should come up among Ten. ”
But that is not how the word “before” is used here. It is not used as in “previously” but in as “present at hand”:
“I look at all these things that are set before(laid in front of) me.” Or “He knelt before the king.” That is how the Hebrew lexicon defines it (qodam–Aramaic), and examples of that usage is in Ezra and all through the book of Daniel.
So instead of “there were thirteen horns before the little horn came upon the scene”, it is rendered as “three of those ten horns were set before him and he destroyed them”.
I can understand why you say what you say in “A See of One”, but you are reading things into the book of Daniel that simply aren’t there. You are trying to make Daniel fit history instead of history fit Daniel. After all, didn’t you say:
“It is true, when the topic is eschatology, history cannot be your guide. Scripture must be. Do you disagree?”
I disagree with the “Fifth Empire”. It is never mentioned in Daniel. He only mentions four. You say the Roman Catholic Pope is the Anti-Christ. Daniel says the Anti-Christ holds dominion over ten (or nine or eight depending on your math) kingdoms. What are those ten kingdoms today?
Bob,
You said,
But actually, that is precisely how the word had just been used.
When speaking of the three Preceding Beasts in chronological succession, Daniel certainly was not saying that the three preceding beasts were “in front of” and “present at hand” with the Fourth Beast. He was saying that the previous beasts were previous.
Yes, I did say,
And that is why we cannot simply assume something that Daniel did not say, namely “three of the ten” were plucked up, or “the first horns were ten in number”. It is also why we cannot look at Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 and presume that there is only one judicial movement in view. To be sure, there are things Daniel says in chapter 7 that are largely overlooked, and other things said in Scripture about this period that Daniel describes for us. It is in the unity of the Scriptural message that the Fifth Empire emerges, and the two judicial movements become clear, as well as the fact that Ten horns remained after the antichrist removed three (Ten horns, after all, not Seven, gave their power to him). We cannot read history apart from Daniel, but we cannot read Daniel 7 apart from Daniel 2, or the book of Daniel apart from the New Testament.
Speaking of the ten horns, people tend to choose their congregation based on geography and community, and therefore do not necessarily hold to the positions of their denomination’s founder, so I am not imputing John Wesley’s views to you, and neither do I take your membership at a Methodist church to mean that you subscribe to Wesley’s eschatology. But I am curious to know your thoughts. Wesley was one of the founders of Methodism and in his treatise on Antichrist and His Ten Kingdoms, he identified the pope as that antichrist.
Isn’t the possibility of Roman Catholicism being the prophesied Antichrist even worth a few moments’ thought? It’s not like Wesley had an underdeveloped intellect and mental incapacities. Maybe he was on to something.
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
You said: “When speaking of the three Preceding Beasts in chronological succession, Daniel certainly was not saying that the three preceding beasts were “in front of” and “present at hand” with the Fourth Beast. He was saying that the previous beasts were previous.”
I guess it can be taken either way depending on the context. The Hebrew lexicon uses it as “present at hand” instead of “previously” concerning the three kingdoms.
I do find it interesting that concerning the three beasts “before” the fourth, that they were not destroyed with the fourth, but were allowed to live after a little while longer:
Dan 7:11-12 “I watched then because of the sound of the pompous words which the horn was speaking; I watched till the beast was slain, and its body destroyed and given to the burning flame. As for the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away, yet their lives were prolonged for a season and a time.”
So they were “present at hand” during the time of the fourth beast.
You also said: “Isn’t the possibility of Roman Catholicism being the prophesied Antichrist even worth a few moment’s thought? It’s not like Wesley had an underdeveloped intellect and mental incapacities. Maybe he was on to something.”
Worth a few moments? I have spent a lot of time just reading your stuff, much less studying scripture, the ECF’s and what has been said by the Reformers for years. I have also studied the Catholic Church for years. So far my conclusion is that the Reformers harboured prejudice against the Catholic Church for obvious reasons according to Reformist doctrines. And the Pope being the Anti-Christ would be a natural conclusion. And Wesley carried on with that tradition.
But I believe these are human prejudices and not a revelation from the Holy Spirit. Luther called Pope Leo the Anti-Christ, but he did not think the Roman Catholic Church was Satanic. He did not want to leave the Church, but because of his hot-headedness and lack of patience, he brought excommunication upon himself. Was Luther right that the Church need reformed? Yes. There were a lot of abuses going unchecked. Should the Church have been split because of it? I think it is very unfortunate that it happened. And it is because of our human shortcomings that it did.
Bob,
Thanks for your thoughts. I appreciated hearing them. I suppose that some might look at the alleged prejudices of the Reformers and see it as an understandable, but unfortunate, emotional response to a tense ecclesiastical confrontation. Perhaps I am just a nostalgic fool, and the smart people have all moved on to a brave new ecumenical world. But there is a small (but non-zero) possibility, that the “smart people” who moved on and are trying to come to terms of endearment with Rome have been deceived by her, and are wandering into a death trap, unaware of the danger that lies in wait.
A man trying to explain to people to get out of a burning building may come across as a fool if the people in the building do not even realize that the building is on fire. When all the data are considered together, though, it is not the man sounding the alarm, but the occupants who refuse to leave the building, who are unwise.
There is a rigorous, intellectual case to be made for identifying Roman Catholicism as the Antichrist that was prophesied, and it is my intent to make it here, come what may. I have been called a bigot and a fool (and worse) here on this site, and those who call me such things are always welcome to stay. I would not have set out on this journey had I not counted the cost.
Back on topic, I agree that the three preceding Beasts were in some way “present” when the Fourth Beast’s body was slain (Daniel 7:12), but not in Daniel 7:7 when Daniel says the Fourth Beast “was diverse from all the beasts that were before it.” I’ll address this in more detail on Sunday.
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
You said: “A man trying to explain to people to get out of a burning building may come across as a fool if the people in the building do not even realize that the building is on fire. When all the data are considered together, though, it is not the man sounding the alarm, but the occupants who refuse to leave the building, who are unwise.”
That sword cuts both ways. If the man saw a fire burning large in the fireplace, not realizing the fireplace was meant for that purpose, and thinking the building was on fire, could be considered a fool and causing much ado about nothing.
I’ll have to admit, Tim, your writings are fascinating. Your perspective is indeed different. I have really enjoyed reading your stuff and the rabbit trails it has lead to in scripture, and the writings of the ECF’s, and Reformers. And the interaction I have had with you and your readers has been quite entertaining.
Thanks and go, man, go!
Bob, yes, “That sword cuts both ways.” Agreed.
That’s the plan.
Thanks,
Tim
Bob wrote:
“That sword cuts both ways. If the man saw a fire burning large in the fireplace, not realizing the fireplace was meant for that purpose, and thinking the building was on fire, could be considered a fool and causing much ado about nothing.
I’ll have to admit, Tim, your writings are fascinating. Your perspective is indeed different. I have really enjoyed reading your stuff and the rabbit trails it has lead to in scripture, and the writings of the ECF’s, and Reformers. And the interaction I have had with you and your readers has been quite entertaining.
Thanks and go, man, go!”
Wow, is that a hardened heart changing? Hmmm.
Hi Tim,
Thx for the summary table above of Daniel 2,Daniel 7 and history.
I know, from your writing about Daniel, that the first four kingdoms are incorporated into the Roman Catholic church, the little horn of Daniel 7.
Is it right to say that these first 4 kingdoms live on via their philosophies? e.g. Greece lives on through the evidentialism of Aristotle.
Have you commented on how the Babylonian and the Medes and Persians, live on today? What ways of thinking did they give to the little horn and thence to the world? (I assume the Scriptures tell us, but I’m not sure where – maybe it’s in the gods they worshipped?). Thx.
I don’t know that they are “incorporated” into Roman Catholicism. I just know that Roman Catholicism—the Little Horn of Daniel 7, the Beast of Revelation 13—in Scriptures, is represented as all of the kingdoms together. There are, of course, elements of each that manifest in Roman Catholicism. Roman Catholicism exhibits the incense, drink and bread offerings to the Queen of heaven (Jer 44), aspects of Zoroastrianism from the Persians, elements of Greek philosophy in the view of Transubstantiation and the carnal majesty of the Roman empire. So, yes, in some way, they exhibit the elements of the preceding empires. The Scriptures, however, do not specify exactly how the first four empires manifest in the fifth—only that the fifth appears to be a prolongation of the lives of the preceding four.
Thanks,
Tim