Follow
Last week, we continued our series on the invisibly shepherded Church by showing from the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Mathetes that the idea of a central metropolis, or a visible chief shepherd on earth, was foreign to the Early Church. The former had “St. Michael” rather than Peter’s successors, governing the Church, and the latter understood that Christians had no “cities of their own,” and owed their unity not to an earthly ruler “as one might have imagined,” but to a heavenly one, for “seeking to hold the supremacy” over one’s neighbor was altogether inconsistent with the majesty of God’s kingdom.
This week we continue by examining Tertullian and Origen. What we find from Tertullian is that he understood, even during the apostolic age while Peter was yet preaching, it was the Holy Spirit, not Peter, who was the Vicar of Christ on earth. And Origen, when confronted with an opponent who himself could offer no “substantial reason” for the unity of the Church, responded that our unity rests “not upon a reason, but upon the the divine working,” and Origen goes so far as to say that the Jewish ambition for an earthly metropolis is evidence of their carnality.
Tertullian (early 3rd century)
In his work, Prescription Against Heretics, Tertullian was arguing against those who have introduced doctrines that originate within themselves, of their “own will” and “private fancy.” Responding to this, Tertullian claims that the authority of Christians rests in the apostles, who themselves did not introduce anything of their own:
“We, however, are not permitted to cherish any object after our own will, nor yet to make choice of that which another has introduced of his private fancy. In the Lord’s apostles we possess our authority; for even they did not of themselves choose to introduce anything, but faithfully delivered to the nations (of mankind) the doctrine which they had received from Christ.” (Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics, chapter 6).
Tertullian’s claim here is notable for its reference to the plurality of the apostles, instead of referring to Peter and his successors in Rome. The apostles, Tertullian goes on, “founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches” derive their apostolic authority. Again, it is notable that Tertullian does not indicate that all churches derive their authority from Peter’s church in Rome, but that all apostolic churches are equally authoritative, and all teach the same faith to the nations:
“His disciples, of whom He had chosen the twelve chief ones to be at His side, [Mark 4:34] and whom He destined to be the teachers of the nations. … after first bearing witness to the faith in Jesus Christ throughout Judæa, and founding churches (there), they next went forth into the world and preached the same doctrine of the same faith to the nations. They then in like manner founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches.” (Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics, chapter 20).
Take special note—its significance will be soon apparent—that churches possess apostolicity not by their derivation from Rome, but by their derivation from any apostolic church. According to Tertullian, a congregation derives from the church in Smyrna or from the church in Ephesus an equal apostolicity with that which a congregation may derive from the church in Rome. For “in the Lord’s apostles we possess our authority,” and they “founded churches in every city.”
Yet they are not really “many churches” at all, but are “one primitive church” in apostolic “unity,” and “peaceful communion.” This unity is observable and palpable, but it is also mysterious, and “no other rule directs” it but a “tradition of the selfsame mystery”:
“Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive church, (founded) by the apostles, from which they all (spring). In this way all are primitive, and all are apostolic, while they are all proved to be one, in (unbroken) unity, by their peaceful communion, and title of brotherhood, and bond of hospitality—privileges which no other rule directs than the one tradition of the selfsame mystery. ” (Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics, chapter 20).
What could possibly account for the unity of the apostolic church spread throughout the world, one in faith and doctrine, bound together in apostolic unity? This was Tertullian’s opportunity to express that which Roman Catholics deeply desire to find in the Early Church, but Tertullian would not say it. The Early Church’s unity simply did not derive from a visible chief shepherd, but was one in brotherhood, hospitality and communion in “mystery.”
Rome, of course, will find in Tertullian’s exposition of Matthew 16:18-19, evidence for Petrine primacy, but it is not the primacy of Rome’s imagination. It is true, Tertullian writes, Peter is given the keys, but the keys refer to his ministry of preaching and Peter was merely the first to use it:
“(Peter) himself essayed the key; you see what (key): ‘Men of Israel, let what I say sink into your ears: Jesus the Nazarene, a man destined by God for you,’ [Acts 2:22) and so forth.” (Tertullian, On Modesty, chapter 21)
It was by Peter’s preaching that men were regenerated, or “pricked in the heart” (Acts 2:37), and so Peter instructs them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:38). Thus, says Tertullian, Peter was the first to use the keys to loose men from their sins:
“(Peter) himself, therefore, was the first to unbar, in Christ’s baptism, the entrance to the heavenly kingdom, in which (kingdom) are ‘loosed’ the sins that were beforetime ‘bound;’ and those which have not been ‘loosed’ are ‘bound,’ in accordance with true salvation;” (Tertullian, On Modesty, chapter 21)
Peter’s primacy was therefore chronological, not hierarchical, and soon all the other apostles would use the keys—the preaching ministry of the Gospel. Notably, they all possessed the keys equally, and not one thing was given to Peter that was not also given to John, and not one thing was given to James that was not also given to Matthew, etc… . They all possessed the keys equally:
“What man, then, of sound mind can possibly suppose that they were ignorant of anything, whom the Lord ordained to be masters (or teachers), keeping them, as He did, inseparable (from Himself) in their attendance, in their discipleship, in their society, to whom, ‘when they were alone, He used to expound’ all things. [Mark 4:34] Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the church should be built,’ who also obtained ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth?’ Was anything, again, concealed from John, the Lord’s most beloved disciple, who used to lean on His breast [John 21:20] to whom alone the Lord pointed Judas out as the traitor, whom He commended to Mary as a son in His own stead? [John 19:26] Of what could He have meant those to be ignorant, to whom He even exhibited His own glory with Moses and Elias, and the Father’s voice moreover, from heaven? [Matthew 17:1-8] Not as if He thus disapproved of all the rest, but because ‘by three witnesses must every word be established.’ ” (Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics, chapter 22)
Just as Tertullian is careful not to assign a hierarchial primacy to Peter, he is likewise careful not to assign undue privilege to the three apostles who witnessed Jesus’ transfiguration. “Not as if He thus disapproved of all the rest,” says Tertullian. Throughout his work against heretics, he portrays the apostles on equal footing, none more privileged, wise, informed or eminent than the others, each with the keys and the power to bind and loose, and that power was the Gospel ministry itself.
If there was a pre-eminence to be found at all, it existed in the chairs of all the apostles, not in the chair of Peter alone, and certainly not in Rome. The infallible “ex cathedra” statements of the apostles were to be found in their “authentic writings,” which is to say, the Scriptures:
“Come now, you who would indulge a better curiosity, if you would apply it to the business of your salvation, run over the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones of the apostles (cathedræ Apostolorum) are still pre-eminent in their places, in which their own authentic writings are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them severally.” (Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics, chapter 32)
Yes, Tertullian says, the early church sat eagerly before the chair of St. Peter awaiting the next ex cathedra statement. And before the chair of St. Paul. And before the chair of St. Matthew. And before the chair of St. John. And St. Jude. And St. James. And their ex cathedra statements were to be found in “their own authentic writings,” which is to say, in the Scriptures. Peter’s chair was neither unique nor exclusive.
Where then might an inquirer find these “several” chairs of the apostles? Remarkably, even though his audience is “close upon Italy,” Tertullian first directs them to Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonica and Ephesus. The “chairs” of the apostles could as easily be found there as in Rome:
“Achaia is very near you, (in which) you find Corinth. Since you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi; (and there too) you have the Thessalonians. Since you are able to cross to Asia, you get Ephesus.” (Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics, chapter 36)
But what of Rome? Yes, his target audience may look upon Rome as well, for she, too, received the preaching of the apostles:
“Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves). How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! Where Peter endures a passion like his Lord’s! Where Paul wins his crown in a death like John’s where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile! See what she has learned, what taught, what fellowship has had with even (our) churches in Africa!” (Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics, chapter 36)
Here our Roman Catholic acquaintances think they have found the Roman primacy for which they were seeking, but again, they only find a primacy of their own imagination. Tertullian says from Rome “there comes even into our own hands the very authority.” Is this, at last, the Roman primacy for which they seek? As we noted above, Tertullian believed that churches possessed apostolicity not by their derivation from Rome, but by their derivation from any apostolic church, and the church in Rome was simply one of many.
Tertullian for his part was a presbyter of the Carthaginian church, and as the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia concedes, the origins of the church in Carthage are not entirely clear. What emerges from the data, in any case, is that the congregation there appears to have been an offshoot of the Roman congregation:
“It is impossible to say whence came the first preachers of Christianity in Roman Africa. It is worthy of note in this regard, however, that from the moment when African Christianity comes into historical prominence, the bishops of Roman Africa are seen in very close relations with the See of Rome.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Carthage)
As Tertullian noted above, the apostles founded churches in every city, and all the other churches, one after another, are apostolic churches, being the offspring of apostolic churches. Carthage’s apostolicity could be traced to a church founded by the apostles, and Tertullian’s claim here is simply that the church in Carthage is apostolic because it is the offspring of an apostolic church. The same would be true if Carthage had been the offspring of Ephesus. Or Philippi. Or Philomelium. Or Magnesia. Or Smyrna. Thus, when Tertullian says of Rome, “from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority,” he has simply described for us the obvious: other churches trace their apostolicity through churches like Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonica and Ephesus. Carthage can trace hers through Rome. When it comes to apostolicity, any apostolic church will do, and Rome was just one among many.
That this is Tertullian’s plain belief is made abundantly clear by his own description of apostolicity. Noteworthy indeed is the fact that when Tertullian seeks to prove the significance of apostolic origins, and therefore of apostolic authority, he turns to Asia Minor first. Just look at the church in Smyrna, he says, which can trace an unbroken line of apostolicity from John. So too, as it turns out, can the church in Rome:
“For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed.” (Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics, chapter 32).
Note well that “the other churches” exhibit their apostolicity not by transmitting their registers “in exactly the same way” as Rome does, but in exactly the same way that Smryna does and, as is relevant in the case of Carthage, as Rome does. If Tertullian thought the Early Churches derived their apostolicity from Rome by doing things “in exactly the same way” that Rome does, his wording here is quite odd: “apostolic churches transmit their registers … as the Church of Smyrna” does. Clearly, Tertullian saw the Roman church as apostolic, but also saw the Smyrnæan church as apostolic, and assigned primacy to neither, but apostolic authority to both.
But without either Roman and or Smyrnæan primacy, how could the Early Church remain unified? What was this “mystery” of which Tertullian wrote, by which the churches though many, were one? The unity, Tertullian says, is that the apostles (all of them) were “stones massive in their faith,” which stones decorated the High Priestly robe of Christ Himself, and it was Christ Who invested this robe of unity:
“For of this number I find figurative hints up and down the Creator’s dispensation in the twelve springs of Elim; [Numbers 33:9] in the twelve gems of Aaron’s priestly vestment; [Exodus 28:13-21] and in the twelve stones appointed by Joshua to be taken out of the Jordan, and set up for the ark of the covenant. Now, the same number of apostles was thus portended, as if they were to be fountains and rivers which should water the Gentile world, which was formerly dry and destitute of knowledge (as He says by Isaiah: ‘I will put streams in the unwatered ground’ Isaiah 43:20); as if they were to be gems to shed lustre upon the church’s sacred robe, which Christ, the High Priest of the Father, puts on; as if, also, they were to be stones massive in their faith, which the true Joshua took out of the laver of the Jordan, and placed in the sanctuary of His covenant.” (Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book IV, chapter 13).
The “mystery” of unity in the Church is that all the apostles were “stones” which “shed lustre upon the Church’s sacred robe,” which robe is invested by Christ Himself.
That Tertullian understood Christ to be the invisible Chief Shepherd of the visibly apostolic church is evidenced by his own description of the earthly ministry of the Holy Spirit on Christ’s behalf. Peter was a stone, as were all the apostles, and Peter had the keys, as did all the apostles in their ministry of preaching, and Peter had a chair, as did all the apostles, and their ex cathedra statements were “their own authentic writings.” And Who could superintend such a church, dispersed throughout the known world without a visible chief shepherd to guide them? Why, the Vicar of Christ, of course—a title Tertullian assigns to no earthly bishop, but to the Holy Spirit Himself.
Tertullian let this be known as he rebutted Marcion’s clearly unapostolic position that, from the beginning, “the apostles were either ignorant of the whole scope of the message which they had to declare, or failed to make known to all men the entire rule of faith” (Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics, chapter 27). Marcion’s novelties could only be true if the apostles had not received, understood and delivered the whole gospel from the beginning, and since they clearly had, the opportunity to find Marcion’s novelties in the early church died with the apostles.
Marcion’s position is therefore reduced to absurdity, and in the process Tertullian identifies not Peter, but the Holy Spirit, as the Vicar of Christ on earth. If the early churches erred by omission, they all mysteriously omitted exactly the same things, which if true, would impute to the Holy Spirit an error in doctrine:
“Grant, then, that all have erred; that the apostle was mistaken in giving his testimony; that the Holy Ghost had no such respect to any one (church) as to lead it into truth, although sent with this view by Christ, [John 14:26] and for this asked of the Father that He might be the teacher of truth [John 15:26]; grant, also, that He, the Steward of God, the Vicar of Christ, neglected His office, permitting the churches for a time to understand differently, (and) to believe differently, what He Himself was preaching by the apostles—is it likely that so many churches, and they so great, should have gone astray into one and the same faith? No casualty distributed among many men issues in one and the same result. Error of doctrine in the churches must necessarily have produced various issues. When, however, that which is deposited among many is found to be one and the same, it is not the result of error, but of tradition. Can any one, then, be reckless enough to say that they were in error who handed on the tradition?” (Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics, chapter 28).
The fact that the faith once deposited “among many is found to be one and the same,” must be because of tradition, Tertullian believed, and that tradition is unified doctrine, and that unified doctrine came by the ex cathedra statements of the apostles, and those ex cathedra statements were “their own authentic writings,” and those scriptures were uttered by the Vicar of Christ, the Holy Spirit, the invisible cause and guarantor of the unity of the visibly apostolic Church.
We’ll close this section on Tertullian by highlighting his disagreement with a certain bishop who presumed to issue bulls with an imperial tone. The Roman Catholic Encyclopedia says Tertullian was speaking of Callistus, bishop of Rome (Catholic Encyclopedia, the Pope), while Schaff, with Lightfoot and Robertson, has him speaking of Zephyrinus or Victor, also bishops of Rome (Tertullian, On Modesty, chapter 1, n708), and Jesuit Francis Sullivan acknowledges that Tertullian may have been speaking of Agrippinus, bishop of Carthage (Sullivan, From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church, (Paulist Press, 2001) p. 165). In either case, it is quite clear that Tertullian calls the offending bishop “Pontifex Maximus” or “bishop of bishops” in a derisive, mocking tone, and dismisses with the contents of the ostensibly “papal” edict. Says Tertullian, “Far, far from Christ’s betrothed be such a proclamation!” (Tertullian, On Modesty, chapter 1). Tertullian clearly rejected the presumption of any bishop to step up and play pope, for these were fallible men who could err. But there was a Bishop of bishops who could not err, and He was not in Rome:
“I, however, imbibe the Scriptures of that Shepherd who cannot be broken.” (Tertullian, On Modesty, chapter 10)
Clearly, Tertullian believed that no bishop of Rome was that Unbreakable Shepherd of the Church. That title belongs to Jesus Christ alone.
Origen (3rd Century)
In his work, De Principiis, (On First Principles), Origen expresses concern that there are many who are claiming apostolicity, but have strayed from the truth of the apostles. He expresses his concern thusly,
“Since many, however, of those who profess to believe in Christ differ from each other, not only in small and trifling matters, but also on subjects of the highest importance, as, e.g., regarding God, or the Lord Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit; and not only regarding these, but also regarding others …” (Origen, De Principiis, preface, chapter 2)
What might be the solution to this problem? Shall we write to the bishop of Rome and ask him to resolve the matter once and for all? Shall we fly to the arms of the chief shepherd in Rome and cast our cares upon him? Origen’s solution is so simple that it is easily overlooked for its simplicity. He says we must appeal to the apostolic truths that have been handed down to us through the churches:
“…so, seeing there are many who think they hold the opinions of Christ, and yet some of these think differently from their predecessors, yet as the teaching of the Church, transmitted in orderly succession from the apostles, and remaining in the Churches to the present day, is still preserved, that alone is to be accepted as truth which differs in no respect from ecclesiastical and tradition.” (Origen, De Principiis, preface, chapter 2)
Tradition is the solution? “Yes, tradition, tradition is the solution!” exclaim our Roman Catholic apologists. “Origen appeals to tradition, and so must we!”
Well, not so fast. “Tradition,” says Origen, is whatever can be “discovered in holy Scripture, or which [can be] deduced by closely tracing out the consequences and following a correct method” (Origen, De Principiis, preface, chapter 10). Apostolic and ecclesiastical tradition is the written words of the apostles, and whatever can be deduced from them by necessary and logical consequence. The apostles had written clearly for us, and it is our duty, thought Origen, to pore over their words to discover the truth. That is the solution he proposes:
“Now it ought to be known that the holy apostles, in preaching the faith of Christ, delivered themselves with the utmost clearness on certain points which they believed to be necessary to every one, even to those who seemed somewhat dull in the investigation of divine knowledge; leaving, however, the grounds of their statements to be examined into by those who should deserve the excellent gifts of the Spirit, and who, especially by means of the Holy Spirit Himself, should obtain the gift of language, of wisdom, and of knowledge:” (Origen, De Principiis, preface, chapter 3)
The apostles left us their words, and the Spirit bestows His gifts upon different men differently, to understand the language, the wisdom and the knowledge contained therein. Thus, Origen believed that the solution to the matter of divergent opinions in the Church was that gifted men ought to look over the scriptures and “form a connected series and body of truths … and form, as we have said, one body of doctrine” (Origen, De Principiis, preface, chapter 10). And such a solution he is willing to undertake, for he proceeds to do exactly as he describes. “It seems … necessary first of all,” says Origen, “to fix a definite limit and to lay down an unmistakable rule” (Origen, De Principiis, preface, chapter 2). Of course, if there is someone else in the world who is differently endowed with the various gifts of the Holy Spirit, Origen would be happy to defer to him:
“If there be any one, indeed, who can discover something better, and who can establish his assertions by clearer proofs from holy Scriptures, let his opinion be received in preference to mine.” (Origen, De Principiis, Book II, Chapter 6, paragraph 7)
We are baffled as to why Origen would defer to men, “if there be any” with better gifts of the Spirit—men who are better teachers, apologists and defenders of the faith—if he had an infallible pope at his disposal in Rome. If there was a man in Rome, Origen was clearly unaware of his existence, and it does not appear to have occurred to him that he was presuming to do in De Principiis what only the pope could do: fix the limits of doctrine and truth by compiling a systematic body of doctrine from the Scriptures.
The truth of the Scriptures, as it turns out, is available to us all, even in our differently gifted estates, and the unity of faith derives not from the pope in Rome, but from the invisible work of the Holy Spirit in His church. Before Christ gave the Spirit, “only a few persons” could understand and interpret the Word of God,
“but now there are countless multitudes of believers who, although unable to unfold methodically and clearly the results of their spiritual understanding, are nevertheless most firmly persuaded … And this method of apprehension is undoubtedly suggested to the minds of all by the power of the Holy Spirit.” (Origen, De Principiis, Book II, Chapter 7, paragraph 2)
Origen’s language is not that of a sacerdotal ministry that is limited to a few men, but that of a shepherding ministry superintended by the Spirit of Christ. Different men are gifted differently by the Spirit for the exposition and the understanding of what is written (1 Corinthians 12:4) , but it is what is written that is the rule of faith.
Origen’s rejection of the primacy of a papal or Roman teaching ministry is also seen in his plain rejection of an earthly metropolis from which the kingdom of God was to be administered on earth. In a remarkable criticism of Jewish ambition for a supreme civil magistrate on earth, Origen describes and then rejects in most exquisite terms a metropolis of such grandeur that only the Vatican can possibly compare to it.
“[I]magining to themselves that the earthly city of Jerusalem is to be rebuilt … . Moreover, they think that the natives of other countries are to be given them as the ministers of their pleasures, whom they are to employ either as tillers of the field or builders of walls, and by whom their ruined and fallen city is again to be raised up; and they think that they are to receive the wealth of the nations to live on, and that they will have control over their riches; that even the camels of Midian and Kedar will come, and bring to them gold, and incense, and precious stones. And these views they think to establish on the authority of the prophets by those promises which are written regarding Jerusalem;” (Origen, De Principiis, Book II, Chapter 11, paragraph 2)
A more poignant description of the carnality of Roman Catholicism’s metropolitan ambitions cannot be found in all the Patristic writings. Rejecting such carnal civil and magisterial aggrandizement, Origen instead sets his sights on heaven. While fleshly Israel had Jerusalem “the mother of many cities” as its metropolis (Origen, De Principiis, Book IV, chapter 21), we are not fleshly Israel, but spiritual. There is a “mother of us all” (Galatians 4:26), and it is a metropolis above, for spiritual Israel has not an earthly metropolis, but a heavenly one:
“This, then, being the state of the case, the holy apostle desiring to elevate in some degree, and to raise our understanding above the earth, says in a certain place, ‘Behold Israel after the flesh;’ by which he certainly means that there is another Israel which is not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. … If, then, there are certain souls in this world who are called Israel, and a city in heaven which is called Jerusalem, it follows that those cities which are said to belong to the nation of Israel have the heavenly Jerusalem as their metropolis” (Origen, De Principiis, Book IV, chapter 22)
Notable, we think, is the fact that Origen criticized the Jews because “they think to establish on the authority of the prophets” that the Kingdom of God would immediately manifest in an earthly metropolis. Yet, as we have noted several times before, Roman Catholic apologist Taylor Marshall makes exactly the same mistake in his work, The Eternal City: Rome and the Origins of Catholic Christianity. The only difference is that the primacy the Jews assigned to Jerusalem, Marshall assigns to Rome.
He thinks Rome must be the metropolis of spiritual Israel because the Roman Catholic Church “receives the Roman Empire” and its chief metropolis with it. By his reading of Daniel 7:27, “all dominions shall serve and obey” the Roman Catholic Church in the “Eternal City,” the metropolis of Rome (Marshall, The Eternal City, chapter 1, “Daniel Foretells the Roman Church”). But Marshall’s carnal metropolis is the metropolis both of Jewish imagination and of Origen’s repudiation. Marshall seeks to explain why the Catholic Church is based in Rome instead of Jerusalem, and Origen responds that Marshall not only has the wrong city, but the wrong planet. The chief city of spiritual Israel is of heaven, heavenly.
Until Christ returns, “we live among the nations under the shadow of Christ,” and that “shadow of Christ” is nothing else but the superintendence of the Chief Shepherd in Heaven:
“I think, indeed, that Jeremiah the prophet, also, understanding what was the nature of the wisdom of God in him, which was the same also which he had assumed for the salvation of the world, said, ‘The breath of our countenance is Christ the Lord, to whom we said, that under His shadow we shall live among the nations.’ [Lamentations 4:20] And inasmuch as the shadow of our body is inseparable from the body, and unavoidably performs and repeats its movements and gestures, I think that he, wishing to point out the work of Christ’s soul, and the movements inseparably belonging to it, and which accomplished everything according to His movements and will, called this the shadow of Christ the Lord, under which shadow we were to live among the nations. … If, then, not only the law which is upon the earth is a shadow, but also all our life which is upon the earth is the same, and we live among the nations under the shadow of Christ,” (Origen, De Principiis, Book II, Chapter 6, paragraph 7).
As the shadow of the body “unavoidably performs and repeats its movements and gestures,” so do the Churches “live among the nations under the shadow of Christ.” Such is the unity of the Church, superintended from heaven and living under the shadow of Christ rather than under the shadow of a Roman obelisk.
And thus, the enemies of the Church marveled at the unity that appeared to have no obvious cause. Writing against Celsus, a critic of Christians, and against “his accusations directed against the faith of the Churches” (Origen, Against Celsus, Book I, Preface, paragraph 1), Origen responds to him point by point:
“After this he continues: ‘Their union is the more wonderful, the more it can be shown to be based on no substantial reason. And yet rebellion is a substantial reason, as well as the advantages which accrue from it, and the fear of external enemies. Such are the causes which give stability to their faith.’ To this we answer, that our union does thus rest upon a reason, or rather not upon a reason, but upon the divine working, so that its commencement was God’s teaching men, in the prophetical writings, to expect the advent of Christ, who was to be the Saviour of mankind.” (Origen, Against Celsus, Book III, chapter 14).
Origen then continues to repudiate the charge that the unity of Christians is based solely upon “the fear of external enemies.” Rather our unity is based upon “traditions which have been carefully investigated by such as are able intelligently to understand the Gospels, and the declarations of the apostles.” (Origen, Against Celsus, Book III, chapter 15). In short, the “traditions” that secure our unity are “the prophetical writings,” and “the Gospels, and the declarations of the apostles,” which is to say, the Scriptures. And it is by these Scriptures that Christians live under the shadow of Christ before the nations, exhibiting an apostolicity that is plainly visible to all, but exhibiting a unity that baffles the world, for it originates from no man or city on earth.
We will close this section on Origen by citing his view of the apostolicity of the Church from his first homily on Genesis. The Apostles are the light of the world, and thus they, together, comprise the Church without spot or wrinkle:
“From this it is shown that Christ indeed is the light of the apostles, but the apostles are ‘the light of the world.’ For they, ‘not having spot or wrinkle or anything of this kind,’ are the true Church, as also the Apostle says: ‘That he might present it to himself a glorious Church not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing.’ (Origen, Homilies on Genesis, Homily 1, paragraph 6)
Now compare Origen’s description of the apostolic Church to the ambitious carnality of the city of Rome under Pope Damasus I in 382 A.D., noting that Damasus had the unblemished church residing in Peter’s apostolicity alone:
“Therefore first is the seat at the Roman church of the apostle Peter ‘having no spot or wrinkle or any other [defect]‘. However the second place was given in the name of blessed Peter to Mark his disciple and gospel-writer at Alexandria, and who himself wrote down the word of truth directed by Peter the apostle in Egypt and gloriously consummated [his life] in martyrdom. Indeed the third place is held at Antioch of the most blessed and honourable apostle Peter, who lived there before he came to Roma and where first the name of the new race of the Christians was heard.” (Council of Rome, III.3)
As we noted in Part 1, as well as our article, A See of One, the claim of the “Three Petrine Sees” did not originate until the latter part of the 4th century, and its “earthly, sensual, devilish” wisdom (James 3:15) is on full display in Damasus’ claims of Roman primacy among the three allegedly “Petrine” sees. For three hundred years, the unity of the church was found in its adherence to the written words of the prophets, the Gospels and the declarations of the apostles, and her unity was guarded by Christ from Heaven, and by His Spirit on earth. But Rome could not countenance a unity based on anything but a man visibly seated in an earthly metropolis, and just as the Israelites of old demanded, “now make us a king to judge us like all the nations” (1 Samuel 8:5), Rome sought to repeat the error with a visible shepherd.
We will close this week by highlighting just how far both Tertulluian and Origen were from submitting to the bishop of Rome. Tertullian criticized the bishop of Rome because Praxeas had imported heresy “into Rome from Asia,” and the Roman bishop had bought into it, hook, line and sinker (Tertullian, Against Praxeas, chapter 1). Origen himself visited Rome only briefly, but what he found upon his arrival was none other than Hippolytus (Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men, chapter 61) resisting the errors being propagated by two successive Roman Bishops, Zephyrinus and Callistus. Hippolytus’ animosity toward these shamefully corrupt and conniving heretics is quite telling:
“At that time, Zephyrinus imagines that he administers the affairs of the Church — an uninformed and shamefully corrupt man. And he, being persuaded by proffered gain, was accustomed to connive at those who were present for the purpose of becoming disciples of Cleomenes. But (Zephyrinus) himself, being in process of time enticed away, hurried headlong into the same opinions; and he had Callistus as his adviser, and a fellow-champion of these wicked tenets. But the life of this (Callistus), and the heresy invented by him, I shall after a little explain. The school of these heretics during the succession of such bishops, continued to acquire strength and augmentation, from the fact that Zephyrinus and Callistus helped them to prevail. Never at any time, however, have we been guilty of collusion with them; but we have frequently offered them opposition, and have refuted them, and have forced them reluctantly to acknowledge the truth. And they, abashed and constrained by the truth, have confessed their errors for a short period, but after a little, wallow once again in the same mire.” (Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, Book IX, chapter II)
Church historian, Eusebius, has Origen visiting Rome briefly during the administration of “pope” Zephyrinus during whose reign “the truth had been corrupted” (Eusebius, Church History, Book V, chapter 28, paragraph 3). “After a short stay there,” Eusebius continues, “he returned to Alexandria. And he performed the duties of catechetical instruction there with great zeal;” (Eusebius, Church History, Book VI, chapter 28, paragraphs 10-11). Surely, Origen saw what Hippolytus saw—a Roman bishopric prone to error and full of corruption, and so he returned to Alexandria more zealous than ever to propagate the truth of the Word of God.
There is therefore no rational basis for any imagined submission that these men may have paid to Rome or its bishop. Their personal experiences with him weigh abundantly and plentifully in the historical record. So far from being an infallible guide to the sheep from an earthly metropolis, the bishops of Rome as it turns out were particularly susceptible to the errors introduced to their metropolis, prone to adopt them, and then eager to foster and sustain them. Thus, instead of instructing and correcting the surrounding apostolic churches, Rome had to be constantly corrected by them. This fact from history will greatly inform our understanding of Irenæaus’ concern for the orthodoxy of the Roman bishopric, which was just as prone to error in his day as it was in Tertullian’s, Hippolytus’ and Origen’s. Small wonder then that such men as these looked to heaven for the metropolis of spiritual Israel, and looked to the Holy Spirit, and no pope in Rome, as the Vicar of Christ on earth.
We will continue the series with Irenæus next week.
Tim,
I started watching a series on another group who has identified another “new” theory since 2008 called the “Blood Moons” theory. In watching this video, it was very helpful to essentially warn those out there who claim that they are the founders of these new theories, and that for 2000 years nobody knew about this except for the founder himself. I see a lot of parallels between these new prophetical theories, and your new theory. You probably know a lot about how this man is using NASA science to prove his theory.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGvhgze_3uA
While he is spinning a new pre-mill theory, and you are developing a new post-mill theory, the point to consider is that both his book and your blog demonstrate that you both are the true founders of both theories. The first part of the video quotes the author where he clearly states that nobody has understood his theory until he discovered it in 2008. Thus, for 2000 years the church had no knowledge of his prophecy until he discovered it in 2008.
I’m sure it is the same with your theory. Nobody is aware of your theory until you wrote your first book, and so I would just encourage you to be aware of this issue. I know you (and certainly this (Mark Biltz) understand that as the founders of any religion, or new prophetical theory, there are risks involved in gaining a following. In your case, the obvious concern I have is that the 1260 year period has been fulfilled, and that I’ve not seen your references to the 1290 and 1335 year periods.
Here are the video’s.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGvhgze_3uA (The Blood Moons Theory Refuted)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BU2-_9zR6I (Mark Biltz’s Theology: Hebrew Roots and Kabbalah)
I know you will not be offended, nor concerned about my warning, but I do want to put it on the record. Currently you don’t have as many followers as this Hebrew Roots and Blood Moons Theory, but I assume in time you will find your followers as you become more public, and challenge the reformers and their positions on doctrine, discipline, form of worship and form of government. I can see in time your position growing more supportive by Rome that opposes the reformers, and Rome will support your position in time as another theory to argue the 1260 time is fulfilled, and the 1290 and 1335 year periods will be pointing to other events.
I’m leaving for a month of traveling overseas so will not be responding further. I don’t feel like we have any real unity even in basic reformed doctrines so I just wanted to share the warning with you to be careful as your following grows who are anti-reformed or anti-covenanter.
Thanks, Walt,
I am not offended, but you would be wrong to think that I do not take your concerns seriously. I do. As to the 1290 and 1335 “year” periods, I mentioned before that the 1290 day and 1335 day periods take place in the context of the 2,300 mornings and evenings, and if ever there was a reason to interpret a “day” literally it is when each day is described as a “morning and evening,” as in literal days (Genesis 1). To my knowledge, your understanding of the 1,290 day period and 1,335 day period does not account for the literality that the Scripture imposes on it. I will get to the 2,300 mornings and evenings (and the literal 1,290 and 1,335 day periods that occur within the 2,300 literal days) in a later post.
I am watching the Blood Moon video you sent, as I do with all of your links, and will give it some thought. But the idea of Rome as Antichrist is hardly new. The idea of the seals, trumpets and vials as being partially in the past is not new, either, as most historicists have the seals and trumpets generally as non-specific calamities, except for the Saracens, which are understood to be the Fifth Trumpet. But Revelation gives us such precise and specific fractions and geographic data that it is hard to believe the the preceding trumpets were meant generally to refer to calamities. As much as I respect my historicist brethren, I do not believe they have fully accounted for the Scriptural evidence. The same goes for the historicist interpretation of the mortal head wound. There is a reason that the Serpent of Revelation 12 and the Scarlet Beast of Revelation 17 are not depicted with mortal head wound, but the first Beast of Revelation 13 is. Because that Beast is described in what can only be imagery borrowed from Daniel 7, there must be evidence—specific evidence—that one of the heads depicted in Daniel 7 was wounded mortally. Yet the Historicist position has not satisfied the demands that biblical exposition necessarily demands, and that is: an explanation of which head was wounded? The Scriptures tell us, but the historicist position has no answer for it—at least no answer that is crafted in Danielic terminology.
That there are portions of my theory that are new, I do not deny, but it is in the crucible of Scripture, not the calendar, that any theory must be tried. When the Scriptures explicitly have certain aspects “sealed up” until the time of the end (e.g., Daniel 12:4), there is room for knowledge to increase—so long as it is from the Scripture. I did not base my theory on a dream or a fantasy, but on the explicit language from Scripture that these things must shortly come to pass (Revelation 1:1). Thus, I do not look for the Seals, Trumpets and Bowls after 800 A.D., but after 100, and their coming must be consistent with Daniel 2, Daniel 7, Revelation 4-8 and Revelation 17-19.
I’ll write more on these in the coming months. Covenanter eschatology must be tried in the crucible, too, and where it is found wanting, it must be corrected.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim wrote:
“I did not base my theory on a dream or a fantasy, but on the explicit language from Scripture that these things must shortly come to pass (Revelation 1:1).”
Yes, this is an obvious problem. This is the same problem that the Preterists have in their interpretation…which is very similar to what you have done except they choose Nero as the antichrist and you choose the Papacy as the antichrist.
As one of my former elders once said about the Preterists.
“…..the best place to begin is by showing them that when Rev 1 tells us that “the time is at hand” and that the events described in the Book of Revelation must “shortly come to pass”–it means that the events described in the Book of Revelation–will shortly “begin to appear in history”–in succession– through the succession of the seals, trumpets, and vials–starting from the time of John the Apostle and continuing up to the second coming of Christ and beyond.
This is opposed to their mistaken and oft repeated notion that this text is asserting that all the events described will shortly come to pass, which they take to be descriptive of the events mainly surrounding the destruction of the Temple around 70 AD.
This mistaken presumption of theirs “blinds them contextually” to a correct reading of the Book of Revelation. Once they get the context wrong–they simply go from bad to worse. There are many other arguments to go through to convince them but this is as good a place as any to start.”
While I don’t intend to counter your prophetical discussions here, I know that your presuppositions to the Scriptures are rooted largely in anti-reformed doctrine, discipline, form of worship and form of government. Anyone who calls themselves reformed and quotes Scripture does not make them reformed. Jack VanImpe can quote far more Scriptures rapidly than you can do but it does not make him biblically accurate. It makes him, like many non-ministers today, the ability to sell their concepts contrary to Scripture and the reformers. Perhaps you have been given this gift to rebuke the reformers in our generation, and to correct some of the greatest ministers who gave their lives for the true church in history….I cannot speak to your “extraordinary” gifts to over turn these faithful reformed courts and ministers.
What I can do is simply to point out that your presuppositions are grounded in the early church fathers, the independents and in the Preterists views of prophecy to a large degree. This should give any reader pause to your interpretation of God’s Holy Scripture.
As we see the unfolding of prophetical events in the coming days, months, years and millennia I do pray for the fulfillment of the gentile nations, and the restoration of the Jews into the Christian church as preached by our reformed fathers, and the church government they developed promoting national churches and its functioning court system.
Thanks, Walt. I understand that I am advancing an eschatological position that is not in line with yours, so I am open to all criticisms. I am thankful for your inputs.
As I read your comments about the Blood Moon theory, i.e., “In watching this video, it was very helpful to essentially warn those out there who claim that they are the founders of these new theories, and that for 2000 years nobody knew about this except for the founder himself,” and considering the dictum, “If it is true, it isn’t new, and if it is new, it isn’t true,” I have to ask: when did the Historicist school begin? Was it new when it started? If it was new, how could it be true? If it was true, how could it be new? If it was not new when it started, then it must have started before it began. When was that?
The logical flaw in the mis-application of the dictum is that it alternates between two different standards of antiquity. When the Historicist School began it was “true” in the sense that it was based on the ancient texts of Scripture. But my position, so you say, is not true, because it is not as old as the Historicist School. Thus, two different standards of antiquity are applied, and thus the dictum is contorted to support one theory and suppress all others, all in the name of upholding “true” antiquity.
But the antiquity upon which our positions must be constructed is the Scriptures alone. The rejection of something that is “new” is intended to reject new revelation, not to reject a correct understanding of Old Revelation. My understanding of the events Daniel foretold is not based on a new revelation I received in 1996, but upon the explicit statements of Scripture. If I am in error, I am to be corrected from Scripture, not from the eschatology of the Reformers and Covenanters, for the Reformers and Covenanters were themselves new at one point, and as men, subject to error. Thus, ironically, your criticism of me is precisely the criticism leveled at the Reformers by Rome:
That is precisely the criticism Roman Catholics leveled at the Reformers: if it’s new, it isn’t true; if it’s true, it isn’t new. And since the Reformers came along later in time than Roman Catholicism did, the dictum was used to reject them. But the Reformers understood that their position wasn’t new at all, but rather could be traced to the apostles via the Scriptures. That is precisely my position as well. I base my position upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets and Gospels.
For some reason you believe “that [my] presuppositions are grounded in the early church fathers,” and I would ask you to explain why you think so. Have I ever stated, “The Fathers believed this, and therefore so must we”?, or “So sayeth the Fathers, and their traditions must be our rule”? Or “The Fathers have spoken, and thus let the Covenanters repent”? I have never said this. What I have said is that “Roman Catholicism claims that the Fathers accepted Rome as the Strong Central Episcopate from the beginning, but the evidence from the Fathers is that they did not.” There is no other way to support my statement than to show from the Patristics that they certainly did not defer to Rome. That’s not grounding a presupposition in the Fathers. That is history.
You have a very high view of Scriptures—one that I share. How then, do you make 2,300 mornings and evenings of Daniel 8:14,26 refer to prophetic days of 2,300 years? A morning and an evening is a literal day, and the angel goes out of his way to inform Daniel, “the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true” (Daniel 8:26), as in “literal.” An evening and a morning is a literal day, not a prophetic one. And Daniel 12:11-12 refers to the 1,290 days and 1,335 days as taking place within the 2,300 literal days. How then can you overlook the literality of the mornings and evenings and link them to the times, time and half a time of Daniel 7 and Revelation 12, and the forty two months of Revelation 13. If there is a specific meaning to the unique description of “days” as “mornings and evenings,” a meaning assigned to it from the Scriptures, would you be interested in it, and could you bring yourself to defer to it? Or would you defer instead to the Covenanters for your interpretation?
As you well know, it is to the Scriptures that we must go, and the Scriptures have something very, very specific to say about “mornings and evenings” referring to literal days, i.e., the Creation of the World in Genesis 1. Are you willing to submit your eschatology to the Scriptures? Or will the Covenanters prevail here?
I mean you no offense, but the Scriptures—not the Covenanters, not the Reformers, not the Church fathers—have sole primacy. And even the Covenanters can and must be be corrected by the Scriptures. I am neither timid nor ashamed to do so.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim said,
“I am watching the Blood Moon video you sent, as I do with all of your links, and will give it some thought.”
Beware. I’ve recently watched many of his videos and learned he was a fairly wild rocker who was saved, and joined the typical evangelical church, then through fairly extensive study he left to become a reformed Baptist, then after learning about covenant theology he left to become a Presbyterian, then recently he moved back to Ireland and became a reformed Presbyterian adopting the Covenanter distinctive.
He does not yet fully understand all the key documents of the revolution settlement, and what destroyed the faithful Church of Scotland, but he seems to be making significant progress on understanding the schisms that killed off the Covenanters of Scotland, England and Ireland…and early America.
Tim,
In light of your professional experience with science, I am just finishing a fascinating video on TBN that gets into several “Hebrew Roots” discussions on prophecy, and predictions of events that are suppose to “perhaps” happen this year.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzQbAW7-Qs0
It would be interesting to see how your own prophetical interpretations fit into this prophetical timeline.
I skip over the singing portion of this video, and jump to the discussions. While I don’t agree with their theology, I certainly do believe that Satan is currently largely influencing the modern evangelical church, and certainly the Romish church. Thus, I do not hold it past Satan being able to time these events accurately as miraculous signs, wonders and predictions that draw more truly reformed Christians out of biblical truth into more of this “predictive” future events that could come to pass.
If indeed their dates are accurate, it will be interesting. In our prophetical timing we do not see anything happening from either this coming year (one opinion) at the soonest up till 1260 years from 800 AD (one opinion) that is 45 years away.
TIM-
You said: “The apostles left us their words, and the Spirit bestows His gifts upon different men differently, to understand the language, the wisdom and the knowledge contained therein. Thus, Origen believed that the solution to the matter of divergent opinions in the Church was that gifted men ought to look over the scriptures and “form a connected series and body of truths … and form, as we have said, one body of doctrine” (Origen, De Principiis, preface, chapter 10).”
Tim, this sounds just like the magisterium to me:
“The heritage of faith entrusted to the whole of the Church
84 The apostles entrusted the “Sacred deposit” of the faith (the depositum fidei), contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church. “By adhering to [this heritage] the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. So, in maintaining, practicing and professing the faith that has been handed on, there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful.”
The Magisterium of the Church
85 “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.” This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.
86 “Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.”
87 Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”, the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.”
And as to the point of your article the visible apostolicity of the invisibly shepherded church, here’s this:
The supernatural sense of faith
91 All the faithful share in understanding and handing on revealed truth. They have received the anointing of the Holy Spirit, who instructs them and guides them into all truth.
92 “The whole body of the faithful. . . cannot err in matters of belief. This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of faith (sensus fidei) on the part of the whole people, when, from the bishops to the last of the faithful, they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals.”
93 “By this appreciation of the faith, aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth, the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (Magisterium),. . . receives. . . the faith, once for all delivered to the saints. . . The People unfailingly adheres to this faith, penetrates it more deeply with right judgment, and applies it more fully in daily life.”
Growth in understanding the faith
94 Thanks to the assistance of the Holy Spirit, the understanding of both the realities and the words of the heritage of faith is able to grow in the life of the Church:
– “through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts”; it is in particular “theological research [which] deepens knowledge of revealed truth”.
– “from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which [believers] experience”, the sacred Scriptures “grow with the one who reads them.”
– “from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth”.
95 “It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.”
How uncanny the resemblance, wouldn’t you say, Tim?
Bob, you asked, “How uncanny the resemblance, wouldn’t you say, Tim?”
The resemblance is uncanny the way cubic zirconia’s resemblance to a diamond is uncanny, or the way a planet’s resemblance to a star is uncanny. To the untrained eye, and from a distance, they look the same. But compare these statements:
The living tradition was what was contained in the Scriptures, which means that in the Early Church, Tradition was not distinct from the Sacred Scriptures, since Sacred Scriptures was the tradition of the apostles.
But you’re right—to the untrained eye, there appears to be a surface resemblance. But just as woman knows the difference between cubic zirconia and the real thing, and an astronomer can tell the difference between a planet and a star, the Bride of Christ can tell the difference between demonic doctrines and God’s revelation to her, and she needs no pope to tell her.
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
You said: “The living tradition was what was contained in the Scriptures, which means that in the Early Church, Tradition was not distinct from the Sacred Scriptures, since Sacred Scriptures was the tradition of the apostles.”
Who taught you that? The only Scripture that the apostles had was the Old Testament–some used the Masoretic text and some used the Septuagint. It was a part of their tradition, yes, but not their entire tradition. It was the apostle’s tradition that birthed the New Testament scriptures. And the New Testament Scriptures themselves claim that not all of what Jesus said or did was written down.
And you must have read right over the part in the Catechism that said:
SACRED SCRIPTURE IN THE LIFE OF THE CHURCH
131 “And such is the force and power of the Word of God that it can serve the Church as her support and vigor, and the children of the Church as strength for their faith, food for the soul, and a pure and lasting fount of spiritual life.”109 Hence “access to Sacred Scripture ought to be open wide to the Christian faithful.”
132 “Therefore, the study of the sacred page should be the very soul of sacred theology. The ministry of the Word, too – pastoral preaching, catechetics and all forms of Christian instruction, among which the liturgical homily should hold pride of place – is healthily nourished and thrives in holiness through the Word of Scripture.”
133 The Church “forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful. . . to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ, by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.
And what did it say above in my previous post:
86 “Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant.
and
95 “It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others.
Tim, it is your portrayal of the Catholic Church that is the counterfeit and your portrayal of the Early Church that is the fake.
Peter did:
Note that Peter did not say, “they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the scriptures”. Clearly the Apostles had more Scriptures available to them than the Old Testament Scriptures.
You continued,
Actually, the verses you think you are citing say, “And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book” (John 20:30), and “there are also many other things which Jesus did.” (John 21:25) They do not say “And many other signs truly did and said Jesus,” and “there are also many other things which Jesus did and said.”
The same Scriptures that declare that “not all of what Jesus did was written down” also declare that what is written down is sufficient for us. So your appeal to unwritten tradition beyond the Scriptures is itself a rejection of the Scriptures, cloaked in an affirmation of them.
I don’t need to know what else Jesus did, since the Scriptures themselves declare that the things that were written down are sufficient to make me complete “That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Timothy 3:17).
In any case, you cited the Catechism, “Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant.”
Yes, and we all know that no Master can exist without his servant: “sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others” (Catechism, paragraph 95).
Rome’s claim that the Pope’s words are “irreformable of themselves” but that Scripture cannot stand without the Magisterium and the Tradition of her idolatrous bishops, is sufficient evidence that the Pope is even now “shewing himself that he is God” (2 Thessalonians 2:4).
Rome’s claim that she is merely a servant to the Word, is overturned by her claims that His Word cannot stand without her. Servant, indeed!
He’s against the Pope, too, and he, too, shall wither.
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
You said: “Note that Peter did not say, “they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the scriptures”. Clearly the Apostles had more Scriptures available to them than the Old Testament Scriptures.”
Nowhere in that quote does it say that “the other scriptures” were not Old Testament. That is your inference. And the Scriptures that Paul speaks of in his letter to Timothy are the ones that Timothy knew from when he was a child, which could not possibly be New Testament.
And the word is “profitable”, not “sufficient”:
2Ti 3:14ff
But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
It doesn’t say what your trying to make it say, Tim.
Bob, you wrote,
In fact, I think the “other Scriptures” are the Old Testament. That was my point in citing the text. There’s Paul’s epistles, then there’s “the other scriptures.” “They that are unlearned and unstable wrest” Paul’s epistles “unto their own destruction” just “as they do also the other scriptures.” The “other Scriptures” are the Old Testament. What does that make Paul’s epistles?
Then, in response to my comment,
you wrote,
I wasn’t referring to “profitable” I was referring to
“perfect (artios, complete), throughly furnished (exartizo, extra complete) unto all (pas, all, every, every thing, all things, etc…) good works”
Do you believe that the Scriptures are unequal to this task in the life of a believer? Is there a particular good work that I ought to be doing that is nowhere identified in the Scriptures, so that I might be extra, extra complete instead of just extra complete?
That for which you are saying that the Scriptures are merely profitable, the text actually says they are “able” to do. If they are able to do what is described, they are sufficient for doing what is described.
Yes, it is true that “the Scriptures that Paul speaks of in his letter to Timothy are the ones that Timothy knew from when he was a child, which could not possibly be New Testament.” But what he says to be true of the Scriptures is true of the Scriptures and Peter call Paul’s epistles Scriptures. And I think we can agree that “those things which are written” (Revelation 1:3) in the Book of Revelation are Scriptures, too.
Is there anything I need to know, outside of the Scriptures, so that I may be “extra wise” unto salvation instead of just “wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.”
What is it that I need to know that I do not know from the Scriptures to be sanctified and redeemed?
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
I never said that you don’t need Scripture to be complete. Neither does the Catholic Church. The Bible alone is not sufficient in itself. One must be taught Scripture correctly. If you just read Scripture all by yourself with no tradition to guide you, you will more than likely be “one that is unlearned and unstable who wrest Paul’s epistles unto your own destruction”. You must be taught to be a man of God.
Tim, why do you spend so much time writing your ideas and backing them with quotes from the ECF’s when all you have to do is hand out bibles for people to read so that we all can become “complete” men of God?
You asked: “What is it that I need to know that I do not know from the Scriptures to be sanctified and redeemed?”
You need to know that you don’t even need the Scriptures to be sanctified and redeemed. Before you even read the Bible for yourself, who taught you it was the inspired Word of God? I’ll bet you a hunnerd dollars it was someone in your Catholic family.
Thanks, Bob. You wrote,
What you said is that Scripture is insufficient to make me complete, and I said it was sufficient, and you said it was profitable but not sufficient, and I said it was sufficient. Etc… You continued,
The Bible alone is sufficient in itself as a source of revelation from God to His people. It is sufficient “to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” (2 Timothy 3:15) And it is sufficient to the end “That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” (2 Timothy 3:15). As you deny the sufficiency of Scripture to accomplish these things, I ask again, “Is there a particular good work that I ought to be doing that is nowhere identified in the Scriptures, so that I might be extra, extra complete instead of just extra complete? Is there anything I need to know, outside of the Scriptures, so that I may be “extra wise” unto salvation instead of just “wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus”? Since you believe the Scriptures are insufficient for this purpose, surely you must know of something that I need to know, or something that I need to do, that the Scriptures do not teach me. What would that be? You continued,
Yes, the Spirit has gifted the Church with apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers (Ephesians 4:11), and those who divide the word of truth are commanded to do so rightly (2 Timothy 2:15). So when you say, “The Bible alone is not sufficient in itself. One must be taught Scripture correctly,” you are saying that the untwisted, unwrested, rightly divided Scripture is sufficient in itself. Do I understand you correctly? You continued,
And since the Scriptures are sufficient to the task of teaching me, and in fact I ought to “Study to shew thyself approved unto God” (2 Timothy 2:15) and read Peter’s epistle that I may “be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour” (2 Peter 3:1), and “take heed [of the Scriptures], as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts” (2 Peter 1:19-20), I think that the Scriptures, and people teaching the Scriptures, is how I am taught to be a man of God. Wouldn’t you agree?
You asked,
First, I do not quote the Church Fathers to sanctify and redeem. I quote them to expose the fallacy of Roman Catholicism’s claim to own the Early Church. If Rome says Japan is America’s 51st state, I do not need to use Scripture alone to refute her. If Roman Catholicism will step back and acknowledge that the Early Church was unaware of her existence, I will stop citing the Church Fathers to refute Roman Catholicism’s claim that the Early Church Fathers support her. In sum, my use of the Church Fathers is to refute an historical claim that Roman Catholicism makes to undergird her authority, and that historical claim is falsifiable by the data.
Second, the Scriptures prophecy an antagonist soon to rise saying arrogant things, and then Special Revelation stopped. After that the Scriptures were fulfilled in that an antagonist arose saying arrogant things. It is no violation of Sola Scriptura to say a) the Scriptures foretell a speaking, arrogant antagonist; b) look at the arrogant things the antagonist says, in fulfillment of the Scriptures. That is simply reminding people of what the Prophets and Apostles wrote. It is not extra special revelation in addition to the Scriptures.
Third, the Scriptures promise that the Church will never fail, and Roman Catholicism says she is the reason that is true. By reviewing the actual evidence from church writers between the end of the apostolic era and the Rise of Roman Catholicism, it can be shown that the Early Church was just fine without Roman Catholicism. It is no violation of Sola Scriptura to say the Early Church maintained its orthodoxy without Roman Catholicism to guide her.
Thanks,
Tim
Bob said:
Tim, it is your portrayal of the Catholic Church that is the counterfeit and your portrayal of the Early Church that is the fake.
The most obvious fake here is Bobs profession of being a Methodist, all the while lobbing the standard RC pop apologists arguments as if he were reading a Catholic Answers tract. Bob, bad news, you don’t have an ounce of Methodism in you, you are 100 % RC, whether you’ve gone through RCIA or not. I have read Tims posts for months, and it’s more than obvious, you have made at least a mental leap of faith into the RCC because all your arguments are made to defend its every teaching. I can’t remember a single error of Rome you have ever pointed out, only defend.
“DANIEL”–
You said: “I can’t remember a single error of Rome you have ever pointed out, only defend.”
Hmmmm…..you must have a short memory. I have never defended papal infallibility. I personally think that the Catholics shot themselves in the foot with that one. I have stated that I think there would be a need for some kind of infallibility. But history has shown it’s just not there.
I also think the Catholics go overboard with the hyperdulia of Mary. I have mentioned that as well.
I have made my case as to why I defend Catholics. And if you really have been reading for months as you claim,”Daniel”, then you have read my reasons for doing so.
LOL, “they go overboard with hyperdulia” and you can’t find papal infallibility (yet). Like I said, I couldn’t remember anywhere you have found any errors on Rome’s behalf. You seem ever so eager to be finding Papal Infallibility acorn kernels in these discussions with Tim. You are more Roman Catholic than 99% of the Roman Catholics I know. Let’s put it this way, after reading BOB for the last few months and reading say Craig Keeners work for the last few months, I’d glean that you guys would almost have absolutely nothing in common as far as the whole of Biblical Christianity is concerned. So, seriously, how close are you to joining a RC communion? Are you already in, or are you seriously considering it? Have you enrolled over at Steubenville for classes with Scott Hahn? Just curious, because in no sense of the word do I feel you represent Methodism in a serious manner other than by casual internet profession.
DANIEL–
You said: “You are more Roman Catholic than 99% of the Roman Catholics I know.”
Really? Man, I’m better at this than I thought.
You also said: “Just curious, because in no sense of the word do I feel you represent Methodism in a serious manner other than by casual internet profession.”
I am not here to represent Methodism, I am here to defend Catholics. I must be doing a pretty good job to make you think I am Catholic. Hmmmmmm……maybe I should have been a defense lawyer.
well, you certainly represent RCism better than Guy Fawkes did! I am just grateful I don’t have to rummage through his nonsense anymore, whew!
I would agree that you are doing a good job presenting/repeating what the RCC and its apologists teach, I would sincerely disagree with the content of it being any good, simply because their arguments never stack up to either history or the scriptures.
Besides, Tim says I am welcome here anytime. So there.
I’m just a troll. I hate rules.
TIM–
You said:
“The Bible alone is sufficient in itself as a source of revelation from God to His people.”
I’ll agree– a source and not the only source. The Catholics agree with that, too.
You said: “I think that the Scriptures, and people teaching the Scriptures, is how I am taught to be a man of God. Wouldn’t you agree?”
Yes, I agree–both Scripture and a teaching magisterium. The Catholics agree with that, too.
1Ti 3:15…. I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.
You said: “In sum, my use of the Church Fathers is to refute an historical claim that Roman Catholicism makes to undergird her authority, and that historical claim is falsifiable by the data.”
Why appeal to the traditions of the ECF’s when you think Scripture is sufficient? You say that the RC uses scripture and tradition to undergird their authority, so you must do the same to refute them. Doesn’t sound like scripture is as sufficient as you claim.
You said: “That is simply reminding people of what the Prophets and Apostles wrote. It is not extra special revelation in addition to the Scriptures.”
But teaching them the Pope is the Anti-Christ and that the Eucharist is the image of the beast is an extra special revelation in addition to the Scriptures. And it’s not from God, is it? Are you claiming that the Holy Spirit Himself has given you this revelation?
“2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.”
You said: “It is no violation of Sola Scriptura to say the Early Church maintained its orthodoxy without Roman Catholicism to guide her.”
But it is a violation when you appeal to tradition to do so, scripture being the sole rule of faith. Unless you define Sola Scriptura in the same way some do sola fide–scripture alone but scripture is never alone. And by your reasoning, when the Scriptures promise that the Church will never fail, and Roman Catholicism says she is the reason that is true, it is no violation either.
And last but not least, you asked: “Is there a particular good work that I ought to be doing that is nowhere identified in the Scriptures, so that I might be extra, extra complete instead of just extra complete?”
In my opinion, based on only what the Bible says, then my answer is no. But to the non-Protestant who is not bound by Sola Scriptura who believes the Deposit of Faith is given by scripture and oral traditions (2 TH 2:15), the hyperdulia of Mary, the veneration of the saints and sacramentals, the writing and using of new songs in the Mass, changing the rubrics of the Mass, declaring papal infallibility etc., etc., are not a problem.
Now, that being said, when Christians replaced circumcision with baptism, that was against scripture. When Jesus changed the Passover seder meal to His Body and Blood at the last supper, that was against scripture. When Jesus told the disciples that you must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood, that was against scripture. When Christians moved the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, that was against scripture. When Christians decided it was ok to eat pork, that was against scripture. Did God reveal to them that they had the authority to do these things that were extra-biblical so that they could be “extra extra complete”? You tell me.
Tim, those actions were extra-biblical at the time and they were recorded in documents that eventually were judged by the magisterium to be added to the canon as scripture. And it was the magisterium who declared the canon closed. Do you not agree with the magisterium that the canon is closed? Does the Scripture tell you anywhere that you should only rely on what is canoned and not any other writings or oral traditions so that the man of God can be perfect?
Bob, thank you for your detailed response. You wrote (citing me):
An interesting convolution of our conversation. My response that the “The Bible alone is sufficient in itself as a source of revelation” was in response to your assertion that the bible alone is not sufficient in itself as a source of revelation because it needs tradition, too. To say that you agree that “the Bible alone is sufficient in itself as a source of revelation as long as it has tradition along with it concurrently as a separate source because without tradition the bible is not sufficient,” is in fact an illogical construct. The Bible is sufficient in itself or it is not. The Bible alone cannot be sufficient in itself and at the same time require an additional source to make it complete, as you have stated. I stand by my statement, but merely point out the tangled and illogical web you weave in order to convolute a perfectly logical statement.
You continued (again citing me):
Again a convolution. The Scriptures, and people teaching the Scriptures, as the Scriptures instruct them to do, is a single source of revelation—the Scriptures. What you say the Roman Catholics “agree with” is actually something they find repugnant. Roman Catholics believe that the Scriptures constitute one source of revelation and the teaching magisterium constitutes another. If I say “The Scriptures teach us not to lie to each other” (Ephesians 4:25), I have taught the Scriptures. I have not exercised the prerogative of an infallible magisterium as an additional source of revelation. But when the pope says “The Scriptures teach us not to lie to each other” (Ephesians 4:25), and “I have declared that Mary was conceived without sin because the Magisterium has declared me to be infallible, and if any man dare to deny either (God forbid) let the wrath of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul be upon him” he has exercised the arrogance of adding a second stream of Revelation to the Scriptures.
You continued,
A straw man argument, Bob. You are arguing against a definition of sola scriptura that even Roman Catholics don’t think Protestants hold to. By way of example, Roman Catholicism says every Church Father believed that the prophecy of Malachi was fulfilled in the Sacrifice of the Mass. All I have to do is prove that at least one Church Father denied that Malachi’s prophecy was fulfilled in the Sacrifice of the Mass. If Roman Catholicism says the Scriptures affirm the Sacrifice of the Mass, I will show from the Scriptures that Mass Sacrifice is denied. Nobody has said, sola Scriptura means that the only syllables Christians may utter are those that are contained in the Scriptures. What we affirm is that the only authority for faith and morals is what is written in the Scriptures, and what can be logically deduced therefrom by clear an necessary inference. If the pope says, Benjamin Franklin was the first president of the United States, Protestants are not reduced to silence just because Scriptures do not mention George Washington. You may notice that you frequently attempt to refute me by citing my words back to me. Since my words are not contained within the Scriptures, Tradition and the Magisterium, aren’t you just creating a fourth source of revelation, and thereby proving that Scriptures, Tradition and the Magisterium are insufficient to teach me to be a man of God. Apparently, I need Scriptures, Tradition, the Magisterium and BOB. Plus someone to help me understand BOB. And someone to help me understand the the guy who helps me understand BOB. Etc…
You continued,
You tell me, Bob: where in Scripture, Tradition or the Magisterium is it explicitly stated that Tim Kauffman is in error. Please cite the specific source of Tradition, the Magistrium and Scripture that mentions me by name. Since I am not mentioned by name, may I conclude that you have introduced yourself as yet a fourth source of Revelation? (Which also now needs to be interpreted.)
Jesus said, “But these things have I told you, that when the time shall come, ye may remember that I told you of them.” (John 16:44). And elsewhere, “Behold, I have told you before” (Matthew 24:25). And elsewhere “But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things.” (Mark 14:13). And elsewhere, “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass” (Revelation 1:1).
To say, “I know He told us of these things in advance,” and then to say, “But unless He also tells me that these were the things that He was warning me about in advance, I do not believe them to be that of which we were warned” is simply an attempt to baptize and sanctify an outright rejection of Jesus’ words. By that standard, the Anti-Christ can never be identified, because to do so would be to presume to identify him without additional revelation from God, and even if there was additional revelation from God, you would require additional revelation on top of that indicating that the additional revelation was itself from God, and so on. In other words, your errant epistemology—which is no different than Rome’s, and has at its core the rejection of the sufficiency of Scripture—is leading you like a sheep to the slaughter, because to ever identify the Antichrist by name, perchance to avoid him and his demonic doctrines, would be “bigoted” and “presumptuous.”
You continued,
It is only a violation of a straw man definition of sola scriptura to which no man I know professes or believes. I have not appealed to Tradition to uphold the Gospel or Scripture. I have appealed to the writings of the Fathers to prove that Roman Catholicism’s claims about the writings of the Fathers are false. I have not cited the Church Fathers to impose them upon the Church as if they were authoritative for faith and morals, and binding upon their conscience and in their interpretation of the Scriptures.
You continued,
Thus the importance that Rome’s claims be measured against the Scriptures, instead of simply measuring Rome’s claims against Rome’s claims.
You continued,
Then why do you have a problem with hyperdulia and papal infallibility?
You continued,
When did the Magisterium declare the canon closed?
Thanks,
Tim
This may be long, but I am trying to make my point with all this. I know that you will read this, because you are good about that.
TIM–
You asked: “When did the Magisterium declare the canon closed?”
The Council of Rome in 382 agreed on a list of books, the same books in the current canon. These same books were ratified by the Councils of Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), II Nicea (787) and Florence (1442).
You also asked: “Then why do you have a problem with hyperdulia and papal infallibility?”
Because I am not Catholic. But I understand why they think the way they do. My friend told me that I am just not ready to submit myself with my full heart. Ok fine. I have no problem with being Methodist.
You responded ““The Bible alone is sufficient in itself as a source of revelation from God to His people.”
I’ll agree– a source and not the only source. The Catholics agree with that, too.
An interesting convolution of our conversation. “”
I was just agreeing with your statement. The Bible alone is sufficient as “A” source of revelation (the written kind). It is not “THE ONLY” source. There is revelation that is not considered as scripture.
You responded: “You said: “I think that the Scriptures, and people teaching the Scriptures, is how I am taught to be a man of God. Wouldn’t you agree?”
Yes, I agree–both Scripture and a teaching magisterium. The Catholics agree with that, too.
Again a convolution. The Scriptures, and people teaching the Scriptures, as the Scriptures instruct them to do, is a single source of revelation—the Scriptures.”
Ok. Whatever you say. The Catholics say it is the magisterium teaching from the deposit of faith. I’ll quote the entirety but notice my emphasis:
THE TRANSMISSION OF DIVINE REVELATION
74 God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth”: that is, of Christ Jesus. Christ must be proclaimed to all nations and individuals, so that this revelation may reach to the ends of the earth: God graciously arranged that the things he had once revealed for the salvation of all peoples should remain in their entirety, throughout the ages, and be transmitted to all generations.
I. THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION
75 “Christ the Lord, in whom the entire Revelation of the most high God is summed up, commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel, which had been promised beforehand by the prophets, and which he fulfilled in his own person and promulgated with his own lips. In preaching the Gospel, they were to communicate the gifts of God to all men. This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline.”
In the apostolic preaching. . .
76 In keeping with the Lord’s command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:
– orally “by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received – whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit”;
– in writing “by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing”.
. . . continued in apostolic succession
77 “In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority.” Indeed, “the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time.”
78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, “the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes.” “The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer.”
79 The Father’s self-communication made through his Word in the Holy Spirit, remains present and active in the Church: “God, who spoke in the past, continues to converse with the Spouse of his beloved Son. And the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel rings out in the Church – and through her in the world – leads believers to the full truth, and makes the Word of Christ dwell in them in all its richness.”
II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE
One common source. . .
80 “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal.”40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.
. . . two distinct modes of transmission
81 “Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.”
“And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching.”
82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.”
Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions
83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.
Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s Magisterium.”
Tim, you also said: “It is only a violation of a straw man definition of sola scriptura to which no man I know professes or believes. ”
Well, Tim, you may not know anyone personally that believes it but I do. The Primative Baptists and the Church of Christ. And evidently Walt does, too.
And here’s some stuff online:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/sola-scriptura-bible.html–
“The term “sola Scriptura” or “the Bible alone” is a short phrase that represents the simple truth that there is only one special revelation from God that man possesses today, the written Scriptures or the Bible. ”
“Thus, there is only one written source from God, and there is only one basis of truth for the Lord’s people in the Church.”
“Since Scripture alone is inspired, it alone is the ultimate authority, and it alone is the final judge of Tradition.”
“Scripture can only be understood correctly in the light of Scripture, since it alone is uncorrupted.”
Thanks, Bob,
I agree with the definition of sola scriptura you provided in the link. That definition of Sola Scriptura does not require that an incorrect listing of the Presidents of the United States be corrected from Scripture.
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
You said: “I agree with the definition of sola scriptura you provided in the link. That definition of Sola Scriptura does not require that an incorrect listing of the Presidents of the United States be corrected from Scripture.”
As far as Presidents of the United States, I agree as well. But when it comes to faith and morals and Church authority, it makes a big difference. The point is, non-Protestant churches do not limit themselves to Sola Scriptura, so any arguments to that effect are NOT sufficient to them.
To those of us who have been raised on Sola Scriptura, it’s hard to put that mentality on the shelf.
Let me repeat myself, when Christians replaced circumcision with baptism, that was against scripture.
No problem. They were given that authority.
When Jesus changed the Passover seder meal to His Body and Blood at the last supper, that was against scripture. No problem. He had the authority.
When Jesus told the disciples that you must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood, that was against scripture. Not a problem. He had the authority to do so.
When Christians moved the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, that was against scripture. Still not a problem. They were authorized to do so.
When Christians decided it was ok to eat pork, that was against scripture. Again, they had the authority to do so.
Tim, do you agree with those decisions?
The Roman Church claims Jesus gave them that authority. Can you show them where that authority has been officially revoked?
Bob, your question is loaded with an unsubstantiated assumption. You wrote:
Of course that authority has never been officially revoked. There is no need to revoke what was never granted.
Can you show me where Jesus gave the Roman Church that authority? The burden of proof is not upon me to show that it has been revoked. The burden of proof is upon Rome prove that such authority was granted. It never was.
Can you prove that my authority to govern the trade routes of the Indian Ocean has ever been revoked. No, you most certainly cannot.
Thanks,
Tim
DANIEL–
You said: ” well, you certainly represent RCism better than Guy Fawkes did! I am just grateful I don’t have to rummage through his nonsense anymore, whew!”
Yeah, Jim can be a bludgeon sometimes. But you can certainly tell he is Catholic through and through. He is emotionally tied and very passionate about the Catholic Church–very Vatican I-ish as my friend says. But then Portugal is REALLYCatholic. Probably more so than Italy.
West Texas is REALLYBaptist, way more so than Methodist or Catholic. And Lutherans and Prebyterians are pretty outnumbered here. But there is a very strong showing of “non-denominational charismatics” and Dallas Theological pre-millennial dispensationalists as well. Some of those churches look as big as a shopping mall.
TIM–
You said: “Of course that authority has never been officially revoked. There is no need to revoke what was never granted.”
Rome is an apostolic see along with the other patriarchates except for Constantinople. Yes. They had apostolic authority. Those apostolic sees(encompassing the entire Church) recognized the prime authority of Rome for centuries until the Eastern Schism. The Eastern Church then claimed prime authority for themselves. They did not revoke Rome’s authority. They just claimed their own authority. The Reformed movement, again, only claimed their own authority. They did not revoke Rome’s authority.
Bob, that line of argumentation simply restates the assumption. It does not prove that the assumption is true.
I know Rome claims that Jesus gave them authority. But “Rome is an apostolic see” does not show that Jesus gave them authority. “Those [other] apostolic sees … recognized the prime authority of Rome for centuries” does not show that Jesus gave them authority.
When did Jesus give Rome authority over all the other churches?
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
You said: “When did Jesus give Rome authority over all the other churches?”
By apostolic succession from the Chair of Peter given to him by Christ. And by the middle of the fourth century, the other apostolic sees were starting to appeal to Rome. And from Pope Damasus till the Eastern Schism, the whole Church recognized that authority–as you say “the Rise of Roman Catholicism”.
You say it’s Satan fooling everybody. And that line of argumentation simply restates your assumption.
Tell me, Tim, do you believe in apostolic succession–the authority of the apostles passed on from bishop to bishop?
Bob,
You wrote, “By apostolic succession from the Chair of Peter given to him by Christ.”
But how does “apostolic succession from the Chair of Peter given to him by Christ” translate into “Jesus gave the Roman Church authority over all the others”? There is a leap in there that you are not recognizing and that you cannot prove.
You continued,
Yes, towards the end of the 4th century, they certainly were. How does “other apostolic sees were starting to appeal to Rome” translate into “Jesus gave Rome authority”? Why the 300 year gap? What are we missing?
You continued,
Well, not everybody, actually. What assumption do you think that I am restating? Have I ever sought to prove that Satan is fooling everybody on the basis that Satan is fooling everybody? Yet you equate my reasoning to Rome’s which is, “Rome has the authority Jesus gave her because Jesus gave her that authority.” And for 300 years after the apostolic age, nobody was aware of this “fact.” Yet we are to accept it as true based on Rome’s testimony, because we should trust someone to whom Jesus gave the authority. An entirely circular argument, a circular method that I have never used to support my position.
You continued,
Yes, I certainly do. To take your reasoning to its necessary end, Antioch must therefore be the strong central episcopate of the universal church, since Ignatius was Peter’s successor there, and therefore Jesus gave Antioch authority over all the other churches. How does Rome end up with the authority? When did Jesus give Rome its authority, say, over Antioch, where the chair of Peter is said to exist too?
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
You said: “When did Jesus give Rome its authority, say, over Antioch, where the chair of Peter is said to exist too?”
The Chair of Peter moved to Rome with Peter. Peter did not leave his Chair in Antioch. He placed Ignatius as Bishop of the See of Antioch just like Paul placed Timothy as the Bishop of Ephesus.
You responded: “’Tell me, Tim, do you believe in apostolic succession–the authority of the apostles passed on from bishop to bishop?’
Yes, I certainly do.”
So then the Chair of Peter(his authority) was given to Linus and then to Anacletus and then to Clement and then to…..etc. So by your agreement above we have established apostolic succession from the Roman See. Now the question comes down to what exactly was Peter’s authority and how does it contribute to Jesus’ divine authority given to Rome. It is called the Petrine function. You can read about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primacy_of_the_Bishop_of_Rome
and here:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/education/catholic-contributions/the-papacy-the-petrine-ministry-in-the-early-church-3-of-3.html
You, Tim, are now in the process of trying to refute the Petrine function. History has played out the truth of it. Now you, Mr. Copernicus, are trying to debunk it. You’re not alone. Many have tried and many still are. But the fact still remains, that for centuries, the entire Church looked to Rome for final ecumenical appeal. And in 2007, the Eastern Church agreed to the Petrine function, but some particulars of the extent of that power are still in dispute. Join the club.
Bob,
You wrote, “The Chair of Peter moved to Rome with Peter. Peter did not leave his Chair in Antioch. He placed Ignatius as Bishop of the See of Antioch just like Paul placed Timothy as the Bishop of Ephesus.”
How do you know that he did not leave his chair in Antioch? By this reasoning, the chair leaves when Peter leaves. If it didn’t stay at Antioch because Peter left Antioch, then it didn’t stay at Rome when Peter left Rome. If it stayed in Rome when Peter left Rome, why did it not stay in Antioch when Peter left Antioch? On what basis do you conclude that its stops where Peter dies and that it is geographically static there? The whole argument of Rome is that the authority resides in Peter’s successors, and as Chrysostom so helpfully points out,
Peter’s successor in Antioch is said to be a great stone, a teacher equivalent to Peter, a great stone as sturdy as Peter himself. Sounds like Chrysostom thought Peter’s “chair” pretty much stayed in Antioch, and then when Ignatius was to be martyred, the Lord sent him to Rome because that city “required more help” than Antioch did. Why would it require more help if the chair of St. Peter was there? There’s an awful lot of invalid inferences in your argument for the chair moving from Antioch to Rome.
You also stated,
But the fact still remains that for the first 300 years the entire Church did not. See today’s post for evidence of this. How did the Church survive without papal Rome—in fact in outright “rebellion” against it—for 300 years before she “joined the club”. Maybe Papal Rome is a different “club” than the Church.
You concluded,
A club that you yourself refuse to join?
No thanks. The church already has a Chief Shepherd. No substitutes or imitations will suffice.
Tim
Tim said – But the fact still remains that for the first 300 years the entire Church did not. See today’s post for evidence of this. How did the Church survive without papal Rome—in fact in outright “rebellion” against it—for 300 years before she “joined the club”. Maybe Papal Rome is a different “club” than the Church.
Me – oh goody. So let’s go back to when there was no settled cannon of the bible. It worked back then so it means that is the way God intended.
Thanks, CK, I’m glad you stopped by. You wrote,
There was no settled canon of the Bible until the council of Trent in 1546. Regional councils and synods do not “settle” canons, as they are not infallible—only ecumenical councils and infallible papal statements can do this. Why did the Roman Catholic church wait an extra 1300 years before “settling” the canon?
You continued,
In any case, your observation is interesting. Consider this statement from a Roman Catholic apologist who was unable to produce an infallible list of infallible papal statements:
In other words, “If we needed a list, the Church would have provided one. The Church has not provided one, therefore such a list is not necessary, so it means that is the way God intended.”
Or consider this from another Roman Catholic apologist:
In other words, “If the Roman Catholic church currently teaches Marian devotion, it must mean that that is the way God intended.”
So your statement “It worked back then so it means that is the way God intended,” is precisely the argument used to support Roman Catholicism. The fact that Rome currently teaches something must mean that God intended it that way.
The fact is that the Early Church rejected the imperial claims of the bishopric of Rome. Therefore, something without which the Roman Catholic Church could not possibly exist (as Catholic Answers says), was emphatically denied by the Church for 300 years.
Therefore Roman Catholicism is not the Church.
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
You said: “Therefore Roman Catholicism is not the Church.”
Which begs the question AGAIN: Who was the Church not in communion with Rome during the centuries when you say they existed but there is no evidence to prove it?????
Bob,
It’s the Vaudois. I’ll address it in a later series. The Alpine protestants retreated to their mountain refuge where they were protected from the flood of false doctrine that the Devil spewed with the design that “he might cause her to be carried away of the flood” (Revelation 12:15). His efforts failed, but Roman Catholicism succumbed.
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
You said: “It’s the Vaudois. I’ll address it in a later series.”
I hope that you have sources that can substantiate the Vaudois as the viable and durable church. I couldn’t find any. All I could find was that they existed, but anything else was considered spurious or unsubstantiated.
Bob wrote: “Well, Tim, you may not know anyone personally that believes it but I do. The Primative Baptists and the Church of Christ. And evidently Walt does, too.
And here’s some stuff online:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/sola-scriptura-bible.html–
“The term “sola Scriptura” or “the Bible alone” is a short phrase that represents the simple truth that there is only one special revelation from God that man possesses today, the written Scriptures or the Bible. ”
“Thus, there is only one written source from God, and there is only one basis of truth for the Lord’s people in the Church.”
“Since Scripture alone is inspired, it alone is the ultimate authority, and it alone is the final judge of Tradition.”
“Scripture can only be understood correctly in the light of Scripture, since it alone is uncorrupted.””
Bob, I’m not really following your views above when you mentioned my name. My position is that the Bible is the alone primary Standard of the Christian church, and that all of our Terms of Communion (including, confessions, creeds, catechisms, church testimony, acts of general assembly, court rulings, etc.) are subordinate Standards. If you are not familiar with the distinction between a Primary source document, and a Secondary source document I encourage you to research it online as you seem to love dictionary definitions…irregardless of who is the dictionary author.
Tim wrote:
“If it is true, it isn’t new, and if it is new, it isn’t true,” I have to ask: when did the Historicist school begin? Was it new when it started? If it was new, how could it be true? If it was true, how could it be new? If it was not new when it started, then it must have started before it began. When was that?”
I think this is a basic principle people should consider. I would not call this an absolute principle of truth. People should be aware that certain principles are absolute and settled doctrine from Scripture. Eschatology and prophecy is by no means settled doctrine. It is open for speculation and interpretation until it is fulfilled and declared finished by the Lord who is its sole author. In regard to the Historicist school I have no idea. My guess is that it largely started out of the early days of the reformation when men were given bibles in their native language to read and interpret, and try to define the texts. If you are looking for dates, I will need to leave that up to you as I’m not good at establishing dates with a lot of accuracy outside of what the best historians and established Presbyterian church courts have agreed upon. I’m not a teaching minister, nor am ordained to teach, and am very aware of the many who claim this teaching gift in our generation by special revelation or appointment by God.
In summary, I would not take the principle above to be absolute. It is a good warning shot to those who ignore the best writers on any subject, who are ordained and gifted by God as Elders and Teachers, and simply reject them to promote their own special revelation on prophecy that lead people into more division, schism and heretical backslidding away from the attainments of the best reformed churches in History.
Tim wrote:
“My understanding of the events Daniel foretold is not based on a new revelation I received in 1996, but upon the explicit statements of Scripture. If I am in error, I am to be corrected from Scripture, not from the eschatology of the Reformers and Covenanters, for the Reformers and Covenanters were themselves new at one point, and as men, subject to error. Thus, ironically, your criticism of me is precisely the criticism leveled at the Reformers by Rome:
“Perhaps you have been given this gift to rebuke the [popes and cardinals] in our generation, and to correct some of the greatest ministers who gave their lives for the true [Roman Cathlic] church in history….I cannot speak to your “extraordinary” gifts to over turn these faithful [Catholic councils] and [Popes].”
Actually, this is a bit deceiving. What you are doing is misleading the reader who might think I’m comparing your positions held to those held by Rome, and any criticism of your positions is like those reformers who criticized Rome.
I think there is a dramatic difference. In my criticism against you is foundational to your lack of knowledge about the second reformation attainments and your rejection of faithful church testimony. When you read our forefathers 6 terms of communion (as you claim you are presbyterian) and reject all except for the first 2.5 terms, it tells me you are not presbyterian by church discipline, but rather you are an independent. You are not the first one to reject the 6 terms of communion claiming to be a presbyterian, but in fact was an independent at heart and in their mind.
Secondly, the reformers (once they were able to read the Scriptures for themselves) began to see Rome as the antichrist, and were able to identify with Scripture (and perhaps even some early Church fathers who were pointing in the same direction) these prophetical attributes of Rome. They were targeting directly antichrist doctrines and point to antichrist as that man of sin who were leading millions and billions into everlasting torment. They protested accurately.
My protest against your views are not in anyway the same principle used by the reformers against the Romish whore, but are against your lack of ministerial authority as a teaching elder, your rejection of the terms of communion, your lack of knowledge about the second reformation reformers, and your presupposition to Rev. 1:1 that “things must soon come to pass” rather than “things must soon start to unfold in history”.
My hope is to warn some of those who I have earlier directed to this website to get another “Presbyterian” teaching on historicist eschatology. I never anticipated to find an enemy of the presbyterian biblical heritage, and one who upholds the early church fathers in more admiration and authority than our second reformation attainments and ministerial decisions.
I would feel really terrible if people read your views, and followed you into backsliding from these attainments, and ended up becoming independent or worse yet Roman Catholic through ignoring second reformation established doctrines, discipline, form of worship and form of church government as nicely summarized in the 6 terms of communion.
Thanks, Walt,
I appreciate your posts and find your inputs very thought provoking. I look forward to looking into them further.
There is one issue that seems to have risen to the surface recently without cause, so far as I can tell, and it has to do with my interpretation of Revelation 1:1. You wrote,
It’s that last one that doesn’t make sense to me. (I’ll grant that I have no teaching authority and that I lack knowledge in critical parts of Reformation history.) I recently made a brief comment about Revelation 1:1 explaining why I look for the breaking of the seals after 100 A.D.—my point was that “shortly come to pass” does not mean 800 years from now. It was not to suggest that these things must be complete by the fall of Jerusalem.
In any case, last year in a similar exchange, I provided detailed exegesis on Revelation 1:1 in June 2014, and we were in agreement back then. Here is our exchange (you can find it in the comment section of Do Not Weep for Nicomedia):
I just wanted to assure you that my position on Revelation 1:1 has not changed since then.
Thanks,
Tim
Thanks, Walt. I don’t “uphold the early church fathers in more admiration and authority than our second reformation attainments and ministerial decisions.” I’m simply answering Rome’s claims from the texts that Rome tends to use to make them.
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
You responded: ” ‘And in 2007, the Eastern Church agreed to the Petrine function, but some particulars of the extent of that power are still in dispute. Join the club.’
A club that you yourself refuse to join?
No thanks. The church already has a Chief Shepherd. No substitutes or imitations will suffice.”
What I meant was join the club of disputers. You ain’t the first and you certainly won’t be the last. You’re just trying to find a different way of doing it. And unless you become a patriarch of some significance, the Catholics won’t pay any attention to you.
TIM–
You asked: “How do you know that he did not leave his chair in Antioch?”
Because he did not relinquish his authority when he moved to Rome. And Chrysostom was praising because Peter placed Ignatius there because he was the same strong and solid caliber of leader as Peter was. That’s not that hard to understand. But you’re sure trying to make it sound a lot different than that.
“Origen goes so far as to say that the Jewish ambition for an earthly metropolis is evidence of their carnality.”
I’ve often thought that one thing that is a mismatch in professing reformed churches is that they seem to want to build real estate empires. It seems at odds with Christ’s words, ‘they that worship Him, must worship Him in spirit and in truth’. Rome gives us the complete example of worldly thinking in her empire building. It is a shame that this thinking has infected reformed churches also. Origen got it right.
Yes, and the kingdom mistake of the reformers was to agree with Rome on the earthly kingdom of Christ, differing only on how that earthy kingdom should be implemented. Even Calvin fell for it, invoking Isaiah 60:12 to insist that all nations and kingdoms must obey the church of God, “For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish” (Calvin, commentary on Daniel 2). To Calvin, it was the Church of Christ that was the Fifth Empire of Daniel’s vision. In truth, Roman Catholicism, the Beast of Revelation 13, is the Fifth earthly empire, Christ’s being the sixth after the Beast of Revelation 13 is destroyed. Neither Christ nor His saints have earthly civil power until after Christ returns to destroy the Little Horn (Daniel 7:26). Only then do the saints receive a “kingdom under the whole heaven” (Daniel 7:27). And the stone that strikes the statue in Daniel 2 does not “fill the whole earth” (Daniel 2:35) until after the second strike, which answers to Daniel 7:27, the destruction of the Little Horn. To long for an earthly dominion for the saints prior to Christ’s return to destroy the Little Horn is to long for the ungodly kingdom of Antichrist. As much as I admire Calvin’s formulations on justification and ecclesiology, he was dead wrong on the kingdom, misunderstanding the eschatology of Daniel and of Christ to mean that Christians wield the sword to exact obedience. The other reformers erred similarly, longing to replace Rome’s ungodly earthly dominion with the earthly dominion of protestants, who were just as eager (under the Augustinian consensus) to wield the civil sword to induce obedience through corporal and capital punishment. Yes, the Jewish ambition for an earthly metropolis was evidence of their carnality, but Rome and the reformers erred similarly on that point.
“As much as I admire Calvin’s formulations on justification and ecclesiology, he was dead wrong on the kingdom, misunderstanding the eschatology of Daniel and of Christ to mean that Christians wield the sword to exact obedience. The other reformers erred similarly, longing to replace Rome’s ungodly earthly dominion with the earthly dominion of protestants, who were just as eager (under the Augustinian consensus) to wield the civil sword to induce obedience through corporal and capital punishment.”
This seems to tie in directly with the teaching you have shown from Daniel about the visible vs invisible kingdoms. Since Christ is building His kingdom, which is invisible on Earth, then the idea of a visible church wielding the sword must be another kingdom that is not built by Christ – whether that visible entity be the Antichrist of the Roman Church State or a group of ardent protestant theonomists.
‘Tis interesting how the doctrines all tie together. Wrong eschatology, leads to wrong ecclesiology, leads to wrong soteriology. No doubt other links can be logically made.
No wonder the social gospel is so strong today with critical race theory etc becoming more prominent in the churches. They simply don’t know the enemy they are supposed to be fighting.
Thx again for making such a careful study of Daniel etc, Tim.
Refuting error is concomitant with proclaiming truth.
” To long for an earthly dominion for the saints prior to Christ’s return to destroy the little horn is to long for the ungodly kingdom of antichrist” well said. I often wonder if the dreggs of the sophists of Rome who confused heaven and earth followed the Reformers in some ways.
Thx Kevin. I too wonder if the Jews are the role models here for the Roman Church-State? As Paul said, “Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham”, thus acknowledging their bloodline. But Paul also writes, “Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.”
So Paul distinguishes amongst the Jews an earthly kingdom (bloodline) and a spiritual kingdom (by promise). It’s been there all along but I never saw it so clearly in the Scriptures until I read Tim’s blog.
Makes quite a lot of sense that the same distinction applies through the NT and beyond until the Lord returns again.
John, I agree with your comments on the social gospel. God the Son came to save men from their sins, not provide reparations for injustices done. He came to give us life and life abundantly. I try to always bring a discussion back to the greatest gift, having your sins forgiven and eternal life. K