69 thoughts on “Convention of the Angelic Narrators”

1. Tim,
   Do you promise? Are we finally going to get to see your spin on the Woman of Rev 12 not being Mary? Or are you going to put us through several more months of wild goose chasing?

   Reply

   1. JIM–
      Tim has finally set the stage to begin his narrative on the Woman of Revelation 12 to be the underground pre-Reformation Protestant church I have been hounding him about. Now we are getting down to where the rubber meets the road. He is about to reveal how he makes the Woman disappear somewhere and then appear out of nowhere.

      Go, Tim, Go!

      Reply

2. Tim wrote:

   “Clearly, the depiction of “the latter days” of God’s people spans a tremendous amount of time, and clearly those latter days include the period of the Fourth Beast as well as the period of the Horns that come out of it. It includes the period of Iron legs, as well as the period of Iron and Clay feet and toes. Thus, Peter could say, “But the end of all things is at hand.” It surely was, for Peter was plainly aware of the series of empires that had risen and fallen according to Daniel’s prophecy, and the Roman Empire was the Fourth Beast. Peter was living in “the latter days” of God’s people.

   The same, too, may be said of the Early Church, as they consistently noted that they were then living under the period of Roman dominance as prophesied by Daniel. As we noted in our article, “What the Fathers Feared Most,” they knew the time of the end had arrived, and only one more thing was expected—the rise of Antichrist. As we discussed in our two articles, “A See of One” and “The Fourteenth Diocese,” as well as our four-part series on The Fifth Empire, the Antichrist, the Little Horn of Daniel 7, the Beast of Revelation 13:1, arose at the end of the 4th century.”

   This is where I get lost again. I’ve seen these passages are not chronological in nature as I assumed they were running from historical to future events unfolding. It sort of makes sense, in the context of the passages and exegetical interpretation, that the discussions need to be fit into periods of time and events in history comparing Scripture with Scripture. This is the theory of proper exegetical interpretation, and is what all ministers and commentators seek to accomplish…sprinkling in history and prophetical guess work to predict the events to pass. As Peter was predicting of what would soon come to pass.

   For example, here is a good shifting frame in Dan.11:36:

   http://www.enduringword.com/commentaries/2711.htm

   Then the king shall do according to his own will: he shall exalt and magnify himself above every god, shall speak blasphemies against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the wrath has been accomplished; for what has been determined shall be done.

   a. He shall exalt and magnify himself above every god: The angel explained to Daniel that this king would blaspheme God and exalt himself until the wrath has been accomplished and what has been determined shall be done.

   b. Above every god: ***Here we shift from what was fulfilled in the Ptolemies and the Selucids to what will be fulfilled in the Antichrist, the final world dictator.*** Daniel was told that this revelation pertained to the latter days (Daniel 10:14), and Daniel 11:36 begins to look more towards this final world dictator, who is sort of a “last days Antiochus Epiphanes.”

   This shifting frame to a future Antichrist is where Roman Catholics, Evangelicals, Reformers and historians perhaps like to see events unfolding in Daniel.

   Jim has been waiting and waiting and waiting after each article totally confused as to when his Antichrist will come on the scene (Jim, likely believes he is alive in Europe and Jewish by blood) that will arise soon…perhaps any day now.

   Tim says, NO:

   “As we noted in our article, “What the Fathers Feared Most,” they knew the time of the end had arrived, and only one more thing was expected—the rise of Antichrist. As we discussed in our two articles, “A See of One” and “The Fourteenth Diocese,” as well as our four-part series on The Fifth Empire, the Antichrist, the Little Horn of Daniel 7, the Beast of Revelation 13:1, arose at the end of the 4th century.”

   The start of the end is the 4th century, and “Clearly, the depiction of “the latter days” of God’s people spans a tremendous amount of time, and clearly those latter days include the period of the Fourth Beast as well as the period of the Horns that come out of it.”

   Since Tim has fulfilled the 1260, 1290 and 1335 year (or days) periods of Daniel, and has fulfilled them here:

   “These two passages describe the same event. Daniel 12 places it squarely in the period of the Roman Empire, well after the rise of the Little Horn of Daniel 8, for he places it after “the end of the indignation.” But John places it well before the rise of the Little Horn of Daniel 7, for Michael goes to war before the people of God “shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time” (Daniel 7:25), before the Woman of Revelation 12 is nourished and fed in the wilderness “for a time, and times, and half a time,” or 1,260 days (Revelation 12:6, 14), and before the Beast has the power to “continue forty and two months” in his persecution of the saints (Revelation 13:5).”

   There should be no more future dates or times or seasons for which we can measure the reign of Antichrist, and the suffering we face with Islam and Rome against the elect, and when all this mess will be fulfilled.

   “If we can identify them, we will have found the Woman of Revelation 12. Find the Woman, and we will have located her place of refuge in the wilderness. Find the her refuge, and we will find “the remnant of her seed” with whom the Serpent continues to wage war (Revelation 12:17).”

   I’m lost in this statement, as my above earlier quote, if all has been fulfilled by the 4th century except the reign of Antichrist.

   Jim, you should be very pleased indeed. Your extremely wicked and perverse Romish system will continue on for a VERY VERY long time, and continue to persecute the saints and hopefully Pope Francis will soon become the world’s head of all religion where many more will bow, fall before him, kiss his feet, weep incredible jumbo tears just to watch him move through the crowds, etc. etc. You should be delighted that it seems the future looks very bright for Rome, Islam and all the world religions coming together against Christ with no end in sight! Jim, please, take a bow! You win.

   Reply

   1. Yes Walt, the Islamic terrorists are about to drop their suicide vests, knives and kalishnikovs and take up the romish rosary any day now.

      Reply

   2. Thanks, Walt. Your citation from the Enduring Word commentaries is a good one and is a good illustration of exactly what I have been highlighting. The commentary says,

      “Here we shift from what was fulfilled in the Ptolemies and the Selucids to what will be fulfilled in the Antichrist, the final world dictator.”

      There is nothing in the text to suggest the shift, and as I showed last week, Antiochus IV Epiphanes went right on fulfilling the prophecy. The Enduring Word commentary bases its “shifting frame” on Jesus words in Matthew 24:15.

      “We know that everything about this prophecy was not fulfilled during the career of Antiochus Epiphanes. Jesus specifically said the real abomination of desolation was still in the future (Matthew 24:15).”

      But that is not what Jesus said. He did not say “the real abomination of desolation was still in the future.” He simply said, When you see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, you should take note of it:

      “When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)” (Matthew 24:15)

      “But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,)” (Mark 13:14).

      This is not the same thing as saying “The Seventieth Week is yet future” or “the real abomination is yet future.”

      What was the abomination of Desolation? It was a statue of Jupiter, placed in the Temple by Antiochus IV in 167 B.C.. The abomination of desolation was a statue of Jupiter and sure enough, within 10 years after Jesus’ prophecy, that statue of Jupiter was back in the Holy Land. You can see my comments on this at The Seventieth Week of Daniel 9. Scroll down to Caligula’s edict. Jesus did not say the fulfillment of Daniel 9 was in the future. He knew it was already fulfilled under Antiochus. That’s how people could know what the abomination was that Daniel had foretold. When that statue came back, it was a harbinger of Judæa’s demise, and things went downhill rapidly for the Jews once the statue came back.

      I understand what you are saying when you write,

      “I’m lost in this statement, as my above earlier quote, if all has been fulfilled by the 4th century except the reign of Antichrist.”

      I do not believe that “all has been fulfilled by the 4th century except the reign of Antichrist.” The reign of Antichrist lasts 42 “months” or 1,260 years during which he is able to do as he pleases (you can see more on this in The Fifth Empire). Roman Catholicism was just the next pagan empire after the Roman Empire, and as John prophesied, the Beast had his way for 42 months (1,260 years). What is translated as “power was given unto him to continue forty and two months” (Revelation 13) is actually “power was given unto him to [do] forty and two months.” In other words, his ability to have his way as a successor to Rome lasted 42 months, at which time his position as ruler of the former Roman empire ended. As history plainly shows, Roman Catholicism came up among the 13 dioceses, took three for itself, and ruled (as a successor to the Roman Empire) until its sudden precipitous decline in 1656 under pope Alexander VII. If John is right (and he is), during that time, there should have been a faithful church in the wilderness, marked by its adherence to the Word of God and its isolation from Rome’s idolatries. That is the Woman of Revelation 12. But we will not find her if we are ever in waiting for the Abomination of Desolation to come or for the King of the North to invade Egypt. That will not happen again. It is already behind us.

      If we trace Daniel’s prophecies, there should be a Babylonian Empire (there was), a Medo-Persian Empire (there was) a Greek Empire that started with a strong king but that got split four ways (there was) and out of one of those, an antagonist who halts sacrifices and sets up the abomination of Desolation (there was), then a Fourth Empire during which the Savior comes (there was), followed by the return of the abomination shortly after His ascension (there was), followed by a 13-way division of the Roman Empire (there was) followed by the rise of a 14th entity that takes three of the 13 for itself, coming up among the remaining 10 (there was) and that entity should rule as the successor to the Roman empire for 1,260 years (it did), during which time a faithful remnant (the Woman or revelation 12) is persecuted by the Little Horn but kept safe from its errors (there was).

      But that is only Daniel’s part of the story, plus John’s reference to the Woman.

      The question we need to ask is this: “Does Scripture say it all ends immediately upon the conclusion of antichrist’s 1,260 years of doing as he pleases?” No, it does not. Nor does the Scripture say the Seals, Trumpets and Vials all occur within that 1,260 years.

      More on this later, but I do understand your statement.

      Tim

      Reply

      1. Tim wrote:

         “The question we need to ask is this: “Does Scripture say it all ends immediately upon the conclusion of antichrist’s 1,260 years of doing as he pleases?” No, it does not. Nor does the Scripture say the Seals, Trumpets and Vials all occur within that 1,260 years.”

         Ah, ha. I see where this is going…it is starting to make more sense now. It will be interesting where you see the two witnesses of Rev. 11.

         ————-
         The Two Witnesses: Their Cause, Number, Character, Furniture and Special Work (1859), David Steele

         David Steele’s, The Two Witnesses, is a great companion volume to his Notes on the Apocalypse (Revelation). Here Steele zeros in on and works primarily from the text of Revelation 11:13, “I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophecy.”

         Steele deals with testimony-bearing, Antichrist, Popery, the beasts of Revelation, the mark of the beast, 666, the image of the beast, civil and ecclesiastical apostasy, Reformation, covenanting, heresy, schism, terms of communion, slavery, sectarianism, Mormonism, Independency, freemasonry, history, worship, idolatry, Britain, the United States, Canada, mystical Babylon, the last days, the ultimate victory of the church and a host of other subjects!

         As is usually the case with Steele, he makes the doctrines of Scripture eminently practical. For example, note how the faithful witnesses are continually called to testify against open opposition to the Lord’s Covenanted Zion and the attainments of biblical Reformation (in “the faith which was once delivered unto the saints”); and against whom this testimony is directed: “(T)hese witnesses are called and commissioned to testify especially against Antichrist — a false christ, and therefore an opposing christ. But Christ is to be considered either personally or mystically; either abstractly in his personal rights and prerogatives, or in the concrete, in the rights and immunities of his church.

         There is this prejudice, too prevalent, against Christians testifying against Christians! This we are often told, is contrary to the law of charity. We have not so learned Christ. They are not all Israel which are of Israel. Much of the business of these two prophets is to oppose prophets — to prophesy against the shepherds, Ezek. 34:2. Moses with his miracles must confront the magicians with their enchantments, Exod. 8:19. Elijah must confront the prophets of Baal, 1 Kings 18:25. Paul must counteract false apostles, 2 Cor. 11:13.

         In short, the direct object of these witnesses’ testimony is apostate christendom — those who depart from the faith, 1 Tim. 4:1 — who have gone out from fellowship and renounced the doctrines of the apostolic church, 1 John 2:19. Their special work is to testify against error and its propagators and abettors, together with ungodliness, the natural fruit of error, rather than against pagans.” (The Two Witnesses, p. 14). “(T)hese two witnesses have always testified — not formally against pagans or infidels as such; but — against apostate Christians, as composing an organized and complex system of opposition to the Lord and his Anointed.

         And just here, the witnesses have detected the secret of Antichrist’s successful enterprise among the human family…”Many false prophets are gone out into the world… this is a deceiver and an Antichrist,” 2 John 7. The combination is ostensibly on the side and in the interest of Christ, and the elements of which Antichrist is composed were obviously professing Christians, “They went out from us, but they were not of us, for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us, ” I John 2:19.

         Here is the apostasy, and so the witnesses are fully borne out in asserting that Antichrist is a great Christian apostasy! To trace the origin and development, in the organization and modifications of this enemy of all righteousness, is the special work of Christ’s witnesses.” (The Two Witnesses, pp. 17-18).

         Moreover, having taken his own place “in the wilderness” (i.e. having separated himself from, and having been ostracized by the “civilization” of the obstinately defecting RPCNA and other unfaithful denominations of his day [2 Thes. 3:6;14-15; Rev. 12:6; 17:3]), it was given to Steele to see and expound those grand old principles of our covenanted forefathers (who sat at Westminster and in the best Reformed churches during both the first and second Reformations — the Scottish Presbyterians being granted the greatest measure of light as a settled body from 1638-1649).

         Thus, if you are interested in Reformation eschatology, with some of the strongest possible application, individually and corporately (in keeping with the body of Reformed truth), it is unlikely that you will find a better introduction to these topics than this! As an additional bonus we have added Steele’s 19 page debate with James M. Willson (a prominent RPCNA minister) to this book, along with a number of other pertinent documents. Since Steele references this theological clash in his preface to the Two Witnesses this makes a fitting appendix to add to this work.

         We hope that you obtain and study this fine work — and that you will find it edifying, as well as a useful weapon in your battle with the beasts of Revelation.

         46 pages.

         Reply

3. Jim says:

   “Yes Walt, the Islamic terrorists are about to drop their suicide vests, knives and kalishnikovs and take up the romish rosary any day now.”

   History and Ministers of Christ say:

   “It is the bounden duty of every Christian to pray against Antichrist, and as to what Antichrist is no sane man ought to raise a question. If it be not the popery in the Church of Rome there is nothing in the world that can be called by that name. If there were to be issued a hue and cry for Antichrist, we should certainly take up this church on suspicion, and it would certainly not be let loose again, for it so exactly answers the description.”
   – Charles Spurgeon

   “There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.”
   – Original Westminster Confession of Faith 25:6, “Of the Church”, without the unbiblical editing of portions of this text done by unfaithful post-Reformation editors and backslidden churches.

   “Christmas was not celebrated by the apostolic church. It was not celebrated during the first few centuries of the church. As late as A.D. 245, Origen (Hom. 8 on Leviticus) repudiated the idea of keeping the birthday of Christ, “as if he were a king Pharaoh.” By the middle of the 4th century, many churches in the Latin west were celebrating Christmas. During the 5th century, Christmas became an official Roman Catholic holy day. In A.D. 534, Christmas was recognized as an official holy day by the Roman state. The reason that Christmas became a church holy day has nothing to do with the Bible. The Bible does not give the date of Christ’s birth. Nowhere in the Bible are we commanded to celebrate Christmas. Christmas (as well as many other pagan practices) was adopted by the Roman church as a missionary strategy.” – The Regulative Principle of Worship and Christmas by Brian Schwertley

   “Wycliffe, Tyndale, Luther, Calvin, Cranmer; in the seventeenth century, Bunyan, the translators of the King James Bible and the men who published the Westminster and Baptist confessions of Faith; Sir Isaac Newton… Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards; and more recently Charles Spurgeon, J.C. Ryle and Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones; these men among countless others, all saw the office of the Papacy as the antichrist.” – Michael de Semlyen, All Roads Lead to Rome, p. 205, 1991.

   For example, William Tyndale, in “The Practice of Prelates” and in the Preface to the 1534 edition of the New Testament identified the Papacy as Antichrist. For this, and other reasons, he was condemned by the Papal Antichrist, strangled, and burned at the stake.

   “The Counter Reformation is generally considered to have three aspects: the Jesuits, the Inquisition, and the Council of Trent. In view of the significance of the Protestant apocalyptic interpretation of history which prophetically pinpointed step by step the events covering the whole Christian era from the beginning to the end (i.e. Historicism-ed.), it seems justifiable to suggest a fourth aspect, namely the preteristic (Preterism-ed.) and futuristic (Futurism-ed.) interpretations launched by Catholic expositors as a counterattack.” – Kevin Reed, from his book review titled “The Ecclesiology of John Foxe: A book review by Kevin Reed of John Foxe and the Elizabethan Church by V. Norskov Olsen, 1973, citing Olsen on page 47.

   —————–

   Historical study on dates predicted….lesson to learn!

   An Inquiry Into the Times That Shall Be Fulfilled at Antichrist’s Fall; The Church’s Blessedness in Her Millennial Rest; The Signs that this Happy Season is at Hand; The Prophetic Number Contained in the 1335 Days; and the Christian’s Duty, at this Interesting Crisis: in Five Discourses (1818)

   An Inquiry Into the Times That Shall Be Fulfilled at Antichrist’s Fall, by Archibald Mason, deals with the author’s view of the overthrow of Antichrist, when the millennium will begin and what will transpire leading up to that time.

   Though this book illustrates how some historicists have erred in the specifics of their interpretation (especially regarding their “guesses” at exact dates), works like this can be very instructive for drawing out the larger Scriptural context of historicist thought — as the system does not stand or fall on any individual chronological expectations, but on its fidelity to Scripture concerning the larger prophetic issues (dating eccentricities notwithstanding). The practical exhortations to Godliness found herein are also of continued value and unaffected by the work’s few shortcomings.

   Reply

4. Antichrist’s New Strategy – Roman Catholic Agenda Embedded In Manhattan Declaration by Richard Bennett

   “It is no coincidence that the ecumenical agenda of the Pope appears in the Manhattan Declaration. This Declaration is as important as the proclamation that launched the ‘Evangelicals and Catholics Together’ (ECT) movement in 1994. … the Manhattan Declaration is only the latest step in the downgrade into implementing Catholic social doctrine. There is yet another purpose; one primarily stated in Vatican Council II and post-Vatican Council II documents. Through the use of social issues, the Roman Catholic Church seeks to draw true Evangelical Bible-believers into itself so that there can be no opposition by them on the fundamental issues of the authority of the Bible alone and the Gospel. In order to soften up the Evangelicals in their separation from the Catholics on biblical doctrinal issues, particularly the authority of the Bible alone and the Gospel, the Catholic modus operandi calls for using social issues on which both Evangelicals and Catholics agree as preliminary common ground… The Roman Catholic Church’s primary goal is to make enforceable its claim that it is the only true church of Jesus Christ and its pope, the claimed ‘Vicar of Christ,’ has the right to judge everybody, as he did during the Middle Ages. … the Manhattan Declaration itself must be read in the context of its Website if one is to comprehend what one is about to sign… In recognizing and signing onto MD, Evangelicals are sanctioning the Roman Catholic system and Orthodoxy as ‘Christian.’ This is something they should have refused to do.” – Richard Bennett

   Reply

5. An amazing book compiled to show how — and especially why (from their own dying testimonies) — the Covenanters suffered, bled and died. These brave martyrs for Christ laid the foundation for liberty and truth in both church and state. John Thomson, 663 Pages

   An amazing book compiled to show how — and especially why (from their own dying testimonies) — the Covenanters suffered, bled and died. These brave martyrs for Christ laid the foundation for liberty and truth in both church and state.

   They have much to say to us today, as Satanic civil and ecclesiastical tyranny is always ready to burst forth — witness the state sanctioned abortion holocaust; state encroachment into Christian and home schools; legalization of blasphemy in movies, on TV, in newspapers, in music, etc.; Sabbath desecration; whoremongers, liars and covenant breakers in civil office; the legalization of sodomy; the public toleration of gross heresy, blasphemy, idolatry (especially in the Papal antichrist), antichristian religions, satanism, etc.

   Though the issues and ferocity of persecution (by the Popes, prelates, and Erastians) were more obvious during the times covered in this book, the message to contemporary Christians could not be clearer: we are involved in a life and death struggle.

   Few books are this moving or this edifying — a real treasure! (1884 ed.).

   Reply

6. The Two Babylons or the Papal Worship Proved to Be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife (1916), Alexander Hislop, 352 Pages.

   Contrasts the distinctive characteristics of the truth with the lies and idolatry of the Roman antichrist.

   Chapters cover the “Objects of Worship,” “Festivals,” “Doctrine and Discipline,” “Rites and Ceremonies,” “Religious Orders,” and the development of the two systems considered “Historically and Prophetically.”

   The prophetic section is especially interesting and shows how far Protestants have moved into Rome’s camp concerning eschatology. The whole book, in fact, shows in a most explicit manner how much Romanism has infected the modern Protestant churches and their thinking.

   And as Hislop notes, “it has been known all along that Popery was baptised Paganism; but God is now making it manifest, that the Paganism which Rome has baptised is, in all its essential elements, the very Paganism which prevailed in the ancient literal Babylon, when Jehovah opened before Cyrus the two-leaved gates of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron.”

   A welcome rebuke to those who would offer the right hand of fellowship to the “beast from the sea.”

   352 pages.

   Reply

7. Covenanting Pilgrimages and Studies (1911), A. B. Todd, 298 Pages.

   Todd’s Covenanting Pilgrimages and Studies was written after the author’s two volumes, The Homes, Haunts, and Battlefields of the Covenanters. It represents Todd’s continuing studies and contains some new information regarding incidents and people noted in the earlier volumes. This is especially true concerning the portrayal of Alexander Peden.

   Others Covenanters covered include James Renwick, Donald Cargill, Sharp, the Howies, and many more. The story regarding Samuel Rutherford’s “two witnesses” is classic Scottish lore. Official acts (e.g. the proceedings surrounding the signing of Covenants), martyrdoms, Declarations, battles, etc., are all covered.

   Reply

8. The Two Sons of Oil; or, the Faithful Witness for Magistracy and Ministry upon a Scriptural Basis (1850, third edition) by Samuel Wylie, 100 pages

   Samuel Wylie’s The Two Sons of Oil is a Covenanter classic opening Revelation 11:3-4 and Zechariah 4:14. It has been hailed as the “best presentation of the position of the Covenanter Church that has been written.”

   Noting that the “[t]ime has been, when the whole body of Presbyterians, in Scotland, England, and Ireland, unanimously subscribed” to these principles, “[f]or civil and ecclesiastical reformation” and that thousands bled and died for the glorious covenanted cause of civil and ecclesiastical reformation; Wylie sets out to explain and defend “that cause. Not because it is an ancient cause; not because many have sealed it with their blood; but, because,” as he says, “I thought it the doctrine of the Bible, and the cause of Christ.”

   This book explains how to tell if a government (especially a civil government) is faithful to Christ and thus to be obeyed for conscience’s sake. It also gives direction regarding when and how to resist (and disassociate yourself from) governments which get their power from “the beast.”

   Moreover, it gives clear testimony as to what the Bible requires of civil magistrates, noting “that civil rulers should exercise their power in protecting and defending the religion of Jesus.” It also gives plain reasons why dissent from the government of the United States (and other covenant breaking nations) is the legitimate Scriptural pattern.

   All these ideas are intricately intertwined with the Reformation understanding of eschatology and demonstrate once again the importance of a proper understanding of the Reformation eschatology of Scripture.

   100 pages.

   Reply

9. Concerning the complete 34 volume set of Puritan Fast Sermons (1640-1653), republished by SWRB, Dr. Joel Beeke and Randall Pederson write,

   “This is a collection of sermons preached to England’s Parliament during the glory days of the Puritan preaching on days of public humiliation… These sermons richly combine prayer and thanksgiving on England’s behalf. They encourage and admonish Parliament to govern in the fear of God. The volumes include sermons of preachers who were frequently invited to Parliament, including William Ames, Samuel Bolton, William Bridge, Thomas Brooks, Anthony Burgess, Jeremiah Burroughs, Joseph Caryl, Thomas Goodwin, William Greenhill, Christopher Love, Thomas Manton, Stephen Marshall, Philip Nye, John Owen, Obadiah Sedgwick, and Ralph Venning (and many others – RB)” (from pages 632-633 of the important and useful book by Beeke and Pederson on Puritanism and Puritan books, entitled, Meet the Puritans: With a Guide To Modern Reprints).

   This remarkable set of rare Puritan sermons is made up of facsimile copies of sermons preached before the “Long Parliament” in England during the second Reformation — on appointed fast days between 1640 and 1653.
   Many famous Puritans, as well as Scottish Covenanters and Westminster Divines, were called upon to deliver these important messages to the civil rulers (and nations, when these sermons were later distributed in print format) of that day.

   A free online MP3 (audio) sample of one of these sermons, by George Gillespie (one of the Scottish commissioners attending the Westminster Assembly) is available at http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=103006312. This sermon is titled “Reformation’s Refining Fire; or, Iconoclastic Zeal Necessary to World Reformation.”

   The quote below should also help you to appreciate the spirit of these days of Reformation, while also illustrating the zeal and dedication that the Lord gave both the preaches and those who heard them,

   “Another important thing to note about the Westminster Divines (and indeed of many Christians living in those days) is that they were men of prayer. During the time when the Assembly was meeting, Parliament held regular Fast Days on the last Wednesday of every month. Here’s an example of how Puritan Fast Days were conducted:

   “It was upon these occasions his (John Howe’s) common way to begin about nine in the morning with prayer for about a quarter of an hour in which he begged a blessing on the work of the day: and afterward read and expounded a chapter or psalm in which he spent three-quarters of an hour. Then he prayed for about an hour, preached for another hour and prayed for about half an hour. After this he retired and took some little refreshment for about a quarter of an hour more (the people singing all the while) and then came again into the pulpit and prayed for another hour and gave them another sermon of about an hour’s length, and so concluded the service of the day at about four of the clock in the evening with about half an hour or more in prayer.

   The seven hours of such a service included about three and a quarter hours of prayer and two and three quarter hours of preaching. The Parliamentary Fast Days likewise tended to have even more prayer than preaching, sometimes with two one-hour sermons and two prayers of two hours length each! (emphases added)”

   – Linus Chua, The Westminster Confession of Faith: A Brief Historical Survey of the Westminster Assembly and Standards.

   The following 238 sermons are contained in the 34-Volume Set of Puritan Fast Sermons:

   (1) A Peace-Offering to God by Stephen Marshall
   (2) A Sermon by Stephen Marshall
   (3) Another Sermon by Cornelius Burges
   (4) Sions Joy by Jeremiah Burroughes
   (5) The First Sermon by Cornelius Burges
   (6) The Love of Truth and Peace by John Gauden.
   (7) England’s Looking-Glasse by Edmund Calamy
   (8) Gods free Mercy to England: Presented as a Pretious, and Powerfull motive to Humiliation by Edmund Calamy
   (9) Meroz Cursed by Stephen Marshall
   (10) Reformation and Desolation by Stephen Marshall
   (11) The Best Refuge for the Most Oppressed by Simeon Ash
   (12) The Necessity and Benefit of Washing the Heart by Cornelius Burges
   (13) The Workes of Ephesus by Joseph Caryl
   (14) Zerubbabels Encouragement to Finish the Temple by Thomas Goodwin.
   (15) A Sermon by Robert Harris
   (16) England’s Preservation by Obadiah Sedgwicke
   (17) Israels Peace with God, Beniamines Overthrow by William Carter
   (18) Israels Petition in Time of Trouble by Edward Reynoldes
   (19) The Trade of Truth Advanced by Thomas Hill
   (20) Zions Deliverance and Her Friends Dutyby William Sedgwicke.
   (21) A Glimpse of God’s Glory by Thomas Hodges
   (22) A Payre of Compasses for Church and State by Charles Herle
   (23) Calebs Integrity by Richard Vines
   (24) Christs Government in and over His People by Thomas Temple
   (25) Gods Rising, His Enemies Scattering by Thomas Case
   (26) Jerichoes Down-Fall by Thomas Wilson
   (27) The Craft and Cruelty of the Churches Adversaries by Matthew Newcomen.
   (28) A Sermon by Thomas Valentine
   (29) Eirenopoios, Christ the Settlement of Unsettled Times by Jeremiah Whittaker
   (30) Elias Redivius by John Lightfoot
   (31) God’s Providence, A Sermon by Edward Corbett
   (32) Ioabs Counsell and King Davids Seasonable Hearing It by Walter Bridges
   (33) The Covenant-Avenging Sword by John Arrowsmith
   (34) The Sole Path to A Sound Peace by John Ellis.
   (35) Davids Song of Three Parts by Charles Herle
   (36) Gospell Courage by Andrew Perne
   (37) Hamans Vanity by Obadiah Sedgwick
   (38) Sions Memento and Gods Alarum by Francis Cheynell
   (39) The Axe at the Root by William Greenhill
   (40) The Fury of Warre and Folly of Sinne by John Ley
   (41) The Noble-mans Patterne by Edmund Calamy
   (42) The Song of Moses by Stephen Marshall.
   (43) Englands patterne and Duty in its Monthly Fasts – William Spurstow
   (44) Jerusalem’s Watchmen by Matthew Newcomen
   (45) Prayers Prevalencie for Israels Safety by Thomas Carter
   (46) Reformations Preservation by Sidrach Simpson
   (47) The Militant Church, Triumphant over the Dragon and His Angels – Thomis Hill
   (48) The Necessity and Encouragement, of Utmost Venturing for the Churches Help by Herbert Palmer
   (49) The Woe and Weale of God’s People by John Conant
   (50) Zeale for Gods House Quickened by Oliver Bowles.
   (51) A Divine Ballance to Weigh Religious Fast In by Humphrey Chambers
   (52) Babylons Ruine, Jerusalems Rising by Heny Wilkinson
   (53) Halting Stigmatiz’d by Arthur Salwey
   (54) The Balme of Gilead by Anthony Tuckney
   (55) The Christian’s Course and Complaint by Thomas Coleman
   (56) The Difficulty of, and Encouragements to a Reformation by Anthony Burgess
   (57) The Hearts Ingagement by Thomas Colman
   (58) The Nature, Solemnity, Grounds, Property, and Benefit of a Sacred Covenant by Joseph Caryl
   (59) A Sermon by Alexander Henderson
   (60) A Sermon by Samuel Rutherford
   (61) A Sermon by William Bridge
   (62) Gods Work of Mercy, in Sions Misery by John Strickland
   (63) The Good Man a Publick Good by Daniel Cawdrey
   (64) The Robbing and Spoiling of Jacob and Israel by William Mewe
   (65) Threnodia – The Churches Lamentation by Stephen Marshall.
   (66) A Sermon by George Gillespie
   (67) A Thanksgiving Sermon by Obadiah Sedgewick
   (68) Hopes Incouragement by Thomas Young
   (69) Salvation in a Mystery by John Bond
   (70) Satan the Leader in Chief to all who resist the reparation of Sion – Robert Baylie
   (71) The Root of Apostacy and Fountian of True Fortitude by Thomas Case
   (72) The Saints Thankfull Acclamation at Christs Resumption of His Great Power and the Initials of his Kingdome by Joseph Caryl
   (73) A Sermon by Alexander Henderson
   (74) A Sermon by Peter Smith
   (75) Heaven Ravished: or A Glorious Prize, atchieved by an Heroically Enterprize by Henry Hall
   (76) Magnalia Dei ab Aquilone by Richard Vines
   (77) Nehemiahs Teares and Prayers for Judahs Affliction, And the ruines and repaire of Jerusalem by John Greene
   (78) Rupes Israelis: The Rock of Israel by Edmund Staunton
   (79) The Difficulty of Sions Deliverance and Reformation: Together With the activitie which her friends should manifest, during the time that her Cause is in agitation by Humphrey Hardwick
   (80) The Glory and Beauty of Gods Portion by Gaspar Hickes.
   (81) A Sermon tending To set forth the Right Use of the Disasters that befall our Armies by Matthew Newcomen
   (82) Babylon’s Ruining-Earthquake and the Restauration of Zion by William Reyner
   (83) Gods unusually Answer To a Solemne Fast or, Some Observations upon the late sad success in the West, upon the day immediately following our Publique Humiliation by Thomas Coleman
   (84) Hierusalem: or a Vision of Peace by Christopher Tesdale
   (85) The Glasse of Gods Providence toward his Faithfull Ones by Herbert Palmer
   (86) The Season for Englands Selfe-Reflection and Advancing Temple-work by Thomas Hill
   (87) Things Now-a-doing: or, The Churches Travaile of the Child of Reformation now-a-bearing by Stanley Gower.
   (88) An Arke against a Deluge. or Safety in Dangerous Times by Obadiah Sedgwicke
   (89) Christ’s Warning-Piece: Giving notice to every one to Watch, and keep their Garments by Francis Woodcock
   (90) Englands Antidote, against the Plague of Civil Warre by Edmund Calamy
   (91) Englands Impenitencie under Smiting, Causing anger to continue, and the destroying hand of God to be stretched forth still by Nicolas Proffet
   (92) Gods warning to England by the Voyce of his Rod by Henry Scudder
   (93) Phinehas’s Zeal in Execution of Iudgement. or A Divine Remedy for
   (94) Englands Misery by Edmund Staunton
   (94) Solomons Choice: or A President for Kings and Princes, and all that are in Authority by Lazarus Seaman
   (95) The Posture of Davids Spirit When he was in a doubtfull condition by Richard Vines.
   (96) A Firebrand Pluckt Out of the Burning by Benjamin Pikering
   (97) A Sermon by George Gipps
   (98) Davids Reserve, and Rescue by Charles Herle
   (99) England’s Eminent Judgements, causd By the abuse of Gods Eminent Mercies by William Spurstowe
   (100) Immanuel, or The Church Triumphing in God With Us by John Strickland
   (101) Rome’s Cruelty & Apostacie by Anthony Burgess
   (102) The Gainefull Cost by Henry Wilkinson
   (103) The Right Separation Incouraged by Thomas Hill.
   (104) A Catalogue of the Sermons That have been Printed by Order of both or either House of Parliament on dayes of Publike Humiliation, either Monethly, or on particular occasions
   (105) A Sermon by George Walker
   (106) A Sermon by John Maynard
   (107) An Indictment Against England because of her selfe-murdering divisions: Together with an Exhortation to an England-perserving Unity and Concord by Edmund Calamy
   (108) Gemitus Columbae: The Mournfull Note of the Dove by John Langley
   (109) Gods Call to Weep and Mourning by John Whincop
   (110) Moderation Justified, and the Lords being at Hand Emproved by Thomas Thorowgood
   (111) The Church Sinking, Saved by Christ by Simeon Ash
   (112) Discovering the Vanity and Mischief of the Thoughts of an Heart unwashed by Cornelius Burges
   (113) Englands Eben-ezer or, Stone of Help. Set up in thankfull acknowledgement of the Lords having helps us hitherto. More especially, For a memoriall of that help, which the Parliaments Forces lately received at Shresbury, Weymouth, and elsewhere by John Arrowsmith
   (114) Gods Judging Among the Gods by John Ward
   (115) Gods Master-Piece – A Sermon Tending to manifest Gods glorious appearing in the building up of Zion by Stephen Marshall
   (116) The Discoverie of a Publique Spirit by William Goode
   (117) The Happiness of Israel by Richard Vines
   (118) The Man of Honour by Francis Cheynell
   (119) The Strong Helper or, The interest, and power of the Prayers of the destitute, for the building up of Sion by Stephen Marshall.
   (120) A Sacred Record to be made of Gods Mercies to Zion by Stephen Marshall
   (121) A Sermon by Alexander Henderson
   (122) A Sermon by Samuel Rutherford
   (123) The Arraignment of Unbelief as The Grand Cause of Our National Non-establishment by Joseph Caryl
   (124) The Christians Hope Triumphing by Jeremiah Whitaker
   (125) The Good-Will of Him that Dwelt in the Bush: or The extraordinary Happinesse of living under an extraordinary Providence by John Ward
   (126) Zion’s Answer to the Nations Ambassadors, According to Instructions given by Isaiah from God’s mouth by Richard Byfield.
   (127) A Sermon by George Gillespie
   (128) A Sermon by John Lightfoot
   (129) A Sermon by Thomas Case
   (129B) Errours and Induration are the Great Sins and the Great Judgements of the Time by Robert Baylie
   (130) Hopes Deferred and Dashed by Thomas Coleman
   (131) Lex Talionis: or God Paying Every man in his own Coyn by Francis Woodcock
   (132) Ortus Occidentalis: or a Dawning in the West by John Bond
   (133) The Reformation of the Church To be endeavoured more then that of the Common-wealth by Anthony Burges.
   (134) Gods Covenant the Churches Plea by Francis Taylor
   (135) Israels Tears for Distressed Zion by John Whincop
   (136) Mercy Rejoycing against Judgement: or God waiting to be gracious to a sinfull Nation by John Strickland
   (137) The Life and Death of David by William Strode
   (138) The Necessity of Agreement with God by Cornelius Burges
   (139) The Progresse of Divine Providence by William Gouge
   (140) The Ruine of the Authors and Fomentors of Civill Warres by Samuel Gibson.
   (141) A Sermon by Jeremiah Burroughes
   (142) Israels Call to March out of Babylon unto Jerusalem by John Durye
   (143) The Danger of Greatness: or, Uzziah His Exaltation and Destruction by Jeremiah Whitaker
   (144) The Good of a good Government and Well Grounded Pease by John Foxcroft
   (145) The Spirits Conviction of Sinne by Peter Sterry
   (146) The Troubles of Jerusalems Restauration, or, The Churches Reformation by John White
   (147) The day of Revelation of the righteous judgement of God by William Strong
   (148) A Model of True Spiritual Thankfulnesse by Thomas Case
   (149) Heaven and Earth Embracing; or, God and Man Approaching by Joseph Caryl
   (150) Joseph Paralled by the present Parliament, in his sufferings and advancement by Francis Woodcock
   (151) Joy Out-joyed or, Joy in overcoming evil spirits and evil men, Overcome by better Joy by Joseph Caryl
   (152) The Advantage of Afflictions by Gaspar Hicks
   (153) The Noble Order, or, The Honour which God conferr’s on them that Honour Him by Daniel Evance
   (154) The Purifying of the Unclean Hearts and Hands by Richard Vines.
   (155) A Plot for the Good of Posterity by Francis Cheynell
   (156) Deliverance-Obstruction: or, The Set backs of Reformation by Thomas Case
   (157) Publick Affections by Anthony Burgesse
   (158) Reformation’s Remora; or, Temporizing the stop of building the Temple by William Jenkyn
   (159) The Great Interest of States & Kingdomes by Thomas Goodwin
   (160) The Sinfulnes of Sin by Samuel Bolton.
   (161) A Vision of Unchangeable free mercy, in sending the means of grace to undeserved sinners by John Owen
   (162) Delay of Reformation Provoking Gods further Indignation by James Nalton
   (163) Englands Plus ultra, Both of Hoped Mercies,and of Required Duties by Joseph Caryl
   (164) Gods Doings, and Mans Duty by Hugh Peters
   (165) Queen Esthers Resolves: or A Princely Pattern of Heaven-born Resolution, For all the Lovers of god and their Country by Richard Heyricke
   (166) The Danger of Vowes neglected, and The necessitie of Reformation by Francis Taylor
   (167) The Palace of Justice Opened and Set to View by Samuel Torshel.
   (168) A Sermon by Jeremiah Burroughes
   (169) Deliverance in the Birth by Samuel Bolton
   (170) Miranda, Stupenda. or The Wonderful and astonishing Mercies which the Lord hath wrought for England, in subduing and captivating the pride, power and poly of his enemies by Henry Wilkinson
   (171) The Duty & Honour of Church-Restores by Herbert Palmer
   (172) The Hearse of the Renowned, the Right Honourable Robert Earle of Essex by Richard Vines
   (173) The Saints Fulnesse of Joy in their fellowship with God by Walter Cradock.
   (174) A Sermon by Nicholas Lockyer
   (175) A Two-edged Sword out of The Mouth of Babes, to Execute vengeance upon the Enemy and Avenger by Stephen Marshall
   (176) A broken Spirit, Gods Sacrifices. Or, The Gratefulnesse of a Broken Spirit unto God by Francis Roberts
   (177) A shadow of the Victory of Christ, Represented to the Honourable House of Commons by John Maynard
   (178) Mans Delinquencie Attended by Divine Justice Intermixt with Mercy by William Price
   (179) Right Reformation: or, The Reformation of the Church of the New Testament Represented in Gospel-Light by William Dell
   (180) The Commemoration and Exaltation of Mercy by William Strong
   (181) The Saints Hiding-Place In the time of Gods Anger by William Bridge.
   (182) A Sleeping Sickness the distemper of the Times: As it was discovered in its Curse and Cure by William Jenkyn
   (183) A great Wonder in Heaven: Or, A lively Picture of the Militant Church, Drawn by a divine Pencill by John Arrowsmith
   (184) Jacob Raised: Or, The means of making a Nation happy in spiritual and temporal Priviledges by William Goode
   (185) Sinne’s Discovery and Revenge by Thomas Horton
   (186) The All-Seeing Unseen Eye of God by Matthew Newcomen
   (187) The Head of the Church, the Judge of the World. Or, The Doctrine of the Day of Judgement by Lazarus Seaman
   (188) The Nature and Danger of Heresies by Obadiah Sedgwick
   (189) The Right Understanding of the Times by Stephen Marshall.
   (190) A Sermon by John Lightfoot
   (191) The Arraignment of Licentious Libertie, and Oprressing Tyrannie by Nathanial Hardy
   (192) The Authours, Nature and Danger of Haeresie by Richard Vines
   (193) The Churches Duty, for received Mercies by John Greene
   (194) The Growth and Spreading of Haeresie by Thomas Hodges
   (195) The Way to the Highest Honour by William Strong.
   (196) A Charge Against the Jews and the Christian world, for not coming to Christ, who would have freely given them Eternal Life by Thomas Valentine
   (197) A Sermon by Ralph Cudworth
   (198) Gods Incomparable Goodness unto Israel by Simeon Ash
   (199) Lux & Lex or the Light and the Law of Jacobs House by Robert Johnson
   (200) Spirituall Whordom Discovered in a Sermon by Thomas Case
   (201) The Magistrates Charge for the Peoples Safetie by William Hussey
   (202) The Trust and Accunt of a Steward by William Strong
   (203) Vae-Euge-Tuba or The Wo-Joy-Trumpet, Sounding the third and greatest woe to the Antichristian world, but the first and last joy to the Church of the Saints upon Christs exaltation over the Kingdomes of the World by George Hughes.
   (204) A Sermon by Nathaniel Ward
   (205) A Sermon by Stephen Marshall
   (206) Christ’s Counsell to Poore and naked Soules, that they might bee well furnished with pure Gold, and richly clad with white Raiment by Thomas Valentine
   (207) England Saved with a Notwithstanding by William Bridge
   (208) Meate Out of the Eater Or, Hopes of Unity in and by divided and distracted Times by Thomas Manton
   (209) The Clouds in which Christ Comes by Peter Sterry.
   (210) A Sermon by Steven Marshall
   (211) A Sure Stay for a Sinking State by Richard Kentish
   (212) Christ’s Coming by William Bridge
   (213) Emmanuel: A Thanksgiving Sermon by Stephen Marshall
   (214) Light in Darkness by William Carter
   (215) Self-Surrender unto God by Simeon Ashe
   (216) The Teachings of Christ In The Soule by Peter Sterry.
   (217) A Christian Standing & Moving Upon the true Foundation. or, A word in season by Matthew Barker
   (218) A Sermon by Samuel Anneley
   (219) Englands Spirituall Languishing with The Causes and Cure by Thomas Manton
   (220) Eshcol, Or Grapes (among) Thorns by John Bond
   (221) The Right Way: Or, A Direction for Obtaining good Success in a weighty Enterprise by William Gouge
   (222) The Sinne of Hardnesse of Heart: The Nature, Danger, and Remedy of it by Stephen Marshall.
   (223) A Sermon by John Owen
   (224) Flesh Expiring, and the Spirit Inspiring in the New Earth: Or God Himself, supplying the room of withered Powers, judging and inheriting all Hantions by George Cokayn
   (225) Gods Anatomy upon Mans Heart by Thomas Watson
   (226) Gods Delight in the Progress of the Upright… by Thomas Brooks
   (227) Gods Wisdom Justified, and Mans Folly Condemned by John Cardell
   (228) The Potent Potter by John Warren
   (229) The Shaking and Translating of Heaven and Earth by John Owen.
   (230) Christ Exalted above all Creatures by God His Father by Vavsor Powell
   (231) Jerusalem Fatall to her Assailants by William Cooper
   (232) The Commings Forth of Christ In the Power of his Death by Peter Sterry
   (233) The Hypocrite Detected, Anatomized, impeached, arraigned, and condemned before the Parliament of England. Or, A Word in Season… by Thomas Brooks
   (234) The Stefastness of Promises, And the Sinfulness of Staggering by John Owen.
   (235) A Sermon by John Owen
   (236) England’s Deliverance From the Northern Presbytery, Compared With its Deliverance from the Roman Papacy by Peter Sterry
   (237) The Advantage of the Kingdome of Christ in the Shaking of the Kingdoms of the World: Or, Providentiall. Alternations in their Subserviency to Christ’s Exaltation by John Owen.

   Hugh Trevor-Roper in The Crisis of the Seventeenth Century, Chapter 6, “The Fast Sermons of the Long Parliament,” gives us some useful context to these fast sermons in the selected quotes below (emphases added throughout).

   “It was an observation of that time,” wrote Clarendon of the Puritan Revolution, “that the first publishing of extraordinary news was from the pulpit; and by the preacher’s text, and his manner of discourse upon it, the auditors might judge, and commonly foresaw, what was like to be next done in the Parliament or Council of State.”

   General fasts, with appropriate sermons, were, of course, nothing new in 1640. Great occasions had always called them forth. There had been a general fast on the approach of the Armada in 1588, a weekly fast in 1603 until the plague was over, and another general fast for the great plague of 1625. More recently, fasts had also been held at the beginning of Parliament. The first episode in this history comes at the very beginning of the Parliament. When Parliament met, its very first act was to propose a general fast. . . . All business was to be suspended. There were to be sermons morning and afternoon. . . . At the same time the House of Commons, following earlier precedents, also appointed a day on which all its members should take the sacrament and listen to further sermons.

   Thus from the start the stage was set. . . . Pym ‘s message: from his earliest days in Parliament he had advocated a “covenant” among the enemies of popery and tyranny. Now both Burges and Marshall sang to the same tune. In the universal peril, said Marshall, all hope lay in a covenant such as had been made to defend religion in the days of Queen Elizabeth. It was not enough, added Burges, “to pull down and cut off some of the Nimrods” who had invaded English laws and liberties: “there must be a thorough joining of themselves to God by covenant.”

   Thus the regular series of “monthly fasts” began. They would continue for seven years. The routine was soon established. When one ceremony was over, the next would be prepared. The two Houses would separately choose and invite their preachers. The invitation of the Lords was impersonal, that of the Commons conveyed by named members -neighbours, friends, kinsmen: presumably their original sponsors. Sometimes, of course, there were refusals and substitutes had to be found. When the fast-day came, official parliamentary business was omitted or cut down to a minimum. The Lords normally gathered in King Henry VII’s chapel of Westminster Abbey, the Commons in St. Margaret’s, Westminster. The two preachers delivered the sermons, one in the morning, one in the afternoon. The ceremonies were open to all: unless expressly excluded by a parliamentary order, the public was free to attend and (according to the fashion of the time) to take notes of the sermons. Next day, or within a few days, votes of thanks would be passed and conveyed to the preachers, generally with a request to print their sermons, by named members, generally their original sponsors. Then the process was repeated. Similar ceremonies took place all over the country. Nor was it only on the last Wednesday of the month that Parliament subjected itself and the people to this heavy dose of religion. Special crises called forth special fasts also: fasts to celebrate the opening of the Westminster Assembly, to desire blessings on the parliamentary armies when in difficulty, to persuade God to remove “a great judgment of rain and waters” or “abundance of rain and unseasonable weather,” and to abate such calamities as the miseries of Scotland during the triumphs of Montrose, the incidence of the plague, divers crying sins and enormities of the Church, the spread of heresies and blasphemies, etc. There were also, when occasion called for them, special days of thanksgiving. All these entailed special sermons, whose preachers were chosen, thanked and invited to print in the same way.

   There was also, in London, a good supply of preachers. From the start, as “scandalous” ministers were ejected, country preachers, encouraged by their local Members of Parliament, poured in to compete for their places, and from 1643 the Westminster Assembly provided a constant reservoir of clerical talent . . . . . . The preacher was John Arrowsmith, who had been proposed by Pym ‘s step-brother, Francis Rous. His text was Leviticus xxvi.25, “I shall bring a sword upon you, that shall avenge the quarrel of my covenant,” and his message was that bloody civil wars were peculiar signs of God’s blessing on a country, and that England, having now been singled out for this favour, must fight it out, exacting “like for like and, particularly, blood for blood (Rev.xvi.5 -6).” After listing the sins which called most loudly for blood, and which included especially the neglect of God’s covenant and disrespect for its messengers, the clergy, he gave his specific instructions. He reminded his hearers that the English victory over the Scots at Musselburgh, a century before, had been won at the hour when Parliament, in London, ordered the burning of “idolatrous images.” Thus if Pym held out his right hand to treat with the king, with his left he pointed the way to a more radical war and a new campaign of iconoclasm. Five days later he emphasized his threat by pushing through Parliament an ordinance abolishing episcopacy and including the ratification of the ordinance in the terms of the treaty.

   Ellis was chiefly concerned to expose the dangers of “a false peace” – that is, one which did not guarantee the future by “putting Christ into the treaty.” He urged his hearers to remember the message of his predecessor Mr. Arrowsmith and make no peace till the false brethren and enemies of Christ had been trodden down . . .

   On 24 April Sir Robert Harley asked for a committee to destroy superstitious monuments in London churches and himself at once set about the work. Two days later it was among headless statues and shivered stained-glass windows that the Commons gathered in St. Margaret’s to hear the monthly fast sermons. The first, appropriately enough, was by a protege of Harley himself, a country clergyman from Cheshire who served up the now familiar texts “Curse ye Meroz” and “Cursed be he that keepeth his sword back from blood.” The second was by William Greenhill, another of Bishop Wren’s victims, famous for his commentary on Ezekiel. His sermon once again was a pointer to immediate policy. He chose the ominous text, “The axe is laid to the root of the tree.”

   Like Samuel Fairclough two years before, Greenhill demanded “justice on delinquents.” Indeed he referred back explicitly to the execution of Strafford. “When your justice fell upon that great cedar-tree above a year and a half ago,” he cried, “did not all England tremble?” And now too much time had passed without a second stroke. Though great “delinquents” still lived, the executioner’s axe had culpably been allowed to rust. That was most improper. However, he added, regretfully, “if justice be at a stand and cannot take hold of living delinquents to keep the axe from rust, let justice be executed upon lifeless delinquents. Are there no altars, no high places, no crucifixes, no crosses in the open street that are bowed unto and idolized? Lay your axe to the roots and hew them down!”

   The message was clear, and was instantly obeyed. Two days after the sermon, the terms of Harley’s committee were extended to include the destruction of idolatrous monuments in streets and open places. On 2 May Cheapside Cross, that bugbear of the Puritans, the pride and glory of the City, was at last ceremonially hewn down.

   . . . 1644 began as the year of the Scots. In December 1643 the Scotch commissioners and Scotch ministers returned to London . . . In 1641 they had been sent empty away, but this time they meant business. . . . If they were to come as deliverers, they must receive the price; and the price had long ago been stated: in order to guarantee the revolution in Scotland, England too must adopt a full Presbyterian system, on “the Scots model.” . . . They obtained seats in the Assembly; they organized a party, gave orders, reported home. And they secured invitations to preach not merely, as in 1640-41, to the gaping populace of London, but to the Parliament itself. This was an opportunity not to be missed.

   The Scotch ministers preached to the Commons on the four successive fast-days after their arrival. The series was opened by Alexander Henderson, the framer of the National Covenant of Scotland. He delivered, according to his colleague Robert Baillie, “a most gracious, wise and learned sermon” urging the English legislature to repair its past errors and now, though late, build the house of the Lord in England. The other three ministers, Samuel Rutherford, Baillie himself and George Gillespie, pressed the same message. England, said Gillespie, had been culpably slow in following the good examples of Scotland. The whole nation was guilty of scandalous laxity in the past, still unredeemed. Why had not the idolatrous high places been taken away? The trouble was, England was intolerably Erastian: it put its trust in the laity, not the clergy: “it did even make an idol of this Parliament and trusted to its own strength and armies.” No wonder God had been greatly provoked and had visited the guilty country with defeat, until it had drawn the correct deductions and appealed to Scotland. From now on, given due obedience, all would be well: “Christ hath put Antichrist from his outer works in Scotland and he is now come to put him from his inner works in England.” Baillie, in printing his sermon, rubbed it in even deeper. He was astonished, he told Francis Rous, the chairman of Parliament’s committees on religion in England, that “the wheels of the Lord’s chariot should move with so slow a pace.” This “wearisome procrastination to erect the discipline of God” was inexplicable “to mine and every common understanding.” It caused millions to live in every kind of carnal sin “without the control of any spiritual correction.”

   On one occasion, indeed, Baillie could report “two of the most Scottish and free sermons that ever I heard anywhere.” This was in the autumn of 1644, on the special fast-day for the armies of the Lord General, Essex, then in straits in the west: the two preachers then “laid well about them and charged public and parliamentary sins strictly on the backs of the guilty.” And frequently the London clergy . . . let fly at the error of toleration, at antinomian doctrines or at preaching tradesmen.

   These were the sermons to the Commons. But sentence must be passed by the Lords, and the Lords were still sticklers for legality. What preacher, in these circumstances, would the Lords choose? In fact, they found a way of evading the problem. For the fast-day of 30 October they did not choose their own preachers but, only five days before the ceremony, invited the Westminster Assembly to appoint them. The Assembly, of course, was glad to do so; the Scots, naturally, were delighted and the Lords heard a predictable sermon. The Rev.Edmund Staunton admitted that he had had “short warning”; but he did not have to look far for his matter. The City petition for the blood of delinquents, he said, had suggested his subject. So he sang the praises of Phinehas, who did not wait for legal authority before spearing Zimri and the Midianite woman, and of the eunuchs who threw down Jezebel so that “her blood was sprinkled on the wall”; he lamented the wickedness of Saul who omitted to hew Agag in pieces; “and now,” he ended, “could I lift up my voice as a trumpet, had I the shrill cry of an angel which might be heard from east to west, from north to south, in all the corners of the kingdom, my note should be Execution of Justice, Execution of Justice, Execution of Justice! That is God’s way to pacify wrath: Then stood up Phinehas and executed judgment, and so the plague was stayed.”

   The Scots did indeed find one opportunity of fighting back, at least from the pulpit. This came in the summer of 1645. By that time their own position had become very delicate. On the one hand they had, as they felt, triumphed in the Westminster Assembly and, through it, were demanding the instant, overdue establishment in England of a Calvinist theocracy, complete with . . . General Assembly, ruling elders, and full powers of excommunication. On the other hand, even as they pressed their claims abroad, their position at home was in jeopardy. While Cromwell was winning victory after victory in England, in Scotland Montrose was master of almost the whole country. It was therefore significant that at this moment the Commons appointed as fast-preacher a man who, in the Westminster Assembly, was already known as an Erastian friend of Selden, an enemy of Scotch claims. This was Thomas Coleman, formerly a rector in Lincolnshire, now — as once before — sponsored by the two members for his county, Sir John Wray and Sir Edward Ayscough. In his sermon Coleman urged that the lay legislature of England “establish as few things jure divino as can well be,” allow no rules to have divine sanction without clear scriptural warrant, and “lay no more burden of government upon the shoulders of ministers than Christ hath plainly laid upon them.” The clergy, he said, should be content to be secured in learning and supplied with maintenance: Church government they should leave entirely to Parliament, for “a Christian magistrate, as a Christian magistrate, is a governor in the Church.” In this manner the English Parliament, triumphant at Naseby, gave its answer to the Scotch General Assembly, reeling under the victories of Montrose.

   Coleman was not an Independent. He explicitly opposed Independency. He was a “Presbyterian” – but an English “Presbyterian,” and the Scotch Presbyterians were aghast at his doctrines. They had already been very busy in the Assembly: a “blasphemous book” had taken up much of their time “before we got it burnt by the hand of the hangman.” Now they found themselves faced by Coleman. To be silent under such an attack was impossible; but where could they counter-attack? The House of Commons was no good: the majority there were “either half or whole Erastians.” But by good luck [providence – ed.] another opportunity presented itself. The House of Lords, commiserating with the military disasters of the Scots, had invited the four dominies (ministers — ed.) to preach at four successive fasts and the last of these occasions was still to come. It was to be on 27 August, and the preacher was to be the youngest, most learned, most argumentative of the four, George Gillespie.

   Gillespie seized his opportunity. . . . he turned on Coleman. Coleman, he said, had been neither active nor passive on the side of reformation “but will needs appear on the stage against it.” His views struck at the root of all Church government, were contrary to the Word of God, the Solemn League and Covenant, the opinions of other Reformed Churches, and the votes of Parliament and Assembly. They had given no small scandal and offence . . . The controversy thus roused rumbled on, with increasing acrimony, for six months. Sides were taken; pamphlets proliferated. But whatever the . . . clergy of London thought, inside the Parliament the views of Coleman prevailed.

   But in the afternoon a different, discordant voice was heard. Thomas Watson, pastor of St. Stephens, Walbrook, was a “Presbyterian” who had been proposed by the “Presbyterian” London merchant John Rolle. But the revolution which had occurred since he had been nominated, and which had probably excluded his sponsor from the House, did not deter him. To a congregation of furious or frightened men, hurrying or hurried blindly forward, he preached one of the boldest sermons that was ever uttered to the Long Parliament. It was a sermon against hypocrisy, and the preacher sketched, in apposite detail, the character of the hypocrite. The hypocrite, he said, is “zealous in lesser things and remiss in greater . . . zealous against a ceremony, a relic or painted glass . . . but in the meantime lives in known sin, lying, defaming, extortion, etc.” He is zealous against popery, but makes no conscience of sacrilege, starving out the ministry, “robbing God of his tithes.” Then he drew nearer and struck deeper. The hypocrite, he declared, “makes religion a mask to cover his sin.” So “Jezebel, that she may colour over her murder, proclaims a fast.” Already the congregation of parliamentary saints must have begun to tremble for what would come next. And well they might, for it came hot and strong, even personal. “Many,” said the preacher (and there could be no doubt of whom he was thinking), “make religion a cloak for their ambition. Come see my zeal, saith Jehu, for the Lord. No Jehu, thy zeal was for the kingdom. Jehu made religion hold the stirrup till he got into the saddle and possessed the Crown. This is a most exasperating sin.”

   Predictably, the Rump did not thank Watson, or invite him to print his sermon. Even the Levellers, who would soon echo his sentiments about Cromwell’s “hypocrisy,” rejected such an ally. “This Presbyterian proud flesh,” they said, “must down with monarchy, one being equal in tyranny with the other.” But Watson ignored the implied veto. He published his sermon himself. He had no difficulty in finding a printer. The sermon came out under the same imprimatur as the Serious and Faithful Representation, the protest of the London clergy against the trial of the king and against the charge that they, by their opposition, had ever intended the destruction of the monarchy (Watson’s sermon was published as God’s Anatomy upon Man’s Heart).

   Immediately after the fast-day, Cromwell made up his mind, and on 28 December the obedient Rump passed the ordinance for the king’s trial. Two days later it chose its preachers for the next fast, which was due to fall on 30 January 1649. This time there was to be no chance of error. The two preachers were proposed by two safely radical members, Gilbert Millington and Francis Allen, both of whom would sign the king’s death warrant. They were John Cardell and John Owen. Furthermore, regarding John Owen, in The Correspondence of John Owen (1616-1683) edited by Peter Toon (James Clarke & Co., 1970), we find this comment,

   The first occasion that Owen preached at a monthly fast was Wednesday, 29 April 1646. His name was suggested on 25 March by Sir Peter Wentworth and Thomas Westrow; the vote of thanks after the sermon was proposed by Robert Jenner and Sir Peter Wentworth.1 The sermon was preached in St Margaret’s Church, Westminster, but, in good Puritan style, the Journal of the House of Commons simply speaks of “Margaret’s Church.” It was published as A Vision of Unchangeable Free Mercy in sending the means of Grace to undeserving sinners. His fellow preacher was James Nalton whose sermon was published under the title Delay of Reformation provoking God’s further indignation. Owen sought to show that whatever happens on earth, especially in events and matters connected with the propagation of the Gospel, is controlled by the will and counsel of God. The sermon was from Acts of the Apostles 16:9, “A vision appeared to Paul in the night; there stood a man of Macedonia, and prayed him, saying, ‘Come over into Macedonia and help us.'” From the words “come over and help us” he deduced that the people who are in the greatest need are those who do not have the richness of the Gospel message proclaimed unto them; and, he pointed out, there were many people in England who had no preacher of the Gospel in their parish. The sermon closes with an eloquent appeal for the Gospel to be taken to the parts of the nation ravaged by war and destitute of a godly ministry.

   Here is another interesting quote related to these Puritan fast sermons: In the early 1640s, as power passed from Charles I (who largely supported the existing rituals and festivals) to the Long Parliament, parliament began the process of clamping down on the celebration of Christmas, pressing that “Christ-tide” (as they preferred it called, thus doing away with the “mass” element and its Catholic echoes) should be kept, if at all, merely as a day of fasting and seeking the Lord. In January 1642, shortly before civil war began, Charles I had agreed to parliament’s request to order that the last Wednesday in each month should be kept as a fast day; many hoped that Christ-tide, 25 December, would come to be seen and kept as just an addition to these regular fast days. The Long Parliament, in fact, met and worked as usual on 25 December 1643. In late 1644 it was noted that 25 December would fall on the last Wednesday of the month, the day of the regular monthly fast, and parliament stressed that 25 December was strictly to be kept as a time of fasting and humiliation, for remembering the sins of those who in the past had turned the day into a feast, sinfully and wrongfully “giving liberty to carnal and sensual delights.” Both Houses of Parliament attended intense fast sermons on 25 December 1644.

   Tentmaker Publishers is working on releasing this Puritan Sermons set in printed format. For details please see http://tentmaker.org.uk/content/?p=41. Here are some of their comments,

   “This remarkable set of rare Puritan sermons comprises facsimile copies of sermons preached before parliament on appointed fast days between 1640 and 1653 . . . . It was our plan to reprint the facsimile edition, but possibly in 24 evenly sized volumes (to economise on production costs). We have already scanned in all the original pages but there is much work still to be done. We have now decided to reprint them in a new typeset edition with modern spelling. In addition, we plan to issue two volumes of sample sermons from the set.

   The sermons are especially valuable, being as they are the work of the leading Puritan preachers of the day and addressed to those with the responsibility of government. We are hoping in the reprint to include some indication of the events occurring at the time that will give the context to the sermons and also a brief biographical sketch of each preacher.

   We are cautious in giving a date when they will be available but we are aiming for late this year or early next. The offer price on the 24 volume set will be about £400 . . . . The set will be produced with sewn sections and bound in Buckram cloth with d/w. If you wish to reserve a set then please email Fast Sermons (at FastSermons@tentmaker.org.uk) with your details. This will help us to assess possible interest but there will be no commitment until final pricing has been calculated at which time we will notify you (emphases added).”

   Reply

   1. Walt,
      Fasting is a form of PENANCE. Thanks for showing us Protestants used to acknowledge it.
      By the way, when you copy and paste huge amounts of material from someone’s book, honesty demands that you tell the readers you are doing so. Plagiarism is a sin. Personally, I don’t believe your long winded posts are your own. Am I wrong?

      Reply

10. Jim wrote:

    “Plagiarism is a sin. Personally, I don’t believe your long winded posts are your own. Am I wrong?”

    I try to put the title at the top and quote from the book commentary. Thanks for the reminder to be careful as I’m not really thinking about it when I cut and paste.

    Reply

    1. Just keeping you on the up and up, old buddy.

       Reply

11. Hi Tim, it has been fascinating to follow this in detail. Do I understand you correctly that the little horn continues to persecute the church beyond 1260 years? Of course the question in my mind is, how long? To present? and how it all shakes out. But I could be getting ahead. Thanks K

    Reply

    1. Hi, Kevin,

       We should see the Little Horn of Daniel 7 as a successor empire to Rome. As I showed in The Fourteenth Diocese, the Little Horn started as little more than a tiny part of Italy, or what Cyprian called “the city.” After uprooting three horns and subduing three kings, the Little Horn grew up to administer the empire. It became The Fifth Empire.

       Now looking at Daniel 7 and Revelation 13,

       “And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.” (Daniel 7:25)

       “and power was given unto him to continue [lit.: “do”] forty and two months. … And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.” (Revelation 13:5,7)

       Given that the succession of empires is one kingdom giving way to another, Babylon to Medo-Persia, Medo-Persia to Greece, Greece to Rome, Rome to Roman Catholicism, we expect to see a kingdom (Roman Catholicism) with power to rule over the “known world,” or “over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations” just as each empire did in succession before him. That’s exactly what happened, starting at the end of the 4th century. What is called the “Augustinian Consensus,” which posits that the church can legitimately bear the sword, originated at the end of the 4th century (see the Fifth Empire, part 3), and lasted until the mid 1600s. Innocent X (1644 – 1655 A.D.) was the last pope to send armed troops into battle, and under Alexander VII, the papacy suffered a sudden, precipitous decline in power in Europe. As even Roman Catholics will acknowledge, this period was the turning point:

       “Papal authority declined precipitously during the seventeenth century. … in politics the papacy was a minor player commanding modest resources; in religion, its assertion of spiritual supremacy in the Catholic world was compromised by a series of concordats that conceded extensive rights of clerical appointments to Catholic monarchs. The reason of state, a philosophy espoused alike by Catholic and Protestant princes in their exercise of statecraft, increasingly made the theocratic pretensions of the papacy irrelevant.” (R. Po-Chia Hsia, The World of Catholic Renewal 1540 – 1770, (Cambridge University Press (2005)), 108)

       The point of course is that Papal Rome was simply the next empire, and after 1260 years of running the empire, papal Rome was pretty much kicked to the curb, and the popes from Alexander VII on focused on architectural and internal reforms. Rome was given time, times and a half, and it was over. What has happened since 1656 was the era of absolutism in which absolute power was with the monarchy of each nation. Legislative and legal power belonged to the kings and queens, not to the Roman Papacy. A lot of murdering and rampaging went on under the kings, but the papacy was of so little influence that it could neither instigate, nor halt, such devastation. Even today, the pope goes around imploring people to do this or that, but has no power to make it so. What can the pope do to me now but lobby congress?

       Thus, just as Antiochus IV had persecuted the faithful for 1,290 literal days, but he did not actually die for quite a time after that, so with the Papacy. The passages of Daniel and Revelation speak of Papal Rome having the power to do “according to his own will” for that amount of time, just as his predecessors did before him. Beyond that, his autocratic and dictatorial powers essentially evaporated, just as Antiochus IV’s had. In short, granting the pope 1,260 years to do as he pleased, and for the saints to be given into his hand, is not the same as giving him only 1,260 years to exist.

       Does the papacy hate protestantism? Surely it does. What the Roman Papacy has done since the late 1600s though hardly qualifies as the pope “wearing out the saints” as he did for the 1,260 years that he wielded the sword.

       So no, I do not believe the little horn continues to persecute the saints beyond 1,260 years. He had that power for 1,260 years. He’s a paper tiger now.

       Thanks,

       Tim

       Reply

       1. Tim,
          “Does the papacy hate protestantism? Surely it does. ”

          Okay. Now ask, “Does THIS Pope hate Protestants?”
          ( He actually likes Kenneth Copeland, for crying out loud!!!!)

          You went on to reveal your total lack of historical understanding with,
          “We should see the Little Horn of Daniel 7…” .

          In fact, all of the 7th Calvary was wiped out at the Little Big Horn including Danny O’Leary, regimental bugle boy.

          Reply

          1. JIM–
             I’m sure the Protestants “hate” Catholicism in the same way the Catholic Church “hates” Protestanism, wouldn’t you say?

             Reply

12. Tim, thank you, that clarification helps me immensely. I have only adopted a Historist position in the last couple years. As you have said, I believe, understanding that the abomination of desolation is a past event will help Protestants and Catholics look at eschatology differently. Im really interested in a closer look at the Vadois and the church. Having identified the little horn and its work of wearing out the saints for that period, we should never forget that Roman Catholicism continues to deceive its own people and keep them from the true gospel. Of course, the knowledge of God’s soveriegn election should always motivate us to use the scripture to make distinctions between the truth and Catholicism. It is the truth of the gospel that sets men free. Thanks for answering my question. I look forward to your next article. K

    Reply

13. TIM–
    Thank you so much for your research. I have enjoyed studying all the sources you have cited. It has been a good education and plenty of entertainment.

    You said: “What is called the ‘Augustinian Consensus,’ which posits that the church can legitimately bear the sword, originated at the end of the 4th century (see the Fifth Empire, part 3), and lasted until the mid 1600s.”

    St. Augustine of Hippo! I was completely unaware of this until now. In all fairness, the Reformers adopted this concept as well, though not as severe or universal. The most severe and famous are the witch burnings of course. After reading this article:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christian_thought_on_persecution_and_tolerance
    I can now conclude that your singling out the papacy as being the anti-Christ is untenable. All religious persecution, no matter where it originates –Christian, Muslim, Judaism, or whatever– is the anti-Christ. Luk 9:56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.

    I find it interesting that the article says this: On the seventh of December 1965 The Catholic Church as part of the Vatican II council issued the decree “Dignitatis humanae” that dealt with the rights of the person and communities to social and civil liberty in religious matters. It states: “2. The Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. Freedom of this kind means that all men should be immune from coercion on the part of individuals, social groups and every human power so that, within due limits, nobody is forced to act against his convictions in religious matters in private or public, alone or in associations with others.

    Somehow I knew this to be taught by the RCC all along, but I had never read the original document. I will now search the Catechism for the official teaching.

    Again, thanks for the heads up.

    Reply

    1. I found it! It’s in the catechism:
       PART THREE
       Life in Christ
       SECTION ONE
       Man’s vocation life in the Spirit
       CHAPTER ONE
       The dignity of the human person
       ARTICLE 3
       Man’s freedom
       starting with paragraph 1730
       http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a3.htm

       Reply

    2. Thanks, Bob. When you say, “Somehow I knew this to be taught by the RCC all along,” do you mean “somehow you knew it all along,” or “somehow you knew that the RCC had always taught this to be true”? I’m assuming you meant the former, since it is clear from history that the RCC has not alway taught or believed it to be true.

       In any case, I understand that you do not believe papal Roman Catholicism to be the prophesied antichrist.

       Thanks,

       Tim

       Reply

14. TIM–

    You said: “I’m assuming you meant the former, since it is clear from history that the RCC has not alway taught or believed it to be true.”

    That’s right. And neither did the Protestants. It took nearly 2 thousand years after Christ for Christians to finally get to this point. Now if only the rest of humanity would follow suit….

    Reply

15. Lads,
    Don’t accuse Holy Mother the Church of crimes she didn’t commit.
    http://www.cuf.org/2000/03/the-role-of-the-inquisition-in-europe/

    The Church’s decree on Religious Liberty is not a complete about-face. It is actually in sync with her tradition.

    It’s the Protestants who say coercion is valid in religious matters. We Catholics disagree. We say Mary gave her consent at the Annunciation. You deny it. We say a sinner must cooperate with grace in his own salvation. What do you guys say?

    Read up on early American history. Only Pennsylvania and the Catholic colony of Maryland allowed religious liberty. So many Prots came to Maryland because of it. Sad thing is, once they gained the majority, they outlawed the Catholics who had taken them in.

    Let’s ask Kevin this question;
    Kevin, if you didn’t fear legal reprisals, would you or would you not burst in and disrupt Catholic services on Sunday morning, at funerals and at other liturgical events? ( You certainly didn’t respect the blog owner over on Stellman’s did you? The only law you obey is that of brute force, no? )
    Thanks for responding to this questionnaire.

    Reply

    1. JIM–
       From the article above: “In short, the Church’s inquisitions were not designed to convert Jews nor could they burn Protestants and witches at the stake (death sentences could not be imposed by the ecclesial inquisitors). These and other such stories about “The Inquisition” are black legends spread by some Protestants, Enlightenment rationalists, and other anti-Catholics for a variety of reasons.
       As is the case of all legal systems and court procedures, it was possible for abuses to take place within inquisitorial courts. In some cases, this did happen. That abuses take place is true of any kind of judicial process, and it is something that just people must denounce and take measures to remedy. Furthermore, current Church teaching explicitly forbids physical or moral violence for the sake of extracting confessions or punishing people, because it is contrary to the dignity of the human person (cf. Catechism, nos. 2297-98). The Church teaches that such practices are not and were not necessary for maintaining public order, as some people unfortunately once thought.”

       As is probably the case, churchmen on both sides of the Reformation turned a blind eye to the secular corporal punishment of “heretics”, depending on if it worked out better for them at the time. I would call that a sin of omission instead of commission. And sugar-coating it doesn’t help any.

       I do feel that Pope Francis’ apology is interesting, though.

       Reply

16. Bob,
    Neither Tim nor Walt will avail themselves of this utube series so I won’t suggest they click on ( Kelvin certainly won’t bother confusing himself with facts ).
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5siHd1P5zk
    The episodes where he talks about the Catholic kings of Spain acknowledging the natural rights of the native peoples, although heathens, to their lives. families and property is my favorite.

    Reply

17. I take it back. My favorite part is when the guy talks about how science came out of the Catholic Church. But that is off topic.

    I think it is pretty hard for a Calvinist to believe all men have natural rights. They see human nature in such a negative light, I doubt if the can truly believe in human rights. Since, in their view, most men were designed to populate hell, I wonder how they can respect Catholics, pagans, Muslims, Buddhists. etc. If God hates most men, why shouldn’t they?

    Tim’s buddy, Larry “the weasel” Wessells, has lots of material denouncing the Catholic Church for respecting the rights of non-Christians. Don’t expect Tim, Walter or Kevin to understand what we are talking about.

    Reply

18. Hi Tim, a couple questions. I was re reading Daniel 7 this morning. When it says, He shall speak words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Mist High, and shall think to change the times and the law. Maybe you have covered this, but what does it mean ” think to change times and the law” ? Would this be the RC mass and the laws the Papacy has added or changed in God’s law? And then my other question is, in verse 11 it says ” I looked then because of the sound of the great words that the horn was speaking” , then he says he looked and the beast was killed. Is this immediate killing of the beast and the horn? It just seems sudden in 2 places that the Ancient of days comes up right after the little horn? Maybe im just seeing things but I know your grasp on this is a kong time spent on it. Thanks Kevin.

    Reply

    1. Kevin,
       It’s not necessary for you to sign off with your sycophantic, “Thanks, Kevin”. The name “KEVIN” appears at the beginning of each of your postings. Kinda’ like “BOB” appears before Bob’s comment or “WALT” before Walt’s blatherings.
       I am not going to sign off with my moniker either. I will give you three guesses to figure out who I am though.
       Thanks, The Mystery Man

       Reply

    2. Dan 7:24
       And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.

       Let’s do the math:
       “And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise:” Not thirteen, as Tim would claim, but only ten.

       “and another shall rise after them;” That makes eleven at this point. The word “another” means a quantity of “one”, and the word “after” is associated with the word “them” which refers to the ten kings in the phrase preceding it.
       One king coming after ten kings equals eleven kings total.

       “and he shall subdue three kings.” As Tim would say, “nowhere does it say the kings to be subdued were a part of the original ten.” But nowhere does it say there were first thirteen kings for the eleventh king to come after–only ten. So as to not add anything to the Word of God in this matter, the three kings to be subdued would have to come from the existing ten kings.
       Eleven kings minus three kings is only eight kings.
       It simply does not fit into Tim’s plan. Even with all the hours of research and writing and details, Daniel simply does not mention at all fourteen diocese or a fifth empire. The bible does not say what Tim is trying to make it mean. Actual history simply does not match up with it.

       Reply

       1. Thanks, Bob,

          How do you account for the fact that there are yet ten left to give their kingdom to antichrist, if he uprooted three when he came up, leaving only 7 to give their kingdom to the beast?

          “And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire. For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.” (Revelation 17:16-17)

          You are quite right when you say the math does not add up. The traditional interpretation has antichrist coming up among 10, subduing 3 kings, leaving seven to give their kingdom to the Beast. And yet at the end, there are still ten to give their kingdom to the beast.

          Where do you think the extra three came from?

          Thanks,

          Tim

          Reply

    3. Kevin,

       I covered this in some detail in the Fifth Empire series, you can start there if you like. As I noted there, it is only the beast’s body that is killed at Daniel 7:11. It can’t be the simultaneous killing of the beast and the horn, for the simple reason that the Little Horn is portrayed in Revelation 13 as the three preceding empires, and those three preceding empires are allowed to live on:

       “even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame. As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time.” (Daniel 7:11-12)

       Also, compare Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 where they say

       Daniel 2:34: “Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces.”

       Daniel 7:9 “I beheld till the thrones were [set up], and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.”

       In both cases, the whole sequence is first laid out (Gold, Silver, Bronze, Iron, Iron/Clay; Lion, Bear, Leopard, Beast, Horns), and then in both cases, Daniel says the judgment is executed against the Feet (ch 2) or the Body of the Fourth beast (ch 7). In a chronological sense, the first judgment must be prior to the emergence of the Toes or the Little Horn that comes up among 10. It is that initial judgment that breaks the feet into pieces, which is the formation of the horns and toes i.e., the feet were “partly broken.” Note that “toes” are not even mentioned until the stone has struck the image, and it’s first strike is only against the feet.

       It is the courtroom scene itself, and the breaking of the seals, that forces the Roman empire into its fragmented state, whereupon Antichrist arises.

       In the Daniel 7 narrative, the Ancient of Days seated on the throne (Daniel 7:9-10) corresponds to Rev 4-5. Compare:

       “…his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened. thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened.” (Daniel 7:9-10)

       “And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands;” (Revelation 5:11)

       I provide a lot more detail in The Fifth Empire, but Daniel 2:34-35, and Daniel 7:9-10 and 13-14, both depict in increasing detail what is finally revealed to John in full detail in the courtroom scene of Rev 4-5 and Jesus’ return in Rev 17.

       I hope that helps.

       Tim

       Reply

       1. Thanks Tim, this helps immensely. Im going to re read The fifth Empire today. K

          Reply

    4. I’ll cover changing times and laws later, but I suspect it has to do with a reference Daniel made in Daniel 2: “Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever: for wisdom and might are his: And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings:”. The reference to the Little Horn thinking to do this looks to me like a reference to the Antichrist’s arrogance. Papal Rome certainly removed and set up kings during his reign.

       More on this later. I haven’t actually written about this part of Daniel 7 yet.

       Thanks,

       Tim

       Reply

19. Tim,

    Did you pay Kevin to write,

    ” Maybe you have covered this, but what does it mean ” think to change times and the law” ? Would this be the RC mass and the laws the Papacy has added or changed in God’s law? ”

    Or is he just fishing for a brownie point from you? You know, kinda’ like asking, ” Hey Tim, could you help me page 3 of your wonderful book, GRAVEN BREAD. Do Catholics really think the bread changes into Jesus? Isn’t this idolatry? Please advise me. I am so confused.
    Thanks, your friend and bestest fan, Kevin”

    Thanks, Jim

    Reply

20. Hey, what happened to Kev? Was that just a cameo appearance?
    Did you send him away again?
    A couple of weeks ago Kevin was enjoying an exchange with fellow bloggers over on C2C. Bryan Cross got miffed at his style of “argumentation” and banned him for the next year. He wants Kev to use that time to learn how to present an argument rather than play his little games. I guess that explains his unexpected visit. He was starved for a theatre to act out in and so circled back to his former haunt.

    Reply

21. TIM–
    You said: “You are quite right when you say the math does not add up. The traditional interpretation has antichrist coming up among 10, subduing 3 kings, leaving seven to give their kingdom to the Beast. And yet at the end, there are still ten to give their kingdom to the beast.
    Where do you think the extra three came from?

    Let’s look closely at the passage from Revelation:
    “And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire. For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.” (Revelation 17:16-17)

    Nowhere does it say that the three kings that were subdued did not give their kingdom to the beast. That’s what happens when they are subdued, they cede the kingdom to the victor.
    The three were part of the original ten. Three plus seven equals ten kings that give their kingdoms to the beast and hated it for it.

    That wasn’t that hard, was it?

    Reply

    1. Three were “plucked up by the roots” (Daniel 7:8). That does not sound like those three “agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast.”

       So, 3 are plucked up by the roots. The remaining 10 “agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast.” 3 + 10 = 13. No, it is not hard at all, unless tradition gets in your way.

       Thanks,

       Tim

       Reply

22. Tim, ” before which 3 of them fell” the way I read this is with the rising of the 11th horn 3 fell right before this, leaving 10, not 7. When he describes this he sounds like someone describing like and accident or a scene, because its continuous. There were 10 then one came up but before that another 3 had fallen. It has to be read continually to get the context. So there were 14 total is what I read. K

    Reply

    1. Yes, the little horn comes up among ten, having plucked up three by the roots. 13 original horns.

       Tim

       Reply

23. TIM–
    You said: “Yes, the little horn comes up among ten, having plucked up three by the roots. 13 original horns.”

    I don’t think so, Tim.
    In Daniel or Revelation, nowhere does it say there were first thirteen original horns for the eleventh horn to come after–only ten.
    I guess your tradition is to read into the text what isn’t there. You are deliberately misinterpreting it to fit your paradigm.

    Reply

    1. Bob, you said, “The three were part of the original ten.” Where in the scriptures does it say that? Yesterday you said, “So as to not add anything to the Word of God in this matter, the three kings to be subdued would have to come from the existing ten kings.”

       But since the scripture doesn’t actually say that, I think what you mean is, “So as not to add anything to the word of God we must add something that it doesn’t say.” Unless you can provide me with the text says that the three horns came from the original 10. Are you able to provide a scripture verse to prove that?

       My position is quite simple. Daniel saw 10 horns remaining in the fourth beast final configuration, after three had been removed. The remaining 10 aligned themselves voluntarily with the beast as Revelation 17 says. Therefore the math is quite simple: there must’ve been 13 original horns before three were uprooted so that antichrist could come up among the remaining ten.

       By your reasoning the three uprooted Kings, which you have previously held to be three “destroyed” horns actually survived their destruction and lived on after their destruction and voluntarily gave up their power to the beast.

       I think your math is sorely lacking if you can say 11 minus 3 = 8, and then the next day say 11 minus 3 = 11.

       Your math error is supported by nearly 2000 years of Christian tradition and 99% of all interpretive eschatology. But it is still bad math.

       Tim

       Reply

       1. TIM–
          Bob, you said, “The three were part of the original ten.” Where in the scriptures does it say that? Yesterday you said, “So as to not add anything to the Word of God in this matter, the three kings to be subdued would have to come from the existing ten kings.”

          Tim, this is preschool counting. Let me demonstrate:
          1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
          or
          1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
          or
          1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
          The numbers in bold count to three. And yet they are still a part of the numbers that total a complete ten.

          The way you see it:
          1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
          or
          1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
          or
          1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
          The numbers in bold are three, but they belong to a set of thirteen, not ten.

          Nowhere in Daniel or Revelation is there mentioned thirteen horns or kings! You are pulling those extra three horns(kings) out of thin air. Somewhere between “ten horns” and “another horn” you added three horns out of nowhere to be “plucked out by the roots”.

          You also said: “Your math error is supported by nearly 2000 years of Christian tradition and 99% of all interpretive eschatology. But it is still bad math.”

          That is because 2000 years of Christian tradition and 99% of all interpretive eschatology is based on what the Bible actually says instead of what you think it says.

          Reply

          1. Thanks for the math lesson. But the question was, “Where does the scripture say that the three horn removed by Antichrist were part of the original ten?”

             You wrote,

             “That is because 2000 years of Christian tradition and 99% of all interpretive eschatology is based on what the Bible actually says instead of what you think it says.”

             That is why I am so eager to hear from you about where the Bible “actually says” the three horns were part of the original ten. It is always assumed, but it is not explicitly stated in the Scriptures. You seem so confident that the Bible actually says it, but you cannot provide the place where it does. The reality is, 2000 years of Christian tradition and 99% of all interpretive eschatology have been unable to show where the bible says that. I doubt you will be able to solve it either, apart from your theory of the resurrection of three horns destroyed by Antichrist. That’s a new one. I don’t think Daniel and Revelation say that the three horns were resurrected after being destroyed by antichrist, but that appears to be your position. If Antichrist destroyed them, and they fell and were plucked up by the roots, how is it that they show up healthy and battle-ready at the end? Did they come back from the dead? They obviously didn’t grow back, since the uprooted ones were, well, uprooted. How did they come back from the dead?

             I agree with you that Daniel 7 makes no reference to thirteen horns. I have never claimed that it did. Daniel 7 also makes no reference to Alexander the Great, but taken with Daniel 8, we know there was a configuration of the Greek empire before the four heads of the leopard came up. I arrive at thirteen the same way I can read Daniel 7 and 8, see four leopard heads, and yet be confident there was a single head to the leopard before it was divided four ways. Take Daniel and Revelation together, and the 13 horns becomes obvious. Daniel is portraying for us four consecutive beasts in their final configuration. The final configuration of the fourth beast is 10 horns, and then one more comes up among them.

             What I do know is that Daniel never says that the three of the fourth beast’s horns that were removed were three of the ten. Three were removed at Antichrist’s rise (Daniel 7), but when Christ comes back (Revelation 17), there are still ten healthy horns rallying to the side of Antichrist. If he destroyed three horns (as you were willing to admit 9 months ago) and there are still 10 left at the end to rally with him, there must have been 13 to begin with. Daniel only saw 10 because three had been uprooted already so that Antichrist could rise among the ten, and Daniel is only portraying each beast in its final configuration.

             3 plucked up by the roots to make room for antichrist to come up, 10 horns to rally with him to the end. 13 horns total.

             Not that difficult at all. And wouldn’t you know it, the Roman Empire was divided 13 ways into 13 dioceses, Roman Catholicism claimed three of them (Italy, Egypt and Oriens) as her ecclesiastical prerogative, subduing Milan (the Metropolis of Italy), Alexandria (the Metropolis of Egypt) and Antioch (the Metropolis of Oriens) in the process, and then grew up among the remaining ten dioceses to rule the empire, exactly as Daniel prophesied. That makes Roman Catholicism the Little Horn of Daniel 7 and the Beast of Revelation 13.

             I know this will be difficult for you to believe. I completely understand. It will be difficult for almost anyone to believe—so much tradition has weighed in on this so far, it is hard for the truth to emerge. In fact, I may be the only person who actually believes this. I was prepared many years ago for the peals of laughter and mockery that would follow such a claim, and I am prepared to continue to endure it. I have no problem with it. As I have said before, this is a self-discrediting website because of the positions I am willing to maintain. I knew that going it. I am but a fool.

             Nevertheless, I’m sticking with my position, and you must stick with your theory of the three resurrected horns that were uprooted, and fell, and were destroyed by the beast, and yet miraculously show up healthy and still in their roots at the end when Christ returns. Holding an internally inconsistent, logically untenable position, is your prerogative.

             I wish you the best, but I don’t see any further value in discussing this with you.

             Thanks for your thoughts.

             Tim

             Reply

             1. TIM–
                You said: “I wish you the best, but I don’t see any further value in discussing this with you.”

                Nice try. But you don’t get off that easily.

                You also said: “Holding an internally inconsistent, logically untenable position, is your prerogative.”

                And, like you do with Scripture, you are trying to make my words say something they don’t to make it sound inconsistent and logically untenable.

                Here is what you said: “That is why I am so eager to hear from you about where the Bible “actually says” the three horns were part of the original ten. It is always assumed, but it is not explicitly stated in the Scriptures. You seem so confident that the Bible actually says it, but you cannot provide the place where it does. The reality is, 2000 years of Christian tradition and 99% of all interpretive eschatology have been unable to show where the bible says that. I doubt you will be able to solve it either, apart from your theory of the resurrection of three horns destroyed by Antichrist. That’s a new one. I don’t think Daniel and Revelation say that the three horns were resurrected after being destroyed by antichrist, but that appears to be your position. If Antichrist destroyed them, and they fell and were plucked up by the roots, how is it that they show up healthy and battle-ready at the end? Did they come back from the dead? They obviously didn’t grow back, since the uprooted ones were, well, uprooted. How did they come back from the dead?

                Why do you think “subdued” or “plucked out by the roots” means destroyed??? That seems to be what you are implying, not me. And the Bible certainly doesn’t imply it. And where in your historical theory have the ten kings made the whore desolate? The way you tell it, those ten diocese have “made her (the Roman See) desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire”?

                Let us look at the passage that started this whole dialog:
                “And the ten horns(not thirteen) which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.(This can include the three horns that were done so dirty by the little horn.{Which by the way is in Daniel and not Revelation} He probably should have destroyed them instead of just uproot or subdue them. Instead, they join the other seven to desolate the whore.) For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.” –Revelation 17:16-17 (So, all ten horns –including the three subdued horns found in Daniel and not in Revelation–have given their kingdoms to the beast to fulfill God’s word.)

                And thanks for your thoughts, Tim.

                –BOB

24. It was different from all the beasts before, it had ten horns. As he condidered the 10 horns there popped up another litle horn, but before that little horn 3 were plucked up by the roots. So after he saw 10 horns he saw 3 plucked ones and then the little horn. Im thinking as the little horn was coming up he plucks the 3, leaving the 10 he originally saw. K

    Reply

25. TIM–

    You also said: “I think your math is sorely lacking if you can say 11 minus 3 = 8, and then the next day say 11 minus 3 = 11.”

    Where did I say that 11 minus 3 = 11?

    Reply

26. TIM–

    You also said: “By your reasoning the three uprooted Kings, which you have previously held to be three “destroyed” horns actually survived their destruction and lived on after their destruction and voluntarily gave up their power to the beast.”

    Where did I say they were “destroyed”?

    Reply

    1. You wrote,

       So instead of “there were thirteen horns before the little horn came upon the scene”, it is rendered as “three of those ten horns were set before him and he destroyed them”.

       Reply

27. WOW!
    Am I glad to be Catholic. My head is spinning with beasts, horns, numbers and whores after reading the opinions bandied about here.
    I also happen to be listening to Hugh Ross’ series in which he gives some fascinating thoughts on the book of Revelation.
    I cannot believe God would leave us in darkness as to how to read the Bible.

    Reply

    1. Jim, Holding the Catholic position is easy because it does not assume that the word of God is internally consistent. Thus, almost any interpretation can fit into it. For example, William Most, in his commentary on Daniel wrote the following about the “seven weeks” prophecy of Daniel 9:

       “From 594 to 539 is 55 years, not precisely seven weeks or 49 years. However, in this sort of prophecy that is a good enough approximation “

       Mmm, hmmm.

       Close enough for William Most is close enough for Jim.

       “I cannot believe God would leave us in darkness as to how to read the Bible.”

       To believe that the Word of God is internally inconsistent is to be left in the darkness. You do not realize it, but you already believe that God left you in the dark. That is why 55 is close enough to 49 to work for you.

       Thanks,

       Tim

       Reply

       1. Tim,
          Can you name another Protestant who shares your views?
          ( No Kelvin doesn’t count. He is not a Protestant. He is a one man peanut gallery ).

          Most sincerely and cordially your, Jim

          Reply

          1. Jim,

             I cannot. That is what I mean when I say, “In fact, I may be the only person who actually believes this.” Was that not clear to you?

             Thanks,

             Tim

             Reply

             1. Tim,
                Thank you. I just wanted you to restate it as I think it is important. Kinda’ like the lone Japanese soldier who did not surrender until 1974.
                ( However, we both know one dedicated zombie lemming who would follow you, goose stepping all the way, into hell if you asked him. )

             2. Yes, Jim. I am but a fool.

28. I re read those passages many times. It certainly seems like as the little horn was coming up 3 others were plucked up, leaving 10. This means there was a total of 13 to start with. The way its written completely supports a little horn in the process of gaining power uproots 3. This fully supports Rome Catholic religion, as it receives power becoming the 5th pagan empire plucks up 3 into the see of one. Is it any wonder that a famous 17th century theologian said that anyone who cannot see the Papacy as Antichrist is under strong delusion. K

    Reply

    1. Under a strong delusion?
       So, you finally admit it.

       Reply

29. Tim said ” I know thus will be diflcult for you to believe” I would say impossible for those who have submitted themselves to that little horn. You cannot serve 2 masters, for you will hate the one and love the other. This is why Protestants must see Roman Catholics in need of the gospel of scripture. K

    Reply

    1. The Gospel of scripture?
       Oh, you must mean your Jack Chick slurs.
       Yeah, you bet. Catholics need to hear your gospel loud and clear. I wish you would preach it to Dave Anders over on C2C. Drop the boot licking “one nice cat” phoniness and just be yourself. Let it all hang out. Don’t pull your punches for that low life merit chaser. Blast him right between the eyes with one of your zingers. Better yet, call him on his show and tell him that he an idolater. ( Remember “Doe” is Bambi’s mother ) You want to preach the gospel right? Prove it.

       Reply

       1. Jim,

          It seems to me that you spend a great deal of time trying to convince us that Kevin is a disrespectful troll on other blogs, and the other half trying to provoke him into behaving as a disrespectful troll on other blogs so you can come here and rejoice in it.

          Friday, you wrote,

          “A couple of weeks ago Kevin was enjoying an exchange with fellow bloggers over on C2C. Bryan Cross got miffed at his style of “argumentation” and banned him for the next year. He wants Kev to use that time to learn how to present an argument rather than play his little games.”

          From this, it appears that you are complaining about his bad behavior at C2C.

          But yesterday you wrote,

          “I wish you would preach it to Dave Anders over on C2C. Drop the boot licking “one nice cat” phoniness and just be yourself. Let it all hang out. Don’t pull your punches for that low life merit chaser. Blast him right between the eyes with one of your zingers. Better yet, call him on his show and tell him that he an idolater.”

          From this, it appears that you are complaining about his good behavior at C2C, and you desire that he stop behaving.

          The Scriptures say,

          “Enter not into the path of the wicked, and go not in the way of evil men. Avoid it, pass not by it, turn from it, and pass away. For they sleep not, except they have done mischief; and their sleep is taken away, unless they cause some to fall.” (Proverbs 4:14-16)

          It seems to me that this proverb is written about men like you, and you ought to examine yourself and what spirit within you causes you to desire so passionately that another man stumble into sin.

          Since your primary objective appears to be to do mischief and to provoke to sin instead of to good works, you are kindly asked to keep your comments on topic, or you will be asked to leave.

          Kind regards,

          Tim

          Reply

30. Tim wrote to Bob:

    “I wish you the best, but I don’t see any further value in discussing this with you.”

    It is sad to have read all the back and forth this morning on Bob’s constant and consistent desire to be inconsistent in his learning and logic. What is even worse is when one is shown they are contradictory to their own past and current statements, and still you get defiance. It is like scolding a child who clearly is inconsistent in their thoughts and actions, but yet the child just sits their in defiance to the instruction.

    Since much of Tim’s eschatology comes down to separating some of the potential errors that historical church tradition has given our past and current prophetical authors, I can see myself struggling to weigh the evidence. However, it is in my nature to be digging and digging to uncover the Scripture truths as best as I can understand them by God’s grace.

    The best thing about Jim and Bob’s commentary here is that it helps to demonstrate the real mindset of the Roman Catholic. Tim made a great point here:

    “Close enough for William Most is close enough for Jim.

    “I cannot believe God would leave us in darkness as to how to read the Bible.”

    To believe that the Word of God is internally inconsistent is to be left in the darkness. You do not realize it, but you already believe that God left you in the dark. That is why 55 is close enough to 49 to work for you.”

    My own experience with Roman Catholics, and Roman Catholicism worldwide (even today), is that like Jim and Bob they really could care less what Scripture teaches. They love their church, their Pope and their pomp and glitter. Christmass is coming soon to the world, and with all the glitter glowing around the world, and all preparing for the Romish Christmass celebration, it is a festive and jolly time of year. While there is nothing in Scripture to celebrate Christmass, it really does not matter. If Roman Catholics promote it globally, and Protestant follow this tradition, that is wonder. The Pope is the Vicar of Christ to so many, and the third person of the Trinity, the Holy Ghost speaking in the Scriptures, is no longer the Vicar of Christ. The Pope is His Holiness, and yet nothing is further from the truth. He is not Holy in any way, but really is leading more than 1 billion members, and billions more on earth into incredible confusion and ignorance.

    Look at just the comments week after week with Jim solely. He is so confused that nearly every comment is really out of desperation to justify his every short slur to try to defend what he has been taught…nothing about what he could learn to contradict his presupposition. Bob is so similar. Truly they are a blessing for the casual reader who visits this blog. Like a tennis match, it is so obvious to anyone reading what it means to be a Roman Catholic living in blindness and desperation.

    It reminds me of being back in University. My last two years I buckled down and piled on the term credits. 20-23 credits a term filling my weeks with nothing but back to back classes. I learned very fast that each 1 hour class had to be in total focus on the instructor, and taking extensive notes, and asking lots of questions that often disrupted the class. However, I had soon learned if I did not learn the subject matter in that hour I would never have time to just go home and “study it later”. I could never miss a class as I had to learn the subject in class, take extensive notes, and before the test go to my notes and recall what I had learned. So many in the class were like the typical Roman Catholic (Jim specifically) mindset. They were just there to get the credit, learn nothing and disrupt the class by flying paper airplanes in the room when the professor turned his back, or making fun of people, slurring others in the room, passing around notes, laughing in class, etc. etc. They had no interest of being in class to learn the subject, it was just a waste of time. They read nothing (like Jim), but just blurted out slurs and negative comments day after day in class.

    I don’t apply this same method of learning to all Roman Catholics. Far from it. Many are extremely bright, well studied and incredibly interested to learn. There is no doubt that Roman Catholics have a passion for their labors, and some are incredibly intelligent. However, they are the exception and certainly in religion. Many are brilliant in their callings, but when it comes to church religion, they have left their true love for Christ and replaced it with the love for their preselected Vicar of Christ. They love their church, the Pope and the celebrations far more than anything in the world. They are passionately loyal to their Romish church family. I saw this with my Dad. He absolutely loved his tradition more than anything the Scripture said to contradict that tradition. He was extremely loving and caring to many publicly, and yet, that same love for truth and Christ was missing.

    Tim made it clear why that it is…because the truth is not the driver in Roman Catholicism, and why this blog is not of interest to many. It digs into the hard questions of prophecy from Scripture and history. The Romish believer is totally happy to look for a future Jewish Antichrist to arise. Certainly, they are not interested to be members of any antichrist religion. This is why growing up I was never ever taught even about the reformation…only that is was a wicked period of history. Now, I see why as the reformers saw the Papacy as antichrist, and it all makes sense to me now.

    Thanks Jim and Bob for really reinforcing my decision to leave Rome many years ago. Without all your blogging and comments I could have thought differently, but no more. You have sealed my belief that Roman Catholics are struggling.

    Reply

31. Walt said ” to believe the Word of God is internally inconsistent is to be left in the darkness” Bingo! After a cordial discussion on C2C with Dave Anders on his article that strains to prove that because Protestants dont have an authority that says thev66 books of our canon is a rule of faith, then it nulifies the word of God as final authority. He actually said that Christians cant sit down with their bible and the Spirit and discern the word of God. I entered the conversation and said, exactly, Rome would love to remove this from believers, the mandate and responsibility commanded believers in scripture to determine error. Jesus said many will come in my name saying I am the Christ, dont believe him. John 2:27 says even though we listen to our teachers, in the end we have no need of a teacher, His anointing teaches us all things, and its true and not a lie. By andvwith the internally consistent, infalible word of God, we seek to uncover the gems of His truth. The first century Jew didnt have an infalible interpreter, and yet Jesus expected them to understand what had been written. I finally said to Dave, did you ever believe when you were a Reformed protestant, you would be arguing so vehemently against the scripture as the only final infalible authority. K

    Reply

32. Hi Tim,
    I might have the logic all wrong, but is not one of the implications of the abomination of Desolation being put back in Israel by 40AD, that Matthew and Mark had to be completed and circulating for the readers before then?
    One of the taunts that unbelievers have regarding the gospels is “well what do you remember of conversations you had 20 or 30 years ago?…. These accounts are made up. It took too long to write it down.”
    But by your careful analysis, if I understand it correctly, it shows that Matthew and Mark are written very close to the Lord’s resurrection, otherwise writing about His prophecy on the abomination would be redundant.

    Reply

    1. John, I suppose that the gospels must have been written down shortly after the resurrection, but not necessarily because of this prophecy. After all, Jesus also prophesied His own resurrection, and yet the gospels were certainly written after the resurrection. The important data in the gospels relative to this particular prophecy, as with the resurrection, is the sure witness that Jesus told us these things before hand: “Behold, I have told you before” (Matthew 24:25). We can be sure that Jesus’ prophecy was making the rounds because the Apostles were making the rounds, and they were commissioned to tell everyone what Jesus had said. Since they were under the power of the Holy Spirit, we can be sure they were retelling it accurately.

       “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” (John 14:26))

       Again, I think the gospels were written down quite early, but so long as the apostles were alive, the prophecy still would have been propagated prior to 40 AD, even if it had not yet been committed to parchment by them.

       Thanks,

       Tim

       Reply

33. Thx Tim. That makes it clear.

    Reply

34. Hi Tim Kauffman

    you said:

    Thus, Peter could say, “But the end of all things is at hand.” It surely was, for Peter was plainly aware of the series of empires that had risen and fallen according to Daniel’s prophecy, and the Roman Empire was the Fourth Beast. Peter was living in “the latter days” of God’s people.

    how i understood the article, one of the angels saw things happening up until the end of all things (including 2. judgement)

    when peter said, we are at the end

    did he mean one of the 2 different “ends” from the book of Daniel?

    But one end was already in the past (for peter) and the other “end” is still future to us?

    so i dont understand FROM WHERE peters takes the information that he himself is in a “endtime” periof of something.

    i know, peter means the end of the Roman Period right before anti christ comes.

    but where in Daniel do we find that this period (right before antichrist) is an “Endtime” period?

    Thanks, brother!

    In Christ alone
    Alessandro

    Reply

    1. Alessandro,

       These are good questions. You are correct that there is an “end” in Daniel 8 (the end of the indignation) referring to the conclusion of the Leviticus 26 punishment for the offenses spoken of by Jeremiah. That “end” was in 164 BC. There is a “latter end” in Daniel 10 (spanning the time from the end of the Medo-Persian empire, through the first and second resurrections) referring to the things that were yet future to Daniel, but spanning a very, very, long time. The angel had said “Now I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days: for yet the vision is for many days” (Daniel 10:14), and then proceeded to discuss the conclusion of the Medo-Persian empire, the Greek Empire and Michael and the time of trouble (Daniel 12:1) which refers to the events of Revelation 12:7, and then the resurrection and judgement. That whole time frame could be considered “the end” since the angel referred to it as “the latter end of thy people.”

       From Peter’s perspective, though, there were other, more specific matters in view. Joel 2 referred to the coming of the Messiah in the “last days” (see Acts 2:17) which Peter took to refer to the Christ’s earthly ministry (Acts 2:22). Here, the end refers to the arrival of the Messiah and the deliverance of God’s people. When he said “the end of all things is at hand” (1 Peter 4:7) he has in mind the end of the Jewish state, for Jesus had prophesied that it would be destroyed within one generation, and that in fact relates to Jesus’ other statements that the kingdom of God would be taken from the Jews and given to “another nation,” referring to the Gentiles—of which Daniel had spoken in Daniel 2. Here, the end is the end of the long line of kingdoms (Gold, Silver, Bronze, Iron) as the world prepared to enter the period of the Iron and Clay feet—the end point of Nebuchadnezzar’s vision.

       To your question, “where in Daniel do we find that this period (right before antichrist) is an “Endtime” period?”, Daniel does not refer to it as an “end time” period unto itself. It is part of what the angel called “the latter end of thy people”. The only references to that particular period (the beginning of the feet in Daniel 2) is when Daniel says “And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people” (Daniel 2:44), which is a references to the transition Jesus referred to in Matthew 21:43 “Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.”

       Though Daniel refers to an “end” under the Greek empire and a “latter end” spanning a great time in the future, Peter’s references to “the end” are more focused on Jesus’ advent during the iron period and the transfer of the kingdom, which was to occur after the transition from legs to feet in the statue, which is certainly toward the “end” of the chronology in Daniel 2.

       Reply